New Mexico Drops out of Microsoft Case 271
Hiawatha writes: "Looks like
Microsoft has peeled off one of the states." The article is kinda interesting, it talks about how New Mexico's attorney general is all on Microsoft's side now against the remaining states. It's amazing that after years of abusing its power, Microsoft is just gonna walk over this. *sigh*.
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
Just get over it, they're better than 99% of other companies out there. You have to either deal with it or shut up.
Re:OT: your .sig (Score:2)
Yes, the condom provides a possible solution the social problem of unwanted pregnancy. And yet, unwanted pregnancy happens a lot still. Why? Because the technological solution isn't used. Technology provides the tools to solve problems, but not the motivation for using them. The sociological solution of teaching people about the implications of sex and their options for preventing its unwanted side-effects (and convincing them to believe you) will solve the problem. The existence of the condom does nothing unless the social issues surrounding its use are dealt with.
As a New Mexican (Score:2)
Re:Startups, why not an OS? (Score:2)
Microsoft is going to be _thwacked_ in some sort of way. Dunno just how, but count how many times 'everyone said' they were going to be let off, and then got totally screwed. It's not over. Suppose they get caught for threatening the New Mexico AG? "Do what we say, 'Patsy', and nobody gets hurt".
Microsoft are going to be _hosed_ with due process of law. Call that 'winning'? Cos I don't.
Re:Startups, why not an OS? (Score:2)
Right now it's as if people are patenting English words on the grounds that most people are illiterate and can't write... this is unclearness on the concept.
Besides, Microsoft's practices of dumping software products and bolting stuff to the OS, even if it will eventually become meaningless in an expanding 'free software' world, did AT THE TIME illustrate just the same pattern that the armtwisting of OEMs illustrated. Even if proprietary software is destined to become a historical curiosity (i.e. 'even if the future is like an RMS wet dream), at the time of the behavior, proprietary software was thought to be a market, and Microsoft's INTENT was not to deprecate the role of proprietary software, but to use their monopoly power to seize the market. The fact that their software highlights the failings of proprietary software (see the recent MSN Messenger outage! And they mean to use this stuff for .NET?) is not their intent, and you can't take that as an excuse to let them off. Just because they're digging their own grave doesn't mean you throw up your hands and let them off the hook. (*g* wonder how many more metaphors I can inflict on them in a single sentence?)
short and simple (Score:2)
Microsoft is wrong (Score:5)
This is not based speculation from their actions. It is based on direct evidence of MS executives' intentions.
Did it help you, the consumer, when Microsoft used it's discriminatory pricing to punish vendors who marketed competing products? Did it save you from the confusing situation where multiple products competed for your affection?
I must admit, the whole IE bundling thing is dumb. I think MS was actually making the right decision to include a browser with the OS. But there are other issues that have nothing to do with MS's "freedom to innovate". There's nothing innovative about using your monopoly to stifle competition. That's what this lawsuit is about.
Punishing MS for business tactics that harm consumers and the free market system is not contrary to OSS, America, or anything else other than unbridled capitalism. The US did unbridled capitalism for a while, and it didn't work well. That's why anti-trust laws exist.
Re:BeOS is not Dell or Compaq's weapon (Score:2)
Hell, you could have 100% of all market share and that still doesn't make you a monopoly.
Yes it would, actually. However, it wouldn't necessarily mean you've done anything illegal. There is no law against being a monopoly.
a. the ability to control prices in market
As the court found, Microsoft has increased their prices significantly over the years. They can do this due to network effects which create a high barrier to entry in the OS market. In other words, there is a point at which it becomes financially cheaper to switch to an alternative, however, that point is quite high due to all the infrastructure investments companies have made. Microsoft is taking full advantage of that fact by continually raising their prices, but keeping them below that point. They are reaping monopoly profits.
b. the unresponsives to customer needs
The only thing Microsoft has really had to fear is that someone else could get a stranglehold on part of the industry that would put them in a position to dictate terms to Microsoft. This is the only thing that has kept them "innovating." In this case I have to define "innovating" as buying up competitors or simply duplicating their products and distributing them with the monopoly OS to drive the company out of the market. As far as OSes alone are concerned, Microsoft only really competes with its own products (i.e. Win2k vs. Win98/ME).
c. the lack of serious competition or the threat of serious competiton.
As I've stated already, there is no serious competition in the desktop OS market right now. The barriers to entry are too high.
But just because the competition fails it doesn't mean that MS is a monopoly.
No, just because the competition fails, it doesn't mean MS is a monopoly. However, when you look at WHY they failed, then you see that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and not only that, they abuse their monopoly position quite regularly. The internal MS email that was revealed during the course of the trial illustrated quite nicely that MS understands their position very well and fully intended to take advantage of it.
Re:YES!!! (Score:2)
How long would Apple remain a competitor without MS Office and IE available on that platform? Apple competes at Microsoft's discretion. Hell, Microsoft invests in Apple! Do you really think they consider them to be real competition?
Wrong (Score:2)
I'm talking about competition between platforms.
Platforms aren't viable without applications.
From a user point of view, we have choices. We can choose to use: Windows, MacOS 9, Mac OSX, Linux, Unix, BeOS, etc etc etc.
Not if we want to run standard applications. That's the whole point. Microsoft IS the standard today. If Microsoft wants to make Apple irrelevant they simply have to stop porting Office, IE, and a few other apps and Apple will be relegated to being just another niche OS. They won't do this right now because Apple is convenient to point to when they need to claim they have competition.
However, the courts decides that they are only concerned with the x86 processor family, and only non niche OSes, (which is how they eliminated all the other OSes for x86).
Look at what you're talking about. The other OSes ARE niche OSes. Microsoft has over 90% of the desktop OS market, x86 or otherwise. Linux isn't a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people simply because Microsoft doesn't sell a version of Office for it and it doesn't have a big enough marketshare for developers to create top-teir apps and games for it. This is why barriers to entry are so important in determining what constitutes a monopoly. If an OS doesn't have enough marketshare, then nobody develops for it. If nobody develops for it, it won't gain marketshare.
Microsoft knows how expensive it is for businesses to switch OSes. That's why they can get away with their onerous EULAs and high prices. Companies have to think of the bottom line. They have already invested heavily in Microsoft products. They can't just switch to something else unless they can show that it will cost them less over the next couple of quarters. So Microsoft prices their products as high as they can without crossing the line that would cause companies to abandon them in favor of another OS. So really there is no competition to make an impact on Microsoft's prices. The only thing that affects them are the barriers to entry of the OS market. That's why they tried to destroy Java. It threatened to lower the barrier. Same with Netscape. Browsers had the potential to become platforms themselves. They wouldn't allow that.
The only thing that even resembles competition for Microsoft is Open Source software. And that is only because it doesn't play the same game as Microsoft so MS hasn't been able to beat it yet. It is an anomoly though. It's not a commercial interest for the most part. Most attempts to make a profit from it have failed. I'm not sure it should even be considered part of the market by the court. It's really a strange animal. More of a backlash against the screwed up IP laws in this country than an attempt to compete with commercial software. It is, however, good to know that all the software know-how and code is not locked up by corporations yet.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Breaking up microsoft goes against this idea. Microsoft became popular because EVERYONE used their software, not because they bought out all their competing OS's.
Two things. First, they originally got their market position because IBM made DOS the default OS to ship on all their PCs. Second, they don't have to buy out other OSes. Network effects are quite real and quite powerful. Since IBM made Microsoft the standard, it created a powerful incentive for everyone to use it, even if something better came along. Unless you can get everyone else to switch en masse along with you, you can't really move to a non-standard OS without alienating yourself from your customers, business partners, etc.
The people that want MS broken up are competition
Of course they are! They are the victims of Microsoft's illegal tactics! They want something done about it. I can't blame them for that. Even the appeals court didn't overturn the facts of the case which state that Microsoft DID abuse its monopoly. It did commit a crime!
Re:earth calling.... (Score:2)
Just 5 years ago, I remember shopping for a car with my GF, and a V6 accord could be had for $16,000.00
Of course in the last 5 years the Accord has been upscaled quite a bit with the Civic taking over the lower end and another (i forgot the name now) taking over the "itty bitty" category from the civic. I don't think you can compare the two now.
How much is matinee now? $5.75 How about just 3 years ago? $3.00 Now I know inflation isn't that high.... That's what a monopoly does to you, since over here, Regal Cinemas is the only theatre chain in town... Don't want to pay $7.75? Then you're SOL, don't watch a movie than....
Was this meant to support your point? If so, you lost me.
As for the insurance companies, I have to chalk it up to corruption. The government mandates that we have insurance on our vehicles, but they don't do nearly enough to make sure the insurance companies don't screw people over. The insurance industry is huge and has great lobbying power. That's why you get screwed.
Re:Great Summary (Score:4)
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
Re:Must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque (Score:2)
There is no difference between what MS does, or Sun or IBM or GE.
Actually a far worse company than Microsoft is Oracle, but they never get any attention placed on them. There is also no CEO more driven, aggressive, mean-spirited or down right evil than Larry Ellison.
Well maybe Steve Jobs, but he's only dangerous to himself.
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
you might want to cut back on that Guinness.
Re:Like I said yesterday.... (Score:2)
Get real. IE functionality is embedded all throughout Windows XP, Office, Money, numerous third party apps, etc.
Think customers are going to be happy when Active Directory doesn't work? Nope...
All they'll be doing is removing iexplore.exe and the icon, the core of IE which is essentially the HTML rendering engine will still exist on the machine in the form of COM objects.
Re:Must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque (Score:2)
You've severely mischaracterized both individuals. The only explanation I can think of is that you do not use either companies products.
Re:Let us remember that.... (Score:3)
Linus Torvalds didn't create Linux because of Microsoft.
He created Linux because he wanted something better than Minix, but couldn't afford to go out and buy any of the Commercial Unices of the time.
I can't remember what all was around back then. I recall SCO Unix and there were several SVR4 releases. I don't recall when Unixware and BSDi entered the market...
But in '92 if you wanted Unix on your desktop that mean paying at least $600, but more often close to $3,000 or so if you wanted a C compiler, etc.
This anti-Microsoft thing didn't start happening until much much later, and it wasn't Mr. Torvalds driving it.
There's few of us around who remember this, it seems.
Re:Let's get real (Score:2)
1) Windows is _not_ easy enough for any given Grandma to use. Maybe yours, but definitely not mine. My Dad (who has been using computers for a long time, and has a masters in engineering) has trouble figuring out how Windows works all the time. The only thing that makes it "easy" is that its used everywhere.
2) Macintoshes have always been easier to use. Macintoshes have brought more to the usability of computing than _anything_ else. Personally, I don't like the company Apple either. However, they have at least brought something to computing.
I always tell people - if you want something that's easy to use, run Mac OS. If you want something that's technically excellent, run UNIX. If you don't want either of those, stick with Windows.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Anybody see last Thursday's Cringely [pbs.org]? (They're dated on Thursdays but usually don't get posted 'til almost Friday) He offers the opinion that if the cost of settlement goes as high as 2 Billion Dollars that MS will just use the money to buy an island somewhere and move offshore instead. He's not joking. "I have no idea where Microsoft would move, but I know they are considering it. Let me repeat that: I KNOW THEY ARE CONSIDERING IT."
As he further says "As a diplomat, Gates couldn't even be arrested for speeding on visits back to Redmond..."
It's worth a read.
Re:Microsoft buys a country? Ha! Was Re:Great Summ (Score:2)
Microsoft buys a country? Ha! Was Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
It's not a matter of opinion, it's been decided by a federal court and upheld unanimously by the court of appeals. You're barking up the wrong tree.
a. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control prices of desktop operating systems or application level software.
You're living on another planet. Over the years the price of Microsoft's consumer OS has climbed steadily. It now costs more than a year's income for some people.
Feh.
--
Re:They had to pay the Legal Expenses (Score:2)
New Mexico went cheap.
--
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Better to be dumb than a wet pantied fanboy.
Sorry, if you want monumental, try NT 3.1. If you want monopolistic marketing strategies try what's happened to NT since then. If you want to be interesting try explaining to me and the rest of Slashdot why "NT Home" was cancelled in the mid 90s, and why "2000 Home" was cancelled last year, and why XP Home is interesting to anyone who isn't ignorant.
(By support gravytrain, I am certainly not talking about PSS -- I'm talking about solving people's support issues by upselling them to a new OS and or computer. And PSS hasn't be free since the dark ages.)
--
Re:Great Summary (Score:3)
More interesting is that Microsoft used their monopoly to essentially segement the market by downplaying NT for the last 8 years and foisting what was supposed to be a compatibility solution (Win9x) but turned out to be an unreliable pre-modern piece of shit onto 90% of the computing public's desktops.
My guess is that they've realized that the support gravytrain and the upgrade cycle is over. Expect Win XP to hang around for a long time.
--
Re:Great Summary (Score:3)
The reason that XP is better is precisely because there is competition (of a sort) from Linux and Mac OS X. This is more pronounced in the server arena, though - from all reports W2K is a big improvement over NT4 for server use, precisely because Linux is a very credible threat in the server arena. Also, Microsoft has some impetus to turn out new (not necessarily better) software frequently in order to keep customers on the upgrade trail and ensure consistent cash flow to meet Microsoft's business needs.
True, Microsoft has innovated at times, mostly as a direct result of being spurred by competition. But their usual practice is to innovate a little and then market a lot in order to bury the most recent threat (lately it's Real, leading to Windows Media Player). Once Microsoft switches to its new subscription pricing model, they will have no reason to innovate at all without competition (because they don't have to force an upgrade every few years), and I think you'll see innovation stop in those markets where they have no competition.
If you can't get your really cool software onto new PCs because Microsoft has used its OS monopoly to push MS-apps, then it doesn't matter how hard you've tried. If you've written the most innovative code anywhere, but Microsoft can use its ill-gotten gains to clone your project from scratch faster than you can lock in market share, it doesn't matter how much work you've put into things. For very basic reasons ingrained in our capitalistic system, as well as network effects dictated by the nature of software in general, it's very tough to unseat a reigning monopoly, especially one which has shown itself to be as unprincipled as Microsoft.
You only have to read a quote from a venture capitalist saying that they won't fund businesses that would go up against Microsoft to see how strong and resilient the monopoly really is. VCs understand innovation - they're not afraid of funding projects that are often too innovative and ahead of their time. But they know markets too, and the truth is that in some markets it has been and will continue to be almost impossible to compete with Microsoft on the basis of innovative products or competitive (but profitable) pricing.
Re:Great Summary (Score:4)
I read that comment as "We know that no one can control Microsoft, so at least we'll get on their good side while they're relatively weakened". What a huge loss for the forces of law and order.
I'm amazed that anyone would consider lightening up on Microsoft just because they're trying (not very convincingly) to clean up their act now. Present good deeds don't make up for past misconduct in any other court in the land. The attitude is "Well, they've changed their ways, and it would be too hard to prosecute them any further, so...". Where's the famous American thirst for vengeance that gets fired up whenever some lunatic blows up a building? :)
Impact will be minimal (Score:2)
--
Re:Startups, why not an OS? (Score:2)
Joe Average can't figure out Windows either. If you have ever used Windows, you'll know the user-friendliness isn't a factor in Windows' dominance at all.
---
Re:this is probably a complete coincidence (Score:2)
It probably has a hell of a lot more to do with the fact that New Mexico just about does anything to keep Intel happy. And without Microsoft, the market for x86 chips (which are only cheap due to the size of the Wintel base) would plummet.
---
Moving offshore will not save MS from the US law (Score:2)
They can run, but they can't hide.
--
Re:short and simple (Score:2)
--
Re:Are the /. editors reading the same article I a (Score:3)
--
Announcement was delayed. (Score:3)
"Originally planned for last week, the announcement was delayed when Madrid and the Microsoft lawyers could not use MSN IM to finalise the sell-out."
--
Re:leverage and solidarity issue (Score:2)
Does anyone have any facts to back this up? I really find it hard to believe. Of course, Microsoft has more money in all their departments put together than the individual states do in merely their AG departments, but that's comparing apples to oranges. But it's a big stretch to say that Microsoft has more money that all these states put together.
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
Microsoft most certainly does not want me to have that choice.
I'm drinking an Anchor Steam right now. Pete's Brewing company would rather have me drinking a Pete's Wicked. My CPU is AMD. Intel doesn't like that. Even the open source community is not immune. I'm running FreeBSD. That's certainly not what the typical Slashdot poster would recommend.
In all of the above situations, the competitors to the products am an using wish I was using something else. But they will not insist upon it. Instead, they will play by the rules of the game and try to win me over by various voluntary means, such as marketing or making a better product.
Microsoft is no different. Their goal is not to deny you a choice, but instead to offer you a product that you desire more than what the competition offers. For you, I, and most of the Slashdot readship, they have failed. But they have suceeded immeasurably in the first time computer user category.
Microsoft has acted no differently than most software companies. What they are being tried for is perfectly legal and ethical for small companies. But Microsoft is not small, and are being sued for doing nothing more than being big. Exclusive contracts with OEMs is nothing new. Bundling two products together is nothing new. Offering discounts to the largest customers is nothing new.
Wishing the competition did not do so well is nothing new.
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
At my work I have to use Solaris. It's awful! I get a choice between CDE and olwm. Evil Sun! Evil cruel Sun! Of course, my employer had nothing to do with it.
It has devoured company after company.
I am aware of no company that Microsoft has bought out that was not already for sale. If a company doesn't want to be bought, they shouldn't go public. Instead of blaming Microsoft, blame all the stockholders who sold.
The company I work for just got bought by a corporation at least five times the size of Microsoft. We were miniscule in size compared to them. But we made a competing product that had the number one market share in its category. How did they buy us out? Because we were for sale.
They want to make you pay to keep your software running.
So, they have decided to lease their software instead of selling it. My landlord does they same thing. I have to pay month after month to live in my own home. Awful! Of course, your choosing to use other software will be considerably easier than my choosing to buy my own home.
If you don't want to rent Microsoft software, then don't. No one is making you rent it.
Yup! I couldn't agree more. The customers are in full control of Microsoft. They made every dime they had because people bought their products. They didn't pass any omnibus tax bills. They didn't commit armed robbery. They didn't find it in a bag on the beach. Perhaps, just perhaps, Microsoft got as big as they did because a lot of people actually chose to buy their software? I sure wouldn't choose to buy it. But a hell of a lot of people do.
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
You mentioned the free market, so I'll assume that you know what it means. In a free market, no party to a transaction is required to either buy or sell. Microsoft does not have to sell to Compaq, and Compaq does not have buy from Microsoft. In order for Compaq to purchase Windows, they had to agree to Microsoft's price. Exclusive contracts where part of that price. They voluntarily chose to pay a smaller monetary price with a contract than a higher monetary price without a contract.
If entire industries and sectors have come to rely upon a single producer, it would be far better to question why those industries made such a stupid mistake than to question why Microsoft chose to sell to those willing to buy.
And, to date, I have seen no Microsoft executive state that they wish to forcibly deny me a choice. Do you have any quotes and references to back up your claim that they did?
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
I can't install KDE because it's Solaris 2.5.1 (not ICE or SM). I did install WindowMaker, but I had to install it in my own quota-limited home directory. I certainly didn't get any help from IT. But not of it was Sun's fault. I can only blame my employer for not preinstalling KDE, or giving me a larger home directory, or failing to grant me root access.
Claiming that similar limitations to Microsoft, as the previous poster did, is just wrong. If someone has a beef with using Windows at work, then blame the employer.
Re:I doubt they'll get off scot-free (Score:2)
In case anybody missed it, when the appeals court decision was announced, Scott McNeally was positively crowing. Not only was the remedy (the breakup) vacated and remanded rather than reversed (translation: the lower court, less Penfield Jackson, can do anything from smack Bill on the wrist with a wet noodle, to shredding Microsoft and serving it to Linus Torvalds au brochette... but I digress), but the monopoly judgement was affirmed.
Microsoft is a monopoly; it is so written in the law now.
This means that Sun's (and AOL's and Compaq's) lawyers are working feverishly to come up with the best way to use that legal ammunition to hang it in to the Evil Empire. (I don't know what Oracle thinks of this, or whether they would even have standing, but gods help us all if Ellison decides it's worth it and goes after Bill.... the scene of legal carnage would be unimaginable.) New Mexico can get stuffed. The corporations have not yet begun to fight.
Because... (Score:2)
Heck, even Microsoft realizes that there some markets where even *they* have trouble competing head-on with the market leaders.
At this point, Microsoft has such a lock on the intel desktop that it would be nearly impossible for a single commercial company to compete head-on (remember OS/2, BeOS, etc.). At this point in time, virtually the only hope for reducing their monopoly lies with open source software because it's a diffuse enough target that Microsoft is having trouble attacking it. Even so, it will be difficult unless Microsoft makes a HUGE mistake at some point in the future.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Re:leverage and solidarity issue (Score:2)
Remember the Important Things. (Score:4)
Remember the important things:
* The Appeals Court found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This won't just go away, no matter what Gates does.
* One of the reasons for vacating the breakup was uncertainty it would be an effective remedy to prevent future Microsoft misdeeds.
* Another Judge could impose a breakup into _more_ pieces (OS Client, OS Server, Browser, Office, and Media); it could happen.
* Conduct remedies could be imposed, with or without breakup; this would burden Microsoft greatly with DoJ oversight procedures.
* The DoJ has to satisfy 18 States, some of which are still "very troubled" (read, pissed off) at Microsoft's recent actions and plans.
* If not finally reversed, the Court's decision will fuel a storm of civil suits in the US alone. AOL Netscape has a solid foundation.
* Europe's antitrust commission hasn't even _started_ in on Microsoft yet, and the US guilty verdict may influence their thinking.
Microsoft is dead, everybody knows this... except them.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Except that they don't "innovate", so much as change things for the sake of change and rip off other people's idea. (The former is also a rip off off of an idea General Motors came up with, the "annual model change".
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
I doubt it since they wouldn't last too long if they did. Bill might be rich but you can't buy an army off the shelf. Not that that would do any good if someone "acidentally" fires off an SLBM.
Re:Microsoft buys a country? Ha! Was Re:Great Summ (Score:2)
Are there any "state-of-the-art fighter planes" which have anti submarine capability. Let alone the ability to shoot down sub launched missiles?
Re:Microsoft buys a country? Ha! Was Re:Great Summ (Score:2)
In which case he may as well move to Iraq...
Re:Are the /. editors reading the same article I a (Score:2)
Re:earth calling.... (Score:2)
Re:BeOS is not Dell or Compaq's weapon (Score:2)
I think it's time you accepted the fact that MS is a monopoly and that they have harmed the consumers.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Also bullying is itself illegal. Hitting the bully back is illegal, just like the bully is committing assault by hitting the 12 year olds.
It remains to be seen wheather the authorities will make the bully stop committing assault or not (I doubt it very much).
What I would like to see is for someone to hold Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and the rest of the mafioso to be held personally responsible for their acts.
This will probably mean a well placed explosive but I digress (and besides I would never reccomend that someone actually kill these bastards or cause them great bodily harm there are other ways to hold evil people personally responsible for their actions).
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Yes by golly that sure seems right.
Resisting.... (Score:2)
Yeah, and most murderers resist attempts to require the death penalty. Must be nice to have the prosecutors give up just because you resist their penalties....
Re:Are the /. editors reading the same article I a (Score:2)
Are the /. editors reading the same article I am? (Score:5)
Um, lemme see. The single quote from the AG contains, "I am no longer persuaded a breakup remains appropriate or will ultimately be ordered by the courts. It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy." That doesn't come screaming out of the page at me as "being all on Microsoft's side."
That sounds more like, "they're not going to give up, and they have more money than all 19 states in the suit put together, so we would run out of money first. Let's go do something constructive instead."
Ah, but it's Slashdot. If you're not ranting against the evils of Microsoft, you're all on their side.
(Go ahead, smack me for wanting some journalistic integrity. I've got karma to blow.)
Re:I doubt they'll get off scot-free (Score:2)
I doubt they'll get off scot-free (Score:3)
The only real problem is that the case is going to drag on and on (much like IBM) so any "correctional damage" (aka Justice) might not be effective if everyone could just agree to what the sentence should be.
evil conspiracy alert (Score:2)
Re:Despite Cmdr Taco's *sigh*... (Score:2)
---
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
-----------------------
I couldn't get my pc without windows BS (Score:2)
In my honest opinion this is either untrue, or the computer vendor's fault, not Microsoft's. Microsoft has had serious problems with vendors loading Windows on PCs and not paying Microsoft for all the licenses. In order to simplify the auditing process of these vendors Microsoft offers discounts on their OS to large vendors which pay for Windows licenses for all the systems made of a certain model. Auditing is simplified by counting up the number of systems of that model that were shipped, and making sure the licenses were paid for. The vendor can choose to offer models without Windows, but there just isn't a lot of demand for those models, so the expenses of having a seperate model line just aren't worth it. Therefore, the models you can buy all have Windows on them.
Now you as a consumer want to buy a computer. As a Linux user, you have no use for Windows. The vendor could offer you a computer that doesn't have Windows on it, but it doesn't make finacial sense for them to do so. This isn't just because MS offers them Windows discounts, but because offering a system in a different configuration simply costs them money, and there isn't that large of a demand for Linux systems from these vendors. You still have the option of trying to get the vendor to refund the price of Windows to you. Insert IANAL disclaimer here. Microsoft's EULA, which the vendors know about and have a responsability to conform with as OEMs of Microsoft's products, states that you can return the software if unused. The vendor will likely nog get reimbursed for the refund by Microsoft. The vendor has chosen to take the discount on the price of window, so returns are now their problem. That's the price they pay for the discounted price.
What this does is create a niche market for smaller vendors who aren't elligable for these large volume discount programs. They have to pay higher prices for each copy of Windows that they buy, but the aren't required to ship Windows on all the systems of a specific model. This also makes a market where companies like Penguin Computing can hopefully make money.
The big problem I heard about was getting laptops without Windows installed. It sounds like some vendors now have these available. If there's a profitable market, someone will sell it.
It's just my opinion, but the Windows Rebate Day thing was running high on a lot of I hate Microsoft FUD, rather than facts.
Foul! (Score:4)
Maybe we should see if we can get Judge Patel on this case. Her technical incompetance could be useful. Just call the Microsoft programmers "hackers" (Well, it's gotta be some really hacked up code...) and we've got it in the bag. But then again, she'd probably be happy with a nice big Microsoft "donation", right up next to her RIAA one.
The most important sentence in the article is... (Score:2)
Re:Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf? (Score:2)
Microsoft didn't use every dirty trick in the book to stifle competition and make sure that the consumer didn't have a choice of what to use. Microsoft invented the book.
Re:Duh! (Score:3)
M$ bashing only helps M$++ in the end.
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
1) There isn't much of a support gravy train - PSS at microsoft has traditionally been a free resource.
2) XP is monumental in that it brings SMP, JFS, firewalling, NAT, etc etc and other modern OS features to a consumer OS. Only Mac OS X** has tried to bring any of those features to home users. Wether or not OSX will be the commercial success apple hopes it will be remains to be seen.
XP is finally going to unify the Win32 platform (sort of)
** OS/2 doesn't really count as a consumer OS anymore than AmigaDOS does
Re:leverage and solidarity issue (Score:2)
They have 0 debt.
$0.
They have about 28billion in cash and equivalents.
Look, MS makes so much money off of loan interest (MS loans cash to banks and other financial institutions) that their company wide investment income is larger than some of their product groups.
Guess which tech company is _not_ doing layoffs, forced vacations, etc etc. No no. Instead of fucking its employees, Microsofts idea of "cost cutting" is "we'll hire less people for a while", and "from now on, we're going to look over expense reports when you turn them in"
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
Does your grandma run IRIX ?
Re:Great Summary (Score:2)
You need to re-examine your premises.
a. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control prices of desktop operating systems or application level software.A great proportion of the lucrative revenue stream for Microsoft comes about through enterprise licensing agreements. Large corporations (pick *any* one near you) have to standardize on their platforms to contain the costs of support. Guess which standard they "pick"? Believe me, if Microsoft raised the price of Office by 20%, we might not like it, but we'd pay. The alternatives are not considered worthy competitors, mainly because they are not considered "standard". Read any classified ads for receptionists, secretaries, bookkeepers and see how many of those advertisements demand skills of any software besides Microsoft's.
b. They cannot, despite sustained efforts, control the course of the industry.It may be true that they haven't controlled every aspect of the IT business completely, but they have come closer than anyone since IBM of the 1960s.
Microsoft defines the standard for PC software. If you expect to develop anything in that environment, then you'd better damn well pay attention to the next release of Windows and keep your MSDN subscription payments up.
Dell, Compaq and Gateway have simply made a business decision that it is more profitable to accept terms from Redmond than to develop an OS and, through marketing, be able to displace the incredible installed base of Windows. Such a course of action would be a suicidal last resort.
As far as most people are concerned, "Windows came with My Computer" and any thought of replacing it falls into the same category as replacing the power supply. It's technically difficult and there's no reason to do so.
and I don't care how stable Linux is and if it's given away for free. If it doesn't run Office and won't run all the ShrinkWrap software I bought from Egghead over the past 10 years and if I have to do something technical to install it, then I, as an average consumer, am not interested in it. I'd rather continue bleeding money at a small rate to a monopoly than to undergo the transition from Windows.In summary, if you had spent the last 15 years in a PC software house developing an office productivity application, then I think you would have automatically acquired a genuine appreciation for the state of the competitive landscape with Microsoft.
I live in New Mexico, and I'm more ashamed than ever to have Patricia Madrid as my state Attorney General.
Great Summary (Score:5)
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
leverage and solidarity issue (Score:2)
While I understand your point generally, and agree with it on occasion, I think it does not apply in this case.
Yes, Microsoft has more money than all 19 states put together. The only leverage the states have against Microsoft's prodigious financial resources is forcing Microsoft to fight 19 legal battles in 19 different states and courts of law simultaneously. The Court of Appeals did deliver a unanimous decision against Microsoft supporting the monopoly charge which gave the courts a comfortable legal position to hold. So New Mexico pulling out weakens that leverage by breaking down the solidarity. Without several states pushing Microsoft, there is no leverage.
Furthermore, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid also stated, according to the article, "...the decision to have New Mexico settle its case with Microsoft will help open the way for the remaining parties to pursue realistic settlement terms," which is rather suspect since its clearly pushing for the other states to drop the lawsuit and settle which is only in Microsoft's interest. New Mexico has nothing to gain by the other states dropping their lawsuits - afterall, they've got their settlement so why should they care one way or another. Unless perhaps part of their settlement deal with Microsoft was to encourage other states to settle as well?
Not saying that's the case but the potential is there.
- tokengeekgrrl
Re:Startups, why not an OS? (Score:2)
No, I think the joke would work much better as Microsoft Marketing, and the rest of the company. All jokes aside, however, I think Microsoft would likely be benefited by splitting up rather than hurt by it. The end result would probably be that both divisions would try things they would have otherwise avoided in fear of competing against themselves, and most likely make even more money. Look at the "Baby Bells", and the effect of that split-up. If you want to see Microsoft hurt, asking them to be split up won't further your purpose. I don't think it's even a suitable remedy, since there's virtually no reason to believe that two Microsofts would stimulate more competition than just one Microsoft.
Remember that the aim of this lawsuit isn't to punish Microsoft but to remedy the anti-trust situation that Microsoft has created by their actions. I honestly think that points number 1 and 2 that GNU has proposed [gnu.org] would do better than virtually any of the other recommendation that has been put forward. It would allow Microsoft to continue "innovating" and developing their products, however they would be required to document EVERYTHING, and would not be able to litigate against those who made compatible products unless they used Microsoft copyrighted code illegally. The end result would be that Microsoft developers would be happier, Microsoft's competitors would have better tools to compete with Microsoft on a level playing field, and it would negate the complaints of many competitors that Microsoft has an unfair advantage since they control both the OS and applications and can make whatever modification they need to either to make their own products work better (even if damages the performance of competitors products). I do not agree with point three, however, since this is a remedy for Microsoft's actions, not for hardware manufacturers.
The only body that I can think would be hurt by this would be Microsoft, in that they would have to invest in more employees to document the currently undocumented interfaces. The pain would only be temporary, as when the documentation on the currently undocumented interfaces is complete, only slightly more people would be needed to maintain documentation for new products and existing ones.
Re:Duh! (Score:3)
- To think that the console battle has even begun is a delusion! Now we have Sony, Nintendo, Sega and MS. MS will probably find that by the time the XBox is starting to have the sort of titles required to get taken seriously, Sony will have a PS^3 which runs Linux (hey maybe they'll change to Be or QNX or XP hehe) and still runs PS2 games (if not PS1). The Gamers market is going to be a LOT harder for them to get into, too many of it's market will be thinking "I'm not having my console BSOD".
- I remeber NT 3.5
.... it didn't get far! NT4 (Chicago) was meant to solve all this by bringing all the dos users up to the NT codebse... it failed and NT gained a server role for MS but not spectacular numbers (think NT V 9x boxes). Me ... I don't know a single person who runs it (though I know many who ditched it). Win 9x is everywhere ... the latest efforts are getting a very very slow rollout! Of and the 2000 you never montioned, it's struggling to replace NT on servers and is still being left on the shelf for the 9x (or maybe Me) line on the Desktop. MS are successful and sell a lot of products, but their performance is really becoming a lot less spectacular (hence subscriptions are coming).
Bottom line, MS are NOT what they were! They have fragmented their userbase (not fatally, but it is weakening their position). MS's business model is in ensuring that PCs come with Windows and that people buy the upgrades they release until they replace the PC with a new Windows PC. People are staying behind and not upgrading (ignoring the people who do upgrade...illegally). Add to this their attempts to take dangerous decisions (XBox, XP,Re:CmdrTaco is Wrong (Score:2)
You are right. Dozens of purchases of RedHat Linux think this way.
Monopoly splinters always grow (Score:4)
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:Are the /. editors reading the same article I a (Score:2)
Works both ways. All of us sitting here is getting nothing done, but are we necessarily part of the problem? Not really.
I'm rather happy that at least someone in government knows when it's wise to stop spending tax money, though I wish he'd move to Texas where that kind of discretion might bring the education levels up out of the dirt.
Re:Duh! (Score:2)
They'll soon find out if they buy an Xbox...
Re:CmdrTaco is Wrong (Score:5)
Did most people choose Internet Explorer because it was technically superior or because Microsoft made it integral to the OS and made the OS unstable for other browsers? (BTW, don't tell me about how much more wonderful IE is. Let's talk about its relative merit at the time they began bundling it. I used NS and IE at that time and they were comparable. I actually preferred NS. Lately Netscape/AOL has really dropped the ball, but that isn't strictly relevant.)
The drive behind the antitrust case is exactly that consumers were denied the ability to make choices based on merit. Just because Soviet candidates always received 100% of the vote doesn't mean people actually wanted them in office...
Memoirs of a MCSE (Score:2)
The like, competition might dominate the market and like bankrupt MS. This is, like, umm, risky or something.
They, like shouldn't be sued now.
Oh. Shit. They already killed the competition.
Bad grammar aside, their "remove the IE icon" trick is typical of the shit they pull (i.e. conquer, kill all competition, then agree to tone down and watch as everyone comes back to them willingly.) "Please Sir, Can I have another?"
I have no idea what a few people in New Mexico are thinking. WTF? seems to be the most appropriate response. (although it's kind of cool that when the lawsuits are over, my state gets a bit more $ and New Mexico gets shit, except for the congressman / governor etc, who continues to get campaign contributions from MS)
God Bless america or some shit.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
Re:Microsoft buys a country? Ha! (Score:2)
Already the authorities of the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia have approached Microsoft letting them know that they would never sue them for monopolistic practices.
But then all slashdotters would be singing "Blame Canada!"
------
C'mon, flame me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
MIcrosoft English Dictionary (Score:2)
One interesting tidbit:
"Heroin Economics" - Common practice of drug dealers looking to establish a customer base by providing free samples to "hook" users, at which time the dealer raises his prices for his product. Since people are now dependent, they will naturally pay whatever is necessary to obtain the substance. In the software world, for years Microsoft tolerated software piracy (both casual and organized) as its user base expanded and the company became a monopoly on the desktop with millions of "hooked" users and organizations...at which time it raised its prices and plans to force users to pay annual tributes to feed their dependence on Microsoft products and services. (See "Product Activation Technology")
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
They had to pay the Legal Expenses (Score:2)
In related news, Microsoft is pulling all copies of Win 98/ME/NT/2000 off the shelves in New Mexico and replacing them with Windows 3.1
You think that's funny... (Score:2)
microsoft probably agreed to ignore all license violations in the NM govenment offices.
... but how close do you think that, is to the truth? Besides Microsoft get's to write software piracy off as a loss don't they? (I don't see how they could, but can they?)
The worst vice is advice...
IBM Screwed Up (Score:2)
What all this has made clear to me is that IBM really blew it in 1978. Pansy ass IBM didn't even wait to be found in violation of the law, they just signed and implemented a consent decree that required them not to do the illegal bundling they knew they were guilty of. What's more, the idiots went on to actually obey the decree! Utter incompetents.
Microsoft, now, they understand that the DOJ and the states aren't really serious, and don't really have the staying power to go through with it. A strategy composed of equal parts of pleas of innocence, legal maneuvering, public whining and bold-faced contempt for the legal process are going to see Microsoft through the trouble and out the other side.
Laws? Pah! Those only apply to other companies.
Re:This may not be a popular opinion but (Score:2)
This is different, it's a historical hommage (Score:3)
Ah, it was fun while it lasted. (Score:2)
If it makes you feel any better, I've put together a Microsoft retrospective for y'all:
Re:Duh! (Score:3)
Um... no, it's not. Right, wrong, the Gallup Polls never lie. The average American feels that Microsoft is a company that came out on top through hard work and perserverance (the "American Way (TM)") and that their presence in the industry is an overwhelmingly good thing.
Personally, I'm waiting for the day when Linux developers have to appear before the HUAC.
"It really *is* over, MS is no longer what it used to be, and it is downhill from here."
Let me tell you about this .NET thing that seems to be catching on... I just got a propoganda pamphlet about it today in the mail, in fact...
Despite Cmdr Taco's *sigh*... (Score:5)
And to those who say that Microsoft is crumbling; it's image is ruined. Bull. That's not even close to true. Their stock is making an amazing come back after losing nearly two thirds of their stock value. Sales are better than ever; the advertising over their .NET and XP software is everywhere and they haven't even started their campaigns yet. Crumbling ususally isn't associated with a soaring profit line and stock price...
Not saying that this is good [lest I get the hurt of the -1 mod] but I'm just saying that as the lame Backstreet boys say Microsoft "is stronger than yesterday...."
-H. Simpson.
(I really think I just ruined my post by using a quote from a pop boy band)
In return for dropping the charges... (Score:5)