I am familiar with Debian as well as RedHat, Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, eLx and a few others. But, what is "windows"?
Is that a GUI or windows manager?
By the way, Mandrake, Xandros (beta) and Lindows (also beta for us) all install on one pass through the CDs. I have no idea why Microsoft thinks that the machine has to boot, reboot and triple boot just to get the hareware hooked up. Sounds like defective software to me. The free software does not require it. Why should the most expensive software require it?
Read the recent decision (settlement) with the FTC in regard to PassPort.
But, the short answer is that if you lie about a product for the purpose of making the sale or getting the property or money of someone else, yes, it could be fraud.
And, it does not need to be a "lie". It only needs to be deceptive.
That is why the FTC is involved in all kinds of actions regarding truth in advertising or the settlement on PassPort.
There is no doubt that fraud is a highly effective business practice. That is why it is used. It gets peoples money.
That is why Micorosft lies about the price being paid for IE. It gets consumers to "not object" to the purchase. It gets their money. And, it holds them off from complaining about illegal bundling.
There is no other reason to claim IE is free. Why not just say it is $35 and it is part of the purchase of the OS? What is wrong with that?
Some consumers would object, right? So, fraud is used.
Microsoft documents apparently have something to reveal.
It does not sound like lack of demand had anything to do with it.
Sounds more and more like additional illegal activity.
The following is taken from the opening statement by the States.
1. Microsoft held a series of meetings with Dell in regard to linux 2. Meetings involved both Gates and Ballmer 3. Microsoft does not sell a linux distro 4. Microsoft needs to remind Dell why it is smart to partner with Microsoft 5. Dell feels a need to discuss linux with Microsoft? (does he need permission from the godfather?) 6. Ballmer is urged to make certain that Dell understands it is untenable for Dell to be marketing linux 7. Ballmer suggests that Gates give Dell somewhat of a hard time (Ballmer suggests that Gates brown nose Dell) 8. Dell in June of 2001 informs Microsoft (the crime family) that Dell has canceled their linux business unit 9. Does not smell like lack of market demand at all
Is this testimony? No, just statements from the States based upon Microsoft documents.
But, does this sound like a lack of marketing demand nixed Redhat on Dell desktops? Not to me it does not.
It sounds like Dell thinks that Microsoft Corporation has to approve any contracts that Dell might want to sign with others. (Or, they have to cancel if Microsoft does not approve.)
I would not be so quick to just write off another Linux distro.
It may be very important that it comes from SUN.
And, it is not because Linux needs another distro either.
Rather it is because SUN will package hardware and software and sell the package to corporate accounts. HPaq, IBM and others do not do that. DELL is beat up by the criminals running Microsoft everytime they try.
But, SUN has not deal with Microsoft. They do not have to squeeze terms out of the illegal operation. They can just put together the hardware/software that works and works well and begin their marketing. And, Linux on the desktop needs that very much.
When corporations start buying 1,000 orders of SUN Linux and boxen, the other OEMs in the business will be forced to tell Microsoft to stuff their obusive terms. And, that will make all the difference in the world.
Do you really think Hpaq and IBM is going to just let SUN have all the corporate business for Linux on the desktop? Hpaq does offer a few Linux desktop solutions but they are limited. And, they are not across the board.
That dynamic can all change when SUN enters that marketplace. And, selling linux desktops does not erode their service business either. That would be the entry into a market which they presently do not participate in. And, that could be more significant than SUN adding itself to the list of Linux Server suppliers.
What will they do? Ignore the corporate desktop market? Or, package a fine white box, Linux and StarOffice? And, sell, promote and support them by the thousands? That is something that HPaq and IBM do not do.
The EU is biding their time on the antitrust issues with Microsoft.
Historically, foreign jurisdictions hold off with antitrust actions until the home country is finished up. It is sort of a gentleman's agreement to do that.
In the old IBM case, the DOJ finally finished up doing nothing. Sound familiar? But, Europe required significant disclosure of information by IBM. And, that disclosure had world wide implications of course.
The same is likely to be the case for Microsoft. But, AOL, Be and SUN each have their own private cases still pending. And, the consumer class action lawsuits are still to come. No testimony has been taken in any of those cases to date.
I doubt the EU will wait for the private law suits. But, they may wait until after the DOJ and States' cases are finally resolved. Or, as it sounds, they may only wait until the current remedy judge issues her decision and then they may go ahead and act.
The EU is not subject to the same policial games as the DOJ and the AGs here. James from the DOJ tried to go over there on Microsoft's behalf and try to convince them to do nothing that would interfere with the political money coming in, but I doubt they care.
Mr. James going to the EU is fine. But, when you misrepresent the current state of the antitrust laws in the US trying to hold them off, your true client is disclosed to all. And, right now, the DOJ takes its orders from Microsoft all contrary to their oaths of office.
The API issue is an important one although not the major issue in the antitrust case nor a major fraud issue. It is more of a credability issue.
And, of course if Microsoft were split up along the lines that Judge Jackson originally ordered, those secret API issues would go away.
Even with the higher disclosure requirements of the States' remedy, insiders within Microsoft will always have an advantage. And, that is so even though Microsoft benefits from giving that information to ISVs that write to the Microsoft platform.
The solution here is to drop Microsoft and go with open source. From the viewpoint of an ISV, open source will always offer a clear advantage. And, that is most likely the primary reason Microsoft has opened up a bit just lately. In the long run, they have to compete for developers. But, developers are better off without them. The "marketing" department will drive the relationship with Microsoft for some time. But, the developers are better off elsewhere. And, that will always be true.
Selling to a dominant platform is fine. But, if you are always at a disadvantage because of secrecy and illegal acts, that gets old over time.
Once competition heats up on Linux (and other open source platforms) there will be little interest in dealing with companies the likes of Microsoft.
And, by "heating up" I mean several very good desktop oriented distributions that find they can make money persuing that market. RedHat is still focused on the server market. Mandrake is much better for the desktop users but it lags in ease of use compared to Corel Linux (years old), Lindows and Xandros (from Corel).
Linux on the desktop if fine now for a somewhat qualified person. And, for corporations that want to develop custom applications that run their store. But, for general use it needs some real promotion and retail success. That will come.
Wal-Mart already puts out the Mandrake and Lindows systems. And, others will follow.
SUN appears about ready to offer a Linux based desktop system for corporate use. That might perk up Hpaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway and others. Once the corporate linux desktop takes off, there is no way that the Microsoft OEMs will want to let SUN have all the Linux desktop business. Or, only share it with Wal-Mart.
SUN may be the critical player here. You can like SUN or not like SUN. But, they do not market Microsoft based PCs. So they can not be brown nosed and beet up by Microsoft as DELL is. And, once the Linux desktop market materializes DELL is not going to take that crap from the idiots at Microsoft.
I am frankly surprised the Microsoft lawyers even called him as a witness. He had nothing relevant to say. I am sure AMD got something in exchange. But, any seasoned judge just have to laugh (inside) when such witnesses come forward.
The only real value for Microsoft was the false eye wash for the press. Here is the AMD guy backing up the convicted monopolist.
If it were the Intel guy it might make sense. But, they (or he) may have refused. The AMD guy (Sanders) needed the pat on the back and was willing to compromise his own position in his industry in order to get it. Do you think Sanders would defend Intel if they are in court trying to fool the judge into letting them off?
A number of Microsoft employees/witnesses should be prosecuted for perjury. But, who would do it? The DOJ?
The DOJ demands that Microsoft be granted monopolies in not only browsers but only media players, instant messaging and anything else that shows up important on the internet.
Corrupt justice lawyers will not do anything unless Microsoft says so.
What was clear during the remedy hearings was that Microsoft was telling the DOJ what to say and everyone else was advising the States. Well. Who is everyone else? "Everyone else" consists of consumers and the industry as a whole.
The sad part is that the idiots at the DOJ ignored both consumers and the entire industry and just did as Microsoft demanded. And, that was after they lost the case. So, the DOJ is a real idiot. They even lied about the law in order to try to cover their corrupt positions. And, the judge noticed.
Actually, the libertarian and conservative factions are based less upon anti-trust ideology than just "anti-government anything". This is particularly true with the Cato Institute. They do not defend Microsoft as against AOL but rather just think the government should stay out of it.
As for fraud, you do need the deception or lie (and it only needs to deceive) but you also need the transaction where they get your money.
Lying to consumers about the price of IE is one example. You can lie and claim the billion dollar development project has no affect upon the price of the product, but the law says otherwise. Economics say otherwise. Corporations simply do not spend billions in R&D for a product they do not think they will get a return on. They just do not do that. Looking at the price of the OS before and after IE is bundled is not the test. As a matter of law, each item in the box is attributed to have received some of that money. And, even Microsoft claimed to stockholders that some money they get is allocated to IE. Of course, they tell stockholders one thing (the returns) but lie to the public (free product). But, when as a matter of law it is not free (as was in fact decided by Judge Jackson and not overturned by the appellate court) then saying it is free is fraudulent. And, perhaps actionable fraud.
The consumer class action suits against Microsoft are not over yet either. It will be interesting to see if some of that action is based upon fraud. Most likely it is but I have not read the complaints. There is about 100 of them. So, I am sure more than one made a claim for fraud in addition to the antitrust violations.
The problem with the API claim is with the money aspect. When Microsoft claims that no APIs are hiddle and developers are duped, technically they are not buying the product. Rather they are developing and helping to support it. They have been conned just the same. But, for actionable fraud some money or property has to flow from the mark to the deceiving liar. And, I do not think the mark has to actually believe the lie and in fact rely upon it. I think in many jurisdictions it is enough that the claim is false and the false claim was made for the purpose of getting the money or property. Some "marks" may very well not believe a statement but go along anyway suffering as the result (out of their money).
The FTC could be more instrumental here. Just as with PassPort, if claims are false, they should be held accountable. But, then as with PassPort, sometimes the "criminal" just agrees to stop while keeping tbe benefit of the false statements to date.
That is why it is very important that the illegal gains made by Microsoft in the browser market be turned back. Antitrust law is supposed to be capable of undoing illegal gains. But, if IE is not placed into open source by the remedy or IE's share of the market is not restricted or returned to 20% or so, the antitrust laws failed. And, anyone looking at that will just assume they are of no value. That is what Gates said and thinks. And, that is why that idiot violates federal law so much.
In the end, Gates may decide it was not worth it. But, if the AOL judgement is less that 10 billion or so, Gates will be conviced that illegal means are good business.
Con-men, Microsoft and pathetic liars have a lot in common.
Whether something is actually true or not never enters the picture.
The test is whether enough people will be defrauded when they hear it.
But, true con-men are more intelligent. They actually need to have the con work or they could get arrested. Microsoft and pathetic liars can not help themselves.
I have known pathetic liars so bad that they use one lie to try to cover for a previous one. And, if that fails, they offer yet a third, and a forth... on and on. By the end of the week, nothing they have said was true. It is amazing. How they manage to make claim after claim and they are all false.
Microsoft is pathetic.
They lied about their having a monopoly before the judge made that ruling. And, now they lie about it again just assume some idiots have not figured it out and will be defrauded again.
There is no doubt that fraud works.
And, many Microsoft supporters will believe anything because Microsoft got their money. It is funny though. When criminals and con-men get your money, the mark usually figures out they were had but it is just too late. Microsoft supporters are charactistically not intelligent enough.
Yes, even little old ladies usually figure it out eventually.
This announcement will not have any affect upon the current litigation. At least not the case by the States.
The reason is that all testimony has already been taken.
It is just like the stupid decision by the appellate court that Microsoft did not try to monopolize the browser market. That was clearly incorrect but the court is strapped with the evidence in the case as of the testimony. And as of years earlier, Microsoft only acheived about a 50% market share. And, with those facts before the appellate court, you are likely to get such an opinion.
However, when the AOL case gets to the jury, facts will be completely different. Then 90-95% will be evidence. Very different indeed.
That is a basic problem with the legal system and it is why Microsoft lawyers can lie in public the way they do. Microsoft lawyers lie to the press and to the public based upon old facts that are clearly no longer relevant. But, to the ignorant, it is a sale.
Funny, however, that Microsoft again starts to lie about having a monopoly.
But, they are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway. They have proven that numerous times.
Remember the idiot under oath who told the judge that SUNs JVM was not included with XP because of the GPL?
And, remember the idiot that told the judge that Microsoft will withdraw from the market if it does not like the judgment?
And, remember the three stouges that each claimed they thought removing icons had something to do with commingled code.
Microsoft's lies are not even credable and yet they spit them out to defraud consumers. And, the judges as it turns out.
Fraud is the use of a false or deceptive statement for the purpose of getting your money.
Microsoft's lie that it is not a monopoly clearly qualifies as false or deceptive. And, they clearly have given it for the purpose of getting your money.
Of course, the interesting thing was the particular software would plot the sequencial readings on a map. You see, this was a marine software package so the course of your "boat" was important, right?
Well. It was important. And, if you were trying to figure out how close you were to the California coast line it would be just fine. But, when you know your "boat" is not going anywhere, what you plot over time is simply the inaccuracy of the GPS, etc.
The quarter mile error was about the worst. But, one eigth to a sixteenth occured in just about all directions. It was one hell of a ride if you "believe the instruments". And, of course, I had military training that taught you to believe the instruments over your own assessments. Well. Usually that is fine.
I would love to try the same experiment today. Marine software would try to plot your course over time for navigation purposes. The other stuff out there just tells you where you are now (supposedly) and does not give you any capability to doubt its accuracy.
And, of course, since satellite are flying around all the time they can alter the accuracy of their information as well. As far as I know, the GPS satellites are not geosyncronous. They actually move around the place (our planet).
So, if you are in one place (such as a fixed building) you can easily test the accuracy of their system. And, the marine software nicely plots it. Of course it is disburbing if you falsely conclude your place is moving around.
A few years back (when I lived in San Jose) I got ahold of a GPS unit and a marine navigation software package (Cpt something).
The nice part of the package was that you could fire up the GPs unit (and since it was for marine navigation) it would plat your course over time on a map.
Well. This was too tempting.
So, (in my house) I set up the antenna and unit and began to plot my course.
Well. Hey, this was around the time of the recent earthquake in Oakland around 1992 or so, but still, my place is not going to move, right?
Wrong.
My place moved. Over a day or so, plotting my movement, my place moved as much as a quarter mile or so in several directions. No, I did not notice any more earthquakes during that time.
And, no, I do not think the military had their satelites set to the 10 meter or better resolution. But, a "quarter a mile".
Actually, Microsoft employed individuals to use false identification to bad mouth OS/2 and favor Microsoft. That was in the early days.
More recently Microsoft charged IBM a higher price because they would not cease competing with their office products and OS/2.
The latter issue could form the basis for another major antitrust law suit brought by IBM against Microsoft. Will they file? I do not make that call.
But, I have been calling for AOL and SUN to file their private law suit for years. And, just recently they have done so. Both AOL and SUN will also win their respective law suits. As will BE.
Other law suits may include those from RedHat and other linux distributors. That law suit could actually be a class action law suit.
But, since you refuse to give your name your post is of little merit anyway. I would not use my name if I did not believe what I wrote either.
Microsoft paid $150 million to avoid the DOS Windows bundling from getting to the judge.
Desqview did not sue. But, they could have. Suggesting Microsoft only illegally bundled the windows manager after Desqview was dead is your opinion. And, may not matter much. Besides, illegal acts are not excused simply because a competitor is on the way out. Rather illegal acts are then unnecessary.
It is just like the idiots who beat up on DELL. If the false claim that Gates and Ballmer did not need to beat on Dell were true, then they would not have to do so, would they? Do you really think a guy like Gates and Ballmer act needlessly? They do not think so. So, when you claim DELL was going to axe linux anyway, you make Gates and Ballmer look to be fools.
As for your suggestion that the courts disagree with my opionions, perhaps you should read the court decision more carefully. But, do not read the decisions that use faulty jurisprudance.
The consent degree you like to mention was designed to prevent IE from being a required purchase with the OS. Perhaps you would like to explain to others what you think it was supposed to do? If not that?
Microsoft was not convicted of violating it because that issue was never properly litigated. The large DOJ and States case replaced it.
As for the monopoly in the OS, that was true for a long time. And, whether Microsoft got the monopoly legally or not has not been litigated. The new monopoly in browers is being litigated in the AOL law suit.
As for DELL:
Microsoft documents apparently have something to reveal.
It does not sound like lack of demand had anything to do with it.
Sounds more and more like additional illegal activity.
The following is taken from the opening statement by the States.
1. Microsoft held a series of meetings with Dell in regard to linux 2. Meetings involved both Gates and Ballmer 3. Microsoft does not sell a linux distro 4. Microsoft needs to remind Dell why it is smart to partner with Microsoft 5. Dell feels a need to discuss linux with Microsoft? (does he need permission from the godfather?) 6. Ballmer is urged to make certain that Dell understands it is untenable for Dell to be marketing linux 7. Ballmer suggests that Gates give Dell somewhat of a hard time (Ballmer suggests that Gates brown nose Dell) 8. Dell in June of 2001 informs Microsoft (the crime family) that Dell has canceled their linux business unit 9. Does not smell like lack of market demand at all
Is this testimony? No, just statements from the States based upon Microsoft documents.
But, does this sound like a lack of marketing demand nixed Redhat on Dell desktops? Not to me it does not.
It sounds like Dell thinks that Microsoft Corporation has to approve any contracts that Dell might want to sign with others. (Or, they have to cancel if Microsoft does not approve.)
Microsoft paid Caldera $150 million to avoid a possible judgment on the matter.
And, yes, I am a lawyer so I can have a legal opinion that what Microsoft did was in fact a violation of the Federal antitrust laws.
The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview. Windows was no more than KDE or GNOME is today. In fact, it still is.
Illegal bundling does in fact preclude competition from markets. That is "why" Microsoft engages in those acts.
And, yes, I am a lawyer and do have a legal opinion that bundling a windows manager is illegal tying. It is illegal tying just like the browser is illegal tying. Do we have the final court decision on the browser tying? No. Not yet. The AOL law suit is still pending.
Look, if Gates the idiot did not think that beating up on DELL was not necessary, why was he so stupid to engage in the act?
You can claim that you disagree with the need for Gates to do what he did, but Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops.
You can create all the false ideas you want, but what they did is what matters. And, if your false stories were true, they would not have had to do anything at all. So, Gates and Baller disagree with you. Not me.
I only think what they did was illegal and stupid.
Illegal acts can nix a very fine competing product?
DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts. Microsft even paid the money to settle the Caldera case.
Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue. Perhaps they should have?
And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.
And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.
There is no doubt that Gates thinks he is better off conducting illegal acts to hold off competition. That is why he himself engages in those illegal acts.
Xandros has put a nice face on the feature. With Xandros you can define whether the return to the first screen will require or not require a password. Again a fine touch.
I think the issue here is that different distros can feature or not feature capabilities that individual users may really desire.
For example, Mandrake will use Samba just as Xandros does. But, 90% of all windows users would never use Mandrake because of the lack of ease of use to network.
For years now, Corel Linux offered a clone of the Windows Explorer including "Network Neighborhood". But, the latest version of Mandrake is off on a picknic somewhere. It is not worth the time and trouble to learn the hard way when a right click will set it up right in the file manager.
And, again the point is that the different distros will focus upon ease of use features in a different way. That is a primary advantage that linux will always benefit from and Microsoft will not. Microsoft may design their stuff one way, but who is to say that they pick the best way. And, "best for whom?" is always the issue.
Regular line employees would not want Mandrake. Xandros or Lindows may be a much better solution for them. Less learning and a lot more like the Microsoft stuff they already know or also use from time to time. No one linux distro is going to do that as long as that company focuses upon the server market.
And, that is the other point here. The desktop market is very different. And, it is not singular either. Developers may want or accept one version while a much easier distro may be necessary for 80-90% of all PC users.
Clearly Microsoft wants to put out the phrase hoping that the weak of mind will believe it.
But, it is just getting started.
Lindows and Mandrake have just now shown up on the Wal-mart web site. Sure, DELL was beaten up by Gates and forced to beg off the market for now, but they will return. It may not be until the idiots at Microsoft are forced to comply with the appropriate laws, but it will happen.
How can you help?
Help distribute OpenOffice and even help promote StarOffice. Contact your local "beige box boys" and suggest they preload at least OpenOffice with every PC that goes out the door. They can even charge a few dollars extra to have it installed. Windows or linux, it does not matter. It is the benefit to the custom that will help alternative products and linux included.
If Wal-Mart can sell PCs preloaded with Mandrake and Lindows, then so can the rest of them. And, once competition knows what is expected of them, they will comply. What is gone are the days when an extra $700 of Microsoft software is bundled with each PC that sells. That is no longer necessary. And, the vendors who figure that out will get the business.
Have you compared Xandros or even the old Corel Linux with the windows explorer? Maybe you should.
Corel Linux (several years old by now) is just as easy to use as windows ever was. And, currently Xandros is taking it a bit farther. Even farther than Mandrake with its "switch screen" features. It allows the user to log on another screen without logging off the first one. And then, of course, switching back and forth between users.
Does it matter that Xandros puts out that kind of feature?
Yes, it does.
Linux will provide the platform for a whole series of very useful features. A single entity such as Microsoft simply can not and will not do so. Neither will just Mandrake. But, putting RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, eLx, Xandros, Lindows and others all into a highly competitive marketplace will greatly expand that marketplace and provide real benefits for all kinds of consumers.
Linux on the desktop is not dead. Microsoft might be.
Slashdot Mirror
I have used Interbase from Borland and Firebird is an excellent choice.
It is easy to set up and maintain and it is a full commercial implementation.
Yes, and it has the good stuff too (triggers, stored procs, views, etc.).
And, if you really need to pay someone you can always get Interbase from Borland directly.
I am familiar with Debian as well as RedHat, Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, eLx and a few others. But, what is "windows"?
Is that a GUI or windows manager?
By the way, Mandrake, Xandros (beta) and Lindows (also beta for us) all install on one pass through the CDs. I have no idea why Microsoft thinks that the machine has to boot, reboot and triple boot just to get the hareware hooked up. Sounds like defective software to me. The free software does not require it. Why should the most expensive software require it?
Read the recent decision (settlement) with the FTC in regard to PassPort.
But, the short answer is that if you lie about a product for the purpose of making the sale or getting the property or money of someone else, yes, it could be fraud.
And, it does not need to be a "lie". It only needs to be deceptive.
That is why the FTC is involved in all kinds of actions regarding truth in advertising or the settlement on PassPort.
There is no doubt that fraud is a highly effective business practice. That is why it is used. It gets peoples money.
That is why Micorosft lies about the price being paid for IE. It gets consumers to "not object" to the purchase. It gets their money. And, it holds them off from complaining about illegal bundling.
There is no other reason to claim IE is free. Why not just say it is $35 and it is part of the purchase of the OS? What is wrong with that?
Some consumers would object, right? So, fraud is used.
Microsoft documents apparently have something to reveal.
It does not sound like lack of demand had anything to do with it.
Sounds more and more like additional illegal activity.
The following is taken from the opening statement by the States.
1. Microsoft held a series of meetings with Dell in regard to linux
2. Meetings involved both Gates and Ballmer
3. Microsoft does not sell a linux distro
4. Microsoft needs to remind Dell why it is smart to partner with Microsoft
5. Dell feels a need to discuss linux with Microsoft? (does he need permission from the godfather?)
6. Ballmer is urged to make certain that Dell understands it is untenable for Dell to be marketing linux
7. Ballmer suggests that Gates give Dell somewhat of a hard time (Ballmer suggests that Gates brown nose Dell)
8. Dell in June of 2001 informs Microsoft (the crime family) that Dell has canceled their linux business unit
9. Does not smell like lack of market demand at all
Is this testimony? No, just statements from the States based upon Microsoft documents.
But, does this sound like a lack of marketing demand nixed Redhat on Dell desktops? Not to me it does not.
It sounds like Dell thinks that Microsoft Corporation has to approve any contracts that Dell might want to sign with others. (Or, they have to cancel if Microsoft does not approve.)
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. (lamlaw.com)
I would not be so quick to just write off another Linux distro.
It may be very important that it comes from SUN.
And, it is not because Linux needs another distro either.
Rather it is because SUN will package hardware and software and sell the package to corporate accounts. HPaq, IBM and others do not do that. DELL is beat up by the criminals running Microsoft everytime they try.
But, SUN has not deal with Microsoft. They do not have to squeeze terms out of the illegal operation. They can just put together the hardware/software that works and works well and begin their marketing. And, Linux on the desktop needs that very much.
When corporations start buying 1,000 orders of SUN Linux and boxen, the other OEMs in the business will be forced to tell Microsoft to stuff their obusive terms. And, that will make all the difference in the world.
Do you really think Hpaq and IBM is going to just let SUN have all the corporate business for Linux on the desktop? Hpaq does offer a few Linux desktop solutions but they are limited. And, they are not across the board.
That dynamic can all change when SUN enters that marketplace. And, selling linux desktops does not erode their service business either. That would be the entry into a market which they presently do not participate in. And, that could be more significant than SUN adding itself to the list of Linux Server suppliers.
What will they do? Ignore the corporate desktop market? Or, package a fine white box, Linux and StarOffice? And, sell, promote and support them by the thousands? That is something that HPaq and IBM do not do.
The EU is biding their time on the antitrust issues with Microsoft.
Historically, foreign jurisdictions hold off with antitrust actions until the home country is finished up. It is sort of a gentleman's agreement to do that.
In the old IBM case, the DOJ finally finished up doing nothing. Sound familiar? But, Europe required significant disclosure of information by IBM. And, that disclosure had world wide implications of course.
The same is likely to be the case for Microsoft. But, AOL, Be and SUN each have their own private cases still pending. And, the consumer class action lawsuits are still to come. No testimony has been taken in any of those cases to date.
I doubt the EU will wait for the private law suits. But, they may wait until after the DOJ and States' cases are finally resolved. Or, as it sounds, they may only wait until the current remedy judge issues her decision and then they may go ahead and act.
The EU is not subject to the same policial games as the DOJ and the AGs here. James from the DOJ tried to go over there on Microsoft's behalf and try to convince them to do nothing that would interfere with the political money coming in, but I doubt they care.
Mr. James going to the EU is fine. But, when you misrepresent the current state of the antitrust laws in the US trying to hold them off, your true client is disclosed to all. And, right now, the DOJ takes its orders from Microsoft all contrary to their oaths of office.
The API issue is an important one although not the major issue in the antitrust case nor a major fraud issue. It is more of a credability issue.
And, of course if Microsoft were split up along the lines that Judge Jackson originally ordered, those secret API issues would go away.
Even with the higher disclosure requirements of the States' remedy, insiders within Microsoft will always have an advantage. And, that is so even though Microsoft benefits from giving that information to ISVs that write to the Microsoft platform.
The solution here is to drop Microsoft and go with open source. From the viewpoint of an ISV, open source will always offer a clear advantage. And, that is most likely the primary reason Microsoft has opened up a bit just lately. In the long run, they have to compete for developers. But, developers are better off without them. The "marketing" department will drive the relationship with Microsoft for some time. But, the developers are better off elsewhere. And, that will always be true.
Selling to a dominant platform is fine. But, if you are always at a disadvantage because of secrecy and illegal acts, that gets old over time.
Once competition heats up on Linux (and other open source platforms) there will be little interest in dealing with companies the likes of Microsoft.
And, by "heating up" I mean several very good desktop oriented distributions that find they can make money persuing that market. RedHat is still focused on the server market. Mandrake is much better for the desktop users but it lags in ease of use compared to Corel Linux (years old), Lindows and Xandros (from Corel).
Linux on the desktop if fine now for a somewhat qualified person. And, for corporations that want to develop custom applications that run their store. But, for general use it needs some real promotion and retail success. That will come.
Wal-Mart already puts out the Mandrake and Lindows systems. And, others will follow.
SUN appears about ready to offer a Linux based desktop system for corporate use. That might perk up Hpaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway and others. Once the corporate linux desktop takes off, there is no way that the Microsoft OEMs will want to let SUN have all the Linux desktop business. Or, only share it with Wal-Mart.
SUN may be the critical player here. You can like SUN or not like SUN. But, they do not market Microsoft based PCs. So they can not be brown nosed and beet up by Microsoft as DELL is. And, once the Linux desktop market materializes DELL is not going to take that crap from the idiots at Microsoft.
Yea, what was that guys name anyway?
I am frankly surprised the Microsoft lawyers even called him as a witness. He had nothing relevant to say. I am sure AMD got something in exchange. But, any seasoned judge just have to laugh (inside) when such witnesses come forward.
The only real value for Microsoft was the false eye wash for the press. Here is the AMD guy backing up the convicted monopolist.
If it were the Intel guy it might make sense. But, they (or he) may have refused. The AMD guy (Sanders) needed the pat on the back and was willing to compromise his own position in his industry in order to get it. Do you think Sanders would defend Intel if they are in court trying to fool the judge into letting them off?
That would be funny.
And, you are so ashamed to be saying something you do not believe that you refused to use your own name.
It does make one sick.
But, in the morning you have to get up again. So, sometimes you have to remember where you got the bad stuff.
A number of Microsoft employees/witnesses should be prosecuted for perjury. But, who would do it? The DOJ?
The DOJ demands that Microsoft be granted monopolies in not only browsers but only media players, instant messaging and anything else that shows up important on the internet.
Corrupt justice lawyers will not do anything unless Microsoft says so.
What was clear during the remedy hearings was that Microsoft was telling the DOJ what to say and everyone else was advising the States. Well. Who is everyone else? "Everyone else" consists of consumers and the industry as a whole.
The sad part is that the idiots at the DOJ ignored both consumers and the entire industry and just did as Microsoft demanded. And, that was after they lost the case. So, the DOJ is a real idiot. They even lied about the law in order to try to cover their corrupt positions. And, the judge noticed.
Actually, the libertarian and conservative factions are based less upon anti-trust ideology than just "anti-government anything". This is particularly true with the Cato Institute. They do not defend Microsoft as against AOL but rather just think the government should stay out of it.
As for fraud, you do need the deception or lie (and it only needs to deceive) but you also need the transaction where they get your money.
Lying to consumers about the price of IE is one example. You can lie and claim the billion dollar development project has no affect upon the price of the product, but the law says otherwise. Economics say otherwise. Corporations simply do not spend billions in R&D for a product they do not think they will get a return on. They just do not do that. Looking at the price of the OS before and after IE is bundled is not the test. As a matter of law, each item in the box is attributed to have received some of that money. And, even Microsoft claimed to stockholders that some money they get is allocated to IE. Of course, they tell stockholders one thing (the returns) but lie to the public (free product). But, when as a matter of law it is not free (as was in fact decided by Judge Jackson and not overturned by the appellate court) then saying it is free is fraudulent. And, perhaps actionable fraud.
The consumer class action suits against Microsoft are not over yet either. It will be interesting to see if some of that action is based upon fraud. Most likely it is but I have not read the complaints. There is about 100 of them. So, I am sure more than one made a claim for fraud in addition to the antitrust violations.
The problem with the API claim is with the money aspect. When Microsoft claims that no APIs are hiddle and developers are duped, technically they are not buying the product. Rather they are developing and helping to support it. They have been conned just the same. But, for actionable fraud some money or property has to flow from the mark to the deceiving liar. And, I do not think the mark has to actually believe the lie and in fact rely upon it. I think in many jurisdictions it is enough that the claim is false and the false claim was made for the purpose of getting the money or property. Some "marks" may very well not believe a statement but go along anyway suffering as the result (out of their money).
The FTC could be more instrumental here. Just as with PassPort, if claims are false, they should be held accountable. But, then as with PassPort, sometimes the "criminal" just agrees to stop while keeping tbe benefit of the false statements to date.
That is why it is very important that the illegal gains made by Microsoft in the browser market be turned back. Antitrust law is supposed to be capable of undoing illegal gains. But, if IE is not placed into open source by the remedy or IE's share of the market is not restricted or returned to 20% or so, the antitrust laws failed. And, anyone looking at that will just assume they are of no value. That is what Gates said and thinks. And, that is why that idiot violates federal law so much.
In the end, Gates may decide it was not worth it. But, if the AOL judgement is less that 10 billion or so, Gates will be conviced that illegal means are good business.
Con-men, Microsoft and pathetic liars have a lot in common.
... on and on. By the end of the week, nothing they have said was true. It is amazing. How they manage to make claim after claim and they are all false.
Whether something is actually true or not never enters the picture.
The test is whether enough people will be defrauded when they hear it.
But, true con-men are more intelligent. They actually need to have the con work or they could get arrested. Microsoft and pathetic liars can not help themselves.
I have known pathetic liars so bad that they use one lie to try to cover for a previous one. And, if that fails, they offer yet a third, and a forth
Microsoft is pathetic.
They lied about their having a monopoly before the judge made that ruling. And, now they lie about it again just assume some idiots have not figured it out and will be defrauded again.
There is no doubt that fraud works.
And, many Microsoft supporters will believe anything because Microsoft got their money. It is funny though. When criminals and con-men get your money, the mark usually figures out they were had but it is just too late. Microsoft supporters are charactistically not intelligent enough.
Yes, even little old ladies usually figure it out eventually.
This announcement will not have any affect upon the current litigation. At least not the case by the States.
The reason is that all testimony has already been taken.
It is just like the stupid decision by the appellate court that Microsoft did not try to monopolize the browser market. That was clearly incorrect but the court is strapped with the evidence in the case as of the testimony. And as of years earlier, Microsoft only acheived about a 50% market share. And, with those facts before the appellate court, you are likely to get such an opinion.
However, when the AOL case gets to the jury, facts will be completely different. Then 90-95% will be evidence. Very different indeed.
That is a basic problem with the legal system and it is why Microsoft lawyers can lie in public the way they do. Microsoft lawyers lie to the press and to the public based upon old facts that are clearly no longer relevant. But, to the ignorant, it is a sale.
Funny, however, that Microsoft again starts to lie about having a monopoly.
But, they are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway. They have proven that numerous times.
Remember the idiot under oath who told the judge that SUNs JVM was not included with XP because of the GPL?
And, remember the idiot that told the judge that Microsoft will withdraw from the market if it does not like the judgment?
And, remember the three stouges that each claimed they thought removing icons had something to do with commingled code.
Microsoft's lies are not even credable and yet they spit them out to defraud consumers. And, the judges as it turns out.
Just what is fraud anyway?
Fraud is the use of a false or deceptive statement for the purpose of getting your money.
Microsoft's lie that it is not a monopoly clearly qualifies as false or deceptive. And, they clearly have given it for the purpose of getting your money.
Oh I agree.
But, we are talking about a 1992 vintage or so.
Of course, the interesting thing was the particular software would plot the sequencial readings on a map. You see, this was a marine software package so the course of your "boat" was important, right?
Well. It was important. And, if you were trying to figure out how close you were to the California coast line it would be just fine. But, when you know your "boat" is not going anywhere, what you plot over time is simply the inaccuracy of the GPS, etc.
The quarter mile error was about the worst. But, one eigth to a sixteenth occured in just about all directions. It was one hell of a ride if you "believe the instruments". And, of course, I had military training that taught you to believe the instruments over your own assessments. Well. Usually that is fine.
I would love to try the same experiment today. Marine software would try to plot your course over time for navigation purposes. The other stuff out there just tells you where you are now (supposedly) and does not give you any capability to doubt its accuracy.
And, of course, since satellite are flying around all the time they can alter the accuracy of their information as well. As far as I know, the GPS satellites are not geosyncronous. They actually move around the place (our planet).
So, if you are in one place (such as a fixed building) you can easily test the accuracy of their system. And, the marine software nicely plots it. Of course it is disburbing if you falsely conclude your place is moving around.
GPS is informative.
A few years back (when I lived in San Jose) I got ahold of a GPS unit and a marine navigation software package (Cpt something).
The nice part of the package was that you could fire up the GPs unit (and since it was for marine navigation) it would plat your course over time on a map.
Well. This was too tempting.
So, (in my house) I set up the antenna and unit and began to plot my course.
Well. Hey, this was around the time of the recent earthquake in Oakland around 1992 or so, but still, my place is not going to move, right?
Wrong.
My place moved. Over a day or so, plotting my movement, my place moved as much as a quarter mile or so in several directions. No, I did not notice any more earthquakes during that time.
And, no, I do not think the military had their satelites set to the 10 meter or better resolution. But, a "quarter a mile".
Nice cruise is all I could conclude.
Actually, Microsoft employed individuals to use false identification to bad mouth OS/2 and favor Microsoft. That was in the early days.
More recently Microsoft charged IBM a higher price because they would not cease competing with their office products and OS/2.
The latter issue could form the basis for another major antitrust law suit brought by IBM against Microsoft. Will they file? I do not make that call.
But, I have been calling for AOL and SUN to file their private law suit for years. And, just recently they have done so. Both AOL and SUN will also win their respective law suits. As will BE.
Other law suits may include those from RedHat and other linux distributors. That law suit could actually be a class action law suit.
But, since you refuse to give your name your post is of little merit anyway. I would not use my name if I did not believe what I wrote either.
Microsoft paid $150 million to avoid the DOS Windows bundling from getting to the judge.
Desqview did not sue. But, they could have. Suggesting Microsoft only illegally bundled the windows manager after Desqview was dead is your opinion. And, may not matter much. Besides, illegal acts are not excused simply because a competitor is on the way out. Rather illegal acts are then unnecessary.
It is just like the idiots who beat up on DELL. If the false claim that Gates and Ballmer did not need to beat on Dell were true, then they would not have to do so, would they? Do you really think a guy like Gates and Ballmer act needlessly? They do not think so. So, when you claim DELL was going to axe linux anyway, you make Gates and Ballmer look to be fools.
As for your suggestion that the courts disagree with my opionions, perhaps you should read the court decision more carefully. But, do not read the decisions that use faulty jurisprudance.
The consent degree you like to mention was designed to prevent IE from being a required purchase with the OS. Perhaps you would like to explain to others what you think it was supposed to do? If not that?
Microsoft was not convicted of violating it because that issue was never properly litigated. The large DOJ and States case replaced it.
As for the monopoly in the OS, that was true for a long time. And, whether Microsoft got the monopoly legally or not has not been litigated. The new monopoly in browers is being litigated in the AOL law suit.
As for DELL:
Microsoft documents apparently have something to reveal.
It does not sound like lack of demand had anything to do with it.
Sounds more and more like additional illegal activity.
The following is taken from the opening statement by the States.
1. Microsoft held a series of meetings with Dell in regard to linux
2. Meetings involved both Gates and Ballmer
3. Microsoft does not sell a linux distro
4. Microsoft needs to remind Dell why it is smart to partner with Microsoft
5. Dell feels a need to discuss linux with Microsoft? (does he need permission from the godfather?)
6. Ballmer is urged to make certain that Dell understands it is untenable for Dell to be marketing linux
7. Ballmer suggests that Gates give Dell somewhat of a hard time (Ballmer suggests that Gates brown nose Dell)
8. Dell in June of 2001 informs Microsoft (the crime family) that Dell has canceled their linux business unit
9. Does not smell like lack of market demand at all
Is this testimony? No, just statements from the States based upon Microsoft documents.
But, does this sound like a lack of marketing demand nixed Redhat on Dell desktops? Not to me it does not.
It sounds like Dell thinks that Microsoft Corporation has to approve any contracts that Dell might want to sign with others. (Or, they have to cancel if Microsoft does not approve.)
Microsoft paid Caldera $150 million to avoid a possible judgment on the matter.
And, yes, I am a lawyer so I can have a legal opinion that what Microsoft did was in fact a violation of the Federal antitrust laws.
The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview. Windows was no more than KDE or GNOME is today. In fact, it still is.
Illegal bundling does in fact preclude competition from markets. That is "why" Microsoft engages in those acts.
And, yes, I am a lawyer and do have a legal opinion that bundling a windows manager is illegal tying. It is illegal tying just like the browser is illegal tying. Do we have the final court decision on the browser tying? No. Not yet. The AOL law suit is still pending.
Look, if Gates the idiot did not think that beating up on DELL was not necessary, why was he so stupid to engage in the act?
You can claim that you disagree with the need for Gates to do what he did, but Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops.
You can create all the false ideas you want, but what they did is what matters. And, if your false stories were true, they would not have had to do anything at all. So, Gates and Baller disagree with you. Not me.
I only think what they did was illegal and stupid.
Was that your point?
Illegal acts can nix a very fine competing product?
DR-Dos suffered from illegal Microsoft acts. Microsft even paid the money to settle the Caldera case.
Desqview suffered from the Window Manager being bundled with DOS even though Deskview did not sue. Perhaps they should have?
And, OS/2 was also subject to a number of illegal moves by Microsoft including many conduct right in the face of IBM.
And, most recently the idiot Gates took the baseball bat to DELL in order to force them to drop (for now) their support of linux on the desktop.
There is no doubt that Gates thinks he is better off conducting illegal acts to hold off competition. That is why he himself engages in those illegal acts.
I learn something new every day.
Xandros has put a nice face on the feature. With Xandros you can define whether the return to the first screen will require or not require a password. Again a fine touch.
I think the issue here is that different distros can feature or not feature capabilities that individual users may really desire.
For example, Mandrake will use Samba just as Xandros does. But, 90% of all windows users would never use Mandrake because of the lack of ease of use to network.
For years now, Corel Linux offered a clone of the Windows Explorer including "Network Neighborhood". But, the latest version of Mandrake is off on a picknic somewhere. It is not worth the time and trouble to learn the hard way when a right click will set it up right in the file manager.
And, again the point is that the different distros will focus upon ease of use features in a different way. That is a primary advantage that linux will always benefit from and Microsoft will not. Microsoft may design their stuff one way, but who is to say that they pick the best way. And, "best for whom?" is always the issue.
Regular line employees would not want Mandrake. Xandros or Lindows may be a much better solution for them. Less learning and a lot more like the Microsoft stuff they already know or also use from time to time. No one linux distro is going to do that as long as that company focuses upon the server market.
And, that is the other point here. The desktop market is very different. And, it is not singular either. Developers may want or accept one version while a much easier distro may be necessary for 80-90% of all PC users.
Check out the lindows.com web site.
NPR has a recorded interview with Michael on the Lindows deal.
Linux on the desktop is not dead by any means.
Clearly Microsoft wants to put out the phrase hoping that the weak of mind will believe it.
But, it is just getting started.
Lindows and Mandrake have just now shown up on the Wal-mart web site. Sure, DELL was beaten up by Gates and forced to beg off the market for now, but they will return. It may not be until the idiots at Microsoft are forced to comply with the appropriate laws, but it will happen.
How can you help?
Help distribute OpenOffice and even help promote StarOffice. Contact your local "beige box boys" and suggest they preload at least OpenOffice with every PC that goes out the door. They can even charge a few dollars extra to have it installed. Windows or linux, it does not matter. It is the benefit to the custom that will help alternative products and linux included.
If Wal-Mart can sell PCs preloaded with Mandrake and Lindows, then so can the rest of them. And, once competition knows what is expected of them, they will comply. What is gone are the days when an extra $700 of Microsoft software is bundled with each PC that sells. That is no longer necessary. And, the vendors who figure that out will get the business.
Have you compared Xandros or even the old Corel Linux with the windows explorer? Maybe you should.
Corel Linux (several years old by now) is just as easy to use as windows ever was. And, currently Xandros is taking it a bit farther. Even farther than Mandrake with its "switch screen" features. It allows the user to log on another screen without logging off the first one. And then, of course, switching back and forth between users.
Does it matter that Xandros puts out that kind of feature?
Yes, it does.
Linux will provide the platform for a whole series of very useful features. A single entity such as Microsoft simply can not and will not do so. Neither will just Mandrake. But, putting RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, eLx, Xandros, Lindows and others all into a highly competitive marketplace will greatly expand that marketplace and provide real benefits for all kinds of consumers.
Linux on the desktop is not dead. Microsoft might be.
Operating systems never are used.
Applications are.