I wonder if they contacted their own administrators? If you don't pay your bills, they should take away the domain name. It is like your house, they take it away if you don't pay the mortgage...just like your virtual home online.
Registrant: Network Solutions, Inc. (NETWORKSOLUTIONS4-DOM) 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 Domain Name: networksolutions.org Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Network Solutions, Inc. (NSOL-NOC) noc@NETSOL.COM Network Solutions, Inc. 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 US 703-742-4777 Billing Contact: idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM idNames from Network Solutions, Inc 440 Benmar Suite #3325 Houston, TX 77060 US 703-742-4777 Fax 281-447-1160 Record last updated on 20-May-2000. Record expires on 13-Dec-2000. Record created on 12-Dec-1997. Database last updated on 22-Jun-2000 16:41:25 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.200 NS2.NETSOL.COM 198.17.208.83 NS3.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.201
I'm sure anyone else that might be reading this and can attest to the quality of MS products (or lack thereof) versus other major computer vendors, they'll appreciate that this case is neither a "silly adventure" nor about the "almighty dollar..." It's about holding a company responsible for its illegal actions.
Maybe their business practices aren't the best (I doubt many major coporations would look like angels overall)....but what does splitting the company in two solve? And if the government wanted to settle, why did they allow the talks to go no where?
No company or no one in personal cases is going to admit that they don't always play fair. You don't make money or a good product (in some cases lack of a good product) by sharing. You make money by being creative and keeping people on your side; brand loyalty.
You don't see coke going "hey, we can fill our cans with pepsi since we are out of coke". Why should MS have to do the same?
I am all about choices. If I don't like an MS product I can use a competitors if it works better. They don't stop me from doing that, maybe that is why I see this as a "silly adventure". Also competition in the OS market has grown substantially in the past year. Even if Apple can't get a memory protected OS out, people like iMacs. Linux has seen great success as a server. But it seems that only MS has focused on OSes for businesses and the home. In another year or two, I am sure this will change.
If you are in favor of the government going after criminals, get the people that hurt the public off the street. MS hasn't shot anyone, they just make money.
So why is the government doing this? Could it be because they don't have a real clue on what they sued MS over? You know, they have never come out and said specifically why. Oh sure, unfair business practices, but this is supposed to be for the good of the consumer. Spending millions on a case that you are going to try and settle after the trial seems absurd. Maybe if Mac came out with an OS that had protected memory in a timely fashion or Linux, etc. was easier to and install and use (ever have a newbie computer user attempt to login?) the taxpayers could have saved lots of money. You can't blame MS for other companies that can't come out with a good OS or have poor marketing strategies. People can still install Netscape or any other browser they want. They can still use products that compete with MS's. Imagine having a bunch of different competing OSes with little standards or ones you have to wait years for companies to agree upon (record and video companies for one case) so that developers can create software. Ha how about if you want to upgrade your software and you have to change your OS? And why single out MS? Cisco has a monopoly and there is little or no competition for them. They even suggest that the Internet runs because of them in one of their commercials! Maybe someone should have thought about the implications of all this before they started this silly adventure and actually put the consumer in mind first, and not the alimighty dollar of corporations. Come on, there is competition in the market....and the governement knows it....and most Linux users would agree, since there are choices.
Kupie (Win 98 and Linux, a nice combination? of course)
Those of you saying/. should fight this is halirious. This isn't about freedom of speech or anything else. It is plain and simple, a posting of content not belonging to the poster or to/. That in itself is illegal.
Take for example back in the days when you dialed in with a modem to your local BBS and you just happen to find a copy of Doom (yes ages ago when games fit on floppies). Now who is in the wrong here? The person who uploaded it or the person who owns the BBS? Believe it or not, the person who owns the BBS is the one that gets the lawsuit.
/. is responsible for what is stored on its server, no matter if they own the copyright to it or not. Comments about MickeySoft or any other company is fine. Posting their material isn't. Duh, that is what freedom of speech is.
Would any of you be making a fuss over this if some shareware author asked/. to remove some part of their copyrighted material? I think not.
-Kupie
Some of us can't live on open source alone...bills can't get paid with "free" currency.....
Slashdot Mirror
oops never mind
I wonder if they contacted their own administrators? If you don't pay your bills, they should take away the domain name. It is like your house, they take it away if you don't pay the mortgage...just like your virtual home online.
Registrant: Network Solutions, Inc. (NETWORKSOLUTIONS4-DOM) 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 Domain Name: networksolutions.org Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Network Solutions, Inc. (NSOL-NOC) noc@NETSOL.COM Network Solutions, Inc. 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 20170 US 703-742-4777 Billing Contact: idNames, Accounting (IA90-ORG) accounting@IDNAMES.COM idNames from Network Solutions, Inc 440 Benmar Suite #3325 Houston, TX 77060 US 703-742-4777 Fax 281-447-1160 Record last updated on 20-May-2000. Record expires on 13-Dec-2000. Record created on 12-Dec-1997. Database last updated on 22-Jun-2000 16:41:25 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.200 NS2.NETSOL.COM 198.17.208.83 NS3.NETSOL.COM 216.168.224.201
I'm sure anyone else that might be reading this and can attest to the quality of MS products (or lack thereof) versus other major computer vendors, they'll appreciate that this case is neither a "silly adventure" nor about the "almighty dollar..." It's about holding a company responsible for its illegal actions.
Maybe their business practices aren't the best (I doubt many major coporations would look like angels overall)....but what does splitting the company in two solve? And if the government wanted to settle, why did they allow the talks to go no where?
No company or no one in personal cases is going to admit that they don't always play fair. You don't make money or a good product (in some cases lack of a good product) by sharing. You make money by being creative and keeping people on your side; brand loyalty.
You don't see coke going "hey, we can fill our cans with pepsi since we are out of coke". Why should MS have to do the same?
I am all about choices. If I don't like an MS product I can use a competitors if it works better. They don't stop me from doing that, maybe that is why I see this as a "silly adventure". Also competition in the OS market has grown substantially in the past year. Even if Apple can't get a memory protected OS out, people like iMacs. Linux has seen great success as a server. But it seems that only MS has focused on OSes for businesses and the home. In another year or two, I am sure this will change.
If you are in favor of the government going after criminals, get the people that hurt the public off the street. MS hasn't shot anyone, they just make money.
Kupie
(still having fun)
So why is the government doing this? Could it be because they don't have a real clue on what they sued MS over? You know, they have never come out and said specifically why. Oh sure, unfair business practices, but this is supposed to be for the good of the consumer. Spending millions on a case that you are going to try and settle after the trial seems absurd. Maybe if Mac came out with an OS that had protected memory in a timely fashion or Linux, etc. was easier to and install and use (ever have a newbie computer user attempt to login?) the taxpayers could have saved lots of money. You can't blame MS for other companies that can't come out with a good OS or have poor marketing strategies.
People can still install Netscape or any other browser they want. They can still use products that compete with MS's. Imagine having a bunch of different competing OSes with little standards or ones you have to wait years for companies to agree upon (record and video companies for one case) so that developers can create software. Ha how about if you want to upgrade your software and you have to change your OS?
And why single out MS? Cisco has a monopoly and there is little or no competition for them. They even suggest that the Internet runs because of them in one of their commercials!
Maybe someone should have thought about the implications of all this before they started this silly adventure and actually put the consumer in mind first, and not the alimighty dollar of corporations. Come on, there is competition in the market....and the governement knows it....and most Linux users would agree, since there are choices.
Kupie
(Win 98 and Linux, a nice combination? of course)
Those of you saying /. should fight this is halirious. This isn't about freedom of speech or anything else. It is plain and simple, a posting of content not belonging to the poster or to /.
/. to remove some part of their copyrighted material? I think not.
That in itself is illegal.
Take for example back in the days when you dialed in with a modem to your local BBS and you just happen to find a copy of Doom (yes ages ago when games fit on floppies). Now who is in the wrong here? The person who uploaded it or the person who owns the BBS? Believe it or not, the person who owns the BBS is the one that gets the lawsuit.
/. is responsible for what is stored on its server, no matter if they own the copyright to it or not. Comments about MickeySoft or any other company is fine. Posting their material isn't. Duh, that is what freedom of speech is.
Would any of you be making a fuss over this if some shareware author asked
-Kupie
Some of us can't live on open source alone...bills can't get paid with "free" currency.....