But the reason is simply because Windows is currently the "default" position.
Therefore, the only way someone can really switch from Linux to Windows is if they've already switched the other way.
But if somebody does this, it's not really thought of as "switching" but more of "I tried it and couldn't get my games/winmodem/word documents/something to work, so I just kept Windows."
So basically, it's a failed Windows to Linux switch, not a Linux to Windows switch.
..it's called "Employee Stock Options", and it's sold to Microsoft Employees in exchange for them receiving an otherwise mediocre wage.
When the price of the stock goes down, it ends up either increasing the real money that MS has to pay, or increasing the number of stock options they pay. Of course, the latter means that actually everybody's stock is slightly devalued, it's just that the ponzi effects haven't shown up yet.
Should the stock start to drop quickly, I'm betting the amount it will drop will be staggering as all of those employee shares start flooding onto the market.
When the MS bubble finally bursts (and if the company never pays dividends, sooner or later it will, just like any ponzi scheme) it's going to be sheer hell on the economy.
When you amortize the cost of a CD fab over the entire production run, it's small change. Most of what you pay in a CD goes to inflated marketing, legal fees, and the associated beauracracy of a major music publishing company.
So getting rid of the CD fab cost won't make a lick of difference.
Because the user hit a clickthrough EULA when they downloaded and installed Gator. ESA likely doesn't have a clickthrough EULA when you go onto their site.
Now, if somewhere on their site they have a "terms and conditions of use" link, and that link contains terms such as, "You agree to allow our ads to display on your screen while you surf our site", then Gator's up shoot creek.
Personally, I think the whole thing stinks since really it will only serve to further validate clickthrough EULA's authority.
If Fan X of Band X can't play his CD from Label A in his Car CD player, and when he contacts the company finds the response is along the lines of "Tough luck." Fan X will then join the boycott of Label A, and probably Label's B, C, and D as well, because Fan X isn't aware of what's actually going on, so stops buying CDs altogether.
Fan X is even likely to try out "that kazaa thing my kids/friends are talking about" in order to continue getting music.
For this reason, Phillips shouldn't be the only one going against BMI, but also every single label that doesn't use copy-protection on their CDs, because it's quite possible that copy-protected CDs will ruin it for the entire industry.
The elimination of corporations would place personal responsibility back into the hands of the private property owner. I have no incentive to pollute my property, as eventually, I have to sell it. Also, if I am polluting mine, I am probably polluting yours. Defend yours as a private property right.
I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.
Join a volunteer force, or are you too lazy? Oh, I see: The protection of your property is someone else's responsibilty. Personal protection is such that anyone who can carry a pistol can afford protection.
Because after all, we all have the extra time to be a volunteer policeman or fireman, rather than concentrating our efforts in the things that we're good at and can benefit the economy and our neighbors as a whole.
You also assume that you'll only ever be attacked by singular attackers. When the Hells Angels are bigger than your "volunteer" force, pray tell what do you do then? He with the biggest guns wins? Thanks, but I'd rather not live in the home-grown version of Afghanistan.
There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.
Try going back to economics 101, rather than ideology from-your-ass. The only thing that prevents monopolies are government laws and enforcements so that corporations are unable to go full-tilt. Or are you saying Microsoft was the result of government intervention?
Also, you might want to learn the difference between anarchism and libertarianism.
.. I'm pretty confident we'll see MS giving away Windows very soon after they get Palladium and Digital Restrictions Management up and running properly.
The reason being is that they know damn well that Palladium has the benefit of:
1. Consistent, adjustable revenue streams 2. Heavy network effects (as in, good luck finding an Open Office to translate Palladium documents) 3. Governmental backing 4. Removing unwanted illegal evidence 5. Burying free software.
The only trick to getting all of these is to get a widespread base of people using Palladium in the first place. What better way then to "concede" victory to Linux in the OS market and start giving away Windows? This would take away the one immediately tangible benefit that Linux boosters can point to.
My reasoning to these benefits can be found at this here.
The whims of the poplulace changes daily. A look at pre-election polls over a period of a few weeks demonstrates this. The Electoral College helps filter these mood swings out.
So you're saying the Electoral College is free to vote any way they choose? Should the populace have a sudden rash of Naderism, vote 100% in his favor, the College is still free to choose Gush or Bore?
Don't think so.
The only thing the college is for is to grant low population states a greater voice in the selection. It doesn't "filter" a damn thing. If anything, it's an amplifier. It amplifies the choice of the slim majority in the state it speaks for.
Don't see why the press would scream. If they aren't counted, they aren't counted. They just sit in the boxes until it's time.
Hardly a first amendment issue. The press can report on the boxes all they want in the meantime. "That's right Bob, I'm down at the election office and the box is still sitting here."
"So nobody's touched it?"
"Not yet. It's locked in a secure room, and you can see it through the window to make sure that nobody is tampering with it. The official counters should be in in a few hours.."
So it's not the greatest story in the world, but hey, nobody'd be stopping them from telling it.
It can't be because we've managed to maintain a stable democratic system with only 1 civil war in 225 years.
Hardly a feat. Look at most of Western Europe and you'll see the same thing or better. Look north of you and you'll see a country that hasn't had a civil war since it originated. Look down under and you'll find another country that's been remarkably light on the civil wars. Heck, some would say that a single civil war in the last 225 years puts you in the lower half of the pack.
It cannot be because there is no credible threat that there will be a military junta, or an overthrow of civilian government.
This depends what you consider to be an overthrow of civilian government. Some would suggest your civilian government has already been overthrown by a corporate government. Beyond this, again, look at most of Western Europe, Australia, or Canada and you'll see the same thing, all with election systems different from yours.
It certainly can't be that the US Constitution is one of the most admired documents of governmental philosophy the world over.
Trust me, it isn't. Besides which, the parts of the US Constitution that are admired have little to do with the election process. Not to mention that the voting process in it has already been changed since its creation.
It can't be that the United States is not only the world's remaining superpower, but has the highest standard of living* of any country on the face of the earth. * (not measured by some theoretical rating of quality of life, but measured by the number of people in the world who are risking their lives every day just to come here- I don't see shiploads of Chinese immigrants paying $30,000 each to get to Sweden or Denmark.)
I'll grant you the superpower status, but that has less to do with your electoral system than the military-industrial complex that was allowed to mature fully and wasn't wiped out by the 1st and 2nd world wars. It also has to do with the U.S's idea that they be ready at a moments notice to impose their will on any country in the world.
As to the quality of life = # of immigrants, might I suggest that this has as much to do with geography as anything else, and that you actually check your facts, such as immigration numbers to Australia, Canada, and Western Europe.
The longer I live, the more I respect the Founding Fathers' wisdom in what they did, why they did it, and why they protected it from change. There's always some goofball selling something, somewhere.
You should look into the Founding Fathers' a bit more. Part of their wisdom was that they were in favor of a complete constitutional review taking place at least every generation. Unlike you, they seemed to realize that times change, better ways can be found, and permanently tying yourself to something just because it's worked so far isn't the best strategy.
With Palladium, etc. it will become possible for programs to keep especially sensitive data safe from malicious programs operating on the same machine. Now an attacker will have to not only subvert one of the programs that I have trusted, it will also have to defeat the Palladium system.
Yes. This is a very good thing.
However, the problem becomes when Palladium is the de-facto standard. When you need Palladium on to run pretty much anything, including seeing grandma's last e-mail, because her system uses Palladium by default, then we have a problem.
Palladium is a bad company's wet dream. Enron's accounting books could be completely unreadable to anything except for the computer they were created on -- "Oops! It got wiped.. sorry sir.." Those pesky e-mails that pointed out exactly how MS was trying to lean on other companies? You certainly wouldn't be able to get hold of them under a Palladium system.. even the copies over at the Netscape office could be set to "expire" and auto-delete themselves after a certain amount of time.
Or here's a fun one, EULAs that automagically update themselves from headoffice with no warning whatsoever to the user. It's bad enough now when to download a *required* security update, you are forced to accept a change in licensing. If you don't download the update, you lose the ability to obtain support, but at least right now you have the choice. Palladium gives the content owners, (which in this case is the folks who presented the contract) the ability to change the content at any time. Do you really believe that every company out there will be willing to resist temptation?
Plus, when it's the defacto standard, you start losing the widgets and API's that allow new software to be built without Palladium. After all, if MS can simply discontinue support for W98, what makes you think that they can't discontinue support for non-palladium equipped systems?
"Your trying to use what API? Oh.. that was before Palladium. We deprecated that a while ago, just use our new Palladium enhanced version now. It provides better security and support. Open source developer? No problems with that. Just so long as you cough up a nickel for every person that tries to use your program, we'll be happy to set up a key for you."
Which brings us to a point where *all* software has to be licensed through a key provider - and also a point where if the key provider decides they want more money (name me a corporation that wouldn't) they simply increase the charges and/or invalidate current keys.
Of course, the answer for all this is, "Well don't use it! Use Linux or something." Unfortunately, this assumes that we'll have the choice. The first attack on that choice is coming in the form of legislation. When hardware manufacturers are mandated to have security protocols in their hardware. The second attack is the weight of network effects. As I said, when even grandma uses Palladium, when every major company from here to Timbuktu uses it for the "security advantage", you really lose any choice to not use it. Oh I suppose you could try and be like those die-hards who still make use of FIDO, but beyond hobbyists, you completely lose the ability to connect to the world. This can go even further when major routing points start to use it to increase the security of the entire internet. Prevent DDOS attacks from those nasty non-Palladium machines out there by dropping their packets at the first router. Only Palladium Approved Packets will be accepted, thank you. At that point, even the die-hards will be forced to move to Palladium (or I suppose they could ressurect FIDO).
Now, will things get this bad? I don't know, this is kind of a worst case scenario, and we all know that it often doesn't get to the worst case. Unfortunately, I really don't see anything that would stop this scenario from happening.
Finally, on a side note, if you have even a minor knowledge about proper security precautions for your computer then your banking information is likely safer being on your computer than it is being in your wallet.
Who ensures they are complying with the settlement? A committee made up of Microsoft Board members. If this isn't letting the fox guard the hen-house, I'm not sure what is.
As to the specific API and OEM problems you point out, the API security loophole has already been discussed to death above, but examine the terms of these OEM deals. They only have to be put on a publically accessible website. Accessible doesn't necessarily mean findable, nor does it mean it has to stay in the same place. So how does any particular company know that they're looking at the same publically accessible page as any other company? If we assume (as we are) that MS is not a company that is above lying, deception, and illegal practices, please tell me why you think they'll play by the rules of the settlement? (ie, who's to say they won't create more than one "uniform terms agreement" depending on what they want, and show each various company a different one? Their watchdogs are themselves, remember.)
Finally, what are the penalties listed if they don't comply with this settlement (and it gets reported)? The settlement term is extended - which I guess means they won't be complying with it for a longer period.
In other words: If they didn't follow the terms of the consent decree they agreed to previously (and they didn't), what makes you think they'll follow the terms of this settlement?
I realize there are implementation details that make it an impossibility, but some costs should NOT be passed onto the consumer. For instance, environmental regulatory fines. They need to be paid by the COMPANY, not passed on to the customer, or else what's the point?
Duh.. the fines *are* paid by the company. Who is paid by the consumer. When the company is forced to raise its prices to maintain profits and cover the fines, they are at a competitive disadvantage with their customers. If they choose to take a loss on profits instead of raising price, now they're at a competitive disadvantage with their suppliers & stockholders.
The fine is not the punishment. The fine is what is supposedly used to try and fix the damage. The punishment is the competitive disadvantage that a fined company has to deal with.
I have been providing services to high-tech companies for a decade, and my business has outlived those of most of my clients, [emphasis added]
..sounds like you've been giving the exact same type of advice that Cringely is talking about.
I would think that a mark of success for an MBA providing services would be the number of companies that still are in business, rather than the number that aren't.
..you know if that story gets widespread, there'll be a law passed to stop us from "seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, or otherwise accessing material protected by copyright unless specific permission is received from the copyright owner."
Some would say that the only reason any competition has been restored is that MS took a short break from it's usual practices while the case was going on.
Let's face it, if it wasn't for the DOJ and those anti-trust laws, Microsoft likely would have purchased Apple outright as a defensive move. The only things that stopped them were that:
A. They needed somebody to be ostensibly "competing" with for the desktop. B. Apple, using their own (overpriced) hardware, was at best a weak threat to the PC desktop dominance.
Direct competitors for the PC desktop (OS/2, Be, etc) certainly had their share of problems, but can we honestly say the Windows of the time was actually better?
Finally - markets will eventually correct themselves, but why should we consign ourselves to waiting for that "eventually" to take place? If something is out of whack with the market, well, the market is a human development, we have every right to correct it so that it does as little harm as possible while it's out of whack.
if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell,
and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabili-
ties of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable opinion of Bit-
Mover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.</I>
Ouch.. so if I happen to be an accountant for a retail store that happens to sell something BitMover considers as a competing product, I can't use the free liscence to develop my accounting package?
Even though neither I, nor anybody else in my store, has anything to do with creating that competing product?
It doesn't matter if the person reads the EULA, mostly because there's really no way to prove whether or not the person read the EULA. In this context, clicking "accept" is as good as a signature. If you're curious, see ProCD v. Zeidenberg, one of the first clickwrap cases. It's a very good opinion reasoning why clickwraps should be binding.
Okay. Now show me (and the judge) the proof that: A. The agreement said what they say it said. B. I clicked accept.
Remember that programs including installs can be buggy, and sometimes even the bugs seem temporary.
"Honest, your honour, there was this blank screen that popped up with two blank buttons on it. I didn't know what to do so I clicked one and everything seemed to work out okay. No, I don't know how it could have happened, I'm no programmer. I do remember having to swap out my memory chips shortly after though 'cause they seemed to be doing funny things at the time."
1. the conduct of "circumvention" of technological protection measures that control access, and 2. trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that protects either access to a copyrighted work or that protects "the rights of the copyright owner".
These exemptions are required because the first restriction prevents people from enganging in fair use on items which the manufacturer's have not provided any means to do so, and the second exemption because any segment of code can be construed as a "component or part" of a restricted technology, product, service, or device. To make trafficking in any code whatsoever illegal impinges far greater restrictions on a far larger segment of the population than the current act protects.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't happen.
But the reason is simply because Windows is currently the "default" position.
Therefore, the only way someone can really switch from Linux to Windows is if they've already switched the other way.
But if somebody does this, it's not really thought of as "switching" but more of "I tried it and couldn't get my games/winmodem/word documents/something to work, so I just kept Windows."
So basically, it's a failed Windows to Linux switch, not a Linux to Windows switch.
..it's called "Employee Stock Options", and it's sold to Microsoft Employees in exchange for them receiving an otherwise mediocre wage.
When the price of the stock goes down, it ends up either increasing the real money that MS has to pay, or increasing the number of stock options they pay. Of course, the latter means that actually everybody's stock is slightly devalued, it's just that the ponzi effects haven't shown up yet.
Should the stock start to drop quickly, I'm betting the amount it will drop will be staggering as all of those employee shares start flooding onto the market.
When the MS bubble finally bursts (and if the company never pays dividends, sooner or later it will, just like any ponzi scheme) it's going to be sheer hell on the economy.
/I understand CD fabs are expensive,/
When you amortize the cost of a CD fab over the entire production run, it's small change. Most of what you pay in a CD goes to inflated marketing, legal fees, and the associated beauracracy of a major music publishing company.
So getting rid of the CD fab cost won't make a lick of difference.
Because the user hit a clickthrough EULA when they downloaded and installed Gator. ESA likely doesn't have a clickthrough EULA when you go onto their site.
Now, if somewhere on their site they have a "terms and conditions of use" link, and that link contains terms such as, "You agree to allow our ads to display on your screen while you surf our site", then Gator's up shoot creek.
Personally, I think the whole thing stinks since really it will only serve to further validate clickthrough EULA's authority.
If Fan X of Band X can't play his CD from Label A in his Car CD player, and when he contacts the company finds the response is along the lines of "Tough luck." Fan X will then join the boycott of Label A, and probably Label's B, C, and D as well, because Fan X isn't aware of what's actually going on, so stops buying CDs altogether.
Fan X is even likely to try out "that kazaa thing my kids/friends are talking about" in order to continue getting music.
For this reason, Phillips shouldn't be the only one going against BMI, but also every single label that doesn't use copy-protection on their CDs, because it's quite possible that copy-protected CDs will ruin it for the entire industry.
The elimination of corporations would place personal responsibility back into the hands of the private property owner. I have no incentive to pollute my property, as eventually, I have to sell it. Also, if I am polluting mine, I am probably polluting yours. Defend yours as a private property right.
I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.
Join a volunteer force, or are you too lazy? Oh, I see: The protection of your property is someone else's responsibilty. Personal protection is such that anyone who can carry a pistol can afford protection.
Because after all, we all have the extra time to be a volunteer policeman or fireman, rather than concentrating our efforts in the things that we're good at and can benefit the economy and our neighbors as a whole.
You also assume that you'll only ever be attacked by singular attackers. When the Hells Angels are bigger than your "volunteer" force, pray tell what do you do then? He with the biggest guns wins? Thanks, but I'd rather not live in the home-grown version of Afghanistan.
There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.
Try going back to economics 101, rather than ideology from-your-ass. The only thing that prevents monopolies are government laws and enforcements so that corporations are unable to go full-tilt. Or are you saying Microsoft was the result of government intervention?
Also, you might want to learn the difference between anarchism and libertarianism.
.. I'm pretty confident we'll see MS giving away Windows very soon after they get Palladium and Digital Restrictions Management up and running properly.
The reason being is that they know damn well that Palladium has the benefit of:
1. Consistent, adjustable revenue streams
2. Heavy network effects (as in, good luck finding an Open Office to translate Palladium documents)
3. Governmental backing
4. Removing unwanted illegal evidence
5. Burying free software.
The only trick to getting all of these is to get a widespread base of people using Palladium in the first place. What better way then to "concede" victory to Linux in the OS market and start giving away Windows? This would take away the one immediately tangible benefit that Linux boosters can point to.
My reasoning to these benefits can be found at this here.
If you just "Don't buy it", you're doing nothing to combat the network effects that may come to bear on you.
A better answer, "Don't buy it, and convince those around you to not buy it as well."
The whims of the poplulace changes daily. A look at pre-election polls over a period of a few weeks demonstrates this. The Electoral College helps filter these mood swings out.
So you're saying the Electoral College is free to vote any way they choose? Should the populace have a sudden rash of Naderism, vote 100% in his favor, the College is still free to choose Gush or Bore?
Don't think so.
The only thing the college is for is to grant low population states a greater voice in the selection. It doesn't "filter" a damn thing. If anything, it's an amplifier. It amplifies the choice of the slim majority in the state it speaks for.
Don't see why the press would scream. If they aren't counted, they aren't counted. They just sit in the boxes until it's time.
Hardly a first amendment issue. The press can report on the boxes all they want in the meantime. "That's right Bob, I'm down at the election office and the box is still sitting here."
"So nobody's touched it?"
"Not yet. It's locked in a secure room, and you can see it through the window to make sure that nobody is tampering with it. The official counters should be in in a few hours.."
So it's not the greatest story in the world, but hey, nobody'd be stopping them from telling it.
It can't be because we've managed to maintain a stable democratic system with only 1 civil war in 225 years.
Hardly a feat. Look at most of Western Europe and you'll see the same thing or better. Look north of you and you'll see a country that hasn't had a civil war since it originated. Look down under and you'll find another country that's been remarkably light on the civil wars. Heck, some would say that a single civil war in the last 225 years puts you in the lower half of the pack.
It cannot be because there is no credible threat that there will be a military junta, or an overthrow of civilian government.
This depends what you consider to be an overthrow of civilian government. Some would suggest your civilian government has already been overthrown by a corporate government. Beyond this, again, look at most of Western Europe, Australia, or Canada and you'll see the same thing, all with election systems different from yours.
It certainly can't be that the US Constitution is one of the most admired documents of governmental philosophy the world over.
Trust me, it isn't. Besides which, the parts of the US Constitution that are admired have little to do with the election process. Not to mention that the voting process in it has already been changed since its creation.
It can't be that the United States is not only the world's remaining superpower, but has the highest standard of living* of any country on the face of the earth.
* (not measured by some theoretical rating of quality of life, but measured by the number of people in the world who are risking their lives every day just to come here- I don't see shiploads of Chinese immigrants paying $30,000 each to get to Sweden or Denmark.)
I'll grant you the superpower status, but that has less to do with your electoral system than the military-industrial complex that was allowed to mature fully and wasn't wiped out by the 1st and 2nd world wars. It also has to do with the U.S's idea that they be ready at a moments notice to impose their will on any country in the world.
As to the quality of life = # of immigrants, might I suggest that this has as much to do with geography as anything else, and that you actually check your facts, such as immigration numbers to Australia, Canada, and Western Europe.
The longer I live, the more I respect the Founding Fathers' wisdom in what they did, why they did it, and why they protected it from change. There's always some goofball selling something, somewhere.
You should look into the Founding Fathers' a bit more. Part of their wisdom was that they were in favor of a complete constitutional review taking place at least every generation. Unlike you, they seemed to realize that times change, better ways can be found, and permanently tying yourself to something just because it's worked so far isn't the best strategy.
Heh I read that as "to ensure that the population does not leave the province."
Which makes more sense to my view. You don't like it? The door's open, don't let it hit yer ass on the way out.
With Palladium, etc. it will become possible for programs to keep especially sensitive data safe from malicious programs operating on the same machine. Now an attacker will have to not only subvert one of the programs that I have trusted, it will also have to defeat the Palladium system.
Yes. This is a very good thing.
However, the problem becomes when Palladium is the de-facto standard. When you need Palladium on to run pretty much anything, including seeing grandma's last e-mail, because her system uses Palladium by default, then we have a problem.
Palladium is a bad company's wet dream. Enron's accounting books could be completely unreadable to anything except for the computer they were created on -- "Oops! It got wiped.. sorry sir.." Those pesky e-mails that pointed out exactly how MS was trying to lean on other companies? You certainly wouldn't be able to get hold of them under a Palladium system.. even the copies over at the Netscape office could be set to "expire" and auto-delete themselves after a certain amount of time.
Or here's a fun one, EULAs that automagically update themselves from headoffice with no warning whatsoever to the user. It's bad enough now when to download a *required* security update, you are forced to accept a change in licensing. If you don't download the update, you lose the ability to obtain support, but at least right now you have the choice. Palladium gives the content owners, (which in this case is the folks who presented the contract) the ability to change the content at any time. Do you really believe that every company out there will be willing to resist temptation?
Plus, when it's the defacto standard, you start losing the widgets and API's that allow new software to be built without Palladium. After all, if MS can simply discontinue support for W98, what makes you think that they can't discontinue support for non-palladium equipped systems?
"Your trying to use what API? Oh.. that was before Palladium. We deprecated that a while ago, just use our new Palladium enhanced version now. It provides better security and support. Open source developer? No problems with that. Just so long as you cough up a nickel for every person that tries to use your program, we'll be happy to set up a key for you."
Which brings us to a point where *all* software has to be licensed through a key provider - and also a point where if the key provider decides they want more money (name me a corporation that wouldn't) they simply increase the charges and/or invalidate current keys.
Of course, the answer for all this is, "Well don't use it! Use Linux or something." Unfortunately, this assumes that we'll have the choice. The first attack on that choice is coming in the form of legislation. When hardware manufacturers are mandated to have security protocols in their hardware. The second attack is the weight of network effects. As I said, when even grandma uses Palladium, when every major company from here to Timbuktu uses it for the "security advantage", you really lose any choice to not use it. Oh I suppose you could try and be like those die-hards who still make use of FIDO, but beyond hobbyists, you completely lose the ability to connect to the world. This can go even further when major routing points start to use it to increase the security of the entire internet. Prevent DDOS attacks from those nasty non-Palladium machines out there by dropping their packets at the first router. Only Palladium Approved Packets will be accepted, thank you. At that point, even the die-hards will be forced to move to Palladium (or I suppose they could ressurect FIDO).
Now, will things get this bad? I don't know, this is kind of a worst case scenario, and we all know that it often doesn't get to the worst case. Unfortunately, I really don't see anything that would stop this scenario from happening.
Finally, on a side note, if you have even a minor knowledge about proper security precautions for your computer then your banking information is likely safer being on your computer than it is being in your wallet.
Kwil
Look further.
Who ensures they are complying with the settlement? A committee made up of Microsoft
Board members. If this isn't letting the fox guard the hen-house, I'm not sure what is.
As to the specific API and OEM problems you point out, the API security loophole has already been discussed to death above, but examine the terms of these OEM deals. They only have to be put on a publically accessible website. Accessible doesn't necessarily mean findable, nor does it mean it has to stay in the same place. So how does any particular company know that they're looking at the same publically accessible page as any other company? If we assume (as we are) that MS is not a company that is above lying, deception, and illegal practices, please tell me why you think they'll play by the rules of the settlement? (ie, who's to say they won't create more than one "uniform terms agreement" depending on what they want, and show each various company a different one? Their watchdogs are themselves, remember.)
Finally, what are the penalties listed if they don't comply with this settlement (and it gets reported)? The settlement term is extended - which I guess means they won't be complying with it for a longer period.
In other words:
If they didn't follow the terms of the consent decree they agreed to previously (and they didn't), what makes you think they'll follow the terms of this settlement?
If any of us had tried to pull this kind of shit in court, we'd be like the guy on goatse.cx by now.
Well how's that for a coincidence. Because MS does get away with this kind of shit in court, we *are* like the guy on goatse.cx.
The only question left is "Do you prefer to be called Mr. Dover, or Ben?"
Read the whole thing. That sentence is part of (b), which is a second condition under which they can choose to with-hold.
I realize there are implementation details that make it an impossibility, but some costs should NOT be passed onto the consumer. For instance, environmental regulatory fines. They need to be paid by the COMPANY, not passed on to the customer, or else what's the point?
Duh.. the fines *are* paid by the company. Who is paid by the consumer. When the company is forced to raise its prices to maintain profits and cover the fines, they are at a competitive disadvantage with their customers. If they choose to take a loss on profits instead of raising price, now they're at a competitive disadvantage with their suppliers & stockholders.
The fine is not the punishment. The fine is what is supposedly used to try and fix the damage. The punishment is the competitive disadvantage that a fined company has to deal with.
I have been providing services to high-tech companies for a decade, and my business has outlived those of most of my clients, [emphasis added]
I would think that a mark of success for an MBA providing services would be the number of companies that still are in business, rather than the number that aren't.
But I guess that's why I'm not an MBA.
..you know if that story gets widespread, there'll be a law passed to stop us from "seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, or otherwise accessing material protected by copyright unless specific permission is received from the copyright owner."
Some would say that the only reason any competition has been restored is that MS took a short break from it's usual practices while the case was going on.
Let's face it, if it wasn't for the DOJ and those anti-trust laws, Microsoft likely would have purchased Apple outright as a defensive move. The only things that stopped them were that:
A. They needed somebody to be ostensibly "competing" with for the desktop.
B. Apple, using their own (overpriced) hardware, was at best a weak threat to the PC desktop dominance.
Direct competitors for the PC desktop (OS/2, Be, etc) certainly had their share of problems, but can we honestly say the Windows of the time was actually better?
Finally - markets will eventually correct themselves, but why should we consign ourselves to waiting for that "eventually" to take place? If something is out of whack with the market, well, the market is a human development, we have every right to correct it so that it does as little harm as possible while it's out of whack.
..when they've already got the patent on DRM enabled OS's?
if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell,
and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabili-
ties of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reasonable opinion of Bit-
Mover, competes with the BitKeeper Software.</I>
Ouch.. so if I happen to be an accountant for a retail store that happens to sell something BitMover considers as a competing product, I can't use the free liscence to develop my accounting package?
Even though neither I, nor anybody else in my store, has anything to do with creating that competing product?
This strikes me as just a tad unreasonable.
It doesn't matter if the person reads the EULA, mostly because there's really no way to prove whether or not the person read the EULA. In this context, clicking "accept" is as good as a signature. If you're curious, see ProCD v. Zeidenberg, one of the first clickwrap cases. It's a very good opinion reasoning why clickwraps should be binding.
Okay. Now show me (and the judge) the proof that:
A. The agreement said what they say it said.
B. I clicked accept.
Remember that programs including installs can be buggy, and sometimes even the bugs seem temporary.
"Honest, your honour, there was this blank screen that popped up with two blank buttons on it. I didn't know what to do so I clicked one and everything seemed to work out okay. No, I don't know how it could have happened, I'm no programmer. I do remember having to swap out my memory chips shortly after though 'cause they seemed to be doing funny things at the time."
Ah.. we need an exemption on:
1. the conduct of "circumvention" of technological protection measures that control access, and
2. trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that protects either access to a copyrighted work or that protects "the rights of the copyright owner".
These exemptions are required because the first restriction prevents people from enganging in fair use on items which the manufacturer's have not provided any means to do so, and the second exemption because any segment of code can be construed as a "component or part" of a restricted technology, product, service, or device. To make trafficking in any code whatsoever illegal impinges far greater restrictions on a far larger segment of the population than the current act protects.
What about Robin Hood?