When they steal they still show up in using statictis and that hurts us.
How do they show up in statistics? I doubt many of them actually try to register the product that they obtained illegally.
Anyway the image of pirates commiting murder on the high seas is a bit of a farce.. piracy is not murder it's theft and high seas pirates kill about as often as theafs in urban america.
I suppose it depends on the intent of the pirates. I would think that it would make more sense for them to not kill the people. If they make a habit of it, any ship would fight to the death rather than surrender if they believe they will be killed anyway. That doesn't help pirate profits.
"illegal copying" whats that?
I'd say that that term is pretty decent. It means copying software illegally as opposed to copying software legally. The important thing is that people not be mislead into believing that ALL software copying is illegal. I'm sure Microsoft (and others) would LOVE for people to believe that free software advocates were a bunch of "pirates" stealing food from the tables of honest, hard-working software company employees. I believe that it's important that people not be mislead into believing those kinds of things.
I think he meant that anyone should be free to give away their own IP. The line that Microsoft, Gore, and many others are pushing makes it sound as if ANY software copying is or should be illegal. That annoys people who want to give away their software and have many people use it.
Laws don't make much difference to desperate people. If they were willing to fight a war for some reason, I doubt this will mean much to them. Next to killing thousands of people, what's a little impersonation? If the governments of the world really wanted to stop the killing and collateral damage, they'd just put one guy from each side into a giant robot and let them duke it out on a remote island somewhere. Winner take all.:)(yes that was a joke)
The API game would not be fun to play with Microsoft. The only possible way that I can see to make things work would be to make them fully document any API that any product of theirs uses. If their products use it, then it will probably be around for a little while. Additionally, they would have to provide sufficient (which would have to be defined at some point) notice to everyone whenever they plan to change or remove anything, as well as providing a fully documented replacement if there is to be one. They would also need to be regularly audited to make sure they are complying.
Ok, what did I miss? If I was a lawyer proposing some sort of solution along these lines, that's a question that I would be asking constantly. Microsoft is clever and will find ways around any restrictions. I would be very paranoid.
I don't see how scattering IE code all over the place was a result of natural evolution. Adding a browser to windows is fine. Making that browser unremoveable and unreplaceable is not fine. They did it specifically to target the competition (that much is obvious from the court testimony and the emails that were made public during the trial) and they were able to do it because they have control of the field (Windows) that everyone must play on. That is not a natural evolution. That's monopoly power at work.
I know this question wasn't asking my opinion, but this is a free forum and I'm going to comment anyway, if only to have people poke holes in my argument so that I can build a better one next time:)
I agree that it is a behavioral problem with Microsoft that has brought us to this point. I would love to think that a remedy could be created to simply restrain them from doing the kinds of things that have caused so many problems. I've argued for that very thing in the past. Lately, though, I've been doing a lot of thinking about it. I thought that the consent decree the DOJ had Microsoft sign was just a sloppy mistake on the DOJ's part. But the more I thought about how much would have to go into a decree of that sort in order to have any real effect, the more I realized that it probably couldn't be done without causing serious and unintended side-effects.
The other way of doing it would be to appoint an oversight committee to watch Microsoft and slap Bill's hand if he gets out of line. That would also be a less-than-ideal solution. If the committee gets a little overzealous, they might keep Microsoft from making legitimate advances that would normally be good for consumers. I also wouldn't know what kind of scope of authority they should have. Should they be allowed to intervene in software design decisions such as that of integrating IE? Should they just stick to business decisions and therefore be powerless to prevent potentially damaging design decisions, even if those design decisions were clearly made in order to harm competition?
So, while I agree that the problem is behavioral, I think that the solution in this case is probably to break up the power base that allowed Microsoft to behave the way they did in the first place. Without that kind of overwhelming power, they will not be able to wield it in illegal ways (or even legal ones, but they brought that on themselves by laughing off the consent decree last time and by breaking the law again). If it is found that Microsoft broke the law, then they deserve punishment. Therefore breaking up the power base that allowed them to commit the crimes seems like a fitting solution. It may even do a lot of good. The idea of Microsoft as a smaller company without the monopoly power is kind of interesting. They'd have to truly start innovating and they wouldn't be able to squash other companies' innovations. I think they'll land on their feet. It could turn out quite well.
Heh. I never know whether to take an AC seriously or not. I just say what I think most of the time and I try to be honest. Not sure what you have in mind for a "brain duel." Sounds weird. I have a mental picture of two brains going at it WWF style. Ack.
First, this argument helps clarify things like the Lyrics Server. Many argued that people posting lyrics were just posting their interpretation of them. However, if the lyrics were copyrighted by the writer (and/or owned by the band, record label, etc.), then posting the lyrics would be a violation of the copyright, according to the argument in the previous post.
Second, what would the determination be if a student copied something that the prof. wrote on a whiteboard? What if the student drew a diagram that was drawn by the prof? Just curious.
Ok, I'll agree that an OS can mean different things in different contexts and to different people. There's very little that you can dispute when it comes to definitions of this sort. They get blurred all the time.
I'm not trying to say that truth is relative, but rather that perspective and intent count for a lot here.
This is where I think you hit on the one thing that definitely drives straight to the heart of the Microsoft/DOJ matter. An OS maker could make everything an integral part of the OS if they so desired. That's why the DOJ had to go to the lengths that they did in order to prove that the intent behind the integration of IE was to harm Netscape. Intent is very important. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter (or in this case between anti-competitive behavior and "innovation"). I think that just about anything that a company says is an OS must be accepted as an OS. If they've done something like Microsoft did, and it looks like they may have broken the law, then the prosecutor will have to prove why they did it. Simply showing that they did it is not enough.
Sorry, that wasn't "Less than a year ago". That was 4 years ago.
You are incorrect. This survey is dated June 3, 1998. It wasn't until a few months after that that there was any breaking of ranks in the OEMs.
Any OEM was perfectly free to sell any OS they wanted to, they just couldn't sell it on the same model computer that a windows OS was on.
That's an incredibly naive statement. Microsoft switched to using per model licensing rather than per-processor licensing to get around the consent decree. It didn't have any effect on OEMs. They were still faced with the same prospects they'd had all along. The DOJ failed to help their situation. Sure, technically they could ship another OS just by slapping a new nameplate on a box. In reality, that wouldn't please Microsoft and therefore was not done for fear of having Windows prices jacked up or having their Windows license revoked. That's why the consent decree is considered to be a complete failure.
Got any basis for that statement? The only criticisms I've read of the FoF went on and on about PDAs, WebTV-like appliances, Online Office-type applications, etc. They make a lot more unfounded assumptions than the FoF did. I found them to be at least as shaky as they claimed the FoF was, and usually moreso. Not to mention the fact that they never took into account what Microsoft's current position would mean for those new markets if they actually start to go anywhere.
I haven't seen a decent review of just the legal issues in the document. The New York Law Journal article is the one of few that has brought up many legal issues at all. So far everyone has just tried to back up or second guess the judge's findings.
That's why less than a year ago, none of the top ten PC manufacturers were allowed to sell a PC without paying Microsoft for a Windows license, whether their customer wanted Windows or not. In order to give some of their customers what they want, they would have to charge the rest of their customers an astronomical amount for Windows. Microsoft had the power to cause this. That's monopoly power.
That's why Microsoft refused to refund people's money even though they didn't want Windows and were returning it just as Microsoft's EULA said they had a right to do.
Lawyers with your mindset are the sort that give all lawyers a bad name. Simply due to your willingness to twist the facts into something completely unrecognizable to the inhabitants of the real world.
IIRC, WinAmp was around and in wide use before Media Player did MP3s. Not to mention it is much nicer looking and does lots of cool stuff. Not to mention the fact that nobody is worried about WinAmp using any silly special formats like MS likes to do.
MSN sucked and Microsoft let it die. They made that decision because AOL had a big head start and Microsoft wanted AOL to use IE, what did you expect to happen? This goes back to the judge saying that Microsoft hasn't done much of anything in a market where they had to compete with an entrenched competitor. Adobe is another example of this.
The best software (which means most benificial to the consumer) is still around and thriving.
No new companies are appearing to directly compete with Windows or Office. Those are where Microsoft has the monopoly power. They have done everything possible to ensure that nothing challenges these products. The only competition they face now in those areas are from non-commercial sources. That doesn't speak well of the conditions in the market.
The open source (beer and speech) solution is not viable and is not fair for MS.
I agree that it's not the right thing to do in this case. Not because it isn't fair (because I think it's perfectly fair for them to be ripped off just as they've ripped others off), but as you said, it could have other bad consequences for consumers as a whole if the economy takes any kind of hit because of it.
Unfortunately, even by breaking Microsoft up, one company ends up controlling access to the OS. It would not improve the situation much. It will come down to specific regulation and oversight in the end. It's the only way to prevent Microsoft from finding a loophole like they did last time.
The DOJ has been burned by Microsoft. Microsoft has proven that they have no intention of obeying the spirit of any consent decree. If they can find a loophole in the letter of the agreement, they will exploit it to the fullest extent possible. Software is almost infinitely malleable. They will be able to work around the terms of any decree unless someone is there to call them on it and make them adhere to the spirit (intent) as well as the letter of any agreement.
I realize that this will tie Microsoft's hands somewhat, but I don't think it will be done unfairly. Microsoft has been given chances to shape up, but they have refused to do so. They have shown that the only thing that will keep them from continuing to break the law is to have their hands tied in order to make sure they are unable to break the law. Keep them that way for 5 years and maybe the rest of the industry will come alive again and competition will return in the desktop OS market.
The stock probably won't do much until the trial is over and we find out what the government plans to do to Microsoft. It could be an inneffectual solution, in which case I expect the stock to fall a bit as people bail, but level off and rise as those in the know buy it up again, realizing that the ruling won't do much damage to Microsoft's bottom line.
It could also be a solution that looks airtight and very damaging. In that case, the stock probably will drop quite a bit.
The other option is that the remedy appears to be bad, but a loophole is later found that let's Microsoft get off the hook. That almost seems likely.
Consumers have been hurt by Microsoft using its monopoly power to control what OEMs can and cannot do for their customers. They have also used their monopoly power to drive other companies out of business and to prevent new products from ever reaching the market or competing with Microsoft's own products. This keeps them from having to lower their prices in response to competition. Their tactics have also made it more difficult to get venture capital if your product would compete with one of Microsoft's products. This would further prevent competition. Lack of competition harms consumers.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that sometimes it's good for all of us to build something with our tax dollars rather than let companies who are only interested in making more money decide how things should be done. They'll always do things to their advantage rather than ours.
With a little luck, Microsoft's big pile of money will begin to get smaller due to legal fees and settlements in the many cases that are sure to be brought against them after this trial finishes.
They weren't broken up though. The statement was that those companies that were broken up have done quite well afterwards. IBM suffered for other reasons, as well as because of the spotlight on their business practices.
Holding Gates personally responsible for it's enforcement seems like it might work to me.
I don't know that it's possible to hold Bill personally responsible for Microsoft's actions. Isn't that one of the reasons for incorporating in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
When they steal they still show up in using statictis and that hurts us.
How do they show up in statistics? I doubt many of them actually try to register the product that they obtained illegally.
Anyway the image of pirates commiting murder on the high seas is a bit of a farce.. piracy is not murder it's theft and high seas pirates kill about as often as theafs in urban america.
I suppose it depends on the intent of the pirates. I would think that it would make more sense for them to not kill the people. If they make a habit of it, any ship would fight to the death rather than surrender if they believe they will be killed anyway. That doesn't help pirate profits.
"illegal copying" whats that?
I'd say that that term is pretty decent. It means copying software illegally as opposed to copying software legally. The important thing is that people not be mislead into believing that ALL software copying is illegal. I'm sure Microsoft (and others) would LOVE for people to believe that free software advocates were a bunch of "pirates" stealing food from the tables of honest, hard-working software company employees. I believe that it's important that people not be mislead into believing those kinds of things.
I think he meant that anyone should be free to give away their own IP. The line that Microsoft, Gore, and many others are pushing makes it sound as if ANY software copying is or should be illegal. That annoys people who want to give away their software and have many people use it.
Does Win95/98 even support 128 megs of RAM?
Laws don't make much difference to desperate people. If they were willing to fight a war for some reason, I doubt this will mean much to them. Next to killing thousands of people, what's a little impersonation? If the governments of the world really wanted to stop the killing and collateral damage, they'd just put one guy from each side into a giant robot and let them duke it out on a remote island somewhere. Winner take all. :)(yes that was a joke)
The API game would not be fun to play with Microsoft. The only possible way that I can see to make things work would be to make them fully document any API that any product of theirs uses. If their products use it, then it will probably be around for a little while. Additionally, they would have to provide sufficient (which would have to be defined at some point) notice to everyone whenever they plan to change or remove anything, as well as providing a fully documented replacement if there is to be one. They would also need to be regularly audited to make sure they are complying.
Ok, what did I miss? If I was a lawyer proposing some sort of solution along these lines, that's a question that I would be asking constantly. Microsoft is clever and will find ways around any restrictions. I would be very paranoid.
I don't see how scattering IE code all over the place was a result of natural evolution. Adding a browser to windows is fine. Making that browser unremoveable and unreplaceable is not fine. They did it specifically to target the competition (that much is obvious from the court testimony and the emails that were made public during the trial) and they were able to do it because they have control of the field (Windows) that everyone must play on. That is not a natural evolution. That's monopoly power at work.
I know this question wasn't asking my opinion, but this is a free forum and I'm going to comment anyway, if only to have people poke holes in my argument so that I can build a better one next time :)
I agree that it is a behavioral problem with Microsoft that has brought us to this point. I would love to think that a remedy could be created to simply restrain them from doing the kinds of things that have caused so many problems. I've argued for that very thing in the past. Lately, though, I've been doing a lot of thinking about it. I thought that the consent decree the DOJ had Microsoft sign was just a sloppy mistake on the DOJ's part. But the more I thought about how much would have to go into a decree of that sort in order to have any real effect, the more I realized that it probably couldn't be done without causing serious and unintended side-effects.
The other way of doing it would be to appoint an oversight committee to watch Microsoft and slap Bill's hand if he gets out of line. That would also be a less-than-ideal solution. If the committee gets a little overzealous, they might keep Microsoft from making legitimate advances that would normally be good for consumers. I also wouldn't know what kind of scope of authority they should have. Should they be allowed to intervene in software design decisions such as that of integrating IE? Should they just stick to business decisions and therefore be powerless to prevent potentially damaging design decisions, even if those design decisions were clearly made in order to harm competition?
So, while I agree that the problem is behavioral, I think that the solution in this case is probably to break up the power base that allowed Microsoft to behave the way they did in the first place. Without that kind of overwhelming power, they will not be able to wield it in illegal ways (or even legal ones, but they brought that on themselves by laughing off the consent decree last time and by breaking the law again). If it is found that Microsoft broke the law, then they deserve punishment. Therefore breaking up the power base that allowed them to commit the crimes seems like a fitting solution. It may even do a lot of good. The idea of Microsoft as a smaller company without the monopoly power is kind of interesting. They'd have to truly start innovating and they wouldn't be able to squash other companies' innovations. I think they'll land on their feet. It could turn out quite well.
Heh. I never know whether to take an AC seriously or not. I just say what I think most of the time and I try to be honest. Not sure what you have in mind for a "brain duel." Sounds weird. I have a mental picture of two brains going at it WWF style. Ack.
First, this argument helps clarify things like the Lyrics Server. Many argued that people posting lyrics were just posting their interpretation of them. However, if the lyrics were copyrighted by the writer (and/or owned by the band, record label, etc.), then posting the lyrics would be a violation of the copyright, according to the argument in the previous post.
Second, what would the determination be if a student copied something that the prof. wrote on a whiteboard? What if the student drew a diagram that was drawn by the prof? Just curious.
Ok, I'll agree that an OS can mean different things in different contexts and to different people. There's very little that you can dispute when it comes to definitions of this sort. They get blurred all the time.
I'm not trying to say that truth is relative, but rather that perspective and intent count for a lot here.
This is where I think you hit on the one thing that definitely drives straight to the heart of the Microsoft/DOJ matter. An OS maker could make everything an integral part of the OS if they so desired. That's why the DOJ had to go to the lengths that they did in order to prove that the intent behind the integration of IE was to harm Netscape. Intent is very important. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter (or in this case between anti-competitive behavior and "innovation"). I think that just about anything that a company says is an OS must be accepted as an OS. If they've done something like Microsoft did, and it looks like they may have broken the law, then the prosecutor will have to prove why they did it. Simply showing that they did it is not enough.
Maybe spammers learn to disguise their crap as electronic legal notices from various vendors.
Sorry, that wasn't "Less than a year ago". That was 4 years ago.
You are incorrect. This survey is dated June 3, 1998. It wasn't until a few months after that that there was any breaking of ranks in the OEMs.
Any OEM was perfectly free to sell any OS they wanted to, they just couldn't sell it on the same model computer that a windows OS was on.
That's an incredibly naive statement. Microsoft switched to using per model licensing rather than per-processor licensing to get around the consent decree. It didn't have any effect on OEMs. They were still faced with the same prospects they'd had all along. The DOJ failed to help their situation. Sure, technically they could ship another OS just by slapping a new nameplate on a box. In reality, that wouldn't please Microsoft and therefore was not done for fear of having Windows prices jacked up or having their Windows license revoked. That's why the consent decree is considered to be a complete failure.
Got any basis for that statement? The only criticisms I've read of the FoF went on and on about PDAs, WebTV-like appliances, Online Office-type applications, etc. They make a lot more unfounded assumptions than the FoF did. I found them to be at least as shaky as they claimed the FoF was, and usually moreso. Not to mention the fact that they never took into account what Microsoft's current position would mean for those new markets if they actually start to go anywhere.
I haven't seen a decent review of just the legal issues in the document. The New York Law Journal article is the one of few that has brought up many legal issues at all. So far everyone has just tried to back up or second guess the judge's findings.
err.. I meant "held", not "help".
Not gonna happen. Bill Gates cannot be help personally liable for the actions of the Microsoft Corporation. That's one of the perks of incorporation.
Yeah. We have tons of choice.
That's why less than a year ago, none of the top ten PC manufacturers were allowed to sell a PC without paying Microsoft for a Windows license, whether their customer wanted Windows or not. In order to give some of their customers what they want, they would have to charge the rest of their customers an astronomical amount for Windows. Microsoft had the power to cause this. That's monopoly power.
That's why Microsoft refused to refund people's money even though they didn't want Windows and were returning it just as Microsoft's EULA said they had a right to do.
Lawyers with your mindset are the sort that give all lawyers a bad name. Simply due to your willingness to twist the facts into something completely unrecognizable to the inhabitants of the real world.
IIRC, WinAmp was around and in wide use before Media Player did MP3s. Not to mention it is much nicer looking and does lots of cool stuff. Not to mention the fact that nobody is worried about WinAmp using any silly special formats like MS likes to do.
MSN sucked and Microsoft let it die. They made that decision because AOL had a big head start and Microsoft wanted AOL to use IE, what did you expect to happen? This goes back to the judge saying that Microsoft hasn't done much of anything in a market where they had to compete with an entrenched competitor. Adobe is another example of this.
The best software (which means most benificial to the consumer) is still around and thriving.
No new companies are appearing to directly compete with Windows or Office. Those are where Microsoft has the monopoly power. They have done everything possible to ensure that nothing challenges these products. The only competition they face now in those areas are from non-commercial sources. That doesn't speak well of the conditions in the market.
The open source (beer and speech) solution is not viable and is not fair for MS.
I agree that it's not the right thing to do in this case. Not because it isn't fair (because I think it's perfectly fair for them to be ripped off just as they've ripped others off), but as you said, it could have other bad consequences for consumers as a whole if the economy takes any kind of hit because of it.
Unfortunately, even by breaking Microsoft up, one company ends up controlling access to the OS. It would not improve the situation much. It will come down to specific regulation and oversight in the end. It's the only way to prevent Microsoft from finding a loophole like they did last time.
The DOJ has been burned by Microsoft. Microsoft has proven that they have no intention of obeying the spirit of any consent decree. If they can find a loophole in the letter of the agreement, they will exploit it to the fullest extent possible. Software is almost infinitely malleable. They will be able to work around the terms of any decree unless someone is there to call them on it and make them adhere to the spirit (intent) as well as the letter of any agreement.
I realize that this will tie Microsoft's hands somewhat, but I don't think it will be done unfairly. Microsoft has been given chances to shape up, but they have refused to do so. They have shown that the only thing that will keep them from continuing to break the law is to have their hands tied in order to make sure they are unable to break the law. Keep them that way for 5 years and maybe the rest of the industry will come alive again and competition will return in the desktop OS market.
The stock probably won't do much until the trial is over and we find out what the government plans to do to Microsoft. It could be an inneffectual solution, in which case I expect the stock to fall a bit as people bail, but level off and rise as those in the know buy it up again, realizing that the ruling won't do much damage to Microsoft's bottom line.
It could also be a solution that looks airtight and very damaging. In that case, the stock probably will drop quite a bit.
The other option is that the remedy appears to be bad, but a loophole is later found that let's Microsoft get off the hook. That almost seems likely.
Consumers have been hurt by Microsoft using its monopoly power to control what OEMs can and cannot do for their customers. They have also used their monopoly power to drive other companies out of business and to prevent new products from ever reaching the market or competing with Microsoft's own products. This keeps them from having to lower their prices in response to competition. Their tactics have also made it more difficult to get venture capital if your product would compete with one of Microsoft's products. This would further prevent competition. Lack of competition harms consumers.
How many people have only purchased one MS Windows product? I bet most people are entitled to at least $50.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that sometimes it's good for all of us to build something with our tax dollars rather than let companies who are only interested in making more money decide how things should be done. They'll always do things to their advantage rather than ours.
With a little luck, Microsoft's big pile of money will begin to get smaller due to legal fees and settlements in the many cases that are sure to be brought against them after this trial finishes.
They weren't broken up though. The statement was that those companies that were broken up have done quite well afterwards. IBM suffered for other reasons, as well as because of the spotlight on their business practices.
Holding Gates personally responsible for it's enforcement seems like it might work to me.
I don't know that it's possible to hold Bill personally responsible for Microsoft's actions. Isn't that one of the reasons for incorporating in the first place?