"Now, to me, the phrase "by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful" is the exact same thing as "by breaking the law"."
Well, it depends on whether you believe that a law has it's meaning based on the words in it or based on a courts interpretation of those words. What a court finds to be legal is what is enforced, it may or may not be correct.
Regardless of this issue, the context created by the previous question suggests that they were still speaking about what the court had ruled, rather than his personal beliefs. Had the questioner wanted that kind of answer he could have asked a much more direct question: "Do you believe that Microsoft broke any anti-trust laws?"
"What you are saying is that you force your users to have IE on their desktops in order to use your software... Why should they be forced to use IE when you could put your stuff in your own standalone app and still have IE functionality?"
Of course you could extend your argument and conclude that all applications should contain all OS functionality. Why should users be forced to use any operating system at all just to use your applications?
Q: "What practices do you understand Microsoft was found guilty of?"
A: "I believe that we were found that we tried to maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system space."
Q:"And is it your understanding that Microsoft did that by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?"
A: "Yes,"
This is like asking someone if they understand the charges against them, or asking them what the court verdict was. If they followed up with the question "do you believe the court's verdict was correct?" and he answered "yes", then it would be an admission.
"I only ask because you seem to know about it more than I do (really)..."
Apparently, I don't. After reading your post, I took a look at the description of Windows XP embedded and found that it IS binary compatible with Windows XP. Although it is configurable, IE doesn't appear to be removable in this version of Windows either. So it looks like it fails my criteria for proof not by virtue of a lack of compatiblity but rather by virtue of not being a IE-less OS.
"I find it difficult to believe...I'm also at loss to understand why people who have no financial stake in Microsoft would argue that such a thing is impossible (when there is yet no proof that it is)."
Well, I didn't say it was impossible. I just said that Windows XP embedded is not proof that it is possible unless it runs all the legacy code and doesn't contain any IE components. I do appreciate that you are now asking about my line of reasoning rather than simply labeling me.
"If you're a regular Windows user, why would you care if MS is forced to offer a no-frills version of the OS? You don't have to switch, you can keep your old setup..."
It's as a developer for Windows, not a user, that I care. There has already been a lot of disagreement in this case about what exactly constitues IE. MS probably knows but is not objective, the dissenting states (which are being pushed by MS competitors), don't know but will choose the definition that damages MS's interests the most. The judge may be impartial but isn't qualified to evaluate it and quite possibly unable to determine the motives of potential "experts".
So I think the properties of this stripped-down Windows are impossible to predict, but if it were successful, I might be stuck with supporting it. Now as long as it's fully compatible with the current version, no problem. Otherwise we have to spend the time and money to revise our applications. Many companies would be in the same boat and I think these issues ought to be considered by the court before rendering a verdict.
"I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility"
You make a lot of assumptions about the internal design of Windows XP embedded. Binary compatibility may not be the only issue.
"Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll."
So those are the only two possibilities? Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
So MS can produce a PDA operating system that doesn't run Windows programs and doesn't have a browser. So what?
Let's say they follow that model in complying with the remedy. They'll offer a cheaper, stripped-down version of Windows that doesn't run much of the legacy Windows applications. First of all, nobody is going to buy it because it won't run their programs. Second, the State Attorneys General will claim that MS has crippled the product so they should be held in contempt.
No, the only relevent question is whether MS can produce a stripped-down version of Windows that doesn't contain IE components and still runs all the legacy code. Anything less will be DOA.
"In the long run, it will tighten up both Windows and the other applications, removing problems."
You're assuming that these companies will be around long enough to change their code, which might not be true if their applications are broken. In addition, if those companies are properly following the Windows API, there is nothing in their applications to "tighten up".
If I were Bill Gates and forced to release a stripped-down version of Windows, I'd call it "Windows - State Attorneys General Edition" with the subtitle "Designed by Lawyers". That should pretty much prevent anyone from buying it or OEMs from preloading it on a PC.
"That inherently means that some things that Microsoft would love to do- even some that may have valid engineering and/or marketing reasons behind them- may be disallowed because they are anticompetitive."
But you miss the point. A lot of code written by companies and used by customers that are not guilty of anything, will break. The case is supposed to be about protecting the public's interest, and any remedy that doesn't do that should be rejected.
"No, I think if they had designed and documented it properly from the beginning, it wouldn't nearly be the problem it is now..."
Well, Windows is what it is and any reasonable remedy can't be based on some alternate reality. In any case, the level of modularity MS could end up having to support is impossible no matter how it was designed.
For many years Pascal was the language of choice in CS programs, yet it never was the leading language in industry. Unix was taught many years before MS Windows was developed and yet Windows still became successful. So the track record indicates that what is taught in school is not necessarily what graduates end up using in industry.
"Meanwhile, the Judge's finding of facts and conclusions of law were largely upheld by the (previously pro-MS) appeals court, which should speak volumes about the soundness of the judgement in light of the facts."
As you might recall, the speculation prior to the appeals court ruling was that MS had little chance because appeals courts were generally reluctant to overturn the finding of facts of a lower court. It would be careless, therefore, to conclude that those judges on the appeals court would have come to the same conclusions as Judge Jackson had, if they have been the trial judge simply on the basis that they didn't overturn most of Judge Jacksons findings. Indeed, the fact that any significant part was overturned might be an indication that they would have handled the case quite differently and perhaps drawn different conclusions.
"by making incendiary and opinionated comments to the press before rendering a decision, he gives the impression of bias that the appeals court found so distasteful"
I agree. I think the appeals court was actually quite generous with Judge Jackson by using the phrase "impression of bias". If his pre-decision comments didn't reveal actual bias, what could? I don't think the appeals court was prepared to charge actual bias no matter what evidence there was.
"Delayed the case from coming to trial for almost two years Made the trial take much longer than needed When indications were that they wouldn't win in the Supreme Court, Microsoft tried in the court of appeals AGAIN"
All standard stuff that any good lawyer would try.
"Judge Penfeld Jackson rules that Microsoft was guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly -- this was on April 3, 2000. He then talks way too much to the press"
You don't think that bias and judicial misconduct are legimate issues for a defendent to raise?
This seems to me a weak analogy. Security is the primary service of a bank, it is not the primary service of software.
A bank is also in physical possession of your money while software vendors aren't typically in physical possession of your computer or data. You have the option of applying patches, using firewalls, or just disconnecting from the outside world.
If they do have your data, then they have a greater responsiblity, but the "bank robbers" would still be considered the guilty party.
"I'm normally adamantly against blaming the victim for crimes, but consider this. What if we legalized hacking? Within a few weeks, incompetent sysadmins/secadmins would be out on the street. Within a few months, software that was not patched promptly would be replaced by software that was. Within a few years, software that was not essentially secure would be off the market."
Well, it depends on how many potential hackers are out there just waiting for the chance to hack legally. If the number of attacks went up dramatically, I think the result would be that it would kill the Internet as we know it. Companies would be likely to disconnect themselves from the Internet for security reasons. The instinctive reaction within corporations is to CYA, not to learn from the experience.
"But why is he going to get off the hook for his vandalism, while the other guy is facing a long sentence? Didn't they essentially do the same thing?"
I think the punishment should fit the crime and it shouldn't matter who you are. I know that's not always the way it works, but that should be the goal.
The question should not be who is responsible for insecure code but rather what can be done to discourage people from vandalism and how to track down and punish those who choose to break the law.
I hope you're right. On their 1.3 notes for Windows they say the following:
"Apache for Windows version 1.3 series is implemented in synchronous calls. This poses an enormous problem for CGI authors, who won't see unbuffered results sent immediately to the browser. This is not the behavior described for CGI in Apache, but it is a side-effect of the Windows port. Apache 2.0 is making progress to implement the expected asynchronous behavior, and we hope to discover that the NT/2000 implementation allows CGI's to behave as documented."
The phrase "we hope discover" bothers me. Are they designing it to work correctly under Win32 or not?
Does anyone know if Palm is planning to use it for anything?
Yes, to sue MS for big bucks. I doubt that they have any interest in making a product out of it. Palm's not even sure if they want to be in the PDA business these days.
Slashdot Mirror
"Now, to me, the phrase "by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful" is the exact same thing as "by breaking the law"."
Well, it depends on whether you believe that a law has it's meaning based on the words in it or based on a courts interpretation of those words. What a court finds to be legal is what is enforced, it may or may not be correct.
Regardless of this issue, the context created by the previous question suggests that they were still speaking about what the court had ruled, rather than his personal beliefs. Had the questioner wanted that kind of answer he could have asked a much more direct question: "Do you believe that Microsoft broke any anti-trust laws?"
"What you are saying is that you force your users to have IE on their desktops in order to use your software. .. Why should they be forced to use IE when you could put your stuff in your own standalone app and still have IE functionality?"
Of course you could extend your argument and conclude that all applications should contain all OS functionality. Why should users be forced to use any operating system at all just to use your applications?
"there is no Constitutional question here, afterall"
The Supreme Court is not limited to hearing cases with constitutional issues.
The actual exchange was:
Q: "What practices do you understand Microsoft was found guilty of?"
A: "I believe that we were found that we tried to maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system space."
Q:"And is it your understanding that Microsoft did that by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?"
A: "Yes,"
This is like asking someone if they understand the charges against them, or asking them what the court verdict was. If they followed up with the question "do you believe the court's verdict was correct?" and he answered "yes", then it would be an admission.
"I only ask because you seem to know about it more than I do (really) ..."
..."
Apparently, I don't. After reading your post, I took a look at the description of Windows XP embedded and found that it IS binary compatible with Windows XP. Although it is configurable, IE doesn't appear to be removable in this version of Windows either. So it looks like it fails my criteria for proof not by virtue of a lack of compatiblity but rather by virtue of not being a IE-less OS.
"I find it difficult to believe...I'm also at loss to understand why people who have no financial stake in Microsoft would argue that such a thing is impossible (when there is yet no proof that it is)."
Well, I didn't say it was impossible. I just said that Windows XP embedded is not proof that it is possible unless it runs all the legacy code and doesn't contain any IE components. I do appreciate that you are now asking about my line of reasoning rather than simply labeling me.
"If you're a regular Windows user, why would you care if MS is forced to offer a no-frills version of the OS? You don't have to switch, you can keep your old setup
It's as a developer for Windows, not a user, that I care. There has already been a lot of disagreement in this case about what exactly constitues IE. MS probably knows but is not objective, the dissenting states (which are being pushed by MS competitors), don't know but will choose the definition that damages MS's interests the most. The judge may be impartial but isn't qualified to evaluate it and quite possibly unable to determine the motives of potential "experts".
So I think the properties of this stripped-down Windows are impossible to predict, but if it were successful, I might be stuck with supporting it. Now as long as it's fully compatible with the current version, no problem. Otherwise we have to spend the time and money to revise our applications. Many companies would be in the same boat and I think these issues ought to be considered by the court before rendering a verdict.
"I figure that the reason that Windows apps won't run on it is because of binary compatibility"
You make a lot of assumptions about the internal design of Windows XP embedded. Binary compatibility may not be the only issue.
"Reading the transcripts of Ballmer's video testimony, it is quite clear that it's not that MS can't do it, it's just that they don't want to do it. To say otherwise is to be a) naive, or b) on MS's payroll."
So those are the only two possibilities? Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.
So MS can produce a PDA operating system that doesn't run Windows programs and doesn't have a browser. So what?
Let's say they follow that model in complying with the remedy. They'll offer a cheaper, stripped-down version of Windows that doesn't run much of the legacy Windows applications. First of all, nobody is going to buy it because it won't run their programs. Second, the State Attorneys General will claim that MS has crippled the product so they should be held in contempt.
No, the only relevent question is whether MS can produce a stripped-down version of Windows that doesn't contain IE components and still runs all the legacy code. Anything less will be DOA.
"In the long run, it will tighten up both Windows and the other applications, removing problems."
You're assuming that these companies will be around long enough to change their code, which might not be true if their applications are broken. In addition, if those companies are properly following the Windows API, there is nothing in their applications to "tighten up".
If I were Bill Gates and forced to release a stripped-down version of Windows, I'd call it "Windows - State Attorneys General Edition" with the subtitle "Designed by Lawyers". That should pretty much prevent anyone from buying it or OEMs from preloading it on a PC.
"That inherently means that some things that Microsoft would love to do- even some that may have valid engineering and/or marketing reasons behind them- may be disallowed because they are anticompetitive."
But you miss the point. A lot of code written by companies and used by customers that are not guilty of anything, will break. The case is supposed to be about protecting the public's interest, and any remedy that doesn't do that should be rejected.
"Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded."
Well, as long as Windows XP Embedded can correctly run each and every program that runs under the regular XP, you're right, otherwise, you're wrong.
"No, I think if they had designed and documented it properly from the beginning, it wouldn't nearly be the problem it is now..."
Well, Windows is what it is and any reasonable remedy can't be based on some alternate reality. In any case, the level of modularity MS could end up having to support is impossible no matter how it was designed.
For many years Pascal was the language of choice in CS programs, yet it never was the leading language in industry. Unix was taught many years before MS Windows was developed and yet Windows still became successful. So the track record indicates that what is taught in school is not necessarily what graduates end up using in industry.
If you can't even accept payment using standard methods (checks, credit cards) you're not going to get many people to sign up.
"Meanwhile, the Judge's finding of facts and conclusions of law were largely upheld by the (previously pro-MS) appeals court, which should speak volumes about the soundness of the judgement in light of the facts."
As you might recall, the speculation prior to the appeals court ruling was that MS had little chance because appeals courts were generally reluctant to overturn the finding of facts of a lower court. It would be careless, therefore, to conclude that those judges on the appeals court would have come to the same conclusions as Judge Jackson had, if they have been the trial judge simply on the basis that they didn't overturn most of Judge Jacksons findings. Indeed, the fact that any significant part was overturned might be an indication that they would have handled the case quite differently and perhaps drawn different conclusions.
"by making incendiary and opinionated comments to the press before rendering a decision, he gives the impression of bias that the appeals court found so distasteful"
I agree. I think the appeals court was actually quite generous with Judge Jackson by using the phrase "impression of bias". If his pre-decision comments didn't reveal actual bias, what could? I don't think the appeals court was prepared to charge actual bias no matter what evidence there was.
"Delayed the case from coming to trial for almost two years
Made the trial take much longer than needed
When indications were that they wouldn't win in the Supreme Court, Microsoft tried in the court of appeals AGAIN"
All standard stuff that any good lawyer would try.
"Judge Penfeld Jackson rules that Microsoft was guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly -- this was on April 3, 2000. He then talks way too much to the press"
You don't think that bias and judicial misconduct are legimate issues for a defendent to raise?
This seems to me a weak analogy. Security is the primary service of a bank, it is not the primary service of software.
A bank is also in physical possession of your money while software vendors aren't typically in physical possession of your computer or data. You have the option of applying patches, using firewalls, or just disconnecting from the outside world.
If they do have your data, then they have a greater responsiblity, but the "bank robbers" would still be considered the guilty party.
"I'm normally adamantly against blaming the victim for crimes, but consider this. What if we legalized hacking? Within a few weeks, incompetent sysadmins/secadmins would be out on the street. Within a few months, software that was not patched promptly would be replaced by software that was. Within a few years, software that was not essentially secure would be off the market."
Well, it depends on how many potential hackers are out there just waiting for the chance to hack legally. If the number of attacks went up dramatically, I think the result would be that it would kill the Internet as we know it. Companies would be likely to disconnect themselves from the Internet for security reasons. The instinctive reaction within corporations is to CYA, not to learn from the experience.
"But why is he going to get off the hook for his vandalism, while the other guy is facing a long sentence? Didn't they essentially do the same thing?"
I think the punishment should fit the crime and it shouldn't matter who you are. I know that's not always the way it works, but that should be the goal.
The question should not be who is responsible for insecure code but rather what can be done to discourage people from vandalism and how to track down and punish those who choose to break the law.
Perhaps you could charge based on Karma boost.
+1 $4.95/month
+2 $6.95/month
+3 $8.95/month
+4 $10.95/month
+5 $12.95/month
I hope you're right. On their 1.3 notes for Windows they say the following:
"Apache for Windows version 1.3 series is implemented in synchronous calls. This poses an enormous problem for CGI authors, who won't see unbuffered results sent immediately to the browser. This is not the behavior described for CGI in Apache, but it is a side-effect of the Windows port. Apache 2.0 is making progress to implement the expected asynchronous behavior, and we hope to discover that the NT/2000 implementation allows CGI's to behave as documented."
The phrase "we hope discover" bothers me. Are they designing it to work correctly under Win32 or not?
Does anyone know if Palm is planning to use it for anything?
Yes, to sue MS for big bucks. I doubt that they have any interest in making a product out of it. Palm's not even sure if they want to be in the PDA business these days.
"MS is a criminal organization which commiited crimes."
The DOJ and states case against MS is a civil one.