Microsoft will never comply with the antitrust laws.
Why?
Because they now know that ignoring them for 5-6 years is highly profitable and the chances are excellent that a stupid and ignorant DOJ will grant to them the monopoly markets they gain illegally.
That will remain true until "stockholders" demand a different conduct.
If SUN gets a billion or so judgment it will not change.
If SUN gets a Sun Compliant JVM distributed with the Microsoft OS, it will not change.
If BE gets a billion, it will not change.
Even if AOL gets 10 billion in damages, it will not change.
It will only change when and if the courts order Microsoft to sell separate products separately and cease illegal bundling and commingling.
But, as we have seen the appellate courts can find commingling to be illegal yet the DOJ (as stupid and ignorant as they are) will refuse to prevent even proven violations from occuring.
I can not think as anything as stupid as what the DOJ has done. The DOJ has endorsed illegal activity AFTER the appellate court ruled on the issues. And, the illegal acts continue to harm consumers and the computer software industry.
And, they know it was stupid. They had to misrepresent what the law actually is in order to rationalize their decisions.
Fortunately, the DOJ only decides what cases they will bring contrary to the claim from those idiots that they decide antitrust policy for the US Government. They simply do not. They only decide what the executive branch will enforce or ignore. And, there is a very big difference.
In the US, Congress decides how the antitrust laws will read (not the DOJ). And, the courts interpret them (again, not the DOJ).
In fact, the DOJ is only given authority to enforce those laws to permit a more efficient legal system whereby violators can be kept in check without an enormous number of private antitrust law suits mucking up the courts. But, guess what? The DOJ refuses to act. And, the result is that the States try to take over some of the action. And, consumers, AOL, SUN, Burst and BE have to file their own private law suits anyway.
And, since this article relates to the EU activity, the EU must then also act to make certain that their laws are not violated as well. The EU does not decide what the US laws will restrict. But, they do decide which products can be sold in their market without being illegal. And, as was the case in the IBM antitrust case, the EU ends up being the only effective player. That may turn out to be true again. Only this time consumers and a number of major corporations are also suing for financial damanges and additional injunctions.
If you are a software developer, you should by all means be pulling for AOL in their law suit. That suit may open up an enormous number of software markets now effectively closed to you.
Consumers do care what they buy. They always have.
Consumers care what food they eat.
Consumers care what clothes they wear.
Consumers care what applications they run.
Consumers care what applications they buy.
Any person who claims that consumers do not care which products they buy is a liar, dead certain.
Why?
Because they themselves care with every purchase they make.
Do not confuse being forced to buy products with the lack of caring.
Almost four hundred million consumers have been forced to buy IE. But, anyone is an idiot for suggesting that consumers do not wish to exercise their right to decide which products they buy in any product category or market.
Yes, they want it to work. But, no body is stupid enough to suggest that all consumers would not care if they were forced to buy a FORD. A FORD runs just as good as a Chevy, right?
It is just outright silly to suggest that consumers do not want to decide what they buy. Only idiots make that claim.
If you bought from Microsoft anytime after the very first release of Win95 you were in fact forced to buy IE.
There is no other choice permitted by Microsoft Corporation. PERIOD. YOU MUST IN FACT PAY CASH FOR IE IF YOU BUY WINDOWS.
Is it impossible to buy a PC without Windows?
No. You can do that. Walmart will sell you one. And, many white box boys were sell you one. And, you can buy the parts too.
But, lying about paying cash for IE when you buy Windows is just an outright lie because it is not possible to do otherwise and has not been possible since the very first issue of Win95. That means for the last 6 years it was impossible to do.
And, that is why Microsoft now has a monopoly position in browsers.
Claim that you use Mozilla does not affect the fact you paid cash money for IE on Win 2K.
Even Microsoft says so.
Microsoft says 20% of the price you paid went toward "unearned revenue" which they say includes IE.
You may not have paid a cash amount for Mozilla (although you can), but you were literally forced to do so with Win 2K because Microsoft gives you no other choice.
If you buy Win 2K, you buy IE.
And, if you want to claim it is okay to be forced to buy a product as long as you claim you do not use it, I have a lot of stuff to sell you. Why should Gates be the only one to screw you?
As for IE you are forced to buy it, install it, maintain it, support it and in a number of instances actually use it.
YOUR claim to be able to buy a Chevy is of no value with the fact of the matter is that everyone must first buy a FORD.
Assuming that were the case with automobiles, that is. It is not with cars, as we all know. It is with browsers, as we all know.
But, some will still argue that being forced to buy a FORD each time you shop for a car is okay because you are free to buy a Chevy afterwards. But, then those people do not even believe themselves.
Just remember that IE started with a zero percent share.
It was the illegal use of the OS monopoly that gave MS the monopoly in browsers.
And, it is the illegal bundling of IE with the OS that will maintain it as long as the OS is dominant.
You will buy IE again and again no matter what you think, want or need.
You may not like AOL, but the AOL law suit is about the only hope that fair and open markets will exist on the Microsoft platforms until such as they are eliminated.
The stupid DOJ wants a monopoly in browsers for Microsoft. The DOJ wants a monopoly in media players for Microsoft too.
If MS does not engage in any illegal acts there is no problem.
If MS did not bundle IE, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
If MS had honored the consent decree, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
There are a lot of ways by which products and services can be tied in an illegal manner. If MS does none of those, no problem. Right?
If you do not see how MS could use or is using their monopolies it force its way into the cell phone market, then either they are not violating any laws or you do not see it or understand it.
For the most part violations of antitrust law have little to do with how successful your illegal acts are. Or even if they were necessary.
There exceptions such as charges of attempted monopolization where somewhat in excess of 50% of the market is the benchmark for that charge. And, that is why Microsoft has not yet been convicted of attempted monopolization of the browser market. It is not because they have not tried that. And, it is not because they have not done it. It is only because the appellate court could only review the facts as of the time of the trial. And, at that time 50% or so was the magic number.
But, the issue here for the EU is the use of the OS monopoly to force the use of other technology in a number of other markets. The EU is about to announce their decision in regard to the media player and server tie-ins. This article just points out that they have a heads on possible illegal acts in regard to the cell phone services as well. But, do not worry if Microsoft does not in fact try to make an illegal tie with the cell phone services, nothing the EU does will affect them.
The EU is certainly not going to penalize MS because of what they might do. But, making sure Microsoft does not violate the laws again in the same manner as they clearly have to date is just good planning.
If you are one of those who claim the browser wars are over so get over it, then you must agree to prohibit Microsoft from even thinking about repeating that kind of illegal act. The browser wars are not over. It is not even a war. Fair and open competition is still precluded by illegal acts. But, any market can recover once illegal acts cease.
Do not worry. If each consumer has to pay $35 for IE or leave it at the store, a very high percentage will leave it or buy another brand. But, as long as the DOJ also favors forcing the sale of IE upon everyone, there will be no competition. The monopoly in browsers will be maintained indefinately. Or, at least until the monopoly OS goes away.
You can say whatever you wish. But, if Bill and Steve have to show up all the time to permit a lower sales price (special deal), Microsoft is in trouble. If Bill or Steve were worth their salaries, the price would go up when they visit not down.
Regardless of the reason, Microsoft is beginning to feel the price pressure. And, it will never let up. Just remember for Microsoft to discount 10% on price is about the same as losing a 10% share of the market. At least on day one it is.
If you combine a price decrease (or special concession) with a loss in market share the impact can be significant. Remember in most markets Microsoft can not increase sales by lowering the price. About all they can do is put off the loss in market share. But, that will not be forever.
Besides price is not the only disadvantage facing the monopolist. "Bad will" also plays a role. As does lack of trust. And, the more that the US Government and Microsoft get together in secret deals the faster all other companies will flee.
One of the stupidest things the DOJ has done is to insert itself into the excuses for Microsoft to refuse to turn over API information, etc. Every government elsewhere can read that and see that there is a secret deal between Microsoft the monopolist (who gets enormous political favors from the US) and the federal government (who should not be trusted by other governments anyway).
What happened to the "trust but verify" philosophy?
The DOJ simply should never be making secret deals with any company much less a convicted monopolist.
Spamming back could work but many of those emails do not have legit reply email addresses.
However, if you bother to reply to the email until you find a real valid email address then "that" address would be the one to associate with the spam. Then send all your spam you recieve to all of the valid and proven email addresses they use for business purposes.
Of course, your email is likely to end up on more than one list of spammers too.
Who said the company has to support the old product?
I fully understand that closed proprietary systems require that the company either support it or no one can. But, open source systems are very different.
If your company focused upon RedHat 5.2, your company could support that version indefinately if it wanted to. And, if you wanted to actually run an OS for 5 years or more without an expensive and time consuming upgrade process you could do so.
Oracle has a choice now to simply release the source code for their old applications and let some of their customers support themselves if they want to. There would be nothing wrong with that.
And, there would be nothing wrong with Microsoft doing the same for Win95 or DOS 6.22 for that matter. Assuming some customers still run that crap.
If anything, Linux has clearly demonstrated that closed source is an option not a requirement. And, opening the source offers a number of key advantages that can add significant value to the corporate customer. With Linux (and other open source products), corporations can actually define and impliment a 5 year IT plan. And, most importantly expect to carry it out as long as that plan makes sense to them. With forced upgrades that is not possible.
And, because of that more corporations will drop the proprietary products and go with those that permit such planning. It makes all the sense in the world.
Notwithstanding the above, any one customer may feel that 2-3 years in it makes sense to replace the old 5 year plan with a new one. But, that would be driven by true advances in technology not the need for the mfg to make bigger bank deposits.
The Microsoft solution is looking worse every day of the week.
Just today Oracle is taking some real heat for dropping support on old applications software. The reason is simple. Corporations want to upgrade when they want to upgrade and not at any other time.
Microsoft's pitch to pay a lot and upgrade often only assumes the expenses remain high relative to Linux.
And, having the source code available means that customers can even support themselves long after a company stops doing so. Anyone can maintain their version of Linux as long as they wish. Microsoft screws everyone by forcing the upgrade, making it too expensive not to upgrade or simply dropping support for older versions.
Open source brings with it some very real advantages over the long haul. With Linux you can upgrade every 6 months or so if you are so inclined. (And, many are.) Or, you can hold off until the need justifies the upgrade and you are good and ready. (And, again many corporations would prefer that.)
To bad that Microsoft forces higher prices whether or not you upgrade frequently. Frequent upgrades may sound better at times but that process comes with additional costs too mitigating and savings permitted by Microsoft.
The industry is better off the quicker Microsoft goes away.
If you compare the initial purchase price of Microsoft versus Linux, Microsoft is multiple times more expensive. But, if you only look at the long term costs the difference may not be that great. Assuming you do not update all the time that is.
That does not mean that millions can not be saved on day one.
Even if you are a single individual "not buying" Microsoft can save thousands on day one. But, some fools do spend thousands when no spending at all is required.
I rarely complain about the legal system but that is not because I am a lawyer. Rather it is because I understand how the legal system works.
For example: I strongly feel the recent decision by CKK is horrible both from the standpoint of the computer software industry and the legal profession. And, the correct response would be to correct it on appeal. See the article on the ProComp site by Robert Bork ( http://www.procompetition.org/ ).
If the States do not appeal it is the legal system not functioning as it is designed not the failure of the system itself. Individual parties (plaintiffs and defendants) have to fully utilize the system as it is designed.
Another example also relates specifically to the Microsoft cases. The issues of attempted monopolization and product tying were remanded back to the federal district court but were not taken up by any of the parties. They could have been. The States or the DOJ could have further litigated the attempted monopolization AND product tying issues. Even Microsoft could have insisted upon it. But, they did not. Each had their own reasons.
But, the way the system works is that those issues remain undecided at this point. That means that AOL, SUN, Burst and even BE can litigate those violations of federal antitrust law. And, they will do so. Those cases are about a lot more than simply getting some bucks for financial damages.
The system is still at work. The AOL, SUN, Burst and BE cases are pending.
If successful, AOL will get a judgment forcing Microsoft to sell its browser on the same terms and conditions as anyone else can sell their browser. Same terms and conditions means exactly that. If Microsoft wants to package it with the OS then Opera, Netscape, Mozilla and anyone else who wants to market a browser will have equal opportunity to sell a OS and browser bundle to any and all customers (who would not otherwise be forced to already have that product). This is very different than the suggestions by some that being able to sell yours means that the market is fair and open. No idiot thinks that is the case.
Browsers should be just like automobiles. If you want to buy a Ford you should never be forced to buy, maintain and drive a Chevy at the same time.
The idiots at Microsoft want the fools to think being forced to buy a branded browser is acceptable. It never is.
It is not true with cars. And, it is not true with browswers, media players or any other application. But, it will take a while for the legal system to work out those situations.
You may not like SUN. Or, you may not like AOL. But, their private law suits have the very real potential of making the DOJ case as meaningless as it can possibly be. It is meaningless today. But, a valid judgment in the AOL case would make it moot.
You still see comments to the affect that the browser competition is over. But, that is dead wrong. The browser market can be just as fair as the tire market for automobles. A Ford does not have to run on Firestone tires anymore than a Microsoft OS has to include IE. It simply does not have to include any application at all. And, if it does come with applications the consumer should be able to pick and choose.
Is that the way it is now? Oh hell no. We have a stupid DOJ. They favor monopoly markets for favorite companies. But, the DOJ is not the legal system despite what they say. Thankfully the DOJ does not decide antitrust policy for the US either contrary to their claims. They only decide those issues for one branch of the federal government. They do not decide for Congress. And, they do not decide for the courts.
Oh, you can argue that CKK was giving the DOJ too much credit in her decision. But, the DOJ is not involved at all in the private antitrust law suits. That means they do not even show up to speak much less attempt to tell the court what they should do.
In the private antitrust law suits you will have private company versus private company. That even leaves the CATO Institute without an argument to make. A lot of people have made the mistake thinking that the Cato Institute was pro-Microsoft. They are not. They are anti-government. They simply do not think that the government should be involved. While it may be true that they do not like any laws, that kind of position is rather silly. All civilized societies know they have to have any number of laws to monitor and control individual conduct.
The CATO Institute should be just as pleased to support a 10 billion dollar judgment for AOL along with an injunction unbundling IE. That would be big company versus big company, right? So, why should they favor one or other like so many in the industry seem to want to do? Besides unbundling IE would give Opera a fair shot at the market too, right?
They just think they are too dependent upon Microsoft.
And, that is why the DOJ looks so stupid in what they did.
In their effort to avoid enforcing the antitrust laws (by agreeing to a settlement that fails to stop acts found illegal by the appellate court), they have rendered enormous harm to all consumers and the computer software industry itself. That is pure stupidity at work on the part of our government.
And, unless the AOL and SUN law suits are successful in forcing Microsoft to sell separate products separately, fairly and in full competition with others; the harm will remain for a long time. Or, at least until the desktop Linux market becomes dominant or at least highly significant (30% or more of the desktop PC marketplace).
The Linux desktop market is likely to get to 30% or so before too long and it will not stop there. It is just too bad that the DOJ is so ignorant as to make that time stretch out simply because a convicted monopolists wants it to.
Lawyers need not apologize for the legal system we have.
Yes, it is slow. Very slow in fact. But, in time the legal system will get it all sorted out.
What does that mean?
It means that you can not wrap up Microsoft's antitrust problems by looking solely at the silly judgment handed down by CKK. That is a horrible decision for the technology industry and the entire field of antitrust law.
It is true that two key issues (attempted monopolization and product tying) were not being resolved by the remedy decision offered by CKK. And, the States may yet still appeal that ruling. For the benefit of the antitrust laws it clearly should be appealed. Simply put, the remedy does not correct illegal acts found by the appellate court giving the district court its instructions. That is pure and simple. The fake settlement now approved by the district judge fails to even attempt to eliminate commingling of code found to be illegal by the appellate court. I can not imagine the appellate court thinking their decision should just be ignored as the district judge has done. She did not and does not have the authority to pick and choose which parts of the appellate decision fit into the settlement and simply ignore the violations of law that do not.
That having been said however, perhaps it is good that CKK was not given the ability to decide either the attempted monopolization issue or the tying issue. No doubt she would have screw those issues up royal.
The AOL (Netscape) and SUN private antitrust law suits will take up the attempted monopolization issue (AOL) and product tying (SUN and AOL). And, since the CKK decision does not address those issues at all, Microsoft lost any argument that the AOL and SUN cases should hold off because all illegal acts were corrected in the DOJ/States case. They simply have not been. They were remanded for further litigation and neither party brought them before the district court for further litigation. That simply means they are undecided. Except for one important point.
The appellate court did lay out the factual findings it wants to see to find attempted monopolization and product tying. And, you can bet the AOL and SUN lawyers are boning up on the facts they need to prove to support such a conclusion. But, keep in mind that both the AOL and SUN law suits go before juries. That means that a jury will decide the facts regarding attempted monopolization (can anyone really think that Microsoft was not trying to monopolize browsers and in turn the internet?) and product tying (again can anyone really think products are not tied if it is impossible not to buy one without also buying the other?).
Microsoft has lied for years claiming they are not doing when every single person knows they are in fact doing. They lied simply in their effort to avoid legal liability for violating the federal antitrust laws. And, those chickens are highly likely to come home to roost.
It is too bad that the CKK decision is as meaningless as it is. It does nothing to permit competition in browsers, media players or any other application bundled by Microsoft to preclude competition. Absolutely nothing.
Worse yet the benefit that others may get from the exposure of APIs benefits Microsoft more than it does OS competitors. Completely opening the source code for XP would benefit Microsoft just as open source benefits Linux now. That is why they try to open the code a bit. But, with the exception of interoperability (which is important) gaining greater access to Microsoft code is of little value for an application developer focused upon the Linux desktop market. It helps those writing for Microsoft platforms. And, that is why the API issue is a non-issue as far as OS competition in concerned. Opening the APIs might help some application markets provided there have not been picked by Microsoft for illegal bundling (i.e. browsers, media players, instant messaging, video players, etc). Having the entire source code for XP is of no value if Microsoft screws all consumers you might want to sell to by first requiring them to buy, install, support and use the Microsoft brand.
If the market for your product is not "open and fair" not much else matters at all.
It will take the AOL case to force browsers to be sold separately. And, until that time Microsoft will have succeeded in illegally gaining a new monopoly right under the noses of the stupid DOJ and shortsighted judge.
And, it will take the SUN law suit to stop Microsoft from tying its desktop systems to Microsoft servers. Yes, that is what the SUN suit is largely up to.
Let's just hope that neither AOL or SUN settle for money and fail to put into place the necessary adjustments to Microsoft's conduct that will permit fair and open markets for the entire industry. Otherwise, we have the stupid DOJ to credit for all but ruining the computer software industry simply by refusing to enforce the federal antitrust laws (after it wins the case and the appellate court hands it a victory).
Microsoft may offer 6 systems but I mean 6 that consumers buying PCs by the thousands can choose between.
A company looking to outfit 10,000 desktops does not have but one perhaps two choices from Microsoft. And, the highly insecure and inferior Microsoft products bundled in make both those choices too expensive.
It is one thing to lie about IE being free to the public. It is another to R&D IE on an ongoing basic without having it affect the price of the product it is bundled with. IE was only free when downloaded (or otherwise not associated with the payment of money). That is the economic reality.
The Microsoft Media player is in the same position. They can lie that it is free when you pay $200-$250 for the OS. But, they still have to fork over the R&D monies. And, they simply can not compete with free software.
Linux (even the ones you pay for) will always be cheaper because of its ability to offer a multitude of choices each geared for a particular market.
For example, there is great value in Xandros and SuSE offering CrossOver Office with their distros albeit for a price. If corporate accounts want to run the Microsoft crap on Linux they can. But, it would disadvantage Linux if all distros had to pay the cost for those added technologies. Mandrake (and others) can undersell Xandros and SuSE versions as long as they include CrossOverOffice. And, that applies to any and all technologies (such as StarOffice) that serve to increase the cost and eventually the retail price of the product.
That is a flexibility that only Linux will provide unless Microsoft abandones its illegal activities as being harmful to its own interests. And, no, the Server, Web Appliance, DataCenter, Tablet and Media Center editions do not help the business office nor the individual PC consumer. They remain with no choices from Microsoft except the high priced bundled of inferior products which they are forced to use and support.
Not interested. And, neither will be the consumer once their choices are made clear.
Those that want enhanced technology can buy that. Those who want a cheaper version without all the extra expensive crap can get that. But, only on Linux.
I know it may seem strange but Linux is about the only product to benefit from this flawed decision.
The reason is simple but not easy to see.
Microsoft has been given the go-ahead to continue to force the sale of many key Microsoft branded applications just by simple packaging (or commingling). Allowing icons to be moved around is meaningless. But, how does this benefit Linux?
Linux will always include a lot more software than any Microsoft product. That is true today and it will be even more true tomorrow and on into the future. What this decision does is almost make certain that Microsoft will continue to bundle a whole slew of applications with it's operating system keeping the price high and out of site. That benefits Linux tremendously.
If Microsoft were forced to split off some of these applications, they would also be offering a barebones OS which would cost a lot less. Without that obligation on their part it is unlikely they will make that choice on their own leaving Microsoft stuff always overpriced, insecure (due to all the crap with bugs) and in appropriate for just about all markets.
The one advantage that Linux has over Microsoft is the ability to offer multiple distributions for many key markets. Just look at Xandros (and now SuSE) offering CrossOverOffice along with the OS but Mandrake leaving that out. Other distros could include StarOffice but leave out CrossOver, etc. The result will be a wide selection of Linux choices all of which cost less than Microsoft but do not all include everything. If any distro wants to include everything (including those packages that do cost money), it would likely be just as expensive as Microsoft now.
But, the Linux market can specialize its distributions. Those companies that want the CrossOver capability can get it with the distro they pick. Those companies that prefer the Xandros File Manager and CrossOver can pick it. Those that only want true Linux applications including OpenOffice (no premium added on) can pick from lessor cost distros.
Microsoft could bring out 6 different versions of their XP product. But, they will not until such time as they think competition requires it. But, then it will be too late.
By then all serious software companies will focus upon Linux simply because their ability to grow and expand will not be illegally cut short by Microsoft. There is a reason why all non-Microsoft browsers are cross platform. And, there is a very good reason why all new browsers will also be cross platform. Microsoft has and will preclude any such market on Microsoft systems.
The problem is that even though Linux will benefit, consumers for the moment remain screwed. And, the industry also remains suspended. Not the Linux part of the industry. But, the Microsoft part. And, that in the long term is going to cut Microsoft out of the industry itself. It is only a matter of time until all software developes choose Linux (or some other platform) to operate free of illegal Microsoft activity.
This all assumes that OEMs can market non-Microsoft systems. And, while this is somewhat questionable today, there is no way that HP, IBM, DELL, GateWay and others are going to allow SUN to have that market all to itself. As indeed, some of them already try to approach particular market segments with Linux products. But, that will expand as the SUN and WalMart type companies begin to make some real money selling Linux desktops.
In the long run this decision is fine. In the short run it is meaningless.
I would agree that a better Wine makes desktops more doable. But, look at what SUN is doing.
There are actually trying to make Unix/Linux Servers work well with Linux Desktops. We are not talking about independant desktops perhaps logging on the internet and doing some stuff but rather real business.
And, that is where HP and IBM should be taking SUNs lead. Major corporations have little interest in independant desktops that fail to work well with their servers. And, yes, they will always have servers. They may serve files. Or, they may serve the desktops themselves by way of updates, etc. Either way, SUN is focused upon that and HP and IBM remain ignorant. Or, at least they look ignorant because they ignore the need for hundreds if not thousands of desktops to connect appropriately with the Unix/Linux based servers they claim they want to sell.
We are not talking about making a Linux PC compete headon with a Microsoft PC serving a single user. We are talking about corporate information systems. SUN is focused. IBM and HP are "out to lunch". The only coordinated products they offer along that line are Microsoft based. They are stupid. There is a hugh market for corporate information systems technologies. And, you do not just look at a single PC and say "why not?". Single independant PCs are not what the corporate market wants or can even use. They need organized systems. They need systems that offer a lower total cost of ownership and support. And, Microsoft desktops and Unix/Linux based servers are just like "oil and water" as long as Microsoft has anything to say about it.
Corporate accounts and the major OEMs need to wake up.
SUN sees the need. And, they see the easy picking. And, they will pick that fruit. And, those corporations that want a lower total cost of ownership with hundreds if not thousands of PC type systems will benefit from shopping SUN. Today with HP and IBM they get screwed. And, it is due to the short sightedness of those vendors.
If you are truly dependant upon Microsoft technology, that is fine. But, many corporations only think they are. And, when they find out that substitutes are available from the top vendors in the business, they will fly.
If Microsoft lowers its price to compete with Linux, its gross revenue is likely to decline. Any economist or business person for that matter can tell you that if you lower your price and your sales volume does not increase sufficiently to offset that lower price, your gross is going to take a hit. And, once that begins for Microsoft it will not end.
Raise the price and loose customers to linux. Lower the price, reduce gross revenue and loose stockholders.
It is a tough call to make.
And, if the same idiots who testified before the court are advising Microsoft now they will get it wrong and harm Microsoft even more. But, my guess is they were just lying in the court room hoping to fool the court.
The key to the future for Linux on the desktop is going to be the combination of SUN at the corporate account level, Xandros, Lindows and others at the consumer level and Redhat/Mandrake and others at the developers level.
And, then you have DELL who is beat up for trying.
My guess is that IBM and HP will follow SUN's lead in regard to linux on the desktop and give it a real effort. As for DELL, GateWay and a few other Microsoft OEMs, they do not really depend upon Unix/Linux servers for a major part of their business. Maybe DELL thinks it does. But, they have been told what they can and can not do by the idiots at Microsoft.
Linux on the desktop at home is no different than at the office.
It all depends on what applications you want or need and how much you are willing to pay.
And, Linux on the desktop has come a very long way. And, with Lindows, Xandros and apparently RedHat getting into the act, Linux on the desktop will improve significantly.
The old Linux versions were pretty much limited to a corporate environment where some high paid expert was required to set it up for use.
That is no longer the case.
Witness Lindows Click-n-Run. You may not want Lindows for your own machine but you will not find an easier way to install thousands of software applications. Of course, you can get most is not all of them on CDs. But, how are you going to get a new application next week or next month? Get another CD?
Lindows has illustated a very important concept for Linux. And, the concept is not simply an easy to install system. Rather the concept is that the many Linux distributors will be working hard to develop easier systems to use. And, no one distributor is going to be restricted by some idiot at the top nixing something that is not decided to be forced upon everyone.
That simply means that Linux is in a situation to deliver a full range of distributions. Some extremely difficult by high powered. And, some extremely simple to use.
And, "extremely simple to use" is going to be the key to putting Linux on the desktop. It will not be the power machines. It will be the simple to install, simple to use and simple to install additional software systems that will be the key.
If RedHat does not do it, Xandros will. If Xandros does not, Mandrake will. If Mandrake does not, Lindows will. On and on.
The desktop market is completely different than the server market.
But, Linux has a clear advantage in the desktop market. It is a different advantage than in the server markets, but it is a real one.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft will never comply with the antitrust laws.
Why?
Because they now know that ignoring them for 5-6 years is highly profitable and the chances are excellent that a stupid and ignorant DOJ will grant to them the monopoly markets they gain illegally.
That will remain true until "stockholders" demand a different conduct.
If SUN gets a billion or so judgment it will not change.
If SUN gets a Sun Compliant JVM distributed with the Microsoft OS, it will not change.
If BE gets a billion, it will not change.
Even if AOL gets 10 billion in damages, it will not change.
It will only change when and if the courts order Microsoft to sell separate products separately and cease illegal bundling and commingling.
But, as we have seen the appellate courts can find commingling to be illegal yet the DOJ (as stupid and ignorant as they are) will refuse to prevent even proven violations from occuring.
I can not think as anything as stupid as what the DOJ has done. The DOJ has endorsed illegal activity AFTER the appellate court ruled on the issues. And, the illegal acts continue to harm consumers and the computer software industry.
And, they know it was stupid. They had to misrepresent what the law actually is in order to rationalize their decisions.
Fortunately, the DOJ only decides what cases they will bring contrary to the claim from those idiots that they decide antitrust policy for the US Government. They simply do not. They only decide what the executive branch will enforce or ignore. And, there is a very big difference.
In the US, Congress decides how the antitrust laws will read (not the DOJ). And, the courts interpret them (again, not the DOJ).
In fact, the DOJ is only given authority to enforce those laws to permit a more efficient legal system whereby violators can be kept in check without an enormous number of private antitrust law suits mucking up the courts. But, guess what? The DOJ refuses to act. And, the result is that the States try to take over some of the action. And, consumers, AOL, SUN, Burst and BE have to file their own private law suits anyway.
And, since this article relates to the EU activity, the EU must then also act to make certain that their laws are not violated as well. The EU does not decide what the US laws will restrict. But, they do decide which products can be sold in their market without being illegal. And, as was the case in the IBM antitrust case, the EU ends up being the only effective player. That may turn out to be true again. Only this time consumers and a number of major corporations are also suing for financial damanges and additional injunctions.
If you are a software developer, you should by all means be pulling for AOL in their law suit. That suit may open up an enormous number of software markets now effectively closed to you.
Consumers do care what they buy. They always have.
Consumers care what food they eat.
Consumers care what clothes they wear.
Consumers care what applications they run.
Consumers care what applications they buy.
Any person who claims that consumers do not care which products they buy is a liar, dead certain.
Why?
Because they themselves care with every purchase they make.
Do not confuse being forced to buy products with the lack of caring.
Almost four hundred million consumers have been forced to buy IE. But, anyone is an idiot for suggesting that consumers do not wish to exercise their right to decide which products they buy in any product category or market.
Yes, they want it to work. But, no body is stupid enough to suggest that all consumers would not care if they were forced to buy a FORD. A FORD runs just as good as a Chevy, right?
It is just outright silly to suggest that consumers do not want to decide what they buy. Only idiots make that claim.
Why must people continue to misrepresent reality?
If you bought from Microsoft anytime after the very first release of Win95 you were in fact forced to buy IE.
There is no other choice permitted by Microsoft Corporation. PERIOD. YOU MUST IN FACT PAY CASH FOR IE IF YOU BUY WINDOWS.
Is it impossible to buy a PC without Windows?
No. You can do that. Walmart will sell you one. And, many white box boys were sell you one. And, you can buy the parts too.
But, lying about paying cash for IE when you buy Windows is just an outright lie because it is not possible to do otherwise and has not been possible since the very first issue of Win95. That means for the last 6 years it was impossible to do.
And, that is why Microsoft now has a monopoly position in browsers.
Claim that you use Mozilla does not affect the fact you paid cash money for IE on Win 2K.
Even Microsoft says so.
Microsoft says 20% of the price you paid went toward "unearned revenue" which they say includes IE.
You may not have paid a cash amount for Mozilla (although you can), but you were literally forced to do so with Win 2K because Microsoft gives you no other choice.
If you buy Win 2K, you buy IE.
And, if you want to claim it is okay to be forced to buy a product as long as you claim you do not use it, I have a lot of stuff to sell you. Why should Gates be the only one to screw you?
As for IE you are forced to buy it, install it, maintain it, support it and in a number of instances actually use it.
YOUR claim to be able to buy a Chevy is of no value with the fact of the matter is that everyone must first buy a FORD.
Assuming that were the case with automobiles, that is. It is not with cars, as we all know. It is with browsers, as we all know.
But, some will still argue that being forced to buy a FORD each time you shop for a car is okay because you are free to buy a Chevy afterwards. But, then those people do not even believe themselves.
Where has anyone said Microsoft can not be in the business? No where. No one has said that.
The only restriction is that Microsoft must act legally and NOT illegally.
Just remember that IE started with a zero percent share.
It was the illegal use of the OS monopoly that gave MS the monopoly in browsers.
And, it is the illegal bundling of IE with the OS that will maintain it as long as the OS is dominant.
You will buy IE again and again no matter what you think, want or need.
You may not like AOL, but the AOL law suit is about the only hope that fair and open markets will exist on the Microsoft platforms until such as they are eliminated.
The stupid DOJ wants a monopoly in browsers for Microsoft. The DOJ wants a monopoly in media players for Microsoft too.
If MS does not engage in any illegal acts there is no problem.
If MS did not bundle IE, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
If MS had honored the consent decree, the DOJ would never have filed its law suit.
There are a lot of ways by which products and services can be tied in an illegal manner. If MS does none of those, no problem. Right?
If you do not see how MS could use or is using their monopolies it force its way into the cell phone market, then either they are not violating any laws or you do not see it or understand it.
IE started with zero penetration.
For the most part violations of antitrust law have little to do with how successful your illegal acts are. Or even if they were necessary.
There exceptions such as charges of attempted monopolization where somewhat in excess of 50% of the market is the benchmark for that charge. And, that is why Microsoft has not yet been convicted of attempted monopolization of the browser market. It is not because they have not tried that. And, it is not because they have not done it. It is only because the appellate court could only review the facts as of the time of the trial. And, at that time 50% or so was the magic number.
But, the issue here for the EU is the use of the OS monopoly to force the use of other technology in a number of other markets. The EU is about to announce their decision in regard to the media player and server tie-ins. This article just points out that they have a heads on possible illegal acts in regard to the cell phone services as well. But, do not worry if Microsoft does not in fact try to make an illegal tie with the cell phone services, nothing the EU does will affect them.
The EU is certainly not going to penalize MS because of what they might do. But, making sure Microsoft does not violate the laws again in the same manner as they clearly have to date is just good planning.
If you are one of those who claim the browser wars are over so get over it, then you must agree to prohibit Microsoft from even thinking about repeating that kind of illegal act. The browser wars are not over. It is not even a war. Fair and open competition is still precluded by illegal acts. But, any market can recover once illegal acts cease.
Do not worry. If each consumer has to pay $35 for IE or leave it at the store, a very high percentage will leave it or buy another brand. But, as long as the DOJ also favors forcing the sale of IE upon everyone, there will be no competition. The monopoly in browsers will be maintained indefinately. Or, at least until the monopoly OS goes away.
You can say whatever you wish. But, if Bill and Steve have to show up all the time to permit a lower sales price (special deal), Microsoft is in trouble. If Bill or Steve were worth their salaries, the price would go up when they visit not down.
Regardless of the reason, Microsoft is beginning to feel the price pressure. And, it will never let up. Just remember for Microsoft to discount 10% on price is about the same as losing a 10% share of the market. At least on day one it is.
If you combine a price decrease (or special concession) with a loss in market share the impact can be significant. Remember in most markets Microsoft can not increase sales by lowering the price. About all they can do is put off the loss in market share. But, that will not be forever.
Besides price is not the only disadvantage facing the monopolist. "Bad will" also plays a role. As does lack of trust. And, the more that the US Government and Microsoft get together in secret deals the faster all other companies will flee.
One of the stupidest things the DOJ has done is to insert itself into the excuses for Microsoft to refuse to turn over API information, etc. Every government elsewhere can read that and see that there is a secret deal between Microsoft the monopolist (who gets enormous political favors from the US) and the federal government (who should not be trusted by other governments anyway).
What happened to the "trust but verify" philosophy?
The DOJ simply should never be making secret deals with any company much less a convicted monopolist.
The DOJ is run by idiots.
Spamming back could work but many of those emails do not have legit reply email addresses.
However, if you bother to reply to the email until you find a real valid email address then "that" address would be the one to associate with the spam. Then send all your spam you recieve to all of the valid and proven email addresses they use for business purposes.
Of course, your email is likely to end up on more than one list of spammers too.
Almost all IE users were forced to pay cash money for their browser.
That is not true with Netscape, Mozilla or Opera.
Only at Microsoft are you forced to key products based upon the needs of Microsoft instead of your own.
Who said the company has to support the old product?
I fully understand that closed proprietary systems require that the company either support it or no one can. But, open source systems are very different.
If your company focused upon RedHat 5.2, your company could support that version indefinately if it wanted to. And, if you wanted to actually run an OS for 5 years or more without an expensive and time consuming upgrade process you could do so.
Oracle has a choice now to simply release the source code for their old applications and let some of their customers support themselves if they want to. There would be nothing wrong with that.
And, there would be nothing wrong with Microsoft doing the same for Win95 or DOS 6.22 for that matter. Assuming some customers still run that crap.
If anything, Linux has clearly demonstrated that closed source is an option not a requirement. And, opening the source offers a number of key advantages that can add significant value to the corporate customer. With Linux (and other open source products), corporations can actually define and impliment a 5 year IT plan. And, most importantly expect to carry it out as long as that plan makes sense to them. With forced upgrades that is not possible.
And, because of that more corporations will drop the proprietary products and go with those that permit such planning. It makes all the sense in the world.
Notwithstanding the above, any one customer may feel that 2-3 years in it makes sense to replace the old 5 year plan with a new one. But, that would be driven by true advances in technology not the need for the mfg to make bigger bank deposits.
The Microsoft solution is looking worse every day of the week.
Forced upgrades are a bad idea to start with.
Just today Oracle is taking some real heat for dropping support on old applications software. The reason is simple. Corporations want to upgrade when they want to upgrade and not at any other time.
Microsoft's pitch to pay a lot and upgrade often only assumes the expenses remain high relative to Linux.
And, having the source code available means that customers can even support themselves long after a company stops doing so. Anyone can maintain their version of Linux as long as they wish. Microsoft screws everyone by forcing the upgrade, making it too expensive not to upgrade or simply dropping support for older versions.
Open source brings with it some very real advantages over the long haul. With Linux you can upgrade every 6 months or so if you are so inclined. (And, many are.) Or, you can hold off until the need justifies the upgrade and you are good and ready. (And, again many corporations would prefer that.)
To bad that Microsoft forces higher prices whether or not you upgrade frequently. Frequent upgrades may sound better at times but that process comes with additional costs too mitigating and savings permitted by Microsoft.
The industry is better off the quicker Microsoft goes away.
If you compare the initial purchase price of Microsoft versus Linux, Microsoft is multiple times more expensive. But, if you only look at the long term costs the difference may not be that great. Assuming you do not update all the time that is.
That does not mean that millions can not be saved on day one.
Even if you are a single individual "not buying" Microsoft can save thousands on day one. But, some fools do spend thousands when no spending at all is required.
First you have to assume it needs fixing.
I rarely complain about the legal system but that is not because I am a lawyer. Rather it is because I understand how the legal system works.
For example: I strongly feel the recent decision by CKK is horrible both from the standpoint of the computer software industry and the legal profession. And, the correct response would be to correct it on appeal. See the article on the ProComp site by Robert Bork ( http://www.procompetition.org/ ).
If the States do not appeal it is the legal system not functioning as it is designed not the failure of the system itself. Individual parties (plaintiffs and defendants) have to fully utilize the system as it is designed.
Another example also relates specifically to the Microsoft cases. The issues of attempted monopolization and product tying were remanded back to the federal district court but were not taken up by any of the parties. They could have been. The States or the DOJ could have further litigated the attempted monopolization AND product tying issues. Even Microsoft could have insisted upon it. But, they did not. Each had their own reasons.
But, the way the system works is that those issues remain undecided at this point. That means that AOL, SUN, Burst and even BE can litigate those violations of federal antitrust law. And, they will do so. Those cases are about a lot more than simply getting some bucks for financial damages.
The system is still at work. The AOL, SUN, Burst and BE cases are pending.
If successful, AOL will get a judgment forcing Microsoft to sell its browser on the same terms and conditions as anyone else can sell their browser. Same terms and conditions means exactly that. If Microsoft wants to package it with the OS then Opera, Netscape, Mozilla and anyone else who wants to market a browser will have equal opportunity to sell a OS and browser bundle to any and all customers (who would not otherwise be forced to already have that product). This is very different than the suggestions by some that being able to sell yours means that the market is fair and open. No idiot thinks that is the case.
Browsers should be just like automobiles. If you want to buy a Ford you should never be forced to buy, maintain and drive a Chevy at the same time.
The idiots at Microsoft want the fools to think being forced to buy a branded browser is acceptable. It never is.
It is not true with cars. And, it is not true with browswers, media players or any other application. But, it will take a while for the legal system to work out those situations.
You may not like SUN. Or, you may not like AOL. But, their private law suits have the very real potential of making the DOJ case as meaningless as it can possibly be. It is meaningless today. But, a valid judgment in the AOL case would make it moot.
You still see comments to the affect that the browser competition is over. But, that is dead wrong. The browser market can be just as fair as the tire market for automobles. A Ford does not have to run on Firestone tires anymore than a Microsoft OS has to include IE. It simply does not have to include any application at all. And, if it does come with applications the consumer should be able to pick and choose.
Is that the way it is now? Oh hell no. We have a stupid DOJ. They favor monopoly markets for favorite companies. But, the DOJ is not the legal system despite what they say. Thankfully the DOJ does not decide antitrust policy for the US either contrary to their claims. They only decide those issues for one branch of the federal government. They do not decide for Congress. And, they do not decide for the courts.
Oh, you can argue that CKK was giving the DOJ too much credit in her decision. But, the DOJ is not involved at all in the private antitrust law suits. That means they do not even show up to speak much less attempt to tell the court what they should do.
In the private antitrust law suits you will have private company versus private company. That even leaves the CATO Institute without an argument to make. A lot of people have made the mistake thinking that the Cato Institute was pro-Microsoft. They are not. They are anti-government. They simply do not think that the government should be involved. While it may be true that they do not like any laws, that kind of position is rather silly. All civilized societies know they have to have any number of laws to monitor and control individual conduct.
The CATO Institute should be just as pleased to support a 10 billion dollar judgment for AOL along with an injunction unbundling IE. That would be big company versus big company, right? So, why should they favor one or other like so many in the industry seem to want to do? Besides unbundling IE would give Opera a fair shot at the market too, right?
They just think they are too dependent upon Microsoft.
And, that is why the DOJ looks so stupid in what they did.
In their effort to avoid enforcing the antitrust laws (by agreeing to a settlement that fails to stop acts found illegal by the appellate court), they have rendered enormous harm to all consumers and the computer software industry itself. That is pure stupidity at work on the part of our government.
And, unless the AOL and SUN law suits are successful in forcing Microsoft to sell separate products separately, fairly and in full competition with others; the harm will remain for a long time. Or, at least until the desktop Linux market becomes dominant or at least highly significant (30% or more of the desktop PC marketplace).
The Linux desktop market is likely to get to 30% or so before too long and it will not stop there. It is just too bad that the DOJ is so ignorant as to make that time stretch out simply because a convicted monopolists wants it to.
Lawyers need not apologize for the legal system we have.
Yes, it is slow. Very slow in fact. But, in time the legal system will get it all sorted out.
What does that mean?
It means that you can not wrap up Microsoft's antitrust problems by looking solely at the silly judgment handed down by CKK. That is a horrible decision for the technology industry and the entire field of antitrust law.
It is true that two key issues (attempted monopolization and product tying) were not being resolved by the remedy decision offered by CKK. And, the States may yet still appeal that ruling. For the benefit of the antitrust laws it clearly should be appealed. Simply put, the remedy does not correct illegal acts found by the appellate court giving the district court its instructions. That is pure and simple. The fake settlement now approved by the district judge fails to even attempt to eliminate commingling of code found to be illegal by the appellate court. I can not imagine the appellate court thinking their decision should just be ignored as the district judge has done. She did not and does not have the authority to pick and choose which parts of the appellate decision fit into the settlement and simply ignore the violations of law that do not.
That having been said however, perhaps it is good that CKK was not given the ability to decide either the attempted monopolization issue or the tying issue. No doubt she would have screw those issues up royal.
The AOL (Netscape) and SUN private antitrust law suits will take up the attempted monopolization issue (AOL) and product tying (SUN and AOL). And, since the CKK decision does not address those issues at all, Microsoft lost any argument that the AOL and SUN cases should hold off because all illegal acts were corrected in the DOJ/States case. They simply have not been. They were remanded for further litigation and neither party brought them before the district court for further litigation. That simply means they are undecided. Except for one important point.
The appellate court did lay out the factual findings it wants to see to find attempted monopolization and product tying. And, you can bet the AOL and SUN lawyers are boning up on the facts they need to prove to support such a conclusion. But, keep in mind that both the AOL and SUN law suits go before juries. That means that a jury will decide the facts regarding attempted monopolization (can anyone really think that Microsoft was not trying to monopolize browsers and in turn the internet?) and product tying (again can anyone really think products are not tied if it is impossible not to buy one without also buying the other?).
Microsoft has lied for years claiming they are not doing when every single person knows they are in fact doing. They lied simply in their effort to avoid legal liability for violating the federal antitrust laws. And, those chickens are highly likely to come home to roost.
It is too bad that the CKK decision is as meaningless as it is. It does nothing to permit competition in browsers, media players or any other application bundled by Microsoft to preclude competition. Absolutely nothing.
Worse yet the benefit that others may get from the exposure of APIs benefits Microsoft more than it does OS competitors. Completely opening the source code for XP would benefit Microsoft just as open source benefits Linux now. That is why they try to open the code a bit. But, with the exception of interoperability (which is important) gaining greater access to Microsoft code is of little value for an application developer focused upon the Linux desktop market. It helps those writing for Microsoft platforms. And, that is why the API issue is a non-issue as far as OS competition in concerned. Opening the APIs might help some application markets provided there have not been picked by Microsoft for illegal bundling (i.e. browsers, media players, instant messaging, video players, etc). Having the entire source code for XP is of no value if Microsoft screws all consumers you might want to sell to by first requiring them to buy, install, support and use the Microsoft brand.
If the market for your product is not "open and fair" not much else matters at all.
It will take the AOL case to force browsers to be sold separately. And, until that time Microsoft will have succeeded in illegally gaining a new monopoly right under the noses of the stupid DOJ and shortsighted judge.
And, it will take the SUN law suit to stop Microsoft from tying its desktop systems to Microsoft servers. Yes, that is what the SUN suit is largely up to.
Let's just hope that neither AOL or SUN settle for money and fail to put into place the necessary adjustments to Microsoft's conduct that will permit fair and open markets for the entire industry. Otherwise, we have the stupid DOJ to credit for all but ruining the computer software industry simply by refusing to enforce the federal antitrust laws (after it wins the case and the appellate court hands it a victory).
Microsoft may offer 6 systems but I mean 6 that consumers buying PCs by the thousands can choose between.
A company looking to outfit 10,000 desktops does not have but one perhaps two choices from Microsoft. And, the highly insecure and inferior Microsoft products bundled in make both those choices too expensive.
It is one thing to lie about IE being free to the public. It is another to R&D IE on an ongoing basic without having it affect the price of the product it is bundled with. IE was only free when downloaded (or otherwise not associated with the payment of money). That is the economic reality.
The Microsoft Media player is in the same position. They can lie that it is free when you pay $200-$250 for the OS. But, they still have to fork over the R&D monies. And, they simply can not compete with free software.
Linux (even the ones you pay for) will always be cheaper because of its ability to offer a multitude of choices each geared for a particular market.
For example, there is great value in Xandros and SuSE offering CrossOver Office with their distros albeit for a price. If corporate accounts want to run the Microsoft crap on Linux they can. But, it would disadvantage Linux if all distros had to pay the cost for those added technologies. Mandrake (and others) can undersell Xandros and SuSE versions as long as they include CrossOverOffice. And, that applies to any and all technologies (such as StarOffice) that serve to increase the cost and eventually the retail price of the product.
That is a flexibility that only Linux will provide unless Microsoft abandones its illegal activities as being harmful to its own interests. And, no, the Server, Web Appliance, DataCenter, Tablet and Media Center editions do not help the business office nor the individual PC consumer. They remain with no choices from Microsoft except the high priced bundled of inferior products which they are forced to use and support.
Not interested. And, neither will be the consumer once their choices are made clear.
Those that want enhanced technology can buy that. Those who want a cheaper version without all the extra expensive crap can get that. But, only on Linux.
I know it may seem strange but Linux is about the only product to benefit from this flawed decision.
The reason is simple but not easy to see.
Microsoft has been given the go-ahead to continue to force the sale of many key Microsoft branded applications just by simple packaging (or commingling). Allowing icons to be moved around is meaningless. But, how does this benefit Linux?
Linux will always include a lot more software than any Microsoft product. That is true today and it will be even more true tomorrow and on into the future. What this decision does is almost make certain that Microsoft will continue to bundle a whole slew of applications with it's operating system keeping the price high and out of site. That benefits Linux tremendously.
If Microsoft were forced to split off some of these applications, they would also be offering a barebones OS which would cost a lot less. Without that obligation on their part it is unlikely they will make that choice on their own leaving Microsoft stuff always overpriced, insecure (due to all the crap with bugs) and in appropriate for just about all markets.
The one advantage that Linux has over Microsoft is the ability to offer multiple distributions for many key markets. Just look at Xandros (and now SuSE) offering CrossOverOffice along with the OS but Mandrake leaving that out. Other distros could include StarOffice but leave out CrossOver, etc. The result will be a wide selection of Linux choices all of which cost less than Microsoft but do not all include everything. If any distro wants to include everything (including those packages that do cost money), it would likely be just as expensive as Microsoft now.
But, the Linux market can specialize its distributions. Those companies that want the CrossOver capability can get it with the distro they pick. Those companies that prefer the Xandros File Manager and CrossOver can pick it. Those that only want true Linux applications including OpenOffice (no premium added on) can pick from lessor cost distros.
Microsoft could bring out 6 different versions of their XP product. But, they will not until such time as they think competition requires it. But, then it will be too late.
By then all serious software companies will focus upon Linux simply because their ability to grow and expand will not be illegally cut short by Microsoft. There is a reason why all non-Microsoft browsers are cross platform. And, there is a very good reason why all new browsers will also be cross platform. Microsoft has and will preclude any such market on Microsoft systems.
The problem is that even though Linux will benefit, consumers for the moment remain screwed. And, the industry also remains suspended. Not the Linux part of the industry. But, the Microsoft part. And, that in the long term is going to cut Microsoft out of the industry itself. It is only a matter of time until all software developes choose Linux (or some other platform) to operate free of illegal Microsoft activity.
This all assumes that OEMs can market non-Microsoft systems. And, while this is somewhat questionable today, there is no way that HP, IBM, DELL, GateWay and others are going to allow SUN to have that market all to itself. As indeed, some of them already try to approach particular market segments with Linux products. But, that will expand as the SUN and WalMart type companies begin to make some real money selling Linux desktops.
In the long run this decision is fine. In the short run it is meaningless.
I would agree that a better Wine makes desktops more doable. But, look at what SUN is doing.
There are actually trying to make Unix/Linux Servers work well with Linux Desktops. We are not talking about independant desktops perhaps logging on the internet and doing some stuff but rather real business.
And, that is where HP and IBM should be taking SUNs lead. Major corporations have little interest in independant desktops that fail to work well with their servers. And, yes, they will always have servers. They may serve files. Or, they may serve the desktops themselves by way of updates, etc. Either way, SUN is focused upon that and HP and IBM remain ignorant. Or, at least they look ignorant because they ignore the need for hundreds if not thousands of desktops to connect appropriately with the Unix/Linux based servers they claim they want to sell.
We are not talking about making a Linux PC compete headon with a Microsoft PC serving a single user. We are talking about corporate information systems. SUN is focused. IBM and HP are "out to lunch". The only coordinated products they offer along that line are Microsoft based. They are stupid. There is a hugh market for corporate information systems technologies. And, you do not just look at a single PC and say "why not?". Single independant PCs are not what the corporate market wants or can even use. They need organized systems. They need systems that offer a lower total cost of ownership and support. And, Microsoft desktops and Unix/Linux based servers are just like "oil and water" as long as Microsoft has anything to say about it.
Corporate accounts and the major OEMs need to wake up.
SUN sees the need. And, they see the easy picking. And, they will pick that fruit. And, those corporations that want a lower total cost of ownership with hundreds if not thousands of PC type systems will benefit from shopping SUN. Today with HP and IBM they get screwed. And, it is due to the short sightedness of those vendors.
If you are truly dependant upon Microsoft technology, that is fine. But, many corporations only think they are. And, when they find out that substitutes are available from the top vendors in the business, they will fly.
Your point is well taken.
If Microsoft lowers its price to compete with Linux, its gross revenue is likely to decline. Any economist or business person for that matter can tell you that if you lower your price and your sales volume does not increase sufficiently to offset that lower price, your gross is going to take a hit. And, once that begins for Microsoft it will not end.
Raise the price and loose customers to linux. Lower the price, reduce gross revenue and loose stockholders.
It is a tough call to make.
And, if the same idiots who testified before the court are advising Microsoft now they will get it wrong and harm Microsoft even more. But, my guess is they were just lying in the court room hoping to fool the court.
The key to the future for Linux on the desktop is going to be the combination of SUN at the corporate account level, Xandros, Lindows and others at the consumer level and Redhat/Mandrake and others at the developers level.
And, then you have DELL who is beat up for trying.
My guess is that IBM and HP will follow SUN's lead in regard to linux on the desktop and give it a real effort. As for DELL, GateWay and a few other Microsoft OEMs, they do not really depend upon Unix/Linux servers for a major part of their business. Maybe DELL thinks it does. But, they have been told what they can and can not do by the idiots at Microsoft.
Just kidding.
I have yet to see a AC post worth reading.
Linux on the desktop at home is no different than at the office.
It all depends on what applications you want or need and how much you are willing to pay.
And, Linux on the desktop has come a very long way. And, with Lindows, Xandros and apparently RedHat getting into the act, Linux on the desktop will improve significantly.
The old Linux versions were pretty much limited to a corporate environment where some high paid expert was required to set it up for use.
That is no longer the case.
Witness Lindows Click-n-Run. You may not want Lindows for your own machine but you will not find an easier way to install thousands of software applications. Of course, you can get most is not all of them on CDs. But, how are you going to get a new application next week or next month? Get another CD?
Lindows has illustated a very important concept for Linux. And, the concept is not simply an easy to install system. Rather the concept is that the many Linux distributors will be working hard to develop easier systems to use. And, no one distributor is going to be restricted by some idiot at the top nixing something that is not decided to be forced upon everyone.
That simply means that Linux is in a situation to deliver a full range of distributions. Some extremely difficult by high powered. And, some extremely simple to use.
And, "extremely simple to use" is going to be the key to putting Linux on the desktop. It will not be the power machines. It will be the simple to install, simple to use and simple to install additional software systems that will be the key.
If RedHat does not do it, Xandros will. If Xandros does not, Mandrake will. If Mandrake does not, Lindows will. On and on.
The desktop market is completely different than the server market.
But, Linux has a clear advantage in the desktop market. It is a different advantage than in the server markets, but it is a real one.