Although in many ways correct, your analysis of word processors fails in one important aspect - how did MS Word supplant WordPerfect?
I used both Word and WordPerfect for DOS, and, to be blunt, Word for DOS su*ked! I don't believe I ever saw a harder to use word processor. However, with Windows 3.1 and Word for Windows, MS Word was much better than WordPerfect for Windows (which came out late), and IMO retained that lead in ease of use and quality for years. Not until WP4Win 7 or 8 did WordPerfect get anywhere near Word for quality, stability, and ease of use.
I have WP4Win 7.0, and use it happily. I will probably upgrade to a later WP version sometime soon. However, Word for Windows gained market share in Windows because (a) it was first (and WP Corp chose not to place a priority on developing a Windows version, leaving Word as the only viable option), and (b) it was better. If Word for Windows was as hard to use as Word for DOS, many offices would probably have continued using WP5.1 until WordPerfect developed a Windows version.
It wasn't. They didn't. Word won on ease of use and stability (odd as that may sound).
It's obvious that whoever was the main author of this white paper knew essentially nothing about computers. I especially like these lines from the second paragraph:
Executable software is commonly sold in stores and available commercially. Executable software accompanies binary code also known as machine code. This binary code is readable by the host PC and
used to mechanically operate the software.
WOW! And here I though computers were electronic! Can't you just picture all of those little binaries, pulling their levers and spinning their wheels inside your PC, making that software do what it needs to do?
Hmmmm.... is your computer a little binary sweatshop?
If you havent read the license yet, you should at least look it over. (before my comments, I should place the standard IANAL disclaimer)
That said, look at section 7.7 of the license:
Construction. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this Agreement, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable (other than Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3.7), that provision of the Agreement will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the intent of the parties, and the remainder of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction finds that Sections 3.3, 3.6 or 3.7 are unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be rendered null and void. Failure by either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of future enforcement of that or any other provision.
This is effectively a 'poison pill' provision. Section 3.3 details IPR Impairing License Restrictions. So, 7.7 says that if the Judge in the antitrust trial says "no, that's monopolistic, you can't do that", then MS pulls the entire license, and no one gets to play!
Sections 3.6 and 3.7 (Reciprocal Patent License and Defensive Suspension) combined prevent anyone from filing suit for patent infringement if they (a) hold patents, or can sublicense patnts without a fee, that apply to CIFS, and (b) implement CIFS.
In fact, section 3.6 is very important:
3.6 Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns, controls
or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distributing such implementations. emphasis mine
Now, isn't the bolded section a 'Viral License'?!?
A Qubit (or Quantum Bit) is a mix of all states. The image shows one qubit as a mix of 0 state (black) and 1 state (white).
Re:Doesn't it mean the opposite? No, it doesn't
on
Stopping Light
·
· Score: 1
If you read the article, this is touched on.
Quantum communication might someday be used for sending ultra-secure messages. One of the quintessential traits of the quantum world is that observing a system actually alters that system's properties. In other words, it would be impossible to "touch" a quantum message without leaving "fingerprints."
"So there's no way to intercept messages, break the code, send them on, and have the receiver not know about it," Walsworth says.
Also, you don't actually get to examine the photons. The information about the photons is stored in the spin state of the atoms involved in 'stopping' the light. In effect, the photons no longer exist as separate, discrete particles. And these atoms are still affected by the quantum effects of examining them. If you examine them, you change their state, and so the state of the stored light.
Considering Microsoft's contention that the dissenting states didn't have any legal standing to continue the case, this is pretty unsurprising (although I admit, I didn't expect it).
The states are, at the minimum, protecting their right to bring suit. If the Attorneys General of the states didn't react to the MS contention on standing, they would be falling down in their responsibility to protect the states' legal rights in court.
It will be interesting to see what the actual filings say... so far, I haven't found a public link to them.
All I can say is, check again. Diatomic oxygen (02 - a standard oxygen molecule) absorbs UV, but only up to 240nm wavelength. When it does this, it breaks down into free oxygen atoms, and frequently re-combines with another oxygen molecule to form ozone (O3).
Ozone absorbs UV radiation between 240 and 320 nm. Without the ozone in the upper atmosphere, this UV radiation would make it through to the surface of the earth.
For details on the chemistry of ozone, check here. More information can be found here, here, here, and many other places on the web.
Please, before popping off on a scientific issue, check the facts and not the politics.
Actually, I'm referring to the complaint Sun posted, at page 54 (Physical page in.pdf file: 59), Section 193, where sun says:
"On October 10th, 2001, Microsoft released a beta version of a product called Visual J#.NET. [...] Although Visual J#.NET purports to provide support for writing programs in the Java language, Microsoft has changed the syntax of the Java language in a number of ways, ensuring that the source code written using Visual J#.NET will not be compatible with source code written following the public specification for the Java language"
They can't call it J#... there is a J# that's part of Visual Studio.Net. In fact, J# is mentioned in the complaint, since Sun alleges that J# is in violation of the Java injunction in a couple of ways!
Having read their complaint, the reasoning is interesting. Essentially, Sun claims that the injunction from their successful trial agains MS in regards to Java technology only allows distribution of their JVM in ways that and with products that it was previously distributed with.
Since MS is now distributing the JVM through an on-demand download, which they did not previously do, Sun claims that they are violating this piece of the injunction (which is, probably, technically correct). IOW, either distribute it like you used to (bundled with the OS/Browser), or don't do it at all (damaging the user experience when using the IE browser even more).
The rest of the complaint is also interesting - some strong points, some weak points (their IIS tying claim is probably the weakest one). Everyone should read it... the full complaint can be found here
I was randomly paging through the comments, when I came to this comment (#MTC-00013726):
From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Flint 1756 H. H. Rd.
Fonda, NY 12068 January 17, 2002 Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Margaret Flint
Continuing, I found this comment, and this, this, this, this, this, and this, all identical except for the names attached. There were even more as I continued to browse.
Email is going out with spoofed headers from multiple sources (e.g. incidents.org reports receiving one from webmaster@incidents.org), so I doubt WinZip was actually hit.
This is where the different types of firewalls affect what happens. ZoneAlarm only permits programs which have been granted permission the right to send or receive on any port. If you have ZoneAlarm up and SirCam tries to send data, then SirCam is blocked.
One thing you appear to be missing here - probably because you haven't worked with the insurance industry - is that insurance would almost inevitably mandate using the cheaper version of the drug.
Insurance companies are VERY cost aware, and since most medical care is paid for via insurance, the only way to recoup costs is with a Patent on the product.
Um...Isn't that kinda the definition of a loser though...
Not really (IMO). In Monopoly, there is definitely a winner and one or more losers (bankrupt is bankrupt). In Apples to Apples, everyone has usually collected some "Green Apple" cards, so they're ahead of where they started. It's not zero-sum because everyone has a chance to be ahead of their starting value (no Green Apples). A true Zero-Sum version of it would involve collecting Green Apple cards from the other players, and the Winner would be the person who got them all.
It's sort of like finance - the 'winner' is the guy who made the most money when it's counted (or the first one to reach a billion dollars, or whatever other goal is set), but all of the other players could also have gained money. Not losers, just not 'The Winner'.
Games like Apples to Apples and most trivia games are not zero-sum. Yes, there is a winner, but there aren't really losers, just people who failed to win.
BTW, if you haven't played Apples to Apples, you have missed a treat. You can get it here (at my favorite online games store - Games and Gizmos, or at many other locations.
One more quick game review - if you haven't seen the card game Once Upon a Time, you are missing another great game - and one that's good for children as well as adults.
Actually, validation would be relatively clean if thought out well. Consider this structure.
You go in to register to vote. You provide Photo ID (already required in most locations), a signature, an E-Mail address, and a PIN number or Password.
When it comes time to vote, you go to the designated web site, enter your name and PIN/Password, and vote. A confirmatory E-Mail is sent to your provided E-Mail address.
If you actually did the voting, you reply to the e-mail, and you are done. If you receive one of these E-Mails and you did not vote, you protest the vote. The vote is thrown out.
Now, certain issues of E-Mail security, spoofing, etc still need to be dealt with (of course - all E-Procedures need in depth security review), but the basic structure is sound.
More than one problem exists with the idea of a national voter registry. The major problem? As with changing the Electoral College, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set up a national registry, since the running of elections is currently reserved in the constitution to the states.
Specifically, Art icl e II, Section 1 states "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". This was amended by Amendment XII, but this amendment does not change the Constitution's specified method of choosing electors - namely, none.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that states don't actually have to let the people vote for president! If a state could pass it into law without riots, it would be perfetly legal for the choice of electors to be made by the Governor, the Legislature, or anyone in the state who's first name contains the letter Q.
Additionally, creating a national voting registry, and a standardized method of voting, would impose huge costs on the states and counties, who would have to upgrade their entire voting infrastructure. Since there are still a number of counties who use paper ballots, number 2 pencils, and hand counting of votes, this could be a huge debacle of it's own righr in the making.
If individual states choose to upgrade their election mechanisms, more power to them. But, I don't believe that changing the Constitution in this way would be either timely, or politically possible. Just imagine the outcry from some states about these imposed costs, when "Our election process works quite well, thank you very much!"
One interesting point on the Electoral College that I noticed (but haven't read anything about elsewhere) is that, on the balance, the EC gives relatively more power to the smaller states than to the larger states.
How? Consider how the EC votes are distributed. A state has a number of EC votes equal to the number of Senators + Representatives they have in Congress.
Since Representatives are proportional to population, the larger states have more total electoral votes. However, every state has two Senators. So, your electoral votes are 2 + (proportion of population). A voter in a small state (i.e. North Dakota) 'controls' a relatively large proportion of the total electoral vote, larger than the contol of a voter in a larger state.
This helps ensure that the smaller state's voters have some say in the outcome of an election. If only the popular vote mattered, the smaller states would be virtually ignored - gaining 60% of the North Dakota vote is much less significant than gaining 51% of the California vote, but it can matter if the election is close (as in this case).
"Whether you agree with my position or not, (in my case I don't like my money going to free abortions for "low income households") you must must admit that there is something wrong with taking money from people to do things that you absolutely are opposed to."
You mean, like desegregation? Funding the military? Enforcing Drug laws? All things that some people *are* absolutely opposed to.
The Constitution (in the most widely used and abused preamble portion) says that is it is nplace to ensure the "General Welfare". Drug laws, Welfare and Social Security, the Food and Drug Administration, all are examples of the application of this clause. As is Medicare, and the funding of abortions for low-income families.
The concept of the US Constitution is to prevent the tyrrany of the majority over those who hold minority positions. Whenever someone says that something unpopular should not be done just because a majority of people oppose it, you should ask yourself if this can be considered the "tyrrany of the majority". If your honest answer is even *possibly* yes, be careful - it may be working against the purpose of the Constitution in the first place.
I just finished looking over the study (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa380.pdf), and I can't believe how flawed it is.
The starting premise, that Judge Jackson's analysis depended on brick-and-mortar concepts, rather than e-business concepts, is almost certainly correct. However, the study authors then go and apply those same brick-and-mortar concepts to their analysis!
For example, they used the survey of MBA students to 'show' that 1/5th of computer users could be satisfied with an OS that supported 'a few hundred well-chosen applications'. And, since a fifth of the market is estimated at $2 billion, that's surely enough for a creditable challenge.
However, they totally ignore the fact that most of the users in the market are tied, in some way, to a business (either business users, or they learned to use computers because of their work). So, you'll have to convince 20% of *businesses* that a potentially incompatable program is a good idea - a much harder proposition! In Brick-and-mortar, this wouldn't matter as much, but when talking incompatable file formats and data exchange, it does indeed matter.
In fact, our in-house s/w where I work is all Microsoft, because the bosses want compatability. Even showing that StarOffice can do all that we need for free, and that Apache on Linux would also service our web needs better than MS, is insufficient to convince them... compatability is all.
And don't start me on their harping about sales restrictions and raising prices being the ign of a monopoly... not only is this 'old-tech', not only is this not true in law (simply one possible symptom), but they go on to claim that '[e]ven if Microsoft has been charging monopoly prices [...] it does not follow that Microsoft has, on balance, harmed consumers' simply because of everyone else's lower prices because of volume!
And self-contradictory? The premise that there is no real 'Application Barrier' is certainly weakened by their arguments that a developer is more likely to write for an OS that is more widely deployed, and that an OS is more widely deployed because more developers write for it!
I could go on and on... (MS 'could be said to have used the aggressive tactics it did to defend the interests of developers'?!? Please!) but let's not.
It's flawed, it's bad, it's illogical and self-contradictory... isn't that enough?
Slashdot Mirror
Although in many ways correct, your analysis of word processors fails in one important aspect - how did MS Word supplant WordPerfect?
I used both Word and WordPerfect for DOS, and, to be blunt, Word for DOS su*ked! I don't believe I ever saw a harder to use word processor. However, with Windows 3.1 and Word for Windows, MS Word was much better than WordPerfect for Windows (which came out late), and IMO retained that lead in ease of use and quality for years. Not until WP4Win 7 or 8 did WordPerfect get anywhere near Word for quality, stability, and ease of use.
I have WP4Win 7.0, and use it happily. I will probably upgrade to a later WP version sometime soon. However, Word for Windows gained market share in Windows because (a) it was first (and WP Corp chose not to place a priority on developing a Windows version, leaving Word as the only viable option), and (b) it was better. If Word for Windows was as hard to use as Word for DOS, many offices would probably have continued using WP5.1 until WordPerfect developed a Windows version.
It wasn't. They didn't. Word won on ease of use and stability (odd as that may sound).
WOW! And here I though computers were electronic! Can't you just picture all of those little binaries, pulling their levers and spinning their wheels inside your PC, making that software do what it needs to do?
Hmmmm.... is your computer a little binary sweatshop?
That said, look at section 7.7 of the license:This is effectively a 'poison pill' provision. Section 3.3 details IPR Impairing License Restrictions. So, 7.7 says that if the Judge in the antitrust trial says "no, that's monopolistic, you can't do that", then MS pulls the entire license, and no one gets to play!
Sections 3.6 and 3.7 (Reciprocal Patent License and Defensive Suspension) combined prevent anyone from filing suit for patent infringement if they (a) hold patents, or can sublicense patnts without a fee, that apply to CIFS, and (b) implement CIFS.
In fact, section 3.6 is very important:Now, isn't the bolded section a 'Viral License'?!?
When I wen to see the blank page just now, I got:
You are not authorized to view this page
Now, isn't that amusing. They don't want anyone to see the way out!
A Qubit (or Quantum Bit) is a mix of all states. The image shows one qubit as a mix of 0 state (black) and 1 state (white).
Also, you don't actually get to examine the photons. The information about the photons is stored in the spin state of the atoms involved in 'stopping' the light. In effect, the photons no longer exist as separate, discrete particles. And these atoms are still affected by the quantum
effects of examining them. If you examine them, you change their state, and so the state of the stored light.
Not as I read the proposed bill. This only protects content that uses whatever proposed encryption and DCM standards are agreed to.
Also, it does not eliminate public domain or fair use. (For fair use information, see Section 3.e.)
Considering Microsoft's contention that the dissenting states didn't have any legal standing to continue the case, this is pretty unsurprising (although I admit, I didn't expect it).
The states are, at the minimum, protecting their right to bring suit. If the Attorneys General of the states didn't react to the MS contention on standing, they would be falling down in their responsibility to protect the states' legal rights in court.
It will be interesting to see what the actual filings say... so far, I haven't found a public link to them.
All I can say is, check again. Diatomic oxygen (02 - a standard oxygen molecule) absorbs UV, but only up to 240nm wavelength. When it does this, it breaks down into free oxygen atoms, and frequently re-combines with another oxygen molecule to form ozone (O3).
Ozone absorbs UV radiation between 240 and 320 nm. Without the ozone in the upper atmosphere, this UV radiation would make it through to the surface of the earth.
For details on the chemistry of ozone, check here. More information can be found here, here, here, and many other places on the web.
Please, before popping off on a scientific issue, check the facts and not the politics.
A quick search of microsoft found this page which refers to Visual J#, so I'd say that this would be confirmed.
They can't call it J#... there is a J# that's part of Visual Studio.Net. In fact, J# is mentioned in the complaint, since Sun alleges that J# is in violation of the Java injunction in a couple of ways!
Having read their complaint, the reasoning is interesting. Essentially, Sun claims that the injunction from their successful trial agains MS in regards to Java technology only allows distribution of their JVM in ways that and with products that it was previously distributed with.
Since MS is now distributing the JVM through an on-demand download, which they did not previously do, Sun claims that they are violating this piece of the injunction (which is, probably, technically correct). IOW, either distribute it like you used to (bundled with the OS/Browser), or don't do it at all (damaging the user experience when using the IE browser even more).
The rest of the complaint is also interesting - some strong points, some weak points (their IIS tying claim is probably the weakest one). Everyone should read it... the full complaint can be found here
Continuing, I found this comment, and this, this, this, this, this, and this, all identical except for the names attached. There were even more as I continued to browse.
I wonder how many of the 'positive comments' were these mass mailed identical comments obviously sponsored by the Frontiers of Freedom and the Americans for Tax Reform?
Email is going out with spoofed headers from multiple sources (e.g. incidents.org reports receiving one from webmaster@incidents.org), so I doubt WinZip was actually hit.
This is where the different types of firewalls affect what happens. ZoneAlarm only permits programs which have been granted permission the right to send or receive on any port. If you have ZoneAlarm up and SirCam tries to send data, then SirCam is blocked.
One thing you appear to be missing here - probably because you haven't worked with the insurance industry - is that insurance would almost inevitably mandate using the cheaper version of the drug.
Insurance companies are VERY cost aware, and since most medical care is paid for via insurance, the only way to recoup costs is with a Patent on the product.
Um...Isn't that kinda the definition of a loser though...
Not really (IMO). In Monopoly, there is definitely a winner and one or more losers (bankrupt is bankrupt). In Apples to Apples, everyone has usually collected some "Green Apple" cards, so they're ahead of where they started. It's not zero-sum because everyone has a chance to be ahead of their starting value (no Green Apples). A true Zero-Sum version of it would involve collecting Green Apple cards from the other players, and the Winner would be the person who got them all.
It's sort of like finance - the 'winner' is the guy who made the most money when it's counted (or the first one to reach a billion dollars, or whatever other goal is set), but all of the other players could also have gained money. Not losers, just not 'The Winner'.
Games like Apples to Apples and most trivia games are not zero-sum. Yes, there is a winner, but there aren't really losers, just people who failed to win.
BTW, if you haven't played Apples to Apples, you have missed a treat. You can get it here (at my favorite online games store - Games and Gizmos, or at many other locations.
One more quick game review - if you haven't seen the card game Once Upon a Time , you are missing another great game - and one that's good for children as well as adults.
Ummm... I may be mistaken, but I believe the translation of his comment is more appropriately:
"Makes you want to throw up, more than ever"
rather than
"Makes you want a Ralph Nader as President, more than ever".
Ralph is a slang term for upchuck, puke, throw up. The inappropriate capitalization may have thrown you.
Actually, validation would be relatively clean if thought out well. Consider this structure.
You go in to register to vote. You provide Photo ID (already required in most locations), a signature, an E-Mail address, and a PIN number or Password.
When it comes time to vote, you go to the designated web site, enter your name and PIN/Password, and vote. A confirmatory E-Mail is sent to your provided E-Mail address.
If you actually did the voting, you reply to the e-mail, and you are done. If you receive one of these E-Mails and you did not vote, you protest the vote. The vote is thrown out.
Now, certain issues of E-Mail security, spoofing, etc still need to be dealt with (of course - all E-Procedures need in depth security review), but the basic structure is sound.
More than one problem exists with the idea of a national voter registry. The major problem? As with changing the Electoral College, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to set up a national registry, since the running of elections is currently reserved in the constitution to the states.
Specifically, Art icl e II, Section 1 states "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". This was amended by Amendment XII, but this amendment does not change the Constitution's specified method of choosing electors - namely, none.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that states don't actually have to let the people vote for president! If a state could pass it into law without riots, it would be perfetly legal for the choice of electors to be made by the Governor, the Legislature, or anyone in the state who's first name contains the letter Q.
Additionally, creating a national voting registry, and a standardized method of voting, would impose huge costs on the states and counties, who would have to upgrade their entire voting infrastructure. Since there are still a number of counties who use paper ballots, number 2 pencils, and hand counting of votes, this could be a huge debacle of it's own righr in the making.
If individual states choose to upgrade their election mechanisms, more power to them. But, I don't believe that changing the Constitution in this way would be either timely, or politically possible. Just imagine the outcry from some states about these imposed costs, when "Our election process works quite well, thank you very much!"
One interesting point on the Electoral College that I noticed (but haven't read anything about elsewhere) is that, on the balance, the EC gives relatively more power to the smaller states than to the larger states.
How? Consider how the EC votes are distributed. A state has a number of EC votes equal to the number of Senators + Representatives they have in Congress.
Since Representatives are proportional to population, the larger states have more total electoral votes. However, every state has two Senators. So, your electoral votes are 2 + (proportion of population). A voter in a small state (i.e. North Dakota) 'controls' a relatively large proportion of the total electoral vote, larger than the contol of a voter in a larger state.
This helps ensure that the smaller state's voters have some say in the outcome of an election. If only the popular vote mattered, the smaller states would be virtually ignored - gaining 60% of the North Dakota vote is much less significant than gaining 51% of the California vote, but it can matter if the election is close (as in this case).
"Whether you agree with my position or not, (in my case I don't like my money going to free abortions for "low income households") you must must admit that there is something wrong with taking money from people to do things that you absolutely are opposed to." You mean, like desegregation? Funding the military? Enforcing Drug laws? All things that some people *are* absolutely opposed to. The Constitution (in the most widely used and abused preamble portion) says that is it is nplace to ensure the "General Welfare". Drug laws, Welfare and Social Security, the Food and Drug Administration, all are examples of the application of this clause. As is Medicare, and the funding of abortions for low-income families. The concept of the US Constitution is to prevent the tyrrany of the majority over those who hold minority positions. Whenever someone says that something unpopular should not be done just because a majority of people oppose it, you should ask yourself if this can be considered the "tyrrany of the majority". If your honest answer is even *possibly* yes, be careful - it may be working against the purpose of the Constitution in the first place.
I just finished looking over the study (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa380.pdf), and I can't believe how flawed it is.
The starting premise, that Judge Jackson's analysis depended on brick-and-mortar concepts, rather than e-business concepts, is almost certainly correct. However, the study authors then go and apply those same brick-and-mortar concepts to their analysis!
For example, they used the survey of MBA students to 'show' that 1/5th of computer users could be satisfied with an OS that supported 'a few hundred well-chosen applications'. And, since a fifth of the market is estimated at $2 billion, that's surely enough for a creditable challenge.
However, they totally ignore the fact that most of the users in the market are tied, in some way, to a business (either business users, or they learned to use computers because of their work). So, you'll have to convince 20% of *businesses* that a potentially incompatable program is a good idea - a much harder proposition! In Brick-and-mortar, this wouldn't matter as much, but when talking incompatable file formats and data exchange, it does indeed matter.
In fact, our in-house s/w where I work is all Microsoft, because the bosses want compatability. Even showing that StarOffice can do all that we need for free, and that Apache on Linux would also service our web needs better than MS, is insufficient to convince them... compatability is all.
And don't start me on their harping about sales restrictions and raising prices being the ign of a monopoly... not only is this 'old-tech', not only is this not true in law (simply one possible symptom), but they go on to claim that '[e]ven if Microsoft has been charging monopoly prices [...] it does not follow that Microsoft has, on balance, harmed consumers' simply because of everyone else's lower prices because of volume!
And self-contradictory? The premise that there is no real 'Application Barrier' is certainly weakened by their arguments that a developer is more likely to write for an OS that is more widely deployed, and that an OS is more widely deployed because more developers write for it!
I could go on and on... (MS 'could be said to have used the aggressive tactics it did to defend the interests of developers '?!? Please!) but let's not.
It's flawed, it's bad, it's illogical and self-contradictory... isn't that enough?