>>>a judge can eliminate issues for a jury if no reasonable juror could come to anything but one conclusion based on the facts.
That really sucks.
A judge should not be able to do that, because a jury could decide that the person is guilty, but the law is unjust, and simply nullify the conviction. That's one of the reasons the jury trial was invented - to weaken the power of the State by giving the People an opportunity to "void" wrongful arrests. It's somewhat similar to what the U.S. Supreme Court does, but from the bottom up.
I'm not explaining that too well, so just read more here - "Historical examples of nullification include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[3] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[4] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Well $675,000 plus interest is equivalent to a life's sentence because that's how long it would take to earn the money. (To be precise - 45+ years at a typical after-tax $10/hour wage.)
A smart lawyer could argue this verdict is unconstitutional since a life sentence is "cruel and unusual punishment" for merely downloading ~$30 worth of songs. If the Supremes agree then that portion of the DMCA Congressional law would be struck-down.
>>>As a buyer that was screwed by a seller that preformed feedback blackmail against me
(1) There's no such thing because buyer feedback is not important. Example: I maintain separate buyer/seller accounts, and my buyer account was down near 70% because I negged bad sellers, and they negged me back. But I still bought tons of stuff. A seller cannot block buyers from purchasing just because feedback is low.
(2) Has it not occured to you that a buyer can use feedback blackmail to get discounts or free items? That's the situation that exists now, and there's no way for a seller to warn future sellers to be wary.
>>>some people will leave false negatives, but for large numbers of transactions, that ratio should be the same
You say that so casually, but I only sell ~50 items a year - older games/videos that I don't want anymore. Therefore it only takes 1 false negative to fall to Ebay's minimum 98% standard, and end-up on their shit list.
In fact I'm there right now with ~97.5% feedback because ONE buyer was annoyed that I sold him a VHS movie instead of DVD. It's not my fault - he didn't read the description which clearly stated VHS in the title and description - but he negged me anyway. It's not fair that he can neg me, but I can't neg him back to warn future sellers to be wary.
>>>the Supreme Court actually has no power whatsoever to actually enforce any of its decisions
Non-issue. A President hasn't ignored the court since the 1860s, and if a modern-day president tried to do that, he'd likely get impeached and tried by the Congress for abuse-of-power.
>>>Kevin Mitnik spent how many years behind bars before the case even went to court?
3.
He then spent an additional 1.5 years in jail, because he was sentenced to a five-year punishment with early release. I'm sorry. Am I supposed to think some injustice was performed here, because I'm not seeing it? All I see is as man who commited a hacking crime and was punished as he deserved to be punished.
Also it's not as if he was just some innocent citizen picked off the street and detained. He was a serial criminal who had been imprisoned twice before, and it's only natural for a Judge to deny bail in such cases.
>>>in the US they want to make an example of him, and are pursuing a sentence ranging from 10 to 60 years in a high security prison system >>>
Yes that's how the U.S. legal system works. The prosecutor demands maximum punishement; the defender claims innocence and no punishment; and ultimately the guy will get something in-between. Most likey it will be 2-3 years psychiatric treatment... or a nullified sentence by the Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" law.
BTW I don't understand why it would be tried in the UK? Usually the suspect is deported to the scene of the break-in, which was a Virginia building.
>>> don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally by the government >>>
So much for the theory that all legitimate power comes from the People.
The UK Schools solved that problem by removing the people from the equation.
Also their health organization refuses to give kidney dialysis if you're over 65, or a heart ransplant if you're over 75. It must be nice to be treated like just another disposable cog in the government machine. The People are nothing; the State is all.
No this isn't a troll. I'm 100% serious. That's the view from this side of the pond.
>>>I don't give a damn what a parent wants, the kid needs to learn certain things, and thats all there is to it.
Hell I'll go further that that - we should have kids raised by government, with no parental involvement at all. Who gives a damn what a parent wants, if it's for the good of a child./removes National Socialist button
Boy that was weird. It was like I had suddenly lost all belief in freedom or individual rights. Whew. I better not make that mistake again.
Exercising your opinion through the ballot box is like saving your book report to device null: Nobody hears what you have to say because politicians don't listen.
A parent should have the power to *directly* control what his/her kid learns, including saying, "No I don't want my 16-year-old kid watching the sex or drug scenes in the movie Apocalypse Now". That is a basic, natural right.
It's also a basic, natural right to be able to withdraw your kid from a falling-apart innercity school, and decide to homeschool or private school instead. That's called freedom of choice. Just like I chose to withdraw from using Windows and decided to try Mac and Linux OSes instead.
A "classical conservative" is someone who favors monarchy or big government (aka Federalist), and a "classical liberal" is someone who favors no monarch and either small government or no government (Republican-Democrat or Anarchist).
I don't know about Europe, but in the United States the words became redefined with FDR's 1932 campaign. Suddenly a liberal == someone who is progressive and wanted a big government acting like a father figure to supply retirement and welfare handouts. Those who favored small government became conservative by default, relative to this new progressive-liberal position.
I've personally never liked being called conservative. I support decriminalizing marijuana and decriminalizing same-sex or multiple-partner marriages - positions that are not conservative at all. BUT I don't want to be called a liberal either, because those people want to run this nation like the book 1984.
The best way to describe myself is "Jeffersonian". No man has a right to harm another, and that is all that the government should interfere.
>>>we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.
I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court would strike that down as cruel-and-unusual punishment (a violation of the Constitution). That's why we have that document - to bring sanity when the president, congress, and military are sick with power.
>>>amusing comment, but exactly which "oligarchs" are you referring to?
Can't you read Anon. Coward? The ones "sitting on the Supreme Court" as I stated originally. And for your further reading:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps." - Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
The only courts that handle international cases are the Federal courts. The lower-level state courts are forbidden by the Constitution to try such cases. So assuming his lawyers already tried to reason with the U.S. court in Virginia, and the judge did not listen, then the next step would be the Supreme Court.
By the way, I do think this guy deserves to be tried. Even if he is a little nutty, he still broke the law, and should receive a light sentence of 2 or 3 years in jail, or equivalent psychiatric treatment.
The E.U. system does sound better than the U.S. system, at least as far as keeping the member states independent from a central, dictatorial government.
My state originally spoke German when it joined the "american union" called the United States. Even as recently as the 1950s I had relatives who spoke German and nothing else, and I still live side-by-side with dual English/German speakers. Language isn't necessarily a barrier to unification as a single country.
I think you'll find in 50 years, the European Union and U.S. will be more alike than different, with the central government pulling all the strings. Example: Congress has told the 50 state governments if they don't ban cellphones from highways, then the U.S. will withhold money. Has the central E.U. government ever done anything like that to exert control over the 25 member states?
I recall that it has. A state (or country) is no longer independent in such a situation.
>>> Does this mean that a Japanese court can just send me a summons for tomorrow...?
If you are stupid enough to respond to the summons, then you have agreed to submit yourself to Japanese laws. The trial can then proceed and convict you (although arresting you will be difficult). The smart choice is to confer with a lawyer, who will likely advise you to ignore it as invalid.
>>> can't help but believe that TPB keeps making these idiot mistakes because they think they're smarter than the court. "Oh we never received the summons because you can't prove it, nyah!" >>>
According to most lawyers and cops, "stupidity" is the main reason criminals go to jail. "Self-confession" is a secondary reason, and it appears Piratebay is doing a little of both. If criminals were smart they either wouldn't get caught, or if they were caught they'd keep their mouths shut so there's no evidence to submit in trial.
If Piratebay had simply looked at the summons and said, "We don't live in Netherlands," and thrown it in the trash, the Dutch court would have no jurisdiction and the trial would have been suspended.
"Microsoft put pressure on AOL to make its IM networks ** interoperable ** with competing instant messaging services, an outcome that eroded AOL's market leadership." What exactly are you complaining about here???
This is an obvious case of EEE
- Embrace AOL's technology by becoming their partner. AOL wants to keep their technology locked-up because it's profitable, but MS doesn't want that, so they pressure them to open it. Normally that would be okay, but then.....
- Extend - Microsoft secretly develops Window Messenger and since it's free with Windows XP, it becomes the dominant client. Next MS changes the protocol, patents the new design, and what was once open is closed again, but this time it's under MS' control not AOL's control.
- Extinguish - AOL, once dominant, now barely has 10% of the messaging market, so they file bankruptcy. They re-emerge but are only a shadow of what they used to be.
Please note AOL is not the only company to find itself destroyed by a partnership with MS.
"Vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady..." -- whatever. It's just words..
More like an admission of guilt. "Yeah we seek to kill companies by using EEE." Just like a criminal in those court dramas.
Talking to someone who is in love with Microsoft, is like trying to convince a girl not to marry her abusive boyfriend. Nigh-impossible. You sir are an apologist trying to defend actions that are not defensible. (Similar to how the record companies' actiosn to fix CD prices at $12 were indefensible, and eventually led to a U.S. FTC lawsuit.)
As for ARM -
Microsoft could screw them the same way the screwed PowerPC Mac owners. Sign an agreement to develop the software, do it for five years and gradually win-over fans to the Microsoft way of doing things, and then just stop, leaving ARM/PowerPC users feeling abandoned. Yes ARM will make money during those give years, but eventually they will be stabbed in the back as Microsoft leverages their position to suck users away.
Ebay had made a lot of decisions lately, not just buying Skype while leaving themselves vulnerable to licensing blackmail, but also allowing buyers to leave false negatives for sellers w/o any consequences. Now those "chickens are coming home to roost" and the timing couldn't be worse.
>>>Because large companies usually try to expand to new areas too.
Also Ebay power sellers make a lot of long distance calls, so eBay probably viewed it as an extra tool to provide to them. It's basically the same reason why they bought Paypal.
BTW, I think the people who are holding the license are shooting themselves in the foot. They are losing lots of money, and I don't understand why they'd decide to say "no" to Ebay unless there's some kind of revenge motive.
It comes-down from the oligarchs sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm not surprised that the European court might reach a different conclusion (i.e. even 11 words violates the artists' exclusive copy license).
Microsoft fucked-over IBM when they suddenly decided to develop Windows 3 as their main OS, instead of sticking with the original OS/2 agreement. For the rest of this post, I'll just quote wikipedia because it saves typing effort:
"The majority of criticism has been for its business tactics, often described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially Embraces a competing standard or product, then Extends it to produce their own version which is incompatible, which in time Extinguishes competition that cannot use Microsoft's new protected version." [editors note - See Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as examples.] [Also DR-DOS = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1#DR-DOS_compatibility ]
"... vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady, testified that Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz used the phrase in a 1995 meeting to describe Microsoft's strategy toward Netscape, Java, and the Internet."
- Browser incompatibilities: Added ActiveX to break compatibility with existing NSCA Mosaic and Netscape Navigator
- Breaking Java's portability - Microsoft deliberately tied Java programs to its Windows platform, making them unusable on Linux, Mac, Amiga, or NeXT systems, rather than Java's original intent (platform-independence)
- Networking: In 2000, an extension to the Kerberos networking protocol was included in Windows 2000, effectively denying all products access except those made by Microsoft
- Instant Messaging: Microsoft put pressure on AOL to make its IM networks interoperable with competing instant messaging services, an outcome that eroded AOL's market leadership.
- Adobe fears: Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE.
- More Browser Incompatibilities (CSS, data:, etc.): A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the web browser company Opera Software filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union
- Spreadsheet non-conformance with ODF standards
"In 2004, to prevent a repeat of the "browser wars," and the resulting morass of conflicting standards, Apple Inc., Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software formed the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group to create open standards. Microsoft has so far refused to join."
XP is simply Windows 2000 with a new coat of paint, so that's why they are so similar. Also these are not just "derived" from NT - they are all still part of that line:
NT 3.1 (first release) NT 3.5 NT 4.0 2000 = NT 5.0 XP == NT 5.1 Vista == NT 6.0 Windows7 = NT 6.1
Slashdot Mirror
>>>a judge can eliminate issues for a jury if no reasonable juror could come to anything but one conclusion based on the facts.
That really sucks.
A judge should not be able to do that, because a jury could decide that the person is guilty, but the law is unjust, and simply nullify the conviction. That's one of the reasons the jury trial was invented - to weaken the power of the State by giving the People an opportunity to "void" wrongful arrests. It's somewhat similar to what the U.S. Supreme Court does, but from the bottom up.
I'm not explaining that too well, so just read more here - "Historical examples of nullification include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[3] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[4] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
If major corporations like AIG or General Motors can file bankruptcy, why can't we?
Well $675,000 plus interest is equivalent to a life's sentence because that's how long it would take to earn the money. (To be precise - 45+ years at a typical after-tax $10/hour wage.)
A smart lawyer could argue this verdict is unconstitutional since a life sentence is "cruel and unusual punishment" for merely downloading ~$30 worth of songs. If the Supremes agree then that portion of the DMCA Congressional law would be struck-down.
>>>As a buyer that was screwed by a seller that preformed feedback blackmail against me
(1) There's no such thing because buyer feedback is not important. Example: I maintain separate buyer/seller accounts, and my buyer account was down near 70% because I negged bad sellers, and they negged me back. But I still bought tons of stuff. A seller cannot block buyers from purchasing just because feedback is low.
(2) Has it not occured to you that a buyer can use feedback blackmail to get discounts or free items? That's the situation that exists now, and there's no way for a seller to warn future sellers to be wary.
>>>some people will leave false negatives, but for large numbers of transactions, that ratio should be the same
You say that so casually, but I only sell ~50 items a year - older games/videos that I don't want anymore. Therefore it only takes 1 false negative to fall to Ebay's minimum 98% standard, and end-up on their shit list.
In fact I'm there right now with ~97.5% feedback because ONE buyer was annoyed that I sold him a VHS movie instead of DVD. It's not my fault - he didn't read the description which clearly stated VHS in the title and description - but he negged me anyway. It's not fair that he can neg me, but I can't neg him back to warn future sellers to be wary.
>>>the Supreme Court actually has no power whatsoever to actually enforce any of its decisions
Non-issue. A President hasn't ignored the court since the 1860s, and if a modern-day president tried to do that, he'd likely get impeached and tried by the Congress for abuse-of-power.
>>>Kevin Mitnik spent how many years behind bars before the case even went to court?
3.
He then spent an additional 1.5 years in jail, because he was sentenced to a five-year punishment with early release. I'm sorry. Am I supposed to think some injustice was performed here, because I'm not seeing it? All I see is as man who commited a hacking crime and was punished as he deserved to be punished.
Also it's not as if he was just some innocent citizen picked off the street and detained. He was a serial criminal who had been imprisoned twice before, and it's only natural for a Judge to deny bail in such cases.
>>>in the US they want to make an example of him, and are pursuing a sentence ranging from 10 to 60 years in a high security prison system
>>>
Yes that's how the U.S. legal system works. The prosecutor demands maximum punishement; the defender claims innocence and no punishment; and ultimately the guy will get something in-between. Most likey it will be 2-3 years psychiatric treatment... or a nullified sentence by the Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" law.
BTW I don't understand why it would be tried in the UK? Usually the suspect is deported to the scene of the break-in, which was a Virginia building.
>>> don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally by the government
>>>
So much for the theory that all legitimate power comes from the People.
The UK Schools solved that problem by removing the people from the equation.
Also their health organization refuses to give kidney dialysis if you're over 65, or a heart ransplant if you're over 75. It must be nice to be treated like just another disposable cog in the government machine. The People are nothing; the State is all.
No this isn't a troll.
I'm 100% serious.
That's the view from this side of the pond.
>>>I don't give a damn what a parent wants, the kid needs to learn certain things, and thats all there is to it.
Hell I'll go further that that - we should have kids raised by government, with no parental involvement at all. Who gives a damn what a parent wants, if it's for the good of a child. /removes National Socialist button
Boy that was weird. It was like I had suddenly lost all belief in freedom or individual rights. Whew. I better not make that mistake again.
Exercising your opinion through the ballot box is like saving your book report to device null: Nobody hears what you have to say because politicians don't listen.
A parent should have the power to *directly* control what his/her kid learns, including saying, "No I don't want my 16-year-old kid watching the sex or drug scenes in the movie Apocalypse Now". That is a basic, natural right.
It's also a basic, natural right to be able to withdraw your kid from a falling-apart innercity school, and decide to homeschool or private school instead. That's called freedom of choice. Just like I chose to withdraw from using Windows and decided to try Mac and Linux OSes instead.
A "classical conservative" is someone who favors monarchy or big government (aka Federalist), and a "classical liberal" is someone who favors no monarch and either small government or no government (Republican-Democrat or Anarchist).
I don't know about Europe, but in the United States the words became redefined with FDR's 1932 campaign. Suddenly a liberal == someone who is progressive and wanted a big government acting like a father figure to supply retirement and welfare handouts. Those who favored small government became conservative by default, relative to this new progressive-liberal position.
I've personally never liked being called conservative. I support decriminalizing marijuana and decriminalizing same-sex or multiple-partner marriages - positions that are not conservative at all. BUT I don't want to be called a liberal either, because those people want to run this nation like the book 1984.
The best way to describe myself is "Jeffersonian". No man has a right to harm another, and that is all that the government should interfere.
>>>we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.
I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court would strike that down as cruel-and-unusual punishment (a violation of the Constitution). That's why we have that document - to bring sanity when the president, congress, and military are sick with power.
>>>amusing comment, but exactly which "oligarchs" are you referring to?
Can't you read Anon. Coward? The ones "sitting on the Supreme Court" as I stated originally. And for your further reading:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps." - Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
The only courts that handle international cases are the Federal courts. The lower-level state courts are forbidden by the Constitution to try such cases. So assuming his lawyers already tried to reason with the U.S. court in Virginia, and the judge did not listen, then the next step would be the Supreme Court.
By the way, I do think this guy deserves to be tried. Even if he is a little nutty, he still broke the law, and should receive a light sentence of 2 or 3 years in jail, or equivalent psychiatric treatment.
The E.U. system does sound better than the U.S. system, at least as far as keeping the member states independent from a central, dictatorial government.
My state originally spoke German when it joined the "american union" called the United States. Even as recently as the 1950s I had relatives who spoke German and nothing else, and I still live side-by-side with dual English/German speakers. Language isn't necessarily a barrier to unification as a single country.
I think you'll find in 50 years, the European Union and U.S. will be more alike than different, with the central government pulling all the strings. Example: Congress has told the 50 state governments if they don't ban cellphones from highways, then the U.S. will withhold money. Has the central E.U. government ever done anything like that to exert control over the 25 member states?
I recall that it has. A state (or country) is no longer independent in such a situation.
>>> Does this mean that a Japanese court can just send me a summons for tomorrow...?
If you are stupid enough to respond to the summons, then you have agreed to submit yourself to Japanese laws. The trial can then proceed and convict you (although arresting you will be difficult). The smart choice is to confer with a lawyer, who will likely advise you to ignore it as invalid.
>>> can't help but believe that TPB keeps making these idiot mistakes because they think they're smarter than the court. "Oh we never received the summons because you can't prove it, nyah!"
>>>
According to most lawyers and cops, "stupidity" is the main reason criminals go to jail. "Self-confession" is a secondary reason, and it appears Piratebay is doing a little of both. If criminals were smart they either wouldn't get caught, or if they were caught they'd keep their mouths shut so there's no evidence to submit in trial.
If Piratebay had simply looked at the summons and said, "We don't live in Netherlands," and thrown it in the trash, the Dutch court would have no jurisdiction and the trial would have been suspended.
"Microsoft put pressure on AOL to make its IM networks ** interoperable ** with competing instant messaging services, an outcome that eroded AOL's market leadership." What exactly are you complaining about here???
This is an obvious case of EEE
- Embrace AOL's technology by becoming their partner. AOL wants to keep their technology locked-up because it's profitable, but MS doesn't want that, so they pressure them to open it. Normally that would be okay, but then.....
- Extend - Microsoft secretly develops Window Messenger and since it's free with Windows XP, it becomes the dominant client. Next MS changes the protocol, patents the new design, and what was once open is closed again, but this time it's under MS' control not AOL's control.
- Extinguish - AOL, once dominant, now barely has 10% of the messaging market, so they file bankruptcy. They re-emerge but are only a shadow of what they used to be.
Please note AOL is not the only company to find itself destroyed by a partnership with MS.
"Vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady..." -- whatever. It's just words..
More like an admission of guilt. "Yeah we seek to kill companies by using EEE." Just like a criminal in those court dramas.
Talking to someone who is in love with Microsoft, is like trying to convince a girl not to marry her abusive boyfriend. Nigh-impossible. You sir are an apologist trying to defend actions that are not defensible. (Similar to how the record companies' actiosn to fix CD prices at $12 were indefensible, and eventually led to a U.S. FTC lawsuit.)
As for ARM -
Microsoft could screw them the same way the screwed PowerPC Mac owners. Sign an agreement to develop the software, do it for five years and gradually win-over fans to the Microsoft way of doing things, and then just stop, leaving ARM/PowerPC users feeling abandoned. Yes ARM will make money during those give years, but eventually they will be stabbed in the back as Microsoft leverages their position to suck users away.
>>>Flash does run (admittedly not great) on a 400MHz ARM processor
I have a 400 MHz PowerPC G4 that plays youtube/flash videos, but not in full screen. It slows down dramatically.
P.S.
Ebay had made a lot of decisions lately, not just buying Skype while leaving themselves vulnerable to licensing blackmail, but also allowing buyers to leave false negatives for sellers w/o any consequences. Now those "chickens are coming home to roost" and the timing couldn't be worse.
>>>Because large companies usually try to expand to new areas too.
Also Ebay power sellers make a lot of long distance calls, so eBay probably viewed it as an extra tool to provide to them. It's basically the same reason why they bought Paypal.
BTW, I think the people who are holding the license are shooting themselves in the foot. They are losing lots of money, and I don't understand why they'd decide to say "no" to Ebay unless there's some kind of revenge motive.
It comes-down from the oligarchs sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm not surprised that the European court might reach a different conclusion (i.e. even 11 words violates the artists' exclusive copy license).
Microsoft fucked-over IBM when they suddenly decided to develop Windows 3 as their main OS, instead of sticking with the original OS/2 agreement. For the rest of this post, I'll just quote wikipedia because it saves typing effort:
"The majority of criticism has been for its business tactics, often described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially Embraces a competing standard or product, then Extends it to produce their own version which is incompatible, which in time Extinguishes competition that cannot use Microsoft's new protected version." [editors note - See Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as examples.] [Also DR-DOS = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1#DR-DOS_compatibility ]
"... vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady, testified that Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz used the phrase in a 1995 meeting to describe Microsoft's strategy toward Netscape, Java, and the Internet."
- Browser incompatibilities: Added ActiveX to break compatibility with existing NSCA Mosaic and Netscape Navigator
- Breaking Java's portability - Microsoft deliberately tied Java programs to its Windows platform, making them unusable on Linux, Mac, Amiga, or NeXT systems, rather than Java's original intent (platform-independence)
- Networking: In 2000, an extension to the Kerberos networking protocol was included in Windows 2000, effectively denying all products access except those made by Microsoft
- Instant Messaging: Microsoft put pressure on AOL to make its IM networks interoperable with competing instant messaging services, an outcome that eroded AOL's market leadership.
- Adobe fears: Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE.
- More Browser Incompatibilities (CSS, data:, etc.): A decade after the original Netscape-related antitrust suit, the web browser company Opera Software filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Union
- Spreadsheet non-conformance with ODF standards
"In 2004, to prevent a repeat of the "browser wars," and the resulting morass of conflicting standards, Apple Inc., Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software formed the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group to create open standards. Microsoft has so far refused to join."
XP is simply Windows 2000 with a new coat of paint, so that's why they are so similar. Also these are not just "derived" from NT - they are all still part of that line:
NT 3.1 (first release)
NT 3.5
NT 4.0
2000 = NT 5.0
XP == NT 5.1
Vista == NT 6.0
Windows7 = NT 6.1