Slashdot Mirror
USvMS Ruling Expected Today
An anonymous reader noted that
a website is up for the official release of Judge Jackson's findings in the MS/Doj case. The release will supposedly occur at 6:30pm Eastern on an "Undesignated Friday" which
is rumored to be today.
close but no cigar ... in fact, the courts are well aware of the point you make and draft judgements accordingly. Anyone who tries to get round an antitrust judgement by "co-operating" between the split up companies will find himself right back in court, and this time the charge will be contempt.
Oh yeh, and companies exist to make money for their shareholders considered only as their shareholders. They're not allowed to take into account any other interests that their shareholders might have. Otherwise, with so much of the USA owned by pension funds (ie owned by workers), we might see something really strange -- what Peter Drucker calls "pension fund socialism"
jsm
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial.
I don't think breaking up Microsoft
would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been
under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
If I read you correctly, what you are saying is that Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold on the industry, and that breaking them up would deprive consumers by rendering a powerful competitor hors de combat.
I agree that the public good should be considered very strongly in considering what punishment to mete out, but I don't think that this means that nothing should be done.
There is a very important factor that has to be considered:justice. Did Microsoft do something that was wrong and benefit by it? If the findings say this is so, then Microsoft and its executives should be punished -- really punished. Letting somebody get away with a slap on the wrist simply because he is rich or widely admired is a travesty of justice. Basically the message you send is that abiding by the law is for losers.
This really strikes at a basic tenet of our civilization; we restrain our behavior and in return we get the benefit of others restraingin theirs. What is the moral imperative not to "steal" proprietary software, when the producer of that software is given a license to break laws that are inconvenient for it?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Best way to split up Microsoft would be to have 2 OS companies, 2 application companies, and so on. That way Windows, Inc, can't go to Dell and say, no more Windows for you unless you sign this exclusive license. With multiple companies competing with the same base product, they'll do what they can to get business. This means allowing OEM's to preload other OS's, to get their contract.
Having one company still selling Windows, doesn't correct the problem that they have an undesirable amount of control over their clients. It would probably prevent them from preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape, but wouldn't have done much when IBM preloaded OS/2 along with 95.
-Brent--
1999 Platforms: 8.50 Apps & Devtools: 8.82
1998 Platforms: 6.28 Apps & Devtools: 7.02
1997 Platforms: 4.92 Apps & Devtools: 5.62
(Sums are in billions of dollars)
Now, perhaps using the word "much" twice in my original posting was excessive, but platforms do earn less than apps for Microsoft, and have done so consistently.
I can't find a page breaking out expenses by division either, but I'll bet the platforms division costs quite a bit more to operate than the apps division. Microsoft's advertising expenses alone totalled $3.2 billion in FY99, and the most expensive part of that is likely to be TV ads. It's been a long time since I saw a TV ad for MS Office or other applications - it's all Windows and IE. This leads me to suspect the bulk of ad expenses belong to the platforms division.
"Cost of Revenue" is another big minus on the MS balance sheet ($2.8 billion). This is distribution, unpaid tech support, shipping and packaging, and I suspect also a major cost with Windows and a smaller one for other products.
I also suspect R&D ($2.9 billion) is tilted towards the OS and not the applications.
This has the effect of making the gap between net income from platforms and net income from apps even greater.
The OS is profitable, but less so than applications and development tools - at least that's what the information I can find in their annual report suggests. I can't find a URL with the figures you name at all.
Legal offices have a long history of preferring Word Perfect for their document processing. I don't know the specifics of why, other than perhaps conservatism (time was when Word Perfect was the preferred word processor on PCs) and not wanting to convert all their boilerplate. There may also be technical reasons, legal documents have some particular formatting requirements.
And PDF of course is a popular way of distributing docs on the web.
The lack of a Word format copy isn't necessarily a deliberate slight against Microsoft.
-- Alastair
As with Standard Oil and the interdiction of owning both oil wells and gas stations, I suspect such a ruling would end up only apply to those with large market shares. Still forcing those two to divest wouldn't especially bother me.
I doubt it'll happen anyway.
Here's what I don't understand about the whole trial: the DOJ's accusations and Microsoft's defense just don't match up.
The DOJ has trotted out ample evidence that Microsoft has abused the law rampantly in the past decade or so, that its competitors have suffered because of this, and that Microsoft's actions have directly resulted in a reduction of competition in the marketplace.
Microsoft, however, is largely ignoring the past and basing its entire defense on the notion that the industry has changed so much that Microsoft will never be in a position to do this again. It's a dubious assertion which would have been patently false if the trial had never happened in the first place... but it's like OJ Simpson defending himself by saying, "Your Honor, with all the attention drawn to me now, do you honestly think I'll ever be able to get away with killing anyone in the future?"
What I'm most worried about is that if Microsoft gets away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, it's a clear sign to Microsoft and other large industries that you can get away with *anything* as long as you tie your competitors up in litigation until what you did doesn't matter any more.
Or, to put it a different way: "Okay, your honor, so my client murdered the victim... but what good is it to punish him for it now, since she's already dead? Besides, she was probably going to die young of cancer or something, anyway."
I suspect that it will be rumoured to be every Friday until it is actually released.
BTW, the reason for announcing it at 6:30 on Friday is to minimize the affect on the stock market, now that MS is part of the Dow Jones index. I can't think that that bodes well for Microsoft.
It's just findings-of-fact, not a final punitive ruling. If the judge finds that MSFT is indeed a monopoly in violation of anti-trust law, then there will need to be another phase to determine what action to take. *Then* such issues as whether the company should be broken up are decided...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yes, but this more a fight between M$ and a the Department of Justice. While I have many problems with the DOJ, when it comes to interpretting the law and the Constituion, and how they apply to events and new laws. They generally do a pretty damn good job (a few notible exception aside) note how the higher courts have ruled several times favoring encyption as free speach, and other intelligent things of that manor. Mainly its the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (in that order) that I dislike mostly, oh yea... and the IRS branch -grin-
yes, you can read it that way. But when it comes time to write briefs for the appellate court, or discuss different portions of the paragraph,you will need to be able tof find the exact line.
They musta read your post, becouse soon after, it read this:
"The document will be available for download from this page in three formats: WordPerfect 6, Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), and HyperText Markup Language (HTML)."
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
>I am a lawyer, this is not advise, etc.
>This is correct. In other words he could say
>"Internet Explorer was bundled unfairly."
That's a bit farther than he can go--he can get as faras "Internet Explorer was tied to Windows 95", but he can't get as far as "unfairly."
So far he is still only deciding what happened (fact). To get to legality (unfairly), he will need to decide if these facts violate the law. *that* will not be decided at this point; there will be at least one more round of briefs--and another encouragement to settle.
The Moral Defense of Microsoft
Wow, I had to do a whois on the domain to make sure microsoft wasn't running it themselves. But it's connected to capitalism.org
Joe.
>That appearance is more important than content is
>only one of the things wrong with our legal
>system.
How in the world did you get from "formatting is important" to "appearance is more important than content"???
The format means that we can all agree on what is on page 5, line 7, so that we can intelligently discuss the content. HTML does not have this feature, by design.
mochaone trolled:
Here's What the Judge Should Do...
Nothing.
No, he should release his findings of fact as promised, followed by his judgement a while later as promised. Luckily, he listens to his own guide rather than to you, so he is likely to do something rather than nothing.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen.
First off, it is a "Finding of Fact", not a fact of finding (sword of slaying +2?). Secondly, his conclusion of a fact of finding should say nothing of the sort. Possible remidies should be given in the judgement, not in the finding of fact. The finding of fact is just that, a determination of which facts are "Truth" as far as determining the judgement is concerned. I expect the findings of fact will probably declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not suggest anything as to remidies. This way, there is no easy way to appeal the finding of fact. The judgement, to be given later, will certainly be appealed if it is anything more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft.
The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
Again, you have to wait for the judgement for that. What evidence do you have that such a remedy would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you have that more would not? The court of appeals that would hear any appeals in this case is very pro-corporate, but I certainly don't know enough about their legal opinions to make a guess here.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general.
The computing landscape always changes, such is life. Since the case was filed, Microsoft has picked up a few more percent desktop market share, so they're now more of a monopoly. Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know.
A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it. This would be ugly but not a disaster since the Free Software community will get stronger no matter what happens to the guys with the plastic wrap.
Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Any changes due to the trial have been trivial. A few OEM's have bent their license agreements a little bit. Nothing major has changed to make legal action against Microsoft any less important. If anything, the tying of IE with Windows 98 makes the complaint more pressing.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Vertical integration is producing all of the parts; horizontal integration is the combining of manufacturors of the same product.
I'd love to see Microsoft either broken up or forced to divest either the apps or the OS. I'd love to see MS divest from Windows by releasing the source for the OS and keeping the apps. It would be the most just and most effective way to end monopoly practices in software. It would set a precedent as effective as the Standard Oil decision decades ago: Thou shalt not possess both an OS and the software to run on it, at least, not if you're big. It makes sense, MS Office is a major cash cow for MS, Windows is a much, much less profitable business.
It won't happen. Few judges in this day and age have the nads to take on big business, even if they have the knowledge to adequately judge the computer industry. Any substantial reorganisation of Microsoft will fail on appeal.
At best, Microsoft will be forbidden from entering into certain businesses or forced to more widely license the Windows source. Anything beyond that is unlikely. If Microsoft is hit with more than a slap on the hand, you can be sure MS will appeal the decision and leave it unenforced for years, maybe decades to come.
But, if the Finding of Fact is sufficiently embarrasing to Microsoft, it might be possible to start a genuine public campaign against them. Nike, Monsanto and all the big car companies, among a long list of others, have suffered from well publicised discoveries of guilt, sometimes even when they haven't broken the law. I'd like to see something along those lines done to Microsoft.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Right... The original poster of the thread said something to the effect of "Well, since they used WordPerfect, obviously there's not a monopoly there.
90% (what you say Standard Oil had once, and what MS has in both OS's and Office Suites) is monopoly power, even though "competition" (that other 10% everyone fights over) exists.
Today's ruling is supposed to be a "findings of fact" ruling, where the judge basically explains what facts that were presented in the case that he believes to be true.
According to CNNfn:
"Later this year, after further arguments following the findings of fact, Jackson is due to issue another ruling in which he is expected to say whether Microsoft violated antitrust law and has liability for doing so."
CNNFN news blurb:
A U.S. federal judge ruled Friday that Microsoft Corp. wields monopoly power in personal computer operating systems and has issued a decision highly favorable to the government. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision on the facts of the case, due to be officially released shortly, set the stage for a later ruling on whether the Redmond, Wash., software firm's actions violated antitrust law.
Should we designate some ribbon that we could all put on our pages in celebration?
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I find myself, surprisingly, against breaking up MICROS~1. In light of recent decisions levying honking fines agains major coprorations, it's likely that a fine of (let's say) 5-10% of their market cap would pass muster on appeal. Due and payable next year, but held (drawing interest) until final resolution.
Peanuts, you say? Perhaps, for many companies. In MS' case, though, that's several years' revenues even with their funny accounting. Also, it won't go down based on subsequent events, so if (as looks likely) they've pretty much hit their zenith then by the time the USSC slams the gavel a little matter of $5E10 might just finish them off.
OK, so I'm not the forgiving type. Deal.
PS: Ya gotta love Judge Jackson's sense of humor. How many of us knew that he read Mathematical Games, much less that he would actually find a chance to play a variant of the Unexpected Hanging?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This is pretty funny: The document will be available for download from this page in two formats: WordPerfect 6 and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF)
... what does the DOJ have against HTML?!
My next question is
The winners: the world's consumers (yes, and some lawyers)
The losers: some crooks in Redmond, some innocent people who thought to get rich on MS stock, some people who want to be techies but don't want to have to learn anything beyond VB.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
--
Para 18:
Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.
Sorry, I've only got the first 6K.
Actually, the reason's not what you think. There has been a big tiff between Microsoft and the Legal community over the fact the MS Word just WILL NOT generate the standard form of legal footnotes. I'm not sure of the exact details, but apparently Wordperfect will generate said footnotes. As such most legal professionals choose to use Wordperfect.
Read this to get the word from the horse's mouth.
I would put money on that it will be this Friday, though.
I hope the judge gives a negative ruling, Microsoft appeals, etc., etc., etc., so that the case drags out for years. IMO it's the existence of the case ("the police car in the rear-view mirror", as some have described it) and the public revelations of some very questionable behavior by various MS execs, that are now loosening MS's stranglehold on the OEMs and encouraging individuals and corporations to consider other alternatives, such as Linux and *BSD.
I doubt that any remedy that the court would actually order will actually work, but I do think prolongation of the case will produce the desired results.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I hope they are found guilty on all accounts, fined one dollar, and lose the ability to have any sections of their far reaching EULA's enforced. The result might be Microsoft would be forced to offer worthwhile services to compete in the marketplace. Else it will continue to strongarm upgrades and solutions from Microsoft/SPA raids due to unlicensed warez that creep into businesses from homes.
I always thought I'd be happy when this day arrived. For everything Microsoft has done, it deserves to be smacked down hard, and I hope it is. It's done things that, if it were a human being, would have landed it in jail years ago. Simply because it's a corporation (which is treated not unlike a person under US law) doesn't make it exempt from justice.
But there's doubt in my mind, I suppose. Not in Microsoft's guilt, mind you; they're guilty as charged a thousand times over. My doubt stems mainly from the fact that, after all, it is the US Government that's trying this case. I'm afraid they'll go too far and screw up the industry even more. The hell of it is, I'm not even sure what "too far" is yet. I suppose we'll see tonight...
It's comments like "And even though Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways" that make me think that the readers of /. need to spend some time away from their computers.
Yes Microsoft put out some software you don't like. Big deal. Like most people here, you don't have to use it!
Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds.
Para 33:
"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without loosing an unacceptible amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
Destroying Microsoft shouldn't be a goal. Like it or not they have done a lot (both good and bad) to shape the computing landsape into what you see today. Microsoft didn't usually innovate anywhere but they've had an uncanny ability to time the introduction of their version of various innovations at a point when the market would embrace it. Some of their tactics were predatory and anticompetitive and that is what was on trial and is under consideration.
If Microsoft dissolves tomorrow where would the millions of people who's productivity depend on Microsofts products be? There are no realistic alternatives in a lot of cases, either because their market share has been eroded (usually due to Microsoft) or because a solution in that area isn't available.
I actually don't use any Microsoft products, other than MS Word and MS Exel at work but I've seen how much easier interoperating in a large company has become over the last decade because of standardization.
Maybe someday there will be an Open Source competitor (or even platform agnostic closed source, I'm not a zealot, I just want solutions that work) but right now there isn't any well integrated package.
Um, I don't know where you live, but here in the US, the government belongs to the people. In theory, anyway. That's called democracy.
So it's not "my" money, it's "our" money.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
...or a broken Window.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Nothing.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen. The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Folks,
Despite the sound of the crowd wanting blood, I think US v. Microsoft may have been rendered obselete before its time.
The reasons are simple: a LOT has changed in the computer industry since the May 1998 filing. The fact that America Online continues to attract users, AOL has purchased Netscape, alternate devices to get onto the Internet has started to surface, and the rapid rise of everyone's favorite OS (Linux) in the last 24 months has reduced the potential influence that Microsoft could have had on the Internet.
The most equitable outcome of this trial is NOT a breakup of Microsoft; we'll most likely end up in a situation that was common in the desktop computer industry circa 1976 to 1985, when everyone had to purchase the operating system as a separate cost item. That way, there will be a level playing field for everyone in the OS industry, and whoever can be successful in terms of price and ease of use will win hands down.
Also, given the fact this case will be appealled to the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, DC almost immediately, not to mention finally ending up in the US Supreme Court, don't expect a conclusion to this case until at least late 2001 to early 2002. And given the pace of change in "Internet time," who knows what will be the state of Microsoft in 2002, either.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
"...Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways..."
;>
Dude, calm down. It's just business. That attitude is what got Microsoft where it is today.
Bill Gates didn't kill anybody. He hasn't prevented you from living your life, nor expressing yourself. His business/ethical decisions, while perhaps not to the standards we would like, are a far cry from murder, child abuse, or other crimes that might in fact be worthy of the death penalty.
Grow up.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
If Judge Jackson releases his findings today, will the first person to download it please POST THE WHOLE DOCUMENT HERE?
This will be a public document, unencumbered by copyright, so lets PUT IT HERE and avoid redundant bandwidth hogging.
In this case, the responsible course of action is for Slashdot to be a broadcaster.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
Hmmm, I always thought that the reason was that most law offices like to spend very little money on computer systems, and consequentally just missed the big DOS->Windows and WordPerfect->Word conversion everyone else underwent in the early 90s. Note that the format is WP 6 and not WP 7, 8, or 9.
Anyway, lawyers use WordPerfect for the same reason everyone else uses Word - because if they send a document they want to be sure the people they work with (other lawyers) can read it.
As a side note, the Starr report was posted in either WordPerfect 5 or 6 format. When the media converted it to HTML with a modern version of WordPerfect, several deleted footnotes reappeared, including one with comprimising information about Walter Mondale's daughter. (To be fair, MS Word has had the same kind of problem over the years.) Not the kind of thing you want to have happen in a legal document!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
--
"Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds."
That's exactly the argument used here in the UK in defence of selling Hawk fighters and riot control equipment to Indonesia. It doesn't wash. Microsoft's collapse may have bad effects, but that's no reason to stop it happening.
Consider what kind of a society you live in where, in order to maintain the status quo, you have to allow entities like Microsoft to break the law...
--
Peter
Ummm yes it does!
A monoploy does not mean 100% control. It just means having a huge amount of influence. Competitors can exist. Monopolies are okay too, so long as they don't abuse their power.
I don't know history too well, but I think AT&T didn't have any competition, but Standard Oil did.. They would have ended up owning the oil market if no one had stepped in, or at least they would have been in a position to dictate costs, as Microsoft clearly is today.
If they came out and said they were doubling MS Office's price, surely home users would start to look elsewhere, but many corporations, I believe, would look around and see that there's nothing completely comparable, wince, and pay the price. Same goes for Windows. They can essentially charge whatever they feel like, and people WILL buy it. Linux is not there yet. When MS releases office for linux, it will be, but that won't happen because then they'll lose their Windows monopoly
Yes Microsoft put out some software you don't like. Big deal. Like most people here, you don't have to use it!
/. readers work in tech support or systems administration. we may not be forced to use Microsoft products in our day to day lives, but we are often compelled to fix them when they break (which, as any sysadmin can tell you, is the worst part of dealing with them).
this is, in fact, not the case.
1) many people work for companies who insist on a standardized IT environment. this often means Microsoft products, leaving these people with no choice but to contend with 98/NT, Office, etc.
2) many
3) and the most significant reason why the above is not true: due to Microsoft's large market share and user base, they have no strong motivation to make their software compatible with others. thus, one often runs into real-life situations in which the only way to get something done is to use a Microsoft product, with all the unpleasantness that entails, or if there is some non-Microsoft way to get the job done, then nobody else will be able to read what you've done because they're all using non-compatible Microsoft products. issues like this one are what spurred the original antitrust investigation in the first place.
-steve
(remove EEEEEP to reply)
--- "We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
We'll all know if it's today by 4:00PM EST. They agreement is that both sides will be informed with two hours notice before the release, at which point they can alert the general public to their liking..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Has no one really considered the implications that no more microsoft would mean?
Yes, but that isn't what is going to happen. Even if Microsoft loses the case (which seems plausable), it won't come to that.
Think of all the businesses depending upon them for tech support etc.
Like losing technical support from Microsoft would be a big problem? Their technical support is not only grossly overpriced, it stinks. There will always be someone there to provide technical support to those that need it. Most likely if companies were forced to shop around they would benefit from finding a better and cheaper support provider.
Let's face it, Microsoft is so entrenched in, well, everything, that destroying it would likely manage to cause major economic consequences to the whole country.
Oh please. Microsoft is no more entrenched than AT&T was before they were broken up. The breakup of AT&T didn't cause dire economic disaster for the country. Customers have benefitted, and competitors to AT&T have flourished. AT&T is still around, and seems like it is going to be around for a long time to come.
Destroying MS by a court ruling would be a *horrible* action.
Even if that is true, who says Microsoft would be destroyed by being broken up (probably the most harsh action that could be taken as a result of this case)?
You are going to leave many, many consumers in a sticky situation.
Why? The copies of Windows and MS-Office they have now won't suddenly disappear. Its not like you couldn't still buy Windows or MS-Office, you would just have to buy them from seperate companies.
People didn't suddenly not have phone service when AT&T was broken up. People weren't suddenly cut off from their supply of gasoline when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.
AT&T didn't go belly up. Their business has changed, but they have still managed to be fairly profitable. Standard Oil is still in existance and profitable.
There is no reason to think that Microsoft would be completely destroyed if they were broken up and forced to play ethically. Predictions of the end of the world are gross exaggerations at best.
If anything, the risks to the economy from problems of Microsoft would probably be reduced because it would be several smaller companies (although probably still pretty large) instead of one huge one. Failure of any individual divisions wouldn't have consequences to the others anymore.
You made a lot of true points. But does that mean that Microsoft should be let off because they did some good things. That's like not punishing a murderer because they always paid their utility bill on time.
Microsoft has had failures all over the place in market segments they have tried to diversify into.Absolutely. Maybe it's not something that people recognise, but it's true.
The problem I have with all the anti-Microsoft paranoia is that it's all based on hype.It's not all based on hype. Do you think that charging IBM 4 times what they would have if IBM didn't sell OS/2 was hype? How about preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape. That was hype, right?
MSN isn't going to wipe out all the independent ISPs. (another near-Monopoly, AOL, does that nicely, thankyouverymuch)AOL is definately *not* wiping out independent ISP's. And they definately aren't trying to by using anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft isn't likely to take over the Enterprise Database market (a few huge firms, including Oracle have that field tied up)You are right. But they sure do make noises claiming that they will. But they won't.
Of course, some people need a big monster to point to, to excuse their failures.This is a knee-jerk reaction. You show me just one example where Microsoft is used to excuse someone else's failure. It wasn't a failure on Netscape's part that OEM's were forced to unbundle their browser, or lose licensing agreements. This is what the case is all about. Microsoft unethical practices.
-Brent--
... to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils; M$ and the U.S. Government. :^)
+&x
We've been through this before... There's a time and a place for VB, but it isn't going to solve the world's software crisis. And there seem to be a lot of folk on the Internet dissing Linux and other systems that would compete with Windows on the desktop if opportunity arose, because they've been making a buck on a one-vendor solution, and broad adoption of Linux et al. means they'll have to either (a) learn to write portable software, or (b) have their market trimmed down. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them; if they can't adapt, they shouldn't be in IT.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I wish I could read the coverage on CNN, but I can't because the Javascript they use crashes my Netscape browser (and on about 30 other sites).
That is strange because I have no problems with reading the CNN site with my Netscape browser.
Thank goodness I can turn to Microsoft's superior product.
Thankfully I run an OS where Microsoft's inferior product is not an option.
(Felton's test, and Microsoft's "upgrade", convinced the judge that, at the very least, Microsoft had been less than 100% honest. Bill Gates' testimony is likely to get shredded, too.)
On the other hand, there is NOTHING to suggest that the judge will pass any kind of sentance, or even declare a judgement. =ALL= he'll be doing is commenting on what's fact and what's fiction. That's all.
Now, having got all that out, I would like to see Microsoft =vertically= split, with no private sales between the companies permitted. That won't happen, but it would be nice. (Vertical splits would allow genuine competition and genuine diversification. A horizontal split, seperating OS from app development probably won't change anything, as the OS writers only need to provide an "integrator" system for VARs, and the end product will be the same as it is now, without any APIs ever being public, or competition being allowed. If anything, it'd be worse.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don' think this is entirely accurate. My understanding is that in the past charters were revoked by the courts in cases where it was found that a corporation had harmed the people in the area in which it was chartered. Hasn't been done for a long time though, and the law may have changed. But if there's a constitutional death penalty for people, it seems like a double standard to not have one for corporate citizens.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, I'm cheering a process that is having the desired effect in a situation where the "ideal" solution probably wouldn't work. Fine them a billion dollars and they'll laugh it off. Order them to behave and we'll get some more tee-hee's about a Chinese wall. Break them up and we'll get multiple new heads for the hydra, who will undoubtedly cooperate behind the curtain. If you've got a fix that you think would really work, I'm sure I, the /. readership, and the judge would be delighted to hear it.
It's neither harassment not vindictiveness, and competition and fairness are precisely what it's about. But you're right about one thing: I am virulently anti-MS. With good reason, as I see it; though you're welcome to present a case here as well.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade