If XP is just 95 plus the illegal crap, then maybe it should be banned altogether?
Or, did you mean to suggest that if you want a better product over time you must also give up your right to pick and choose the software you buy and use?
The point is that Microsoft decides the issue for you.
If you land upon a RealMedia file or some other data and you do not have the appropriate reader, then yes, you will paused.
But, if the same event takes place with Microsoft applications or Microsoft media, you are forced to run the application you were forced to buy, install, maintain and support.
You also falsely concluded that only the Microsoft application could support it. That may not be the case at all. But, the fake settlement grants to Microsoft the unilateral choice of claiming that is the case and forcing the user to run the Microsoft application. The fake settlement does not require Microsoft to be correct, reasonable or anything else.
Anything from help files to short media clips can be used by the OS to force the use of the Microsoft brand of product.
RealMedia can not do that. Neither can anyone else. It may be that you are denied using some data in some other format, but Microsoft Corporation and only Microsoft Corporation will in fact force all consumers to buy its products and have the ability to force their use.
Hint: Forced use would not be employed nor would it work if consumers were given discounts to leave the Microsoft applications at the store would it?
And, deleting a few icons also means nothing.
So, all the developers who want to benefit from the forced sale of Microsoft products will continue to rely upon them. And, screw all consumers in the process.
The point being that it is the forced sale and distribution of Microsoft technology that is protected by the fake settlement. And, the fake settlement also grants to Microsoft the ability to force the use of that same technology.
Icon removal only fools the fools.
The fake settlement and any compliance with the fake settlement likewise only fools the fools.
If the toy is only $.02 worth, then that is your discount. If the toy adds $.50 then that is your discount.
Check out the facts before you use false information to deceive others.
Hint: The $50 is the max discount based upon an allocation related to R&D expenses. So, if the R&D for the crap is less than 25% of the total R&D, then your discount is less.
Unless the products are sold separately. Then the discound has to adjust for the separate prices charged.
It is pretty simple. And, unlike your suggestion it is not requiring a $50 discount for a $.02 toy.
The fake settlement does not permit your defaults to work anyway.
The fake settlement spells out the circumstances when the OS (Microsoft) can ignore your settings. And, everything that determines that is under the unilateral control of Microsoft.
As a user, you are out of the picture completely.
Read the fake settlement. Locate the discussion explaining the circumstances when Microsoft branded technology can be triggered by the OS (written by Microsoft, right?).
It is right there in the fake settlement. If the data format for key files changes for whatever reason and only the Microsoft brand supports the changed format or data, the Microsoft branded product will fire up.
As a user you have no choice at all. The DOJ gave that power to Microsoft Corporation.
Microsoft can continue to bundled products as it damn well pleases requardless of what the product does.
Microsoft can force users to run the Microsoft product simply by providing data files, formats, etc., that only its crap can support.
And, all developers know that all systems will be preloaded with the Microsoft brand of middlewear and key applications.
Microsoft could not ask for more if they wanted to.
The fake settlement was written by Microsoft to solidify the monopolies in browsers, media players and messaging. Under the fake settlement, Microsoft has more power than before the law suit was even filed.
Thing is that patents are much like two 6 year olds talking in private.... "I show you mine if you show me yours".
Lawyers sort of like treat patents like they would a n old deck of cards.....playing poker of course.... if you do not come with a few of your own... you have to pay up front to fund the kittie...or is it you fund the kiddie anyway but do not admit to bringing some of your own cards....
I think in the end, you have to bring some of your own cards or the game does not even out.
But, patents only last 17 years or so. So, you best hope to hold off until year 21xx?...or was that 23xx?
No. Wait a minute. These temporal problem are tricky. A patent runs off into the future as far as suing someone. But, if the invention was obvious, that could relate back to the past (or present, whenever you saw the show)....
I think you could be block from suing Capt Kirk. By the time his time arrives, your 17 years is gone. Plus, he could argue that you saw his show prior to your inventing the matter transport device. So, to you, it was obvious, you loose. Or, for him, your time ran out.
If the idea is not novel or unique it may still be disqualified for a patent.
I am not aware of any patent being disqualified because of a sci-fi show. But, it could happen.
Patents can be denied because the idea was just obvious. So, your matter transporter could be classified as such. Although in today's science that would not be the case because we do not know how to do that yet. Now, most likely the first fellow to build one will have done so because of some science that was not at all obvious (even though the need was all over the Trek shows).
But, the technique for a simple one step check out is not unique at all.
The point here is that being first in the patent line with the paperwork is not enough. It has to be patentable. And, in part that means "non obvious".
It is not that software patents are bad or good. It is not even required that they be fully litigated.
But, few software patents truly deserve that kind of protection.
Years ago someone filed a patent for a new novel idea he had for cleaning the manure from the cow barns. He unleashed a torrent of water and away the filth went.
The patent was denied. Why? Because many years before Spartacus or Hercules did the same thing by diverting the flow of a local stream. It was not a novel or unique idea. It worked back then. It worked now.
The same is true with the one-click patent.
How many years ago do you think the farmer came into town, dropped by the general store, grabbed a bag of rice and gave the shopkeeper a high sign as he left? Is that not "one click"? Sounds like it to me. And, that was a long time ago.
Reducing the number of steps required to complete a task is not a novel or unique idea. Should we grant a patent to the 5-step guy? And, then the 4-step guy? And, then the 3-step guy?
It is really too bad that more patents are not fully litigated. It might remove most of them from the books.
Hey. I am all for protections of intellectual property. But, they should be ligitimate patents. And, despite the claims, very few new or novel ideas actually are developed in software. Almost all are simply variations on a theme. And, the problem with most software patent applications is that they fail to fully disclose the pre-existing work that has been around for years. And, yes, the failure to so disclose is one reason for disqualification of a patent.
Of course political contributions could be the reason that the DOJ refuses to enforce the antitrust laws even after winning the case. But, it may just be an ideological bent.
The Cato Institute does not really support Microsoft in its defense. It just believes the government should not have antitrust laws nor enforce the ones they have.
To be honest, it is most likely not the money at all.
Of course, telling the judge that the DOJ did not try because she would not order a more appropriate remedy is a waste of breath. One of the reports suggested that the judge was asking if the DOJ position is not at odds with the appellate decision. It clearly is. And, she knows it. She went on to ask "why?".
No doubt that Microsoft is beginning to feel the heat coming from linux or more specifically open source.
Microsoft would like nothing better than to require all competing products to pay the high R&D expenses necessary to completely replace everything they can bundle up.
On that basis, Microsoft is free from any chance of competition.
And, that is the main reason why unbundling windows is so important. Developers should not have to abandon the windows platform just to avoid ongoing illegal activity from Microsoft. Developers (large and small) have a right to develop a media player or browser and compete openly and fairly in the market for sales.
Of course, Microsoft wants to force anyone with such intentions to also develop an entire operating system and browser (or media player) as well. And, of course, try to penetrate those two monopolies as well. And, do without Word too.
That is why Microsoft will try again to convince the court that IE can not be separated from their OS notwithstanding the appellate court already having decided commingling code was illegal.
Eric Raymond is essentially correct on his assessment.
I am not sure if the $350 price point is the magic number but it could be that it is. Keep in mind that Wal-Mart now sells a 1 gig, 128 MB PC for $399 sans OS and monitor. PCs have been quoted sans monitor since the beginning of time. And, with the wide availability of free copies of linux in books and via download plus a lot of old copies of windows laying around, PCs sans the OS are marketable. Wal-mart thinks so. The white box boys know so. So too do the vendors that sell motherboards, chips and other parts as ordered by the most qualified of all buyers.
The interesting observation is the great sensitivity to this cheap PC issue during the DOJ antitrust trial. Microsoft tried very hard to convince the judge and the world that a typical PC costs $2000. The only reason for that is to downplay the impact of a $200-250 OS price from Microsoft. If PCs cost $2000, then the OS from the monopolist is only 10% or so of the total price. However, as Raymond points out, if the price is $350 or so, the OS from Microsoft could be 57% of the price. All of sudden, PCs sans OS are a lot cheaper. And, pricing PCs without monitors was engaged in as a practice to attract potential customers to the store. (Clearly no OEM thought a PC could be used without a monitor. And, few potential customers have spare monitors in their closet they want to use.)
The whole issue puts an interesting spin on the remedy proposed by the litigating states. Selling a bare bones OS may save Microsoft. It certainly reduces the burn of a $200-250 package included as part of a minimum purchase. This high minimum price also explains why the advertising from Microsoft often suggests that every single PC must have a browser, media player and any other gizmo software package that Gates thinks is neat. Gates can not be so stupid to think that all PCs do the same thing. Clearly he has more intelligence than that. It is simply a campaign to convince all consumers to not object to being forced to buy a whole pile of Microsoft branded applications before a competitor can make an impact on the market. Forcing the sale of the Microsoft branded media player is the next big push or force being applied to consumers. And, they are being forced to buy it if Microsoft and the DOJ can possibly do it.
The problem is (as Raymond points out) that all consumers are harmed by the process. Business computers may have no need for a media player. And, they certainly would prefer not to be forced to buy it for all employees. A media player is not going to increase the productivity of employees except in certain limited circumstances. And, if any customer has those circumstances, clearly they would prefer to pick and choose just which technology is best for their needs. Of course, the Microsoft plan is to prevent all customers from having that choice. The DOJ plan is likewise. The DOJ is now seeking to preclude all consumers from being to avoid buying a whole range of Microsoft branded products.
It is going to take more than just the while box boys and Wal-Mart. It will require IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell and others to sell PCs sans the OS (or PCs with a bare bones windows). Strange as it may seem, the litigating States may help save Microsoft from oblivian. Actually, Microsoft may figure this out on its own, although it may be too late by then.
There is no doubt that windows will remain popular as long as indiviudals can avoid paying the Microsoft prices. That has been true for quite some time.
Of course, Microsoft wants to make that process more difficult if not impossible. Clearly product activation makes it inconvenient even for those who do pay.
The result is that the price of windows goes up, temporarily revenue for Microsoft goes up or stablizes but eventually revenue for Microsoft goes down. As it goes down, Microsoft will counter by further increasing the price. And, in turn that hasten the trend.
Eventually, Microsoft will either compete on price with linux or loose out completely. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Microsoft could end up in a position similar to Apple. A premium priced product maintaining a small percentage of the market.
Right now linux software can and most likely is advancing faster than windows stuff. In time, it will catch up. When it does, it is all over for Microsoft.
Key will be the adoption of linux on the desktop for major OEMs like IBM, Hp, Compaq, Dell, GateWay and others. It is one thing to sell PCs sans OS like Wal-Mart. It is another for an IBM to do for linux on the desktop what it has already done for linux on servers.
It is about time that Be filed their law suit. But, Be is not the only company yet to file their law suit.
IBM is still there in the dug-out. SUN is on deck. And, RealNetworks is no doubt talking to the coach. And, it hard to tell whether Gateway, HP and others might also join in the fun.
Just remember, antitrust law has nothing to do with "your" choices or desires. It is about making sure that all consumers have choices and alternatives.
The universe does not rotate around Redmond and only the innovation and products with the Microsoft brand can count. Microsoft may be arrogant enough to think so and dumb enough to still not understand the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of the rating, the statements are true.
That is why Microsoft likes the fake settlement so much. It grants to them more than they had before they began violating the law.
If XP is just 95 plus the illegal crap, then maybe it should be banned altogether?
Or, did you mean to suggest that if you want a better product over time you must also give up your right to pick and choose the software you buy and use?
Sure you can forget XP.
But, that is not the same as condoning illegal business practices.
Microsoft's illegal practices harm all consumers and all developers in the industry as well.
The point is that Microsoft decides the issue for you.
If you land upon a RealMedia file or some other data and you do not have the appropriate reader, then yes, you will paused.
But, if the same event takes place with Microsoft applications or Microsoft media, you are forced to run the application you were forced to buy, install, maintain and support.
You also falsely concluded that only the Microsoft application could support it. That may not be the case at all. But, the fake settlement grants to Microsoft the unilateral choice of claiming that is the case and forcing the user to run the Microsoft application. The fake settlement does not require Microsoft to be correct, reasonable or anything else.
Anything from help files to short media clips can be used by the OS to force the use of the Microsoft brand of product.
RealMedia can not do that. Neither can anyone else. It may be that you are denied using some data in some other format, but Microsoft Corporation and only Microsoft Corporation will in fact force all consumers to buy its products and have the ability to force their use.
Hint: Forced use would not be employed nor would it work if consumers were given discounts to leave the Microsoft applications at the store would it?
And, deleting a few icons also means nothing.
So, all the developers who want to benefit from the forced sale of Microsoft products will continue to rely upon them. And, screw all consumers in the process.
The point being that it is the forced sale and distribution of Microsoft technology that is protected by the fake settlement. And, the fake settlement also grants to Microsoft the ability to force the use of that same technology.
Icon removal only fools the fools.
The fake settlement and any compliance with the fake settlement likewise only fools the fools.
Read the proposed remedy.
If the toy is only $.02 worth, then that is your discount. If the toy adds $.50 then that is your discount.
Check out the facts before you use false information to deceive others.
Hint: The $50 is the max discount based upon an allocation related to R&D expenses. So, if the R&D for the crap is less than 25% of the total R&D, then your discount is less.
Unless the products are sold separately. Then the discound has to adjust for the separate prices charged.
It is pretty simple. And, unlike your suggestion it is not requiring a $50 discount for a $.02 toy.
The fake settlement does not permit your defaults to work anyway.
The fake settlement spells out the circumstances when the OS (Microsoft) can ignore your settings. And, everything that determines that is under the unilateral control of Microsoft.
As a user, you are out of the picture completely.
Read the fake settlement. Locate the discussion explaining the circumstances when Microsoft branded technology can be triggered by the OS (written by Microsoft, right?).
It is right there in the fake settlement. If the data format for key files changes for whatever reason and only the Microsoft brand supports the changed format or data, the Microsoft branded product will fire up.
As a user you have no choice at all. The DOJ gave that power to Microsoft Corporation.
Microsoft loves the fake settlement.
Microsoft can continue to bundled products as it damn well pleases requardless of what the product does.
Microsoft can force users to run the Microsoft product simply by providing data files, formats, etc., that only its crap can support.
And, all developers know that all systems will be preloaded with the Microsoft brand of middlewear and key applications.
Microsoft could not ask for more if they wanted to.
The fake settlement was written by Microsoft to solidify the monopolies in browsers, media players and messaging. Under the fake settlement, Microsoft has more power than before the law suit was even filed.
TheRegister article is better.
Somebody bought it, right?
Well. Who ever it was deserves a $50 or more discount if they do not want the Microsoft branded products.
It is just like when a friend of yours buys the happy meal but you did not want the toy. You should have advised them to buy a meal without the toy.
Do you really want to pay for something you have said you do not want?
Under the States' remedy you would get a discount of $50 or more.
not according to Mr. Dyer.
He approves my posts and rates them highly.
According to Allchin (under oath) the GPL is one reason that Microsoft does not ship a SUN JVM.
Go figure.
I guess if you are going to lie to the judge, it might as well be an obvious one.
I would skip Cnet.
They engage in censorship.
Check it out.
ZDnet has imposed a ban on views contrary to Microsoft.
You can check out my web site for the so-called reasons.
There is a much better argument that government money should be restricted to GPL work.
After all, it is someone elses money being spent.
..yea perhaps....
.... "I show you mine if you show me yours".
...or is it you fund the kiddie anyway but do not admit to bringing some of your own cards....
Thing is that patents are much like two 6 year olds talking in private
Lawyers sort of like treat patents like they would a n old deck of cards.....playing poker of course.... if you do not come with a few of your own... you have to pay up front to fund the kittie
I think in the end, you have to bring some of your own cards or the game does not even out.
Yea. Not a bad idea.
...or was that 23xx?
....
But, patents only last 17 years or so. So, you best hope to hold off until year 21xx?
No. Wait a minute. These temporal problem are tricky. A patent runs off into the future as far as suing someone. But, if the invention was obvious, that could relate back to the past (or present, whenever you saw the show)
I think you could be block from suing Capt Kirk. By the time his time arrives, your 17 years is gone. Plus, he could argue that you saw his show prior to your inventing the matter transport device. So, to you, it was obvious, you loose. Or, for him, your time ran out.
Geez. Patents do get tricky.
It may not matter.
If the idea is not novel or unique it may still be disqualified for a patent.
I am not aware of any patent being disqualified because of a sci-fi show. But, it could happen.
Patents can be denied because the idea was just obvious. So, your matter transporter could be classified as such. Although in today's science that would not be the case because we do not know how to do that yet. Now, most likely the first fellow to build one will have done so because of some science that was not at all obvious (even though the need was all over the Trek shows).
But, the technique for a simple one step check out is not unique at all.
The point here is that being first in the patent line with the paperwork is not enough. It has to be patentable. And, in part that means "non obvious".
It is not that software patents are bad or good. It is not even required that they be fully litigated.
But, few software patents truly deserve that kind of protection.
Years ago someone filed a patent for a new novel idea he had for cleaning the manure from the cow barns. He unleashed a torrent of water and away the filth went.
The patent was denied. Why? Because many years before Spartacus or Hercules did the same thing by diverting the flow of a local stream. It was not a novel or unique idea. It worked back then. It worked now.
The same is true with the one-click patent.
How many years ago do you think the farmer came into town, dropped by the general store, grabbed a bag of rice and gave the shopkeeper a high sign as he left? Is that not "one click"? Sounds like it to me. And, that was a long time ago.
Reducing the number of steps required to complete a task is not a novel or unique idea. Should we grant a patent to the 5-step guy? And, then the 4-step guy? And, then the 3-step guy?
It is really too bad that more patents are not fully litigated. It might remove most of them from the books.
Hey. I am all for protections of intellectual property. But, they should be ligitimate patents. And, despite the claims, very few new or novel ideas actually are developed in software. Almost all are simply variations on a theme. And, the problem with most software patent applications is that they fail to fully disclose the pre-existing work that has been around for years. And, yes, the failure to so disclose is one reason for disqualification of a patent.
Of course political contributions could be the reason that the DOJ refuses to enforce the antitrust laws even after winning the case. But, it may just be an ideological bent.
The Cato Institute does not really support Microsoft in its defense. It just believes the government should not have antitrust laws nor enforce the ones they have.
To be honest, it is most likely not the money at all.
Of course, telling the judge that the DOJ did not try because she would not order a more appropriate remedy is a waste of breath. One of the reports suggested that the judge was asking if the DOJ position is not at odds with the appellate decision. It clearly is. And, she knows it. She went on to ask "why?".
No doubt that Microsoft is beginning to feel the heat coming from linux or more specifically open source.
Microsoft would like nothing better than to require all competing products to pay the high R&D expenses necessary to completely replace everything they can bundle up.
On that basis, Microsoft is free from any chance of competition.
And, that is the main reason why unbundling windows is so important. Developers should not have to abandon the windows platform just to avoid ongoing illegal activity from Microsoft. Developers (large and small) have a right to develop a media player or browser and compete openly and fairly in the market for sales.
Of course, Microsoft wants to force anyone with such intentions to also develop an entire operating system and browser (or media player) as well. And, of course, try to penetrate those two monopolies as well. And, do without Word too.
That is why Microsoft will try again to convince the court that IE can not be separated from their OS notwithstanding the appellate court already having decided commingling code was illegal.
It is pretty funny that Microsoft only asks that those States not agreeing with it must be removed from the case.
It just shows how cheap and poor their legal reasoning is.
Eric Raymond is essentially correct on his assessment.
I am not sure if the $350 price point is the magic number but it could be that it is. Keep in mind that Wal-Mart now sells a 1 gig, 128 MB PC for $399 sans OS and monitor. PCs have been quoted sans monitor since the beginning of time. And, with the wide availability of free copies of linux in books and via download plus a lot of old copies of windows laying around, PCs sans the OS are marketable. Wal-mart thinks so. The white box boys know so. So too do the vendors that sell motherboards, chips and other parts as ordered by the most qualified of all buyers.
The interesting observation is the great sensitivity to this cheap PC issue during the DOJ antitrust trial. Microsoft tried very hard to convince the judge and the world that a typical PC costs $2000. The only reason for that is to downplay the impact of a $200-250 OS price from Microsoft. If PCs cost $2000, then the OS from the monopolist is only 10% or so of the total price. However, as Raymond points out, if the price is $350 or so, the OS from Microsoft could be 57% of the price. All of sudden, PCs sans OS are a lot cheaper. And, pricing PCs without monitors was engaged in as a practice to attract potential customers to the store. (Clearly no OEM thought a PC could be used without a monitor. And, few potential customers have spare monitors in their closet they want to use.)
The whole issue puts an interesting spin on the remedy proposed by the litigating states. Selling a bare bones OS may save Microsoft. It certainly reduces the burn of a $200-250 package included as part of a minimum purchase. This high minimum price also explains why the advertising from Microsoft often suggests that every single PC must have a browser, media player and any other gizmo software package that Gates thinks is neat. Gates can not be so stupid to think that all PCs do the same thing. Clearly he has more intelligence than that. It is simply a campaign to convince all consumers to not object to being forced to buy a whole pile of Microsoft branded applications before a competitor can make an impact on the market. Forcing the sale of the Microsoft branded media player is the next big push or force being applied to consumers. And, they are being forced to buy it if Microsoft and the DOJ can possibly do it.
The problem is (as Raymond points out) that all consumers are harmed by the process. Business computers may have no need for a media player. And, they certainly would prefer not to be forced to buy it for all employees. A media player is not going to increase the productivity of employees except in certain limited circumstances. And, if any customer has those circumstances, clearly they would prefer to pick and choose just which technology is best for their needs. Of course, the Microsoft plan is to prevent all customers from having that choice. The DOJ plan is likewise. The DOJ is now seeking to preclude all consumers from being to avoid buying a whole range of Microsoft branded products.
It is going to take more than just the while box boys and Wal-Mart. It will require IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell and others to sell PCs sans the OS (or PCs with a bare bones windows). Strange as it may seem, the litigating States may help save Microsoft from oblivian. Actually, Microsoft may figure this out on its own, although it may be too late by then.
There is no doubt that windows will remain popular as long as indiviudals can avoid paying the Microsoft prices. That has been true for quite some time.
Of course, Microsoft wants to make that process more difficult if not impossible. Clearly product activation makes it inconvenient even for those who do pay.
The result is that the price of windows goes up, temporarily revenue for Microsoft goes up or stablizes but eventually revenue for Microsoft goes down. As it goes down, Microsoft will counter by further increasing the price. And, in turn that hasten the trend.
Eventually, Microsoft will either compete on price with linux or loose out completely. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that Microsoft could end up in a position similar to Apple. A premium priced product maintaining a small percentage of the market.
Right now linux software can and most likely is advancing faster than windows stuff. In time, it will catch up. When it does, it is all over for Microsoft.
Key will be the adoption of linux on the desktop for major OEMs like IBM, Hp, Compaq, Dell, GateWay and others. It is one thing to sell PCs sans OS like Wal-Mart. It is another for an IBM to do for linux on the desktop what it has already done for linux on servers.
It is about time that Be filed their law suit. But, Be is not the only company yet to file their law suit.
IBM is still there in the dug-out. SUN is on deck. And, RealNetworks is no doubt talking to the coach. And, it hard to tell whether Gateway, HP and others might also join in the fun.
Just remember, antitrust law has nothing to do with "your" choices or desires. It is about making sure that all consumers have choices and alternatives.
The universe does not rotate around Redmond and only the innovation and products with the Microsoft brand can count. Microsoft may be arrogant enough to think so and dumb enough to still not understand the law.