they are also eating packets along the way, so it's not a silver bullet. From the post, he was just dropping the RST packets, so that would cause the problem you note in your first link, correct? So reforging the packets may still be a workable solution, right?
Sending a RST packet is a perfectly legitimate way to close an unallowed TCP connection. Is there any reason that someone couldn't configure their machine to ignore the reset packets?
From what I can tell, they've only stopped the fast-tracking. Microsoft still can (and likely will) resubmit OOXML. Yes, but it's going to take them a lot longer, and they'll have to resolve a lot of the negative comments from the No votes in order to get it passed. I think now that more people realize what MS tried to do, they're going to have a tougher time satisfying the No voters, so it may take them a while to be able to get it back to a vote again.
Is that just direct, external expenses, like hotels and travel? Then what do you think the lawyesrs & support staff are going to get paid out of? The tip jar? I don't see why they'd break out just hotels/travel/etc. That would make no sense. It doesn't explicitly say, but I think that a number that large must include payroll as well.
It is essentially an admission that your primary OS doesn't support all the software you need to do your job. Unless you use Linux to do your job, and Windows just for games and other less essential stuff. If you're spending the money for a PC, then you're going to want it to be able to do all the things that you want to do with it. Microsoft makes that difficult at best.
If MS can't innovate, can't implement standards, can't make stable systems, then some other system will win. If closed source is such a bad model, then some other system will win. The problem is that for the longest time, Microsoft has been the standard. Now that there are other possible standards out there that are becoming available, Microsoft is doing all it can to corrupt the process and prevent countries, states and other organizations from adopting and implementing those standards, using any means at its disposal, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.
I firmly believe the only reason that Microsoft still has dominance in the desktop OS market is because people are comfortable with the software that runs on their OS, and they stick with it. MS Office is the main reason people continue to use Windows. That's why Microsoft is so desperate to get OOXML made standard by ISO. They need to maintain their office document lock-in in order to maintain their desktop OS marketshare. If ODF takes over, then people would have choices about what office software to use, and they would all be able to read and write documents created with other office suites and applications. Then people could choose other platforms to run those applications on. That would destroy the MS monopoly. They obviously cannot allow that to happen, which is why we see them going to such lengths to corrupt the ISO voting process. It should be a relatively straight-forward decision. The OOXML standard as it has been presented is not possible to fully implement for anyone but Microsoft. That should be the end of it, but of course money can override common sense. Corruption is the main enemy we face.
How do you know? Been going through their statements? Cause it says their expenses were about $8 million, so receiving nearly ten times what their expenses were seems excessive. Then consider that the people who were actually harmed in this case are only getting just over twice what the lawyers are getting. That also seems very unbalanced. Lawyers should be getting a percentage, that is certain, but I don't see why that percentage should be nearly 30% of the award.
...Because I'm sure that the people involved in the standarization process are being completely fair, given that the committees are stacked with people who have been beaten by or are competing with Microsoft in some shape or form. Maybe. Or maybe they just want to have standards that are actually possible to implement. Something that Microsoft obviously doesn't give a damn about.
Othewise companies could allways sacrifice empleyess whenever anything goes wrong Don't they? Seems like often one of the higher-ups goes, like CEO, CFO, etc. Of course they generally leave with obscene heaps of cash in their bags, and get on somewhere else after a nice vacation, and maybe write a book about it.
But I use Netscape, maybe it has some wierd feature that doesn't work. So I then tried the site on Internet Explorer and the Flashplayer comes up. Which is damned funny, because Flash does work in Netscape. So I have no idea why this doesn't work. Make sure you have javascript enabled for the site and for videoegg.com as well.
Doesn't stop companies claiming that it was all jut a big mistake / enthusiasm on the part of a single person. Right, and I'll believe that when someone gets fired and doesn't get a big payout/cushy new job along with it.
the D.O.J should force microsoft to use open file formats such as ODF in their office products... That's the sort of thing that sensible people were proposing when the DOJ had Microsoft in a position where they were going to lose and knew they would have to make reforms. Unfortunately, the open file formats and APIs people were being drowned out by the "split up Microsoft!" and "remove IE from Windows!" people, even though those remedies would do virtually nothing to solve the real problems.
I'm pretty sure that low-level employees don't get to go around promising money for things without management approval. Nobody, especially someone working for Microsoft, is that dumb. Someone in management there approved this. Microsoft's explanation is ridiculous.
Linux is still a hacker OS - it's missing little bits of polish and shine, but slowly improving. And frankly, that's fine. The market is deciding on that one, and they're gradually deciding to stick with an older version of Windows. No. That's really not the problem. There are Linux distros now that are really every bit as friendly as XP, but people don't switch to them because they can't run all their favorite Windows or Windows/Mac only applications and games. Linux has a chicken-and-egg problem. It isn't getting a large enough user-base because it doesn't have all the big-name software, and the big-name software isn't coming because it doesn't have a large enough user-base.
The Microsoft monopoly problem has always been one of network effects. That's really the only reason we need regulation and oversight. It's not the sort of problem that works itself out without help. As long as Microsoft doesn't overcharge so much that it's cheaper to switch and re-develop software on a new platform (which gives MS quite a lot of leeway), then businesses generally won't switch. That's how they get the lock-in.
Not the DOJ so much as the President -- recall that the MS antitrust case pretty much went away after Bush was elected.
To the point that prosecutors were instructed to drop the case. Which was especially sickening as they had Microsoft on the ropes at that point. With all the missteps that MS's lawyers and witnesses had made, they were in trouble. Of course the remedies that were seemingly being considered at the time probably wouldn't have fixed most of the real problems, so we might still not be much better off. It was all about the API's (both documented and undocumented) and who got how much access and when that was the real issue that needed to be solved. Limiting their ability to strong-arm OEMs was important as well.
The people working for this company allowed to roam free are under contract to not steal from it's customers. It is the government's job to monitor this, if they take away competition, a vital part of capitalism. Those people broke the contract in an enron kind of way. Have you seen the contract? It may have had no such terms in it. In fact, in situations such as this, the politicians in charge are often in on the deal. It's definitely not capitalism, it's political corruption. They either allowed this to happen intentionally, or they were criminally negligent in allowing it to happen. Either way they should be jailed for it, and the company's assets siezed to compensate for the theft.
This "OpenXML" stunt is just a smokescreen covering Microsofts controlled retreat in the office format battle. It only needs to keep parties distracted until Microsoft has reclaimed the control over business content by means of vendor lockin v2.0 aka Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server. The problem is that while they note that Sharepoint leads to lock-in, and they suggest open source as an alternative, they don't mention anything specifically. That means there's no OSS equivalent or competitor to Sharepoint? Is it a roll-your-own situation? That can get really expensive too. Not every organization has the ability to fund that kind of development, with its associated risks, in the time-frame they have to get a solution in place. Unless someone comes up with an alternative that can function at least close to as well as Sharepoint 2007, most companies are going to go with the available COTS product and expend their efforts on getting everyone trained in using it and adding any additional functionality that they need. Yes, that may end up locking them into MS products, but when there aren't any real competitors to those products anyway, it doesn't look like there is much alternative.
Actually, EULAs have been found to be unconscionable when the terms of such a EULA are grossly (and especially misleadingly) inequitable to one party. Yes, I remember that story. That's kind of what I meant about not having to abide by illegal terms. If courts say that the terms are bogus, then they get thrown out. But until that happens, you're taking a risk by disregarding those terms. Just depends on whether you want to go to court or not.
When these shitty companies, and the shitty developers that support them, get hit with a major smackdown for these unethical activities, then you'd start seeing a change in the agressiveness of these stupid DRM/content protection systems. Amen.
Not exactly, you're buying a LICENSE to play their game. SecuROM is NOT required to play their game, therefore it is NOT a requirement of the license. As such, it has no place in the game. You're buying a license to play the game, and you have to comply with what that license says, outside of illegal clauses. If they make SecuROM a requirement of that license, then it IS a requirement to play the game. You agree to that when you agree to the license. If you don't agree, then don't buy the game, or return it for refund (which they legally have to allow you to do if you can't read the license beforehand). I still don't agree that EULAs should be enforceable, but unfortunately, so far, the courts haven't exactly said they aren't. You could always be test case if you have the cash and the will to do so.
Second, how do you figure? There's some unwritten rule that you have to adhere to scientific method if you're discussing science? Why? Because you said so? That seems to be the only justification you're giving, and seeing as you've been wrong on several points already, I'd say your opinion is pretty worthless. Are you joking? If you write a book that proposes a theory about evolution, then you're expected to do it in a scientific way, otherwise, no, it's not science, it's a crackpot theory that fits the definition quite well. So calling him a crackpot is appropriate. He didn't even attempt to validate his theory.
Sure, if the punishments are too small to stop the behaviour the law was enacted to stop then you need to do some tweaking - upping the penalties for example. But first you have to enforce what you have, it might be good enough - you can't know if you never enforce. The problem is that these kinds of cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute, and generally require quite a bit of testimony from company insiders to make a decent case. Evidence is hard to get since it is often destroyed (emails and files deleted, etc.). So the risk is fairly low to the individuals, which means that the penalties need to be much greater to have any real deterrent effect.
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?" Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." There goes the villain, monologuing again. That's when you gotta make your escape!
I think the main problem with the devs playing the game is that they are insiders. Just like you aren't legally allowed to trade stocks based on insider info, they shouldn't be able to provide their corp with an unfair advantage due to their insider info. Of course if the devs don't play the game, then they aren't as familiar with the ins and outs of it as they should be, so that can present problems too. If there's no strong oversight though, these problems will continue to pop up.
Slashdot Mirror
...Because I'm sure that the people involved in the standarization process are being completely fair, given that the committees are stacked with people who have been beaten by or are competing with Microsoft in some shape or form. Maybe. Or maybe they just want to have standards that are actually possible to implement. Something that Microsoft obviously doesn't give a damn about.I'm pretty sure that low-level employees don't get to go around promising money for things without management approval. Nobody, especially someone working for Microsoft, is that dumb. Someone in management there approved this. Microsoft's explanation is ridiculous.
The Microsoft monopoly problem has always been one of network effects. That's really the only reason we need regulation and oversight. It's not the sort of problem that works itself out without help. As long as Microsoft doesn't overcharge so much that it's cheaper to switch and re-develop software on a new platform (which gives MS quite a lot of leeway), then businesses generally won't switch. That's how they get the lock-in.
To the point that prosecutors were instructed to drop the case. Which was especially sickening as they had Microsoft on the ropes at that point. With all the missteps that MS's lawyers and witnesses had made, they were in trouble. Of course the remedies that were seemingly being considered at the time probably wouldn't have fixed most of the real problems, so we might still not be much better off. It was all about the API's (both documented and undocumented) and who got how much access and when that was the real issue that needed to be solved. Limiting their ability to strong-arm OEMs was important as well.
I think the main problem with the devs playing the game is that they are insiders. Just like you aren't legally allowed to trade stocks based on insider info, they shouldn't be able to provide their corp with an unfair advantage due to their insider info. Of course if the devs don't play the game, then they aren't as familiar with the ins and outs of it as they should be, so that can present problems too. If there's no strong oversight though, these problems will continue to pop up.