In the USA the standing portions of the original CDA offer complete protection from liability for slander and defamation for ISPs. And while I think that most of these defamation cases are silly, and that the ISP should not be held liabel so easily. Holding any ISP liabel for the content posted entirely by a normal user would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. We all know that it is not realistically possible to hold every ISP accountable for the actions of its users. The ISPs's only alternative would be to kill all forms of interactive media and preview/parse all web pages...and even then it would not get all of it. ISPs should be viewed as a common carrier in regards to defamation and the like.
However, there are a few cases in which I think it might just be appropriate. Take the infamous Drudge report for example. AOL effectively profited directly from the behavior of a known gossip columnist. Drudge was not a normal user. AOL knew about his behavior, they had recieved complaints, and they even had a keyword setup for him on AOL. However, technically, as I recall, the CDA offers protection to AOL in this case. In truth, AOL is and should be treated as a republisher in such a case.
Finally, a time and a place to stick it to the Frenchies. Atleast in the US ISPs are protected from such liability by the CDA (the portions that were not struck down).;P
No, I do not think forcing MS to reveal their source entirely is a good idea. However, your perception of business is just wrong. MS is a monopoly, there are few companies which hold similar market shares in other large markets. Do you really honestly believe that MS has what they have simply because their coding and marketing is better. I say no way in hell. I happen to know for a fact MS has done ever worse things than what has been published thus far.
As for their 'quality'. MS software is buggy, and everyone who knows software knows this. There are two reasons for this. The first being that MS is a marketing company. Part of the way they market is by adding bloated GUIs and animation and the like. This naturally makes the OS less reliable. The truth is users really don't need these features. A dancing paper clip may comfort Joe Schmoe with 2 hours of computer experience, but it certainly does not help him use it. The second reason for their poor quality is simply that they are a monopoly. No one is going to oust MS any time soon, thus they are afforded the luxary of not patching bugs as they are discovered. For most of the people in this world there is a simple equation when it comes to MS. You can either put up with MS's lack of reliability. Or you can try to change operating systems. Changing OS's and your applications is very time consuming...not to mention hardware issues. Most people would rather grin and bear MS's crappy product, than spend more time changing their Operating System and applications.
This does not mean what MS does is ok. What they do is wrong, and it should be stopped. I doubt that any decision in favor of the DoJ will ever hurt the consumer. Allowing competitors the same kind of access to the OS's API, as what their own application developers have is only fair. This will benefit the consumer as MS will no longer be able to rest on their laurels when competition can compete on more even ground. This still doesn't address the OEM issue. However, the solution of the OEMs is pretty straight forward. Just force MS to sell to all OEMs at the same price, the economies of scale argument simply doesnt work for this kind of software distribution. End of Story.
MS is obviously trying to win a PR battle. These arguments should not fool anyone with a decent education. They know they're going to lose, and they're trying to win over Joe Sixpack before the appeals process. MS would have you believe that the only barriers to entry in the OS market is the ability to create an OS. If this were true, Linux would own NT's market share, and BeOS and the like would be on everyones desktop. Based strictly on their merits. But this is not the case. MS has a couple major things going for them. One of which is that since Windows is the standard desktop OS and most consumers demand it from OEMs, they are able to exert a great deal of influence over those OEMs. The OEMs' profit margins these days are very thin, and everyone knows that they can't sell if they don't preinstall Windows. MS basically tells these OEMs what they should do, or MS will charge them more then their competitors. A couple bucks might not sound like much, but to these OEMs it is a big deal. Like it or not, few people are going to spend money to try installing an operating system on their own with unknown results.
Another advantage is that MS also has control over most of the standard applications. People want and need these applications. It is very hard for competitors because MS doesn't disclose their entire API. In fact, MS does just the opposite. They alter windows in little undisclosed ways to make the competitors products crash and operate slower. Companies like Be may have a superior OS, but they simply don't have the applications yet. Without a significant market share no one is going to develop strong applications for the alternative platforms. Also, without well recognized competitive applications to Office* and the like, there is no competitor who can port their killer app and lend clout to the likes of BeOS.
MS has their competitors by the balls in significant ways. These are just two barriers to entry. If I were the DoJ, I would demand the following:
a) If MS wishes to produce both applications and the operating system that they run on, they should be forced to fully disclose their API and the like. Furthermore, MS should have to pay for a full time arbritation board composed of people who are familiar with the software industry and who have full legal authority to make key decisions. My reasoning for this is simple. I do think government regulation of the software industry could indeed be very harmful. MS can argue this effectively. For example, lets say if the government introduces a new law that seperates software application firms from operating system firms. There is a strong argument that it is neccessary for the operating system firm to produce applications for their OS initially. To both demonstrate the potential of the OS, and to provide atleast some reasonably productive products. My proposal would atleast level the playing field for the most part.
b) That MS be prohibited from using any discriminative pricing amongst OEMs. The argument of economies of scale simply do not apply to such software distribution. The ability to price OEMs differently, with little to no immediate regulation, allows MS to use the stick and carrot approach with OEMs such that the OEMs sell as they wish. This simply can not be allowed. Whatever arguments can be made for such pricing, pales in comparison to the draw backs for society and for the OEMs.
Although this does not address every problem with the beast that is MS. It addresses two of the most significant problems with MS.
We're talking about capitalistic innovation here. If you've got a nice cooshy stable job with MS, what motivates you to break any new ground. At the very least, the majority of whatever profits you make go in to MS's coffers. Furthermore, innovation is more than mere invention. It requires a certain commitment of time and resources to fully develop it. Despite popular opinion, large companies main problem is not that lack of invention, but the unwillingness to pursue a good idea to its ends. Take Xerox for example, they broke a great deal of ground in technologies that we take for granted today. The problem was that they were unwilling to divert resources into any of the projects. In the case of MS, what reason do they have to innovate. They are an effective monopoly, and its alot cheaper to just bully the competition when a superior product comes along.
It is rather clear to me that MS is merely trying to obfuscate the issue. No one ever said that the only way to erect a monopoly is by the lack of competing products. Just because there are similar, and perhaps superior, products out there does not mean that there are no barriers to entry. MS assures the sales of their Office Suite by effectively bundling it with their OS. Joe Sixpack is not going to spend another 100 bucks paying for an office suite if he already has Office*. Not to mention that MS is the standard, and that none of these products would sell worth a damn if they didn't have strong ability to read and write Office * documents. I don't see how the DoJ could possibly fail to point this out. Although MS's 'arguments' and obfuscation might pull the wool over a Jury's eye, I think this Judge knows better. MS is expecting to lose this battle, and is trying to win a PR campaign before the appeals process.
Furthermore, I think the DoJ should take another route. If MS indeed found to have violated antitrust laws, I think the DoJ should request the following:
1) If MS wishes to sell both the Operating System and the applications for their OSes, they _must_ fully disclose their API and other relevant materials. Furthermore, MS should pay for a full time mediation panel composed people who are familiar with the software industry. This would aid projects such as Wine tremendously. Not to mention all the Non-MS companies out there trying to produce software for the Wintel platform. My reasoning for this is because MS could easily argue that it is neccessary for them to produce applications for their new Operating Systems, and/or features. eg: Windows CE. When they first develop a new OS, regardless of the quality, someone needs to develop some good applications for it, otherwise it simply will not sell. My approach would kill such an argument.
2) That MS not be allowed to employ _any_ discriminitory pricing against OEMs and the like. By this I mean, MS sells Windows * to every OEM for the same price, there is no cohesive argument for economies of scale and the like. Furthermore, the would also not be able to sell their applications discriminatly. This would remove their influence over OEMs.
I believe these two combined would go a long away against the MS that we all love to hate.
Minors can indeed walk away from the contract any time they feel like it. However, you can refuse to enter into a contract with a minor because they are a minor. There might be some exceptions to this rule, such as possibly the neccessity for children to enter into contracts for certain essentials.
The DoJ should pursue another avenue of attack
on
NYT covers WINE
·
· Score: 1
It appears to me that the outcome of the DoJ v. MS antitrust trial more and more in doubt. I think it would be a good idea, if instead the DoJ simply asserts that if MS wishes to produce both applications and the windows/dos OS, that MS should _fully_ produce all the specs for the Win32 API. I would think this, if presented properly, would be very hard for MS to fight. It would simply mean that other software developers would have a chance to compete on equal footing against MS. MS could still produce their applications, just so long as they don't continue to wield their influence to push (or rather force) their applications on OEMs and the like. This would also dramatically aid the Wine development effort, as their main obstacle is lack of information on the windows API. I think this would be rather effective.
On another note, does anyone know how to install Starcraft using WINE alone, or any other method within Linux. I don't run dos/windows on this box at all.
Feedback on either of these issues would be greatly appreciated!;P
Granted language does evolve, but that does not mean we should abandon the confines of proper english. For example, look at the inner cities. You have 'ebonix', this 'language' has become utterly unintelligible. The fact is, even the people who speak it hardly understand each other. Imagine trying to read a programming book, or an API filled with such nonsense. The problem is, if it evolves too rapidly it tends to splinter in a sense. There must be a certain common thread, a backbone if you will, which everyone can learn from and use to communicate without problems. This simply can't be done, if it becomes standard practice for anyone to mangle it at will. This is kind of like MS altering some well defined APIs, but atleast they've got the clout to make the rest of the world adapt to them.
All I want to say is that I think firewire is going to succeed. 1 dollar isn't much, even in the low margin PC enviroment. But i'll let the future do my talking thank you.
Yes, and Japan had the highest savings, look at them now. The US dollar is also stronger and more stable. The median income in the US is still alot higher.
Secondly, Europe is not completely socialist. Those countries with the strongest socialist policies also tend to have inferior economies. Take France for example.
Slashdot Mirror
In the USA the standing portions of the original CDA offer complete protection from liability for slander and defamation for ISPs. And while I think that most of these defamation cases are silly, and that the ISP should not be held liabel so easily. Holding any ISP liabel for the content posted entirely by a normal user would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. We all know that it is not realistically possible to hold every ISP accountable for the actions of its users. The ISPs's only alternative would be to kill all forms of interactive media and preview/parse all web pages...and even then it would not get all of it. ISPs should be viewed as a common carrier in regards to defamation and the like.
However, there are a few cases in which I think it might just be appropriate. Take the infamous Drudge report for example. AOL effectively profited directly from the behavior of a known gossip columnist. Drudge was not a normal user. AOL knew about his behavior, they had recieved complaints, and they even had a keyword setup for him on AOL. However, technically, as I recall, the CDA offers protection to AOL in this case. In truth, AOL is and should be treated as a republisher in such a case.
Wow...sounds like linux may be getting real multimedia development afterall.
Finally, a time and a place to stick it to the Frenchies. Atleast in the US ISPs are protected from such liability by the CDA (the portions that were not struck down).
No, I do not think forcing MS to reveal their source entirely is a good idea. However, your perception of business is just wrong. MS is a monopoly, there are few companies which hold similar market shares in other large markets. Do you really honestly believe that MS has what they have simply because their coding and marketing is better. I say no way in hell. I happen to know for a fact MS has done ever worse things than what has been published thus far.
As for their 'quality'. MS software is buggy, and everyone who knows software knows this. There are two reasons for this. The first being that MS is a marketing company. Part of the way they market is by adding bloated GUIs and animation and the like. This naturally makes the OS less reliable. The truth is users really don't need these features. A dancing paper clip may comfort Joe Schmoe with 2 hours of computer experience, but it certainly does not help him use it. The second reason for their poor quality is simply that they are a monopoly. No one is going to oust MS any time soon, thus they are afforded the luxary of not patching bugs as they are discovered. For most of the people in this world there is a simple equation when it comes to MS. You can either put up with MS's lack of reliability. Or you can try to change operating systems. Changing OS's and your applications is very time consuming...not to mention hardware issues. Most people would rather grin and bear MS's crappy product, than spend more time changing their Operating System and applications.
This does not mean what MS does is ok. What they do is wrong, and it should be stopped. I doubt that any decision in favor of the DoJ will ever hurt the consumer. Allowing competitors the same kind of access to the OS's API, as what their own application developers have is only fair. This will benefit the consumer as MS will no longer be able to rest on their laurels when competition can compete on more even ground. This still doesn't address the OEM issue. However, the solution of the OEMs is pretty straight forward. Just force MS to sell to all OEMs at the same price, the economies of scale argument simply doesnt work for this kind of software distribution. End of Story.
MS is obviously trying to win a PR battle. These arguments should not fool anyone with a decent education. They know they're going to lose, and they're trying to win over Joe Sixpack before the appeals process. MS would have you believe that the only barriers to entry in the OS market is the ability to create an OS. If this were true, Linux would own NT's market share, and BeOS and the like would be on everyones desktop. Based strictly on their merits. But this is not the case.
MS has a couple major things going for them. One of which is that since Windows is the standard desktop OS and most consumers demand it from OEMs, they are able to exert a great deal of influence over those OEMs. The OEMs' profit margins these days are very thin, and everyone knows that they can't sell if they don't preinstall Windows. MS basically tells these OEMs what they should do, or MS will charge them more then their competitors. A couple bucks might not sound like much, but to these OEMs it is a big deal. Like it or not, few people are going to spend money to try installing an operating system on their own with unknown results.
Another advantage is that MS also has control over most of the standard applications. People want and need these applications. It is very hard for competitors because MS doesn't disclose their entire API. In fact, MS does just the opposite. They alter windows in little undisclosed ways to make the competitors products crash and operate slower. Companies like Be may have a superior OS, but they simply don't have the applications yet. Without a significant market share no one is going to develop strong applications for the alternative platforms. Also, without well recognized competitive applications to Office* and the like, there is no competitor who can port their killer app and lend clout to the likes of BeOS.
MS has their competitors by the balls in significant ways. These are just two barriers to entry. If I were the DoJ, I would demand the following:
a) If MS wishes to produce both applications and the operating system that they run on, they should be forced to fully disclose their API and the like. Furthermore, MS should have to pay for a full time arbritation board composed of people who are familiar with the software industry and who have full legal authority to make key decisions. My reasoning for this is simple. I do think government regulation of the software industry could indeed be very harmful. MS can argue this effectively. For example, lets say if the government introduces a new law that seperates software application firms from operating system firms. There is a strong argument that it is neccessary for the operating system firm to produce applications for their OS initially. To both demonstrate the potential of the OS, and to provide atleast some reasonably productive products. My proposal would atleast level the playing field for the most part.
b) That MS be prohibited from using any discriminative pricing amongst OEMs. The argument of economies of scale simply do not apply to such software distribution. The ability to price OEMs differently, with little to no immediate regulation, allows MS to use the stick and carrot approach with OEMs such that the OEMs sell as they wish. This simply can not be allowed. Whatever arguments can be made for such pricing, pales in comparison to the draw backs for society and for the OEMs.
Although this does not address every problem with the beast that is MS. It addresses two of the most significant problems with MS.
We're talking about capitalistic innovation here. If you've got a nice cooshy stable job with MS, what motivates you to break any new ground. At the very least, the majority of whatever profits you make go in to MS's coffers. Furthermore, innovation is more than mere invention. It requires a certain commitment of time and resources to fully develop it. Despite popular opinion, large companies main problem is not that lack of invention, but the unwillingness to pursue a good idea to its ends. Take Xerox for example, they broke a great deal of ground in technologies that we take for granted today. The problem was that they were unwilling to divert resources into any of the projects. In the case of MS, what reason do they have to innovate. They are an effective monopoly, and its alot cheaper to just bully the competition when a superior product comes along.
It is rather clear to me that MS is merely trying to obfuscate the issue. No one ever said that the only way to erect a monopoly is by the lack of competing products. Just because there are similar, and perhaps superior, products out there does not mean that there are no barriers to entry. MS assures the sales of their Office Suite by effectively bundling it with their OS. Joe Sixpack is not going to spend another 100 bucks paying for an office suite if he already has Office*. Not to mention that MS is the standard, and that none of these products would sell worth a damn if they didn't have strong ability to read and write Office * documents. I don't see how the DoJ could possibly fail to point this out. Although MS's 'arguments' and obfuscation might pull the wool over a Jury's eye, I think this Judge knows better. MS is expecting to lose this battle, and is trying to win a PR campaign before the appeals process.
Furthermore, I think the DoJ should take another route. If MS indeed found to have violated antitrust laws, I think the DoJ should request the following:
1) If MS wishes to sell both the Operating System and the applications for their OSes, they _must_ fully disclose their API and other relevant materials. Furthermore, MS should pay for a full time mediation panel composed people who are familiar with the software industry. This would aid projects such as Wine tremendously. Not to mention all the Non-MS companies out there trying to produce software for the Wintel platform. My reasoning for this is because MS could easily argue that it is neccessary for them to produce applications for their new Operating Systems, and/or features. eg: Windows CE. When they first develop a new OS, regardless of the quality, someone needs to develop some good applications for it, otherwise it simply will not sell. My approach would kill such an argument.
2) That MS not be allowed to employ _any_ discriminitory pricing against OEMs and the like. By this I mean, MS sells Windows * to every OEM for the same price, there is no cohesive argument for economies of scale and the like. Furthermore, the would also not be able to sell their applications discriminatly. This would remove their influence over OEMs.
I believe these two combined would go a long away against the MS that we all love to hate.
Minors can indeed walk away from the contract any time they feel like it. However, you can refuse to enter into a contract with a minor because they are a minor. There might be some exceptions to this rule, such as possibly the neccessity for children to enter into contracts for certain essentials.
It appears to me that the outcome of the DoJ v. MS antitrust trial more and more in doubt. I think it would be a good idea, if instead the DoJ simply asserts that if MS wishes to produce both applications and the windows/dos OS, that MS should _fully_ produce all the specs for the Win32 API. I would think this, if presented properly, would be very hard for MS to fight. It would simply mean that other software developers would have a chance to compete on equal footing against MS. MS could still produce their applications, just so long as they don't continue to wield their influence to push (or rather force) their applications on OEMs and the like. This would also dramatically aid the Wine development effort, as their main obstacle is lack of information on the windows API. I think this would be rather effective.
On another note, does anyone know how to install Starcraft using WINE alone, or any other method within Linux. I don't run dos/windows on this box at all.
Feedback on either of these issues would be greatly appreciated!
Granted language does evolve, but that does not mean we should abandon the confines of proper english. For example, look at the inner cities. You have 'ebonix', this 'language' has become utterly unintelligible. The fact is, even the people who speak it hardly understand each other. Imagine trying to read a programming book, or an API filled with such nonsense. The problem is, if it evolves too rapidly it tends to splinter in a sense. There must be a certain common thread, a backbone if you will, which everyone can learn from and use to communicate without problems. This simply can't be done, if it becomes standard practice for anyone to mangle it at will. This is kind of like MS altering some well defined APIs, but atleast they've got the clout to make the rest of the world adapt to them.
That still doesn't make any sense.
China may have problems, but I'll be damned if thats not a way to get results!
All I want to say is that I think firewire is going to succeed. 1 dollar isn't much, even in the low margin PC enviroment. But i'll let the future do my talking thank you.
This isn't the first sattelite/internet link out there. However, this might be the first cost effective internet hookup for those out on open seas.
Yes, and Japan had the highest savings, look at them now. The US dollar is also stronger and more stable. The median income in the US is still alot higher.
Secondly, Europe is not completely socialist. Those countries with the strongest socialist policies also tend to have inferior economies. Take France for example.