Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft == Monopoly says Judge
"Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," Jackson wrote in his findings. "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."
Ouch. Pretty harsh words from the Judge. No one knows what the penalties will be, and the possibility for a settlement between the Government and DOJ are much more probable now, as Microsoft knows the way the judge feels about it. Things are gonna be different, though.
November 5th, 1999 The Duh heard round the world
Here's the most relevant OSS part:
3. Open-Source Applications Development
51. Since application developers working under an open-source model are not looking to recoup their investment and make a profit by selling copies of their finished products, they are free from the imperative that compels proprietary developers to concentrate their efforts on Windows.
In theory, then, open-source developers are at least as likely to develop applications for a non-Microsoft operating system as they are to write Windows-compatible applications. In fact, they may be disposed ideologically to focus their efforts on open-source platforms like Linux. Fortunately for Microsoft, however, there are only so many developers in the world willing to devote their talents to writing, testing, and debugging software pro bono publico.
A small corps may be willing to concentrate its efforts on popular applications, such as browsers and office productivity applications, that are of value to most users. It is unlikely, though, that a sufficient number of open-source developers will commit to developing and continually updating the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows.
In practice, then, the open-source model of applications development may increase the base of applications that run on non-Microsoft PC operating systems, but it cannot dissolve the barrier that prevents such operating systems from challenging Windows.
of Bill at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/19991105/ts/mdf2 3119.html
Later, Ray Noorda's Caldera Systems bought the skeleton of Digital Research and sued Microsoft. See Caldera's Web page on the resulting anti-trust lawsuit.
The article about WordPerfect being acceptable where MS-Word is not is available at The Register. Very Interesting. Poor Microsoft.
I posted the following post to ZDNET back on 10/14/98... over a year ago... I still cannot believe the case brought by the US has any merit.
My new email address is ixxxixxxi@rapidcable.com
Link to the following post: http://www.zdnet.com/talkback/321_16301_74317.html
Inter@ctive Week TalkBack
Name: Brett Weir
Email: lesborn@msn.com
Location: Miami, FL
Occupation: Webmaster
Dear Mr. Gates,
I think what the US government is doing to you and your company is truly disgraceful. You have been here in the United States for 20 plus years guiding the world by its hand with your incredible software and hardware innovations! I'm a big supporter of truly innovative companies like yours and I feel the government has no right at all to interfere whatsoever with any innovative products, services, integration, R&D, emerging markets, etc.! PERIOD!
Our family has purchased a many Microsoft product and judge, let me tell YOU something! Most all MS products were MADE to enhance, accompany and support other brand names, so what's your point judge?
We have purchased MS Windows95 with a Sony Vaio PCV-120. We also use MS Office97 Pro, MS FrontPage98, MS Visual InterDev 6.0 Pro. We are also set to go to our first 3-day AppDev training seminar. We plan on future purchases too, such as a new Dell PowerEdge 6300 Server which will be bundled with WindowsNT 4.0 or 5.0 and our ultimate future purchase goal, MS SoftImage 3D, to bring our Web to incredible new life as the Internet gets faster and faster which will allow very graphic-intensive sessions for our customers within the next 5 years! We are nonetheless very excited folks! We are also using the MSN with it's new Web Portal which kicks serious butt!!! We also play MS MC Madness, MS MT Madness 2, MS Golf 98, MS Flight Simulator 98, and MS Urban Assault which are all very fun games. We also plan to purchase a Sega Dreamcast which runs on MS Windows CE in Dec/99. We also take advantage of MSNBC, MS HomeAdvisor and MS Expedia websites. As reference tools we use MS AutoMap Streets Plus and MS Bookshelf 97 CD-ROM's.
We find ourselves smarter people from using MS products. We think all these products are "best of breed" and that fact alone is what made this industry so exciting and are proud to say it to whomever might listen. We also believe that others should now stand up and be supporting Microsoft in it's time of need with such incredible and outrageous charges. Microsoft has simply worked too hard for too long at building business!!!
I have read just about all of the major headlines to date [10/14/98] and I am ashamed that our government will not allow your company AT LEAST another 2 weeks for your defense preparations to prepare your company for it's MOST important time in it's history! I would really like to see you have 3 MORE MONTHS for proper preparation. I would like you to know that you have my full support behind this matter. I also feel that the companies involved, from my research on them against MS, are companies that don't want to work as hard and/or be as successful or as innovative as Microsoft because they are simply too busy Microsoft whining and bashing.
The many companies against MS simply have visible work ethic flaws and they have also forgotten that it is a "fair road to the end" when companies DON'T BREAK LAWS, just as MS hasn't! MS has arrived to the size and status that it is enjoying because of incredible dedication, very hard work, critical thinking, some of the best minds in computer science and the other fields, predictive and precisive selling into new markets, attention to fine details, etc. EVERYBODY in this industry has the ability to develop new technologies [both hardware and software] and it's not just MS doing all the work and innovating!
I demand that the government now hold EVERY COMPANY accountable for their "supposedly unscrupulous" actions and we can spend all day, every day, for the rest of our natural lives in the courtrooms of America and suck EVERYONE'S tax money to pay for these technically challenged judges and lawyers to come up with better solutions to an incredibly complex industry. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! It's up to the computer industry itself to abide by the laws of practical business, which is exactly what Microsoft does! Other companies look at MS as some monster but I'm more than sure that if they had developed the popular operating system that runs most PC's in the world that they too would just continue "business as usual." It's not Microsoft's fault - so stop blaming them! You see it really is "business as usual" at MS and that is what these companies seem to forget all too easily!
"The game" is played every millisecond of every waking hour of each day in U.S. by tens of thousands of companies OF ALL KINDS Judge Jackson. If your going to try to prohibit, break apart or bring down MS, then I want you Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to bring down the WHOLE COMPUTER INDUSTRY!!! Please go ahead now and try to call all the shots for the WHOLE hardware and software industry, because that is what it comes down to - EVERYTHING TECHNICAL. This antitrust case is so damn serious it deserves it's own set of rules to follow [just like the impeachment process]. Technology is such a "critical key issue" in all our lives right now, from the poorest nations on Earth to the most abundant and plentiful nations such as the U.S. From banking systems to monitoring a rat on the US Space Shuttle. But the U.S. Justice Department is turning two blind eyeballs towards Microsoft RIGHT NOW!!!
From the sounds of the current story archives to date [10/14/98] it seems that Microsoft's fate has already been sealed in a hardened steel wrapper surrounded by jealous and unfair companies trying to pin a war against "The Evil Empire" [I believe thats what these companies refer MS to Mr. Gates]? If "The Evil Empire" is used as such a "loose phrase" in the daily lives by many of these companies' employees, then doesn't that further prove their jealousness towards Microsoft?
That's what it really all boils down to is "work ethics." Creative brainpower IS HARD WORK and that is where many other companies don't shine as brightly as MS. In my recollections Mr. Gates, you started out on a dream and about 3 grand and you went from there, WOW!!! Where is Sun, Apple, RealNetworks, Oracle, and everyone else who has "gripes" about Microsoft starting out? On a dream to win in a court case in an antitrust suit against you? How pathetic... I'm sure most of these companies ARE embarrassed to try to win in a case such as this, which they SHOULD BE! What kind of dream is that when all you have left is to hope someone else [a judge in this matter] tries to hinder and lop the legs off a companies innovations and then regulates that company like a "government"?! What kind of innovation is that?! What kind of true fairness to MS is that?! Hiding behind the coattails of Supreme Court judges and trustbusters?! We need to stop this before it gets out of hand, because from what I can tell, MS should be creating one of the MOST powerful appeals to this antitrust case in U.S. history!
Simply punish, punish, punish Microsoft, right judge?... There is a very easy way out of all this U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson! Drop ALL the charges against MS or you'll have a very very serious problem with EVERY innovative idea, product, business decision, work ethic, speech, internal business document, note and e-mail from every corner of every cubicle from EVERYONE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE WHOLE COMPUTER INDUSTRY!!! IT IS JUST NOT FAIR TO MICROSOFT!!! If Bill Gates is guilty of anything it's probably not smiling enough and enjoying HIS success which he EARNED!!! E A R N E D!!!
If you want to dig a deep hole to play in Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, then be prepared to get down and dirty for a legal fight to protect the rights of companies JUST LIKE MICROSOFT!!!
You see judge, it may seem like a bunch of marketing hype when Mr. Gates testifies in front of you and tells you certain things about integration that need to be included in his products. Trust Bill, he doesn't need to run anyone else out of business, he has enough of his OWN business to run. He may be very competitive but isn't that a good thing and what business is all about? Competition? Well, isn't it? It's certainly NOTHING to be even remotely ashamed of!!! It's the FIRST thing out of the professor's mouth in Bus. Admin.!!! C O M P E T I T I O N makes YOU money and other people money, which in turn makes even MORE money. It just so happens that Bill Gates was born with business genius. It all gets easier to understand Judge Jackson, when you start looking at it all from this correct point of view. I AM going to use an Albert Einstein analogy here because it fits Bill Gates.
I figure Microsoft should finally come out with an awarded settlement of upwards of $30,000,000,000 plus when all is said and done and the Microsoft name has been all but destroyed. No joke.
Bill, you got my permission to give emm hell now, they have pushed one too many of your buttons, and it aint the Start button either!!!
Brett Weir
PS: I also have to apologize to you Mr. Gates about my fellow Floridians' recent "hissing" at you at your Lake Buena Vista public stop, what lack of respect...
PPS: I give Microsoft my full permission to use this E-mail to your full benefit in the courts.
This is key ! Remedy time !!
> Remember young Jedi Knight Windows leads :)
> to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads
> to Linux.
Not to mention:
It is by Linux alone I set my PC in motion.
It is by the open source that patches acquire speed,
the kernel acquires modules.
The modules become a new release.
It is by Linux alone I set my PC in motion.
Mark Edwards
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
Bugs do matter in that case. Sure, they don't matter as much, but complacency about bugs is a very dangerous thing.
http://www.skylab.org/~plumpy/findfact. html
Force them to release detailed, accurate, timely, advance specs to Office file formats
I have strong suspicion that no such thing ever existed -- while syntax is standardized, the semantics of formats are most likely defined by how particular code renders them. The same will apply to their promised XML-ified version, except that XML standard explicitly states that no means for semantics definition are provided, and such things are left to implementations.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
As much as I'm happy that this is finally out there, and I feel that this is a major step in bringing Microsoft into line with the rest of the computer industry, I want to make sure that people realize that this is BY NO MEANS A GUILTY VERDICT.
It's just a "Finding of Fact" from the Judge - he's selected all the facts presented to him, and determined what he finds to be true, and supported by the arguments presented.
I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to realize that this is not a final verdict, and that this trial could still go anywhere from this point on.
It's a significant step, but before we get all slashdot-a-riffic about how Microsoft sucks, just realize that this is a formal step in what is still going to be a very long legal battle against Microsoft.
If anything, however, this will effect a lot of peoples attitudes towards Microsoft, regardless of their understanding of the legal system and exactly what this FoF means... so we should probably be happy about that.
People generally are no longer going to be viewing Microsoft as the warm fuzzy company that it is in the minds of many ignorant Americans, as a result of this Finding of Fact.
And that's a good thing, because it was our (computer industry in generaly) complacency towards businesses like Microsoft, doing the things they've done, that led to this problem in the first place...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
"People won't fund or help produce an innovation by some startup that will eventually compete with Microsoft. So nobody will try anymore."
And exactly WHAT percentage of the desktops in the PC world are running RedHat or Caldera? Sorry, but a fraction of one percent does not a SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION make.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Don't worry, there's LOTS of ways to illegally use a monopoly. I suspect we'll find out that Microsoft used most of them.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
You haven't been paying attention, have you? WordPerfect is used in legal offices - about the only market they've got left.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
When somebody has broken the law, you're damn right that the government has the right to tell them what to do. Like, go to jail. Or, pay some other penalty. If the findings of law show that Microsoft has broken the law (and assuming they stand up on appeal), then yes, the government DOES get to tell Microsoft what to do.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
By the way, did you know that NT started out life as a port of DEC's VMS? Then it got all bloated.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I suggest you take a look beginning at paragraph 79, wherein Judge Jackson discusses Microsoft's attempt to get Netscape to stay away from the Windows platform, and paragraph 90, where we find that Microsoft withheld API information from Netscape.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Oh! You have evidence that Judge Jackson has been bought by one side in this case! This is great! All you have to do is provide the evidence, and the judge will be forced to recuse himself, and the finding will be thrown out, and Microsoft will be off the hook!
So, where's the evidence? Come on! You OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have said it unless you had it, right?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
(This is from part II.A.1.19)
So even though the Judge is on our side on this one, that still doesn't mean he's not a little clueless in places still. (Does anyone know how to cut and paste out of a PDF in acroread? Typing that in was annoying.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I rememeber this very well -- it was a "bonus pack" in warp 3 for internet support, and then you had to download a 3rd party driver for PPP support.
MS stuck the knife in OS/2, but IBM twisted it many times.
-Erik-
Get your terms right: I don't see many people on slashdot Fearing, Uncertain, Or Doubting the fact that these things exist. In fact, I find even that a lot of stereotypical elderly computer users (who are generally the lowest on the tech tree) feel the same thing about Microsoft once presented with the facts and left alone to put the pieces together.
Photoshop, like SoftImage, IRIX, and 3DSMax, are fringe programs for fringe markets. There are freely availiable programs (BESIDES GIMP) that don't have the professionality of Photoshop but do the job. You get what you pay for, and I doubt that many 2d and 3d artists have much of a problem paying for these programs when they do what they want them to.
I, and many others, however, do have a problem with having to run an operating system that does not live up to the promises of it's developers, *AND*, on top of that, require payment for it everytime you go through someone that sells a computer with a warranty attached.
Personally, (don't hate me) I could really give a shit about Open Source as a just cause if OS developers were required to release the FULL SOURCE to just their Operating Systems' API, so that either emulators or direct binaries could be used on alternative Operating Systems to enhance feature competition, instead of feature lock based on the "bottom line".
As for the reduction of price. Call your OEM and ask him how much that 2 year old copy of Win98 will cost you... and yes... You'll find that they still cost around $90 retail... Not much of a reduction if you ask me.
>Strange how Linux drones only see what they want to see.
s/Linux drones/Trolls/
-Erik-
This is horribly offtopic, but your nick reminds me of what people used to call me because of my very reminiscent sounding last name. :)
tweedley dum
tweedley dee
it's
-Erik-
>half of the people in the world - if not more - probably wouldnt see a need in having a computer at all
:)
I'm sorry, I thought, and thought and thought, but I just couldn't see how this is a bad thing. Too many people who should be spending money on books to learn how to use their computers, well... they're spending it on Windows.
-Erik-
You're missing the point - the fact that ActiveX is inadvertently TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM is the problem. The fact that if you download activeX or java code and execute it on your machine, because the browser, and hence, said code, is TIED TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM. This is no different than me BO'ing your box. Only I get a web browser with my remote administration.
:).
:)
DOS was more secure in this respect because the network was not tied to the OS (this is not nessicarily good, just secure considering the fact that security was not an issue with DOS, that is, unless you count hidden files
In UNIX, the network is tied to the OS, but the programs run in a protected environment seperate from the OS, so, unless you are running your browser as root, your system is fairly invulnerable to attack.
And to add insult to injury, the fact that NT isn't geared for multiple users on the same local machine infers that the best account for a local user is the administrator account, which might as well just be like running Win98 for all intents and purposes. To their merit, however, at least you can LOGOUT from the administrator account.
Win2k is destined to be a gaming machine. It's very fast and pretty and I would be more than happy to use it to play Counterstrike. But if I'm looking for REAL, local and network security I'm looking elsewhere from microsoft.
Conclusion - If I'm going to eagerly accept to execute code from someone or some company I'm not familiar with, I want it on a machine that's going to protect the data that's already there. No windows system is designed to protect data, just to keep crackers out and throw a few 56-bit keys around every now and then.
If you need more proof, just take a look at the wonderful job they did with SMB.
-Erik-
Netscape for Linux has bugs. I'm sure many of these bugs could be exploited....
If I was that stupid to run it as root.
Imagine what a skilled cracker could do if netscape (theoretically) ran in kernel space on a linux box. It scares me.
See the point NOW? Bugs don't matter as long as the system can't be harmed from them.
Oh yeah, this is the part that I mention that there are only 2 Operating Systems that come from one company that have these "features".
Do the math.
-Erik-
AFAIK, Microsoft actually has contributed considerate amounts to the republican party (Bob Dole was one of the recipients) in the past.
I'm captivated by CSPAN - what can I say.
-Erik-
Ditto.
:)
To all the naysayers:
Why does DR-DOS & QEMM not work under Win3.1?
Why don't Word95 files work with any other version?
Why were windows update users giving away personal information without choice?
Where is stacker? And how did their code end up in doublespace? And why didn't my drive get replaced for free when bugs in doublespace destroyed it?
Whatever happened to Windows Refund Day?
Where is the faster speed in Win98 that I was promised?
Where is a remote display client/server (ala X protocol) for windows, excluding VNC?
Why does it take the largest software company in the world almost a year to fix one of the most easily exploitable information attacks in history, the "winnuke", only to be released in full, advertised form in Win98? (for those of you who didn't know, or didn't care, the original winnuke winsock patch did not work)
Why does MSN Messenger use 2 (somewhat) freely availiable protocols for communication but does not have published documentation for it's standard protocol, the one developed in-house?
Why does installing any major MS app break every other program that uses the MFC's?
Why is it, that when MS ties a browser system to their OS, that they do not make a fully availiable, extendable, modifiable API to base other browsers on, something that would at least benefit advancement instead of stifle it?
Why do I have to pay for Win98 everytime I buy a computer from Packard Bell? (please, don't actually think i'd buy anything from em
What is this channel bar thing, and why do I have to be a "first-tier" company to buy into it?
Why is DirectX an "Industry Standard API" that only supports 2 Operating Systems?
Why is it that ISP's get bonuses for having an all MS shop, get paid more bonuses for displaying advertisements for MS, get paid more for having a full staff of MCSE's, and on top of that, get paid EVEN MORE for only supporting MS Operating Systems?
When does "merger" and "buyout" mean "innovation"?
Why are thier companies in silicon valley with their single goal to be to produce something that's worthy of getting bought out by MS?
I could go on about this all day, but my hands are tired. Anyone who's been around for more than 8 years knows how problematic MS has been in just that time.
-Erik-
Which Linux distribution? Oh...you must have thought we were dozing off and not paying attention. No, we're not as stupid as you think we are. We know the difference between Free Software and proprietary, closed software.
If there were as many companies selling Windows as there are selling Linux, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
The only areas where they truly dominate are Windows/IE and Office, both of which are the benificiaries of exclusive preload deals.
Microsoft knows they write inferior software; otherwise, they would not focus so much of their energies on preventing anyone from competing with them.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
You have a poor memory. OS/2 Warp 3 (Red Box) initially shipped (in October 1994) with an unfinished "Dial Other Internet Providers" tool. You had to download the updated tool to get PPP. It came from IBM, not a third party. This was only the case for Red Box Warp. Blue Box Warp 3 (which included Win-OS/2) never had this problem, as it shipped later. Warp 4 (released 1996) came with the full TCP/IP stack, and Peer to Peer.
OS/2 never stood a chance, regardless of anything IBM did. Microsoft had already blanketed the industry with illegal exclusive preload deals.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
If you'd actually read them, you'd see that it goes quite a bit further than just declaring that Microsoft is a monopoly. While it's by no means a final judgement, the wording of it strongly suggests that Judge Jackson believes that Microsoft did abuse their monopoly power, and that they may be in violation or the Sherman Act. Some of the relevant bits have been posted by others -- if you can't get to the real thing, at least read those.
-lee
Next, lets go after McDonald's for making their burgers too tasty to be fair, and for bundling their fries with said burgers.
The thing you miss here is that McDonald's, while it may not seem like it sometimes, has plenty of well-known competition (Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Taco Bell, delivered pizzas, not to mention the regional chains, convenience stores, grocery stores, delis, the list goes on and on).
Microsoft doesn't have much competition in the eyes of Joe Best-Buy...all the computers come loaded with WinDuSemaine, the majority of mass-market software is Windows-only, and Microsoft has gone to great pains to keep it that way. Whenever someone tries to make a dent (by preloading, say, OS/2 or Linux, or by trying to give a non-Microsoft product equal or better showing on the desktop), Microsoft starts threatening to jack up the prices on copies of Windows (which, like it or not, is most places' bread and butter), or even threatening to pull OEM licenses -- which would spell trouble (at best, a very nasty stab wound; at worst, bankuptcy and/or cessation of business) for a lot of manufacturers. This sort of practice is what the trial is concerning; Microsoft can (and does) bully OEMs into doing things their way, and since they have such a lock on the market, not following them would be disastrous.
-lee
Microsoft is a *corporation*, not a human being. As such, it has no rights. Claiming enforcing laws passed long ago against a corporation as being wrong, then, is an insult to anyone who has really been wronged.
As an aside, I tried to read the decision and Slashdot about this under WIndows 98, and it crashed on me three times. So now I'm posting this from Linux. If only Mozilla had as good a news reader as Agent, I could switch to Linux for everything but the occasional game. (C'mon Blizzard, it's Linux time!)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't understamd how people who can configure a fairly complex OS like Linux can't keep Windows 98 from crashing.
Please, enlighten me, what the hell can I do with 98? It boots. Now what do I do to find out what's leaking resources? (I don't think it's memory, I've had Norton's monitors up and they don't show memory leaking.) After at most a couple of hours, things will start failing due to lack of memory. I can close all active applications, and it doesn't help -- it'll even crash during shutdown. Now, I admit it's quite possible the problem file is a non-Microsoft driver, but what does Microsoft provide me to track down this problem? Or must I just reinstall?
I don't use Linux all that much -- although I'm starting to use it more now -- but Netscape has only crashed on me once in Linux. It's crashed more often under NT on me. (Note: I find NT an acceptably stable OS.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I tried both the System File Verification and the built-in resource monitor (forget what it's called, but it has three horizontal meters, one for memory, one for GDI resources, and one other) with nothing particularly notable being reported. One definite characteristic is that Netscape crashing on a complex page pretty much hoses the entire system, but (a) an application shouldn't be able to do that, a real OS recovers the resources used by a crashing application, and (b) I can have Netscape work perfectly and the problem still occurs, it just takes longer.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The government site posted the thing in Wordperfect format :). Unfortunatley the first two times I tried to read a summary of the finding at CNET, netscape crashed :(
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
In case you hadn't noticed, only a very tiny fraction of people use those OSes on x86 hardware, which is where Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly. Consumers in general cannot receive the benefit of these "fine technologies" if Microsoft uses it's very significant power to keep OEMs from offering them or using other tactics to undermine them. One of the big reasons Linux is enjoying the popularity and attention that it's getting now is that Microsoft has been under heavy scrutiny for quite a while and hasn't been able to make any overt moves to harm competition.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Perhaps we'll at least see some injunctions against some of their more insidious behavior.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So now it's a tiny fraction? Yesterday it was 'Linux is doubling every day, 15,000,000 Linux users' etc.
It's been stated that the number of Linux installations doubles approximately every year. That's hardly the same as every day. 10-15 million may or may not be accurate. I've seen different numbers, but 10 million or so seems fairly consistent.
It's been posted here in the past that Linux has a substatial portion of the server market and is growing on the desktop
This case is not about the server market. It's about the desktop market. Specifically it's about the x86 desktop OS market (I guess I should have stated that in my post for people who haven't bothered to read the relavant paragraphs in the FoF). That excludes a very large number of Linux installations simply because they are not serving as desktops and/or they are not installed on x86 hardware.
but now that it's in your favor to portray Linux has as tiny niche OS that's what it is? What a load of crap.
Try reading it again before you make any more stupid comments
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Something more like that would probably be better, and keep Microsoft from trying to misuse its influence in the industry. They should also be prevented from making any special "deals" amongst one another.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Why don't you go cash in the bitch slap?
I love this. Gates and the MS COO are on saying how it's all about innovation and how, in the end, the court will rule for MS and everyone will realize that MS is helping consumers.
Hey guys, it's called denial, get over it. After this, even if the company isn't broken up, no one is gonna believe that bullshit about innovation or that MS is helping consumers.
I just hope MS stock drops like a stone. I still can't believe it was put on the DJIA so soon before the ruling. It's like no one could believe this could happen, even when it seemed obvious that it would.
349. A few days after the exchange with Waldman, Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."
I say break them up.
I'd say more than 1500, this will break the record for biggest story.
Especially since it's posted in the evening, so new stories won't replace it for a while.
This is a huge huge story. If MS actually is broken up, I'd say it would be in the top 100 of this centuries biggest stories(if it happens this century, that is).
Microsoft is by far the biggest US company, and if it tanks, it could bring everything down with it. We shall see.
I'm not so sure about that 1500 comments anymore. I still think it probably will, it's already closing on 500. However, since a second story was just posted, the two may split the excitement and each get 1000. We'll see.
This just totally disgusts me, I can't believe what I'm reading. But when I see the judge saying things like this, I think it's about 100% certain he'll break them up into veryMicrosofts:
."
----------------------------------
6. Foreclosing Apple as a Distribution Channel for Navigator
341. In the summer of 1995, Microsoft had been willing to cede to Netscape the development of browsing software for the Mac OS, provided that Netscape would stop competing with the platform-level browsing technologies that Microsoft was developing for its 32-bit Windows products. The genesis of this offer had been Microsoft's belief that Netscape could never become the leading platform for network-centric software development if it did not distribute a middleware layer for the soon-to-be dominant 32-bit Windows platform. But once Netscape confirmed its determination to offer a middleware layer that would expose the same set of APIs on Windows, the Mac OS, and other platforms, Microsoft recognized that it needed to stifle the attention that developers would be inclined to devote to those APIs, even when the they rested on top of a non-Windows platform like the Mac OS. After all, if Navigator became so popular on the Mac OS that developers made extensive use of the APIs exposed by that version of Navigator, those developers would be disposed to take advantage of identical APIs exposed by the version of Navigator written for the dominant platform, Windows. Microsoft therefore set out to convince developers that applications relying on APIs exposed by Navigator would not reach as many Mac OS users as applications that invoked platform technologies found exclusively in Windows. Therefore, Microsoft set out to recruit Mac OS users to Internet Explorer, and to minimize Navigator's usage share among Mac OS users.
342. Just as pre-installation and promotion by OEMs is one of the most effective means of raising the usage share of browsing software among users of Intel-compatible PC systems, pre-installation and promotion by Apple is one of the most effective means of raising the usage share of browsing software among the users of Apple PC systems. Recognizing this, Bill Gates consistently urged Microsoft executives to persuade Apple to pre-install the Mac OS version of Internet Explorer on its PC systems and to feature it more prominently than the Mac OS version of Navigator.
343. By the summer of 1996, Apple was already shipping Internet Explorer with the Mac OS, but it was pre-installing Navigator as the default browsing software. After a meeting with Apple in June 1996, Gates wrote to some of his top executives: "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship - 1) Maintain our applications share on the platform and 2) See if we can get them to embrace Internet Explorer in some way." Later in the same message, Gates expressed his desire that Apple "agree to immediately ship IE on all their systems as the standard browser."
344. One point of leverage that Microsoft held over Apple was the fact that ninety percent of Mac OS users running a suite of office productivity applications had adopted Microsoft's Mac Office. In 1997, Apple's business was in steep decline, and many doubted that the company would survive much longer. Observing Apple's poor performance in the marketplace and its dismal prospects for the future, many ISVs questioned the wisdom of continuing to spend time and money developing applications for the Mac OS. Had Microsoft announced in the midst of this atmosphere that it was ceasing to develop new versions of Mac Office, a great number of ISVs, customers, developers, and investors would have interpreted the announcement as Apple's death notice.
345. Recognizing the importance of Mac Office to Apple's survival, Microsoft threatened to cancel the product unless Apple compromised on a number of outstanding issues between the companies. One of these issues was the extent to which Apple distributed and promoted Internet Explorer, as opposed to Navigator, with the Mac OS.
346. At the end of June 1997, the Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office, Ben Waldman, sent a message to Gates and Microsoft's Chief Financial Officer, Greg Maffei. The message reflected Waldman's understanding that Microsoft was threatening to cancel Mac Office:
The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously . . . . 347. Waldman was actually an advocate for releasing Mac Office 97 promptly, and he pressed for that outcome in his message to Gates and Maffei. Although they applauded Waldman's devotion to the product, Gates and Maffei made clear that the threat of canceling Mac Office was too valuable a source of leverage to give up before Microsoft had extracted acceptable concessions from Apple. Maffei wrote Waldman, "Ben - great mail, but [we] need a way to push these guys and this is the only one that seems to make them move." In his response to Waldman, Gates asked whether Microsoft could conceal from Apple in the coming month the fact that Microsoft was almost finished developing of Mac Office 97.
348. In order to assure his superiors that he was pursuing corporate policy despite his personal convictions, Waldman reported to Maffei in his June 1997 message that he had recently told his counterpart at Apple that Maffei "would be recommending to Bill [Gates] that we cancel Mac Office 97." Waldman believed that his counterpart "got the message that we would, in fact, cancel." Waldman went on to write that when his counterpart had asked what specific problems Microsoft had with Apple's recent response to Microsoft's proposals, Waldman had replied by mentioning four issues, including "IE equal access." By that, Waldman meant Microsoft's demand that the Mac OS make Internet Explorer just as available to its users as it made Navigator. According to Waldman, the Apple employee had responded that Apple would not be able to change the Mac OS's default browser from Navigator until it released the next version of the operating system product in the summer of 1998.
349. A few days after the exchange with Waldman, Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . .
350. Within a month of Gates' call to Amelio, Steve Jobs was once again Apple's CEO, and the two companies had settled all outstanding issues between them in three agreements, all of which were signed on August 7, 1997. Under the agreement titled "Technology Agreement," which remains in force today, Microsoft's primary obligation is to continue releasing up-to-date versions of Mac Office for at least five years. Among the obligations that the Technology Agreement places on Apple are several relating to browsing software.
351. First, Apple has agreed, for as long as Microsoft remains in compliance with its obligation to support Mac Office, to "bundle the most current version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer for Macintosh . . . with all system software releases for Macintosh Computers (`MacOS') sold by Apple." The Technology Agreement also provides: "While Apple may bundle browsers other than Internet Explorer with such Mac OS system software releases, Apple will make Internet Explorer for Macintosh the default selection in the choice of all included internet browsers (i.e., when the user invokes the "Browse the Internet" or equivalent icon, the Mac OS will launch Internet Explorer for Macintosh)." In fulfillment of this requirement, Apple did not include Navigator in the default installation of the Mac OS 8.5 upgrade product. In other words, Navigator is not installed on the computer hard drive during the default installation, which is the type of installation most users elect to employ. Therefore, most users who upgraded their Macintosh systems to Mac OS 8.5 were unable to access Navigator without doing a customized installation. Having already installed an altogether adequate browser (Internet Explorer) when the Mac OS 8.5 upgrade completed its default installation process, however, most users are unlikely to trouble to install Navigator as well.
352. The Technology Agreement further provides that "[a]ny other internet browsers bundled in the Mac OS system software sold by Apple shall be placed in folders in the software as released." In other words, Apple may not position icons for non-Microsoft browsing software on the desktop of new Macintosh PC systems or Mac OS upgrades. Moreover, the agreement states that "Apple will not be proactive or initiate actions to encourage users to swap out Internet Explorer for Macintosh." Both Apple and Microsoft read this term to prohibit Apple from promoting non-Microsoft browsing software. The agreement even states that Apple will "encourage its employees to use Microsoft Internet Explorer for Macintosh for all Apple-sponsored events and will not promote another browser to its employees." Pursuant to this provision, Apple's management has instructed the firm's employees to not use Navigator in demonstrations at trade shows and other public events. Also with regard to the promotion of browser technology, the agreement requires Apple to display the Internet Explorer logo on "all Apple-controlled web pages where any browser logo is displayed." Finally, the agreement grants Microsoft the right of first refusal to supply the default browsing software for any new operating system product that Apple develops during the term of the agreement.
353. At the same time that it entered the Technology Agreement, Microsoft concluded a "Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement" and a "Patent Cross License Agreement" with Apple. These latter two agreements place obligations on Microsoft that are unrelated to Mac Office, and they bind Apple in areas other than browsing software. The fact that Microsoft and Apple entered two other agreements at the same time that they entered the Technology Agreement does not change the fact that Microsoft's commitment to continue developing Mac Office was at least partial consideration for Apple's commitment to distribute and promote Internet Explorer more favorably than Navigator. Indeed, the language of the agreements themselves demonstrates that Microsoft and Apple saw the Mac Office and Internet Explorer obligations as more closely linked to each other than to any other obligations the parties simultaneously undertook: Whereas the provision in the Technology Agreement setting forth Apple's obligations relating to browsing software explicitly states that those obligations will last as long as Microsoft complies with its obligation to continue supporting Mac Office, the provisions in the other two agreements describing the patent cross-license and Microsoft's purchase of Apple stock mention neither browsing software nor Mac Office.
354. That the Mac Office and browsing software obligations are tied to each other is highlighted by the fact that the Microsoft executives who negotiated the agreement believe that Microsoft's remedy, were Apple to fail to meet its obligations with respect to browsing software, would be to discontinue Mac Office. When, in February 1998, a Microsoft employee proposed giving Apple an HTML control in exchange for Apple's agreement to use Internet Explorer as its standard browser internally, Waldman informed the employee that Apple was already obligated to use Internet Explorer as its standard browser internally and that Microsoft would revive the threat to discontinue Mac Office if Apple failed to comply with its obligation. In Waldman's words:
Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club.
For at least a year after the Technology Agreement went into effect, Waldman and other Microsoft employees continued to use the threat of reduced commitment to Mac Office in holding Apple to its commitments to support Internet Explorer.
355. Apple increased its distribution and promotion of Internet Explorer not because of a conviction that the quality of Microsoft's product was superior to Navigator's, or that consumer demand for it was greater, but rather because of the in terrorem effect of the prospect of the loss of Mac Office. To be blunt, Microsoft threatened to refuse to sell a profitable product to Apple, a product in whose development Microsoft had invested substantial resources, and which was virtually ready for shipment. Not only would this ploy have wasted sunk costs and sacrificed substantial profit, it also would have damaged Microsoft's goodwill among Apple's customers, whom Microsoft had led to expect a new version of Mac Office. The predominant reason Microsoft was prepared to make this sacrifice, and the sole reason that it required Apple to make Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, was to protect the applications barrier to entry. More specifically, the requirements and restrictions relating to browsing software were intended to raise Internet Explorer's usage share, to lower Navigator's share, and more broadly to demonstrate to important observers (including consumer, developers, industry participants, and investors) that Navigator's success had crested. Had Microsoft's only interest in developing the Mac OS version of Internet Explorer been to enable organizational customers using multiple PC operating-system products to standardize on one user interface for Web browsing, Microsoft would not have extracted from Apple the commitment to make Internet Explorer the default browser or imposed restrictions on its use and promotion of Navigator.
356. Microsoft understands that PC users tend to use the browsing software that comes pre-installed on their machines, particularly when conspicuous means of easy access appear on the PC desktop. By guaranteeing that Internet Explorer is the default browsing software on the Mac OS, by relegating Navigator to less favorable placement, by requiring Navigator's exclusion from the default installation for the Mac OS 8.5 upgrade, and by otherwise limiting Apple's promotion of Navigator, Microsoft has ensured that most users of the Mac OS will use Internet Explorer and not Navigator. Although the number of Mac OS users is very small compared to the Windows installed base, the Mac OS is nevertheless the most important consumer-oriented operating system product next to Windows. Navigator needed high usage share among Mac OS users if it was ever to enable the development of a substantial body of cross-platform software not dependent on Windows. By extracting from Apple terms that significantly diminished the usage of Navigator on the Mac OS, Microsoft severely sabotaged Navigator's potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry.
----------------------
Use Office "as a club"? You piece of shit.
I hope it benefits Wine, Twin and Twine....
~ ^~
hint:
(open the source, open the source)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
http://federal.gallerywatch.com/ms-findings.pdf
Actually, if you compile from a signed source, it's safer even if you don't audit the code, as long as sombody you trust has done the audit. There's also the fact that malicious code is unlikely to be signed (NOTE: I said unlikely, not never).
Let's see, wanna surf, right click on desktop, applications->netscape. Read mail, right click on desktop, applications->mail. 'Turn $50 into $50000', left click on delete.....
Linux can be a gooey as you want it to be. The only difference is, it can also be as CLI as you want it to be. Personally, my favorite use of X is to have several xterms open at once on the same screen.
Jackson is in a position he can send the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Given the assanine actions the appelate court performed on the last 2 appeals, I expect that if MS appeals, Jackson will send the appeal straight on to the Supreme Court.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Anti-trust law is not about protecting the consumer. Anti-trust law is about protecting competition in the belief that competition will be inherently beneficial to the consumer.
Also, for those of you who are of the impression that Linux, *BSD, MacOS, and BeOS are a competitor to Windows, consider this:
Linux and *BSD have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hours of uncompensated work put into them. They are freely available for download.
Microsoft has invested in Apple.
BeOS is not a competitor except possibly in high-end multimedia devices and media editing devices. This should be apparent by Be's continual advertising as such.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
#18 is correct. A place like the school where I work, changing from Win95 to Linux would cost millions in retraining from the current win32 only applications, to the Linux equivalents. Also, it would be difficult for us to cooperate with other institutions, which expects files in MS proprietary formats.
#19 sounds weird, even discounting Linux there are plenty of server operating systems that works well on PC hardware. Like Netware, SCO or Solaris.
No, Linux is not going to replace MS Windows as long as Microsoft can continue to abuse their monopoly situation. The judge didn't say what would happen in a fair marketplace.
Make no mistake, though, this was a VERY important ruling. Had it gone the other way, a GUILTY verdict would not have been possible.
On the other hand, there's still the dilemma of what punishment to mete out, and will it be worse than no punishment (for consumers).
And after that, of course there are appeals, and what I'm expecting: Microsoft to flat-out ignore any injunctions (as they have in the past, both the 1995 injunction about bundling, and the Java injunction, which was later overturned anyway).
Hooray for our side.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, from the evidence presented, it WAS established that Microsoft did some stuff. That stuff was not illegal if Microsoft was NOT a Monopoly. Microsoft always said that they were NOT a Monopoly, that was the core of their defense.
Since they ARE a Monopoly, and they DID do the stuff, it's almost certain that we'll see a GUILTY verdict.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
awlright! let's get the torches and pichforks, and head on down to the Gates' place!
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It can be argued that justice was NOT served in the case of IBM. But, because of the trial, some very significant changes happened within IBM, regarding managment, business practices, and business processes. I'd argue that these changes made for a kinder, gentler IBM. A cultural change happened there.
Now in the case of Microsoft, we're dealing with people who honestly don't believe they were doing wrong, so the Govt. definately has it's work cut out for it, and that's why I honestly feel that, as vindictive as it sounds, the only REAL way to solve the problem; the problem of nasty people doing nasty things, is to lock them up, and NOT in minimum security either. Take them out of the decision making process of the business, so the business won't do these nasty mean bad, bad, bad things anymore.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Ayn Rand was a goof anyway.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Which means jack diddly squat. Okay? Linux is NOT a commercial operating system. It's FREE.
Microsoft has NO COMMERCIAL competition.
How do you think I feel - I like Macs, and MacOS is not only commercial, but Apple is vertically integrated, AND one of the TOP 5 in PC sales, and still isn't a blip on Jackson's radar screen.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I think there's way too much paranoia about "the government diddling with the tech industry".
Yes, it's true, that would be a complete and unmitigated disaster (never mind that before computers, the government pretty much DID control the technology industry - - Basic Science research, aerospace, space exploration, etc.).
I don't think ANYONE in the government is stupid enough to want to mess with the magic formula that's propping up half of the economy (the other half is cheap oil). The economy is what makes for tax revenues, which is what makes the government in all it's slovenly glory possible. The tech industry tanks, the economy tanks, revenue tanks, cats and dogs sleeping together, POSIX, etc.
The government DOES want to get in and mess with Microsoft, but I think that it's generally well believed that the rest of the tech industry are grownups, and can handle playing nicely on their own, and will gladly fill the power vacuum left by the contraction of Microsoft.
Yes, there is a potential for well-meaning lawyers to really fuck things up beyond recognition, but I don't think this is bad news for Linux users. The US Govt can't do much to regulate the use or development of Linux. If anything, this may bring more developers and ISVs over to a more healthy cross-platform way of thinking.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I still don't forgive them for the countless hours I spent in 1991-1995 rearranging drivers in config.sys and autoexec.bat to squeeze out a few more K of RAM so I could load netware client, SCSI driver, and ethernet driver, and still run DOS programs.
;)
#1 this is NOT a Capitalism and Free Enterprise system. Capitalism and Free Enterprise are strong foundational principals, but be careful with the word Free, because Wolves and Lambs are Free. If we let the Wolves eat as many Lambs as they want, then we'd be SOL for warm sweaters this Winter.
#2 Linux, Be, *BSD, MacOS, (countless others!!!) ARE better than Windows. We need the Govt to yank Microsoft's chain to level the playing field. A Monopoly gives MS too big a lever. If that were not the case, Windows would be a MUCH better OS today, and the others would have much larger marketshares - and Amiga would still exist. Probably not Atari tho
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Okay, for the clueless libertarians out there:
The government is us. You and me. Representative Democracy - blah blah blah. . .
Let me tell you a story about the first generation of MY family to come to this great country. They came over from Norway, went to UP Michigan, where a copper mining company owned a mine, plant, and the three towns within 100 miles of the mine. They paid the passage for my great grandpa to come over.
Great grandpa agreed to work for this company to pay off what he owed for the passage. (something like $12). Five years later, he was virtually a human slave. Hundreds of dollars in debt, due to simple living expenses, and wages too low to pay them, he lived in a town where everyone was in the same boat. The government didn't come to rescue these poor people, but a US Citizen did. A farmer from Iowa came there, paid my great grandfather's debt, and brought him to Iowa, (along with a bunch of others - we Norweigans stick up for eachother, I guess), and gave them jobs as farmhands to pay off what they owed him - no interest was charged, unlike the debt to the mining company. Ten years later, my great grandpa had paid off his debt and bought a farm of his own, which remains in the family today. A few years later, the mining company was forced to divest itself of some of it's holdings, and decist the practices which led to those abuses. The reasons behind that was legislation that was a precursor to the Sherman Antitrust act.
In other words, the company is people, the consumers are people, and the government are people. Some people can be counted on to treat others nicely, others can be counted on to be real bastards. This is definately the land of opportunity, but when some people are given free reign to do what they want, it's the land of opportunity for them, and not others. That's why we have laws, and why we have government to make and enforce those laws. This was not some whine-job by Sun and Netscape. These were legitimate laws, that are needed in a civilized society so that we can guarantee that people "play nice", and that everybody has an opportunity for success.
It would have been nicer if people had decided on their own - but that could only have happened had their been a choice (REAL choice), and that could only have happened with a level playing field. MS tipped the balance, and used that angle as a lever. Somebody's gotta take that lever away, and level out the field so we can all play.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
load NC 4.7 on startup. that's what's happening with IE, and that's why your machine boots ever so slightly slower, and IE starts up faster.
It's a good thing, yes, but if you never use a browser, it's a bad thing, and if you don't want to use Microsoft's it's a very bad thing, and if you want to write and sell your own better browser and catch a peice of the american dream, you're fucked.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Excuse me, but isn't Microsoft MORE than capable of outspending its opponents? How much cash does Microsoft Corporation have on hand again? Speaking as a corporate programmer, I can't for the life of me see how this impacts my ability to design software however I like. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "how software is designed", and everything to do with "how using one monopoly position to leverage another can distort the marketplace and attract the government's attention".
--
-Rich (OS/2, Linux, BeOS, Mac, NT, Win95, Solaris, FreeBSD, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Thanks MUCH for your perspective...
Sniff.... Hold it...(I'm NOT talking weed here!) Ahhh....
Nice to see someone else who gets it.
Pete.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
I am so sick and fscking tired of seeing outrageous criminal actions and their prosecutions terminating in a 'plea bargain.'
I am also sick and fscking tired of seeing outrageous corporate actions and their prosecutions terminating in a 'settlement.'
Neither resolutions result in actual LAW.
We need actual case law, unencumbered by hush orders to guide us, and create a stable legal world.
I want to see the the doj run this baby right up to the supreme court. I think that at this point at time, they're pretty pragmatic, but pure on the law.
M$ would be crushed so bad they could never recover.
I'd love to see that.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Linux, which I use mind you, is certainly a fringe operating system. That is not to say that it is an inferior or irrelavent OS, just that it has very small market share in the Intel desktop market, which Judge Jackson focused on.
It would be harder to call Linux a fringe OS in the low end server market, but it would also be hard to say that MS has a monopoly in the server market, as much as they might want one.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I think #18 is talking about the substantial cost of moving to a platform where one's apps don't run and you either have to buy the ported app or an equivalent. This takes a substantial amount of time at least, even if there are free equivalents of your apps, and you may not be left with 100% functionality or file compatibility.
#19 is a little more questionable, and is only true if you are talking about commercial server OSes in a commercial environment, since you can get Solaris x86 for cheap for personal use and obviously Linux and *BSD will run quite nicely on low end hardware.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
--
If I remember my history correctly, the IBM thing ended when Ronald RayGun took office and the Justice Dept, with its new political appointees, decided not to pursue the case anymore.
Hmm. Makes me wonder what will happen to this case when a new president takes office. Wonder who I should vote for.
Yes, it apparantly does mean that in the short term, the judge does not believe that any of these alternatives is an option that "a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs". (page 6 of ms-findings.pdf)
Ahead to page 24, "Fringe Operating Systems" (of which BeOS and Linux are discussed): "The applications barrier to entry does not prevent non-Microsoft, Intel-compatible PC operating systems from attracting enough consumer demand and ISV support to survive. It does not even prevent vendors of those products from making a profit. The barrier does, however, prevent the products from drawing a significant percentage of consumers away from Windows".
Anyway, read the document. Linux is discussed, though I couldn't find any mention of *BSD or Solaris, and "GNU" only came up as a fuzzy match to "the IAP sign-up process to OEMs".
Also not advocating violence towards anyone.
(Hey, I live near Redmond -- the fallout would be irritating)
---
The Hotmail addres is my decoy account. I read it approximately once per year.
The results are being skewed based on the browser platform. With netscape for linux, I only see the choices for a few seconds before they disappear. With lynx, I can only see the results but not vote. I will try it out on a Mac, but I'm guessing this probably only functional with IE.
And some people wonder why MS control over something like the internet would be dangerous. Could you imagine if this was for something important like, online elections? This ballot requires MSIE 8 on Windows 2002, minimum requirement 1G of Ram and a 1200MHz Itanium processor.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
What I want to see now is for Microsoft to try and rebut this document (which is quite an interesting, if long, read). It's going to be great fun watching them squirm out of the fact that yes, they have in fact acted dishonorably, so much so that something needs to be done to bring them back into line.
I feel like doing the Ewok dance!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Funny you should mention that. That barely started happening, and the current trial is probably the reason that Microsoft has decided not to retaliate.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Don't you Microsoft boys have work to do or something? Don't you have several million lines of Windows 2000 code to debug?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I'll go call Sun and IBM and tell them that Solaris, AIX, OS/400, and MVS aren't real. Boy will Scott McNeally be pissed.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The same money and resources MS has been trying to cut? Please tell me you're not bringing influence peddling to the argument on the side of Microsoft.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Astroturf == false grassroots. Microsoft does it all the time, here and elsewhere. They got caught submitting fake letters to the editor at the LA Times, remember?
Slashdot has always been Anti-MS, and usually this place is very MS enthusiast-free. It just seems that whenever something truly important happens to Microsoft, the MS shills just come out of the woodwork. Like today, posting with their AC accounts, or accounts created today.
Astroturf is used quite a bit around here, so you're obviously not a regular reader. Where exactly do you come from, hm?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Uh-huh. Like where?
Where can I get a PC with anything but Windows installed unless I:
a) have access to the internet already, and
b) know *exactly* what I am looking for already.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
and
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
This is just the finding of fact. There are still rullings of whether they broke anti-trust laws and what to do if they did.
It is not over yet.
As for the pro-corporate types out there who are saying how this hurts capitalism...
There is *NO*SUCH*THING* in this country! Competition is by government fiat. Microsoft enjoys alot of protection from the government, especially when it comes to copyrights, trademarks and patents. They can get cops to break down your door on suspicions of "Software Piracy".
Absolute Free Markets do not exist anywhere on the planet. If they did, Microsoft would be in a much different position. They would not be able to hide their APIs as easy, because reverse engeneering would be legal. They would not be able to threaten people with the power of lawyers backed up with the power of the state.
I view this battle as one bully against another. I don't like either side, but I dislike the Microsoft side more because they have less accountability in the long run.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
And by the way, if Red Hat ever tried to make it impossible to get their operating system gratis, the two sounds you'd hear would be their ass being slammed into court by the Free Software Foundation, and their ass being slammed into a different court by Linus Torvalds.
OK, I'm nitpicking, but this is a misinterpretation of the GPL. Redhat could most certainly refuse to provide gratis binaries... and under a loophole of the GPL they could actually create derivatives of GPL'd software and not give the source away. However, you're right that this isn't likely to happen.
In the first instance, under the GPL Redhat isn't required to bundle the source with the binaries, nor are they required to distribute the binaries to all comers, they could just sell CD's containing only binaries and wait for someone to request the source. Once someone requests the source (presumably a customer of their media) they must pony up, but only after a request. In the second instance, if I decide to modify a GPL'd program (say derive a kernel device driver for an unreleased hardware prototype from some GPL'd source) as long as I don't distribute the software I don't have to release the source to anyone. Once I distribute binaries containing my modifications to a GPL'd program then I must release the source to anyone who asks.
Face it: That Redhat spends its hard earned money on a big pipe for public ftp downloads (and provides a large mirror list as well) only goes to show that they're serious about Free Software both in the "Free Speech" sense, and in the "Free Beer" sense as well. I note that Caldera didn't offer their distribution for public download for something like a year or a year and a half right after the release of CND 1.0 up to the first release of Open Linux. Redhat has always (at least since early '95) allowed for public ftp of the entire distribution sans commercial software they previously bundled.
I completely agree with the judge's statement about innovations not taking place because of Microsoft's influence, but what's the remedy?
Do you all really think that a break up of some sort will be beneficial? Is there any way to really 'moderate behavior'? What do all y'all think?
I believe that breaking them up into 2 divisions (Operating Systems and Applications, with IE and IIS being applications) would be the most effective way to keep them from leveraging the Windows monopoly to increase market share of applications.
The problem, of course is this:
1.) In so doing, you create 2 very aggressive companies, each with it's own monopoly (Windows and Office)
2.) How do you keep the two new companies from engaging in collusion with each other?
Ruling that Microsoft has a monopoly, they have abused it and the government should do something about it, while monumental, pale in comparison to coming up with and implementing an effective remedy, IMO.
Cheers,
matty
And why only Linux? I'd like to have OS/2 preloaded on my system. I'm sure others would like BeOS...
It begins with the history of the personal computer ("1. A "personal computer" ("PC") is a digital information processing device designed for use by one person at a time.") and builds to:
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 losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
I couldn't get the WP file to work...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Score xero? This is why i no longer visit /. I have naught but obscenities to say to thee filthy swine at MS. Swine, Swine, SWINE!!!!!
I think you're wrong. I can only speak for myself, but I don't care all that much about Linux per se. I care about the freedom and quality of the software. Any OS that provides an acceptable level of both will do. But if Linux becomes mainstream, the mainstream OS will be free and high-quality, so why not stay in the maintream?
Well, actually, I can imagine a reason: revolutionary advances in OS design. If a large body of Linux users, from home users to businesses to governments depends on Linux as it was at some point in time, it'll be difficult for Linux to incorporate revolutionary ideas and shed backward compatibility. Then again, I can just as easily imagine such backward-incompatible changes being made in one branch of the kernel and an old branch being maintained forever to support legacy apps.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
The government is simply acting as an exception handler in this case. All other checks to MS growth were unable to catch and handle this exception, so now the government must handle it. If the government cannot handle the exception, then MS will eventually consume all available resources and the industry will crash.
industry.lang.StockIndexOutOfBoundsException
Microsoft.ruleWorld():1995
Netscape.compete():213
User.makeWiseChoice():545
OEM.haveBackBone():32
Apple.dontDropTheBAll():1232
USGov.smiteTheNaughty()
Now we just watch to see if USGov knows how to handle this exception.
Excellent point! Instead of concentrating on a trial, they should be changing their purchasing guidelines. The gevernment should require suppliers of operating systems for government funded installations to publish their file formats, protocol specifications, and APIs. They should require hardware suppliers to publish interface specifications as well. If they did this, there would be no need for expensive litigation.
If MS is found guilty of abusing their monopoly, the best punishment would be to require MS to allow competitors to licence the source of windows, and release their own version. Then they would likely keep their dominant market share, but with an Oracle Windows and a Caldera Windows available, MS would no longer be able to set the price at any amount they want without influencing sales, thus eliminating the potential harm for consumers.
-----
But hey, we're WINNING. As Data put it, Resistance IS futile. :-D
This is GREAT NEWS, but I hope they settle this right. Personally I think all the gov't needs to do is fund GPL as a "public works project", which would also save tax dollars compared to what they pay MS for Office every year...
I still have to support relatives on Windows and I couldn't effectively put them on a Linux system. Yet.
- But how much does it kill them to have it up there in WordPerfect format also?
- Notice that the file size for WP is smaller (by over 300K uncompressed)?
- Taking a look at their index of legal documents, is there any pretense at all that they are being objective?
Oi, the fun has only just begun...Bleh!
An important effect of this finding is that Microsoft will be held back from their usual tactics for a bit longer. It is no coincidence that the various PC manufacturers have been emboldened to offer alternative operating systems during this trial. Even if the judge does not rule against Microsoft, we have a little bit longer to firmly position alternative OSes in the marketplace.
Yes, the case was warranted.
No, you don't want to get rid of antitrust laws.
Yes, Microsoft has abused their (patently obvious) monopoly.
No, not all (or even most) monopolies come from government.
etc., etc.
This radical lassaiz-faire neoliberal crap just doesn't cut it in the real world. Guess where we all live?
Grow up, folks. Modern markets exist due to government, and antitrust is part of that framework for existence.
Microsoft has violated good law, and needs to be brought back into line. I'm glad Judge Jackson's understanding of this is a good deal better than that of many folks here.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
My previous post was intended as a commentary on the original post in this thread, and many of the ones thereafter. It was NOT a shot at the opinion of the person to whom I replied -- we obviously agree on this :^)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
I, for one, don't think humanity spent enough time in dark ages barter systems. Let's get government out of the marketplace!
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
I don't suppose you actually bothered to check out Mike Huben's criticisms of Ms. Rand, did you (the link Jafac posted)?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
OK, I'll bite. What do you propose as the means to make sure markets maintain easy entry?
Or do you just assume that whoever corners it deserves whatever perks are gained, and the rest can go hang?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Now what if AC was owned by a company
IIRC, it was owned for a little while by Westinghouse.. Big row between W and Edison (Thomas, not Con) about that for years, and lots of mud slung about how AC will kill consumers.. All the while Edison wanting just to break AC out of W's control because it ended up being the technically superior choice for power distribution...
Your Working Boy,
After the AT&T breakup, the Southern Bell and South Central Bell BOC's (Bell Operating Company) were merged into BellSouth, which covers nine states in the southeast.
BellSouth has not yet merged with any other former BOC, nor with any long distance carrier. However, this is not from lack of trying. The price of merging, I assume, simply hasn't been right.
--Disclaimer--
I'm a BellSouth employee. Anything I post here and elsewhere are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the policies, positions, etc. of BellSouth. I am not a spokesman for BellSouth. If you have any questions about BellSouth, you will most likely be referred to the PR dept.
In other words, I'm a grunt. There! Now, isn't that better than certain AC's posting from Redmond?
Full mirror at http://www.tjhsst.edu/~dziegler/usvms/. Enjoy.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
Well. Surprise surprise! The government actually got something RIGHT for once. Amazink!
Well now, I think Microsoft just hyper-competed themselves into a thick brick wall.....
Now, didn't I read a Linux-centric "history of the future" a year or two back where, the next step after the government finding MS a monopoly, Bill Gates commits suicide and leaves a note to the effect "I only wanted to help..."?
Now can anyone get the government to successfully dismantle their broken, kept alive by life-support, braindead patent oriface? (One miracle at a time Chas! Patience!)
Hmm. A world without a Microsoftopoly.......
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
After these findings, M$ will be even more careful in how offensive they act against competion. Furthermore, loss of share value and one more dent in their image will make their words (including their FUD) sound less important and people will be easier convinced to switch to competing products.
We should use this for us and until the final ruling, with a bit of luck, M$ is no monopoly anymore.
Chilli
-=- Just a random lambda hacker
I went to MS's site to see their version of things... they mirror the Finding of Fact document from their servers, along with replies from Bill Gates. The FoF document is available in both Word and WordPerfect formats. No PDF. No HTML.
On the one hand, I'm all for banging Microsoft around for what they've done.
On the other, I'm afraid what this may mean - will the govt make itself a mover and shaker in the industry?
If they stick to spanking Microsoft's illegal activities, that's great. If they start legislating what can go into software, however...
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Ah, the best laugh all day.... = )
Send him through the paddy wagon! Everyone gets to spank his sorry, geek ass as hard as they want as he crawls through! Then..... we buy him a purple iMac.
"In his findings of fact, Jackson said there are no current products that pose a competitive threat to Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows operating system, and that no such products are on the horizon.".
:)
Would anyone here care to correct him?
Instinet's staying open late to handle the sell-off, although being down only 2 or 3 per cent isn't exactly a plunge. CNBC says Ballmer could loose three-quarters of a billion on paper today.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
MSNBS has a survey here:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/329416.asp#su rvey
Either it hasn't succumbed to the Slashdot effect yet, or there are many out there that do not realize how much control MS does have over the PC industry. To me, the results are frightening.
--
Check the market share of those OSes in the desktop market. No, really. We'll wait. With the exception of MacOS, they are not significant. Yes, Slashdot users like alternative OSes, but the majority of America is not Slashdot. Thank you, drive through.
I do beleive we have a new "all time top story", here. 150 comments 10 minutes after the story got posted? And we've not yet seen much of the almost certainly inevitable "spin control" comments posted AC by MicroSloth employees. Anybody wanna start a pool on total comments? 1000? 1500? more?
At the moment and in the context under discussion, it is, no matter how hard I or any of the other faithful zealots promise world domination. The context is the current installed base of Intel based PC's.
I just about laughed myself to death, though, when the Microsloth talking head on tonight's "Nightline" said "Linux is the highest selling operating system right now". (I know that's not exactly his wording, it's close tho). The irony of that statement when stacked against the "Linux Myths" page is delicious. Almost as enjoyable as watching all the AC and brand new account posters jumping up to call us hypocrites for supporting someone who calls our favorite OS "fringe". I gotta wonder if these folks are getting paid by the comment or by replies... and is there a bonus for being moderated up?
I want to know how many comments on this story were posted from microsoft.com owned addresses. I'll bet that'd be worth a story all by itself.
With the coming advent of Internet appliances and smart homes, don't you just know that Linux will soon be... (wait for it)... a FRIDGE operating system?
Very few can develop an OS in comparison to making a hamburger, but that doesn't mean operating systems are rare. Look at the diversity of OSes that are available around you. Courses on OS design are standard fare for CS curriculum, I believe. Plus, I probably couldn't make a good hamburger to save my life.
2) McDonald's shouldn't be penalized for making a damn good burger. However, what if instead of competing on the merits of their burgers, they also ran commercials stating that Burger King burgers taste like garbage while implying that that they will also cause polio, lower sperm count, and mild retardation in your children?
This is highly irrelevant. The above would be slander, not antitrust. I don't see how this supports your argument.
3) Remember that 1995 consent decree to which MS agreed? The government had every right to prosecute MS in the event that it violated the terms of the decree. One of those terms was that MS could not bundle software with the OS for the purpose of stifling competition. The DOJ said this happened while MS screamed innovation. Which do you truly think it was?
But why did MS have to agree in the first place? MS really shot themselves in the foot by playing the government's game in the first place and trying to deny government's allegations rather than attacking the vague, arbitrary, and illegal antitrust laws. Perhaps they screwed up playing the government's game (through the consent decree and their other numerous screwups), but does that mean they should have been attacked in the first place?
logan
Minneapolis,MN: All the techs here are singing holleyluya and throwing empty mtn. dew cans and nurf darts all over the place.
--
Thanks. That site was incredibly slow. Hopefully we can piece together a full mirror tonight. I only grabbed the pdf because the html one was spewing major server errors. I started about 20 simul downloads. 1 completed (and just barely).
--
Mirror here
--
any scheme where you have to pull more suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers in to survive surely must be a kind of Ponzi ...
(In other words: it's already happened)
The one thing that bothers me though, is that free entreprise and Capitalism are supposed to be a system where anybody can make as much money as they want, if their product is superior.
Hate to break it to ya, but the is one of the biggest flaws of capitalism. Those making the most money are hardly ever those who make superior products, but those who are able to fool the most people into buying their stuff. It's a giant game for profits where people lose out, and this case is the creme de la creme.
This whole situation also shows just how ignorant and uninformed the average American consumer is about their purchases - mostly due to sneaky advertising and business practices but also to a lack of time and resources to fully inform themselves. Advertising is set up specifically to hide the truth about the quality of a product. Microsoft just happened to provide the perfect example of how things would be in a true laissez faire world.
Do you have faintest idea about the communism? Were you born in one? Well, I was, and I've lived much of my life in it.
With all due respect: I doubt that. Why? Because there hasn't been a single communist country on this planet so far. There have been oodles of half-assed dictatorships using whatever excuses and lables to keep their people down but there hasn't been a single communist state.
And why? Because communism is the same as true christianity (and other religions and other -isms): It's utopia. It'll always fail due to mankinds inherent selfishness. Same goes for capitalism, by the way.
Cheerio,
Thomas
>No, that's ``wrong'' as in morally wrong. The Sherman Antitrust Act is arbitrary law.
Uh, all law is ``arbitrary". A lot of it is based on appeals to some expression of ideology, or to legal due process (such as precedent), but when all is said & done, law is what the designated people in a government say it is.
Explain yourself in more detail. Or be content with being nothing more than a flake. Who spouts gibberish that sounds arguably Libertarian.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I see a small error in your reasoning. Try the following substitution:
s/arbitrary/subjective/g
There, your argument makes more sense.
If we say that a certain activity is wrong, say selling beer on a Sunday, making a law against it is arbitrary, & we justify it by appealing to a common ideology: e.g., we are all religious, Sunday is an important religious day, & drinking beer on Sundays is sacrilegous.
Being persuaded by this appeal to the common ideology is mostly subjective: we all want to be religiosly good, so any activity that reduces sacrilege *must* be good.
Yes, you can get into antitrust trouble for ``dumping". Or overcharging. Or price fixing. These, however, are used as evidence of abusing a monopoly position.
If someone sells a product at too low a price, it may be because you are trying to destroy your competition. If someone overcharges or fixes a price, this may be because the person is exploiting the fact no other company can successfully compete with said businessman.
Or it may be because said businessman sucks at running a company.
That is why we had a careful, extended trial to ascertain the evidence. To make an objective determination, not a subjective one. One of the most damning bits of evidence in Jackson's FoF (You have read this document, right? Or are you just arguing based on subjective feelings gained from reading a mediocre dead novelist?) was the fact Microsoft delayed work on badly needed bug fixes for Windows 98 in order to devote the manpower to tying IE more closely to the OS, in order to further deny Netscape access to their market.
In other words, when faced with a choice whether to give good service to their customer base or destroy a competitor, MS willingly shorted on service in order to destroy their competitor.
If that's not a crime to you, then I don't know how to reach you. Maybe suggest that you get out into the Real World(tm)?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I believe the correct term would be picoSoft's :)
WordPerfect is *the* standard format amongst the legal crowd (IANAL, but a friend is). And PDF is mostly cross platform (no reader for the C64 yet tho').
QA implies some kind of quality to begin with.
load vintage 1976 Micro-soft 4K BASIC (license PAID) into my Altair today - cheezus, what a long, strange trip it's been! :))
Chuck
Waaaa, I wanna PDP-8
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Stay calm folks. This is Just a Finding Of Fact..
Agreed. But let's face it: the writing's on the wall. I haven't read the findings myself, but not one reporter (I'm watching CNN) has been able to locate a significant finding that favors Microsoft's position. It's halftime, and the government is up by about ten touchdowns. It's looking very bad for Microsoft.
--JT
Ironically, so are you, logged in as AC.
---
Joseph Foley
Akamai Technologies
We know that judge Jackson believes MS has monopoly power. We've known for a while what options there are should MS be punished (it is my opinion that they will be).
My question to you guys is, what punishments, if any, should be layed upon Microsoft? Some say a complete breakup could affect consumers, confusion, etc. Others want Billy Gates to be shot.
Hopefully this can be an intelligent thread about what should be done with MS.
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Hi, I'm John. I've purchased a system that had Linux pre-installed on it. I got it from VA.
Now you can say that you know someone that bought a system that had Linux pre-installed on it!
I don't think anyone has viewed microsoft as a "warm and fuzzy" company for a while. The entire case has been a commercial and public relations disaster for microsoft -- and all of its knee-jerk allies.
My concern with this entire case is the extent to which the judicial system, and the Department of Justice, have now chosen to place themselves above the public and the marketplace as arbiters of the "likely future" of innovation and product success in the most dynamic marketplace ever created.
How are we to consider a decision which refers to competing operating systems under the broad label "Fringe Operating Systems?" Under this label are discussed Be, Linux, the BSDs, and any other OSs not used by the majority of consumers.
The rapidly increasing number of people adopting open source alternatives, and the rapidity of innovation in non-pc technologies capable of accessing the internet shows the dynamism of the environment, and the time-bound nature of any "findings of fact" that focus narrowly on a web browser to the exclusion of all else.
To my fellow slashdotters I ask the following: If you are worried about microsoft products constraining your choices, do you trust the government to act on your behalf and increase *your* available choices?
Isn't the increasing success and attractiveness of open source alternatives testimony to a paradigm shift in personal computing and the internet which undermines microsoft's power? Isn't this a better outcome than allowing the government to set artificial "market opening" conditions for the computer industry?
And what of the remedies available to judge? Does anyone trust this judge to draft an economically sensible solution to microsoft's admitted misbehavior? Is breaking up microsoft really an appropriate solution, relative to a number of alternatives?
How about enjoining microsoft from acquiring equity stakes in whole areas of market growth? I think that this is far more likely than any precipitous decision to fragment the company. Other ways of restricting microsoft include forcing divestiture of key elements (equity shares in new technology companies)in order to renew competition in those areas, or forced sale of intellectual property.
Of course such a measure would reduce (marginally I admit) capital available to new startups, probably injuring at least some software innovators. But still, anti-trust law is not setup to protect competitors, it is supposed to protect consumers. It seems clear to me that the principal beneficiaries of any harsh action against microsoft will be its competitors -- companies such as Sun, Oracle, and other "open-minded" companies with a great record of non-monopolistic behavior (I am being sarcastic here).
Maybe the most appropriate result/remedy would be a combination of an extremely large fine (hundreds of millions, used to endow a fund to foster software innovation in competing OSs). Apple and other competing OSs could draw from the fund in order to "level the playing field" with microsoft's waning platform dominance.
A fine and some market-restrictive rules may be the "least harmful outcome". Anyway, it is an outcome that would usefully minimize the interference from government in an industry that continues to thrive without official "assistance".
D.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
I am not surprised that the document is available in WP6 and PDF format.
.PDF files is recognized as THE standard for reading formatted documents regardless of operating system. The advantage of PDF is that once the document is formatted in PDF format, the formatting will ALWAYS stay the same regardless of Acrobat Reader version.
.WPD file filters, so....
The reasons are simple:
1. WordPerfect is the de facto standard for Word Processors in the legal profession; WP 4.2 and later has this feature called Table of Authorities that is VERY useful for creating legal documents.
2. Adobe
Besides, Office 95, 97 and 2000 have
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Oh slashdoters jump and shout with glee
and bill gates on the moon
I wonder if they really see
that bill gates on the moon
Netscape tried to sell a free browser
and bill gates on the moon
Scot mcnealy got java, but he aint getting any prouder
and bill gates on the moon
Everyones got to slay a goat, its true
and bill gates on the moon
and when the goats run out, they start with you
and bill gates on the moon
The try to legisalte thier own mindsets
and bill gates on the moon
its a pity thier applications aint ready yet
and bill gates on the moon
I wonder will they ever learn
that bill gates on the moon
you cant claim victory if the markets burned
and bill gates on the moon
Now its comming close to the end
and bill gates on the moon
when there are 5 micrsofts, what ya goona do then
fly MSnasa and visit bill gates on the moon
----
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15
The appellate court can possibly be avoided but the SC can also send it back down:
(b) Direct appeals to Supreme Court
An appeal from a final judgment pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall lie directly to the Supreme Court, if, upon application of a party filed within fifteen days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice. Such order shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of a notice of appeal. When such an order is filed, the appeal and any cross appeal shall be docketed in the time and manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall thereupon either
(1) dispose of the appeal and any cross appeal in the same manner as any other direct appeal authorized by law, or
(2) in its discretion, deny the direct appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same as if the appeal and any cross appeal therein had been docketed in the court of appeals in the first instance pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
In his findings of fact, Jackson said there are no current products that pose a competitive threat to Microsoft 's (MSFT) Windows operating system, and that no such products are on the horizon.
;)
Not lookin' good for Linux
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If you examine all of the things that Microsoft is able to do with its monopoly, you will notice that none of them really affect free software developers.
Microsoft is a very effective hierarchy--it is able to wage war against other hierarchies and win. Free software developers are not hierarchies, we are networks of co-operating individuals. We are largely immune to Microsoft's tactics. I will explain this further as I go.
Microsoft uses its monopoly power in a variety of ways to harm its competitors, and prevent them from bringing interesting new products to the market, or at least prevents them from profiting by doing so.
First, it uses its large cash base to buy out people who threaten to create important new businesses. Rather than let a small company grow into a big competitor, Microsoft buys the small company. But this tactic fails against free software: You can buy the cow, but the milk is licensed to the public for free for all time.
Second, it uses its marketing power to force competitors out of business: exclusive license deals which deny competitors access to important distribution channels, and making software available for free to deny competitors access to much needed revenue. But again this doesn't apply to free software developers: The problem is there is nobody to target. The developer of the software doesn't pay for distribution--they stick their code up on some public servers and other people do the work of putting it on a CDROM. You could target one of those distributors, and force them out of business, but someone else would just take over. The problem for Microsoft is that the distribution expense is spread out over a huge network of people, each paying a little bit of the cost. There is really nobody to force into bankrupcy by these tactics--the free software project continues anyway.
Third, Microsoft uses its huge legal resources and patent claims to harass and sue competitors into submission. Again this doesn't work against free software developers: who do you sue? You could force me to abandon my project, but no doubt tommorow someone else would pick it up. So you sue them, but then they would drop it too, and someone else would pick it up. Free software developers, as networks of co-operating individuals, can just back away whenever someone threatens them. Though some important individuals may leave, the project survives since anyone in the world has the right to pick it up and continue.
Fourth, Microsoft uses its distributed base of code to create unfair advantages for its products on its own platform. In the past, Microsoft has made use of secret API calls to give Word a speed boost over WordPerfect, and so forth. While this is an effective tactic, it only works against commercial developers. Since a commercial developer relies on revenue from product sales, it is important for them to gain market share on the Win32 architecture--where the money is. Free software developers, however, don't rely on revenue. They just write code, usually because they need it, or someone who did need it paid for the development, or perhaps because they think it would be cool. In any case, free software developers are content to create killer applications for less popular platforms--the lack of revenue doesn't kill their project, as it does with a commercial developer.
So in all cases we see that the kinds of devious things Microsoft has done with its monopoly are not really effective against free software developers.
We are networks of co-operating people, not strict hierarchical organizations. Microsoft can attack a hierarchy--break it down, causing it to collapse into bankrupcy and ruin. But as networks of people, we are not such easy targets--the kinds of predatory tactics Microsoft has been using don't work against us.
So... this is yet another reason why we shouldn't care about this ruling. At best it will prevent Microsoft from doing things that don't hurt US anyway.
In case you haven't looked, MS tries to put their own spin on it at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/ . Most notable are that it took until paragraph 408 for MS to find anything favorable (which was then highly touted), and made MS-Word versions available that are twice the size of the WP version.
If you want to see how Linux et al. seem to fit into the picture, check out III.B.2.c in the Findings of Fact. Also, for Open Source info, check out III.B.3. I find it interesting that the judge still labeled Linux a "fringe OS" despite all the media attention.
In my mind, in the context of this case, that label actually applies--at least until Linux becomes even more friendly to people who'd like a near-effortless migration from WinXX.
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
screenshot of how it looks from London (121K)
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
To the extent that browsing-specific routines have been commingled with operating system routines to a greater degree than is necessary to provide any consumer benefit, Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system. Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to infect non-browsing parts of the system." So now it's a crime to write buggy/insecure/nonmodular code? Excuse me? It seemed the argument was whether MS used its dominant position in OS's to bolster its position in other markets. How exactly does writing buggy code help them sell their software or damage their competitors? And what business is it of the government what kind of code MS writes? If Microsoft wants to write a browser that is completely insecure and blue screens every 10 seconds, how is that a crime? Sure, it's lousy programming, but I don't remember antitrust law saying anything about poor coding practices being a crime.
and Microsoft & Intel sprang up as a result of the govt's actions towards IBM. Would you say that it would be a better world if IBM had controlled every aspect of computer?
We can play the "what if" game ad nauseum, but I really don't think that the DOJ can take much credit for IBM's non-dominance of the PC market. IBM's biggest mistake there was liscencing DOS rather than purchasing it. I suppose you could argue that this was somehow caused by the antitrust action, but I doubt it.
As I recall, once Microsoft had the ownership of IBM's OS, (DOS) there was nothing IBM could have done to prevent cloners, even if there was not an antitrust case. IBM went to court to stop the clone makers and lost . The reason that IBM lost so much ground in the PC market had little to do with antitrust lawsuits and lots to do with relentless competition from more nimble competitors. Government agencies tend to see trends after they start and simply hasten the inevitable. IBM was already in decline when the antitrust lawsuit wrapped up. By the same token, Microsoft will not maintain its dominance even if the DOJ loses this case. Market forces are already working their magic-- competition from Soliris, Novell, Linux, *BSD, Netscape, apache, etc are all cutting into their products on the server side. Product delays, possible shifting software paradigms, (away from stand-alone desktops toward thin clients, for example) and the continuing emergence of open standards all point to a decline in their market dominance. Unless they do something truly drastic like splitting them up, this trial is a side show in deciding the future direction of the computer industry.
Out of touch?! Take a look at the findings on the (lack of) security of ActiveX -- "In particular, Microsoft exposed those using Navigator on Windows 98 to security and privacy risks that are specific to Internet Explorer and to ActiveX controls."
Does this sound out of touch?
Or, from paragraph 174 --
"174. Microsoft has harmed even those consumers who desire to use Internet Explorer, and no other browser, with Windows 98. To the extent that browsing-specific routines have been commingled with operating system routines to a greater degree than is necessary to provide any consumer benefit, Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system. Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to infect non-browsing parts of the system."
Be struggles to convince PC makers to preload BeOS, but those vendors don't want to risk losing the rebates they get from MS in exchange for selling MS-only systems (this is changing slowly). Be struggles to convince developers to port their applications, but they are reluctant to when Windows has 90% of the market. And the same thing happens when Be tries to convince hardware vendors to write BeOS drivers for I/O cards and peripherals.
On a hypothetical level playing field, hardware and software vendors would consider the array of operating systems before them and decide which to support based on technical merit and suitability to the task at hand, not focus on a single OS with their only criteria being "because that's what the installed base uses."
Chicken and egg problems face Be everywhere they turn, and virtually all of them can be ascribed to Windows' dominance. Even in cases where MS has _not_ done anything questionable, the momentum of Windows still makes it almost impossible for Be to compete. The judge was right to hold up Be as an example of how difficult MS makes it to compete in the OS market.
To antipate a response: "Doesn't the open source model circumvent many of the barriers to entry that Be faces?"
Yes. But that's just the point. The success of Linux vis-a-vis Be almost seems like evidence that you can't compete in the OS market unless you do so without hoping to make money. Linux succeeds by not competing on the traditional business playing field, and there's something to be said for that. But if Linux were the proprietary creation of a single company, it would be exactly where Be is now, or worse. Moral of the story: unless something is done, it may never be possible for true competition to happen in operating system land. Scot
*** crosses self & intones IANAL
:-)
:-)
There's little doubt the findings of fact in this case will influence the parallel case against Microsoft for embrace/pollute of the Java platform. There's been lots of precedent for this kind of cross-pollination between court cases in the last couple of years, in these big high-tech actions. What Jackson has to say about Microsoft's behaviour on the Java front is pretty damning - ok, everybody knew it anyway, but now it's "found as fact":
Far from being the unintended consequence of an attempt to help Java developers more easily develop high-performing applications, incompatibility was the intended result of Microsoft s efforts.
Caveat: IANAJZ (I Am Not A Java Zealot). I just think that people should obey the law, even rich people. Looks like we're kinda heading in the right direction at this point... And, so, personally my mind was made up long ago in this matter, it's nice to see the judge agrees
Rambling. Tired. Satisfied.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Now that the court has stated the obvious (that Microsoft is a monopoly and has abused their power and harmed consumers), I'd like to know what everyone thinks comes next.
OK, I'll bite. Bill Gates still thinks he's invincible and Bill Neukom still thinks he knows how to run the case better than the law firm he hired - and the rest of the corporation is too frightened of these guys to tell them the truth which is: they're both waaaaaaaay out of touch. So I predict that, after the judgement comes down and remedies are agreed upon, this will be pushed through to appeal. Unfortunately for Bill & Bill, this won't go to the Circuit appeal next - where they've already won a couple of verrrrrry favorable rulings - but instead to directly to the supreme court, courtesy of a provision of the the, um, Sherman act I think it is that allows the appeal court to be bypassed in cases where the enforcement of antitrust laws would be better served that way. In other words, to save time.
This turn of events will suddenly make things seem a whole lot less comfortable in terms of time frame for Bill & Bill, and the two of them would do well to reflect on the possible bad effects of negative shareholder sentiment should they come to be seen as having steered the corporation off the edge of a figurative legal cliff.
It could be that the "microsoft shareholder suit" turns out to be the finest spectator sport of the new millenium.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The thing that really yanks my chain is when Gates can stand up there in front of the media and make the rather bold claim that Microsoft's actions have resulted in "lower prices for consumers." It's not hard to figure out that while the price/performance ratio of computer hardware has undergone several major shifts in favor of the consumer, Microsoft's products haven't seen anything that comes even CLOSE. In fact, because of the excessive bloat often associated with Microsoft products, it might not be unfair to suggest that if anything, Microsoft has *increased* the cost to consumers, since each successive upgrade seems to require more resources in terms of CPU speed, memory, and storage.
Here are some more stories about the case:
There's one in The NY Times, one in Wired, one on MSNBC, one on CNN and probably one on every other news site under the sun, but I just feel like giving a few more articles. It's always nice to get some more points of view.
--
Reject
--
Reject
reject@metaphorcity dot com
Win95... approx $99.00.
No...that was the Upgrade price.
The price for a "Full" version of Windows 95 (as it said on the box, "Windows 95 for machines without windows") was $189 at the time that Windows 95 was released at Computer City. (I was working there at the time).
"Windows 95 Upgrade? WTF are you UPG'ing Win 95 FROM? 3.1??"
Yes, that's what the upgrade was from.
"As far as Win2K being a "business OS" -- AFAIK this was supposed to be the "Grand Unified Theory" of Windoze... the "one platform fits all" operating system designed as a clear upgrade path from both 98 and NT."
But it's not. They changed their minds..and there will be at least one more release of backwards compatible windows.
I don't think they'll ever get away from backwards compatibility...unless they emulate it. If there's anything that Y2K proves, people will NEVER get rid of software, no matter HOW old it is.
Depends what your definition of 'helping the consumer' is. Don't forget that Microsoft got where they are by undercutting the competition:
DOS for $49 when CP/M was $149, Windows 3 for $99 when OS/2 was $500, Word for $300 when WordPerfect was $600, (and just the other day) Windows 2000 at half the cost of Novell 5.
MSFT has been willing to undercut the compeition because they know that an expanding market is better than short term profits. They've able to sell at a relative loss because of the strength of their OS position. (Linux is seen to have a chance against Microsoft because by-in-large it's immune from this process.)
Has the consumer benefited from cheap ubiquitous Microsoft software products over the years? You would have to agree unless you really enjoyed IBM and DEC's pricing models. Did the consumer benefited from MS's recent antics with Internet Explorer - most certainly not.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
OS/2 would be properly catagorized as a "legacy" operating system - that is too good to get rid of, but not good enough to implement on new systems.
(If IBM thinks differently about OS/2, I'd like to hear about it.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I dunno, MS-DOS 1 was a virtual clone of CP/M, and 99% compatible DR DOS is actually based on CP/M code. It's not like people bought the IBM PC for the wonderful operating system features.
BTW, CP/M-86 actually shipped for the IBM PC, just at 3x the cost for IBM (MS) DOS
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
At one point Microsoft had more employees working on their free IE and IIS products than Netscape had employed in total. What paid these employee's salaries? Monopoly profits perhaps? Get it?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
CP/M didn't come on your IBM PC - it was a line item extra, just as was IBM/MS DOS.
In the early 90s (when MS established most of their market dominance), OS/2 and WordPerfect did indeed cost the prices I quoted. OS/2 didn't even include TCP/IP -- that was an extra $300.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I was speaking of OS/2 2.0, not 3.0 -- note the comparision to Windows 3. Yes, IBM did cut the price. No, that doesn't make my statement FUD.
As a side note, Windows For Workgroups did ship with a fully protected mode TCP/IP stack, but that wasn't until 1994 or so.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I was actually referring to a $300 add-on to OS/2 2.x -- not Warp.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Pearl Harbor Day, 1995 -- Shortly after the successful launch of Windows 95, Microsoft announced that it was going to integrate Internet Explorer directly into the Windows operating systems.
... at the cost of increased confusion, degraded system performance, and restricted memory ...
...
...
At the time I worked at a heavily pro-MS shop (all NT even back in that day), and my co-workers and I were pretty stunned and confused by the announcment.
First of all, IE was unusable at that point, and it was hard to imagine that it ever could becoming a good product. (I was wrong there, I admit.)
Second, the immediate reaction was - "Who would want a web browers as a file shell/UI front end? It's slow, hogs memory, and crashes all the time." Well true to form, Microsoft took the fairly well done COM/Explorer Windows shell and turned it into something that was slow, hogs memory, and crashes all the time.
For fucking up the most basic interface a users has to deal with alone they should be sentenced to purgatory. Anyway hearing a non-technical federal judge issue the following words is like music to these ears:
... Microsoft created confusion and frustration for consumers, and increased technical support costs for business customers
... with a PC system that ran slower and provided less available memory than if the newest version of Windows came without browsing software.
... pay a substantial price (in the forms of downloading, installation, confusion, degraded system performance, and diminished memory capacity)
Amen!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The only person "out of touch" here is the fool that would not see the inherent problem of executing "downloaded binary bits" in a browser while surfing the web.
It is this foolish non-critical view that lets stupid and simple macro viruses and the like screw up people's machines while doing mundane tasks like reading email, opening up a word document or going to a web page.
The ActiveX security model is a joke, and surprisingly (at least to me) a non-technical person (the Judge) finally understands this. WOW.
- sigs are for wimps.
FRINGE OPERATING SYSTEM
is that supposed to upset us ? Any serious Linux user (do you run Linux BTW?), clearly knows that it is "fringe" just by the fact that MOST NON-TECHNICAL people don't know what "a linux" is.
- sigs are for wimps.
... to comment on the excerpts since you have nothing to say.
Please stop spamming slashdot over and over and over again with your redundant postings about the "fringe operating system" comment.
Are you a real person, or a bot written by somebody at MS ??? I would like to know if I'm talking to a human or another buggy VB script.
- sigs are for wimps.
Also, Hemos was wrong about this case being more likely to be settled now.
Actually, every lawyer I've talked to (5 or 6 so far), has said that it greatly increases the chance of a settlement. While your logic is good, it doesn't hold. Microsoft's primary goal has been and will always be to get rid of the case (and risk breakup) as fast as possible. Now that Jackson has made it clear that it won't be fast if it stays in court, MS has no other option but to settle. Microsoft would gladly pay a fine (of almost any size, read 1-5 billion; who knows how big) or agree to "cease and desist" illegal practices rather than risk breakup if the appeals fail.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Fiery depths of hell? I thought Bern was in Switzerland.
Consider for a moment (or go back a bit earlier in the week to the m$-wage-accounting thread) the impact this has on the m$ employees who traded away the prospect of higher wages elsewhere for stock options in a seemingly-ever-increasing company. The stock tanks (as it's in the process of doing), those options become worthless.
Regardless of how we feel about their coding and debugging practices, these people are fellow professionals in the industry, we should be perhaps a little sympathetic to their current plight. Gates, Ballmer, et al aren't the only ones losing in the market tonight, folks.
But does that (and the fact that several of my mutual funds also hold m$ stock) preclude me from celebrating tonight? Hell No! *g*
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Note that in his findings, the Judge even admits that Microsoft hasn't used its supposed monopoly to raise prices.
Tell THAT to consumers. Or do I need to point out that:
That sounds like increases well in excess of the pace of inflation to me...
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
There was once Southern Bell, Western Bell and Pacific Bell. Southern Bell and Western Bell merged a while ago, forming Southwestern Bell.
Umm, No. PacTel (San Francisco), BellSouth (Atlanta), USWest (Denver), and Southwestern Bell (Dallas) were FOUR of the SEPARATE Baby Bells from the outset. BellSouth and Southwestern Bell are still separate companies; I think there were mergers involving USWest and PacTel into some of the other Baby Bells, but I'm not sure exactly which -- it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard!
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Windows 95 Upgrade? WTF are you UPG'ing Win 95 FROM? 3.1?? Sounds like more-or-less full retail to me... which means the numbers are just about what I stated, $90-something to get 95, then $89 to upgrade it to 98.
As far as Win2K being a "business OS" -- AFAIK this was supposed to be the "Grand Unified Theory" of Windoze... the "one platform fits all" operating system designed as a clear upgrade path from both 98 and NT. And at $149/$219/$349, that's a pretty sinus-clearing upgrade path as well... nevermind the already-suspect compatibility with the sort of legacy DOS apps that home users (and bankers) seem to love.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Unix has come a long way in its decades, but we simply would not be in this frantic "information age" if it weren't for the efforts of Micro$oft.
Blasphemy on /.? Hardly!
I don't work for them, I never want to, and I think NT has some fundamental problems (but what software doesn't). It is one of the most feature complete products combined with one that looks deceptively easy to use (and is if you don't scratch the surface).
I love GNOME. I'm learning how to write GNOME apps and have participated online at Gnotices. My father swears by KDE. They are great projects. They are in some ways inovative, but they are also playing catchup to Windows. Yes, they will be much better implementations (come the 2.x releases) of ideas such as [D]COM etc, but what is important to most people is what they can do now and not what they should be able to do at some unspecified time in the future.
If nothing else, they have given us as a community a prototype of how we could implement things later.
David
50. The experience of the Linux operating system, a version of which runs on Intel- compatible PCs, similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. Linux is an "open source" operating system that was created, and is continuously updated, by a global network of software developers who contribute their labor for free. Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs. Several ISVs have announced their development of (or plans to develop) Linux versions of their applications. To date, though, legions of ISVs have not followed the lead of these first movers. Similarly, consumers have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows, with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating system whose future in the PC realm is unclear. By itself, Linux's open-source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from competing.
:P
BTW, you can download the ruling from MS's web site...in Word format.
DOJ finds MS is an monopoly, Mononoko Hime opens in theatres...Man - this is turning out to a good weekend!
Yeah, well I uploaded it to my website using IE 5.0 under Win98 to connect to the internet using MSN (look in upper right corner) to point to the MSNBC front page that say Microsoft may be a monopoly.
Oh yeah, I started up microsoft agent and had merlin and polly snore through Bill G. netshow stream statement.
I'm just trying to be just a _BIT_ sarcastic here, so lay off the gif business because Microsoft Image Composer won't convert to it, nor will paintbrush, and IE won't display it without using scroll bars!!!!!
There are alot of interested people downloading acrobat and wordperfect documents right now...
BTW - I just got another FTI (Freedom to innovated) FUDletter - seems they are speechless.
(kinda like the mailing I got when the GK vs world chess match was found to be vote stuffing.)
*** Drinks are on me! ***
I don't think he said Permanent Monopoly.
He said that it has a monopoly, and that there are no competitors in the recent forseeable future.
In addition, MS has been using it's monopoly to try to keep it's monopoly.
yea right. Without the Antitrust act:
you would be pumping gas from a Getty Station,
you would be using an AT&T cell phone, and paying $30/hr to call the next state
you would be running windows, because the PC 99 specs would have limited the ability to run linux
and this is america, home of the looney.
If anyone mentions morals, I tune out.
Gee, Anti-Microsoft? What you smoking?
Jackson overturned Sporkin when Sporkin said "Try Again" on the first settlement. This was completely pro-MS. This may not have happened if the DOJ and MS had gone back to the table, and come up with an agreement amenialbe to Sporkin.
Calling Jackson Anti-MS is just is Ignorant of the history of the MS vs DOJ.
If you count that person sleeping with the chairperson had her product released, then MS Bob counts as one innovation.
MS Excel was a great product. Much better than multiplan, and easier to use than Lotus.
Mac Word was Great until V6, when MS decided mediocraty, oops platform parity, should be a priority.
Yes, that's the rumour. Findings of Fact are Hard to get overturned. That's where MS prevailed the last time. Sporkin Did not have a legal leg to stand on when he tried to send MS and the DOJ back to the table. He Knew the facts, and didn't think the consent decree was good enough. But Jackson said, no law to send them back. Consent Decree stands.
MS press conference was a bit short. Not much good information for them.
has always tried to be a monopoly. "One World, one web, one program"; if that doesn't raise someone's eyebrows I have no idea what will. Microsoft scares me in many ways, I may not have nightmares of waves of Winborg drones chasing me (all the time) but the thought of what M$ represents frightens me at times. Microsoft used to be a software company way back in the day, now Bill G. has his willy in more places than Bill C. does. At some point in time Microsoft became a media communication company where software was just one of its many divisions. Cable companies, news networks, telephony technologies, satillite internet, set-top internet, ad nauseum. That list could go on for a very long time, it is a list of the proverbial cookie jars M$ hs a hand stuck in. It also seems strange to me they all ways of distributing information to people. Shucks Bill it sorta sounds like you want to have your little logo in the corner of everyone's screens. The monopoly on the desktop is just the tip of what seems to be a quickly growing iceberg.
I've read a slew of different comments so far, some people defend Microsoft, some people are dancing in the streets because of this case. I'm concerned this is case is important but its scope is a little bit too narrow to keep this kind of thing from happening. Microsoft has a vertical monopoly on many portions of the software market and a nearly complete horizontal monopoly on the OS market.
A horizontal monopoly is where a single company owns a vast majority of resources (like if say one company owned all the oil production in the world, all businesses that rely on petroleum would be at the veritable mercy of this company) that everyone in that market needs. Software developers are dependent on the OS to run their software, when Win 95/98 comes pre-loaded on almost every home system sold in America and around the world software developers accept it as the de facto "standard" and are forced to write software on it or not write software at all (Intel has a similar monopoly but thats an entirely different story). Go down to Best Buy and look for a Linux software section, it doesn't exist, you can find a few distros but that's it. Commercial development companies don't usually write programs for Linux because the cost/return ratio has been extremely small in the past.
Microsoft's vertical monopoly comes in the form of their software packages and API platforms. Since they have the OS which is on the bottom rung of the ladder they have ALL of the ins and outs of their system and can release their home brew programming suites that are built around the knowlege of their OS. After programming suites come software packages. Through the years M$ has bought up scores of ideas and technologies that they either hadn't the talent to create or just lacked the initiative. These technologies are released in the form of applications and software suites. Office 97 is a perfect example of this, dozens of purchased technologies all incorporated into the programs along with greater streamlining because the suite programmers have more intimate knowlege of the OS than third party developers do. After these suites come communication packages, in the form of Microsoft Networking (SMB, NetBIOS, NetBEUI, Microsoft DLC, ect.) which come packaged as "features" of the OS. On the other side of these protocols are Windows based servers that have all the same advantages as the clients because everything can be integrated at the OS core level rather than third party add-ons and plug-ins.
I would describe Microsoft's economic standpoint as an L-monopoly, they have a strong vertical monopoly and a strong horizontal monopoly. The reason I say this case is too narrow is that the case merely serves to separate the horzontal from the vertical without really breaking up either one. If Microsoft was split up into an OS company and an application company, Visual C++ amd Visual Basic would still exist and be the programming suite of choice for many developers. Office would still exist with it's special API calls that make it faster in just the right ways to keep third party suites from being too impressive. More than just cutting off one of the Hydra's heads this still does nothing for the huge portion of communication media that M$ is buying/partnering with. Disney and AOL are also working on building giant megacorp communication blocs. A redefinition of what a monopoly is and what a trust is would be a more effective way to solve these potentially disterous problems, using Microsoft as an example. If Microsoft is broken up but is allowed to continue (with everyone else) to turn inself into a giant media mogul then no one will be safe.
"You can have your car in your favourite colour as long as your favourite colour is black." --Henery Ford
As a sidenote to my tediously long rant, some of you may have heard of an operating system called Unix. Some crazy fellas at AT&T's Bell labs invented this way back in the 1970's but the US government reminded AT&T that it was a telecommunications company, not a computer company. When AT&T wasn't allowed to commercially distribute this Unix thing it was given away to colleges around the country. See any inverse correlations here?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
What payroll are you on dude? If there was EVER an example of a monopoly it's Microsoft. It's a known fact that any OEM that uses x86 processors is leveraged by M$ to use Windows or else. M$ gives major discounts on Windows 98 for OEMs unless they decide to offer alternative OSes on their prebuilt systems as the primary OS. While Compaq and IBM can toy with Linux all they want, there are hundreds of small companies that can't just absorb the undiscounted price on Windows if they want to offer Linux, Be, ad infinitum as the primary OS. That 80$ can make a big difference in the quality of the system offered. Not only does M$ leverage OEMs to use their product but they also transfer the responsibilities of tech support to the OEMs, which means the companies now need to add in the cost of a 24x7 tech support to their overhead.
You are an idiot to even claim that use of Microsoft products is voluntary. If I were to buy a pre-built computer from any company and ask for a refund on Win 98 because I installed Linux on the system without ever booting into Windows I would probably never get it. This is because Windows is considered by the OEM as a component of the computer like a modem or video card would be considered. If Windows weren't mandatory on a vast majority of systems it would be seen as an option rather than an integral component.
Besides a lack of options on whether the OS should be installed on a system there is a very good display of M$'s tactics as a vertical monopoly. Sometime around 1987 Microsoft and Intel defined a network scheme called Sever Message Block (SMB) which M$ bundled with every version of Windows. Microsoft decided instead of TCP/IP or IPX they would make their trusty SMB protocol the standard for their networks. This is fun when you have an all Windows network environment but is ugly when you have several different OSes on a network. Without Andrew Tridgell and Samba most Linux/FreeBSD users would be left behind in Windows dominated networks, even Solaris 7 comes packaged with Samba. This neat little networking scheme was a nice little tool to convince IT managers to just go 100% Microsoft in offices since SMB was well integrated into Windows already.
The "moral right of man" to go after a "free" economy is a misnomer. Since Bill Gates and his megacorporation own a huge vertical monopoly in the computer market that prevents anyone else with a good idea, love of computers, and start-up capital to experience what you think of as a free economy. The business practices M$ has inspired are leading our current economic boom to a steep crash. In the effort to compete with M$ companies now have to market, program, FUD, leverage, and play exactly like M$. You're Joe Computeruser and for years you've been using a great program that helps you create megawidgets in the widget division in your company. The maker of the program decides in the next version they will add a ton of new features but change their EULA to say only so many megawidgets can be created in a month unless you get the professional version of MegaWidget Creator. You need to create at least 20 megawidgets a month but if you upgrade to the standard edition of MegaWidget Creator you can only create 10 per month, professional costs almost a thousand dollars more. Poor megawidget creator dude, he sounds like he's in a similar situation to people who used Windows NT 3.5 and wanted to upgrade to NT 4. Microsoft uses it's muscle power to produce NT Workstation with a limited number of TCP/IP socket connections while NT Server has an unlimited number. Workstation runs about 350$ IIRC, Server costs about 1800 for 10 users. But that doesn't mean much to someone on M$'s payroll, you're getting part of that wasted 1800$.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I realised MS was a monopoly about two years ago. Industy has known it for longer... although I'm glad to see the judge's initial findings, I'm dissapointed it took *this* long.
... and if we don't get a better way of dealing with Antitrust and Monopolies then is there really going to be a legal confidence working in this industry?
The IT industry is such a rapidly changing/evolving area that it's just NOT acceptable for important law suits like this to take so long. It's most likely counter productive to have to wait this long for the courts to make their minds up, as others will simply take the "law" into their own hands.
Look at Sun with their free StarOffice - which is quite a direct aim at one of MS's crown jewels (Office). Look at the "commercial" use of OSS by certain companies who are looking at ways to take out big Microsloth. Regardless if their actions are good for users, they are doing this because the courts are too slow to react to this fast paced industry.
As IT grows it inherintly obvious that these kinds of lawsuits will also grow
The judge isn't what's important -- a new administration could tell the DoJ to quit pursuing the case or to reach a settlement that doesn't hurt Microsoft, because if Microsoft continues to appeal the judge's ultimate verdict, this case won't be done before 2001 when a new administration takes office.
Also, Hemos was wrong about this case being more likely to be settled now. The DoJ will be emboldened by Jackson's finding to make any settlement very favorable to the DoJ, so that it's more likely that Microsoft won't agree to their terms, deciding to take their chances with the appeals process, where they have a very good chance of prevailing.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Where do you people come from? I don't think it's just ignorance. I think it might have something to do with inability to clearly think, but I could be wrong.
--Jamin Philip Gray
jamin@DoLinux.org
Celebrate the finer things in life
I've mirrored an HTML copy here:
/findfact.html
http://campbell.penguinpowered.com
About time microsoft got what's coming to them. First post. :-P
fuck this government.
to be enlightened, read ayn rands "anthem" thanks to my boys at project gutenberg.
After that if you've got extra time spend a few bucks and buy fountainhead or atlas shrugged... you can see where our sad little government is taking this country. pathetic.
www.jackasscritics.com
Guys, stop talking about laptops. They are really the tip of the iceberg here and they have nothing to do with this trial. Have you actually bothered reading the Findings of Fact? It's a big document but worth reading.
This document is not an anti-MS rant. It's a detailed documentation of what Microsoft did to kill Netscape and Sun. They didn't spare any money doing it and they certainly played dirty. But don't take my word for it. Go and read the whole document yourself.
Please pay attention to the number of AC posts that support Microsoft. In going through the comments I must say I have never seen so many. Seems that Microsoft anticipated this and mobilized rather quickly.
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Ever heard of seperation of power, clueless moron?
If you vote the administration out of office, the laws stay the same, and past transgressions cannot be made undone and OUGHT to be prosecuated just the same.
This is a great day for the World. Let's hope it will continue like this and MS will be history in a few years.
Huh? Show me a company that doesn't act in its own self-interest and I'll show you a company with a Q at the end of its stock symbol.
There is a CNNfn just waiting to be slashdotted.
Also, is it just me, or are the ones defending Microsoft all Anonymous Cowards?
Just as each of us faces penalties if we break the law, so too must Microsoft. If they faced NO penalty, then the neighborhood bully will then be really out of control!
If a competitor didn't like their business tactics and decided to enact non-legal remedies to keep Microsoft from doing bad things, MS would run and cry and look to the government for protections. They bombed us and that's illegal! (they would rant and plead)
Well, guess what? You Microsoft whom have broken the law must now face the music. Judgement time is approaching and you will indeed deserve all and more you get for your sickening tactics and behavior. I'll cry for you when you cry for those YOU have destroyed by not playing fair and legally.
Just like people... yes, real human beings, are destroyed by bullies and criminals, who prey on the weak, you too do to businesses and customers whom have long suffered under your tyranny. You ease your thin conscience with your filthy bank account and stock options, but your are corrupt and ugly, vile, and now want sympathy after you have for so long run wild pissing on everyone who didn't have the power to be immune to your ugly ugly (and yes! illegal) ways?
Break them up! Make them face each other in the snake pit that is their tactics! Those businesses that got in bed with microsoft get what they deserve for trying to profit from illegal gotten gains. Break them up into dozens of pieces! So much easier to kill the demon spawn one by one then face all of hell's creation all at once.
You use legal tactics and fine print and EULAs and exclusivities, etc etc etc for your il-gotten gains and you think anyone should have sympathy when you have been shown by that same legal system you manipulate to be a BAD corporate citizen? You will deserve every little bit of punishment you get and more. You are a parasite and the host has gotten really tired of you. Be gone!
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Well, gee, except you can't vote a federal judge out of office. They're appointed for life.
Oh, and Regan appointed Judge Jackson to the bench.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Hmmm... I wonder if there's any chance of Windows 2000 being delayed past Feb 17th 2000.
I suppose the only way it could be is if MS and the DOJ settle- 'cause if it's dragged through the court systems, there'll be years of appeals before any "penalty" or "remedy" occurs- even if it gets fast tracked to the Supreme Court like the AT&T case.
I wonder if Microsoft has an IE-less version of Win2K waiting in the wings in case of a settlement. While I'm an avid Linux user, I've also been anticipating the arrival of Win2K and would hate to see a delay.
Anyway, I think we've already seen MS's competitors become more brave since the trial began. One example is that there are quite a few companies standing (meekly?) behind Linux. I hope they'll stand taller now.
I hope in five years we'll be able to look back on Win2K as Microsoft's swan song from a monopolist OS vendor point of view.
Weird statement early on:
"Consumers could not turn from Intel-compatible PC operating systems to Intel-compatible
server operating systems without incurring substantial costs, since the latter type of system is
sold at a significantly higher price than the former. A consumer intent on acquiring a server operating
system would also have to buy a computer of substantially greater power and price than an Intel-compatible
PC, because server operating systems generally cannot function properly on PC hardware."
Huh?? I agree Microsoft has an effective monopoly (network effect and such), but did the judge just completely ignore OS/2, Be, and Linux?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I am shocked ... shocked ... to find Microsoft is considered a monopoly!
(Your stock options, sir.)
Thank you. Shocked, I tell you!
:-)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
You want to complain about Word? Complain about the file formats. Don't complain that Microsoft actually does make a decent app.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Remeber, Remember, the 5th of November
Microsoft Findings of fact
Get off my lawn.
It's /not/ ok to download binary bits and run them. You should be bloody careful, whether you're manually FTPing the files and running them, or automatically downloading+running. It's VERY SILLY to just randomly run binaries from any source, on the internet or otherwise. If you're a home user without much to lose, then you might well run something, but in a corporate or military environment, you should be more careful. The safest thing is to compile everything from source, but even then, you have to be careful your compiler is not inserting backdoors.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
such is the price for a secure system....
Choice of masters is not freedom.
Break MS into companies that sell: (examples are not all-inclusive):
:)
- Consumer OS products (DOS, Win 9x, IE)
- Server OS products (NT, IIS, SMS
- Consumer apps (Encarta, Works, games)
- Business apps (Office)
- App development tools (VB, VC++, VJ++)
Require MS to do all the following before releasing ANY new product:
- Create an IE-free version of Windows 9x and offer all currently-licensed users of Win 9x a NO-COST (not even shipping or handling charges) upgrade to this software.
- Publish all APIs. Require six months advance notice of changes to the API.
- Make Windows source code available to all who request it. I don't mean "freeing" Windows, or making it open source. I just want to be sure that MS can't fudge the info they release on APIs. Also, it'd be kind of fun to recompile the kernel on the fly and see what happens.
- Make all information related each MS software product freely available to registered users of that product. (No more charging for TechNet or MSDN.)
- Renegotiate all current agreements with OEMs to preload MS software.
And while they're at it, the following would be nice:
- Require that MS support its own software - no more forcing this support on OEMs and outsourcers.
- Make paranoid security settings the default, out-of-box behavior for all MS products.
- Charge Bill Gates with perjury. Charge Microsoft with perjury.
I'll bet that you and the govt are working out of different dictionaries. The meaning of the word "monopoly" (at least in my mind) means total control over an industry - in this case, the operating system industry. However, in legal circles (as in every field of endeavour, from mathematics to science to economics), words often take on precise, technical definitions which do not always coincide with their "popular" definitions. I believe that this is the case of "monopoly." I once read (ie, IANAL) that a company is legally considered to have a monopoly if they can raise the price of their product without substantially altering the demand for it. By this definition, MS DEFINITELY has a monopoly.
I found this right after my previous post; it's the paragraph where Judge J says MS has a monopoly; it appears to support what I thought
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 losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
(emphasis added)
but isn't html the default for OFFICE 2000?
H...
E...
T...
H...
E...
N...
Hethen...
Dance!!!
We can dance if we want to
We can leave M$ behind
'Cause M$ don't dance
And if they don't dance well they're
No friends of mine
We can run what (OS) we want to
It's our gain and it's their loss
And you can run OS2, or Linux or Mac
BSD or DR-DOS
Note the Judge only said Microsoft has a monopoly in the Intel-compatible operating system space.
That's a pretty big space. Big enough for a monopoly. If I may borrow somebody else's analogy, that's like saying Major League Baseball only has a monopoly in the baseball-compatible sports space. There are other sports available - therefore MLB doesn't have a monopoly? I don't think so.
Since it's been clear from the beginning that he's out to get Microsoft, this is hardly surprising.
It has not been clear from the beginning that the judge has been out to get Microsoft. If he had been, this finding of fact would not have been so long in coming.
... or the endless cycle of appeals. We still have to learn what laws the judge will rule have been broken. I think this is a major finding, but ultimately only the second in a series of steps.
Gate's response seems to have been taped much earlier... I would give a few $$$ to see the prerecorded tape he made in case the judge ruled in favor of Microsoft:
"Suckers....."
--
Neurowiz
It's just a "Finding of Fact" from the Judge - he's selected all the facts presented to him, and determined what he finds to be true, and supported by the arguments presented.
I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to realize that this is not a final verdict, and that this trial could still go anywhere from this point on.
This isn't a jury trial. Jackson's word is final. The Finding of Fact represents a great deal of what the trial is all about, and his final ruling is going to stem directly from these findings.
It is very clear that Jackson's ruling is not going to be pro-Microsoft.
Nope, it did as almost any large company would do. That does not make it right though. As for whoever said the Judge has a history or anti-MS sentiment, I doubt it but if he did would you blame him? I mean, did you see what MS pulled in his courtroom? Doctoring evidence, lying to him and getting caught, having employees contradicting each other heavily. Please sirs/ma'ams, think for a minute.
These are all FTP links on 10base-T.
findfact.html - findfact.html.gz - findfact.html.bz2
findfact.pdf - findfact.pdf.gz - findfact.pdf.bz2
findfact.wpd - findfact.wpd.gz - findfact.wpd.bz2
All links are on 10base-T.
findfact.html - findfact.html.gz - findfact.html.bz2
findfact.pdf - findfact.pdf.gz - findfact.pdf.bz2
findfact.wpd - findfact.wpd.gz - findfact.wpd.bz2
...we'll get the chance to vote this administration out of federal office next year.
...is really awful. Let's see what's passing for breaking news on CNN:
Big News Item: Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop OS's...duh!
...of the combination of media/law/politics that is such a bad influence on our country these days. It's actually kind of fun to watch, but I can't imagine what people who don't know how to think for themselves are beginning to believe about all of this.
Wired News has it at http://www.wired.com/news/p olitics/0,1283,32361,00.html
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
The one thing that bothers me though, is that free entreprise and Capitalism are supposed to be a system where anybody can make as much money as they want, if their product is superior.
/. can forget the Halloween memos? Was there anything in those memos about competing by offering a better product? Not hardly. Microsoft already lost suit regarding their efforts to embrace and extend Java (where was their better product here?). Today another judge ruled against moves for summary judgement in the Caldera DR-DOS case as well. Was Microsoft competing with DR-DOS by offering a better product? Or were they using their monopoly position to force DR DOS out of the market? I think the facts are obvious.
This suit is not about Microsoft making too much money, or having a monopoly per se. There is no legal restriction on either in the US.
This suit is about Microsoft leveraging its monopoly and money to restrain competition in other areas, in other words to prevent better products from reaching the market. This has been, for good reason, illegal in the US for the last 100 years. It's a policy founded by Teddy Roosevelt when JP Morgan had built a banking, oil and steel monopoly that was so large and powerful that it threatened to supplant the very government. During TR's term in office JP Morgan actually invited TR to discuss how his cartel and the government should share the control of the country. TR fortunately would have none of it, and led a long and bloody fight to protect the free market system from cartels.
Testimony from people like Steve Jobs and Avie Tenavian stating that Microsoft asked Apple to cease developement of Quicktime for Windows on the threat of delaying development of Office for the Mac has nothing to do with Microsoft having a better product, and everything to do with Microsoft using their market position to in fact keep competing and often better products off the market. Who here on
People who are familiar with the Microsoft's rleationship with other technology companies realize that Microsoft has systematically and repeatedly used it's monopoly position in the market to force their customers into all sorts of extremely detrimental business dealings that would have never occurred without a monopoly.
Personally I am greatly in favor of this. I think that Microsoft's position is detrimental to the consumer by keeping innovation out of the market, by promulgating of Microsoft specific standards that choke off open standards and by keeping prices way too high.
I am sure Microsoft is going to fight this tooth and nail - and they should, because it is the way our legal system works best. But in the long run there will be restraints on the way Microsoft manages their monopoly power, regardless of the legal outcome. And those restraints -either government mandated or self-imposed are going to encourage investors to fund a myriad of new ventures, some of which will blossom out of where Microsoft formerly cast its long shadow.
And that will be to the benefit of all of us.
"It is unlikely, though, that a sufficient number of open-source developers will commit to developing and continually updating the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows."
It seems to me that the utter lack of Open Source business applications makes this fact self-evident.
I don't know the details of what you are talking about, but if it is like the ATM stuff I see elsewhere, it seems to me that there is price fixing going on. However I think that long term ATMs will get straightened out.
I know the credit unions are trying to do something about it, and eventually I think that Internet Banks will work out a solution. A number of Internet Banks already offer rebates for ATM fees up to a certain number of uses per month.
for we canuks.....
Anti US stuff isn't goin' anywhere, however,
NAFTA does allow challenges to be handled by a three person tribunal. Perhaps Corel might consider such a challenge given the judge's statement of facts.
We shall see eh?
bobzibub.
OK. Technically they have an 'oligopoly.' This does not change anything.
They still use their market position (monopoly or not) to manipulate other markets to their own benefit.
A market penetration of 90% is very close to 100%. Realistically they could never get *everyone* to switch to their OS.
Governments have a responsibility to the maintenance of markets, and today's events are truely are step in the right direction for free markets.
Many protest that the "government controlling the IT industry" but that is much better than one private company controlling the industry. Gov't control is much weaker than private control in this case.
Cheers all!
Bobzibub.
Please remember that simply *having* a monopoly is perfectly legal. It's the leveraging of that monopoly to destroy competitors, or capture other markets that is illegal.
:>)
This finding of facts only demonstrates that yes, MS is a monopoly. A fact that hasn't been in (serious) dispute for a long time. The judge still has to rule on whether MicroSoft actually broke any laws, and if so, what remedy will be enacted.
While I support remedies to the MicroSoft monopoly because I am convinced they have acted illegally, I think simply "breaking them up" would be disasterous. At least, depending on how it was done.
Break them up along product lines:
Pros:
-Simple.
-May reduce their ability to leverage their monpoly.
Cons:
-Totally ineffective in breaking their monopoly.
Break them up into mirror companies with access to the same initial codebases:
Pros:
-Potentially obviates their monopoly
Cons:
-Doesn't help other competitors such as Linux
-May create market confusion with different, increasingly incompatible versions of Windows
And the other remedies proposed:
Force them to release the source to Windows in a timely and consistent fashion:
Pros:
-Gives "real" competitors such as Linux the ability to interoperate, and thus compete.
Cons:
-Goes against the ideas of capitalism, makes a mockery of intellectual property laws, and generally panics the tech industry.
-Doesn't actually nullify their monopoly.
Force them to release detailed, accurate, timely, advance specs to Office file formats:
Pros:
-100% Interoperability with MS Office would eliminate one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux off of corporate desktops. (usability is something we can take care of without the DOJ's help...
-Helps competitors
-Makes the playing field truly merit-based
Cons:
-Doesn't directly nullify their monopoly
-Probably not possible since the question of Office was never raised as an issue...
Personally, I favor the last option. I'd like to see Linux be able to compete on it's merits rather than against it's flaws. (Subtle difference)
(Support Livid and Linux DVD Movie support -- http://www.mrjoy.com/protest.html for more info)
Jon Frisby, Sr. Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
...using a Microsoft web server for this?
.@.
What tactics has MS used against Linux and other open projects? They can't buy or co-opt them. I suppose that means open computing isn't suceeding. I guess it's time to reinstall Windows, then.
Isn't enslaving a man's company to "the public good" just as much of slavery as owning another man and making him shovel shit for food?
Me thinks your ideas haven't been as well formed as you boast.
Fascism = dictatorship by the rich.
Communism = dictatorship by the {poor|working class|bureaucracy}
Both are immoral and both deprive freedom, and bring forward strict social order, and hierarchisation.
Both the KKK and the (modern) Black Rights movements are forms of tribalism. They do share the idea that identity is determined by race, and not the content of one's ideas.
You still haven't answered how it served me as a consumer to have to buy a copy of Windows that I will never use?
Quit whining! Jesus.
You can buy computers without Windows, as you have admitted. It is not the MS's responsibility to make sure that hardware retailers give you options. It is not the hardware responsibility to make sure you are completly satisfied with their products. If you don't like that they sell Windows with complete systems, you don't have to enter into that contract. If they are selling "Desktop PC with Windows" and you fork over the money, that's what you will get. Other companies are not a slave to your happiness.
Grow up.
What?
How can microsoft "have a oligopoly"? An industry operates in a state of oligopoly -- run by a few.
Also, the statistic used in this case of 90% market penetration was for single-user, desktop pcs, on Intel architecture. The only other operating system that I can think that fits that criteria was OS/2, and to think they hold 10% is rather remarkable.
Besides, single-user Operating systems will be largely irrelevent as more and more computing is done in a networked environment.
1. The federal government should be prohibited from using any Microsoft products. To borrow someone else's format...
Pros:
One of MS's major revenue sources dries up.
Cons:
The taxpayers pay massive costs including time loss during changeovers, costs of retraining personnel, and the like. 2. Do away with all "corporate welfare" benefits for Microsoft.
Pros:
It keeps the libertarian types happy.
Cons:
What are Microsoft's "corporate welfare" benefits, anyway?
It may very well be unconstitutional to do something like this (i.e. to single out a company)
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Well, what this means is what everyone knew before hand if offical now. What I found ammusing is on the microsoft homepage, they have link called 'DoJ vs. Freedom to innovate', as if it was a court case. Gee, perhaps there should be another link somewhere called 'Microsoft vs freedom to compete.'. People may complain that our legal system takes to long, but it does get the job done. Eventualy
"The big question now is exactly what laws were violated, and exactly what the remedies will be."
I am reminded of the following quote from Aliens :
"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"
Oh, err, just kidding!
Chris Morgan
-not advocating violence towards anyone
"most popular word processing format on the planet"
Perhaps closely followed by plain ascii?
My company has standardised on Word I think but I just write my stuff in plain txt or perhaps html. One time someone came to me and asked me how I did the cool bullet points in ascii...
Dude ... those are lower-case 'o's!
o Like this
o And another thing
o etc
Chris Morgan
Hardly.
Instead of a shitty CP/M knock off taking over, CP/M would have enjoyed the rise of the killer micros. After all CP/M is what IBM were after originally. Also so many other interesting possibilities might have happened that your post seems to describe the least likely situation.
Right after the news broke, CNBC announcers were arguing that Microsoft will shortly no longer be in a monopoly position anyway. [uh huh]
They argued that PC sales were flat, mostly replacement, no real innovation happening, and that the real growing markets are in handhelds. If that's the case, then why does anyone expect Windows 2000 to make more money than any other operating system to date?
Look at all the "capitalists" get in a tizzy over this decision. Well, in their world, the stock price is the end-all-be-all and, look, oh my! their shares are WAY down in after-hours trading.
Let the arraignment begin.
P.S. Does anyone have a link to an online version of the document they can post?
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
What can the government *do* to Microsoft? What can they do that would affect the company at all? What can they do that would even help the Open Source people? Is anyone familiar with the possible penalties Justice can inflict?
Let's face it: MS does not have and never had a monopoly on operating systems. The very idea of such a monopoly is ridiculous. They don't have a monopoly on operating systems for Intel computers. They don't even have a monopoly on Windows binary-compatible operating systems (OS/2 ran old windows stuff just fine, and with OS/2-win32 (Odin) has been running win32 stuff usably for a while; never mind WINE).
What they have is just a very popular OS. An unstable, fragmented, crappy OS that has risen to popularity at least in part due to aggressive bundling strategies, but still merely very successfully sold.
I hate MS as much as anyone. I think they use unfair business practices that hurt the consumer and the industry. But there is no monopoly.
You have to ask yourself, do you really want a justice system that is willing to ignore the truth to get the results it wants? Is it okay as long as it's to destroy someone you hate?
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
It's funny because it's true! *rotflmao*
It'll be *really* interesting to see what happens to MSFT stock now that the news is out. Time to sell short, maybe? :-)
Let's see, they had about 35 million shares trade hands today. It looks to be down over 3 points now in after-hours trading, and it's dropping like a rock.
Woohoo!
Jeremy D. Zawodny /
It's only when you use the power inherent in being a monopoly to maintain that monopoly, or establish a monopoly in another market, that a company is commiting an illegal act.
Allow me to quote the Findings of Fact document:
(Emphasis mine...)
It would appear that the judge was already pointing out some of their likely "less than legal" practices here.
Jeremy D. Zawodny /
I believe that the Microsoft lawyers will drag this case out as long as possible. By the time it is over it will no longer relevant.
The IBM case went on for 10 years before the government called it off. By that time IBM's mainframe monopoly was irrelevant. Microsoft has the cash to do this. What do they care how long it takes?
I know the DOJ's site is going to be Slashdotted, so I've set up another mirror:
/ms-findings.pdf
http://www.dynamine.net/microsoft
p.121: 'Just a few days later, Microsoft began
to retaliate in earnest against the IBM PC Company.'
p.241: 'In sum, Microsoft successfully secured for Internet Explorer --
and foreclosed to Navigator -- one of the two distribution channels
that leads most efficiently to the usage of browsing software.'
p.412: 'Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the
computer industry.'
Thomas Penfield Jackson signature
Hats off Judge Jackson, this ruling shows an unprecedentedly deep and analytic understanding of the inner workings of the high-tech world. A must read for everyone!
--Coke
If MS truly is a monopoly, and as such there are no products that pose a competitive threat, what does that say about Linux or *BSD or Solaris? It seems a little difficult to believe the crux of the case, MS being a monopoly, while all of these other fine technologies exist.
I note that you can get the findings in HTML, PDF, and WordPerfect 6 formats. Some popular format seems to be missing, now what could that be...
Don't bet on it. Let MSFT show ONE time, ONE thing that they have done to innovate and help the consumer.....
Just One
I am waiting..
Seee..... Don't bet on it.
I suspect we'll find out you have your head jammed up you ass.
..
/. will have the best commentary on this around, so try to keep the biases as home.)
"Liar, liar. Pants on fire."
Freedom to innovate, my ass. I can't stop smiling. Now let's see how well the courts take it. I know one place you'll see it immediately...Wall Street. From all those "M$ accounting faux paus" comments I gleaned that each point of M$ stock is ~$6,000,000,000. Watch it drop 20 points...
(I'm watching CNBC, and they're just now reading it. I think
JudgeJ also mentioned that M$ made it a "jolting" experience to change browsers, a very big deal to him.
Should be fun to watch, just try not to panic, it's the downfall of the sentient, M$ was down 1-3/4 when I started writing this post, it's down 3-1/6 now. That's in after hours trading. Now they have a guy from caldera talking about Linux, so I'll post this.
I'm partying about this tonite, be safe.
(First "real" Post?)
+&x
II. THE RELEVANT MARKET
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.
Maybe we should lay low for a while....
+&x
..hard at work protecting stock options.
Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to infect non-browsing parts of the system."
this is dead-on. outlook express, melissa, ie5 holes, etc..
Way to stop innovation Judge Jacko.
sorry but that's what JudgeJ said about your boss.
(check this guys user info for a laugh)
+&x
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.
and
19. Consumers could not turn from Intel-compatible PC operating systems to Intel- compatible server operating systems without incurring substantial costs, since the latter type of system is sold at a significantly higher price than the former. A consumer intent on acquiring a server operating system would also have to buy a computer of substantially greater power and price than an Intel-compatible PC, because server operating systems generally cannot function properly on PC hardware.
hmmmm. I guess my media-gx150 web server doesn't exist.
Linux makes these two "findings of fact" incorrect. How bad would it be if Linux helped overturn a ruling?
+&x
that is the part that struck me. If 3 years is the "near future" than this statement is wrong. What's the legal definition of "near future"? Does it move at the speed of e-business!!?!?!*chuckle*
+&x
Very good points, indeed. What has been discussed is that Jackson will sit on this for a while in order to spur settlement talks between the DoJ and Microsoft, as probably nobody wants to deal with years worth of appeals court.
- ------------------
In addition, what people should realize is that even if Microsoft is broken up into separate companies, this is NOT a victory for Linux or OpenSource as people are now chanting "Hurray the wicked witch is dead." Do you think that even if Microsoft *does* lose the suit that people will stop using Windows? Do you think that Microsoft's products will stop dominating the industry? Or do you think that they will stop using unfair business practices? Take a look back to their previous losses against the government. They have lost lawsuits before and have ignored the rulings. It's not over. Not even close. The only real positive outcome here is that if *you* are a developer and you get threatening calls from Microsoft, you can just threaten them back that you will report them. But other than that, it doesn't sound like anything the courts can legally do will change much of anything outside of the infrastructure of the company itself. And granted, that would be a big blow to them, but it is NOT going to take Windows off the desktop, and it certainly isn't going to make the average user turn to Linux instead.
---------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, one of IBM's defense lawyers in their antitrust trial was David Boies, the head attorney on the DoJ's team.- ---------------
------------------------------------------
"For while consumers might one day turn to network
computers, or Linux, or a combination of middleware and some other operating system, as an
alternative to Windows, the fact remains that they are not doing so today. Nor are consumers
likely to do so in appreciable numbers any time in the next few years." - Judge Jackson.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Finally maybe some innovation can be done in the industry again. Its a great day for anyone who wants to develop popular applications and make money.
Go read the ruling. Its solid and well built.
Microsoft has been attacked because they are little more than cheap mobsters. Im sure you are paid well enough by them tho, but you know, some things just arent worth the money.
Now that Microsoft has been declared a Monopoly, will this affect their mass money making?
-PovRayman
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
The point is not whether or not it'll *work* well, it's whether you can *buy* a laptop without paying for windows.
my laptop has run win95, win98, w2k, QNX, linux, BeOS and solaris, but I still had to pay for win95 when I bought it.
dave
I've read through most of the finding of fact and I think this is the best summary of what was found by Judge Jackson (without getting into details):
- For the last 10 years, Microsoft has had 90% or greater of the market share for Intel-based PC operating systems and is a monopoly in that market.
- This market dominance has led many OEMs to pre-install Windows on the PCs they manufacture and has also resulted in a large number of ISVs that develop applications for Windows primarily or exclusively.
- Since ISVs spend more of their time and costs on developing for Windows, they are less likely to develop for other Intel-compatible OS's. This makes the OS's less attractive to a significant number of potential users.
- Microsoft does not determine the price of Windows with regard to competitors products.
- Another Intel-compatible OS's barrier to entry in the market is that Microsoft requires OEMs to not ship computers without pre-installed operating systems. Since many don't sell or see a large market for PCs with non-Windows operating systems, they sell all of their PCs with Windows.
- Applications which Microsoft believes will "commoditize" Windows (Netscape, Java, etc.) suffer a barrier to entry on Windows as shown by Microsoft's marketing tactics, refusal to release programming information, and their own product development outside of the operating system space.
I thought the beginning was one of the most well-written introductions to a legal document since it clearly explained the terminology used. The whole document is written clearly, in my estimation.
I think this has the potential to precipitate a situation in which Microsoft agrees to only sell Windows to consumers directly, and existing PC OEM bundling agreements are voided. In that case, MS would probably be prohibited from bundling any software with computer systems for at least a few years. In fact, a side effect could be a ban on pre-install of any operating system whatsoever on PCs, but I doubt it.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
...when the Federal Government interferes with private enterprise. Down with big brother government! Support free enterprise!
Yes, the government should not interfere with the workings of the market.
Like when they made the Louisiana Purchase.
Or when they offered huge land deals to spur the development of the railroads.
Or funded the development of the stored program electronic computer.
Or bankrolled the creation of the Internet.
Government isn't needed for these things because capital is always willing to sacrifice near term gain on the chance that that sacrifice will enhance the welfare of the people ten from now or even longer.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It depends on what market you are talking about.
NT doesn't have anything like a monopoly in the server and very high end workstation market. They are trying to use their desktop dominance as a beachhead from which to extend their power into the server market. They've done so successfully in the workgroup level arena, but have been stymied by the fact they don't have a very good product for enterprise level work. Likewise their dominance in the workgroup level market is seriously threatened by free OSs.
However, economically, they clearly have a lock on the desktop. I'd like to develop my software for Linux, but reality says that I can't make a living selling desktop clients on Linux yet (although I will probably migrate the back end to Postgres in the near future), because every place I go in the business world has Windows 95/98.
I think that MS is losing a critical battle today, though. Mindshare.
Two years ago, if you talked to some straight laced corporate MIS type, he would not consider anything but Microsoft except for certain large server applications where he _might_ consider Unix. He probably also had a legacy Novell network but was expecting MS to steamroller Novell any day. The basic feeling was that it was only a matter of time before MS owned everything. People would tell me that Novell was faster and easier to manage, but they wanted to get off before MS crushed Novell.
A year ago, MS lost critical mindshare to Linux in the small server arena. Free software solves many licensing and management headaches. The MIS types weren't going to Linux in droves, but they were aware of Linux and how its licensing solved many problems they had. They weren't prepared to go with Linux because of training costs, but it did destroy the idea that MS would crush all in the server world. This also benefits Novell, because MS looks a lot less invincible.
Today, when I talk to the MIS types, there is a growing awareness that Linux could perform a lot of missions. People aren't embracing it yet because of training costs, but it has credibility. There's a feeling that while it is not there yet, it will evolve as a serious alternative to MS products which will benefit even people who standardize on MS products because of competition.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
From what I read on /. earlier in the week, MS mostly fund their development by issuing shares to employees and then having the punter pay for them as they increase in capital value (gross oversimplification).
If MS share price takes a dive because of this, as it naturally should, this must have a huge magnifying effect!
The market value of shares issued to employees last year was _billions_ more than their annual profit. If many of those people decide to bail, they're f**cked.
I know if I had MS shares I'd be flogging them post-haste, and damn the price I get, because their whole share price is a house of cards, with a gasoline burner at the bottom...
Andrew.
I think the subject says it all.
"I don't like this deep shit about crazy crap"
I will laugh so incredibly hard when EVERY Government server running NT gets cracked tommorow. I can just imagine Bill getting really pissed, and using that NSA_key to his advantage.
.sig
matisse:~$ cat
MSNBC has already fired off a story about how a breakup would be a Good Thing(tm).
http://www.msnbc.com/news/331815.asp
All the more reason the just fine M$ for a few tens of billions of $$$, and give it to the competition.
M$ one of America's best companies? Then you must think John Gotti is one of America's best businessmen.
Is this the record for the worst first post ever.
Linux is not a competitor of Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT/2000. This is a bad analogy. (Okay, I'm ranting now!) Linux is nothing like Windows and it was never meant to be. Linux is a solid kernel. Windows is an operating system with window manager with web browser all shoved into one annoying product. (Okay, I'll stop ranting-damnit)
Most major computer retailers sell Microsoft Windows XX with Microsoft Office or Microsoft Windows NT with Microsoft IIS and Microsoft Backoffice and Microsoft Internet Explorer.
See the problem here?
If M$ is broken up, then you'll have Microsoft AppWare's Office, Microsoft OSes' NT, Microsoft Web's IIS--and they can't share information or employees with each other. In other words, they will have to compete as individual companies. They cannot offer package deals together. So, maybe we'll see more competition and more variation in configurations on WinTel machines. Like, how about NT with a Domino server, or Linux with IIS, or Free BSD with Office.
Competition improves product quality. The more competition M$ has, the more they will have to improve their product. Without Windows, we would not have KDE or GNOME for the wonderful, kick-ass OS known as Linux!
I think IE IS better than Netscape. It is faster, more stable, handles Java, Javascript and VBScript fairly well--better than Netscape Communicator for sure in these areas. I like IE on the Mac better as well as on Windows.
(Microsoft doesn't do everything wrong #:-]
> They're more than capable of FUD'ing an economy without a
/threat/ of panic M$ could use to prevent some of the more drastic proposals.
> full-strength Microsoft to Congress.
This is part of what worries me about MSFT having just been included in the Dow. While yes, there were three other new companies included, and yes, there is a corrective factor, if MSFT takes a plunge, who knows what sort of panic it could incite -- or what sort of
Then again, I'd been considering shorting MSFT for a while, and would have if I'd had any spare cash. ^_~
While the UXes are quite viable (and preferable) in the server market, WINTEL dominates the desktop market. I don't think even the hardcore slashdotters think that Linux will dominate the desktop in the next few years.
- bridgette
"Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products"
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, but if you have a monopoly and use your position to mainain a monoploly, then that's a crime. I doubt that the judge would make so strong a statement if he wasn't pretty confident. After all, he could have said that MS is capable of using it's position, instead of saying that MS has demonstrated that it will use it's position.
But this still could drag on forever ...
- bridgette
It wasn't released in Word format because the judge has a monopoly on releasing it...heh.
In the early 90s (when MS established most of their market dominance), OS/2 and WordPerfect did indeed cost the prices I quoted. OS/2 didn't even include TCP/IP -- that was an extra $300.
OS/2 Warp 3 (the red boxed edition) came out around Sept 1995 with an internet access kit for $99. Warp Connect with TCP/IP (the blue boxed edition) came out soon after for $149.
At that point DOS 7/Windows 4, ummm... I mean Windows 95 was just MS marketing vapor. Windows 3.1 did not come with a TCP/IP stack and you had to either pay for a full-featured stack or use a stripped-down version from an internet book. Do us a favor and don't go around spreading FUD...
--
A man who wants nothing is invincible
The bottom line is what happens to consumers. The judge has concluded emphaticly that the consumer was HARMED..... Oh the pain! Broken Windows harms consumers. Everything from the boot sequence, to Quicktime, Java, Navigator has a pattern of predation! Down goes the stock!!!
There are no absolutes.
Oh, nonsense. Microsoft - one of America's best companies? In whose eyes? Microsoft uses its competetive edge to slam other companies, to lock out competition, and to monopolize the desktop software industry. And you find this a good thing? You're the one who is sick.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
I don't know if I qualify as a "pseudo-libertarian", but I'll pipe up anyway.
First, let me state for the record that I dislike Microsoft a lot -- I use Linux almost exclusively at home (until Battlezone plays under Linux, I'm forced to keep Windows around). I think Windows is buggy as hell, and I agree with much of Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" logic. I want very much to see Microsoft's market share get lost to Linux (or some other open operating system).
That said, I am very uncomfortable about the prospect of the government coming in and using its monopoly powers (police powers) to in some way diminish Microsoft's market share (which is what any DOJ verdict would boil down to). I realize that this finding of fact is not a final verdict, but it does suggest what the outcome will be. I urge /. readers to consider that a wrong act does not become acceptable just because the victim of the wrong act is disliked. While it may be nice to hear of bad things happening to Microsoft, wouldn't it be nicer if it occured because people decided on their own that an alternative to Windows is better?
The use of government power to diminish Microsoft's role should not be gratifying to us, even if we intensely dislike the target of that power.
I guess I can get down off my soapbox now, and get back to work.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
What has Microsoft done that Netscape and Sun have not (or would not have if not given the chance)? Scott McNealy would be Bill Gates if given half a chance (and the DOJ is insisting that Scott be given that chance).
I don't see how your Great Grandfather's story justifies the antitrust laws. Besides being irrelevant to antitrust matters, this story only seems to suggest that people will help out without the need for government sticking its snout in the matter.
As far as government being "us", it certainly isn't "me" -- no one I've ever voted for has ever been elected (I have a perfect record in that regard). Seriously -- democracy may be a lot better than the other authoritarian forms of government that have plagued humanity, but I think that people are mistaken to assume that the will of the majority can be interpreted as correct (morally or otherwise).
But what would I know, as you point out, I'm only a "clueless libertarian."
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
no, it shows how out of touch you are. while fringe may not be quite the right word, linux is certainly not a mainstream os at this point in time. Fact is, while it's a nice choice for a small server, it has a long, long, long, long, long way to go in usability. And frankly, if you put philosophical issues aside, bsd is generally the better choice anyway. Don't get me wrong, I like linux as much as the next slashdotter, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe some day, but not today.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Well, maybe I'm the exception, but I can't consider an os mainstream until my mom can use it. She has enough trouble w/ the mac os (but she's getting better, just needs more practice). I can't imagine putting her in front of a command line. commercial software is starting to appear for linux, but that's simply because the geek community is larger than previously thought. And just how long has RailRoad Tycoon II been available for the PC? This is an honest question, I'm not a gamer.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
For the record, I've used KDE and it isn't bad, certainly far superior to gnome. But I think that a lot of people here under-estimate just how many people are absolutely terrified of computers. KDE by itself is fairly user-friendly, although somethings, such as multiple desktops can really confuse a beginner. One of the things about ease-of-use is that it can't be tacked on as an afterthought, a product has to be desigened from the ground-up with ease-of-use in mind. If Linux is serious about going head-to-head with microsoft for the desktop, it needs to learn this lesson. Again, think about the mom test. Ask yourself: Is it something that my mom could use?
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Did anyone else notice that the finding was posted in every format exept MS Word? Interesting.
Wait, is it my imagination, but in that video feed from M$, did Bill Gates just take credit for the GUI?
"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," Jackson wrote.
It is *OUR* job to create the competitive market. In a way this should be seen as a failing on our behalf to create enough killer apps for our alternative operating systems. We've already voted with our feet by choosing other-than-M$ products - but we have to make these operating systems an alternative for OTHER PEOPLE, as well as ourselves.
Speaking as someone who has just finished the NT Core Technologies course this week; Microsoft has a legitimate product in NT, it is something I understand much better now. However, even the course instructor pointed out that Microsoft was using NT to hammer the opposition. Much of the course focused on Novell integration - to the point of replacing NetWare servers. Maybe W2K will focus on Linux integration...?
insignificant sig
Personally, since I know the media will be obsessing over this all weekend, I'd recommend buying some MSFT at a nice cheap price late Monday or most of Tuesday.
Me, I'm buying a townhouse and then selling my house, so I'm all invested for now.
Will in Seattle
Since we're dealing in Internet Time, which is already accepted as a legal concept, that means the penalty phase will commence in about 16 months of clock time, which is 10 years in Internet Time.
Will in Seattle
Note that he did not merely find that Microsoft was a monopoly, but that Microsoft is a monopoly that is using it's monopoly power to harm competition. That's significantly worse than just being a monopoly.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
The judge restricted the area that Microsoft was to be judged as a monopoly to "Intel Desktop Boxes".
Mac OS doesn't run on Intel.
Linux is mostly run on servers (according to Judge J)
So, according to what he was judging, he was correct.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Read the finding of facts, it appears that Judge J is actually supprisingly clueful as far as O/S tech goes. He manages to correctly discribe three or four things that I would have expected him to screw up.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
No, that's ``wrong'' as in morally wrong. The Sherman Antitrust Act is arbitrary law.
http://microsoft.aynrand.org/
http://www.moraldefense.com/microsoft/
I dislike Microsoft and its products, (and haven't used any in the past few years, IIRC), but this
case is a disgrace for me, as an American.
Yah, if you can't attack the ideas, attack the bearer of them.
> I don't suppose you actually bothered to check
> out Mike Huben's criticisms of Ms. Rand, did you
> (the link Jafac posted)?
If I had said ``Rand was a swell person'', then Jafac's response would have been apropriate. I'm talking about antitrust -- however did the subject of a dead author arise?
Finally something that makes sense.
Point well taken: breaking up M$ probably won't accomplish anything good and may well have bad overall results. If they become several divisions each of which still has a market stranglehold, nothing is accomplished.
As has been pointed out, BEING a monopoly is not a problem -- it's ENFORCING a monopoly that is a very definite no-no.
If M$ can be stopped from anti-competitive practices, that will allow would-be competitors a FAIR CHANCE to gain a market foothold (remember, you can't fairly GUARANTEE anyone said foothold!) and normal economics will deal with M$ in due course, in whatever way it earns for itself.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You want a choice eh? Well, choose anything other than windows, and all the apps you list (your husbands graphics, kids games, blah blah blah) - it all won't run because its not Windows. So what the hell do you want to happen? No one can pull miracles out of their ass. I hate it more than anything when people complain about OS choice but all they really want is Windows and the Windows Apps they are currently using. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! A Windows binary-compatible alternative OS won't happen since Windows = Microsoft! OBVIOUSLY. If you want to have another OS, you WILL have to SUFFER with the consequences of switching all your current windows comfort to brand new, "uncharted territory", if you will. You had to learn Windows in the first place, I'm sure you can learn Linux in the second place.
PS: You're quite the coward to post anonymously such a post as you did. Come on, give us your email address, or are you afraid of the big net boogeyman?
** Send replies/notification to tookycat@bigfoot.com too **
Yeah you're right. No OS should have 90% because it would be too easy for apps to be written once, and run everywhere. Kind of like Windows is now. I can write an app and take it to work, my friends house, or my girlfriend's house adn it runs 100% of the time, I dont have to recompile any libraries and I dont have to download anything most times. (Certainly if it is a Java app with VM req's or certain MSVCRT DLLs but I wrote code that runs on base Windows 95).
But hell, screw that. Who cares about actually running the apps, when it is clear that allowing many big corporations to remain profitable is the priority.
> To my fellow slashdotters I ask the following: If you are worried about microsoft products constraining your
> choices, do you trust the government to act on your behalf and increase *your* available choices?
You're forgetting something - open source isn't limited to the US of A. If your government suddenly turns repressive and rules Red Hat a monopoly and kills it, SUSE will still be going strong.
The nature of open source is that if it is repressed in one location, it can easily pack up and set up shop in another, less hostile locale. Witness what will probably happen with DeCSS.
>before we get all slashdot-a-riffic about how Microsoft sucks
I agree. It is just a step in a long journey. Just like all of the tobacco trials.
>People generally are no longer going to be viewing Microsoft as the warm fuzzy company that it is in the minds of many ignorant Americans, as a result of this Finding of Fact.
Actually I think that the general public will not care as much.
Being a monoploy is not "evil" or "wrong" in it self. Remember, Major League Baseball is a legalized monopoly. (If I remember correctly.) Also, AT&T went through the same thing, got split into the Baby Bells and individually in their own markets they are still a powerful force. There is even talk about some of them merging back together again.
Standard Oil got split up in the 20s-30s(?) into Exxon and a bunch of other oil companies. They are still around today, throwing around their weight.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
>(In other words: it's already happened)
Bah. I'm Canadian. Thanks for the correction.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Act, law; *shrug*--lawyers pretty much split the difference between what they call it.
At any rate, the hundred year old law still applies today, albeit in a modified form. (The Sherman act has been modified several times since it's first passage in 1890 for use against the railroads.)
The fact of the matter is I don't necessarly want Microsoft to go down in flames. But had you actually read the finding, you'd find that the principle thing Microsoft has been accused of is doing everything in their power to prevent the development of cross-platform "middleware" APIs which reduce the cost to port software from one operating system to another operating system. That's the core of the finding, by the way--a point which many commentators on the Internet have apparently missed.
Had Microsoft not acted in the manner they did (by doing everything they could to suppress or destroying any technology which would reduce the cost to port software from one platform to another), who knows where we would be today.
Also, let me note that had you actually read the finding of fact, you'd realize that Microsoft is being taken to task on a very narrow fundamental point. The Judge apparently had no problem with Microsoft developing a monopoly; only with using that monopoly to destroy innovation in the cross-platform middleware market. It strikes me as highly unlikely that this very narrow finding could possibly affect free enterprise, innovative solutions, or true genius--unless you believe spending millions to develop anti-competitive interlocking relationships in order to destroy Netscape and Sun's Java technology, as well as wiping out Intel's IAL group and their NSP software is "free enterprise", "innovative" or "true genius."
I'll be interested to see some sort of analysis of the web comments in reply to this event both here and in news groups (and yahoo where I had a look).
Given the nature of the event and the previous history of web spin (eg the blair witch thing and the other MS thing) I think looking at the web reaction could be the really interesting story here, even if there was no spin.
Sorry to post again, but I'm getting a good laugh as I read through the message board in reply to this issue at yahoo. Although there are a variety of comments (including some negative ones) there seems to be a real Bill Love fest going on.
_ Antitrust_Trial/
Or is this what america really thinks about MICROS~1 ?
http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Microsoft
Why should MS be punished? Microsoft - the group of thousands of employees - is not at fault here. Bill G, Stephen Ballmer (?) and other top executives are the ones who orchestrated and directed these abuses of monopoly power, while hiding behind the legal fiction that "it wasn't us, it was that [imaginary] guy over there: his name is 'Microsoft Corporation'".
Breaking MS up into separate companies will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; no more bundling of Office with Windows -- they must be purchased separately.
Levying a huge fine against MS will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; business costs are *always* passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. If this were not the case, then earnings would decline and the stockholders would get annoyed, and top brass would lose their cushy jobs. (Nice catch-22 here: "Let's punish MS for illegal monopolistic business practices that have increased consumers' costs" -- end result is even *higher* prices!!)
My solution: make Bill G and friends *personally* liable for the illegal business actions they have orchestrated. (Yes, illegal: Judge Jackson's findings of fact indicate that MS is a monopoly. Monopolies must abide by the regulations imposed by the Sherman Act. MS has not done so -- that's illegal)
Make Bill G and friends liable, then sit back and watch the fun: business lawsuits, class action suits, breach-of-contract suits...and the best part is, the only folks who get hurt are the inDUHviduals who have hindered competition, artificially inflated prices, stifled innovation, and plundered the wallets of the computing public for the past 15 years.
That's cause it is a fringe operating system. Most people have never heard of Linux. Almost everyone has heard of Macs. Warp was too dead before computers became "popular" so most people don't know about it either.
Very true, but that's the affect Linux zealots have on people. A few bad apples ruin the barrel, and a few Linux zealots whining about "M$" give Linux a bad name. Hell, I wrote a whole little essay on it here
He states, "...we continue to add features on an ongoing basis..."
Hehe... "features"
And yet I have to say this is a horrible decision.
Frankly, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Except in the last two decades, even anti-trust proponents have definied a monopoly as being one company being the sole provider of a service in a given market. Lately, some people have been trying to redefine it as "having more market share than we like you having". Sorry, that's cheating. Windows does not have a monopoly even in the very narrowly defined market that the judge decided to consider: "Intel-compatible PC operating systems". (Leaving aside just how arbitrary it is to define PCs very broadly at the beginning of the document, then suddenly say the relevent market is this particular subset of that larger market. Or that he uses MacOS as an example, even though it's supposedly not even in the same market.) There're the various DOS clones, Linux, the *BSDs, BeOS, EROS, QNX, and any of the other less-well-known OSes out there. These aren't a bunch of piddly, meaningless OSes, except maybe EROS - MEGABUCKS are being sunk into Linux, for one, and many of the others dominate over Windows or any other OS in their own niches. This judge is completely off when he talks about lack of commercial viability. And if you even consider the other PC architectures, this becomes more obvious. (And if "PowerPC-based personal computers" is a market, Apple is a LOT closer to being a monopoly than MS.)
Now everyone froths and complains because, c'mon, MS has such a gigantic share in this sub-market, it has a monopoly. Remember, that isn't the definition! You can get other OSes for your computer. They may not be as popular, they might not have as many applications, but they exist. People may not like Microsoft, but it currently having the lion's share of popular applications and users doesn't make it criminal or anything - but the market leader. While people may not like a fairly weak OS like Windows being the leader, Microsoft in no way forces them not to use another, better OS. Windows 98 and NT are two of the best advertisments for Linux around. (Of course, I'm using "forces" in the "making people act against their will," sense, not the "darnit, there's no Linux version of Word/FrontPage/Rainbow 6, so if I want to run it, I will need MS Windows," sense.)
It's not even hard to get another OS. I see more Linux distros in computer magazines than I see AOL cds, nowadays! If Windows was being distributed that way, people would freak. Anyone can pick up System Commander or Partition Magic (with its multi-OS booting program) at the local software store if Lilo makes them squeamish.
Of course, people (and this judge) complain about "network effects" - most applications are written for Windows. Therefore you can't use every application you might want if you run a non-MS OS. The reasoning is that this hurts the consumer since it "locks them in" to Windows. As I'm watching more and more companies release versions of their software for Linux (you know, that commercially nonviable fringe phenomenon that the judge scoffs at - aren't you glad the Red Hat guys didn't have to go to him for venture capital?), I wonder how anyone can buy this argument. Apparently, porting software isn't as arduous a task for companies as the judge thinks if there's money to be made in doing it. (And this completely ignores the possibility of people dual- or multi-booting their computers and therefore making OS selection NOT an exclusive purchase.)
Even in the absence of widespread application porting, even in a world where you somehow couldn't get decent office software (including many that can read MS Office files) anywhere but on Windows, Microsoft is guilty of nothing. Last time I checked, there wasn't a constitutional right to WYSIWYG word processing software (which wasn't even invented for Windows). If MS had the only OS that ran such software, either buy it or do without.
By now, I've made it clear I don't think MS is a monopoly. I'm not so sure the judge completely thinks so, either:
This is one of the classic dangers of a monopoly, according to antitrust theory. It does makes sense: it's a simple supply/demand issue - if there's no competition, one can usually afford to raise prices for a product, often to a very high level. One thing I wonder, though...why isn't it happening? Windows is one of the cheapest commercial OSes out there. The upgrade version of Win98 is less than a hundred dollars, pre-tax. Even the non-upgrade version is cheaper than some commercial Linux distributions you see in software stores. Where's the brutal price hike if MS really has a monopoly? Surely people aren't going to tell me that big, bad MS, after supposedly gaining total power over users, is being nice?
And what "power" does MS have over the industry, anyway?
FUD? MS definitely has the best marketing and propaganda systems of any OS maker. Even the fanatical bent of Linux and Mac evangelism doesn't compare to the slick, sometimes devious, and (let's be honest, here's the real difference) well-executed public relations machine Microsoft has. Now, where Microsoft engages in deception and fraud, I'm right with you in leading Billy to the gallows. (And no, I'm not some MS flunky who thinks making a post bound to be moderated down to -8 in this climate will help the company...) But that's not the majority of MS's efforts, and truth will always out lies. How many people really buy the Mindcraft numbers?
Arm-twisting? Well, Microsoft has made agreements with a lot of PC makers so that they will sell only or mostly MS Windows-equiped computers. Not two of the three dominant ones, (Dell and Compaq, IIRC, now offering Linux boxes) though. If you don't buy that people and companies have a right to make agreements and contracts, I'm not going to try to argue with you. This is an old principle in our society, though...Nor, as I've hinted with my examples, has it prevented large PC makers from breaking from the mainstream (or smaller makers from selling only Linux systems).
Paying off the government? Microsoft is only in this mess because it hasn't paid off the government - pardon me, "shown societal responsibility and unselfishness by making large political contributions to officials with connections in the justice department".
Well, I think I've said what was on my mind. I'll be downright flattered if I can still read it after the moderators sense not-sufficiently-anti-MS sentiment. (This being different from "Pro-MS" sentiment. I like freedom and free markets. Microsoft stinks. Microsoft is the free market advocate's equivalent to the KKK for free-speech advocates.)
I disagree and am rather offended. If you want to take personal responsibility for our corrupt, ridiculous, even malevolent government, fine. Just don't drag me into this - I voted libertarian.
MacOS. If you go beyond what's preloaded, you also can find Red Hat, Caldera, and SUSE distributions usually placed fairly prominently in the software department.
Please tell me you don't believe that McDonalds cooks fries in vegetable oil. :)
Yes, and be sure to ignore the companies that sell x86 linux boxes (and laptops!). They're just inconvenient facts.
Even if 90% or more of consumers WANT that OS?
Nah, you're right, screw consumer choice.
Except this "warlord" doesn't go around killing and enslaving...it gives people and companies who choose to do so products, in exchange for freely given money. Interesting definition of a warlord.
Yes, those Microsoft Secret Police guys who beat and torture people for using Linux or Macs are a royal pain in the butt.
Definitely not, which is why libertarians think the government establishing AT&T as a legally enforced monopoly was a bad thing in the first place.
No, companies like that have existed for rather a while, and long before Linux was a semi-household word.
God, I hope Linux is *never* on 99% of desktops. Haven't you learned a fscking thing from all of this?
Hey oh really note the formats they use to allow the user to see the documents pdf and wordperfect
doing the non-micropest thing
Down with big brother government!
Yes, private corporation are only concerned about the well being of the consumers. They know better than us what is good for us. Bill Gate is our holy leader.
Down with big brother government!
Yes, private corporations are only concerned about the well being of the consumers. They know better than us what is good for us. Bill Gate is our holy leader.
Sheesh! You're reading way too much into quote marks. I think that was intended as headline shorthand, just to say that the judge ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly.
.... Best, Alan Boyle, MSNBC
I hope we are reporting the story as well and as fairly as anybody... But that's for y'all to decide. Let us know
--
-=DaveHowe=-
"november 5, all linux zealots have simultaneous orgasm"
You can listen to Microsoft's response to the outcome by dialing 1-800-934-7969. I am listening to it right now so I can't really give a good analysis of it, but it is interesting so far.
:wq
The fact is Micros~1 got in trouble for wiping out their commercial competition in the Web browser market, e.g. Netscape. MS did that deliberately, with malice, purely to gain control of another industry. They suceeded, but they did so with an obvious disregard for the law.
I'm sure they looked at is as a calculated risk, e.g. "We can convince the judge that the browser is just part of the OS." Well, they didn't suceed, and now they are going to be punished for it. While I'll hate to see the clumsy, hamfisted way the government is going to handle this, I don't particularly feel sorry for MS.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
No, no it isn't. Or at least not in the desktop environment. Server side, it's fine and is gaining ground, but I still don't want to setup a linux box for mom and pop.
"Tax preparation software eliminates errors your[SIC] may make...." From IRS home page.
While I think most people here will agree that Linux is a superior OS to Winderz, in the end, the average desktop user dosn't care. They generally know little about computers, and will simply use what 'Joe next door' is using. Unfortunately, that is not likely to be Linux.
I remember reading just once that Judge Jackson has the authority to accelerate any appeals process directly to the Supreme Court, short circuiting any delay tactics.
Does anyone have an insight to the probability of this, and what the practice might mean judicially?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
"You have to look to the fringes to see where the center is going." - Stewart Brand I personally hope GNU/Linux/Open Source never goes entirely mainstream. Most of the computer using public have pretty mundane interests.
"Classic UFO's
Hope I did this fast enough
Yes, yes, I know what it says later on. The judge does indeed strongly imply that he's going to rule against Microsoft.
Regardless, it's not a verdict yet, and it's just NOT over until the verdict is rendered.
IE: Don't get too comfortable yet -- there's still room for the unexpected to happen.
I hope everyone is buying Puts (sell options) on MS, the price dropped 5% in after hours trading and will be going lower as the judgement sinks in. And for anyone who has not followed the case closely heres a link to all the relevant material on The Register showing how Judge Jackson came to his inevitable conclusion :-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/981020-000020.html
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
freedom = slavery
ignorance = truth
war = peace
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Actually, if I buy a computer from most any computer vendor, I am forced to pay for Windows *even if I never ever use it*.
Here is a quote from the finding of facts doc, section 58:
One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed.
In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction.
What the hell is that? MS is saying in effect, "Either you buy our licenses for all the PC's you sell, or we charge you the same amount for fewer licenses."
That alone should be grounds for Monopolistic practices.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Bill's having a hard time trying to see the bright side of all this. But at least he can use this as an excuse when W2K doesn't ship in Feb 2000.
Microsoft deserves what it gets. If they played fairly in the beginning they would neither have gotten so large as they are and certainly wouldn't now be in the situation their in now. So what if Microsoft is broken up or suffer major penalties,
it isn't enough for me until their severly crippled. Now if the goverment tried to damage the GNU movement and Linux then i would be screaming bloody murder. As for all those microsoft supporters you should really think of the benifits of competition. Would you rather have the best Software available to you or simply a brand name.
Any judgement against Microsoft will result in them lobbying Congress to nullify the courts decision "in the interests of the American People".
Lobbying can't save them from the hole they're in now unless Congress passes a law that repeals the Sherman Act and makes it retroactive to 1986. That would require some hellacious lobbying, the likes of which none of us have ever seen.
What we're likely to see is Microsoft pull the string on the politicians it has attempted to buy (and in the case of Senator Slade from Washington, has successfully bought) and have them denounce the finding of fact and the subsequent finding of law that will determine how Judge Jackson wants to treat MS's monopoly status. A lot of noise will ensue but it won't matter much.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
All over the news they are saying that a breakup of Microsoft might have negative implications on the tech industry.
Duh! This is only all happening because Microsoft HAS been a big negative on the tech industry. It is really sickening, pay attention to what they are all saying.
This is only another example of Microsoft's power and deception filtering through the news.
My opinion is that breaking Microsoft up would only be a short-term solution. A breakup and strict supervision by the government might do it.
EC
EverCode
Oh my God!
I do not know if you intended that to be funny, but given the thread and the actions of Microsoft, that struck me as absolutely hilarious!
--Rae
Blah I can't get my sig to work, it won't fit.
But nothing in this universe, except perhaps the deity, is perfect,
I don't know. I was sitting here, thinking that fireants were perfect.
Fireants:
Sting the hell out of anything that poses a threat. *
Eat anything that tastes sweet. (any creature that knows the value of sugar is fine by me)
Feed and protect their larvae.
Recognize the needs of the community above the needs of any individual - eradicating the concept of greed.
Sacrifice their very lives on order to protect the community.
Recognize one queen, who can reproduce with or without fertilization (although a fertilization is required to create a fertile male) - thus denying the existence of vanity, and lust.
Carry many times their own weight.
*do only one thing, and do it well. And boy do they do it well.
Some posters seem to assume, as if it were some kind of law of nature, that anything the government does is inherently incompetent and unethical; and that whatever happens in the market is by definition exactly what's best for everyone. So they infer from this that the DOJ, the judge and the legislatures that wrote the anti-trust laws are just wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter what they've done or how they've done it; and that any remedy they seek againt Microsoft, whatever it may be, will be a certain and automatic disaster.
But that's just as ideological and extreme as the assumption that the government is always right and big business is always bad. To be sure, government has blundered in astonishing ways many times, and markets do indeed tend to serve consumers very efficiently. But nothing in this universe, except perhaps the deity, is perfect, and so neither are markets. And especially in a democracy, a government is obliged to do what's best for its citizens, and undoubtedly most people working in government take that obligation very seriously. At least some of them are likely to be good at it, too.
This is a time when the government has done exactly what is must do to serve the interests of its citizens. The anti-trust laws are there to address one of the flaws in that imperfect thing called the market -- namely that monopolies can arise, who can stifle the competition that is exactly what ought to make markets so beneficial to everyone. Microsoft could hardly have been a more brazen violator of those laws. If they were never prosecuted, then we might just as well have taken the Sherman act off the books and given Bill Gates a cabinet seat as Secretary of Software. If anything, the government's error lied in waiting so long to bring the suit -- they should have done it ten years ago.
The DoJ, in particular the Anti-Trust Division and especially Joel Klein and David Boies, deserve great praise for what they've accomplished. If they can end the fear and intimidation created by Microsoft, they may have helped bring along a huge boom in competition in the software industry. (People keep saying it's booming already. Which is true, but I think you ain't seen nothin' yet.) Let's leave the ideological prejudices behind and give credit whare it's due.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Can you see me grin?
It's so nice to see you pro-MS Cowards showing up in force; even if you're only very few but busy and noisy nevertheless. Your presence, and behaviour, here makes it delightfully clear that the tables have turned and overnight you've become the freaks behind the window, the weirdos that just can't let go. Every post by a pro-MS Coward makes my grin wider.
While you're praying gods (or is there a monopoly in your "heaven" as well?), my thoughts are with the brave young women and men who saw what the computing world was becoming like and selflessly set out to build a platform that would be open and free for everyone. A world without bullies and extortion, with mutually beneficial sharing of knowledge and human resources that transcends national boundaries and financial barriers between the developing and developed countries. Hey all you Linux developers and users round the globe, consider yourselves HUGGED!
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I was just browsing through the text of the official document and comments on slashdot.
I noticed a couple people saying, "Isn't Linux a competitor?"
If I may do so, I'd like to point out that in the document it uses the terminology to the effect of:
"no firm produces reasonable competing operating systems, and the barrier for entry into said market is excessively high."
Since there is no one firm that produces Linux, it's considered a hobbyist type thing, because its really hard to dissect competition between free software and proprietary, since they operate on a completly different business model.
Be that as it may.
The Court may have left Linux out of the equation because it:
a) superflously complicates things
b) the Judge/Court may not fully understand it role in things
c) at the time this whole thing began, Linux really hadn't began its jump into the 'mainstream spotlight,' if you will.
I think this is A Good Thing(tm), not just on the basis that "we" don't like Microsoft, but because it really does help business restructure itself to be a little more beneficial to the consumer. Just like when AT&T broke up, it didn't really flat out punish the company, it was more like a restructure that was a little more fair to you and I, the consumer. Same with Standard Oil, et al.
It's kind of an evolutionary cycle, business conglomorate and group together and then have to be split up, then begin to gravitate back together again. You can just see that happening now, with some of the petroleum companies becoming monstrous again, with the recent Exxon-Mobil merger.
Heh, its kind of like that silver robot from the second Terminator movie. You break it up, and it just melds back together again.
Anyway, you get the idea. Feel free to email me.
rhartjr@lycosmail.com
kaniff -- Ralph Hart Jr
Now there is an insightful statement. Do you mind if i use it?
Bob
Jesus, how long has this damn trial been going on? I'm sure Judge Jackson has picked up a few things about this technology. Also keep in mind this is a monopoly case. At the vary least, he has tried cases to fall back on (att and stand. oil) to act as a guide. I shouldn't have to buy a totally different architecture just so i can use my beloved Linux (or whatever, BSD, Warp (ha!), Be). I can buy a barebones desktop w/o an OS. Unfortunately, notebooks do not lend themselves very well to being open spec. These companies, for the most part, do not have "options" available to those of us who would prefer not to have a M$ operating system. So I have to pay 200 to 400 more dollars to purchase said machine, when I would have put Linux on it. That sux. Were not talking about punishing success here. M$ has disallowed computer manufacturers to bundle any other OS with their hardware, if they are gonna sell any one peice w/ Win9x or NT. Those are the illegal tactics that the DOJ are targeting. BTW, did anyone read that Bill Parish article a few days ago (here) on Slashdot? Thats a whole other concern we should have about M$.
Bob
Today is a sad day for the freedom of individuals and companies to pursue their goals in a free market.
It's a sad day for anyone who has hopes of developing an innovative company with vast customers.
The most successful company in all of history -- the company whose products are more widely used by people all over the world in many different industries has been attacked because of its success.
Yes, I use linux. Yes, I still defend Microsoft. No, that's not a contradiction.
See www.moraldefense.com and microsoft.aynrand.org if you want to know why.
Well, at least this should put put an end to the 'linux vs. windows' debate once and for all... It appears that the judge found linux to be a fringe operating system that will not overtake windows in the next few years... Good to know that I can now recommend NT wholeheartedly; after all, it has been proven superior in court... :)
It's called "astroturfing". Get used to it.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
--
No OS should have a 90% or more market share. Period.
So now can we sue the United States for having a monopoly on world politics, international affairs, and the world's economy? I bet we could make a sustantial case...
OFTC: By the community, for the community
And in a pre-recorded statement from Bill Gates today, he mentioned twice being more than willing to "resolve" the problem, as he says, 'for the benefit of Microsoft, the governement, and the consumer'. It would seem that Gates has weakened his hard-core 'we were only trying to innovate' view of the government's case, and that Microsoft is more likely to take a slap on the wrist rather than risk continuting the suit.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
We all know Microsoft is a monopoly (just look at the percentages). No surprise in Jackson acknowledging this fact. The deeper question is, to be considered in anti-trust, has Microsoft leveraged this monopoly in markets other than the OS?
Yeah, they are likely to be found guilty as charged, but it is not over till the fat lady sings.
Sreeram.
Just an excerpt from the document that specifically addresses the Linux issue viz. competition to the Windows monopoly: 50. The experience of the Linux operating system, a version of which runs on Intel-compatible PCs, similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. Linux is an "open source" operating system that was created, and is continuously updated, by a global network of software developers who contribute their labor for free. Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs. Several ISVs have announced their development of (or plans to develop) Linux versions of their applications. To date, though, legions of ISVs have not followed the lead of these first movers. Similarly, consumers have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows, with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating system whose future in the PC realm is unclear. By itself, Linux's open-source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from competing.
> Support free enterprise!
Microsoft is LICENSED in the State of Washington. When you go to the government to ask for permission to engage in Free Enterprise you have to play by their rules. The GOVERNMENT granted them the BUSINESS LICENSE.
Question for the day: How did people do business before companies were around?
Answer: Usually themselves (and they were directly liable), or form a trust (why do you think we have anti-trust laws?)
IANAL
Cheers
> MicroSoft doesn't innovate, they either buy out a competitor or they reimplement the technology, usually badly.
You forgot: "with an atttempt at vendor lock-in."
I find it interesting how M$ doesn't suffer from the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome in contra distiction to Apple.
No flames please.
I thought the best way to decide what OS to use, was to, use what works for you, instead of deciding from that you don't like how some people preach their OS religion. :-)
Thats why I use Linux, BeOS and NT. I need to do cross-platform development. (And occasionaly when I'm forced to use DirectX to play a few games that require it, that piece of crap called Windows 95)
Cheers
I agree that GUI's are more user friendly then a CLI, but there is still a paradigm that must be learned.
I've taught some students that have had a hard time with getting over the concept of nesting folders, simply because theier was no real world analogy.
What may be intuitive to you, may not be to someone else. Remember we're all ignorant in some field of study.
Cheers
> MSFT has been willing to undercut the compeition because they know that an expanding market is better than short term profits.
Someone had an essay on why MS has to expand or die. Anyone have a link?
Someone moderate the above post up, I allmost bust a gut laughing my ass off.
Someone had this cute sig on /.
"Linux renders a usefull ship, while NT renders ships useless"
You know, now that you mention it, Microsoft certain does sound like a Ponzi scheme.
;-)
Would insurance fall under that category to?
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Cheers
> Major League Baseball
;-)
True but is a monopoly upon which a close eye is kept. When things start going badly in the player/owner struggle, the govt. will bring out this special dispensation and threaten to revoke it. Also IMHO people like the notion of a single national champion rather than an MLB champion AND some "US Baseball" champion. Too bad it's not a true WORLD series though (e.g. Japan too).
> AT&T
Long distance is competitive now - though not if they all keep merging!
Local service seems to be headed towards true competition which would motivate the Baby Bells to merge and acquire to diversify and strengthen their positions.
And Lucent is pretty cool - home of Dennis Ritchie!
BTW I am a stockholder in T, BLS, and LU
> Standard Oil
Hmmm... remerger problem here too. But there is world competition here: Total, ELF (did they merge?), BP, Royal Dutch Shell. This is a global sector. Also the oil sector (and the chemical sector in general) is not as huge as it used to be. Witness the long due reshuffling of the Dow in favor of the dominant Tech sector including - surprise, surprise - MSFT.
There is no off postion on the genius switch. - David Letterman
Life is sweet out here on the fringes - the trees are green, the birds are singing, crime is low, beer is cheaper... breathe it in, boys, breathe it in.
There is no off postion on the genius switch. - David Letterman
Too bad there won't be any benafits of this "finding of fact" until after more lengthy lawyer stuff.
It was much easier to break up something like AT&T there were acctual tangible things to pass out to the "baby bells." I wonder if they really can break up Microsoft? I can see them painting little dotted lines all around the Microsoft complex in Redmond. What stops all the "best" programmers from all ending up in the same "mico Microsoft"?
Let's say that Microsoft is simply barred from certain actions. They would still have their Windows monopoly, and would still be able to exploit it. After all, Judge Jackson has said that it is not only anticompetitive practices, but also the monopoly itself that has hurt consumers. Thus, if the monopoly still exists, while restricted, it would still be harmful to consumers.
Assume now that Microsoft was broken up. It seems likely that the browser and the OS groups would be split somehow (judging from the analysis of the ruling: "Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in"). Would this then lead to less browser compatibility? I doubt it. IE would still be able to conform to standards as well as any other browser. In fact, it may lead to increased browser compatibility, since protocols and standards would have to be more open, to allow for communication between the two factions.
If Microsoft were to be broken up, Windows would probably still have a monopoly. It's inevitable; more people are familiar with Windows; there's a large software base. But the point that Judge Jackson makes that stands out is this: "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur." How many programs haven't been written because Microsoft has extended them out of existence? Or how many programs haven't been written because a necessary API was hidden?
If Microsoft is broken up, it can only be good. More room for innovation; more open APIs; more compatible browsers. Judge Jackson's ruling has helped pave the way to Microsoft being broken up; it seems clear from his ruling that this is what he feels needs to be done (some of the better quotes include "Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers by unjustifiably distorting competition" and "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies").
It's all about the consumer. Businesses are supposed to exist in order to provide products and services that consumers want/need, as cheap as possible (while still making some profit). Microsoft hasn't done that, in fact just the opposite, and the surest way we have of making sure Microsoft doesn't hurt consumers any more is by breaking them up.
-----
"A man is judged by his every word." -RW Emerson
"They misunderestimated me." -GW Bush
"The deluded are always filled with absolutes. The rest of us have to live with ambiguity." - Aristoi, Walter Jon Willia
Remember remember the 5th of November....
Those from the UK will know what this is - a saying used wrt to Guy Fawlkes Day (the 5th of November). In 1605 Guy Fawlkes decided he wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Unfortunately for him he was caught by the Government who found him gulity of treason and sentenced him to be hung, drawn and quartered. Now I'd like to make a modest proposal...
John M
Hey, you mispelled! Remember that MS-DOG has 8+3 file naming scheme, so you must refer as "MICROS~1"...
For those people that think the fscking US govm't has ignoring us, I can say that is not if M$ had grown too to put the competence at insignificant levels, but there are the tactics M$ is using to del *.competency is the topic the US govm't is questioning...
I'm OK? Do can you me understand? I Do need English course again to get? What flamebait means? Why on slashdot and not at barrapunto that I am?
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
My favourite quote so far is on page 75, talking about direct-mailing of CD-ROMs with browser software (emphasis is mine):
Anyone else think the judge is just itching to make some sort of comment about coasters, but can't bring himself to? :)
[TMB]MS has had trouble in court before. I don't believe this will have much of an impact on them.
When someone's ready to impose a punishment, then I'll believe it.
Although I'm certainly pleased with the finding of facts, a small part of me was hoping the judge would find in favor of MS. I like the fact that Linux has made the gains it has based solely on its merits. It never needed the DoJ to get this far. I realize that without government intervention it would have been a slow uphill battle all the way, but, while this doesn't mean that M$ is just going to disappear overnight or anything like that, I can't help but wonder if there will be those who accuse Linux of needing the DoJ to compete against Windows. It seems that we might find ourselves having to defend any gains we make based on technical superiority against accusations that Linux wouldn't be able to compete without help. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but given M$'s massive PR machine, they could easily twist this in any number of ways.
All this is assuming, of course, that the actuall ruling is more than just a slap on the wrist. We may see absolutely no change if they settle or the ruling is watered down.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
Say M$ does lose, anyone want to suggest what should be done to them? I'm pushing for a break up, different companies for different products. M$ can keep Windowsx/IIS, but IE and Office go somewhere else. As the problem is their ability to push their products with OS marketshare muscle.
"Free" for Linux does not mean free as in beer; it means free as in source-code availability and associated rights.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to persuade RHAT and Applix that you deserve free copies of their software, with free installation support, manuals and media? They're both commercial entities, *selling* Linux and applications for it, respectively.
Sheesh.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
This judge has a serious history of anti-Microsoft sentiment, and so it is no surprise to anyone (least of all MS) that he would "find facts" in this way. Microsoft has been gearing up for this for some time, and IMHO is waiting for the appeal process to really win the case.
Besides, government regulation will be every bit as stifling to innovation as MS ever was. Just wait till Linux is on 99% of desktops...
Can your IM do this?
I know I am far from being an expert on Stock Trading (pretty far from that really), but as of 4:25pm (based on CNN), their stock had already come down 3 points, and where will it go next week? How about the rest of the market? I, and certainly no one else here in America, would like to see our boom come to an end, even at the cost of ending MS's stronghold on the desktop world... is this a valid worry?
That what comes from a perception based market, not a factual based market. When M$ was assimulating any tech company it could, People felt this was a posative modiefier on their stock price, so the stock prices go up.
If people looked at the products, examined the marketing materials, looked at the coperate history of the company, they would have realised that M$ was in danger of exploding. Legally, it has DOJ, Calandra, Sun, Netscape, and who else wants to feed on the carcase. Product wise it had bloated products that costs more and more in hardware and software without productivity bonus implied by the marketing. Financially, it had the point of diminishing returns, you can only produce so much before the cost benifits deteriate (example, was it wise throwing all that money on IE? Especially if they NEVER saw a return?). Can a company still make a gazillion dollars p*ssing money against a wall to crush a competitor?
>>>>>
I'll go call Sun and IBM and tell them that Solaris, AIX, OS/400, and MVS aren't real. Boy will Scott McNeally be pissed.
As an AS/400 and AIX admin, that is just a stupid flamebait.
My parents have little technical nouse, and while my father can blunder his way through windows, there is no way that he could decode EDTUSRPRF or WRKACTJOB.
So the parent test is a good test for a user friendly interface. If all the users could handle the AS/400, my life would be sooooooo much easier.
>>>>>
Microsoft have been stepping up their political contributions to both parties over the past few years. Any judgement against Microsoft will result in them lobbying Congress to nullify the courts decision "in the interests of the American People". A quick glance at the history books shows that AT&T managed very successfully to have several of the more painful decisions overturned in much the same way.
It looks like things will go against Microsoft, but nobody is so sure that Congress will have the guts to go through with any serious enough measures to open up the markets. Remember, you're dealing with a company that is an accomplished wielder of FUD... it's been doing it from DR-DOS through to Linux (though thankfully with little success in the latter case). They're more than capable of FUD'ing an economy without a full-strength Microsoft to Congress.
In fact, given the speeches I've heard in recent weeks from Republicans (during the debate on giving tax breaks to developing countries exporting their goods) about how America "isn't really in that strong a position globally" and suchlike it seems quite likely MS could get most of the nastier looking teeth extracted between and any actual consequences.
NP
Can you sum it up in a word? *No.* In a noise? *Whuuuurghhhhh!*
I'm sorry for being completely ignorant about the
US juridical practice.... Definitions set forth
in the Background section, do they have any
juridical power in the US now?
At first glance some terms are defined _very_
inaccurate. I couldn't read beyond this section
just because the site is soooo lagged, but what
I've found sounds really doubtful.
KuroiNeko
I'm sorry for being completely ignorant about the
US juridical practice.... Definitions set forth
in the Background section, do they have any
juridical power in the US now?
At first glance some terms are defined _very_
inaccurate. I couldn't read beyond this section
just because the site is soooo lagged, but what
I've found sounds really doubtful.
The most uncertain (?) points are definitions of
OS, platform and explanations about possibility of running the same OS on different architactures, but this is they key part!
KuroiNeko
Linux absolutely is a fringe operating system.
I don't know anybody who has every bought a system that had Linux pre-installed on it, and I know some pretty hardcore Linux fans.
If it ever becomes totally mainstream, there'll probably be a whole lot of "hardcore" Linux users that will jump ship to *BSD or Plan9, or something less mainstream.
i know that it's next to useless, but i still hold on to my amiga 3k if only to remind me how advanced the technology available to us /could/ have been had the marketplace not been dominated by microsoft and its predatory ways. i have no problem with bill making his billions, it's the sacrifices that we all have had to make (whether we realize it or not) along the way that upsets me. when i was in high school i had a teacher who was in love with the greeks. i remember him saying "if the greeks had computers at their disposal, where do you think we would be now?" well, i've never been able to imagine what the answer could be, whether we would be populating distant planets (possibly in other galaxies) or perhaps we would be fighting to survive after numerous apocalyptic scenarios. i do know, however, that the computing marketplace should be driven by the best technology, and not the best marketing schemes. i'm not saying that microsoft is to blame for _all_ of it. i'm only saying that they don't make it any easier for the smaller guys with the better ideas to really make it either. thank you, judge jackson, for seeing thru the double talk and half-truths that ms execs are capable of and coming the right conclusion. i feel that this is the first step towards a future in which people not only have real choices, but that they will be able to choose among products born of real innovation and free thinking rather than the mammoth marketing machines existing today.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Once the Gov't get's it's hands on defining our industry we are all screwed. Today it's M$ tomorrow it's random acts of prosecution.
what a sad sad sad day.......
(It would slow them down a bit tho, but not for long).
Just force them to publish the entire set of API's and prepublish ones not yet released.
A note to everyone else posting.
Before posting all these speculative comments. Try reading the document. It is contains many insights about the current state of affairs in the computer world as well as where it may be going... I swear I must have read a dozen or so comments stating that it is just a "Finding of the Facts". Read it! Find out what the facts are. All I want to know is will the facts documents be usable in other court cases (not necessarilly involving Microsoft.)
So far it seems to be "setting the stage" so to speak for the judges final decision. I have just gotten into the part (page 40 pdf) where it gets into the actions Microsoft took to prevent Sun and Netscape from eroding the barrier of entry into the desktop OS market.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
This is not intended to be flamebait. I am the last person to make a stand for MS and i strongly believe, as most in the know would agree, that MS is guilty of the majority of the antitrust findings that came out today (if not all), and is about time for someone with some power so step up and sort of end the Big Brother (1984?) policy that MS has employed through the years-- but what about the effect this might have on the other realms that software and technology have a hue effect on near the turn of the century, specically the economy? Is anyone else out there worried that this might spark a dramatic turn around to the rise of tech. stocks ? Will it scare off consumers who really dont know what it is CNN is telling them? I know I am far from being an expert on Stock Trading (pretty far from that really), but as of 4:25pm (based on CNN), their stock had already come down 3 points, and where will it go next week? How about the rest of the market? I, and certainly no one else here in America, would like to see our boom come to an end, even at the cost of ending MS's stronghold on the desktop world... is this a valid worry?
--------------------------- Jason Parker (aka kornyone)
Judge Jackson was looking back to the IBM trial as he ran the M$ trial, and set things up so that his verdict would be essentially appeal-proof. By breaking his rulings up into findings of fact and findings of law, he's limited the grounds for a M$ appeal. The findings of fact are going to be difficult if not impossible to challenge, given that no major evidence was disqualified. This leaves only the findings of law to be appealed. To allow an appeal on these grounds, a court would have to conclude that, based on the exact same facts that Judge Jackson heard, they would have applied the law differently. Even if M$ does appeal, and a higher court decides to hear the appeal, all that M$ could do is introduce legal opinions from scholars -- no new factual evidence. And many appeals courts wouldn't want to hear the appeal, they'd find things bulletproof enough. So, probably, we won't be talking about 15 years of appeals, only one or two. Say, just in time for Windows 2000.
Keep in mind, this decision is that Microsoft is only a considered a monopoly in the desktop market. Even though we all would love to say that Linux is a power in the desktop market, there just aren't the numbers to prove it. Now, with servers, that's another matter.
I see much celebration, and in fact I celebrate as well. However, I also see an immense bias against Microsoft, which is mostly well based, but I disagree on one point. The integration of Windows and IE isn't a *bad* thing. I find it a lot easier to click "My Computer" and type in an URL, and be at where ever I'm heading, than to wait 20 seconds for NC4.7 to load up, and everytime I close the windows, load up again. Browser-OS intergration is a brilliant idea, and in fact, IE5 is the best browser you will find for Windows. Its fast and fairly stable, stabler than NC4.x(we'll see with Mozilla). All in all, while MS is a monopoly, you can't automatically brand their every idea as 'bad'.
(note: if I had money, I would short sell MS, and fast!)
Peter Pawlowski
With all considerable respect due to Hemos, I'd say this is also an ending of sorts. Hopefully it will become more and more difficult for people to pretend that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
You can still be a legitimate supporter of Microsoft and yet face facts that MS is an monopoly. Hopefully know we can have a more intelligent debate about what if anything should be done about it.
..accorrding to findings, pp. 23
so? apache has a monopoly at amazon.com.
it doesn't make sense to say someone has a monopoly over one person/company/entity. the person has to have a monopoly over the whole market for the product.
The shareholder is always right.
for the Spin Doctor attorneys at M$... perhaps they would benefit from a giftwrapped case of Penguin Mints, compliments of /.?
hmmmm....
So we should let a monopoly exist so that some people will hate this monopoly and provide motivatation for these people to "fuel" innovations.
Or we should let a monopoly run rough shod over any competitor so as to bring stability and uniformity into the technology field.
Great logic. Why don't we just appoint a leading industry to control and dominate every segment of our society and the we can set back reap the benefits.
Grap a history book and try to understand the need for anti-trust controls in a competive free market economy.
What government are your referring to ?? I do know that the Navy uses MS products almost exclusively - by mandate.
MS has choosen in several well documented cases not to compete but to bully and conspire.
A successful free market (ie one that generate the most wealth for the majority of it members) requires fair competition.
Consummers have been harmed by MS dominance. 5 years ago the cost of a well equiped PC cost around $ 2500 and the O/S cost was around $100 ($80 for OS/2 if you remember). Today a well equiped PC costs around $ 1200 and a copy of MS Win98 cost close to $200. The price of computing is indeed coming down but not software especially in area where MS dominates (O/S, Office, Presentation, etc.) Just a thought.
Thats it, remove all the checks and balances, place a premium on deceit and ruthless tatics. A place where the entrenched remain entrenched.
Heck, why waste time and money "establishing a government" at all? laws, bah! Might is right and size is everything. Any challangers will be destroyed and not allowed a foot hold.
He does not see linux as a problem for ms.
This could really hurt ms on the court case.
Benjamin
As for the decision, I'll let the rest of you do the debating. :-)
You may find this hard to believe, but I think Microsoft has done a lot to reduce the price of consumer software. Around 8 or 9 years ago it was Microsoft that was the ones making business style software affrodable to the user. The MSRPs didn't drop much, but their OEM priced did, and they started offering competative upgrades at reasonable prices to help get market share. It wasn't that long ago that Word Perfect was having to reduce their prices to match Microsoft's.
I'm not saying that Microsoft was doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, but the consumers did benifit. As for the bloat in Microsoft's software, ask ten business users what features they use in Office, and you'll find that although few of them use a large percentage of the features, each user uses different features. A lot of those features are used by someone. If you don't like the features in MS Office try, MS Works. Works is a pretty good low end application suite, but Microsoft doesn't sell as many coppies as they do of MS Office. Why? Probably because people like a lot of features even if they don't use them, and if that's what people want Microsoft will give it to them.
As for prices on hardware dropping faster than prices on software, most software isn't developed Tiawan where labor is cheap. Ten years ago software proces were dropping, while the the price of a new high end PC was staying fixed at around $3000 for quite some time.
Microsoft has obviously done some things wrong, and should be held accountable for them, but a lot of the things they've been accused of sound like whining by competitors who had poor products, or who failed because of their own mistakes.
It seems strange to hear people who extol the stability of Linux as it's most improtant feature claim that Netscape is so great in the same breath. I used Netscape since before IE existed. It is and always has been a buggy piece of crap. Microsoft's first two attempts at IE were even worse, but version 3 closed the gap, and version 4 overtook Netscape. Navigator couldn't continue to compete on it's own merits because it had become an unmanageable cluster of poorly designed spegetti code that had to be rewritten. Yet Netscape was the Justice department's victim for the first part of this case. Netscape produced a buggy product, and as soon as real competition arrived the cried foul. Then they took their millions they made, blamed everything on Microsoft and ran away. Microsoft, who built a better product, and competed, gets blamed. I'm not saying that thier licensing agreements with ISPs weren't illegal, but at least they built a well designed maintainable product. Netscape built a poorly designed product, had a questionable business plan as to how they were going to continue to be profitable, and instead of being investigated by the SEC for defrauding their shareholders, they're the rich victums of Microsoft.
I wonder who else will be blaming their failures on Microsoft.
I agree that past transgressions should be prosecuted, but the current justice department is pretty clueless. The only thing they were persuing Microsoft for was unfair actions agains Netscape. I don't think a cas based on some unfair contracts with ISPs, and a lot of name calling would have had a great impact on Micrsoft. Especially when the competitor they "harmed" is having to do a complete rewrite of their product because it was a buggy piece of crap that couldn't be patched and upgraded any more. Any ruling against Microsoft would be reduce on appeal to a fine and a slap on the wrist. If Netscape had such a good case why didn't they sue Microsoft for dammages.
The States claim against Microsoft about thier MS Office pricing are much more likely to have a direct benefit to consumers. If Microsoft can be made to charge end users similar prices to what they charge OEM, as well as reducing the disparity between what they charge different OEMs, they lose a lot of the leverage they use to force OEMs to do things their way.
The case agains Microsoft has been mostly theatrics, and they really made Microsoft look bad, but they didn't have a lot of real evidence. Now it looks like they're going to go for the highest profile solution. They don't seem to be concerned with what will help consumers the most. The just seem to like the headlines.
Let's face it. If you have three companies makeing slightly different versions of Windows, you're going to end up with compatability nightmares for consumers that will far outweigh any cost savings. Microsoft is already pretty responsive to what they feel customers want, that why their products are so bloated with features. You can split Microsoft along product lines, but I doubt this is going to reduce prices for consumers either. You may not like Windows, but you have to admit Microsoft dumps a ton of money into developing it. You can't make a product with as many features as microsoft sticks in windows inexpensively. MS Office is Microsoft's big cash cow. If you take those revenues away from the company making the OS the price for the OS is going to go up. The up side is that MS Office might become available on more platforms than Windows and Mac OS. Personally I'd rather see someone develop a good cross platform ofice suite than the government telling Microsoft what they need to develop.
If you want to stop microsoft's bad business practices take away the tools they use. Make them use a more even pricing structure, and disallow these exclusive contracts like the ones they had with ISPs. Also fine them for their unfair practices. Then let the companies who feel they are victims sue Microsoft themselves for damages, and keep the government out of deciding how software is made.
"Follow the Legal Code Road.."
That's right, I agree with you totally. It seems the world has just turned from the Black and White it used to be to a somewhat colourful world. Interesting.. but remember, keep those Ruby slippers - They're the only thing that will protect you from Microsoft counter-suits.
What I find amusing is that it's taken all this time for someone other than a *nix lover (and a few Microsoft followers) to put blame on Microsoft in actual writing. "Wake up sleepy heads, roll your eyes, get out of bed" definitley does apply to a certain few select people around the legal system. Oh well, at least something's trying to be done about it.
Wondering where Judge Judy is on this issue,
Matthew
--| Colour by TechniColor |--
_____________________________________
sortakinda.ca | canadian paraphrasing.
Unless you can demonstrate that Best Buy has monopoly power in PC sales, your statement has no relevance. I can just buy my PC somewhere else.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
I agree wholeheartedly.
If I were Bill Gates... I've made my billions (most of it in Microsoft stock, but not all of it), and the key people that I work with have made their millions. So, I'd just close up shop. Sell the tangible assets (which doesn't amount to much, since all the value is in product recognition and brilliant minds), give the shareholders all the proceeds (a penny or two on the dollar, to be sure). Buy a nice little island somewhere. Convince a few friends to come along. Establish a government that isn't so preoccupied with interfering with my rights. Let everyone else get on with the business of "innovating", which supposedly has been suppressed by Microsoft's presence.
As a shareholder, this would cost me a few bucks. However - it would be well worth it - as they say, you can't buy happiness...
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
Try: 1-800-WWW-DELL (1-800-999-3355). Works in Canada. Can distribute with Linux. QED.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
i see history is not your strong point ... fascism was a name given to themselves by the movement which took power in italy nearly a decade before the nsdap came to power in germany. their main claim to fame, and the reason for their success, is that they provided an effective (ie violent) means, legal means having proved insufficient, of curbing the rising influence of the italian socialist party.
to call fascism `socialist,' (notwithstanding the fact that mussolini was a defector trom the psi) is akin calling the kkk a black rights movement.
I like how the webmaster gave up and killed images on the front page.
/. vs. gpo goes to /. :)
round one of
Do you know what a _monopoly_ is? Yes, Microsoft has one. The FoF proves this in a legal sense.
The fact that there are ALTERNATIVES does not mean that a monopoly doesn't exist.
You could have walked, rather than use Standard Oil. Used HAM radio, rather than AT&T. There are *always* alternatives - the aspect of a monopoly is that they prevent those alternatives from becoming dominant enough to threaten their profits.
The FoF concretes this - how MS in many cases did things *merely* to damage Netscape, Java, Mac.
That they would not have done (sensibly) if they didn't have a monopoly.
What they have is just a very popular OS. . .
aggressive bundling strategies, but still merely very successfully sold.
Check out what a monopoly entails. "Bundling?" No. OEMs who didn't sell Windows wouldn't sell machines. (Prior to 1995, they HAD to pay Microsoft for EVERY MACHINE sold (hense the original "consent decree"). That's not a bundling deal - its a monopoly.
Look at the server market for one where there isn't a monopoly. Notice the VAST differences between the "bundling deals" available. Notice you can get more than one OS. In fact, a LOT of different ones. Windows NT. Novell. SCO. Solaris. To name a few.
Have you read the FoF? Jackson got the whole point of OS/2 down. That as long as MS had the monopoly, OS/2 could never compete.
You have to ask yourself, do you really want a justice system that is willing to ignore the truth to get the results it wants?
Actually, I'd prefer that people know what a monopoly is before they blather about how Microsoft doesn't have one.
Addison
Yeah, but the breakup of ma bells was purely regional. The product was not affected.
With an MS breakup, the different products would have to be developed separately by different companies. The secret API backdoors that MS uses to make its software perform better than anyone else's could not be used by the MS Office Company. It would be easy to check for use of backdoors with a programming utility. I'm not a lawyer, but I figure if a backdoor is being used that's similar to price fixing - it's anticompetitive conspiring between companies.
So, while the Baby MS's would have better resources (assuming MS's stock doesn't totally crash between now and the verdict, which it probably will) they would be limited by a breakup. It would be much easier for third parties to get competitive software out.
--you better sell your stock fast!--
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
I read all the comments w/ ratings>2 (54) and noticed they all left out 1 thing: MS's actions. We're all used to speculating on the industry and saying if MS is a monopoly by whether it's in a good position. What Judge Jackson says here is that MS commited criminal acts to prevent competition and stifle development of threatening software. (He shows a good amount of technical knowledge in the process, too.) I'm not a lawyer, but does MS need to be proven to have too big a slice of the pie, or do they need to be proven guilty of committing anticompetitive acts (manipulating Apple, etc.). I think that the actions MS is capable of committing is a much more accurate indicator of their monopoly than whether Linux is a fringe operating sys, or whether small OSs have the capacity to dethrone Win. What Jackson says is that he thinks even if they could, MS would actively prevent them, and nothing threatens the source of power that MS draws on to do that. If companies bundled another OS with their machines in significant amounts, Windows would be free to the consumer.
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
It's great! Bill Gates really sounds like some kind of whiny Borg. Nothing he says is on topic, and he walks into a trap by saying 'Windows regularly incorporates new features, such as...'. After a pause, he says, "a graphical interface, and internet features built into the operating system!"
And yeah, the strange, incessant typing sounds in the background. Is he typing and talking at the same time?
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Yikes!! Hadn't even thought of that. Perverse enough to have some merit.
... not trying to troll or defend M$, just wanting to share in this historic moment.
It is with mixed feelings I read this decision. I've been a microsoft hater with the best of 'em. A dedicated Mac fan of many years, cursing M$ at every chance. Yet, when I actually started programming again, picking up visual basic for a project at work and actually using Windows for the first time since the 3.1 days, I grudingly grew to like it.
So I don't hate Microsoft anymore. They treat me well as a developer. Much better than Apple ever did..... and now I read slashdotters gloating and think "Will we really be better off?" Microsoft did bring together a fractured PC industry. Granted, they did it (often) by shoving standards down our throats. The w3? I'm sorry, but they didn't get the web where it is today. Microsoft and Netscape throwing out propietary extensions did. The w3 is like the UN. Nobody listens to them when its really important.
Anyway, I'm rambling... but I'm curious what will happen next. I don't think Linux will take over the desktop. Too little emphasis on ease of use, IMHO.....
Curious what everyone else thinks.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Is it just me or did the world just gain color? I feel like dancing around singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead!" This means good things for Caldera and any company that's suing Microsoft. They just have to say "Judge Jackson says Microsoft is a monopoly" rather than trying to prove it. MS is and will always be considered a monopoly. At least until they've gained considerable market share.
it really sucks to be you, it just comes across so clearly.
Hypothetically, anything hypothetical is possible.
Just some random thoughts here...
I'll say! Just try to form them one at a time, and take a few deep breaths. Open source is about freedom. no need to drag in a bunch of overburdened concepts that don't really translate. Just say no to slavery...
Ahh the Microsoft Solution, know nothing but buy the opposition, or anyone who points out your _stupidity_
IBM was found to be a monopoly that acted in illegal restraint of trade back in the 1970's. Fifteen years of appeals later they got it thrown out of court...
Don't expect anything right away from this. Other than the stock tanking that is :-)
But one important point: While IBM was fighting the Justice Dept. they took their eye off the ball for just a little bit. It wouldn't be important, except that little bit was more than long enough for Microsoft to pull a fast one and end up owning the PC OS market. What happened before can happen again.
My take? Don't count on the slow, grinding wheel of the courts to achieve any particular end. Look for an opportunity and do it yourself!
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
IBM actually won all of the 1970's era antitrust suits against it. The biggest of those suits, brought by the Feds, was filed in 1968 or so, and still hadn't been decided by 1981, when the government dropped the case and agreed that its position was "without merit".
There was also a horde of private antitrust suits against IBM (analogous to Caldera v. MSFT) at the same time. IIRC, in one of those cases, a competitor got a ruling that IBM had a monopoly. Even so, IBM won the case because there was no finding that it had abused its monopoly.
So today's ruling goes far beyond anything that happened in those cases against IBM: the Judge has ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly, and has abused its monopoly in a way that has harmed competitors and consumers.
What that means is that it's almost certain that Microsoft will be found to be liable under the antitrust laws. A breakup of the company is probably more likely than not, as of now.
It's a lot bigger than that. The "O.J. equivalent" of the findings that the Judge released today would be:
"1. On the night of [whatever], O.J. Simpson stabbed his ex-wife multiple times.
"2. By stabbing his ex-wife, O.J. Simpson caused her death."
All that would be left for the findings of law phase would be "O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder."
:)
HELL YEAH!!! LETS HAVE ONE FOR THE FEDS!!! BURN THOSE BASTARDS!!!
display of common sense by our government.
HEHE
M$ has their astroturf freedom to (dom)innovate
pages up and going. My comment which I graciously gave them permission to publish was:
Congratulations to the Government.
It is refreshing to see that once again the computer industry will have the freedom to innovate.
Microsoft's aggressive policy of stifling creativity in the interest of dominating the computer marketplace has done incalculable harm to the industry.
I only hope it is not too late to repair the damage.
---CONFLICT!!---
Actually my little astroturfer, IBM makes a little OS called AIX. Also BE is a PPC OS. Granted development has stopped on this platform but it is still in use.
Plus look at it this way now you can shop your skills out to the separate companies increasing your income if your current employer is broken up.
---CONFLICT!!---
I guess we'll just have to throw That Silly Finnish Guy ;-) in the lockup.
Can anyone say Jailbreak
---CONFLICT!!---
This isn't CD's after all. like in the pre revision "Road Ahead".
---CONFLICT!!---
Did you skip all your History lessons ? National Socialism has nothing to do with Socialism. Comparing Nazis with Communists is comparing the extreme-right with the extreme-left
Fascists were originally Mussolini's supporters, who were far from being left-wingers. Since then Fascism is used for authoritarian regimes that deprive people from their freedom, and bring forward order, law, and hierarchisation.
Has anyone thought why we can afford PC's now? Why is it that a large number of American households have PC's? A good number of these homes have more than one PC... If it had not been for MS then maybe the industry would have taken a totally different route. It is possible that computing would have remained in the hands of large businesses....and the web would only be a shadow of what it has become. If personal computing remained in the greedy paws of IBM, it would most likely have remained a research item because it was IBM and MS that gave us a PC with DOS.....IBM and MS gave us OS/2 as well....and then Windows.... MS has suprisingly continued as a software house...with only a small hardware offering.... I think the time for change is around the corner so I am not suggesting that MS should continue to dictate the future, but the industry needs to stop moaning about it and do something siginificant to halt the pentration of MS into business because this is where the most investment in software is. If that is the objective.... If, however, we expect a better platform / OS then maybe we should be pressuring MS into delivering a better product, because all the indirect discussions will not benefit anyone. So thanks to MS and all insundry who jumped on the PC revolution we are able to afford a PC....without which it would be a very different and less exciting world...
As long as the press keeps letting those kinds of statements go by without challenging them, MS may not come out of this looking as bad as they should. We shall see.
Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking to filter what the eyes see and what the ears hear
Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking to filter what the eyes see and what the ears hear
--BuSa
For this of you MS-head dolts, I'll say that last part again. Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. .
These findings are spot on, and refuting them is futile.
This preliminary Finding Of Fact is an interesting devolopment, and has micros~1 crying in it's beer. I, for one, am happy to see Bill gates and micros~1 be exposed for what they trully are. Sneeky, snivling, childish thieves.
Acording to many analysts the DOJ has MS cornered and will push on with the case. While IANAL, I blieve that this case (including apeals) will drag on for years and will keep MSs' hands tied behind there back. They will be forced to sit back and watch as other companies move in on the desktop space. Look for OEMs to start customizing desktops. Look for venture capitol to consider companies "going for the desktop".
My hope is that the DOJ makes this a very very long and painfull process for micros~1. I hope they don't settle for a consent decree that will only end up (when MS violates that agreement) with everybody back in this same place 2 years from now.
I was hoping that the Judge would make this decision... however, I am not sure that it will hold up under Microsoft's Appeals. The unfortunate thing is that it will probably be years before this is completely over.
Wow, i have never seen so many slashdot readers respond in such volume to a story so quickly. This poses interesting implications. If microsoft is convicted of using its monopoly to gain another , or to keep the existing one, will it be split up as was done with Ma bell a while back? I think it would be interesting to see microsoft split up into 2 or more divisions, nameley an OS division, and a software division. that would be an interesting turn of events.
Cool.
I wonder if a class action suit demanding redress for the damages done to the computer industry would be in order. I bet we'd all be on 64 or 128 bit machines right now if we hadn't been dragged down by Wintel's need to stay backward compatable.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
i really didn't think the judge would rule against microsoft. But now, this time, hopefully sufficient penalties will be given to MS. Remember the last time the US government had the chance to do this - back in 95, when Windows 95 was relesed, MS were just let off.
hopefully this time round the lessons have been learnt. If this is handled correctly the computer market can be opened up to more competition for the benefit of us customers and hopefully innoviation will return - not MS's version of innoviation. Companies will no longer but swallowed and put out of business because of MS's dodgy trading practices.
Hopefully companies will have more of a chance to compete, like companies of other industries have always enjoyed. Computer industry should be no different...
Of course there is a long way to go... this is just an initial ruling... this could change. I wouldn't start celebrating properly until MS get the penatlies they richly deserve.
big sigh of relief!
The sad thing about this trial ( and it's outcome), is that we, the comsumers are going to pay. A split of Microsoft would probably make prices even higher.
While most of the /. visitors seems to be kids who likes to kick at the big companies/establishment (I did so too in the 70'ies), you have to realize that without Microsoft, you probably wouldn't be reading this on a computer.
Or just obvious....
Now: What will the governement do? Pay for open source development?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I personally hope that Microsoft is forced to release control of the API for their current and future OSs to, say, a panel of leading OS developers, (say Sun, HP, Apple, MS, Be, IBM, and maybe a representative from the FSF/Linux Development team). This would prevent MS from changing the API just to keep other OSs from gaining control, and would guarantee any app written for the new API would be able to run on any OS that supports it (making the API public domain would guarantee the wide availablity of OSs that do). This would take away MS's real source of power, the application base.
Netcraft: usvms.gpo.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on DIGITAL UNIX
If that had even said IIS on NT4.0SP5 ....
Not only is Microsoft a monopolist, it has harmed consumers, according to the judge's findings.
Side note: the "200 page document" is 75 pages when converted to single-spaced, 10-point Times type. If you can read the WP format, go for it, and save a tree.
Final excerpts from findings report:
This is extremely significant due to the fact that Judge's findings can't be appealed. For the rest of this case, these facts are theONE point of view that conclusions of law are going to be based on. A previous news.com article has a quote from a lawyer named Joe Sims:
"Once he decided these are the facts, like a jury decides an individual's guilt or innocence, the he issues conclusions of law, which are the legal consequences of those facts.
This means that Microsoft can argue what these facts mean, but can no longer argue that these facts are wrong.
Sig goes here
I think one of the items that Microsoft kept bringing up during the trial was: if it had monopoly power, it could do such things as raise the price of Windows, which it hasn't.
This recent slashdot article, I think, neatly disposes of that theory.
It's things like this that might be used against them in the appeals....
-Denor
First let me say that MS products suck, I avoid using them if at all possible. What I have always said is
that MS is shitty technology company but an outstanding marketing company.
Steve Jobs once said "The only problem with microsoft is they just have no taste... And so I guess I am
saddened not by Microsoft's success, I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success...
for the most part. I have a problem with the fact they just make really third rate products."
I think that says everything we need to know about MS. Now the issue is anti-trust and the fact that
competitors that can't win in the market resort to running to the DOJ crying "FOUL!".
The facts as I see them:
McNealy was not tough or smart enough to stop NT.
Andreesen was weak and subservient to the "adults" that built his company.
Apple was run by idiots (Jobs is now going to do some damage to Bill).
Simply stated: The competition sucks!
And for those of you think that this "finding" from the judge says that MS is monopoly. Read it more
carefully and you should see that it says MS has a monopoly on Windows, since it basically states all other
OSes are irrelevant. It's like saying FORD is a monopoly because it's the only company that builds
FORDs. (what is this.. Canada)
--
People are idiots, take advantage of it.
Hi Bill Thanks for making us look like dumm asses. This is NOT a joke, junk that what you did should get you BAN from this site. Run back to bill you mindless micro-borg
From the point of view of most of the public, Linux IS a "fringe operating system". It can be easy to forget that when we (yes, I use Linux and love it!) focus only on Linux software and Linux websites. However, even at the university I am at (a place that has many computer-savvy people), there are few people who use Linux, and not all that many that have even heard of it. So we may not like to think of Linux as a "fringe operating system", and may hope that someday it will outgrow that label, but I think that for now, that statement is accurate...
At the risk of being scored as 'flamebiat':
BOOYAH, MS! BOOYAH!
Having finally finished reading the findings of fact.. that is the first thing that comes to my mind. For years I have been wondering about different things like 'why the heck did intuit stop using netscape' and 'why did Apple make IE their only browser'.. Now it's all clear.. There are so many back room deals detailed in this thing it is downright scary.
This should be required reading for all programmers that want to tie themselves to the Windows APIs. And for all Managers who still believe that Microsoft is the 'One True Way'
Reading other peoples comments here I'm reminded of what idiots some people can be.. it's pretty obious that most people didn't even bother to read the thing.
After reading this I'm reminded of how insecure Microsoft is in their own products. They are frightened to death that Windows can't compete on it's own merits.. therefore they make all kinds of slimy deals to eliminate possible competition.
If I was a Microsoft shareholder I would be thinking of sueing them right now.. there is no telling how much $$ Microsoft has pissed away on their struggles against other products that weren't really competitors. Just think.. not only did Microsoft spend around a 150 million dollars to develop a (better IMHO) browser than Netscape and give it away.. they also wasted opurtunities to probly make at least 5 times that much by giving goodies to companies to use and promote it. Then they were so insecure, they even spent more money and gave more goodies away to get big websites to use HTML to break Netscape. (I wonder how zdnet and Disney feel after reading this).
All this money spent and oppurtunites passed up for no apparent reason.. what will they gain? Nothing. All Microsoft has done is alienated the companies they need the most. Do you think Compaq would be supporting Linux if they hadn't been raked over the coals by Microsoft so hard? I don't.
What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve.
There are lots of solutions bouncing around, but I think opening Microsoft's code to the public would be the best solution. I don't care that Microsoft makes a lot of money. Who wouldn't want those kinds of profits. But opening their source would prevent them from forcing competitors out of markets with proprietary software. And we could improve their software and make it adhere to widely accepted standards.
I don't think dividing the company into various OS, applications, and Internet groups would do much good. Each mutation of Microsoft would still be heads and shoulders above the rest of the software world.
3G
You talk about free enterprise ? Let's have a look at what Microsoft had done the last few years... Did it tried to support free enterprise ? No it has acquired a monopoly and try to keep everybody out.
If this is your notion of free enterprise, I don't want it. If the market doesn't regulate Microsoft (and it seems that it can't thanks to them), I guess it is up to the government to do it.
If you want a culprit, at least take the right one and as much as I despise the current US administration for many reasons, they're right about Microsoft.
Ok, so Microsoft is a monopoly. I think we all knew that. ... ...) is BETTER than Windows. Why do we need the government to break up Microsoft. If we can make Linux (or other OS) as good as we want them, then Microsoft will not sell any more Winows, and will break up by itself !
Having had my share of BSOD, DLL mixups and having had to reinstall Windows quite a few times just to get the system in a stable state, I am certainly no supporter of Microsoft. I have Linux at home and at work, and I can assure you it is more stable.
I don't own any MS stocks either, maybe on Maonday I'll wish I had shorted it
The one thing that bothers me though, is that free entreprise and Capitalism are supposed to be a system where anybody can make as much money as they want, if their product is superior.
I believe Microsoft can be beaten because Linux (or Be, or BSD, etc
We expected this, didn't we? I never had a doubt... however we must look at this logically. Will MS be broken up or just given a slap on the wrist?
Hopefully, this will usher in the Penguin Power monopoly. I love the legal system.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
They stress their right to innovate on behalf of the consumer.
JJ also stated that M$ tries to prevent innovation that would benefit the consumers. The quote was quite clear on that.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I just put up another mirror here.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
As a Penalty, They now must listen to user Complaints!!
And Fix All the Bugs In their Products!
Bwuahahahahaha!
Actually, It is a Garantee that the Government will make this a bad thing for everybody, leaving no chance for Microsoft to ever correct itself
As a Side note, let's all overthrow the government and set up a new one based on the freedom of knowledge and information.
(Just to garantee a -1)
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Okay, this is out there on a limb with all of the area 51 folks, but consider this:
Adopting Andy Rooney whine:
"ever wonder why M$ was added to the Dow right before this finding of fact...could it be so that the gov't now has a vested interest in making sure that MS gets off scott free, because to punish MS would damage the economy? M$ health is now a matter of national security."
Congratulations Bill, we never saw that one coming!
And after about 20 years of appeals, Microsoft might actually have to pay. But by then it'll hardly matter since they would have made $18+e12.
The same thing happened a long time ago with IBM and their proprietary punch cards. I'll agree the situation is a bit different, but the outcome will be the same.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
y......ou will remember where you were when you heard Micro$~1 was legally made a monopoloy!
----------------------------
Australians- Vote YES today!
----------------------------
laptop lounger said:
Don't bet on that. The spin machine is working overdrive. They are harping their position that the judge has not taken into account the dynamic competition and rapid pace of change in the industry. They stress their right to innovate on behalf of the consumer. As long as the press keeps letting those kinds of statements go by without challenging them, MS may not come out of this looking as bad as they should. We shall see.
Why would Judge Jackson, or appeals courts, care about FUD?
Judges don't get big campaign contributions, so they have little reason to concern themselves with the media, or with "spin." They have their own system of peer review. ( .= and coersion)
In addition, the question of how MS will look after all this is totally seperate from the question being addressed by the courts, which is what MS will be in the future.
Anyone who aruges against Judge Jackson's findings is a fool - and I am happy to hear he is not. In the end, however, I believe that a very prident analogy can be drawn from cars.
If, you do not like a particular model you may either:
Microsoft basically has attempted to (and for the most part succeeded in) blocking both such aspects in relation to Operating Systems.
Call it simple, call it ridiculously simple, or as a colleague of mine put it - too simple to hold water - but it is the truth.
It is my personal hope that no one OS will ever dominate the market. I believe in versatility and difference (that would explain why I have always chosen Linux over other Free OS's - it can be different at many subliminal and apparent levels) and that we can hail back to the days of different platforms all talking on the same wire(less?).
As for MS, it is time they got their pee-pee smacked plain and simple. Too much is too much.
Crap - wrong command again ----
Man you know what the real drag is - a long time ago (you know like 10 whole years) for better or worse this would have been finished already. I honestly am not smart enough to know whether that is a good thing or not, but I do know it would have been faster.
Of course my official position is great, now everyone can finally see the truth.
Crap - wrong command again ----
First I must warn all that I have long since dropped out of my business analysis train of thought as I steadily receded back into loving electronics and OS's - *NIX being my favorite.
Well f**k it here it goes Business Impact and RealitiesBusinesses and managers are very impressionable folks. In that I mean they truly believe in commercialism. I have worked with government and commercial sector and I have seen the way salesmen can appeal to these goons. With the government it is - well kinda perverse in a way but it works, with business it's easy -- we offer you this and get that.
So let's break off and follow that last statement for a second, we offer this and we are saying you get that.
Now for the MS Spin DoctorsNow let's apply the late 80's early 90's MS edition of that very same statement:
Now come back to the present.
Joe Blow IT Manager, the very same schmuck whose light up when the dancing paperclip "finally does voice recognition" (f*n idiot) sees this. He now says - sh*t, maybe sinking all of that $$$$ into M$ could kick back - - QUICK, what do the other InfoWorld Ad say? Who should I turn to?
Yes this will happen. Even some delusional idiots will actually turn to Apple to solve their "hi end needs". This will be the first fallout.
But hey, all society advancement comes at great pains and cost, this will be one of them. By the same token just as many smart IT Managers will sit back and "see where things are going" and probably apt for a conservative UNIX Company or quite possibly FreeBSD or Slakware (despite it's "freeness" Slakware still boasts the best uptime and stability in distro - not neccessarily kernel).
Think About ItIT Managers, believe it or not, think very short term as within 2-3 years or so. They are not forward thinkers (well not most of them I am sure the gang at Red Hat might take me up on that) so many saw NT as a good thing for the next year or maybe 2 years. This makes sense when the byline of your job is "keep from gettin' fired".
So, first, businesses will begin to lose confidence in MS, some will stick with them but many (as is already happening) will turn to companies like VALINUX and Sun.
The Home MarketThe home computing market gradually lags anyway due to out of pocket expense limits so breaching the MS infiltration will take several years, but I believe as more becomes available and usable, more home users will seek alternatives. They may or may not turn to Linux, that is hard to tell (but I can say, the time is ripe for FreeBSD to make it's move).
Ultimately home users will not change their hbits for a long long time, I think everyone already sees this. I expect a shift to take place in 2-3 years (given the current buying trends).
Linux and OSII mention them in the same context here because I mean the same thing - both GNU / Linux and OSI now will see something that has been slowly and quietly happening for a long time.
Converts
Developers and geeks alike will also lose confidence in the almighty M$. We now will be given an opportunity to bring in and cultivate untapped talent that simply "didn't know any better" but have now awoken. This will most likely happen (in large numbers) after a ruling which is pretty sure to go against M$. It is already happening, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Linuxnewbie.org's mailing list jumps a little next week.
So in ConclusionThis isn't much different from other breakups as far as business is concerned. Geeks, however, will reap great reward which as all /. readers know is what matters.
Crap - wrong command again ----
I find it pretty amusing that the FOF was available in PDF, HTML and WP6 format. Who's the govt. kidding? If what they're saying is true nobody is using WP6! (well not exaclty but you get my point). Odd that it wasn't available in .doc fomrat....
love and affection lead to linux ...
i just think that MS has a lock on the popular business mind ... the aggregate general business mind ... i cannot get the folks in my work group to look at making a change even though we really cannot stand the way windows is working, or the costs of the upgrades, or being locked into buying more and more equipment for more and more space hogging non performing MS crapola ... so why cannot i influence them ... i am just learning how to do linux and star office myself and what is and isn't supported and how to do things ... looking at a workgroup locked into a consortium of work groups and if there's one single connectivity question i cannot answer, that's it ... no matter how many frigging times a day we are all locking up and finding MS anomalies as a practical consideration ... it is not that the products aren't available ... it's that there's the myth of being dependent ... that really IS a monopoly ... if people BELIEVE it is, it is ... they don't know how to read slash dot do they ... i am just learning that too ...
So. MS has this monopoly over the desktop market - and they can't even force the DOJ to publish in Word format, instead of PDF and WordPerfect? Sure.
About time they did something right! I wonder what the final decision will be like though
Its far to funny... http://news.excite.com/photo/img/r/microsoft/19991 106/lon97d?r=/photo/r/991105/18/tech-mic rosoft-leadall
This was supposed to be a "findings of fact" document. However, upon close inspection, one can see that it is laden down with unsupported claims and assumptions(AKA inferences, as in, "the opposite of facts").
It is stated as follows, "It is unlikely, though, that a sufficient number of open-source developers will commit to developing and continually updating the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows."(fact number 51 - page 26 in the PDF)
--I see no evidence in the document to support this "finding of fact".
It was ineveitable that microsoft would be found o be a monopoly. This fact is undisputed by anybody except the lawyers at MS. The important thing is what happens now. If MS is alloud to settle it will just be proof to the business world that the DOJ can be bought out at the first sign of trouble. In the old days of trust busting when a company was found to be a trust then they were broken up or forced to sell assets to the point where they were on a level with their "compitition". The solution that seems to be the most likely to succeed is to aply the "Bell" method to MS. It lays in the hands of the DOJ to do the right thing and brake Microsoft like they did to Bell, JP Morgen and many others. Either force MS to sell of parts of the company or brake it up into "Baby-Bills". At any rate if the man in the drivers seat knows what up then he'll do the right thing or else it won't be long before we see the same headlines.
News conference replay: Domestic (U.S.) (800) 934-7969 International (402) 530-8099
Teleconference replay: Domestic (U.S.) (888) 437-4640 International (402) 998-1319
Got to love the keytyping in the background...
Win? They'll "Win"?? A monopolist crushing all opposition is a good thing? Lay off the Jolt, take a deep breath and think for a minute. What will it mean if they "win?" Uncompetitive, mediocre software. Do you really think they'd be as good as they are if the DOJ wasn't threatening them, and competitors were finally figuring out where their weak spots are? Personally, I would rather compute in a world where no one company dominated, where there were several models, more or less balancing each other out. In sports leagues, that's called "equity," and is considered a good thing. What's different here? It's a fact that Microsoft has hurt innovation; if nothing else, that's what this finding of fact points out clearly. I want to barf every time I see Gates mouth the platitudes about Microsoft being an innovator. Good God, Anonymous, can't you see through this Huckster's con? They either bought it or stole it. Innovation my aunt Betty's two-button mouse! Win. Rah Rah. give me a break.
Wow, who would have thought that the day would come when I'd be willing to marry Janet Reno. (Oh well, --she's too late for that anyways.)
Even if MS does manage to reverse this, the damage to their public image has been done. It is one thing when a bunch of hackers in 1996 says that Microsoft is a monopoly and abuses its power. It's another thing entirely when a judge says the same thing before the international media. I'm betting that sales of Linux will pick up in a big way.
Hats off to the DOJ.
The government finally figured out the truth! Now, let's just wait and see what happens!
I know we are not at the fine stage but how about fining M$ $500 billion and use the money to create a fund for the development of open-source software. ...Marko ------------- Distribution? Debian! -------------
-- &&
I supposed it's ok to download binary bits and run them but if you download them and run them in your browser, it's a no-no. Way to stop innovation Judge Jacko.
It has now been ruled by a federal judge that LINUX IS A FRINGE OPERATING SYSTEM.
The Sherman anti-trust law. A HUNDRED year old law, put to use in a field that changes from month to month. You may not like MS, you might want to see them do down in flames. But do it with Free Enterprise, innovative solutions and true genius. Don't let the governement dictate what the industry should be, because this will have much, much deeper ramification than just MS's.
Well, M$ being the cornered animal it will almost certainly be more dangerous than it was before. There's going to be a couple of years before any formal action will be taken against the giant - and in that time it can be even more agressive.
:-)
In fact if I was Bill, I would be looking how to divide M$ now and ensure that it can survive by taking over the new market opportunities. Whether we like or not, M$ has some extremely good programmers and perhaps with the proper edict they might start producing compact efficient code
If M$ does get broken up the market is going to be even more frenetic with semi-autonomous groups that no longer have to toe a single party line. This could be real fun.
Perhaps we also have to wonder, if M$ loses big-time, the next monopolists will be Sony and their ilk. Last time I looked, you had to pay them a license in order to write software for their machines...
The only thing sad about it is that it's taken so long. MS used their success as a club to ensure that any new ideas either made money for them or made money for no-one. They destroyed many innovative companies simply because MS felt threatened by them, and the companies refused to be absorbed. This is exactly the sort of behavior civilization is designed to protect us from.
No, it's not pure capitalism, but then you don't live in a purely capitalist country. And before you start weeping over that, remember the capitalist excesses of the 1800s, back when the US was much closer to a pure capitalist state. Not where I'd want to live.
What inovations?
Either you are a cowardly MicroSoft employee, once again trying to stuff public opinion, or you are truely deluded.
MicroSoft doesn't innovate, they either buy out a competitor or they reimplement the technology, usually badly.
TCP/IP was available in other systems long before it was available on PCs. The WinSock TCP/IP interface came about from private citizens building a stack. Eventually, MicroSoft copied it and included it in the OS.
Web Browsers started at CERN (thanks, Europe) and Mosaic was developed at a university.
Virtual Memory, memory protection, share libraries (DLL for those who only speak MS), and most of the other things in Windows were implemented on a LOT of systems before the PC got them.
Anyone remember the trouble MicroSoft got into for copying another companies disk compression file system, and then they implemented it so badly that it would corrupt the filesystem?
Anyone remember all the problems with EMS, High Memory, and Extended Memory? The war of the DOS Extenders? I remember PharLap and Watcom having protected mode utilities long before MS put anything in the system.
I think the whole computer industry would have been much better off if there had never been a MicroSoft.
Even FUD wasn't invented by MicroSoft, IBM and others used those tactics before MicroSoft. They may not have gotten as many people duped as MicroSoft has, but they did it.
Exactly what has MicroSoft innovated?
For instance, the giant Ma Bell was broken up into a bunch of Baby Bells, each of which was a monopoly and still is. That really helps me a lot as a consumer. (Note: long distance prices are now determined by how much the local companies charge long distance carriers per minute to complete the connection.)
Suppose MS is broken up into OS, Office, and "other" components and is forced to port software to other OSes. This means that there will be really, really lousy versions of Word97 for Linux and BeOS. Is this a good thing for quality operating systems? I don't really think so. It is nice to have MS Office available for the Mac, until you realize that it isn't really quite PC compatible, is horribly slow, and has a couple of irritating bugs that don't exist in the Windows version. If Office is your main software of use, it's enough to make you dump the Mac for a PC. (I know of two people who have.)
So, forced ports aren't a good idea. How about just a breakup? Then the question is, why would MS/OfficeWare do anything but write software the way it is doing it now? Well, maybe it wouldn't. What would happen if a competitor to Office came along? MS/OfficeWare alone would have plenty of financial power to play all the current M$ tricks.
So maybe a breakup isn't a good idea. How about stern warnings telling M$ that it has to be "good". What is good? There are a few anticompetitive practices that are fairly obvious targets (such as volume discounts in exchange for an exclusive relationship). But even with those injunctions, M$ still has plenty of advantages. And even without those, vendors will jump ship if M$ prices their product too outrageously. (Especially since there are free alternatives now.)
About the only real change I can see happening is the DOJ telling M$ to do something, M$ losing a lot of money, and the situation proceeding as it would have before. Since Bill Gates claims to be intending to give most of his wealth to charity, that sounds like a net negative to me. (The lost money will go to lawyers and evaporate in reshufflings.)
Its only safer to compile from source if you're willing to audit each and every line of the code of all software you compile and run.... Sounds like fun.
"The campaign against Navigator has retarded widespread acceptance of Suns Java implementation," Jackson wrote.
Funny, I thought it was the fact that Sun's Java implementation(in terms of speed, memory usage and reliablity for client platforms) is, well, retarded, that has hurt its widespread acceptance.
You're so funny. You should get published on User Friendly. Perhaps you are a corporal piece of the crude puppy :-)
Okay, I'm pretty sure that you are joking.
Did you ever wonder why it is that the only competitors to M$ that have had much success are either GPL'ed or otherwise guaranteed to be freely obtainable ('course, with the BSD's, derivitaves thereof may or may not be...)? This is just proof that M$ is indeed leveraging its monopoly power unfairly, because otherwise BeOS would not be the only commercial OS that has had any (albeit quite limited) success. Face it, serious competitors to M$ that are companies have a way of falling victim to embrace and extend. The only reason why, say, Linux is a threat to M$ at all is because their usual tactics don't work on it.
Byron
ummm... The judge appears to be in touch on the core issue here: Whether or not MS is a monopoly. How he views Linux is not relevant to the importance of his over all decision.
"Hey ya'll, hold my beer and watch this!"
-- Last 5 seconds recorded on black boxes installed in SUV's in Texas...
When I saw the news last night, I agreed with you. As someone has already said, the judge *gets it*, Microsoft is a monopoly. (By the way, if you haven't read the decision yet, go read it, as it makes clear how much the judge understands Microsoft, which is a *lot*). But after a good nights sleep and a chance to read the morning print media stories, it hit home that Microsoft is not going to get penalized for as long as2 or 3 years. If the judge finds legally that Microsoft violated antitrust law, as now seems likely, he will ask the DOJ to recommend penalties, Microsoft gets to respond, etc.etc and we haven't even already touched on the inevitable appeals. Don't get me wrong, this is great news, but it just one battle, not the war. (But I did relish reading the decision in WordPerfect:-)
Fizz
maybe they'll ban microsoft from america :)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
As a right winger myself, I fear MicroSoft as much as I fear the Government in that they represent a gross consolidation of power into themselves. When MicroSoft does it, it is like runaway feudalism; when the Government does it, it's Socialism. I personally like the idea of these big forces tearing away at each other so that the little guys, the real foundation of our economy and industrial well-being, can get out from the yoke of monopoly-enforced draconian do-or-die licensing deals and overpricing schemes. To me, the GPL and what Richard Stallman stands for, is a statement against socialism and feudalism, not a communist ideal; then again, under the right (er, wrong) interpretation, Open Source can mean socialism. The interpretation is as important, I guess, as the words and actions. "Power to the people" can empower stronger and more lively competition or it can subvert everyone under a corporate/government hivemind. Just some random thoughts here...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The Judge stated (paraphrasing) "Microsoft is a monopoly." Therefor, the Judge cannot say "Linux is a competitive (or, non-fringe) operating system." End of story.
The government hasn't dictated anything about how software is made as of yet (well, they do allow some pretty insane patents to pass, but...) They have found that Microsoft has used their position of dominance in the desktop market to squash would-be competitors. That's it. Can that really be disputed? From what I've seen no. If you could point out how that hasn't happened, I'd be surprised and appreciative..
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
ive got the site mirrored with all document formats at http://atomchamber.bc.ca/
The verdict will be just as most have predicted, and the quote is just a harbinger for the coming announcement. Needless to say, MS is not leaving the courtroom unscathed. Jackson attacked Microsofts unethical assaults on any company or product that attacks their 'core' products, but will they have the nerve to shut Microsoft out and break up the monopoly? Probably not. Just another day in the business world.
"There really is nothing quite like a shorn scrotum" - Dr. Evil
hehe looks like M$ is in for some fun now...
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
Let's face it folk - for average Joe user, the Judge is right. Linux is not serious competition. Like my mom is going to start compiling programs because the binaries aren't available on glibc2_0. About the general attitude I see - the government is wrong to interfere in these matters, etc... c'mon folks - capatalism is not perfect. If Microsoft is flexing their muscle to block out all competitors - their success has more to do with the fact that they are a powerful company, and less with the fact that they are so great at producing software. There's reasons why certain business practices are illegal, and Microsoft certainly seems to have done some illegal things, and it's time they paid for it. They are not above the law.
Dont be silly guys, the judge isnt saying anything about Linux being competition to Microsoft. Because it isn't, from his standpoint. Competition == company vying for the core desktop OS market, ie being preloaded on OEM systems. Linux is mainly competitive in its technical specs and grass roots server useage, not Microsoft's core desktop OS market...which is what this is all about. IMO, this is a good fair judgement. Microsoft is a monopoly and has been using illegal tactics to maintain it.
Learn to know, the dark side of the force, and you will achieve a power greater than any Jedi...the power to save your w
Oops. Hehe. See my above post. I forgot to leave my email address, and BTW I'm forcing all flames in the direction of /dev/null.
Any comments? Forward 'em my way.
Saxifrage / Wes Meltzer / saxifrage@hfs.dhs.org
"On that train all graphite and glitter, undersea by rail. Ninety minutes from New York to Paris..." -Donald Fagen, IGY
Microsoft has exploited ignorant, first-time computer users and lied to consumers for long enough. It's time they got what was coming to them. I totally agree with the ruling. Microsoft has a monopoly with an inferior operating system, which it has promoted by lying to consumers and eliminating its competitors, in much the same way that AOL has aquired such a large share of the ISP industry, even though it is inferior to the competition.
Remember that much of the trial concerns Microsoft's actions before 1998. Linux's popularity has skyrocketed in the very recent past, before 1998 it was barely a blip on the horizon.
Actually this is ruling is great. The judge was totally in touch. Linux and Be (both of which I love) _are_ fringe operating systems. If you don't think so then you haven't spent much time in corporate offices or non-hacker's homes.
In my opinion they _shouldn't_ be fringe operating systems, but they are. The judge saw that even though these options exist, Mr. or Ms. computer user are afraid to step outside the M$ realm because of the terrible incompatibilies that M$ has worked so hard to ensure.
An hey... what's wrong with being fringe?
Amidst the jubilation of the Microsoft haters, there lies an ugly truth... Today was a defeat for liberty and Capitalism in America: the very things that make this country great. Today, the court announced its intention to punish the most successful and influential software company of our time precisely because it is capable, competitive, and successful. Today, those who love liberty should weep.
Before you send me ten thousand fiery hate letters, let me explain my position:
I don't like windows.... I think IE, Word, and Excel are good products, but the OS itself is quite flawed. Its constant stream of inexplicable errors and crashes is almost more than I can bear. And it's true that Microsoft has used strong-arm tactics in business. It has demanded that computer manufacturers bundle software or risk losing licenses. It has secretly attempted to divide the browser. It has purposely shipped bug-ridden, mediocre products to consumers. These things I don't deny.
Yet, all of this lies within the moral right of a man to compete freely in a free economy. You see, Bill Gates was once a guy like you and I. He was a young college student with few assets besides his intelligence and his love for computers. He saw an opportunity to market technology, and he seized it. Many others could have done the same, but did not. In the ensuing years, Gates changed the face of the computing industry. Though his company did not originally produce most of the innovations in computing, he successfully marketed many of them. He created a software platform that, despite its many flaws, made computing technology easy enough and powerful enough for the masses to use. The "robber baron" charged high prices for his software and made exorbitant profits. But in doing so, he also created a massive amount of wealth for his stockholders, his employees, the computer industry, and the nation as a whole.
Many at Slashdot and elsewhere have decried Microsoft as a "destructive monopoly" and blamed it for any number of problems within the computer industry. Yet Microsoft has never used actual force to sustain its market power. The decisions of the computer manufactures to bundle its products, and of the end-users to buy them were voluntary. No one has ever been forced to buy or run windows. If consumers were actually dissatisfied with the quality of Microsoft products, its business practices, or anything else perhaps they wouldn't use them. Others argue that Microsoft dominates because it lacks competition. However, this is obviously untrue. At present, computer users are free to choose from three major operating systems: Windows, Apple OS, and Linux. Furthermore, even if these alternatives didn't exist, I would still maintain that Microsoft has a right to any market share it can capture. Let the consumers exercise their right to choose (even if they don't chose well).
Here lies the most important issue at stake: coercive monopolies do not exist! In a free capitalist economy, small companies constantly outdo companies many times their size, stealing markets overnight or creating new markets where none previously existed. When Bill Gates and Microsoft created MS-DOS, they did this to IBM. Michael Dell entered the crowded market for PC's and proceeded to rapidly seize the market by his greater efficiency, quality, and organization. How about AOL's success amid thousands of BBS services, IP's, and several highly competitive national online services like itself? In each of the cases, hordes of consumers voluntarily agreed to purchase goods and services at given prices, helping small companies to grow rapidly and capture their respective markets.
In light of all this, I cannot help feeling disgust at the Slashdot community's reaction to the court ruling. Some talk about the glorious new "freedom" in the computer industry. Others whine, that even if Microsoft is split up into an OS company and an application company, it will still be too competitive. Yet, another suggested that Microsoft be forced to publish its source code. These commentators hate and envy Microsoft because they are they are impotent to compete against it. Instead of honestly challenging Microsoft, they want the government to destroy it for them! Don't be one of these pitiful moochers... don't aid them in them in securing what they have not earned, at the expense of those who have earned it. Do not help them to betray the best of America to its worst.
Competent software industry employees are, relatively, _very_ well paid, and very mobile. Any stock option losses MS workers receive they deserve, for choosing to work for a firm that has _always_ had a business reputation for raping and pillaging rather than innovating.
Ignorance of history = repetition of history I love it when I see posts from people like this "right-wing" tech support guy and most (not all) of the equally simplistic responses. Always good for a chuckle, although I do admit that I dispair of people with a single idea in their heads, and from that one idea flows every other point of view. Why is it that people who spend most of their lives living breathing and sleeping technology think they know anything about economic theory or anti-trust theory because they had to take Econ 101? MS has succeeded because of tactics which shut out any technology they can't buy or co-opt to keep MS on top. Politics has nothing to do with it; economic behavior designed to control marketplaces has everythnig to do with it.
DOJ vs. Freedom to Inovate? Shouldn't that read M$ vs. Freedom to Inovate. Micro$oft has, acording to Judge Jackson's finding of fact, repeatedly stiffled inovation by use of it's monopoly power in Desktop Operating Systems to the detriment of consumers. These are findings supported by by M$s own internal documents. I suggest that anyone who thinks M$, and specificly Bill Gates, are supporting the "freedom to inovate" should read Judge Jackson's findings and learn the REAL truth.
Knowledge is POWER
:"Everyone else does it" is a bullshit excuse. No :wonder this contry is going to hell. If the :pursuit of profits and power overrides integrity :and morals, we've achieved nothing. Your naiviety is stunning. It's rather obvious that where such money are at stake, delusions like yours mean no more than a fart. :If that's what capitalism and free markets are :about, then screw it all and bring on communism. This is idiocy of astronomic proportions. Do you have faintest idea about the communism? Were you born in one? Well, I was, and I've lived much of my life in it. Guess what -- the _organizations_ were far, far worse than any MS could ever be. There are parts of world where you can get somebody murdered for twenty bucks. Considering the stakes, MS behaved in _extremely_ civil manner. Sure, this behavior still has been ugly. But relatively to size of stakes in game, it still is civil. You're just spoilt and demand angel-like organization. Wake up!!! There are no "good" organizations. Each one is trying to maximize its own selfish gains using any means available. Anything else is just propaganda smoke emitted for politically naive sheep like you. When I read all those reactions in the press for the ruling, I can't resist impression that some day you will find yourself in totalitarian communism indeed -- it's amazing how fast people are willing to let freedom down the drain just because they don't like redneck-like company. If you're continuing down this road, you surely will find yourself in "from frying pan into fire" situation. Like Ayn Rand puts it, "those who do not distinguish power of a whip and power of a dollar, will learn the difference on their own backs". The whip is held by govt, not by MS; MS had only dollars. Lots of them, but still only dollars. I wish you good whipping.
Send them to reeducation camp. Or shoot on the spot.
On more serious note, however, you express the idiotic mindset that makes me think that individual freedom can exist only in a limited period, after all.
BTW, let's get this straight: I think MS products are mediocre at best. But if there are people who want to make and sell mediocre products, and people who want to buy mediocre products, this is none of your freaking business.
When a monopoly forms, it is in everyone's best interest to break it up. This is not the end of the world. It does not mean government intervention for anyone else. The judiciary is not out of its authority or out of its domain in doing this. Government is not metiendo la pata where it doesn't belong. This is the way the system works. This is how we function as a people. This is right.
Above is one of larger stack of self-deceiving spells lying around. The state is organization like any other organization: primarily selfish. It is paramount of idiocy to accuse M$ of being monopoly for pushing Windows when the govt itself that supposedly protects the people from monopoly formed e.g. 1864 Currency Act that delegalizes issuing private currency. The big monopoly with guns supposedly dismantles small quasi-monopoly which is mostly result of trivial customers' choice (the customers that plain choose what is the most convenient to them and simply pisses on alternatives even though proponents of alternatives bullshit themselves it is not the way it is).
Every organization is a wannabee monopoly. M$ is such a wannabee monopoly. But so is Netscape, Caldera, RH, political parties, sunday school and gardeners' association. And primarily govt wants to be a monopoly. M$ has lots of dollars; however, nobody accuses govt of acting like monopoly even though govt has much more dollars. M$ has no legal monopoly over producing software; the govt does have monopoly over basically what it wants to have monopoly over. It's hilarious that this is M$ and not govt that gets accused of being monopoly.
And, unlike M$, govt not only has more dollars; it also has guns. However, everybody cries "M$ is evil!". M$ isn't evil, it is plain selfish. There are organizations around with much heavier fist.
It is idiotic to think that govt is supposedly better for the people than M$ is. When M$ lifts a finger, it is for M$' gain; when govt lifts a finger, its is for govt's gain. The DOJ case does not serve the public; it serves the govt. Its purpose is to extend popularity and the power of govt. Had M$ have good public image, govt would not do anything to it, even if actual crimes of M$ (which I think it committed a few) were tenfold greater. Listen to the choir of delighted idiots, who cheer when their economic freedom is precisely the next candidate to be eliminated. And, just like M$, govt doesn't stop once it got in motion. M$ is broken up today, tommorrow you are. Enjoy what you asked for.
I just got sent here by a link on Wired News and read all of this. I am mildly amused that this discussion is even going on. When Microsoft came out with DOS there was lots of people who had developed easier to program operating systems. Marketing coupled with research and development brought Bill Gates to where he is. The idea that a new system is going to take over anything with the amount of Windows software that is available to all the systems out there, including MAC products (whose users I might add, sued him to get to use it despite their own buying choices ) and with IBM backing out of the competition in the United States there won't be enough Windows products to go around.
There is going to be a huge market for repair and upgrade on the old systems for years. Then, who knows? Does anyone believe that Apple is going to set up a lot of big money deals with IBM for microprocessors that have been designed for use with Windows and then switch operating systems soon? Yeah, that would create a few problems in the accounting department.
Years ago you had to buy a DOS disk and finish the programming yourself. I don't think that I personally would want to reinvent the wheel again. That would be like buying a new home and looking for a wood stove to be upgraded at sometime in the future.
The other part of this means that every system that hasn't been upgraded would need to be changed. That means years of programming people sitting around typing and working for the past not the future. Not a pretty picture.
I will leave all the exclamatory remarks and prejudiced opinions to all of you who like that. I just think from a logical, money minded,(which most of the business world is) perspective, that nothing is going to walk in and take over today. That would be like trying to sell the military a ray-gun you designed in your garage. It might work and actually be better than the laser. But, you have to remember, Zerox and IBM turned down the idea of even discussing something called a mouse years ago because it had a funny name. They weren't sure it would sell.
Thanks, Arizona Mildman
well... that was an enlightening bit of rubbish wasn't it... so you don't like to be flamed - does that have anything to do with the subject??? The Judge in this case has not considered Mac or even the movement for open source whether Linux or otherwise... in fact the Judge is probably a 98 user who hates it & has not seriously considered their choice... just like someones dad... this amounts to ingnorance in any situation but especially in the Judges case. If it wasn't for the many windows users out there we couldn't claim our superiority with any evidence... without criminals we couldn't be the good guys...
RuBbErDuCk waz Here!!! http://rubberduck.co.nz
I haven't read the whole FOF, but from paragraph 95 of Section V: "Intel's software development efforts, which take place at the Intel Architecture Labs ("IAL"), are directed primarily at finding useful ways to consume more microprocessor cycles, thereby stimulating demand for advanced Intel microprocessors." Not to divert any attention from the M$ scumsuckers, but this little tidbit kind of jumped out at me about Intel. I wonder how much of this M$ has taken upon itself to perform for Intel with their subsequent underhanded dealings. I wonder this because I recently put Outlook Express 5 on my win95 box and everything slowed to a crawl. The system would often ignore mouse clicks and keyboard input for more than a minute before responding. That box is an AMD K6-III/400, BTW, with 1MB of L3 cache, 128MB SDRAM, 100MHz front side bus, and hardly the whimpy system that OE5 made it into. I uninstalled OE5 and left IE5 and the responsiveness came back. I'm also not trying to feed any conspiracy theories or anything. But it really makes me wonder, and enough to wonder out loud here.
Maybe you don't understand what she was posting. She like the Linux operating system more if they had stuff she could use. Educational software for kids, graphics stuff, buisness tools (I think Linux has the last one) Remember to read thouroughly next time
Speaking from experiance as a techie, and a converter from ms to linux, the only way that linux could possably go mainstreem is if it was more user friendly. The average moron out there with a computer doesn't even know how to use dos, nevertheless something unix based. There are some people out there whereas if they see a dos prompt they think their machine is broken. Could you imagine what they would think if they saw linux loading all of its demons and everything? They'd slip into a coma.. :P If anything, all that linux would need to overthrow ms would be a graphical installer / boot loader, or at least something to cover up the tech stuff, and a kick ass window manager that works like the windows explorer. Well, that, and maybe an easier way to install hardware / software.. As sad as it may be, the average computer user thinks aol is the internet, and a gui is the only way to work. :P
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!!
Ok, well why not pass a law that states the source for any and all os's, and software for that matter be freeware? Afterall, if "windows" is suppoed to be the one and only os as you say, why should we have to pay $80 a pop for it? Or for that matter, why should we have to pay something like $200 for ms word, when emacs is free?
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!!
Well yeah. Windows apps wont work on it, but try takeing a program that was written on say linux, and the source was included. Take that same program over to a sun machine running solaris, compile the source, and your app works. Thats one big differance between windows, which uses its own codeing, and an os that was written in c, which is a totally portable language..
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!!
It is not possible to separate Microsoft's application division from their OS division. Each gained advantage from the other.
There is some interest in publishing the Windows APIs, but I think there would be more interest in requiring Microsoft to publish all current and past file formats, and to require all new file formats be published and documented prior to application release.
If this were paired with structural changes and API publication, Microsoft's strategic advantages would be diminished, and competition enhanced.
Is publication of file formats past and future a possible remedy?
John Faughnan
jfaughnan@spamcop.net