Come on. IE isn't even a standalone app. It's a wrapper for a bunch of other code bits. No one is proposing that those bits cease to exist. The goal of removing the "wrappers" is about the easiest thing to do in the world. It would solve the issue of having bits in place for those who want to use them and presumably others could build wrappers around the MS supplied bits or bring their own.
The next trick would be getting Microsoft to let people play fair with those bits. That is something they seemingly are only half-way prepared to do.
And the court anyway is likely to look at this as further evidence that they shouldn't have been "tying" in the first place so if MS sticks to this argument they are in for a real pee pee whack. Richly deserved and long overdue.
Well, the "mad bankroll" has to be a little slimmer than it was when the stock was at $64. Unless they all were smart and cashed out then.
There are huge benefits though to being on a Mac with OS X. Not the least of which is a mature set of apps in classic mode, cool stuff in X, and access to all your favorite Unix goodies. For them that has to be as close as it gets to heaven.
And I agree with the comments posted above Re: the message this sends to Microsoft. Satan loses another user, others will follow.
yeah, isn't that weird? i thought i was the only one who had noticed the "grim screamer". i guess humans will try to resolve familiar images out of anything.
either that or the universe is a lot scarier place than we thought!
Of course they are guilty. Look, love them or hate them as you like. They are guilty. Say it with me brothers and sisters -- guilty.
Now, they can settle all they like but we all know they wouldn't settle if they thought they had a good shot at beating it here. Obviously they don't. Also by settling they get to avoid being branded as guilty or having to publicly accept their guilt.
Don't think that's important to them? It's one of the key concessions they wrangled out of the Feds -- no admission of guilt. Very likely to avoid precedents for further trials.
Ah, let's remember though that indeed while this settlement was proposed by some of the lawyers on the opposing side it is Microsoft who is paying their fees directly. That's right boys and girls, the lawyers aren't taking it from the settlement. This is part of the "punishment" for Microsoft and may really be the only significant dollars they are being forced to spend directly (re: how the donation really doesn't cost them a thing).
Now, that suggests to me that there is an awful temptation here to settle and be done on the part of the lawyers so they can get paid. Otherwise, they will have to wait (potentially) years to get paid out of whatever the court finally decides will be the cash settlement.
Does no one see how tempting that might be for lawyers who otherwise might still "lose" by having to drag this on? And if they aren't getting paid out of the award, what incentive is their to fight for more? Answer -- none.
Come to think of it it's the same tactic MSFT is using in the Fed case. They are applying tremendous pressure at the legislative level to get funding to the State AGs for the case cut-off. Seems clear to me, although what they are doing is trictly legal, that if they can't win in court they will destroy the other side's ability to fight on. Carrot or stick? You be the judge.
And we are arguing about whether this is a company that behaves ethically and isn't desperately trying to maintain its monopoly?
of course the point is not one of the plaintiffs gets a dime out of this.
maybe i'm getting old and slow, but isn't that the point of a settlement -- that you settle with the people who have sued and not decide to throw money at random strangers and somehow call that gesture "justice served"?
-- >>
It is nothing but a transparent ploy to extend monopoly. I can't believe anyone would fail to see it, or ignore it.
-- >>
well, wouldn't we have all thought that of a case which the government won, twice? and yet still managed to lose...hmmm.
i'm not sure how to explain the way these guys can bamboozle just about anyone. a good friend from Apple days is convinced he is the anti-christ. perhaps if someone had mentioned that to Ashcroft things would have turned out differently.
Actally I agree. The weird thing is they don't directly employ many people (they are efficient, give them that). Moreover the number of developers dependent (hmmm, doesn't that imply monopoly?) on Microsoft is roughly the same as the number of Java developers out there.
Of course this whole argument is bollocks since we aren't asking them to go away, just let others compete. So, in fact no degree of reasonable enforcement of the law would have an impact, would it, on folks cranking out software?
Clearly Microsoft threatend something, likely protracted litigation, but we will never know why the DOJ bent over and took it up the bum. And of course by that I mean they let all of us get reamed by the Beast. Not even a spot of lubricant.
All I can say is if you are unhappy with the DOJ ruling, then voice your opinion right now to your state AG. And don't wait, they are likely to sign off on this as of Tuesday. The only thing politicians care about is getting elected. The only thing they fear is the absence of your support. Use your voice. Vote with your feet.
Folks,
There is no way that a good lawyer who has won on all counts that matter would make a deal this good for the other side unless they were induced.
I won't spout off here as it's rather pointless. Let's just say this makes the DOJ look like a joke. And if the courts sign off they are as well.
'Nuff said.
The fact is this deal if agreed to makes MSFT stronger than it was before. There is nothing in this deal that would force them to change behavior or prohibit them from "embracing and extending" anything they like and putting it out there for free to kill competitors. Nothing would change except that they would become even bolder. Period, end.
All I can further add that from a VC perspective it is pretty much going to be game over for anything that doesn't pass the "will Microsoft buy you" filter. Why? Because no VC in their right mind is going to risk having a multi-million dollar deal killed by seeing the sweat and blood of the newco's latest and greatest show up in an MS announcment as the next great thing they've "innovated".
This leaves the field open for IP attorneys to have a freaking feast of copyright and patent cases to drag in front of the courts to try to block MSFT from "embracing" them. But no VC is going to waste his time hoping that they can win. Not when the DOJ has proven they will roll over, and that the courts may be just as likely to favor them in the future on the basis of the precedent this deal sets.
The case wasn't brought by their partners, so why would you think they are involved? IBM, Sun and Oracle were largely sponsor of Pro Comp.
I think everyone should relax and take a deep breath here. We are letting ourselves believe that MSFT is at the center of the universe here. Frankly, it wouldn't hurt longer term for MSFT to be forced to mend its ways. It broke the law, a way needs to be found to prevent them from doing so in the future. Period end. If they didn't want to find themselves in this situation, they should have behaved more ethically. What is so hard to grasp about that?
That's horse hockey. If people need a new box they will still buy it with 2000 or whatever else and buy something else later. Wake up. Don't be such a fricking goose-stepper buying in to every bit of FUD that MSFT and its partners put out.
Folks aren't likely to buy as many PCs as expected because they don't need to. XP has zero to do with it. Besides, they'll sell as many this year as last, the industry just isn't expandig at the same rate. Get a grip. It'll be fine in the following year.
Under heavy appeal? No, it isn't. The appeals proces is over. Hence, a decision to uphold, strike and remand (on three counts) from the...Appeals Court.
We are now in the...remedy phase. Otherwise known as...that's right...the penalty phase.
Wake up guy.
An injunction though warranted does seem unlikely. However it would not be unprecedented.
And despite what the partners of MSFT might say about it hurting PC sales, come on. No consumer is going to buy a new box just because XP is in it for Cripes sake. They can stick a coupon in for an upgrade later. And corporations could care less. They buy PCs empty and do their own installs. And they won't be switching to XP for months.
MSFT put itself in the gun sights here, not the government. If they did't want to have the prospect for a hefy penalty, they should have changed their behavior a long time ago.
Personally I hope they fry them but good.
bro, you missed my point. they paid for the group (Pro Comp) that got the government to mount this casein the first place. Hence they'll be pissed that after winning the damn case they still will likely lose it (MSFT gets a wrist slap).
i think Larry might have seen code, once.
cheers
Folks, New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country. It is no wonder that it would walk away for the legal fees.
Personally it smells badly that this happened following all of the Beast's PR blitzes and just when it is clear the Feds have them by the short and curlies. It was outrageous for the AG to even comment since it's clear they took compensation on condition of trying torpedo the case and get out of the way.
McNealy and Ellison will be spitting fire....
Again, missing the point. It's theft, hijacking, call it what you like. The quality of the software (or their hardware for that matter) isn't the point. I also think that the readership is missing the point that ANY camera plugged in regardless of manufacturer will default to MSFT's photo editor whether you want it to or not -- that's the real point.
The point is Kodak developed this interface with Microsoft for XP and got screwed. So it isn't just a question of what happens to the user, Kodak feels like they got robbed here, and they literally may have been. Read the Wall Street Journal article (July 3rd) for more details.
Not the point is it? How would you feel if you were Nikon,Minolta, Canon and had paid bundle fees for software that your customer never got to use?
Also, it won't be fixed. RC1 is out right now and lock-down for October delivery means that there is about a week to go. They aren't about to yank out a "feature" like this at thsi late stage unless they are compelled to. That would likely mean some form of delay, but if I were Kodak I would be seeking an injunction.
Cheerio
Agreed. I used to work at ABC News and these have been around for some time. Although the application is different, it sure sounds like what TiVO was intended to do.
Here's a good example from SONY that makes a system called Newsbase that sounds like TiVO on steroids.
Newsbase Product brochure
Guys, SONY professional systems has had a "newsroom" version of this kind of stuff around since the early 90s. It wasn't self-contained in one neat box, but it did record signal to disk, and allow for multiple stream. It cost about 20K or so as I recall. We had one at ABC News when I worked there.
We 'share', and you grant us back all your 'work'
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
yeah, this is great huh? cool way for the Beast to have us pay them, get improvements from the community and then re-incorporate them back into their property without anyone other than the Beast getting squat.
um, isn't this usury, or at a minimum severe exploitation of the techno-peasantry?
Hey, it's an alternative...just not necessarily a great one
I agree, the price tag is a little crazed...actually a lot crazed. Then again I have the feeling this is being kept alive by a few folks in a Colorado Snowboard colony that need the money.
Still, someone is keeping the language alive, has figured out all the cross-platform nasties, and has added features to make it internet aware at least. And I believe it's free for educational use, just not for commercial work.
Apple could just buy the darn thing, but I don't think they are into giving away free tools. And frankly I doubt HC will be carbonized. They should have just open-sourced it years ago.
There is a proprietary cross-platform (Win, Mac, all Unix flavors, Linux, and yes, Darwin Core) version of HyperCard from a company called MetaCard. It actually supports a super-set of HyperTalk with a lot of "Unix intrusions" including RegEx support. Natively lets one mess around with sokcets, etc., etc. and supports creation of standalones.
Buggy, a little odd in the "one man made it work for himself" sense, and the documentation will make you climb the wall. Still, it is out there for those that want to have a look:
www.metacard.com
Slashdot Mirror
Come on. IE isn't even a standalone app. It's a wrapper for a bunch of other code bits. No one is proposing that those bits cease to exist. The goal of removing the "wrappers" is about the easiest thing to do in the world. It would solve the issue of having bits in place for those who want to use them and presumably others could build wrappers around the MS supplied bits or bring their own.
The next trick would be getting Microsoft to let people play fair with those bits. That is something they seemingly are only half-way prepared to do.
And the court anyway is likely to look at this as further evidence that they shouldn't have been "tying" in the first place so if MS sticks to this argument they are in for a real pee pee whack. Richly deserved and long overdue.
Well, the "mad bankroll" has to be a little slimmer than it was when the stock was at $64. Unless they all were smart and cashed out then.
There are huge benefits though to being on a Mac with OS X. Not the least of which is a mature set of apps in classic mode, cool stuff in X, and access to all your favorite Unix goodies. For them that has to be as close as it gets to heaven.
And I agree with the comments posted above Re: the message this sends to Microsoft. Satan loses another user, others will follow.
yeah, i thought i was the only one who noticed the "grim screamer".
i guess humans will try to resolve familiar images out of anything huh?
either that or the universe is a lot more scary than we thought...
momma!
yeah, isn't that weird? i thought i was the only one who had noticed the "grim screamer". i guess humans will try to resolve familiar images out of anything.
either that or the universe is a lot scarier place than we thought!
momma!
Of course they are guilty. Look, love them or hate them as you like. They are guilty. Say it with me brothers and sisters -- guilty.
Now, they can settle all they like but we all know they wouldn't settle if they thought they had a good shot at beating it here. Obviously they don't. Also by settling they get to avoid being branded as guilty or having to publicly accept their guilt.
Don't think that's important to them? It's one of the key concessions they wrangled out of the Feds -- no admission of guilt. Very likely to avoid precedents for further trials.
Ah, let's remember though that indeed while this settlement was proposed by some of the lawyers on the opposing side it is Microsoft who is paying their fees directly. That's right boys and girls, the lawyers aren't taking it from the settlement. This is part of the "punishment" for Microsoft and may really be the only significant dollars they are being forced to spend directly (re: how the donation really doesn't cost them a thing).
Now, that suggests to me that there is an awful temptation here to settle and be done on the part of the lawyers so they can get paid. Otherwise, they will have to wait (potentially) years to get paid out of whatever the court finally decides will be the cash settlement.
Does no one see how tempting that might be for lawyers who otherwise might still "lose" by having to drag this on? And if they aren't getting paid out of the award, what incentive is their to fight for more? Answer -- none.
Come to think of it it's the same tactic MSFT is using in the Fed case. They are applying tremendous pressure at the legislative level to get funding to the State AGs for the case cut-off. Seems clear to me, although what they are doing is trictly legal, that if they can't win in court they will destroy the other side's ability to fight on. Carrot or stick? You be the judge.
And we are arguing about whether this is a company that behaves ethically and isn't desperately trying to maintain its monopoly?
Right. Next silly question.
it is rather funny, isn't it?
of course the point is not one of the plaintiffs gets a dime out of this.
maybe i'm getting old and slow, but isn't that the point of a settlement -- that you settle with the people who have sued and not decide to throw money at random strangers and somehow call that gesture "justice served"?
-- >>
It is nothing but a transparent ploy to extend monopoly. I can't believe anyone would fail to see it, or ignore it.
-- >>
well, wouldn't we have all thought that of a case which the government won, twice? and yet still managed to lose...hmmm.
i'm not sure how to explain the way these guys can bamboozle just about anyone. a good friend from Apple days is convinced he is the anti-christ. perhaps if someone had mentioned that to Ashcroft things would have turned out differently.
well, it's just like MSFT's version of "release" vs. other companies' notion of "beta" isn't it?
FUD. you have to give it to them, no one is better at it.
Actally I agree. The weird thing is they don't directly employ many people (they are efficient, give them that). Moreover the number of developers dependent (hmmm, doesn't that imply monopoly?) on Microsoft is roughly the same as the number of Java developers out there.
Of course this whole argument is bollocks since we aren't asking them to go away, just let others compete. So, in fact no degree of reasonable enforcement of the law would have an impact, would it, on folks cranking out software?
Clearly Microsoft threatend something, likely protracted litigation, but we will never know why the DOJ bent over and took it up the bum. And of course by that I mean they let all of us get reamed by the Beast. Not even a spot of lubricant.
Folks,
All I can say is if you are unhappy with the DOJ ruling, then voice your opinion right now to your state AG. And don't wait, they are likely to sign off on this as of Tuesday. The only thing politicians care about is getting elected. The only thing they fear is the absence of your support. Use your voice. Vote with your feet.
Folks, There is no way that a good lawyer who has won on all counts that matter would make a deal this good for the other side unless they were induced. I won't spout off here as it's rather pointless. Let's just say this makes the DOJ look like a joke. And if the courts sign off they are as well. 'Nuff said.
The fact is this deal if agreed to makes MSFT stronger than it was before. There is nothing in this deal that would force them to change behavior or prohibit them from "embracing and extending" anything they like and putting it out there for free to kill competitors. Nothing would change except that they would become even bolder. Period, end.
All I can further add that from a VC perspective it is pretty much going to be game over for anything that doesn't pass the "will Microsoft buy you" filter. Why? Because no VC in their right mind is going to risk having a multi-million dollar deal killed by seeing the sweat and blood of the newco's latest and greatest show up in an MS announcment as the next great thing they've "innovated". This leaves the field open for IP attorneys to have a freaking feast of copyright and patent cases to drag in front of the courts to try to block MSFT from "embracing" them. But no VC is going to waste his time hoping that they can win. Not when the DOJ has proven they will roll over, and that the courts may be just as likely to favor them in the future on the basis of the precedent this deal sets.
The case wasn't brought by their partners, so why would you think they are involved? IBM, Sun and Oracle were largely sponsor of Pro Comp. I think everyone should relax and take a deep breath here. We are letting ourselves believe that MSFT is at the center of the universe here. Frankly, it wouldn't hurt longer term for MSFT to be forced to mend its ways. It broke the law, a way needs to be found to prevent them from doing so in the future. Period end. If they didn't want to find themselves in this situation, they should have behaved more ethically. What is so hard to grasp about that?
That's horse hockey. If people need a new box they will still buy it with 2000 or whatever else and buy something else later. Wake up. Don't be such a fricking goose-stepper buying in to every bit of FUD that MSFT and its partners put out. Folks aren't likely to buy as many PCs as expected because they don't need to. XP has zero to do with it. Besides, they'll sell as many this year as last, the industry just isn't expandig at the same rate. Get a grip. It'll be fine in the following year.
Under heavy appeal? No, it isn't. The appeals proces is over. Hence, a decision to uphold, strike and remand (on three counts) from the...Appeals Court. We are now in the...remedy phase. Otherwise known as...that's right...the penalty phase. Wake up guy. An injunction though warranted does seem unlikely. However it would not be unprecedented. And despite what the partners of MSFT might say about it hurting PC sales, come on. No consumer is going to buy a new box just because XP is in it for Cripes sake. They can stick a coupon in for an upgrade later. And corporations could care less. They buy PCs empty and do their own installs. And they won't be switching to XP for months. MSFT put itself in the gun sights here, not the government. If they did't want to have the prospect for a hefy penalty, they should have changed their behavior a long time ago. Personally I hope they fry them but good.
bro, you missed my point. they paid for the group (Pro Comp) that got the government to mount this casein the first place. Hence they'll be pissed that after winning the damn case they still will likely lose it (MSFT gets a wrist slap). i think Larry might have seen code, once. cheers
Folks, New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country. It is no wonder that it would walk away for the legal fees. Personally it smells badly that this happened following all of the Beast's PR blitzes and just when it is clear the Feds have them by the short and curlies. It was outrageous for the AG to even comment since it's clear they took compensation on condition of trying torpedo the case and get out of the way. McNealy and Ellison will be spitting fire....
Again, missing the point. It's theft, hijacking, call it what you like. The quality of the software (or their hardware for that matter) isn't the point. I also think that the readership is missing the point that ANY camera plugged in regardless of manufacturer will default to MSFT's photo editor whether you want it to or not -- that's the real point.
The point is Kodak developed this interface with Microsoft for XP and got screwed. So it isn't just a question of what happens to the user, Kodak feels like they got robbed here, and they literally may have been. Read the Wall Street Journal article (July 3rd) for more details.
Not the point is it? How would you feel if you were Nikon,Minolta, Canon and had paid bundle fees for software that your customer never got to use? Also, it won't be fixed. RC1 is out right now and lock-down for October delivery means that there is about a week to go. They aren't about to yank out a "feature" like this at thsi late stage unless they are compelled to. That would likely mean some form of delay, but if I were Kodak I would be seeking an injunction. Cheerio
Agreed. I used to work at ABC News and these have been around for some time. Although the application is different, it sure sounds like what TiVO was intended to do. Here's a good example from SONY that makes a system called Newsbase that sounds like TiVO on steroids. Newsbase Product brochure
Guys, SONY professional systems has had a "newsroom" version of this kind of stuff around since the early 90s. It wasn't self-contained in one neat box, but it did record signal to disk, and allow for multiple stream. It cost about 20K or so as I recall. We had one at ABC News when I worked there.
yeah, this is great huh? cool way for the Beast to have us pay them, get improvements from the community and then re-incorporate them back into their property without anyone other than the Beast getting squat. um, isn't this usury, or at a minimum severe exploitation of the techno-peasantry?
Hey, it's an alternative...just not necessarily a great one I agree, the price tag is a little crazed...actually a lot crazed. Then again I have the feeling this is being kept alive by a few folks in a Colorado Snowboard colony that need the money. Still, someone is keeping the language alive, has figured out all the cross-platform nasties, and has added features to make it internet aware at least. And I believe it's free for educational use, just not for commercial work. Apple could just buy the darn thing, but I don't think they are into giving away free tools. And frankly I doubt HC will be carbonized. They should have just open-sourced it years ago.
There is a proprietary cross-platform (Win, Mac, all Unix flavors, Linux, and yes, Darwin Core) version of HyperCard from a company called MetaCard. It actually supports a super-set of HyperTalk with a lot of "Unix intrusions" including RegEx support. Natively lets one mess around with sokcets, etc., etc. and supports creation of standalones. Buggy, a little odd in the "one man made it work for himself" sense, and the documentation will make you climb the wall. Still, it is out there for those that want to have a look: www.metacard.com