Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot's "Instant" Legal Analysis of the MS Ruling
Don - This decision from Judge Jackson is the best legal field guide I've seen to the new economy. It's great. This judge really gets it!
Robin - What do you mean?
Don - The judge appears to understand why and how people have been fighting the battle they've been fighting about software. Where Microsoft has been getting its competitive advantage and what it's been doing to keep it. What's more, there's a clear account of the relationship between big fish like MS and perhaps Sun and Netscape and the thousands of smaller developer who have to cope with program interfaces and live and die on the the competitive possibilities that the big fish allow them.
Note: Don says to pay particular attention to Paragraph 18 of Judge Jackson's ruling, which says the market MS controls is for PC operating systems, and also says Mac, Linux, and handheld appliances aren't in the same "ballpark" as PC OSes. Two other critical paragraphs Don notes are numbers 33 & 34, where the Judge describes why he considers that MS controls that market.
Paragraph 38 talks about the economics of software and #39 talks about positive network effect, or "why if everybody else has a piece of critical software you have to get it too." Paragraph 50 specifically mentions Linux, but Don says "I'll leave that one to you guys to decide how spot-on it is." :)
Beyond that, you might as well read the decision yourself. Don says, again, "This Judge really gets it!
Now back to the questions...
Robin - Now what happens? Does every software company that feels MS ever abused it file on them?
Don - I'm going to read to you from paragraph 93 ... "It is Microsoft's corporate practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished software products." These are Judge Jackson's words for what happens to you if you try to compete with Microsoft. A lot of software company will be sharpening their word processors tonight...
Robin - How do you think consumers will react?
Don - When they realize that they've had to pay more for computers because MS has charged high prices for their OS, they may take the issue more personally. It's close to certain that someone, somewhere will file a class action suit.
Robin - What about the "browser wars" that actually started the whole thing? Where do they fit into all this?
Don - It looks as if (he stops for a moment to laugh some more) the Judge is finding that MS went after Netscape with both guns blazing, giving Explorer away with one hand and preventing Netscape's installation on new computers with the other, and that all of this was done for anti-competitive purposes. The other thing I'm seeing on the browser wars is that it's pretty clear that the Judge did not buy MS's story on why MSIE was bundled with Windows. He says, "Microsoft's actions have inflicted [collateral] harm on consumers who have no interest in using a Web browser at all" because Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in.
Also in paragraph 173 -- which I just quoted part of -- it says,"Microsoft has forced Windows 98 users uninterested in using [it] to carry software that, while providing them with no benefits, brings with it all the costs associated with carrying addtional software on a system. These include performance degradation, increased risk of incompatibilities, and the introduction of bugs."
Note: (At this point Don starts laughing and says, "It gets even better..") Really, you do need to read the decision for yourself! Don says, "You get the feeling that the Judge is a disgruntled Windows user!" But unlike most disgruntled Windows users, this one has the power to do something about it. Right on, Judge Jackson!
Robin - But Don, all the lovely legal language and Windows-knocking aside, isn't this decision going to end up getting appealed forever?
Don - Yes. However, it is unlikely that an appellate court will want to get its hands under the hood of the relationship between Windows and browsers and between MS and its competitors at level of detail shown by Judge Jackson's findings. It's possible to overturn this but it would be hard.
Robin - Don, how much do you figure MS has spent on legal fees so far, and how much more are they going to spend before this is over?
Don - I'm guessing that they've spent more than $50 million so far. And when you say "when all this is over," if you include the industry suits and class action suits brought by private plaintiffs, you could could be talking about real money. Even for MS.
Robin - What's "real money"?
Don - It depends on whether someone nails them for damages. A $10 rebate for each customer who has bought Windows would run into billions. When you add in the damages that could be claimed by other software makers besides Netscape [like Corel], and by users who ended up with MS products, perhaps at excessive prices, because others weren't available, then only the sky is the limit.
Robin - Do you think Bill Gates will have a "House For Sale" ad in the Seattle newspapers next Sunday?
Don - It depends on how fast and far Microsoft's stock price drops. It's already started to drop, according to a story that just went up on ZDNet.
Robin - Don't forget: all that happened today was that Judge Jackson decided MS was naughty. He didn't say what kind of punishment they should get, which he won't do until he hears a whole new set of arguments. Don's best guess is that the ruling on punishment won't come out "until early next year."
Don Weightman and I will try to get a "Microsoft antitrust legal issues" follow-up together by sometime next week. Or perhaps you would like to do it? If so -- and if you're qualified -- e-mail roblimo@slashdot.org and we'll talk about it.
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
posting "first" messages is plain lameness go get yourself a life fucking idiot
This finding suggests otherwise and that Judge Jackson really "gets it". Things will never be the same again. I wonder if Microsoft "gets it"?
Is a new era dawning?
This is a long awaited descion.. I don't only greet this on the level that somsone has finally had the guts to finally declare microsoft are 'evil' on an offical level, but it opens up a whole class of lawsuits that can be brought agianst microsoft by small companies for taking over their markets.
Take internet connection sharing for example. I've gone through wingate, sygate, and finally winroute, all shareware applications operating in a viable market. Now microsoft in windows 98 second edition has come out with 'internet connection sharing' - which makes the entire market defunct!!! Microsoft is going around squashing honest programmers and companies.
This is a good step in the right direction.
American Legal System, you have finally earned my respect!
Steve Thorne
sjthorne@ozemail.com.au
--
A little overkill never hurt anybody
After all the suits settle, and lots of money changes hands, what's going to happen to the average PC user? Windows can't just be erased instantenously, and people can't be forced to use different operating systems until market share balances. Is there even an operating system with a wide enough application base to compete? How long would it take the average PC distributer to learn Linux installation? What we need is a stable OS that has a published interface (like, say, Linux). But will this ruling, or any legal action arising from it, get us there?
baffle 'em with bullshit" trick on Judge Jackson's Court. With the
predictable outcome. This time, in Judge Jackson's Court, Monoposoft
tried their marketing tricks in the wrong place.
I'm a Libertarian. And so I'm generally opposed to Government
intervention in the affairs of individuals and private business.
But as a long-time victim of Monoposoft's sub-standard products
and heavy-handed business practices, it's good to see them get
a comeuppance.
It seemed to me to be a display of arrogant giddiness... like a young boy just caught and in trouble but thinking he's somehow above it all.
I believe it's the judge who can suggest that the Supreme Court accept the case immediately... if he believes that the case has significant national merit.
Since Microsoft is now part of the DJIA and countless commentators have drawn parallels to the other two recent anti-trust cases involving DJIA companies (AT&T and IBM), this would be against precedence but not unwarranted considering the consequences of both actions and how much "faster" the internet economy moves.
This is the first step of the feds to regulate the computer industry. Their foot is now in the door.
Let's also not forget the large amount of money that large companies have been pouring into Linux. If say they make windozes free, or open the code up to everyone. Who will want to invest in Linux? We already have a hard enough time getting real top of the line apps like it is. Linux's biggest thing is that it works alot better than winblows, and it's free.
Linux has gained many new users over the past year. One common question I see in newsgroups is always about apps, and hardware support. We are just beginning to get companies to move in our direction for a choice. A free windoze might reverse that.
Breaking M$ up isn't going to solve anything. Opening it up would, but at the same time it would harm Linux as a whole a lot more. Will the feds tell Redhat what text editor they can include just because some company sells one?
Yes, he mentions these things.
But the good Judges task was to decide whether or not Microsoft was a MONOPOLY.
In order to head off the whole antitrust case, Microsoft's basic defense was 'We are not a monopoly! So our business practices can't be tried as if we were a monopoly.'
Now, it has been ruled that they ARE a monopoly.
The judge speaks of several different things about other os's, and their business practices.. but only to point out that MS is a monopoly (read: these practices wouldn't work if it wasn't.)
Bah, this judge is a moron who's rulings have been overturned in the past and will again on appeal. Do none of the Slashdot readers disagree with his opinion that Linux isn't even a remote threat to Windows, not even on the horizon? If you say you agree with that you're showing yourselves to be hypocrites. Every day it's "we'll beat Microsoft" "Microsoft sucks, they're fading away" "Microsoft has lost.." etc. So is that all bullshit or is Linux really a loser OS that's not even a remot threat?
You're forgetting about the macros that time how long you spend reading each section, then report this back to the central office. Microsoft has to know what issues people care about, in order to allocate its budget for the next FUD/Astroturf campaign. :)
All this time I though you were rob malda, cause of your login, thanks for getting us the info.
Another bit of reality: microsoft stock has _doubled_ since the case started.. there is an even longer way to go before the microserfs will feel any out of the money option pain from this.. and that which doesnt break you makes you stronger.
To me, it is more worrying that internet explorer now has open season on html/plugins/multimedia standards.. (netscape is now basically a AOL home shopping channel), for the consumer end, an alternative OS is not as important as an alternative broswer. Judge Jackson should have simply ruled that microsoft be forced to offer IE over all platforms without favour to any one, until a credible competitor is built, or the the issue moves onward to the next thing.
I've just spent the last 2 1/2 hours listening to the media reports, MS press conferences/statements, and finally, by reading the bulk of Judge Jackson's decision. In a word, wow. Jackson "gets it", and in a big way. based on the FoF MS looks to be in big trouble. The FoF is an asteroid slamming into the ocean. I think there will be repercussions for the industry as a whole at first, not just at MS. But the bulk of the damage will hit MS square in the chops. On CNN's "Crossfire" tonight, Mary Matalin tried her best to put a "anto-Janet Reno" spin on the decision. But she was nicely thwarted by one of the two guests, who pointed out that the whole Silicon Valley revolution had its inception in the successful anti-trust case against IBM in the 70's. If the FoF turns out to as bad for MS as the case against IBM was, I can only boggle in wonder at where the industry will be (in a positive way) 20 years from now.
I suspect that this ruling will have the same effect as other simliar cases:
- company stays undivided, stock goes up because big MS has clout
- company breaks up, stock goes up because baby-MSs are more effiecient
It is a win-win situation.
Where can I get a Judge Jackson t-shirt? The man obviously 'gets it'... :)
Nope. Unicode is an in-memory representation. Unless the implementer is really dumb(!), the on-disk format for a Unicode document containing only ASCII characters should be pretty much the same size as the corresponding ASCII file. See UTF-8 spec for an example encoding...
Could be get back to News for Nerds, Stuff that MATTERS please?
I dont care about Microsoft.
Actually, for technical users, Linux is already a superior alternative. But for the average Joe, it still has a couple of years to go. Even though we have made inroads many places, it is very hard to buy computers with Linux preinstalled now.
But dont worry, the time will come.
You would be suprised. When one company's stock, especially one that has a large impact in many areas as Microsoft, goes down, people tend to dump their stock in related areas. When Steve Ballmer said that tech stocks were overpriced, including MSFT's, the Nasdaq fell several points, and it WAS due to his statement. It is important to remember that what drives the stock market is people. And people's emotions and reactions is what causes people to buy or sell, not necessarily how a company is doing or will be doing. So expect MSFT to drop a bit on Monday and other companies to drop as well.
You can take your foot out of your mouth now...
Hey, does anyone remember Borland? Didn't Micro$oft constantly screw them over? Didn't Micro$oft also delay key peices of technology to them way back so that their products would be delayed??
>Don't tell me what I may or may not buy.
You can't buy lots of things because they are illegal.
Tough.
We mirrored the finding of facts in Brazil in html only.
1st - MSFT on DJIA as a ploy to stop stock from falling - timing of this was suspicious - great power manipulated this - you hurt MSFT - you hurt the country - the economy - the average joe investor - this alone will keep any real damage from happening 2cnd - DOJ had to prove microsoft used monopoly power to hurt PEOPLE - not companies - they are going to have a hard time doing that - that you think them beind identified a monopoly will hurt them - shows legal ignorance 3rd - States and companies can use this ruling to SUE for large chunks of money - which is what all this game is about - not about you the little guy - you will see none of it - this is just an easy way to transfer some big cash tax free in the halls of power - mayhaps at levels you cannot comprehend - this is what was wanted - a shift of money and power in a way people thought was done to benefit them - but in the end will hurt them 4th - MSFT being one of the largest forces helping the US trade deficit - all this is a big show to fool ignorant little geeks that sit in their computer room and think they really understand world power - you don't - MSFT cannot lose if America remains a world superpower - wether broken up - sued - they will be realligned and the money distributed and company structured in a way to dominate more than they do now - absolute power corrupts absolutely and the had all the power years ago - this is all just entertainment for the elite
He has about 5 billion non-MS currently. The rest would be MS shares. So about 90% in MS, and theres now way he could get even 5% out of there quickly without the stockprice getting cut in half. TN
Good one! I really didnt expect that. First posts sucks, but I actually do like the Beowulfs quite a bit.
--
Anonymous cowards don't buy stock, they start their own companies
Does anyone know of any free, publicly accessible charts of after-hours stock trading? Something on the web maybe? I'm really interested in watching MSFT tank!
We mirrored only the html version here.
I actually think the stockmarket will take it quite nicely. On Island aftermarket trading, MS lost $4-5, while mort other techs were slightly up. Especialy MS competitors like Sun and Corel gained more. Given that we have the weekend to cool down on I think (and hope) it will be ok. TN
A "Future" for a stock is basically called an Option. In this case the option would be a "put". The other, more conventional method would be to "short sell", where you borrow shares to sell, then buy'em back at a lower price. Talk to your people about it, they should know. (Altho I think the stock'll drop so fast that you probably won't be able to short it in time to make a profit. :)
well, if you mean drugs, those laws are full of shit too.
Aside from having a couple of points wrong (mainly the one about downloading a browser - NO average Joe without a STRONG preferance for NS would sit thru a 1 HR download), you seem to have misunderstood the whole point of this case. The judge is not supposed to rule that MS makes shitty products. Its all about HAVING a monopoly, and then ABUSING this (bundling, forcing OEMs). Go read the Finding of Facts one more time.
>[R]ight now I feel that almost any of intrusion of the government against free enterprise is a Bad Thing.
What about Microsoft's intrusion against free enterprise? That's the problem which the government intrusion is trying to correct.
>We've seen Linux jumps leaps and bounds over the past year or so, the way I can see it, this will only hamper Linux development. As far as browsers go, good ones are being developed as we speek that can easily compete with IE.
How could an extended user base possibly hurt Linux development? We're talking about more beta testers, and more exposure. Linux hackers will keep hacking Linux whether they like Microsoft or not. It's for the love of hacking.
The idea here is to allow other products to compete. Mirosoft strategically attacked the most important link in the end-user supply chain, that is, the VARs. They couldn't sell anything even if (though?) they wanted to.
No, while I agree it's nice that they didn't put the all too common DOC file up there, it's hardly a vote against Word documents per se. They did what any reasonably sensible person would do: posted the version they themselves use and a couple of others that combine some amount of portability with ease of production. If they'd wanted to surprise us they would have posted it as, oh, maybe a dvi file. :-)
Is this ruling good for free software? Or will it mean resources will be pulled away from free software development and put back into proprietary software development.
Oh, by the way, being a Libertarian covers many more issues than just the markets and economy. Just because a Democrat wants lower taxes, doesn't make them any less of a Democrat.
Personally, I feel that Microsoft and its lawyers will play into the fears of people and say hurting Microsoft will have a detrimental effect on the economy. For public officials, they will also use this fear--OK, FUD--so it will have leverage on settlement talks. If Microsoft can command such power, then they should be curtailed sooner rather than later.
The judge released it not the justice department. The DOJ are the people on the opposite side of MSFT. I would hope even Microsoft gets an impartial judge-) On the issue of not spooking the market? It isn't that wierd a thought. This won't just cause problems for the price of Microsoft. Now we see IBM possibley suing about having to shutdown OS/2. Or maybe we see IBM shareholders suing IBM over the issue. Basically every computer company that either competes or deals with Microsoft now has to start asking thier legal department what this means. You don't yell fire in a crowded cinema even if there is a fire. BTW what was the Intel product Microsoft supposedly killed?
Yeeeeeeaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!
Take THAT, Evil Empire !!!!!
And you had the arrogance to believe this day would never come !
LOSERS !!!!
This seems the most likely scenario. For instance, APPL is up almost 5 today and I can't think of any other reason for this other than the judge's verdict.
You sound like the people touting tobacco stocks. This could get very ugly if every little lawyer starts craving a fat fee. You think the suit over the bad floppy drives won't get aimed at Microsoft? Then think how this could go. If the number of lawsuits starts to pile up Microsoft will have nightmares about not settling. Then the shareholder suits start. You think Gates looked bad with the DOJ lawyers? Wait until lawyers trying to fatten thier wallets get him. Hell hath not fury like a lawyer smelling blood. Figure Tuesday 2:00pm EST first lawsuit. Anybody want to bet?
I'm willing to bet you're wrong. I may be cynical but expect analyst to release piece saying it's a minor issue. That MSFT is a great company. That it will be overturned on appeal. Why? MSFT has been very good to them. They have made a lot of money off Microsoft. Now they will show the usual lemming loyalty that analyst show. Analyst have a nasty habit of touting stocks that their companies represent. Microsoft represents alot of potential bussiness. Don't expect very many people to bite that hand. Also the quotes I've seen from the findings go something like this " Microsoft has such a dominant position it's almost impossible to do anything about it" Expect that to be jumped on to prove what ever happens microsoft will be okay.
Debatable. A friend sent a document to me in WinWord 98 format. It was around 50K. I loaded it on my Mac and saved it in Word 5.1a format using Word 5.1a and it took a whopping 12K. If I do a strings command on the original document, I can see the text part. There was no fancy graphics, only one table. So the UNICODE argument doesn't apply to what I've experienced.
The problem is they can't now. Any ruling against them opens up too many boxes. We had the abestos lawsuits. We have the tobacco suits. We will have the Windows suits.
Dude, read the document before you comment.
The judge specificaly states that even though Linux is now finally being installed on some machines by major distributors, this does not threaten Microsoft's market share.
You settle because it's safer. No risk of losing on a appeal. You settle because you figure all the other lawsuits that will be launched can then use the settlement to help prove thier cases. If Microsoft settles [and there by admits guilt] they won't be able to argue they've been good little boys.
Things are good because stock performance has been good. In order for companies to participate in the U.S. economy, they must follow some ground rules. It's quite apparent that the software industry cannot regulate itself. This may feel like a witch hunt, but it's one that I feel is justified.
I agree. I think in the process you break all the contracts that the box makers signed and let them make new deals. In addition you really need to force some sort of divisture by Gates et all. They can keep stock in one of the companies but not the rest. If he is really that good he won't have any problem out working the other companies.
Explain to me how "Many of us are Linux and/or *BSD users" AND "so that all users can chooses [sic] the operating systems and applications that suit their needs and tastes"
Funny how you have a choice isnt it?
Some of the documents I read are to be posted in either txt,pdf,wordperfect or Word. The damn idiots haven't set a standard for which version of the software. So if the stuff isn't txt or pdf it could be any version released since the beginning of time. Often within days companies will release stuff using different versions of the same program. It's like they want to drive everybody crazy. I'd kill for straight text files.
Although my predition is that M$ will attempt to settle by providing discounts on future M$ products (it worked for GM!)
I assume you are referring to the side-saddle gas tank design? That case was facing a serious risk of being overturned in GM's favor. Because the legal question is not "are side-saddle gas tanks more dangerous in crashes of type X than gas tanks of type Y". It's if the side-saddle design make GM trucks dangerously defective.
And the answer is pretty obviously no, since insurance rates, fatality rates, and all other statistics for saftey are not noticeably worse and are in fact usually better for side-saddle trucks than the pickups of any other automaker. Furthermore, the trucks did not violate any auto saftey standards in any state or nation.
Yes, in a specifc form of accident, GM trucks were more vulnerable than Ford trucks. And that was the basis for the jury verdict. But, the GM trucks are safer in other specific forms of crashes than the Ford trucks. If the GM trucks were generally more dangerous because of the different design, there would have been some statistical evidence of such. And there was none.
Lynx is a 100% HTML compliant browser that is avalibe for Linux right now. Heck, it's probably already installed on your machine!
Well Sen Hatch a republican has been pushing this. Don't forget the 19 states.
You didn't follow any of the trial did you? The fact he took this long to release his findings shows if anything a pro-Microsoft bias. If he was biased he wouldn't have let Microsoft get away with the stunts they pulled. He is the usual pro-bussiness judge put on the bench by Regan. Thats what is so damning about the findings.
I couldn?t help but notice the annoying question marks sprinkled throughout the document. I think it proves his point in a way. He knows his stuff about Microsoft, yet he was still forced to write the document in Word on Windows. :) Then again I was looking at the CNN mirror, so they may have messed around with the formatting of the document; therefore adding fscking ? marks in.
"I'm sure some of you reactionary, right wing, republican types will howl at this comment, but I don't care because I honestly believe in what I will be doing Monday morning. I suspect I won't be the only person pursuing justice either. " I don't know about that. I expect alot of Microsoft shareholders to be in the same line to sue. Anybody check the 10Q/k for disclosure on lawsuit risk? Anybody think the insurance the directors have includes illegal activities?
Why so late? :-)
I have to agree that this ruling should give us optimism. I noticed several very important points in this ruling outside of its explicit anti-competitive behavior. 1. The judge clearly established that Microsoft is a monopoly. In economic terms, their prices are inelastic, meaning that if MS were to raise prices by $40 dollars for Windows 98, say from $49 to $89, that action does not appreciably lower demand for the product. This is very important, and something that MS really won't get very far if they try to appeal. 2. Aside from the overt actions to squash competition, the judge seems to emphasize that Microsoft has been using its Monopoly position to kill technical innovation just by implicit threats. Throughout the ruling the judge shows a great understanding of the issues AND the technical details. It appears to me that the judge feels very strongly that one of Microsoft's worst offenses is its ability to quell a great deal of innovation WITHOUT explicit actions, like many of the ones detailed in the ruling. Thhe judge seems to think that Microsoft has done a great deal of harm to the public by preventing innovation. IMHO, this may be the thing that gets Microsoft broken up. The judge may feel that fining Microsoft will not be enough to prevent further harm to the public. Fines and such may keep Microsoft from many of these offensive actions, but you get the feeling that the judge does NOT feel that this is enough to make the industry competitive. He realizes that Microsoft has unparalleled power to define and control what technology the public will use, and this really begs for an AT&T style break-up. We'll see, but I'm betting on a break-up. Doug dpierce@megsinet.net ps Sorry for posting as AC.
Maybe--if they are required to document all APIs as well as all future changes to those APIs. If they don't they can just extend and hijack away. But then they can "inadvertantly" delay the updating of the documents or put in errors. MS isn't the most trust-worthy company out there.
I swear, if i get stuck using some piece of shit ass XF ill blow up the headquarters of a random linux distro. I don't mind MS getting whats coming to them, but I'll fight to the death not to use that garbage of a GUI known as XFree86; dos GUI is better looking than XF. If this is the best graphic interface linux has to offer, offer none. It only makes the OS look bad. It's even worse than explorer, which is the most bland and repetitive GUI ever created.
Well, of course the reality is that Microsoft has caused the prices of PC's to be LOWER by far than they would have been. The judge mentions this repeatedly - the OS cost is not a factor in the PC cost. So there goes this "Don" guys credability - he is just another anti MS mouthpiece.
Having one widely available operating system has done more to help the PC market than any other factor in it's history - it has LOWERED the cost of writing software and bea great boon to start up firms.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly not been in the position of being a startup software firm.
But hey, invite the gov't into your pockets, dance around the fires and pretend it's a good thing.
This will most definatly be good publicity for Linux. I just watched Nightline and there were quit a few mentions of Linux in the 1/2 hour broadcast. If anything, people will say "Hey, What is this Linux that is the fastest selling OS"
Yes, but the *legal* definition of "monopoly" is different. U.S. Steel did not produce *all* of the steel in the U.S. (obviously), but it was a monopoly. Grab a law book from the local library and check out the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
IBM actually WON the anti-trust case. Ironically, the lawyer who helped IBM won the case is the same lawyer leading the DoJ case against Microsoft, David Boises.
Does anyone else find it funny (and annoying as hell, once you get to about page 150) that this FoF in which Jackson basically rips MS a new one is full of 'Microsoft?s' and 'Windows?' and 'OEM?s', 'Compaq?s' etc?
Yes, indeed. It doesn't look good for MS. On the other hand, it looks like they may have a lot of evidence to support and appeal, and Judge Jackson has had many of his decisions (All?) against MS overturned on appeal in the past.
One troubling statement is this:
"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."
This is now a "fact". I don't think this is true in the slightest. I don't think MS's customers would put up with a significant rise in it's prices. In fact, I think the only reason that MS has been so successful is that they systematically under-price their OS's below
competition. Now that there are starting to be viable competition (such as BeOS and Linux) technically (Linux was not technically viable
until recently, it was much too complex to even install properly and didn't have the desktop features to compete with Windows), we're
seeing OEM's begin to ship them (Be has a few OEM's now and Linux has dozens).
This is speculation on the part of the judge, not fact. It's not based on any fact presented by the prosecution. Unfortunatly, this is
a key piece (controlling market prices) to being declared a Monopoly. In the absense of any real fact, the judge had to pull this from his
ass to be able to justify himself.
Next, the judge claims there are three factors that indicate MS has a monopoly. The first is that their market share is large and "stable".
It could be argued that if it were stable, MS wouldn't have to go to the measures they've gone to to preserve it, but i'll let that slide.
Then he says "Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry."
Say that again? How is it that a *FREE* OS made by people that do not get paid for their services are able to enter the market and compete quite well? That's a high barrier?
Finally, "Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows." *AT
THIS TIME* it should say. MS has been losing market share lately. Quite a bit of it too. Of course the judge doesn't seem to want to count Apple as a competitor, nor is he counting Server OS's. He's using a very slim definition of the market. Apple stock is at an all-time high and it *IS* taking away some of MS's customers (despite what the judge claims, again more speculation).
Here's another good line.
"Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent."
Huh? That would be 1989. 3 years BEFORE the IBM breakup. IBM held a significant portion of the OS sales with PC-Dos (which is based on
MS-Dos, but is IBM's own product), and this was pre-windows 3.0. There were OS's like GEOS which actually had a respectable following,
and DR-Dos. Then let's throw in the PC based Unix such as Minix, Coherant, etc.. No way was MS's share above ninety percent.
This also contradicts other statements the judge makes which says MS's market share has been increasing. It couldn't be increasing by much
if it's been above 90% for more than a decade. Also this wizzer "At it's peak OS/2 ran approximately 2,500 applications and had 10% of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems" He claims this was in 1994. How could MS have had "above ninety percent" of the market
for the last 10 years if in 1994 IBM alone had 10% of it with Just OS/2?
And I love this bit "Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty
percent."
Then he goes on to "prove" the barriers to entry by using OS/2 as a poster child. The problem? There was no way that OEM's would sell
OS/2 even if MS were not around. Why? (and this is really the clincher). IBM was a competitor to all those OEM's. In the OEM market, you don't line the pockets of your competitor to help run
yourself out of business. MS was successful primarily because the only other alternative was a competitor. MS was considered "Neutral"
even when MS and IBM were working together.
Other shining examples of the judges contradictions: "Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows."
and "consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on the Mac OS."
In one hand he says Apple has a dearth of applications, and the other he says Apples application share is impressive, but not sufficient.
Here's a great line:
"Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs."
I don't happen to believe that the majority of Linux users are for server only useage. Many of the people running servers also use them as desktops, especially in development.
Oh, and I love this bit. This has got to be a legal first. The judge argues that Illegal pirating of windows is a "competitor" to windows
which MS is able to "effectively contain" this "secondary market" through it's pricing. The judge is effectively complaining that MS is
hampering the illegal pirate industry.
Here's a good one. I have to include the entire paragraph since it's so good.
"The fact that Microsoft invests heavily in research and development does not evidence a lack of monopoly power. Indeed, Microsoft has
incentives to innovate aggressively despite its monopoly power. First, if there are innovations that will make Intel-compatible PC systems
attractive to more consumers, and those consumers less sensitive to the price of Windows, the innovations will translate into increased
profits for Microsoft. Second, although Microsoft could significantly restrict its investment in innovation and still not face a viable
alternative to Windows for several years, it can push the emergence of competition even farther into the future by continuing to innovate
aggressively. While Microsoft may not be able to stave off all potential paradigm shifts through innovation, it can thwart some and delay others by improving its own products to the greater satisfaction of consumers."
The first and second halves of this paragraph completely contradict each other. The first half says "Microsoft can't claim it's high R&D
is a sign of it's lack of Monopoly" and in the second it says that "By invensting in R&D, MS inhibits competition from catching up to
them". Sorry, but to me, if you sit on your laurels and your competition can overtake you because of it, that means you are only a
monopoly because your competition isn't as good as you are. In other words, you simply have the best product. That's called "Capitalism".
It also shows that MS is pleasing it's customers and is therefor *GOOD* for consumers. It's still competition, even if the competition is imaginary.
I could go on and on... contradiction after contradiction and "fact" based on flimsy and poorly thought out evidence at best.
There are lots of legitimate things in this finding of fact, but it seems that most of the important conclusions are based on the
incorrect or poor facts. In short, it looks like massive room for MS to claim bias on the part of the judge, since his facts seem to change
in order to prove each point, often to the detriment of a previous fact.
Lynx? Compliant? In what universe? Oh - you mean compliant with a HTML spec years out of date? Whoa yeah - that will really win the desktop!
Consultant to boss: And look, you can surf the web in green OR amber! And look at those great ascii cows!
where all good astroturf belongs
3rd party HTML converters have been available for WP5.1 format since 1996 and maybe even before that.
No they won't. Microsoft stock will go down
temporarily, but will go up over their
vesting period, above the option price, which
is all that matters. Even if MS is broken up,
in 3-5 years, the stock will still be up.
Even more important, Microsoft's policy is to set the option price at the lowest price point of MS stock in a given monthly period. Therefore, this is the best time EVER to GET HIRED by MS.
A Libertarian wouldn't ask the gov to get involved in issues like software quality, but the monopoly thing... What Microsoft was doing was pretty close to extortion.
First off, MS won't plummet on Monday, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it went up. After hours trading has already accounted for this news and it was barely a blip. Second, if they did end up breakin up MS, it would actually be good for the MS stock as shareholders would get some of both companies.
That's right, SAD. First of all, a bunch of
Slashdot kiddies are going to be very depressed when this doesn't turn out to be the rapture they wanted.
Mark my words, nothing big will come out of this, MS will settle, or appeal the case and end up with a slap on the wrist. In a month, their stock will be up up up. Hell, I'm going to buy MS stock like crazy on monday if it plummets.
What's worse is that the government is attacking a company for simply writing software that everyone likes to use, and ensuring wide distribution. Don't even dare to compare the Linux desktop to Windows in usability.
Linux on the desktop is a STEP BACKWARDS in innovation. KDE and GNOME suck. Most X apps *SUCK ASS*
Slashdot lusers just want to replace one monopoly for another. When Linux has 90% of the market, IT WON'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE THE SOURCE and can change the API at will. Whatever API is on 90% of the desktops is froze, and apps will target that.
SLashdot lusers cry like babies when MS includes an applet/utility in the OS like NAT or disk compression that stomps out a previous third party, yet they don't shed a tear when they release FREE utilities which can stomp out commercial third parties and put people out of an income.
These same Slashdot users complain about MS releasing IE for free and putting Netscape out of business for charging for their browser. Yet these same lusers wouldn't complain if an open-source alternative had monopolized the market and put Netscape out of business.
It's ok for Linux to have a monopoly and for Linux to CLONE (not innovate) other company's apps (what MS is accused of) and then put them out of business.
And don't try to claim that Linux can't have a monopoly because its an OS, not a company, and it's free.
The end result is still chilling: OS competition comes to a halt as Linux is "locked" in. We will lose vibrant competition in the OS field, in the embedded space, or microkernel space, or OO-based OSes.
No one will write OSes from scratch anymore based on radical designs. Instead, they will just fork Linux.
I see that as a real crime. Atleast with closed source, you are forced to rewrite it yourself, possibily choosing different strategies.
With Linux, everyone just ripps other people's code and builds on it. It's like there will be no more pristine ecosystems where rare and unique code is developed, as everything becomes a descendant of a single ancestor.
KDE vs GNOME? Just more proof. Two sucky unusable desktops still trying to catch up to MS which has had distributed company, multithreaded components, metadata, and embedding for years.
I give KDE credit for using C++ tho. Most of Linux is still using a lame C architecture.
BTW, is GNOME accessible yet to the BLIND? Haha
Can I get a screen reader for GNOME?
Haha, Linux on the desktop has SO FAR to go. Bash MS all you want, but as a consumer desktop OS, the apps, games, multimedia, and utilities blow Linux out of the water. Linux is lucky to even
have Netscape!!
I don't believe conspiracy theory has anything to do with this. News such as this, released during open trading, could significantly impact the stock market when it effects a company as widely traded and worth as much as MS.
Judge Jackson was thinking very clearly when he decided not to release the FOF until the close of trading (or darn close to it) on a Fri. evening. The potential for a significant drop in technology stocks is still there, but given that we (those who play the market) have a couple of days to think about this before we succumb to the knee-jerk reaction of selling, there is much less of a potential for harm.
- Paul Allen
Towards the end of paragraph 297 in the Finding of Fact document (on page 148), it mentions, "The average AOL user, being perhaps less technically sophiscated than the average IAP[1] subscriber .."
Is it me or was Judge Jackson calling AOL users a bunch of thickos? LOL!
Good one, Judge Jackson!
[1] IAP = Internet Access Provider
Cheers, Alex
(http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk)
>>bill will now have to play by the same rules as everyone else. No, now bill will have to play by a much more restrictive set of rules than everyone else does. Everyone else has the freedom to add new features, and the freedom to tell people "don't like it, don't buy it." Gates doesn't.
Yesterday, the government just told MS that it can't innovate. I know, I know, some people think that an integrated browser is a bad thing, some don't like it, etc. But that isn't the point. The point is that MS is getting in trouble for adding a new feature to its OS, and for giving away (debatably) useful software for free. Microsoft has not harmed any consumers. Microsoft has not done anything except harm competitors, which is something every business does. The judge says that MS "has forced Windows 98 users uninterested in using [IE] to carry software that, while providing them with no benefits, brings with it all the costs associated with carrying addtional software on a system." But MS has done no such thing. They didn't force anyone to use anything. If someone doesn't like a feature in win98, they have every right not to buy win98. I don't need 4 wheel drive, so I won't buy any expensive truck with it. The judge also talks about how Mac, Linux, etc are not in the same ballpark as Windows. So what? They are still out there, and they are still a perfectly valid choice for computer users who don't like windows. If people actually wanted to use them, they could. The problem is that they don't. Windows is easy, and it works well enough to satisfy most consumers. Linux is good for techies, but it sucks for your average user. MacOS does work acceptably, but it is more expensive than wintels. Unlike Standard Oil, MS is a monopoly that can be taken down. In the days of Standard Oil, no one else had enough oil to affect the market. It was simply not possible to sell enough to do that. With software, anyone can produce enough to influence/take over the market. They simply have to make it good enough, cheap enough, or in some way desirable enough. Once someone does that, they can beat MS. The only reason MS is still on top is because no one has done that. MS won the browser war because IE was more convenient than netscape. It is the most used OS because it is better for the average consumer than any other OS. MS has done nothing wrong; they have simply made more desirable products than everyone else.
YOU IDIOT!!! Or buy the long term puts but the floor traders got the premium pumped so much now that MS$ would have to go to zero for you to come out.
And MSFT was just added to the Dow Jones... Haha
...and I've seen this presented as a possibility by some of the analysts (sp?) is for MS to be required to share/licence the Windows source with two or three other vendors, there by giving choise of flavors of Windows.
And finally, an end to Gate's law may be at hand!!
Oh I forget that all us computer users are so stupid that we can't download a freaking file. The fact is win95 shipped day one with IE bundled with it . Granted it was a piece of crap, ver 1.0 "I think". I tried it out and it sucked! So, I "can you belive it, figured out how to dl and install Netscape." This was before M$ got the internet,. Check you old win95 books and see how many M$ websites you find listed compared to win98's book.
Netscape's problems can't be laid at the feet of M$. M$ didn't even have a decent working browser till 3.0 which 80% of the users at that time would of had to download and install. It's also is important to note that till 3.0 Netscape had a near 90% market share. It wasn't till the 4.0's "which again was a download for 95" that M$ began to pull even with Netscape. Netscape's own people said that they rushed Netscape 4.0 out way to early and it's problems have caused many users to move to IE. Let's not forget vaporware 5.0 which was due last year and continues to be pushed back. As aol finds more way to place more popup ad banners in it. Or maybe they are taking a que from their partner Real and include a free trojan horse with it to report it's use and all our computer info. And we all thought M$ would be the one caught with their hand in the cookie jar, including myself.
FYI:Winblows came with a nice feature called add and remove programs to let you choose what you want to use or not. Yes I know in 98 you can't remove IE. But as far as I know you can't remove kfm from kde either. btw kfm is also a intergraded part of KDE I use it to surf the internet, and my system. "humm like IE4" I refuse to use anything made by AOL. So aolscape is no longer a option for me. I don't need the feds telling me what is good for me. I can think on my own, and can make CHOICES on my own. Since most newbies sign up to aol, at least for a while. They are the ones that are killing their own product now by not using it.
Here is where we stand now.If I make a text editor and sell the program. I can now sue any company that bundles any OS with a text editor. Because by including it in the package it gives them a unfair advantage over me. This goes for Linux, Sun, M$, BE, or any other vendor. That is the type of BS this FoF has opened up. With the US full of people who sue of anything you can't say it won't happen. Remember the lady who sued McDonalds cause she spilled coffee on herself, and won.
Just one other point. All night while watching the Clinton New Network and PMSnbc I kept hearing 90%. Was I the only person who saw the report on c|net that reported Winblows was down to something like 86% of the desktops? It also said that many of the users polled reported they were dual booting Linux and windoze. The best cure is to bar M$ from selling anything in the US. This would force OEM's and vendors to port to other OS. But Clinton doesn't want the Father of the Internet tring to get elected with 30,000 + people out of work due to Ms. El-nino"
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-findings.pdf Read it twenty times. Then kick yourself in the head.
You have no idea what the internal culture/reality distortion field is like. This is a non-issue.
If the OS is $100 and the hardware is $300 then the OS is one quarter of the cost of the machine. If you double the price of the OS, (100% rise) would only lead to the machine being 25% more expensive. That is all the judge is saying.
The OS being one quarter of the price of the machine *is* a significant fraction. Price *rises* tend to be "scaled" by that though.
That would likely be considered a further abuse. This is not like GM [like some have suggested] GM even with a 40% market share doesn't have the sort of position that Microsoft does. Also don't forget most of those copies of Windows weren't bought by consumers. They were bought by OEM's to install. They would get the low cost product. That wouldn't stimulate thier demand just fatten thier bottom line.
The future of the software industry is in good hands.
You are correct that it has to do with the word counting features of MS Word. Word does NOT count words that are in the header or the footer of a document. Many legal breifs will have a 10K or 14K word limit and if it goes over that, the court tosses it out. VERY embarassing to lose a case for a client because you typed to many words in the breif. Consequently, everyone in the industry uses word perfect.....
The Miscreant.
as I finish reading this FoF, I am quite emotional,
As I did not expect to live to see the end of the dark era, and nor did I expect that the hero who finally pops out of nowhere and rescued us at the end, is actually a non-geek.
Why does everyone bring the economy into this?
um... because the laws that microsoft may or may not have broken
were originally designed (maybe not in the best way) to help the
economy...
The law should stand up for the other company and provide a fair chance for them to compete with MS. Screw economic. Get your 4-way power Y2K compliment radio.
CY
Why don't you get an OBJECTIVE viewpoint to what has happened. Every time, all you do is blind yourself to anything resembling opinions that differ from the ones that you want to be right. Its about time that you change your slogan from "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." to "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. As long as linux is promoted and microsoft trashed."
OPEN SOURCE. CLOSED MINDS. WE ARE SLASHDOT
This gets the ball rolling in the right direction. This ruling will cause the industry to keep a sharp eye on the practices that Microsoft (and others) use to strongarm customers and manipulate the direction of windows developers. Like others have said, this can and may help level the playing field not just for the PC OS market but for applications as well. We have already seen great strides in these areas and will continue to do so. Just think about the story of Microsoft's shady financial practices. If that turns out to be true and something big comes of that we may see the same thing that happened to IBM - A big bubble getting popped and spewing layed off people and B.S.! Not to mention a hugely overinflated stock price swizzling back down to a reasonable level.
This is the problem with your reference to MacOS, et al. Yes, they ARE out there. (So is DOS.) But when it comes down to it, they are useless for a majority of computer users because of the lack of applications! An OS with no apps is the equivalent of a paperweight. It might be tight, it might fit on a floppy, but if it can't run something, forget it.
Is Windows really better for the "average" consumer? No. No OS is better for the average consumer. Have you seen a newbie use a computer? It's a joke. Why is this, I wonder? Maybe because instead of trying to add "innovations" to the operating system, MS has simply concentrated on silly window dressing and menu effects. [Wow, my Word menu now slides in! Ha, what a company!] Instead of trying to make the software more user-friendly - while not losing propeller-heads - MS has chosen to make the OS pretty and make you learn the conventions. The machine should bend to OUR needs, and not the other way around.
I have read in the past that MS "simply" wants there to be a set of standards so that when anyone, anywhere encounters a computer he/she can use it. Great. Nice idea. Why not offer an open set of OS standards and APIs? I'd love to run something other than Windows, but my daily multimedia production duties prohibit it.
And lastly, no one has "beat" MS because you can't do it in the market. You just can't. Remember DR-DOS?
That is why MacOS X should be interesting; bringing Unix to the masses.
Funny. I thought thats what Linux did.
Can anyone imagine running a computer in 5 years without a web-browser built in? Personally I think that having the Web-browser built into an OS is very important. Even the KDE is showing the importance of having built-in support for hypertext. I don't hear too many people bashing that though.
Yep. You guys don't understand the stock market. After hours did already account for this. It saw as much as a 6% drop, last ECN match 87 /16. Which is 4.5% . It think monday close will probably be 3%-6% down from friday close. And maybe we will see some heavy selling of MSFT overall. But it will be much slower than a sudden 10-20 pt drop. Which would be insane, due to market cap indexing that would be ranked as the biggest sellof in history for NASDAQ. The other guy is basically right. While MSFT may see a significant hit, other techs will probably rally. The crash of MSFT stock will only come with its decline in the market, not legal rullings. This I do think will happen. Even if they were ruled harshely against and split up. Wallstreet may see this as a good thing. Remember AT+T investors did hansomly from the ma bell breakup. So I agree. I think a lot of you don't understand the stock market.
While there is also a market-based motivation for not releasing the Mac OS X Server component for Intel based machines, if such a beast had existed during this trial, it could have represented a considerable argument in favor of competition existing on the OS/Intel front.
There was much speculation at the time why, since there was a beta of OS X/Intel, why it never went beyond that. This, the judge's ruling, sheds quite a different light on that decision by Apple - seeing as how Apple definitely hasn't been a big help to MS during the deliberations when they exposed how MS tried to kill Quicktime.
At this rate, I would not be surprised if the OS X product for Intel made its appearance after the final ruling and decisions.
Harry
Even more important: Due to the fact that this finding of fact brands MS as having a monopoly in desktop OS's, it opens the door for LOTS of related lawsuits that will point to the finding of fact as their proof that MS is a monopoly. Monopolists have to live with far stricter regulations than most people.
If their IPO goes ok they won't have any problems paying the salaries of a lawyer or two ;)
It's the same as selling a claim to something. Novell sold Caldera the rights to DR-DOS, and implicitly or explicitly (since Ray Noorda is well known as a Microsoft hater, I assume DR-DOS was bought explicitly for the purpose of suing Microsoft), including the right to any monetary compensation gained by demanding damages from Microsoft.
It's irrelevant. Caldera owns DR-DOS, and thus it owns its entire history. Caldera is thus entitled to sue on DR-DOS's behalf regardless of whether they owned the OS during the time period in which it was a significant threat to Microsoft.
Let's see, WP runs on DOS, Windows, MacOS, and UNIX (this version is currently free). Why did you want it in Text again?
>>Yes, people have the right not to buy Win98; that's not being debated. The problem is that if I, Joe Computer User, choose not to buy it, my selection of applications and utilities is noticably fewer. I can't walk into CompUSA and pick up a high-end office suite for Be. I can't go to Best Buy (not that I would) and purchase a joystick that'll work with my Linux version of Quake III Arena. Everything on the PC side is Windows - and that is, everything for the consumer.
You can get office software for the Mac or Linux. In any case, even if there is some stuff you can't get for other systems, so what? That is one advantage windows has, and that is why it is on top. It is not the fault of MS that there aren't as many mac products as there are PC products.
>>This is the problem with your reference to MacOS, et al. Yes, they ARE out there. (So is DOS.) But when it comes down to it, they are useless for a majority of computer users because of the lack of applications! An OS with no apps is the equivalent of a paperweight. It might be tight, it might fit on a floppy, but if it can't run something, forget it.
Actually, MacOS is fine for a majority of computer users. It has enough apps (internet stuff, word processors, graphics, etc) for the common user. The only reason it isn't a real competitor to windows is because an iMac is $1000 while a comparably useful PC is $550 or less.
Windows is simply better for the average user than a mac.
>>And lastly, no one has "beat" MS because you can't do it in the market. You just can't. Remember DR-DOS?
I'm not familiar with DR-DOS. But what is to prevent someone from seriously competing with MS? If someone were to sell a computer with another OS preinstalled, for less than what a wintel box costs (or perhaps the same price with better features), why couldn't they compete with MS?
The clearest sign of guilt is attempting to reduce the budget of the Department of Justice. Imagine if the mafia or a band of serial killers tried to do this! It's unbelievable.
Oh yeah? WHAT OTHER ARTICLES? This Anti-MS stuff is poisioning the site and is causing other news to be dropped out.
GIVE IT UP!
We've got a couple of dozen more licenses to Windows than we do machines. We replace a machine, it comes with a Windows license, even though we already had one. We buy a machine to run SCO, Linux, Netware, or even NT, it comes with a Windows license that we never use. The damn things are piling up in corners. If we could return the bunch of them at $50 a pop, we'd have a fair chunk of change. If Microsoft was forced to refund every unwanted Windows license, they'd be out billions.
'"Microsoft's actions have inflicted [collateral] harm on consumers who have no interest in using a Web browser at all" because Win98 runs more slowly it would if they hadn't put the browser in.'
Too true. I build computers (and have to build Win98 computers at that) and I always turn off all the web-desktop features and all that crap and set everything to Classic Style (under View/Folder Options for you still stuck with the web-desktop farce) just to get the computers to be useable. I also sneak on Netscape. Lessor of two evils - when the hell is Mozilla gonna be ready? I'd really like to start building Linux based PC's for home use...
- OT Rant -
Only with a useable browser that actually works and uses the ever popular plugins and resources that websites are utilizing can Linux hope to compete with M$.
- end OT Rant -
You've got it backwards. Judges don't need a reason to refuse leave to appeal. They need reason to allow it. You can't appeal just because you lost.
Oh, the Simpson's writers weren't the first to prophesize...I still have on my fridge the Doonesbury's from when Win95 first came out:
"Why don't we just give Bill Gates ALL the money now and get it over with"..."Pride."
Plus even more relevant, and more recent, from 2-15-98..not found on doonesbury.com (interesting, in the "topics" list, there was no "Microsoft"), so here's the text:
"So, Alex, given any more thought to what you want to be when you grow up?"
"Uh huh, I've decided I want to found the next Microsoft, Uncle Bernie!"
"Hee, hee... I'm afraid there'll never BE another Microsoft, Alex. Microsoft is in the business of preventing that from happening!
But -- if you have a great idea, a killer app, a new technology that changes everything... then, with a little luck you might start a company SO promising that it'll quickly be taken over and dismantled by Microsoft!'
"Wow...that's the new dream?"
"Yup! I know guys who've done it two, three times"
(c) 1998 G.B. Trudeau
There is/was a big difference between OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 and an even bigger difference between 2.1 and 3.0. Actually I'd bet they would argue they were "forced" into those buddy-buddy relationships to keep Microsoft happy. I'm not counting on IBM suing I just figure some lawyer somewhere will find an IBM shareholder and launch a suit against IBM over thier failure to disclose Microsoft's power.
Any "High barrier" to entry has more to do with catching up to an extremely complex and feature rich OS, not market factors.
A good example that people use every day in windows: Embedding a spreadsheet in a Word Processing document. Linux has no standard way of doing this. Windows does. This is a feature which *LOTS* of people make use of every day in their jobs. There are lots of these little "features" which users would need in order to make Linux a viable platform.
MS simulates OLE for the Mac, but there are no base-level services to do it (if I recall, OpenDoc was canceled) and other applications can't take advantage of this like they can in windows.
Linux has come a long way, but it's still got a long way to go before it's at feature parity and ease of use parity.
it is here, and quite unslashable.
the BeOS doesnt compete solely on its 'ease of use', although it is very easy to use, it is technically superior to even Linux and the *BSD's in some respects. For example, it uses a 64-bit journaling file system (my mp3's never skip even under heavy disk usage as they do under win and linux) it is well threaded and has many features that are needed in a modern multimedia OS (low kernel latencies for example) Of course I cant begin to explain all the cool things the BeOS can do. Check out the website for more info. www.beos.com
..despite what they'd like to believe.
Okay, version 4.2, but whaddaya want?
I seriously remember the majority of offices I would visit back in the early-earlymid 90's were runnin WP5.1, not Word. How quickly things change.
All of them? They haven't been around long enough.
...And that is based on the assumption that MS will not be fined 150 Billion dollars.
Most replies seem to assume either of two outcomes: 1) MSFT stays in one piece and gets stronger 2) MSFT gets split up and releases value Either way the stock goes up, right. Of Course. But what if: 3) MSFT stays in one piece and is regulated like a utility, with price controls on its monopoly products. ? Crazy, why? Splitting up MSFT will not affect its monopoly on PC operating systems? The key issue is how will this monpoly be regulated ? and what this will do to earnings growth.
I agree that the quoted paragraph should have included a mention of the costs of retraining, even the time-cost of attuning yourself to an alternative manner of doing things. However, despite this unfortunate omission, the general gist is correct. Since Linux and the other ``free'' systems get their own special section, it seems reasonable to presume that by ``server operating system'' the judge means something like Solaris or Netware which really do require decent hardware. Let us also not forget that many offices run a fleet of near-identical systems so any licence fee or hardware upgrade gets multiplied by the number of systems. (side issue, the name ``open-source'' is used in favour of the name ``free-software'', trend for the future?)
The judge bases his facts on observation of the market: ``non-free'' applications running on Linux or *BSD have been slow to pick up, demonstrating that the ``free'' systems are still heavily depending on donated time in order to stay competitive. At the moment this is completely true. The potential expansion of free-software/open-source developers into the realm of value-adding and into the service industry is not discussed at length but the suggestion in the judgement is that this potential industry is unproven and at BEST going to mature in a few years. This seems a quite reasonable estimate.
At the moment ``possibility'' is the correct word for this. Very few developers are pushing this way compared with the number of developers in the MS-Windows arena. There is lots of evidence that the Linux situation will improve and many developers have publicly stated interest in Linux, even commitment in some cases but this judgement relates to the present situation and the near future, neither of which involve developers flocking to Linux in droves. For example, the spectrum of games available for Linux is still a fraction of W95 games and this is a big factor controlling home computer popularity -- things are improving for sure but no landslide yet. Aside from this, Linux is being stung by the same issues that prevent other systems trying to productively interface with MS-Windows -- bad API docs, unavailable file-format specifications, changing API, device manufacturers signing ``special agreements'' with MS, etc. even with devoted reverse engineering efforts Linux still feels a ``lock out'' effect when trying to directly compete with MS applications. I wonder if the judge was ever told about Samba and the difficulty in getting networking specifications?
I might further point out that ``man'' works across the board, ``info'' is pretty widespread too and once you know those two you are well on the way towards getting out of trouble. The issue of diversity among Unix systems is a such a yawningly old FUD cliche... the POSIX standard has been round for years, utilities like autoconf are widely accepted and just sensible use of conditional compilation and standard library functions makes it rather easy for anyone to write portable applications. Any developer who wants to support a range of systems and platforms has the ability to do so.
The thing is, BSD users don't WANT to be Linux users who don't WANT to be Solaris users they do things their own way for their own reasons and have no interest in getting straight-jacketed. Given the diverse nature of the friends you keep I would expect you to understand this but most likely all your not-made-up friends are Windows users.
Consider that the case has run for 18 months so far and in 14 months, there will be a new administration. Want to bet that BillG is and will be giving money to the candidates?
The standard of review for findings of fact is the clearly erroneous standard (see FRCP, Rule 52(a)). The clearly erroneous standard is met when "although there is evidence to support [the finding], the reviewing court on entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" US v US Gypsum, 333 US 364, 395. This is still a difficult standard of review. The standard of review for conclusions of law is the right/wrong standard and a conclusion is freely reviewable. All matters that require an interpretation of a statue are reviewable de novo. The abuse of discretion standard is met when the reviewing court determines that no reasonable person could have come to a conclusion given the evidence before them (see Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, at 10-11).
As pointed out by Hawk, finding of fact can be appealed, just not yet. An appeal can not be taken in a civil action until after the entry of the final judgment (see FRAP, Rule 4(a)). In some circumstances an appeal may be taken prior to a final judgment as a "collateral issue", but findings of fact do not qualify.
Microsoft may appeal the final judgment in this matter as a matter of right pursuant to 28 USCS 1291 (see also FRAP, Rule 4(a)). Granting of subsequent petitions for review of that appeal process is within the discretion of the reviwing court.
kickahaota - You have a pretty good grasp of the internals - you must have been an attorney in a previous life. I must, however, respectfully disagree with you on MS's prospects on appeal. First of all, the Findings of Fact filed November 5, 1999, are a mandatory precedent to a final order as set forth in FRCP, Rule 52, as are conclusions of law. Although a conclusion of law is freely reviewable, it is reveiwable de novo if it is purely a matter of law (such as an interpretation of a statute). Issues urged as error that are matters of both law and fact are reviewable under the "right/wrong" standard. Findings of fact, of course, will be disturbed only if clearly erroneous. Since only matters of law are reviewable de novo, the Findings of Fact are the essential support for conclusions of law that involve mixed questions of law and fact as most COLs will. Only the issues reviewed de novo will go back to the evidence in the case, the review of most of the COLs will rely on the FOF. The only way to attack a COL that relys on FOFs is to either attack the FOF or show that the conclusion derived from the FOF and the law is wrong, and as you've noted, FOFs are presumed to be right. We will know more on or about December 6, 1999, when the Plaintiffs file their memorandum of law, but my initial take is that the court has supplied a very good set of findings upon which to base their COLs and MS has got its work cut out for it on appeal.
Interesting how MS has the finding of fact in both Word and WordPerfect formats, of course, they wouldn't put it in .txt format or anything, that would make it easier for someone who doesn't use windoze.
Washington DC attorney Don Weightman, who often serves as the informal "Slashdot legal interpreter" on federal law,
Odd, searching slashdot for Weightman returns:
1 Feature: The Broadband Wars by Roblimo on Tuesday July 20, @09:17AM EST 301
One article does not "often" make... but:
When you say "Slashdot", You mean Andover.net, don't you?
I don't want to sour the party at all, but before we get too happy lets stop and look at the facts.
1. Microsoft will NOT be broken up. I have heard some people discussing this as possibillity, but it's simply not going to happen unless Microsoft *chooses* this(and they won't). I don't care what anyone says, its just not going to happen. Standard oil was a completely different case this is different. With software you can simply revoke your competitive advantage (i.e. open source it) and you will no longer be a monopoly.
2. This won't change much for the final OS market. Linux won't suddenly gain marketshare because consumers aren't going to decide to stop using Windows just because a judge somewhere thinks that Microsoft uses unfair marketting practices.
The good news, on the other hand, is that this will certainly make it easier to purchase computers without windows pre-installed. One of Microsoft's many ways of forcing windows on it's consumer base is to force PC manufacturers to pay for each computer made, not how many copies of windows it actually installs. This practice will almost certainly be stopped.
Bottom Line: The war with Microsoft is far from over, but this is an excellent start.
-Cyberllama
Just make them completely document all protocols,
API's, and file formats.
That is enough to let them stay ahead if they
truly innovate; but if they drag behind the
industry won't have to suffer as we are now.
Mark
Actually, findings of fact are where the judge says what he's decided is proven as to the facts of a case. He's listened to both sides and has decided who he believes. In a divorce case, for example, he might say in the Findings: the defendant (say the husband) acted like this and like this on such and such a day and the result was that the wife ended up in such and such a hospital. He'll state what he finds the husband's income to be (usually more than the guy tried to say it is). He'll state what the children's names and DOBs are and that they are entitled to support, that they are his kids, etc. He will be writing in the facts that MATCH the law's requirements. It has to reach all the necessary elements of the law for the divorce to be granted. It isn't random. He's touching all the necessary bases. THEN, in the conclusions of law, a separate document, he says what laws apply to the case, which section of the divorce law, for ex., and states what is to be done. But the two docs are related. You don't write the Findings and later think about what your conclusions are. In the MS case, he didn't just say they are a monopoly, he said they damaged not only the competition but also held back innovation and hurt consumers...he was touching all the necessary bases, legally. That's why MS statements are all stressing how much they care about innovation...how consumers are the beneficiaries of the healthy business rivalries... just amazing speeches, if you don't understand the law... You can see what's likely to come from the findings of fact, and can CLEARLY see who has prevailed and who the judge is going to favor. This judge says MS was naughty, all right. Findings of fact means exactly that -- he didn't buy their story. What he will do about it is what's to come -- first both sides present to the judge what they think the laws are that he ought to consider and how they relate to what should happen. Then he decides. He's not without his own ideas already however! In real life, what usually happens in a situation like this is settlement talks start ASAP in hopes of avoiding le deluge .. as per Gates' statement on how much they would like to put this case behind them, etc. Unless his lawyers see something legally, not morally, they think they can use on appeal, they will certainly be talking settlement. And these findings are so incredibly detailed... appeals aren't based on a different point of view. The appeals courts don't usually get into facts, that is, they don't retry a case, only overturn cause of things like mistakes of law or prejudice from the judge, that kind of thing.
Don't forget Friday night isn't exactly the most active time of the week. Alot of serious people are home with the kids. I don't expect the price to crater. I do think there will be some spillover to all pc related stocks. Most of it negative. OTOH I doubt a great deal on the downside Monday. What I do expect is something like Phillip Morris's stock chart. The only difference is MO has better lawyers.
When you live in a nation of laws you expect to be punished if you break those laws. No one forced Microsoft to act the way it did. If microsoft broke the law they should be punished. Anything less makes laws just words.
- Robin
I'm still digesting the FOF. But one thing strikes me. This is an history making document. Our biz will be different from here on out.
The funny thing is, Microsoft sees fit to quote only Section 408 on its website:
408. The debut of Internet Explorer and its rapid improvement gave Netscape an incentive to improve Navigator's quality at a competitive rate. The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate charge increased general familiarity with the Internet and reduced the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefitting consumers.
Poor MS. I guess that one paragraph is about the only spin it can find in this whole document.
WP has had a lot of acceptance in the legal field because of it's ability to create large libraries of standard verbiage for legal documents. A lawyer can create a iron-clad contract for hundreds of different situations simply by picking the correct verbiage macros and typing in the specifics. It takes them all of 10 minutes to do so. Once you know the system, and you know that it is thoughly debugged, why change? And since WP corp made sure that their software fully met the specifications of it's customers they have no reason to change. Hey, imagine that, listening to customers and giving them what they want rather than dictating autocraticly what they will get!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
The disconcerting part is that the MS people show _no_ signs of backing down even now. They haven't changed their tune one iota. I think they're all brainwashed, they're just going to stonewall it to death (theirs).
Or maybe, just MAYBE, Microsoft really did all those bad things? Is that even remotely a possibility?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
You obviously never used doublespace, or QEMM, or DR-DOS. Oh yeah, what about them stacker folks?
MS has been doing this since day 1... I'm honestly surprised it took this long.
-Erik-
"Monopolistically Competitive" is an oxymoron.
-Erik-
Every company has a monopoly in their own product. That's why we have copyright and patent laws.
Coke and Pepsi are healthy competing products of the same type, I see no monopoly there. A monopoly has a blanketed market share to the point where competitors are insignificant. Hence competitiveness at any sense with something "insignificant" is hardly possible.
-Erik-
Doublespace contained a good deal of code from Stacker.. In fact, it was so significant to the point where certain drive utilities would recognize doublespaced drives as stacker drives.
QEMM is an excellent memory manager that always has to have a fixpatch for every single version of windows, for some reason M$ kept breaking it's support. I eventually got tired of using it after having to buy new versions just to support windows.
DR-DOS would not work with Win3.1, despite the fact that it was more than compatible as a fully functional dos.
I should have explained myself better, these are examples of M$'s destruction of other companies' products through market dominance.
-Erik-
Probably the most immediate and tangible effect this will have on Microsoft is in employee turnover.
As I understand it, MS doesn't really pay that well, except employees get rich on the stock options. Suddenly those stocks aren't so attractive. MS will have trouble holding on to its talent, or hiring new staff.
Anybody know how much it would cost Microsoft to pay market rates for it's staff?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Hey, thanks, that *is* easier to read!
.pdf file to text, but the HTML document is much more accessible, as it is on what is commonly called a "web page", found on the "Internet". (did this give anyone else Dr. Evil flashbacks? 'Using a "laser", I will punch a hole in the "ozone layer"'... :)
Anyone with mod points, bump this up, if it hasn't been mentioned already.
I just converted the
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yes, he mentions these things. But the good Judges task was to decide whether or not Microsoft was a MONOPOLY.
That was certainly the most important issue he had to decide, but it was far from being the only one. He had to determine (after the trial proceedings and a review of all the evidence) what the facts of the case were. The facts, as he's determined them, say not only that Microsoft is a monopoly, but that they used that monopoly in ways which will almost certainly be deemed illegal when they get around to the findings of law portion.
He laid out many facts that will be of much help to other companies and individuals who have brought (or will soon bring) suits against Microsoft. Caldera is a perfect example. This will be a great boost for their case since they will not have to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly since Judge Jackson already determined that they are.
All in all, this is a very bad thing for Microsoft. Yes, they will appeal it as long as possible. But the DOJ has a nice advantage after this point. These facts can't be appealed. Only the findings of law can be appealed. I think the facts are damning enough that they won't have much luck with their appeals. If some useful injunctions are put in place while the appeals process goes on, and they are actually enforced this time, then perhaps something good was accomplished by this suit.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
People have had a lot of hope over the last year due to the fact that the DOJ actually seemed to have wised up a bit. They realized that Microsoft laughed off their consent decree and they apparently decided to try and do it right this time.
This has given many companies the courage to do something besides dance to Microsoft's tune. Were it not for this suit, Linux would have much more bleak prospects than it currently does. I doubt we would have seen the investments from the likes of IBM and Intel if the suit hadn't happened. People have had reason to show confidence in Linux' chances of becoming a real competitor to Windows. Much of this is only possible because of the DOJ case.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
http://federal.gallerywatch.com/ms-findings.ps
Make that:
http://federal.gallerywatch.com/ms-findings.pdf
but, both are there...;)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't advice. etc.
1) You can always file the initial appeal, which willl be heard. This is part of due process.
2) Findings of Fact *can* be appealed. However, the standard of review makes it improbable that they will be reversed. Conclusions of law can be altered by an appellate court easily; the appellate court just substitutes its own judgment. Factual findings, however, whether by a judge or jury, can only be overturned if the appellate court finds that no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion given the evidence before them. A *very* tough standard.
>"Monopolistically Competitive" is an oxymoron.
:)
Not if you have any idea what it means
It describes a market in which each firm has a monopoly in their own product, which is distinguished in some way from other products (Coke & Pepsi). Each firm has some market power, but must compete with other monopolists.
> Caldera's case is kind of on shakey ground,
:) Part of DR-DOS when they bought it was the potential claim against ms.
>IMHO, because they didn't own DR-DOS during a
>time where it would have mattered.
Completely & utterly irrelevant
> They bought
>DR-DOS only after it was fairly clear that
>DR-DOS wasn't a viable product anymore. But
>#include
Yep. But they bought it wounds & all
hawk, esq. (but this isn't legal advice)
I remember an article that appeared on Infoworld about a year ago, basically saying that if MS is offically declared a monopoly, it'll basically open the sluice gates for law-suits against MS.
It'll probabaly have a decent effect on the two other major current MS lawsuits - Sun against MS over Java (that Judge for that lawsuit is expected to re-rule on some major points soon) and the Caldera one which will go to trial soon. (couldn't find any references to Caldera in the "findings of fact" though)
Another interesting point is that it is (apparantly) possible for the DoJ to ask for any full appeal to go directly the the Supreme Court! (or something like that) Uh oh... ^-^
Finally... I wish the people I do share dealings with would do "future" shares - basically betting that the share price will fall, as I had some money I'd quite happily put on MS's shares falling. Oh well... It'll be interesting to see the affect on MS's main competitors.
Jackson ruling sends powerful message
--
There are two reasons the Appeals Court won't do much with this. One, it is a finding of fact. appellate courts have to have an extremely good reason to overturn a finding of fact. They regularly tell the judge that he didn't understand the law, but are expected to be able to show that the finder of fact was totally clueless before overturning a finding of fact. This finding of fact may not be 100%, but it is still top notch. The rest of the case will depend on this finding of fact.
Two, the whole thing might be certified directly to the Supreme Court when all is said and done. If so, the DC Circuit won't be able to say anything.
...you would know that it's impossible.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
98lite.net
every format? Not really. For example, there was no Applixware native format. What I was was one proprietary format (Wordperfect, presumably what the document was created in) and a few other mostly-open formats like PDF and HTML. This seems reasonable to me. Text might be nice, but HTML is close enough (since it's all a single page; just strip the tags).
My $.02
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Your suggestion that we vote exactly what we believe is great. Sadly, this disgustingly biased Harris Poll only offers choices that imply Microsoft is some kind of victim rather than the abusive perpetrator the courts are showing them to be!
"Did Microsoft get what they deserved?" means what? Microsoft hasn't gotten anything yet! Then the choice of three answers includes two which favour Microsoft? Nice to see anyway that those two don't get as many responses combined as the "yes" does.
For "what do you think will happen next?" the only choices are for Microsoft to get the best it can still hope for or else it's "drawn out" and "bitter"?!
Amazing. I'll have to save this as a reminder not to ever trust Harris Poll results even as far as the Slashdot ones.
You realize Microsoft was one of four new companies (plus Intel, SBC and Home Depot) that recently made it onto the Dow Industrial Average. How's the stock market going to cope? What's that say for the Dow, that they're putting megalithic evil companies up with the set standard?
Then again, they have had Ford.
And what about Windows 2000? That's scheduled to come out Feb. 17. Not that lots of people are gonna yank it off the shelves, but does it have much of a chance now?
J.
J.
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
Of course he gets it. He has been on this case for more than four years. He has been hearing about programming interfaces for longer than most Slashdot readers. His well-publicized reactions and statements in the courtroom on this leg of the case are clear evidence that he gets it; the finding of fact is mere confirmation of it.
Lots and lots of legal people use WordPerfect. In fact, more than a few law offices actually still use WordPerfect 5.1a for DOS.
They also use a lot of NetWare, as I understand it...
Lawyers can be dumb, but they're smart enough to generally avoid typing in the first place. They have secretaries type. And they have very strict requirements on the formatting of their documents so it seems that WP has turned out to be the best suited. Want to effect a change? Make an emacs lawyer mode. It would probably catch on quickly as long as it can import WP files without a hitch.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I rejoice at this ruling as much as anyone else, we still have a ways to go. By itself, this ruling is essentially meaningless. Once we start seeing all the other charges answered, and all the penalties assigned, THEN we can start going ape-shite and comparing it to David and Goliath's big brother Chip. Hell. I'll even buy a round for anyone showing up on my doorstep when it happens!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Up until June of this year (she'd been banging away on an old 486/33 with 20MB RAM (16 of which I'd put in) and a 230MB HD. The only reason she upgraded was that I dismantled her machine one day while she was at work and put the new machine in there. Then told her that the old one had fried it's HD (but I'd "luckily" had the new machine laying around (sorta like my uncle just had a 10MB IBM HD "laying around" when I built my first 8088 system) and that the old system wouldn't like the 3GB drive it had in it).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Not all of us have the same ideology as you do. Some of us think it'd be great if it were easier for ethical developers of commercial software can do business without the threat of being crushed.
Those who develop software in part for financial gain are not The Great Satan. They are your friends, family, and anyone else who has to work for a living. Having code open-sourced is a great thing, but it's not a prerequisite for an ethical company.
I'm for choice, not for 'choice as long as it falls under the GPL'.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
i wouldn't say there is any indication of microsoft stock dropping appreciably. friday, 630 has an obvious effect, the judge had no wish to precipitate a market panic.
microsoft can not afford to settle this out of court. odds are they cant and wont. they tried to settle in 1995, and they lied to the federal gov't. our gov't, for various reasons, doesn't trust microsoft or bill gates. gates apparently boasted in private after settling that he hadnt changed any of his business practices.
also, bill gates has been extremely arrogant in his entire treatment of the US and due process of law. the judge IS NOT STUPID, he KNOWS that bill gates perjured himself on video. and the false evidence with the win98 switch couldnt have helped either. plus, the rather heavy-handed lobbying of the Senate and House and the cheap-shot paid-for "independent" supporters of Microsoft could easily be construed by the judge as indirect attempts to evade justice. Judges treasure their autonomy and power. they will not take this kind of thing lightly.
on the other hand, dont count on any of this ever bankrupting bill gates. first of all, itll take years before they get anywhere. but even so, bill gates can only stand to make more money. if they force microsoft to license windows code, they surely won't make him do it for free. and if they split microsoft into smaller companies, he will get filthy rich.
Rockefeller reached the height of his wealth (even if it began the dismantling of his power base) by the Government-coerced split of the Standard Oil trust. He ended up owning stock in all of the descendants, each of which increased in value. I imagine that splitting Microsoft would result in something similar (even if it didn't last very long, it would be enough in the short run).
besides, if we all get where we want to, by the time future decisions based on this one have any binding effect the whole idea of windows and a closed operating system will be irrelevant anyway. Right?
unc_
Because he would be getting $1.5 BILLION instead of $150 Million from Bill. Their case did not have anything to do with being a monopoly, but if the judge says that they were keeping people from bettering their products then Steve may have had a case. Very interesting indeed.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Actually, I found DOS 3.3 to be quite stable and reliable. I noticed a significant INCREASE in crashes once I upgraded to DOS 6.22. (Although it was an improvement over versions 4 & 5.)
Just my observations.
I think the AT&T break up provides the best anti-example of how to break up a monopoly. The judge put in to place a group of non-competing effective monopolies for local phone service. It was left to Congress to sort out exactly when and what competition would occur in the local and long-distance markets for phone service. Consumers are still suffering from the lack of local competition and the fact that it is re-spawning the vertical Trusts (such as AT&T & MCI providing all services) to thwart horizontal market competition from new market entrants.
Rather than dividing Microsoft along divisional lines, it would be better for competition and restoring the "invisible hand of the markets" if Microsoft was split horizontally with 3 or 5 sub-classes inheriting all of the IP of the parent and then beheading Microsoft such that no current executive at Microsoft could have contact with any of the "Baby Bills" and that no contacts were allowed between any of the 3 or 5 for some number of years.
If you think that it should be along application lines, read Bill Joy's comments in this month's Linux Magazine about the need to reproduce competition in the Office Suite market to seriously affect the desktop OS market.
Win2K is going to be very interesting to watch. In the corporate world, this OS is being sold as the next best thing since sliced bread. Win2K is suppose to be the Unix killer. OTOH, I believe that there is no scaled down version for the average user. That is why MacOS X should be interesting; bringing Unix to the masses.
I've looked at this thread and the previous one. Many expected reactionary comments abound. I finally finished reading most of the FOF and can say that I'm astounded by the one-sidedness of the this document. It reads like David Boiles or Joe Klein were the authors.
My final comments. MS loses big time. The FOF essentially says that the MS witnesses had very little credibility. MS stock will initially go down (as it doing now). However, the various media folks (investment experts) will try to stop the bleeding. Investment advisers will also do the same. Both will do this because they did not see this coming.
Ultimately, all pyramid schemes collapse under their own weight. If MS valuation goes down, then their ability to take a shotgun approach to investing in other companies will come to an end. Carefully watch the Portland AT&T case as MS has staked their claim on the internet connectivity via cable.
"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. ... "
:-). I just wish it had been a suit about fraud, since that's what I really object to -- all the lying that they do in their advertising, in their prospectuses... hell, they even lied to the court, repeatedly and under oath.
I don't think the judge "gets it" at all.
First of all, that is blatantly incorrect. The costs associated with switching from a "PC operating system" to a "server operating system" (I assume he means Win98/BeOS vs. commercial UNIX, since he's obviously not considering linux or *BSD.) is not the cost of the system itself, but the re-education and adjustment period of figuring out how the new system works. Consider the cost of a company switching to linux. Is $2.00 for the CD really going to set you back? Even Solaris x86 can be had for a fairly reasonable pricetag, compared to the maintenance cost of NT... but teaching everyone in the office to use an entirely new operating environment could really bite into your computing budget.
I'm as happy as the next guy that MS is getting kicked in the balls, and I'm glad to see their stock dropping. Since our stupid system of intellectual property (how did we start to consider an operating system with no support and no features a salable good?), enforced by our government, is what got MS into this sweet position to begin with, it's nice to see it turn around and bite them on the ass. But we should realize what it is: this finding of fact is not well informed. It is a case of Sun FUD + Netscape FUD + Corel FUD + DOJ FUD > MS FUD. Granted, Sun and Corel and NS and the DOJ have more truth on their side, but they are NOT interested in painting an accurate picture to the judge than Microsoft is. And, as we can see from the fact that the judge classifies "servers" and "PCs" as two magical, completely disparate kinds of hardware, this can lead to some pretty severe misunderstandings. I really hope that the precedents this sets are never used again...
That said, I also hope this drives their stock price through the floor
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
First of all the Dow Jones Industrial Average may be hit, but that isn't going to stop this judge.
Second the findings of FACT are that Microsoft did hurt people, and it lists various forms of damage.
Third yes, they will get sued to hell and back again. The result of that will cast doubt on the future of their OS and that will help Linux.
Fourth MSFT's products are also damaging US industries. I am sure we will survive nicely with a little collateral damage.
And the biggest point that you have missed in your FUD is that the tone of the article most certainly indicates that lowering the application barrier is a likely goal of the outcome. And *THAT* is something that we all look forward to!
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Vote exactly what you believe.
:-)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The judge ruled, as a finding of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and has maintained that monopoly through anti-competitive behaviour that resulted in collateral damage to customers, consumers, and third parties.
And this is not "naughty" behaviour? These facts completely suffice to determine that Microsoft has violated US law. The facts as stated open up further ground, for instance many companies could - Monday - file a lawsuit against Microsoft for costs incurred due to web browsing on computers that had browsers installed for no good reason.
HP could sue for increased support costs. It only takes 3 support calls before an OEM is no longer makes a profit. They had the lowest support calling rate in the business (better than Apple's) until Microsoft forced them to use a crappy boot sequence.
IBM could sue, WOW could they sue!
And, of course, AOL owns Netscape. They could *definitely* sue.
Plus this will help the Caldera case (even though Dr. DOS took place before the events covered in the document).
I am looking for a lot of lawsuits. And they will be for big - as in 8-9 digit figures - chunks of change.
:-)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Can you mirror MS in HTML and plain text as well? That way I won't have to crank up StarOffice to read the Word/perfect dox... or is there a monopoly^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcopyright issue here?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Guess we should have already known what the decision would be then... If the findings were for MS, then the anouncement would have been made Monday morning to boost the market... ;)
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
I don't think MS's customers would put up with a significant rise in it's prices. In fact, I think the only reason that MS has been so successful is that they systematically under-price their OS's below competition.
I firmly disagree with this. I think, right now, my company would put up with a fairly significant rise in price due to changing licensing. And in fact, compared to the pricing of hardware, one could say the price of Windows has risen in proportion to the cost of a full system.
Because, there currently is no alternative. Linux is approaching that status, but won't be there for some time. MacOS is nice, but tied to hardware under Apple's thumb.
Then he says "Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry."
Say that again? How is it that a *FREE* OS made by people that do not get paid for their services are able to enter the market and compete quite well? That's a high barrier?
Actually, I think that's a loud and clear sign that Microsoft is able to maintain a high barrier to entry. Why could no other company challenge Microsoft? Why did it take a mass of protesting programmers working in their spare time to create a competitor? I guarantee, had all those Linux developers been employed by a company, it could not have afforded to fund the effort, and (though this is speculation) I bet it would have been purchased or squashed by MS when it became a challenger.
So, basically, I see the collaborative act of creating an OS like Linux as a consumer revolt and protest against Microsoft.
For the most part, they're not getting paid, or making profit from Linux. Some are, but the fact that a mass of people had to work for free or pay for Linux development seems to me quite a price to pay for market entry.
Ack, will have to respond to other points later, have to run!
The long-term timing of this is awful... Microsoft became one of the companies whose stock value determines the DJIA just a few days ago. So if MSFT's stock tanks, watch for panic in the streets as "The Dow" takes a serious hit.
No, the judge does not appear to be slanted. He speaks very fairly and points out facts. There is little that can be construde as opinion. He expresses his conclusions and how he reaches them.
Please, read the document, it is very user friendly.
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Interestingly enough, it took me 4 1/2 hours to read the entire document. I guess I must be slow because of all the responses I see posted at 7:30 pm.
Sigh.. Anyway, one of the points, in fact the main point that the judge brings up in his documentation is the fact that Microsoft did this because it was scared. Not scared of a browser or that people could use the browser to view web pages, but the fact that the browser allowed access to api's that would make program written on it write once and run anywhere. And yes I am purposely using java's motto, because the judge does.
Java and Navigator both made api's available to programmers allowing other programs to be designed on the top of their systems. This was not bad in microsoft's view. What was bad was that these programs who run on other OS's without having to do significant revisions. Porting would be simple. And that is why Microsoft attacked them.
Other companies are mentioned, but the major topic was Microsoft's, specifically Bill's decision, that Netscape was a competitor. Almost the entire article then shows how Microsoft set about to destroy them. Always stopping just short of being illegal, or at least usually stopping, but the intent was there and that is what he is showing.
Specifically, that by Microsoft attempting to protect it's marketshare has had a negative effect on innovation and customer worth. Going so far as to say that customers where forced to upgrade to 98 to get new hardware support but also receiving and inferrior (sp?) product.
This is paraphasing of course.
I do agree with other posts, this judge has Microsoft nailed. He gets it.
I want to tell everyone that the language is not technical (legaleze) it's very readable. Definately tech, but this judge wants everyone to understand what is going on and he make a dam* good presentation of the facts that anyone can understand or at least get the guist of.
He clears Microsoft of a couple of charges but does basically say that Microsoft is a monopoly and has used it's position to unfairly influence the market to retain that position.
Other than that, I was astounded at complexity of Microsoft's plan. I can see why they figured they could walk circles around the judge, they are very, very slick. As a matter of fact I have a whole new appreciation for Bill. He is incredibly intellegent and has a few good people working for him. I can see that he has some normal executives, but he and the sharp ones are the ones that control the company.
I wouldn't mind having some of that knowledge. Being a tech though I pretty much say things as they are and try to be fair. Probably why I am saddled with a money losing business, which don't get me wrong I love, and Gates is the riches man in the world at least until Monday.
Grin
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
For people coming in late now, maybe you'll see this mirror: here
It's obviously to avoid stock market chaos. Now we have a weekend to analyze this, and people will talk about it. So on Monday, when MSFT goes down 10 or 20 points, it won't drag the rest of the market with this.
> Then he says "Second, Microsoft's dominant
> market share is protected by a high barrier to
> entry." Say that again? How is it that a *FREE*
> OS made by people that do not get paid for their
> services are able to enter the market and
> compete quite well? That's a high barrier?
You say that the fact the only major competition to Microsoft can arise from thousands of people working their asses off for free over several years is not a high barrier? Is there any way that you could put any more effort into a system? I do not think so, which shows that the barrier MS built is as high as it can get. Every attempt to create a profit-oriented OS to compete on the Windows home market has failed, only because you have all those people putting in work without getting anything out of it, Linux can succeed there. And its still a very rough game, even with this advantage.
Hooray!!
Someone finally out there says it all: Linux in its current state is NOT yet a good substitute for Windows 98/NT/2000 if you're not computer literate.
My suggestion--namely forcing everyone to sell the operating system as a separate cost item when you buy your computer--will actually BENEFIT the Linux crowd, because they'll be finally forced to add ease-of-use features that will make Linux easy to install, configure and use in order to compete against Microsoft in the all-important home user and corporate user market.
People out there forget that most computer peripherals first have a Windows 95/98/NT driver available, because that's what most users will be running. Let's see how long before we'll see Linux drivers for most inkjet printers, backup peripherals, USB peripherals and IEEE-1394 peripherals.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
This is why my suggestion of separating out the sale of the operating system itself when you buy a computer is such a great idea.
Because everyone will have to be play "fair and square" to get OS sales, there is the incentive to lower costs and also improve the end user experience for the operating system.
Unfortunately, in such a scenario, it exposes Linux's biggest fault, namely that unless you have actually learned how to run UNIX (mostly from taking a lot of classes in college), it's still beyond the expertise of most end users. Yes, I know about the much-improved installation of Caldera OpenLinux 2.3 and Red Hat Linux 6.1 and Corel's plan for a supposed very easy to use Linux, but its hardware support is still way behind Windows as of now.
Note I said "as of now"; with the equal chance for Linux (or FreeBSD or BeOS) to be installed on machines in the future, I am hopeful that Linus Torvalds and the thousand or so programmers that write Linux OS code will rapidly make improvements so we will finally see a much wider selection of software drivers, plus support for "hot docked" devices that connect through the external USB and IEEE-1394 ports.
This is the golden oppurtunity for the Linux; DON'T squander it by being "behind the curve" in hardware support, because Intel have already started designing motherboards that will dispense with parallel and serial ports, even PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports in favor of every external device plugged in through the USB and (very likely) IEEE-1394 ports. I hope that the upcoming Linux 2.4.x kernel will allow for Linux to finally "hit the big time" for large scale corporate use and even increasing home use.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
However, if the DoJ as constituted by George W. Bush becomes reality, the DoJ will still set the precedent (remember the 19 states in the suit are using the DoJ precedent). In this case, we might see the DoJ drop the suit or settle for a much-reduced punishment.
What I'd LIKE to see the DoJ go after are the big media conglomerates, because they could seriously affect what we see on TV, hear on radio and even the content we see on the Internet. But given the fact that the Clinton family has many close friends in Hollywood, the last thing the Hollywood Left wants in the DoJ being sicced on them for decreasing choices in the mass media.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I found this interesting: "It depends on whether someone nails them for damages. A $10 rebate for each customer who has bought Windows would run into billions."
This raises a question. what if this happens? What if it is more than that. Lets say MS has to drop the price on all its software. Can you imagine being able to buy Windows 2000 Consumer for $25? (Not that many of us would.) Do you know what that would do to companies like RedHat? It would force them to drop their prices, make their revenue fall and set of a spiral effect. It may also push Windows users through the roof in terms of numbers. This is a catch-22 you don't win if the prices are high and you may not necessarily win if they are low either. Frickin' Increasing Returns theory...
This ruling represents a potential reorganization of power within the ranks of proprietary software developers. It's about what one proprietary software developer (Microsoft) is allowed to do to others (Sun, AOL, Oracle, Lotus, IBM, etc.)
If it succeeds in putting a dent in the Win32 monopoly it may result in a few more *commercial* applications for Linux--a natural consequence of platform diversification is that more applications will be ported to more places. However, these will be proprietary applications such as Microsoft Word, Corel Draw, Excel, commercial games, etc., no doubt a slight gain to people who run Linux systems.
But since these will be commercial applications, this is a meaningless event for the free software movement. It doesn't help create any additional free software--it may even lead to making the Linux platform less free than it currently is.
It doesn't even offer anything from the perspective of the opensource movement: these commercial applications which will arrive on the Linux platform will not come with source code. At least, not just because of this ruling.
So if you are a callous person who doesn't give a damn that the Linux platform was brought to you out of the ideology and actions of the free software and the opensource software movements, you may think this is a good thing.
But if you truly care about free software, or at least about opensource software, then you will ignore this ruling and get back to work writing killer apps under your favorite free or open license.
I actually dont mind the Windows OS and am glad they integrated the browser into Windows.
Then you're an idiot, because it's extra baggage for a machine that doesn't need IE installed -- say, a machine that's not going to be connected to the Internet. (Those do exist, you know; I have six of them.)
Some people will start screaming Mac, Mac, Mac but I cannot easily replace a chip in a Mac to make it a bit faster, a faster modem is 3 times the cost of a PC, RAM costs much more, a video card is outrageously priced, etc....
Out of curiosity, do you think it would be that way if Mac had, say, a 40% market share on desktops instead of 10% or whatever it is?
I will be the first to admit that Apple hasn't made the smartest business decisions, but Jackson nailed at least one of MS'c crimes on the head; Apple very likely would not be endorsing or installing MSIE now if Microsoft didn't threaten to kill off MS Office.
I do not agree with allot of the judges "finding of facts" and I really believe this huge waste of my damn tax dollars should never have begun.
Are you just assuming that Jackson made all of this stuff up? News reports of the coverage showed the DOJ's lawyers utterly (and rightfully) destroying the credibility of Microsoft's "experts". As for poor, defenseless MS, no one put a gun to their head and made them submit a forged video demonstration as evidence, put their CEO on the stand unable to withstand cross-examination, or buy "independant studies" and "grassroots support from the little people".
Microsoft has played dirty pool every step of the way of its existence, up to and including its handling of the trial. It's about time someone called them on the carpet for it.
I sometimes build computers for people that have never used a computer. It is much easier for them to start the computer, click on the big globe, dial up to the Internet and then surf around for a while and that is who most of the users are. They may change their desktop to put a picture of their kids on it, but that is about it.
Great. More power to you. I have no problem with MS having a monopoly because their stuff is better, cheaper, or easier to use than any alternatives; if I recall, the Sherman Act protects such "natural monopolies". The problem, is, it's not better, cheaper, or easier to use, at least not in every case.
If I install a Linux OS on their computer, it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get help with problems with their computer and they are going to call me. If they have Windows, they can usually get tips/tricks/help from people they work with, friends, family, etc. They are not going to want to get into IRC or newsgroups to solve problems.
And this would be that "positive network effect" that Jackson was speaking of.
39. Consumer demand for Windows enjoys positive network effects. A positive network effect is a phenomenon by which the attractiveness of a product increases with the number of people using it. The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base attracts corporate customers who want to use an operating system that new employees are already likely to know how to use, and it attracts academic consumers who want to use software that will allow them to share files easily with colleagues at other institutions. The main reason that demand for Windows experiences positive network effects, however, is that the size of Windows' installed base impels ISVs to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows. This self-reinforcing cycle is often referred to as a "positive feedback loop."
Now I understand that if I took the time to show them how to compile a piece of software, or modify their path or mount drives, etc, they wouldnt need to find help or call me all the time, but face it, the average user does not want to know how to do this, they want to point and click and Windows has done a fairly good job at this.
I have no problem with Microsoft doing all of that work (or Apple, for that matter); to make a program "intelligent" or "intuitive" often means a lot of work on the part of the programmers.
The Mac is much simplier but the cost of a Mac and the upgrade ability over shadows its ease of use to most people.
Again, we're back to "positive network effects" and economies of scale; it's likely that Windows peripherals might cost more and Mac peripherals might cost less were the PC desktop market more like 60%/40%.
Look at the cosumer market for other products. The clapper for example. How many times have we made fun of that commercial? I actually know a few people that bought it. Bread machines are another example. People want the smell, taste and texture of fresh bread, but they dont want to spend the time rolling the dough, letting it rise and then baking it. They want to open the packets, dump the ingredients in and then go watch soaps.
Again, you're missing the point. I have no problem with Microsoft having a monopoly on operating systems, and keeping that monopoly by having a flat-out better product.
But the problem is, antitrust legislation doesn't allow you to use a monopoly in one market (Intel-based PCs operating systems) as leverage to get a monopoly in another market (in this case, web browsers). At the time MS was trying to crush Netscape, it did not have the better product.
Now as far as browsers go, I prefer IE over Netscape.
That's your right.
I have less problems with IE than I do with Netscape. They both crash just as often, but rendering HTML is better in IE.
Which can probably be chalked up to Netscape not putting a new or updated version of their browser out in what, a couple of YEARS? Yes, I know and hope that Mozilla will kick IE's ass when it's done. The thing is, it's not done, and people have to surf the web now as well in the future. (Which was the whole point of Microsoft's mission in the first place; once everyone is using MSIE and IIS to serve the "dynamic content" you extend protocols like you're rotating shield frequencies on the Enterprise to keep everyone else playing catch-up.)
I believe if there was a better solution out there for your average person to use easily, it would blow Windows out of the water, but it has yet to arrive.
And if the yet-to-arrive product weren't Open Source, Microsoft would probably have tried to buy or otherwise drive the maker out of business. How long do you think the makers of Opera and iCab for the Mac would have lasted if this trial weren't going on, or (even worse) Microsoft had not been found at fault?
The chip industry is a prime example. How long did Intel rule the world for processors?
Now that AMD has come out with lower cost, faster chips they are giving Intel a hell of a run for their money. I love that!!! That's the american way.
Again, it's apples and oranges. The rules for physical products and intangible products (one could say "intellectual property") are different for a reason.
That is what we need, competition, not the tax wasting government to tell us/MS they are a monopoly on the desktop. DUH! We know that!
That's not what they're telling us, dolt. They're telling us that Microsoft is using its monopoly power to make sure it has a monopoly on everything else that isn't nailed down or on fire.
As another poster pointed out (I want to find a source for that story!) an oil/steel/banking consortium was able to amass so much power at its time that the head of that consortium was practically in a position to replace the Federal Government!
Now, instead of being owned by Standard Oil, it'd be people logging onto Microsoft WorldNet with Microsoft Passport on Microsoft Internet Explorer to use Microsoft's BillPay Wizard to pay the bills to Microsoft Interactive Cable Network and Microsoft Office Application Distribution Service, and to check your Hotmail account just in time to get the weekly coupons from Microsoft Grocery Service, and Microsoft/Amazon.com.
If we would have spent the tax dollars on further developing linux or BeOS and making it easier to use than Windows and make it free for computer manufacturers to OEM it on the new PC's,
You are aware the the BeOS is a proprietary product, right? Are you saying that you think it would be okay for the government to subsidize a private corporation to compete with Microsoft? Or that the feds should subsidize the cost of bundling it on PCs? That would be less of an intrusion into the private sector then finding Microsoft guilty of commiting crimes under antitrust law?
Hey Redhat 6.1 came with XMMS instead of X11AMP. I am going to sue Redhat because it did not include my favorite MP3 player. You're bad RH. You're evil!
Now we're comparing apples to bananas. It's a fact of antitrust legislation that the kind of things corporations can do to gain or keep market share are illegal for a corporation that is found to be a monopoly to do.
If Red Hat wants to agree to bundle a product or a service made by another company to the mutual benefit of both, that's one thing. I don't even think there'd be a case if Microsoft had made a strategic alliance with Netscape against a third party (say Opera had come along 5 years earlier) because in theory Netscape can end that alliance or Opera might make Microsoft a better deal.
And of course, we're ignoring the whole Open Source factor; anyone can take Red Hat's installer, RPM package manager and other GPLed goodies and build a Red Hat-style distribution that uses X11AMP instead of XMMS (or KDE instead of GNOME, tcsh over bash, pine over mutt, yadda yadda yadda), and let the better distribution win.
Think of Windows as a car. You get pissed at, kick it, hit it and scream at it sometimes, but would you rather ride a horse or walk?
Not the same thing at all. You're supposing that there is an alternative to Windows that we could switch to on Intel-based PCs. There was in OS/2, but the trial is full of tidbits on how Microsoft killed off that competition by means other than having the better product. I suspect that BeOS was/is next...
If you dont like the color of your living room, you paint it, you dont go sue the house builder because you soon realized that the color of the wall clashed with the window treaments you decided to buy.
You do if the house builder makes you sign a contract before your house is built that says you can't repaint your house, knock out walls, add an extra room later for a nursery, or sell the house without the house builder's approval; and you have no choice because he's forced all of the other house builders in the area out of business or hired them to work for him.
Dont go suing them because you think linux is better or you wanted Netscape instead of IE.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what this case was about. It was about a company using its time, money and resources to prevent you from having as little choice as possible as to which OS your home PC uses (soon to be followed by web browser, streaming media format, office suite, and who knows what else in the future?)
The development of Linux and the Open Source model may have been the one force that Microsoft could not have bought, put out of business or FUDed into oblivion. Then again, the "Halloween Document" outlined out a strategy to deal with that as well...
Jay (=
Really? The buzz I've heard from people who have beta/rc versions is that it's a better desktop OS than Win 9x in just about every way.
So for instance, if I thought that MS stock would go down, I could have sold short on thursday, with the transfer date of tuesday. Say the stock was at $100 on Thu, but dropped to $95 on Tuesday, and that I sold 1000 shares short. I sell the stock for $100, but buy it for $95, making $5000.
The problem is that your losses are not capped: you are liable for potentially infinite penalties. If instead the stock rose to $150, I would be out $50,000...
the law is 'just words'. antitrust doesn't make sense. it took a judge to interpret the law before anyone could definitively say that microsoft violated it. antitrust law is too vague for anyone to know whether they are breaking the law. the law is supposed to be black and white. before a theif steals, he knows that he is breaking the law.
the judge can't even say that any specific action of microsoft's was wrong. he has to consider the sum of the actions which put micros~1 into a monopoly position. the monopoly position is the defining characteristic. without the monopoly power, micros~1's actions would not have been found wrong!!
antitrust is a bad thing. it distorts the concept of justice.
I've looked at the betas of Windows 2000, and removing IE would not be trivial. Not only does it have the 'ActiveDesktop' shell (with no option to not install it), HTML content is all over the OS, including such common dialogs as "Configure your Server" and "Add Hardware Wizard". It's clear that MS thinks the future is a user interface written primarily with DHTML.
And yes, EXPLORER.EXE still sucks memory and crashes...
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
NT Workstation 4 is already a better (business) desktop OS than Win 9x in most ways, but that hasn't got it much market penetration. Windows 2000 is not that much different.
Little things, like USB and better ISA PNP support, might convince businesses to deploy Windows 2000, but many will just stay put with 9x. Sometimes old DOS and Win3.1 applications force the use of Win9x, but mostly it's voluntary.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Also, relative to other businesses, law firms spend far less on IT. One big reason that WordPerfect is still in use is that many lawyers are still running 386s/486s and DOS/Win31, and couldn't switch to Word 97 if they wanted to. (As others have said in this thread, there's no reason to have anything more than a 386 if you are word processing 100% of the time.)
Another reason, besides the "standard verbiage" libraries is older document management systems that plug into WordPerfect. Many lawfirms have all their documents tied up in such systems, and it would be very difficult to move to something that was compatible with, say, WinWord 2000 or WordPerfect for Linux.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Microsof t  i s  i n f a m o u s  f o r  s e n d i n g  U n i c o d e  o v e r  t h e  w i r e  -   b l o a t i n g  b a n d w i d t h  r e q u i r e m e n t s .
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
That is what we need, competition, not the tax wasting government to tell us/MS they are a monopoly on the desktop. DUH! We know that!
The government can spend all my tax money it wants, to prosecute these vultures !!!
Yes, we need competition, we need fair competition. We don't need a huge company, that owns the APIs of the OS running 90/95% of the computers on the globe, "innovating" by squashing real innovations that other companies make.
You say you don't care about MS being a monopoly, but what you care or you don't care about doesn't mean anything outside your little boxed world. Wake up and get a clue , extremly unfair business practices by a monopoly require extremly fair legal actions from a responsible government. We live in a democracy not an anarchist state.
- sigs are for wimps.
DR is Digital Research.
--
I ate something that disagreed with me. Maybe I should have cooked him first.
Don't you mean:
[!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"]
[HTML]
[HEAD]
[TITLE]Findings of Fact - United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, C.A
. 98-1232; State of New York, ex rel. Eliot Spitzer, et al., v. Microsoft Corpor
ation, C.A. 98-1233[/TITLE]
[META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="TextPad 3.0"]
--
I ate something that disagreed with me. Maybe I should have cooked him first.
No, now Bill won't be able to prevent everyone else from playing by the same rules they play. They innovate, and will always have the right too. However, they have prevented other companies from innovating in areas that Microsoft controls. Now, the other companies will once again have the freedom to innovate, just like Microsoft does.
This is what we all want, isn't it?
-Brent--
Maybe not on Monday morning, but I figured by Tuesday, it probably hit its low. With Win2000 out in February, I will bet with anyone here that the MS stock will jump back up no matter the ruling.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Yes! A Slash-lawyer is a wonderful idea!
God knows how many times we argue about points of legal trivia!
I will take the good man's advice and read the FoF from cover to cover.
Gee, it's not too late for me to enter law school...
I have to say, this thing rocks. Here's the super-abridged version:
Guns are dangerous.
Microsoft has a big gun in it's hand.
The gun is smoking.
There are many empty shells on the floor.
There are many bloody bodies around (netscape,sun,ibm)
Many companies have been terrorize by Microsoft, when they point the gun at them.
Most give in.
Some don't, and pay dearly for their actions.
In then end, Consumers end up both paying for the ammo, and picking up the pieces.
This is wrong, and something should be done about it.
*sniff* It's almost enough to make me believe that perhaps that sometimes our legal system can work right. This almost makes up for all the times it has personally let me down - well, almost.
Judge Jackson should get a medal for just being able to comprend the complexity of the allegations. My head started to swim when I got knee deep in the OEM/ISP/Browser War testimony.
This case is over - once MS's lawyers look closely at the wording and the coesiveness of this FoF, they will see that there is no way they are going to prevail. I predict a settlement within a month.
Everything well said, appart from a minor detail you missed...
/that/ kind of a distribution, they are more picky, but you can always go to freshmeat and download more software.
XMMX *is* X11AMP... changed name along development. There goes that silly argument too I guess =)
Anyway... take SuSE 6.3 for example... 6 bloody CDs with software! it'd be hard to find something that isn't already included with it... RH definitely is not doing
Point is, thereare lots of POP3 servers, lots of Web proxies, lots of http servers etc. - even if RH becomes a 'standard' in the sense of a high market share, we will not be locked in as we would be if NT/IIS became the norm... most important of all, there would be no incentive for RH to muck with the protocols to proliferate their clients... it doesn't make sense - for starters, the source is there... if they stop putting the source up there (ie develop proprietary services, closed source) RH will be history and we'll move on to another distro... easy as that.
-W
I'd argue that the good judge gave a better
definition of a network computer than
Larry Ellison ever did. He has also given
the reference definition of what an
operating system is, so further legal cases
could start from it.
The first half of his ruling should be part
of an orientation for CS majors.
An IE-less version of Win2K would be pretty hard to make now. They already have "integrated" IE into the help system, the patching system (Windoze update), and the entire system configuration interface (MMC). If this whole mess had to be untangled by order of a judge, I guess it would take them a few months at least... :-)
--
Basically, the Judge seems to know what he's talking about. It's awfully verbose and legalese-filled, but I'd hardly expect anything else on a document written by a judge in an important case. Anyway, the judge shows us exactly what MS did that's monopolistic; the two chief examples are MSIE promotion and Java extensions. And it seems to me a quite reasonable set of facts that have been found. We'll see what all this means whenever the next decision is made. (How long'll that take? Any ideas?)
I agree about Linux users not mainly using Linux for servers... while I'm a highschool student, the Linux boxes I use (or admin, or have set up for my sister at college) are:
:)
1 webserver, running 2.0.0 (obviously, I don't admin this, and I'm frankly appalled
1 Beowulf (hehe - I also have a part-time job at Kent State University, where I'm taking Calculus)
1 development machine/calculation server (where I do my Beowulf coding)
My desktop machine (a K6-200)
and finally, the 586 my sister uses for email and such.
So, is this all servers? I think not!
Can we ask this lawyer about the issues involved in a Linux software-only DVD decoder?
[Windows 2000 is] "better than Win98 in every way" ???
Except that it costs more... Microsoft needs this two tiered pricing structure to bring in more revenue. One product that is priced towards consumers and one that will be sold to businesses- who are willing to pay more $$$. (this is not a rant or anything... simply true)
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.
1. Monopolies have their "rates of return" on capital set by the BPU (Board of Public Utilities).
For example, MS will have to prove to BPU that they made a prudent investment of, say, $1 billion to develop Windows 2001. Then BPU will allow them to earn 12% return on that investment - the excess will have to be returned to the customers instead of shareholders.
2. If MS spins off an unregulated subsidiary (for example, MS Office), they will have to institute a strict information separation between the regulated company MS OS and unregulated MS Office.
This separation will mean complete API disclosure - exactly the thing we were fighting for!
3. Every time MS will want to buy another company, they will have to go through a special market power case before BPU to prove that this new purchase is not going to affect competitive markets.
4. I am not a lawyer... ;-)
Rob Malda posts under the username CmdrTaco.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
PDF (337k)
Gzipped ASCII (118k)
all this action, Linux being loaded on IBM's Dells, and such would not have been possible before the trial. Gates had such a strangle hold on the PC vendors, that they feared would lose their license if they even tried to sell PC's with any other OS.
The competition you see now is the result of the trial. MS had to be on it's best behavior for the judge. It didn't work, the judge ruled against MS. Just think of all that money Gates gave to charity. Where was all that giving before the trial? Gates is a scumbag.
MS gave the 150 million to Apple to prop them up to make the appearance that they were not a monopoly. You know Jobs gave him that idea.;)
photosMy Photostream
Yes, thank you! This has been worrying me, too.
I want Microsoft's over-valued stock price to go down, but I want it to happen very very very slowly.
That one of the journalists called Gates "Billy" when asking him a question? :)
Seemes to somewhat amuse the bastard; I wonder if the journalist made it to his car alive
breaking up Microsoft into different companies may not be punishment on the long term
I agree. Microsoft or it's spawn is going to continue to be big. Contrary to most people's thinking, their stockholders are not going to lose a penny. BUT MS WON'T BE AS BIG AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE.
AT&T doesn't have the market share they used to have. MCI Worldcom is a worthy foe and may become more so if the FTC lets them acquire Sprint. IBM is huge, but they have a small fraction of the PC business. The Standard Oil companies have competitors like Shell and BP, as well as infighting amoung the 34 units the original was broken into.
What is going to happen is that whatever remidy happens Microsoft will gain serious competitors. One way or another. Which will be great for all of us.
That entirely depends on the type of software. If you write something, and then have to resort to advertisment to convince people they really, really need it, you better go for the 90%.
On the other hand, if you write software on demand, you have a small loyal customer base, or you write systems that'll run on dedicated servers anyway, marketshare of the OS matters a lot less.
If you are a very big company, and you are going to shell out $60 million for some custom software, marketshare of the OS it runs on will be a minor issue.
-- Abigail
Code and information alone does not make a big company. Being a huge multinational means having a lot of infrastructure as well.
Care for a little "what if"? Suppose M$ does get broken into pieces. Or even have all its code and other IP be put in the public domain. Just imagine for now, there would be no M$ anymore. There still will be a couple of hundred million people out there needing software.
Ok, so we get a whole queue of new companies writing software. OSses, applications, etc, etc. Of course, each new little company wants to protect its stuff, so we get lots and lots of new, propriatery OSses and applications. This time, fully backed up by US law.
Who gains by this? The consumers? No, not at all. Currently, if you are on a windows system, you have a reasonable chance your applications work on your neighbours computer as well - as he's likely to have windows as well. Same for documents; word documents might be a propriatery format, and not very compatible with older versions - half the world does run the current version of word and is able to read your document.
Perhaps the programmers? Nah. Whether they write for platform X, or platform Y, they'll get paid the same on average. All the incompatabilities make life just more frustrating.
There will be a bunch of suits and investors that'll profit from many new companies though. And lawyers.
Oh, you might say, that will never happen. Well, I think it will - it has happened in the computer world so often. Look at the Unix world; a twisty little maze of OSses, all different. I cannot take my Solaris program and run it on HP. Even with the source code, it needs to be "ported". Attempts of creating languages so that you can "write once, run everywhere" don't quite work. Java, for instance, has various, incompatible virtual machines - and not just because of M$. And for a language like Perl, that has one implementation on Windows, Unix and VMS, there are too many dependencies on the underlaying OS to truly "write once, run everywhere".
I find it very cynical that the DoJ case stems from a browser war. Remember Tim's original idea? Make information accessable to all - by having open standards: HTML and HTTP. That went all fine, untill we got a player in the market that wanted to just like Microsoft: Netscape communications. They ignored the standards as much as they could, invented their own "extensions" instead of implementing proposed standards. All with one goal, gain money and marketshare. Microsoft goals with Microsoft techniques.
I am very grateful Microsoft decided to produce its own browser, and compete with Netscape. Hadn't it been for Microsoft, Netscape would have monopolized the HTML/HTTP market, and it would now be all propriatery.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all a Microsoft fan. I might have used a computer running an OS from Redmond perhaps 10 times in my life. Probably less. But the computer world outside Microsoft is a big, incompatible mess; even if you only look at Unix. In fact, I doubt M$ would have ever grown so big if it wasn't for the Unix mess. Users aren't helped with incompatible systems. For them, life without Microsoft would be scary.
-- Abigail
Huh? Linux isn't "hard" because there isn't commercial support. It's "hard" because it's a Unix. There has been commercial Unices even before Bill Gates first uttered "windows".
Unices are perfectly fine OSses, suitable for many tasks, and many people. It's not suitable as a desktop machine for Sally Q. User.
Ferrari's and 24 wheeler trucks are very good cars. They are however, unsuitable for most people who just need to pick up their kids from school.
-- Abigail
Ah, yes, and the Unix world is so much better.
wavy lines
Suppose I have a problem with my Linux machine...
- Friend 1: I am sorry, I run OpenBSD, and that works fine.
- Friend 2: Well, on my Solaris x86, I would do it like this...
- Friend 3: Sure, you can borrow my HP-UX manuals.
- Friend 4: Ah, in IRIX, we do....
- Friend 5: Cool, do you also like AIX?
- Friend 6: If you don't do SCO, I cannot help you.
- Friend 7: I've been waiting for the Hurd for 12 years now.
- Friend 8: Yeah, I run Linux. But all I do is install Red Hat RPMs. Oh, and you run Debian? Sorry...
Now, I'm out of friends, and still have this problem... wavy linesUnix isn't for Joe Public.
-- Abigail
The moderators don't get it. I would not drscribe this comment as funny. Insightfull would be closer to the mark.
Actually, in the finding of fact, the judge lists actions like pricing Win98 at $89 instead of $49 when $89 was the profit maximizing price and $49 was a competitive yet profitable price. Other actions like bullying other companies around also would seem to me that the Judge has already stated that Microsoft is a monopoly, and Microsoft is using that monopoly power to eliminate competitive pressure to their main products.
"DR" originally stood for "Digital Research", the company that developed it. Currently, Caldera owns it and it is the subject of yet another lawsuit involing Microsoft...
I didn't go from Win3.1 to Win95 until there much so much software I wanted to run but couldn't run that I caved in. I think it was about Feb '96...
Also, Microsoft has had buggy software since way before Windows. Anyone remember DOS 3.0...? I personally lost a lot of data (well, for the early 80's it was a lot) because of it. Also, DOS 4.0 was pretty awful, too. DOS 3.3 seemed really rock solid. 5 and 6 seemed good too if you didn't use all the extra stuff (DoubleSpace really sucked!). Win 3.1 was reasonable once you got it configured. NT 3.51 was solid, and 4.0 was too until the Service Packs from hell (2 and 4).
The problem with Microsoft is they can't leave well enough alone. They are always adding unreasonable complexity to their products, sticking with bad designs far too long and then foisting complete redesigns on us that are worse because they are so enormous and poorly tested.
Did anyone remember when MS came out with the commercial about the software testers about a year ago? Who else laughed themselves hoarse?
Convicted monopoly or not, Microsoft is going to lose in the end because they are in quality freefall.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Economics at high school level may state that a monopoly can only involve one firm, but economics at college level and economic analysis of law usually use the following definition of monopoly: "Monopoly is the power to manipulate price" Which Microsoft clearly has.
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
We lose. We have been manipulated and robbed. In the name of innovation Microsoft has taken every action available to them to kill innovation. Slick marketing campaigns endlessly spew rhetoric which have now been shown to be lies.
Empirical Evidence of the Applications Barrier to Entry...
Empirical Evidence of Microsoft's attempts to kill innovation....
Are these actions taken by a company with the consumers best interests at heart? Are these the actions taken by a company with integrity ??? Integrity would be the opposite of Microsoft. Some of their products are good, but unfortunately this has only helped them to victimize consumers.
"Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems."
"Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
Why ??? because they had a better product ? No, because they are a monopoly. No longer will the argument that people use Windows because it's superior hold any weight.
I may be wrong on this, but the judge ruled that Microsoft was a monopoly. As much as we'd like it to be, that's not illegal- case law has shown that companies are perfectly within their rights to attain a monopoly as long as they do it competitivaly, which M$ will now be trying VERY hard to prove that they did. This judge was authorized to rule on findings of fact, which was basically limited to whether or not M$ was a monopoly or not, NOT whether it was an illegal monopoly or not. That gets decided later, and a different question of law. So even if this ruling implies that Microsoft was "naughty" the judge isn't yet empowered to legally rule on that (he can say so all he wants, but that's not the ruling, just like Supreme Court justices go on and on about things that may not bear on their actual findings).
Uh, so why are you insulting me- we aren't disagreeing. All I'm saying is that unlike what Don implies, this is NOT the deathblow ruling from the government as a matter of illegal monopoly law. As you note though, it makes filing and winning civil lawsuits against M$ much much much easier, because their monopoly is no longer a legal matter of argument. Think of that- they CANNOT make the argument in court that they aren't a monopoly! If they so much as hint that they aren't the judge can rebuke them on the spot! That's like OJ not being able to claim that he wasn't in the house when his wife was killed. This will hurt them a lot.
Does anyone know how much of Billy Boy's net worth is still tied up in MS stock?
Regardless, he's still turned a pretty profit on the million dollar trust fund he started with.
meanwhile, check out the Bill Gates Personal Weath Clock
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
Html 399Kb
Zip 120Kb
Rar 109 Kb
fh
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.
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.
But this judgement succeeds in showing exactly why the browser war was important. Netscape is clearly portrayed, not as a competitor for IE, but as a competitor for Windows. And it's not because anyone would use Netscape instead of Windows. Even if Microsoft had played nice, it's doubtful that that would have happened. The argument that Netscape threatened Windows itself is the following:
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
It is still at least a few months away from a final ruling, but this is by prediction.
Call me a cynic, but 2000 is an election year in the USA. Watch the money going to the candidates running for US president.
There will be a new president, and consequently a new executive branch. A newly elected president, especially one with a warchest funded by numerous, large Microsoft associated campaign contributions, will most likely not have the DoJ further appeal, or if the DoJ is still 'winning', orders will be given to be not overly aggressive in negotiating an out-of-court settlement. (I also doubt that if it were dropped by the DoJ after an appeal reversal, there would be large public outcry.)
With the change in power, I doubt it will be appealed all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
In my second paragraph I used the word "illegally"
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
I've read the first hundred pages of the FoF, and Judge Jackson really does get it. He spells out very clearly what Microsoft has done, how Microsoft did it, and why it's an abuse of monopoly power. He clearly spells out their position in the market relative to other operating systems. He goes to great lengths to define the difference between the OS, applications, and APIs.
In summary, he states that Microsoft illegally used it's control over the operating system market to gain advantage over Netscape and Sun in regards to the web browser and java runtime environment markets, through restrictive licensing agreements and deliberately smearing the line between application and operating system. (That is my understanding thus far -- there are quite a few smaller issues that he touches on)
I know a lot of people are going to read the press clippings that are saturated with some pretty charged statements from both Microsoft and the Judge Jackson. Unfortunately, they really don't give a good representation of the FoF, which is not only an easy read, but a very enlightening one.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU READ THE FIRST 25 PAGES OF THE FoF. Educate yourself before you become a victim of the avalanche of spin doctoring that's going to consume the media for the next week.
OK, so here's a thought I had recently. Assuming that MS does not settle and drags out the proceedings as much as possible (intentional delays, appeals, etc), what happens if this case is still in the court system in 2001 when we get a new administration? Will significant changes in the staffing of the DoJ from a Republican administration have an effect on the final outcome of all of this? Could the new higher ups at DoJ just drop the whole thing or make a favorable (for MS) settlement offer?
Note the the GPO site has not only PDF and WP but also HTML versions of the Findings up.
It May be a bit easier for some to read....
-JimC
Word does, after all, store the file as UNICODE. So it'll be ~ twice as long.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Hmmm... you would appear to be correct. It's probably all that OLE structured storage stuff that's ballooning it up.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Bloatware has always been a MS tactic, not some act of sloppy coding that most people attribute it to. Bloatware has always been about propelling the need for higher end systems with more storage and ram to support MS's larger OS's.
Ummm... actually, look at Star Office, or any other fully-fledged Unix GUI program - they're big and BLOATY, because that kind of stuff explodes what the program has to carry around, so I'm not entirely sure that your argument holds water...
Coming soon - pyrogyra
And if you're a good little Government department, you might even settle because you have other offenders to go after too and limited resources.
I'm not advocating that they should, just that if they can get a good enough settlement they should, not keep going out of bloody mindedness.
Word Format (851k)
WordPerfect Format (438k)
Can you say "b-l-o-a-t"?
It looks as though microsoft might finally be falling. Now if only I could get a complient browser for Linux.
"I don't like this deep shit about crazy crap"
Thanks Robin, this is a great analysis for those of us who haven't been able to get to any of the mirrors yet -- this discussion promises to be valuable as hell. Top-notch journalism!
Lynx doesn't read img tag. Actually I would use lynx a lot more if I know how to do "open this link in new window" in Lynx win32.
CY
Maybe we users can start some nice class action suits against M$. Anyone have ulcers from having to support Windows at work? Not gotten a job because the company wanted your resume in M$ Word format?
Oh Yeah, sell all your Microsoft Stock and invest it in some Law Firms.
I converted the PDF so you can put it on your palm pilots (is this legal??? If not, somebody tell me and I'll remove the files)
Palm Doc File (with bookmarks!):
http://freefall.penguinpowered.com/findings.pdb
Text File:
http://freefall.penguinpowered.com/findings.txt
Did anyone else notice that the finding was posted in every format exept MS Word? Interesting.
This ruling will change the world. But not very soon.
There will be (probably) years of legal wrangling before it's all over, but I don't think the key points (Microsoft is a monopoly and has abused it's position) can be seriously challenged.
My (extremely limited) understanding of the law is that the US Government now must (after appeals) do something to ensure that Microsoft doesn't abuse it's position again.
My bet is that the company will be broken up into at least three companies (Operating systems, Office applications and 'other stuff')
Before that happens, however, there is a good chance that the MS share price will collapse. Given that most MS employees are strongly motivated by stock options, this will make it hard for them to retain good people and hire new ones. This could lead to a very rapid vicious circle.
The next week will be very interesting.
Feed the hungry. Save the Whales. Free the mallocs.
Geos is still available for the desktop as NewDeal. See the NewDeal, Inc. website. Their online store offers NewDeal Release 3, plus an office suite and web browser, for less than a Windows 98 upgrade.
I do find it rather saddening that their web site is served out by IIS. I liked Geos so much more than Windows, but I had to switch due to a lack of applications.
"Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
Ah yes, the judge does get it... from Para 302
--Microsoft threatened to terminate the Windows license of any OEM that removed Microsoft's chosen icons and program entries from the Windows desktop or the "Start" menu. It threatened similar punishment for OEMs who added programs that promoted third-party software to the Windows "boot" sequence. These inhibitions soured Microsoft's relations with OEMs and stymied innovation that might have made Windows PC systems more satisfying to users. Microsoft would not have paid this price had it not been convinced that its actions were necessary to ostracize Navigator from the vital OEM distribution channel.--
This, by legal definition is called TYING, and it's illegal. There is very specific case law on this.
I can't wait for the actual verdict. Although my predition is that M$ will attempt to settle by providing discounts on future M$ products (it worked for GM!) This would force people to buy even more M$ product. I don't expect the judge would sign that agreement...
You know, when the DoJ came after Standard Oil and formally Got Some, they had to break 'em into little companies, because there wasn't anybody else out there willing and able to move oil like they could.
When the DoJ came after Bell Telephony and Got Some, they "had" to break them up, because nobody else had phone lines laid.
But the issue HERE -- the monopoly -- is held mainly by intellectual property -- code.
Oil tankers and miles of copper wiring aren't amenable to easy division and distrobution, but this is INFORMATION, guys.
What all might happen if the judge simply ordered MS to hand over all their IP -- API documentation, say -- and order MS to publish/post it under some license -- I'll let you guys argue about which one, but my favorite rhymes with "EPL".
He could even let MS off the hook for the [possible] zillion-dollar fine in exchange for prettying it all up and posting it on a web server.
Wouldn't -that- be fun. The WINE people would have heart attacks. (:
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Not saying it will not go down, but there has been alot of analysts talking about what could happen to MSFT if something like this occurs. The trial has been going on for sometime.
Besides MSFT will put the best spin on things.
Of course it is in the Dow Jones Industral and I _believe_ it was down 2 in after the market trading.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Damn and here's me still waiting for him. Is he going to return? I mean, well his cup of tea is getting cold.
Oh well now I'll have to wait for his second comming.
...when will I be able to buy a decent (branded) laptop without paying the MS-tax? The OEM licenses are the root of this problem. If the only remedy is to force vendors to honour the refund on OEM Windows licenses and to make Microsoft pick up the tab then I'll be more than content.
I don't see any reason why MS should not bundle IE, nor why they shouldn't integrate it into Windows. This is no more or less reasonable than every major Linux distro bundling bash.
If you don't like it, don't buy it - which brings us neatly back to the crux of the matter.
This libertarian would like to see MicroSquish get severely punished for the crimes they've comitted.
The *crimes* I'm referring to, are software piracy (Stacker, Digital Research) and fraud (Intuit.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
For coders as shitty as MicroSquish uses run about $10/hr, or $150/hr if you get them from Arthur Andersen Consulting.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Nearly everyone agrees that the economy runs best when left to itself.
Right on! People seem to want to equate capitalism with anarchy, but capitalism actually cannot work without a strong government to enforce the rules. "The rules" being, essentially, no fraud or initiation of force. The FoF describes MSFT's use of both fraud and force.
This is exactly what the government is for.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Brief note on document formats:
People are commenting on the fact that a Word
copy of the document was not provided, while
Wordperfect, PDF and HTML were.
Most legal documents submitted in electronic
format have to be submitted in WordPerfect format.
It was the industry standard for many years,
and the document format has been stable for
at least the last three releases of the software.
My mother is a paralegal, and she whines on a
daily basis about the fact that there is such
a tremendous intertia within the legal community
that is centered on WordPerfect 5 for DOS and
WordPerfect 6 for Windows. She uses a 300MHz
Pentium II to run WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS every
day. The lawyers she work for say it's the only
thing they can use.
I'm not sure why that inertia exists, but at
least where I live, if you hand the court a
floppy disk, it'd better have a wordperfect file
on it. Everything else is simply unacceptable.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
This is from the html version of the findings of fact straight from the gpo.gov website. Isn't it a bit ironic that they apparently used a MS prog to generate the html? Just posted this because I thought it was worth a chuckle.. ;)
[!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"]
[saved from url=(0034)http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html]
[HTML][HEAD][TITLE]Findings of Fact - United States of America v. Microsoft Cor$
[META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type]
[META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR]
www.poak.net
I don't think everyone should start dancing in the streets until after Micro$oft goes through the appeal process. I can remember some early news articles stating that the court that would handle the appeal for this trial was quite conservative as far as "government interference" in commerce.
Judge Jackson states that Linux is becoming an option on the server side, but that it no where near competing with MS on the desktop front for at least a few years. If you read the Judge's release,which I suspect you haven't, you would have found that he elucidated voluminous, well-founded arguments on why MS has made competition on the desktop impossible.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
People out there forget that most computer peripherals first have a Windows 95/98/NT driver available, because that's what most users will be running. Let's see how long before we'll see Linux drivers for most inkjet printers, backup peripherals, USB peripherals and IEEE-1394 peripherals.
Bro. Did you read Judge Jackson's finding of facts at all? He sums up the exact dilemma you refer to -- the chicken and the egg problem. MS's domination of the dekstop OS market has created an environment that it makes it difficult for new desktop OS's to become viable. A big part of this reason is that developers prefer to develop for markets that have large numbers of users, i.e., potential customers. Customers, equally, don't want to use desktop OS's that lack in the number of applications that they use or plan to use in the future.
Sure there are a lot of open source developers out there doing great things for Linux. But the majority of harware manufacturers have yet to embrace Linux yet because they are too busy supporting the Win/Intel platforms.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
The point isn't that MS can't bundle IE4 w/ W98, the point is that W98 customers didn't have a CHOICE about whether it is there or not, a choice that should have been given because the existance of the browser is counter productive to the OS (Yes, this is what Judge Jackson put into the finding. Not verbatum, but that Judge knows his sh1t) As the current installation goes, RedHat wouldn't have that problem, since yuo can CHOOSE to: #1 Not install said text editor, web browser, Perl module, Httpd, whatever when you first install RH. #2 Remove samesaid module at any time using tools such as 'rm' or 'rpm'. In Windows 98, you do not have the choice to remove, or not install in the first place, IE4. Its existance is counterproductive (I dont think anyone here would disagree that Win98 is slower than Win95, right outta the box. This is not good for someone who does NOT use the web...)and the purpose of putting in was shown to the Judges conviction to be not to add value to the OS, but to use MS's leverage in one field (OS's) to strongarm its way into another (Browsers) Of course, Im also a hyprocrit. I am typing this in IE5 on NT4Serv. :) But my level of respect for this judge after reading his finding is high. I also encourage everyone to read the finding (its more technical, and very little legal-ese. Enjoyable), and not just cheer the 'Microsoft ==Evil' ruling. Toodles
Toodles D. Clown
If you read the FOF, you will find that it is not about Microsoft capitalizing on the laziness of people. It is about Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position in the market place. The ease of use features you tout in Microsoft's products are the types of innovation that Microsoft quashes in other products. They buy up or undersell any product that might threaten their monoply position which slows down innovation across the industry. If you look around, you will find may testimonials stating that the ease of use, power, and configurability of OS/2 is much greater than Windows. If Microsoft competed in the market place fairly, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Everyone would also probably be using a much more stable and advanced operating system instead of one that needs to be rebooted periodically rebooted just to keep it from crashing.
You say that we should just develope a kick ass operating system to kick Microsoft's ass but with Microsoft's unethical and monopolistic business practices, even if we a develope the perfect OS, we wouldn't be able to win. That is the whole point of government intervention in business. When it gets to the point where the monopoly is abusing is position to keep competition from appearing and harming the consumer through high prices/bad products, the government steps in to correct the problem.
my 286 compaq laptop:
640k RAM. 35M HD. CGA display. a broken floppy that i cannot detach, and full battery. DOS and WP5.1 and iomega guest driver runs like a champ.
MS Word cannot get to legal system because of bugs.
Do you think you would be paying 10 cents, or down to 4 cents per minute long distance if AT&T weren't chopped?
First of all, trade defincit has nothing to do with MS but everything to do with the domestic savings rate. if the domestic saving rate is unchanged, deficit stays the same.
Secondly. you hold a lot of MS stocks, you are the dumb ass who didn't sell. people who are holding AOL, Sun, IBM stocks are prolly all cheering tomorrow while you weeping your ass out.
The money that does not go to MS or the stock market will be invested somewhere else. one firm will not change the saving and investing habit of a country.
You are darwin challenged. that super power crap is entertainnig, tho.
Nearly everyone agrees that the economy runs best when left to itself. It's notional that it can run without any interference from government. The government is inextricably involved in the infrastructure of people, cash, communications, and law that make the economy possible.
If someone runs a protection racket, do you suggest that an insurance company with lower rates will solve the problem naturally -- and without government intervention? No, of course not, because a free economy can't work if force distorts it's feedback mechanism. That's the government's role - to keep the playing field force free, even, and open to new entrants -- so that the quality of businesses and products determine their success.
Microsoft had used its leverage to effectively close the OEM distribution channels to alternate OSes. Did they leverage the quality and cost-effectiveness of Windows? No, they used threats based on their monopoly. The judge argued very well, and correctly in my opinion, that this was an unfair barrier to competition. It's an application of force that distorts the natural result of the market. No one else gains any advantage at all from the closure of distribution channels for non-Microsoft software.
I hope the penalty phase takes into account the real problem here -- that competition is being skewed. It isn't being distorted because Microsoft is so large and monolithic, it is due to the anti-competitive, bullying business practices they engage in, made effective by their marketshare. I would very much like to see a behavioral remedy that prevented Microsoft from engaging in wide acquisitions, exclusionary deals, closed APIs, or proprietary formats.
The commentary is good. It was fun to watch all the stuff going on at the courthouse, too. A lot of people took turns talking to the press... the press asked a few questions, but never of Microsoft people, which seemed funny to me.
We should hold a larger party when the final legal ramifications thing comes out in January or February. Anyone interested?
One thing I noticed in the reading of the document was the Judge's REPEATED note that an increase in the cost of the OS, even a high percentage increase (ala Windows 2k???) wouldn't appreciably increase the cost of a computer. [Read it, Judge says this often in just the first dozen pages]. Wether true or not, it conflicts with Don's statement, so class action suits based solely on this document will run into problems there.
Agreed, the Judge get's it but still is somewhat off on points 50-51:
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.
The judge misinterprets the fact that allthough Linux (or any other OpenSource OS) is free, noone is inclined to make applications running on these OS's free!
The points made about an insufficient installed user base for these OS's at the moment still stands though.
--
two-thousand-zero-zero
party over, it's out of time
Where does M$'s other OS fit? (NT)
Here's my 2 cents,
Yes MS is a Monopoly, So what are you going to do about it?
Nothing. What can you do, close them down, sure, they move all of their 30,000 employees to Canada(not likely, but think about what you would do to save your company if you are the richest person on the planet. Make your own country). Oh, boy what will the US gov do then.
Also, nearly every government for nearly every country is dependant on Microsoft, and Microsoft related products. Are you going to tell them that no one can fix their software related problems? No more hot fixes.
Closing them is not a solution, it only creates more problems.
Here's a couple more questions I've been pondering.
Why does a word processor cost more than an operating system?
When does the NT shell get ported to Linux?
Thanks
Chris Gray
If you want to install 98 w/o IE
I shouldn't have to tell you to click.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
Why does everyone bring the economy into this?
um... because the laws that microsoft may or may not have broken were originally designed (maybe not in the best way) to help the economy...
There have been monopolies broken up before. We got through it just fine.
You're correct in saying that we got through it. But the better question, and the question that is harder to answer, is are we better off because of it. I'm not completely sure of the answer to that. (If you were around back in the days when there was just ma bell, would you say that telephone service is better or worse now... my mother claims its worse, but I really don't know.)
You see my fear is this: they find that micrsoft did break the law and then go ahead and break up the company. Now, the vast majority of businesses that rely on Microsoft software will have an absolute nightmare getting support, upgrades or anything else from what used to be Micrsoft until everything has settled back down, which could take years. Lots of money and time is lost by everyone, even if they do switch over to a different platform (which I doubt they will anyway). Is anyone really better off after this... probably not.
But its all probably a moot point anyway, since the likelyhood that the government would actually break microsoft down into smaller companies is rather unlikely. Probably just lots of rebates to users and what not.
-- Point? None! Cob.
This ruling has a chance to finally level the playing field.
Many of us are Linux and/or *BSD users. We've known for quite a while that we have a technically superior OS in many ways. There are also others like BeOS that are trying to compete on the ease of use of their OS.
All I would like to see is enough change instituted so that the playing field can finally be leveled, so that all users can chooses the operating systems and applications that suit their needs and tastes. (Thinking in terms of punishment is the right thing, because that doesn't necessarily change their future behaviour.)
Hopefully we can also see a movement to better embrace ISO, IETF, W3C, etc standards so that me using Linux, and you using Be, and someone else using Windows2005 can all share info, etc.
Now's the time to push for real positive change and not just see how much money we can bleed away from MS (although I'm sure that will happen too).
{shrug} Their loss.
It's *theoretically* possible that they honestly believe that they haven't violated the law, but that may not be the most expedient way to go compared to a Clintonesque response -- "We did wrong, we're sorry, and let's move on."
If they stonewall, and this drags on and depresses the stock price, I wonder if any lawyers would pounce.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Not if it gets to the Supreme Court, it won't be.
It's probably not in MSFT's interests to be fighting this for that long, either, if they can get a settlement that'll end speculation over what the judicial system *might* do; and the DoJ lawyers would get to go home pointing to winning results in a *very* big case. Eh, guess we'll see.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I guess it largely depends on the punishment/settlement reached in this case. In the meantime, hurrah, hurrah, this finding of fact is a great thing indeed!
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
Ya, i never used those DOSes. I didn't know there was something newer then 3.3 until my grandfather got 5.0. And by the time i got that my dad had gotten 6.22 so i went from 3 to 6.
Once their heart rates stabilized, the WINE project would get VERY quiet for a while, and then would come the announcement on Freshmeat. Oh, if only it would come to pass...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
There is an important reason Word loses out here: its word-count function is implemented in a manner incompatible with the needs of legal briefs.
I remember seeing something a few months ago to the effect that a US court was discouraging use of Word and preferring WordPerfect for legal briefs. The court went so far as to specially re-count any brief written in Word, 'cause some such briefs wound up over-length and got bounced.
It seems that for legal briefs, which have rigid word-count limitations, page headers/footers count toward the total, but tables of contents don't. (I may have a detail wrong here, so caveat lector!)
Word doesn't let you count the headers/footers if you word-count a text selection (as one would do to exclude the TOC); that option gets grayed out when you select a block of text.
Wordperfect, on the other hand, apparently allows the necessary flexibility in word counting to accommodate the special needs of legal briefs.
(Even MS own law firm uses WordPerfect, according to The REGISTER, http://www.theregister.co.uk)
It's interesting how a major product like Word fouls up on a major market segment like lawyers. Just another tiny niche market, I guess.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Microsoft ought to be subjected to one of two outcomes.
1. The corporate DEATH penalty. Close them down with forfeiture of all assets. All shareholders lose their shares, and all officers are barred forever from working in the industry. Then we will get true innovation!
2. Less stringent, a fine of one TRILLION dollars, half of which would go into an account to pay claims from those who lost their businesses to Microsoft's illegal activities and to users of their buggy, insecure software.
A $10 rebate for each customer who has bought Windows would run into billions
So people using pirated copies don't get a rebate? They should, because they were basically forced to use windows and probably didn't have the money to pay for something else, but still ended up running an unreliable operating system.
The shareholder is always right.
Which is the first problem with your statement.
Yes, I can. If I don't NEED HTML support, why would I want it?
And KDE's not forced on people. OEM's aren't being charged an arm and a leg to ONLY install KDE, and not to install GNOME.
You can easily run a Window Manager that doesn't know a thing about HTML. And if you're in a low-memory situation, you just might want to.
The issue isn't that they included HTML support, or a web browser. The FoF is quite clear that MS did this *to damage Netscape*. Not out of innovation, or regards for the customer/consumer.
They said that, but its quite obvious that they were making excuses because they were scared what HTML and Java represent.
Notice we're not HAVING to use Windows to read and post here?
There's (not much) that Microsoft can do to then change API's or yank the carpet out - as they did in Windows 2, 3, 95, 98....
Um... You didn't bother to read the FoF, did you? And you must not have been following the trial very closely, either, and can't possibly have tried to uninstall IE in Win98. Because if you'd done any of these things, you would know that it's impossible.
One of the major points of the trial, and thus the FoF, is that MS has removed the ability to uninstall IE in Win98, including not offering it as an option in the Add/Remove programs dialogue. Go ahead, try it yourself. Also, it's impossible to use Windows Update without IE. And WU is necessary to fix all of the bugs, security holes, and other detritus that comes with being a Windows user. MS' contention that the browser is integrated into the OS was proven false by the program a professor of some kind was able to write to remove it. Why can't other people write such a program? Well, he was only able to because he had access the Windows source code.
Please, in the future, read the relevant material before making comments. Ignorance like this simply worsens the signal to noise ratio for the rest of us. Most people on /. already know these things and, I'm sure, resent the repetition. If I've gotten anything wrong, though, feel free to correct me.
I was reading his "uninstall" as meaning "using the utilities that come with the OS", not "searching the internet for something to do it." I was not aware of 98lite or what it does - it looks like a good program, thanks for letting me know. However, my argument still stands; running it will "break" Windows in that you'll be unable to use Windows Update (which is needed for security, if nothing else).
the spanking phase in which wild bill bares his
chapped cheeks to the world and penguins snicker
from their polar vantagepoint.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Ok, I completely agree that microsoft should be punished for anti-competitive tactics. But I am questioning the $10 refund. I think that microsoft should give a complete 100% refund to people who buy a computer pre-loaded with windows and never use windows, I believe this because it is very hard to buy a computer without windows on it.
Now.. on to my second point, why should microsoft be made to give a 10$ refund to people who actually USE the OS?? I can see very clearly why a refund should be given to people who don't use it, but if you buy the computer and use the OS then you should pay whatever the asking price is for the OS.
Maybe I'm missing something???
I'd appreciate someone's opinion or point of view on this. Thanks
I mean come on, I will be reading the entire report with greater scrutiny, but right now I feel that almost any of intrusion of the government against free enterprise is a Bad Thing. I will only hurt our economy in the end. We've seen Linux jumps leaps and bounds over the past year or so, the way I can see it, this will only hamper Linux development. As far as browsers go, good ones are being developed as we speek that can easily compete with IE. Ugg, I see nothing good about this report, I guess I just feel like this has turned into a witchhunt for so many /.'ers and I'm disgusted by it. There, I've said my peace. goodnight
Does this remind anyone else of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer tries to start a computer company (the one where he sticks his pencils in butter and has to write lots of "tasty memos)?? Cause later in the episode Bill Gates walks in and has 2 goons just trash the place... Could it be that The Simpsons' writers saw this coming (the forcing smaller companies to give in) and that they knew about this all before we did..??
CoyboyNeal is God
FACT: Computer of all types use Binary, now what?
FACT: All novels or other textual works are recorded either in binary or with ink upon paper.
Well there goes the whole copyright system. Actualy my point is that I think the judge ment something like this. This sentence : "Computers use binary." is not copyrightable. This sentence : "The princess kissed the frog and the turtle." is even though it's recorded in a binary form.
"If I install a Linux OS on their computer, it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get help with problems with their computer and they are going to call me. If they have Windows, they can usually get tips/tricks/help from people they work with, friends, family, etc. They are not going to want to get into IRC or newsgroups to solve problems. " This is a DIRECT result of Microsoft's monopoly. If nobody used Windows do you think it'd be easy to get support for? If Windows had the user-population of Linux and vice-versa you'd be installing Linux on the newbies' computers for the same reason. There's nothing inherent to the OS that means there's support available. It's because of MS's monopoly. And you're playing into it perfectly. They've positioned themselves so Joe Public will say "Well everyone's using Windows so if i use Linux my freinds can't help me." That's what this ruling is about. They've made it so you, when installing OSes on the computers of newbies, have NO CHOICE about the OS to install.
The roll call includes:
RiscOS - A brilliant multitasking OS from the UK
AmigaOS - Yet another great UK operating system
GeoWorks - Another good OS (IMO, prettier than Winblows)
DR-DOS & GEM - GEM died early on... DR-DOS was worthy until Microsoft made sure Windows wouldn't run with it. Go Calderia... Go get 'em
IBM OS/2 - The Most worthy alternative to the Winblows platform... Died because of "deals" struck between MS and ISVs which prevented them from publishing products for this OS.
Perhaps now, there may be some justice... And hopefully a morsel of revenge.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Linux would be ALOT more practical for example if we could get the shockwave plugin, or a quicktime one. But for that we need commercial support, not from the companies that make/distribute the OS but from third parties. THAT is what MS is keeping out of our reach.
You talk about ferraris and 18 wheelers but the thing is Linux is neither. Linux is more like a Mustang or a Diesel Dodge RAM. Built solid, and runs fast/pulls hard. Windows on the other hand is a Yugo. Great grocery getter if you have a cell phone to call the tow truck everytime it breaks down on you.
"MS's domination of the dekstop OS market has created an environment that it makes it difficult for new desktop OS's to become viable. A big part of this reason is that developers prefer to develop for markets that have large numbers of users, i.e., potential customers. Customers, equally, don't want to use desktop OS's that lack in the number of applications that they use or plan to use in the future."
Right on Brother. People in this part of their country tend to base their businesses in Chicago rather than my podunk town. Why? Because of network effects -- more people brings more people.
After he's done reaming MS, I hope Jackson goes after big cities to level the competition with us small towners.
Fight the power!!!
All I can say about this is, Microsoft's going to get its ass short-sold when the market opens down 10% Monday. I pray that the tech market regains its stability soon.
As for the impact on the way tech companies do business in the future, I think this will make start-ups a little more common, as the all-too-common buyout/squelching by a big company in the same field will be reduced by this ruling...
I just put up another mirror here.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Interestingly enough breaking up Microsoft into different companies may not be punishment on the long term. Historically, large companies that have been found guilty of anti-trust violations and have been have been "punished" have manged to crawl out of the grave and return in a bigger form. Look at Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, all of which were found guilty of anti-trust violations. They all fought it tooth and nail in court, and lost, and became mega-powerhouse companies. Standard Oil became the giants Exxon, Mobil and Chevron. AT&T was broken up only to spawn regional mega bells. AT&T itself is re-invading the home via cable. IBM was pursued by DOJ for monopolizing the mainframe market only to return and invent the PC market and give un-holy birth to Microsoft in the first place. Scary, huh?
I would say the exactly opposite. Dont get too excited. M$ is such a big company, this ruling might not matter much, they could buy off the judge anyway, if they wanted to. Stay calm.
Ofcourse, party anyway. It is great fun.
-----------------------------------
I have to agree with Don that Judge Penfield "gets it" My initial response when I started reading the decision was that it sounded more like a techie wrote it than a Judge. I mean a lawyer type discusssing the importance of APIs and cross platform compatibility? After finishing I was impressed that he not only understood the general technical issues involved but also the market dynamics of the computer industry. Of course this is only the first step in the process, there are still sentencing and appeals processes to go through. All that has been established thus far is that Microsoft does hold a monopoly for x86 compatible operating systems, any implications of impropriety contained in the FoF are just that, implications. More fun to come. If you haven't read the entire FoF I recommend reading it all.
See: www.xmms.org
-- Gunnar
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
thats all i can say. finally there is "official" evidence for what has been nagging us for so long... and it came from a Judge!
I'm not sure it would be the greatest thing if M$ went totally bankrupt, but then again.. its very complex... so it might reignite real competition between the I-Tech Corporations. We can only hope for the best... maybe M$ will get the 'ol splitter that Bell got? I just am glad that they finally got what was coming to them. And thanks, don, for the great interpretation.
This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.
Looks like the MS lobby is going to Rally Borg troops to counter attack via congress.
I just visted MS Freedom to Innovate and am feeling rather ill at their abuse of patrotic (USA) symbols. Looks like they are encouraging people to write letters to congress. (and sign up for free MS propaganda) I'm certain that they will get a LOT of MS consultants and Drones to write to congress. (see the cast your vote link.)
Hmmm - this came just in time for Bill Gates to change the spin on his Fall Comdex Keynote!
Even if this IS "only" a Finding of Fact, it makes it soooo much more likely that M$ will either get punished or settle with the DoJ. The Judge has said he finds that M$ is a monopoly and uses its power unfairly. Party.
-
-
I rather like cows.
Then you're an idiot, because it's extra baggage for a machine that doesn't need IE installed -- say, a machine that's not going to be connected to the Internet. (Those do exist, you know; I have six of them.)
one question, is it so hard to uninstall IE after installing/running windows? i admit it might be a little harder for a newbie to do this, but thats what its all about, learning. when you first started using linux, or whatever os you use, did you automatically know how to do everything? i highly doubt it. i think that if people are going to bitch about it, and won't take the time to learn how to do it for themselves, then they have no right to bitch and don't deserve special attention. i seem to recall a wonderfull phrase that coinsides with this.
"you can't help those, who can't help themselves."
now, i do feel that ms has played somewhat dirty within the industry, that is a fact that cannot be denied. but i cannot agree with some of this bitching that is useless, and will ultimately drain more of my tax dollars to make these sorry people happy. i am also all for DomitianX's idea of developing an os that can rival windows in stability/usefullness/ease of use, or even making linux a bit more 'computer illiterate user-friendly'. till that happens, i guess all those newbies out there are stuck with windows and IE.
---i am one for compromise. run two comps, one with windoze, the other with linux.
I know this is going to start a slam fest and I know it is going to causes some serious flames my way but...
I actually dont mind the Windows OS and am glad they integrated the browser into Windows.
Just to let you all know, I prefer Linux to Windows, but as for ease of use and configuration for people I build computers for, I prefer Windows and the apps I use for my job requires MS Windows.
Some people will start screaming Mac, Mac, Mac but I cannot easily replace a chip in a Mac to make it a bit faster, a faster modem is 3 times the cost of a PC, RAM costs much more, a video card is outrageously priced, etc....
I do not agree with allot of the judges "finding of facts" and I really believe this huge waste of my damn tax dollars should never have begun.
I sometimes build computers for people that have never used a computer. It is much easier for them to start the computer, click on the big globe, dial up to the Internet and then surf around for a while and that is who most of the users are. They may change their desktop to put a picture of their kids on it, but that is about it.
If I install a Linux OS on their computer, it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get help with problems with their computer and they are going to call me. If they have Windows, they can usually get tips/tricks/help from people they work with, friends, family, etc. They are not going to want to get into IRC or newsgroups to solve problems.
It is kind of like owning a Benz or Saab. Finding people to repair them is allot harder than a GM or Ford.
Now I understand that if I took the time to show them how to compile a piece of software, or modify their path or mount drives, etc, they wouldnt need to find help or call me all the time, but face it, the average user does not want to know how to do this, they want to point and click and Windows has done a fairly good job at this. The Mac is much simplier but the cost of a Mac and the upgrade ability over shadows its ease of use to most people.
Average user: "Why is it telling me I need to be root to do this?"
Average user: "Why do I have to remember all these passwords?"
Average user: "What is /dev/hda1?"
Average user: "What is make? Do I do make or make install?"
Look at the cosumer market for other products. The clapper for example. How many times have we made fun of that commercial? I actually know a few people that bought it. Bread machines are another example. People want the smell, taste and texture of fresh bread, but they dont want to spend the time rolling the dough, letting it rise and then baking it. They want to open the packets, dump the ingredients in and then go watch soaps.
Now as far as browsers go, I prefer IE over Netscape. I have less problems with IE than I do with Netscape. They both crash just as often, but rendering HTML is better in IE.
The most annoying thing about Netscape is that if the HTML writer forgets to put the /table tag or /select or mispells the tag, Netscape displays only part of the page or anything at all. That is annoying. Now I know you are going to say "It's not Netscapes fault the developer is lazy or cant spell" or something similar but I think minor assumptions on the browsers part is fine. "Hey this guy started a table, but he didnt end it, maybe I should put an /table tag here instead of displaying a blank page."
Now I do have both installed and many versions of each on my Windows PC, but I prefer IE over Netscape.
I believe if there was a better solution out there for your average person to use easily, it would blow Windows out of the water, but it has yet to arrive.
The chip industry is a prime example. How long did Intel rule the world for processors?
Now that AMD has come out with lower cost, faster chips they are giving Intel a hell of a run for their money. I love that!!! That's the american way.
That is what we need, competition, not the tax wasting government to tell us/MS they are a monopoly on the desktop. DUH! We know that!
If we would have spent the tax dollars on further developing linux or BeOS and making it easier to use than Windows and make it free for computer manufacturers to OEM it on the new PC's, Bill Gates would be cleaning the toilets of the local McDonalds instead of the government blowing my tax dollars on a lawyers' vendetta because of a "General Protection Fault" or he wanted Netscape instead of IE. Hey dickhead, D O W N L O A D I T ! ! ! !
Hey Redhat 6.1 came with XMMS instead of X11AMP. I am going to sue Redhat because it did not include my favorite MP3 player. You're bad RH. You're evil!
Until something better comes along and is easy for the average "computer illiterate" person to turn the computer on without calling me to figure out how to untar or ask me what the hell gzip is, we will have to deal with Windows. Quit blaming Microsoft, pointing fingers at Microsft and develop something that can replace it. Think of Windows as a car. You get pissed at, kick it, hit it and scream at it sometimes, but would you rather ride a horse or walk? I would prefer the heated indoors of a car before I would shovel horse shit or walk out to the barn to feed the horse in the middle of Winter, even if I did get a flat or need an oil change/tune up.
If you dont like the color of your living room, you paint it, you dont go sue the house builder because you soon realized that the color of the wall clashed with the window treaments you decided to buy.
If you dont like Windows on every desktop and controlling the PC desktop market, make something better that can replace it. Dont go suing them because you think linux is better or you wanted Netscape instead of IE.
I am so f**king sick of this "I am going to sue you because I dont like the way I am being treated and I am not happy" world that it makes me sick when people back this huge, worthless waste of my f**king tax dollars.
My $0.02
I never said anybody "should" use anything. I am saying the reason most people use Windows is because people want "ease of use". They want things as easy as they get.
Microsoft did not create the laziness of the world, they only capitolized on it and sales soared because of it and the monopoly began.
Start looking around your house to see the laziness of your self.
Do you have a remote or do you walk up to the TV and turn the channel?
Do you have a Microwave? Why? Because you want to heat up those left overs quickly.
Do you have an automatic or a stick shift in your car? Why? Because you get stick of pushing in the clutch.
Do you use chop sticks to eat chinese food or do you use a fork? Why?
Somebody that knows nothing about computers would rather point and click than sit at a prompt with a blinking cursor.
Think about it. Dont blame Microsoft because most people want things as simple as they get.
I enjoy using Linux. I enjoy compiling software, tweaking, playing and figuring out things I dont know, but most "computer illiterate" people dont. If they start getting into computers heavily, they usually turn to an alternative OS such as *NIX.
Instead of cyring/blaming/suing Microsoft, develop Linux/BeOS/BSD, etc to kick MS's ass and take over the desktop instead of Windows.
The reason Linux was never had big support in the begining was because it was not initially developed to overtake Windows. It was more of a college project. If it would have began as an alternative to MS Windows and marketed/promoted as such, it might have taken off.
MS is no different than any other big business. They are all kinds of under the table deals along with black mail, bullying in big business.
MS is no different than any of the other big business companies.
They all do it, just some get more news than others. Bill just pushed a bit too far and got caught.
It's like poking somebody in the back of the head until they finally turn around and knock the shit out of you.
I have sat through that download of Netscape many times when I preferred NS over IE. Especially in the days of IE 2.0 and 3.0l.
I spent all day downloading Service Pack 6 for NT. I wanted it, so I downloaded the 35MB.
If I want a piece of software I put up with the download. That is like saying anybody with a strong prefereance to RH will not sit through the numerous hours of downloading the ISO from CROM.com. I have done it. I am downloading Slack 7 right now and I dont think it will be done until Sunday on my 56K dial up. I put up with it.
Another thing to think about.
If Pizza Hut is the only place in town that delivers but you REALLY want Joe's pizza that is 20 minutes away, you will probably get in your car and drive down to Joe's instead of settling for Pizza Hut correct, or are you going to sue Pizza Hut because Joe's pizza is harder to get?
I know MS did smoe shayd dealings with people and may have used it's monopoly to get its way, but that has been going on for years in other areas.
How about construction companies that pay city council people to not allow another contractor to get a license in the area or how about a major resturant chain paying city officials to not allow another chain to get a liquor license in town.
Us consumers have been dealing with this type of thing for years.
It's absurd. It's pretty supid. I'd love a slash dot comment on it. Let's get it saved, transcribed, and collect a response.
You obviously never used doublespace, or QEMM, or DR-DOS. Oh yeah, what about them stacker folks?
:-(. )
Uhhh....Doublespace was MS, and indeed, it sucked. But QUEMM was a Quarterdeck product, DR-DOS was not M$ (forgot what DR stood for), and Stacker was not M$. So what are you trying to say here???
Personally I have had no trouble with MS-DOS 6.x, avoided Doublespace because i knew it sucked and (sort of) skipped W3.x for the same reason. (Now I'm using W95, didn't know in time it also sucks
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
This judge really did get his brain around an incredibly complex modern monopoly. He has laid the groundwork in his FoF for a strong response to M$' behavior. Consider Section VII [The Effect on Consumers of M$'s Efforts to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry](pp. 408-412). The implications are *very* clear that the *only* remedy to M$'s stranglehold on an entire industry is via its breakup.
While people are going to bemoan or hail this, the fact is it will probably be better both for the public and, truly, for M$ and its shareholders (who will probably be seeing a 3-5 to 1 stock split in the not so distant future). The smaller units will compete with eachother and others and arguably innovate/evolve better and faster .
Look at the history of similar predecessors, Standard Oil and ATT. What was lost in both cases in economy of scale was more than made up for through new competition and smaller, more dynamic companies. ATT, for one, is still spinning off units without Gov. intervention...Lucent is up what, 727% or thereabouts???? Consider some of those broken up "remnants," Chevron, Amoco, Gulf, Ameritech, BellAtlantic etc etc etc.
The smartest thing M$ could do right now is to stop fighting and proactively cut themselves apart. They are already into this litigation in the neighborhood of $50MM in attorney fees. I do not foresee the FoF being sucessfully challenged. It is time to smell the future.
Break it up and have 3-5 strong companies move forward. The alternative is another year or two of stunningly expensive heal dragging.
rootrot
Weigh on one side the "cost" of such practices: $50MM++ in legal fees, another few hundred MM dollars related litigation costs/settlements, add anticipated costs of a breakup and/or civil/criminal liability of anywhere from $1 to $10BB. Realistically the downside could fall somewhere in the $2BB to $10BB range.
Having just spent an hour or so poking about M$'s financial history (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/history.htm) I find that M$ is sitting on about $19BB in *cash*. The bottom line is that in the great scheme of things, M$ has made *WAY* more money via monopolistic practices than those practices will ever "cost" them.
That said, perhaps we should remember the greatest of all corporate cost/benefit analysis...the Ford Pinto case. Ford's actuaries based their analysis on a human life being worth about $200K vs. a repair cost of about $3.68/car. The first judgement came back around $2.4MM and they took a bath. Perhaps that will happen here. I doubt it.
FWIW I think M$, evil manipulative bastards as they may well be, is a great stock buy right now. One way or another I think we are going to see the birth of several strong companies out of the golden ashes of M$.
rootrot
First, it has been said that the index will contain the detailed reports of M$'s use of fetal tissue to create the inks it uses in it's manuals.
There is also an analysis of the unsubstantiated rumor that much of M$'s bloatware is the product of thousands of chained, blindfolded and nude young college grads trapped in the Redmond Dungeons, randomly pounding on keys to created the outstanding applications inflicted upon us all.
Further, the index will detail M$'s poorly conceived "collectible" Certificates of Authenticity, embossed on human skin.
Assuming Judge Jackson is willing to tell the *true tales* of M$'s morally bankrupt practices and not just page after page of monopolistic and anti-competitive drivel he could end up with the greats of the bench, Judge Starr and Judge Ito.
I'm going to go read the last section over and over till I drift off to sleep...........
rootrot
The FoF is so goddamn clear its a work of art. It's legal writing at its best.
-Every time I see you flourishing with a metaphor I experience the same anxiety I feel watching a child with a razor-
bill will now have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
- They didn't pursue control of ALL web presentation. )
- They did encourage lower browser prices and provide competition (and an alternative) to Netscape for a time.
M$ must see it the same way as they're already pointing out number two in a press conference as the "favorable aspects" of the ruling. I'd like to see them try to tout number one too.Actually, the FoF goes way farther than I expected it to. Not only does it say, "Yes, M$ has a monopoly; yes, M$ used that monopoly to force IE on people." (Which I thought was the point, I may not understand the law well.) It also states that M$ did all these things specifically and delibrately to protect its OS monopoly from even a potential threat of competition.
We should also note that the FoF very clearly talks about "PC Systems" as opposed to server systems.
I wonder what effect this case (which does focus on browser/desktop) will have on Win2K/Office2K/ActiveDirectory which, IMHO, includes a very clear attempt to use the Windows and Office monopoly to force people away from Internet standard services (DNS/DHCP/LDAP) toward the M$ Win2K "enhanced" versions.
The FoF document is clearly the work of a non-computer person who has labored very hard to understand the complexities of the industry--and done a good job of it.
Retief
As we can all guess, MS's stock will probably pulmet upon opening on monday. Which, frankly, would be fine by me, excempt for one thing.
The Dow Jones average, often and incorrectly, is used as an economic indicator by many, many individuals and media personnal. And guess whose stock was append to the Dow Jones on November 1st, that's right, Microsoft.
Monday opening should cause a sharp, and artifical, drop in the Dow Jones Industial. Which can be safely ingored by any educated individual. However, me assumation is that many investors are not sufficient knowledgable on such things.
Thus trading volume on services such as E*Trade,etc. will be quite high on monday, as hundred of thousands of "E Traders" panic, try to cut their losses and end up losing their shirts.
All I can hope is that this will not cause some sort of idiotic panic, thus sinking everyone along with Microsoft.
For bringing in a credible legal source to provide us professional opinions and insight on legal issues in the industry. I hope that you do this quite often on other issues as well.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
THis judge has been over-ruled several times on previous MS decisions he has made, especially regarding some of the fof about IE. The appeals court has previously ruled that Judge Jackson is in no postion to make a technical determination of internet explorer for example paragraph 173 that ie has a negative effect on consumers. That is only one example of some of the questionable findings from a legal point of view that judge jackson made. He is right about some things - MS does things that are restrictive and anticompetive and the court should require that MS change some of its practice. I wish I had the time and space to to go through the fof line by but i don't. Just don't be surprised if the appeals court overrules judge jackson and restricts the type of damages he can order plus changes the fof despite what the /. legal expert says. This trial is not over by any means and the only way to tell who truly won is to wait a few years and then make a determination. Ed Bailey
I doubt that Microsoft or any software manufacture will have much luck if they do enough research. I personally was involved with a Federal Copyright Lawsuit and the Judge ruled in a Summary Judgement the following: "A person(s) cannot copyright something that is based on fact" FACT: Computer of all types use Binary, now what?
Having read the full ruling and being well versed in programming, law and business, I cannot help recommending all ./s to read the complete ruling carefully. This man seems to know about computers as much as most of us do and he seems to know business better than most MBA's I know. His legal quals obviously need no comment. Use the force, Luke!
While I do believe MS did have monopoly and possibly used its power in that position more so than it should have, I'm not comfortable with the judge's comments. He seems blantanly biased. Heck, /.'s legal consultant even mentioned it. I feel better results would be had if someone more netrual had presided over this case. I don't know, maybe I just have too much faith in the legal system operating the way it was meant to. -Trevor
Reference Don's paragraph cites in a flash, dot.