Be Sues Microsoft for Violations of Antitrust Laws 676
Eugenia writes: "While Be, Inc had the information for over 3 years that Microsoft 'through a series of illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain its monopoly in the Intel-compatible PC operating system market and created exclusive dealing arrangements with PC OEMs prohibiting the sale of PCs with multiple preinstalled operating systems' they filed a suit against Microsoft only today. Today Be employes a single person in a tiny office in Mountain View. Great ..."
a single employee? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does Be have any assests or $ anymore?
What does Be have to gain from this, this late into their corporate demise/OS trip into obscurity?
Re:a single employee? (Score:2, Informative)
A single employee is necessary (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider that they may have purchased Be only to use it as a battering ram against Microsoft and all this time tossed it a carrot here and there and finally closed it down after suffering enough losses to look good in court. Depending on how the judge decides to view this it may work, it may not, or Microsoft may just say, "How much do you want to shut up and go away?", and settle out of court.
A sad end for Be, anyway, particularly after watching something like this happen to my prior employer. The name may be the same, but there's a different soul, not to be trusted as the old one was.
Re:a single employee? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm kind of nitpicking words here, but being a monopoly is not something you're found guilty of. Being a monopoly isn't a crime.
I remember so many PC makers who tried to offer Be on a pc till Microsoft totally went agro on the makers and made them stop.
I did hear something about this, but I didn't thing there were many, or that they were big companies. The reason computer companies would want to offer BeOS on their computers is to differentiate them from the competition. The downside of offering it is support costs. Don't underestimate how much supporting BeOS would cost a big name manufacturer. They contract out their support, and every call cuts into their low profit margins. Training a support staff enough to be useful on BeOS would be an expensive task, and the contractors are going to pass that price on to the computer companies.
BE never had a chance, and the OS from my point of view was incredible.
I never used BeOS, but it would have to be truely incredible to have even a slight chance. Most people with computers want the same OS that everyone else is using. That fact is the true barrier to entry for new OSs. I've heard from some people that BeOS definately shined in some areas, but even if Microsoft just ignored it, I doubt it stood a chance. Microsoft has a monopoly because they won the first round of the PC OS wars, and the nature of the OS business is that it works out easiest for everyone it they're all using the same one. Microsoft also doesn't sit still. They constantly work to make Windows better. They definately don't do that flawlessly, but they have definately done an exellent job on making their user interface easy to use, and they keep working on making it better.
Be may very well have a case. Microsoft may very well abused it's monopoly position out of paranoia. However, it's unlikely that the damages are in the billions if they are guilty. It's more likely that they crushed a niche OS that may have been able to make millions more. If they did that, they should be punished, and the damages trippled acording to law.
In the short run, a lot of economy professors will be making money as expert witnesses, and lawyers will get rich.
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:4, Interesting)
This would be compelling if it were truthful.
The reality is that people would like alternatives to using Microsoft, but Microsoft has done everything it can to prevent Dell, HP, Compaq and others from presenting options to their customers.
The other OSes aren't getting to play on a level playing field. BeOS was a very slick OS, it had all the features that most users would want and was very user-friendly. And it never had a chance, because people weren't exposed to it. They didn't have the marketing dollars to promote it to the average computer user and they couldn't get it on PCs made by the big PC manufacturers because Microsoft did everything they could to prevent it.
I'm sure that there are people who would still buy Windows if Dell offered BeOS computers -- but the number of people who would have chosen BeOS would probably surprise you -- had they ever been offered and promoted.
If you're technically apt enough to build your own computer, you can go with an alternative OS. But the customers who want to buy a premade computer from a major manufacturer don't get a choice. Many PC manufacturers have shown interest in having a product line that doesn't include Windows -- and they've been slapped down with exclusive licensing agreements and price dis-incentives from M$ for trying to offer non M$ products.
That's why M$ should be punished. Harshly.
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Abuse of monopoly power to crush potential competition is what we are talking about here, not Be's advertising ability. OS/2 was killed the same way Be was killed, and Linux is being hurt as well (Linux adoption would be MUCH faster if it was available to all as a dual boot option.)
Claiming that MS did nothing wrong is bullshit. This is a cut and dried case.
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me be the first to say that this is a pointless remark. Exposure, sure as h*ll can be free. More power to the companies that can make use of free exposure for their products.
But companies like Microsoft force feed it to you with rhetoric that causes the average consumer to become dizzy enough to buy their products for fear of the uncertain.
As a card carrying member of the 'John Q. Public Consumer Guild', I've wised up to the flashy and pushy advertisements for products. I've learned to look past all that and try to understand how the product really works. There will be more consumers like me in the near future. Pretty soon flashy advertising won't work anymore. Then Microsoft will have to stand on their own merits.
BeOS may have been a day late and dollar short, but they did set a precidence that all consumers may not be aware of now, but will be soon. Then you'll see future 'BeOS' getting a fair chance due to free exposure.
Maybe someday a new advertising concept of some sort will come out and will be licensed as GPL or BSD-like to offer the free chance these companies need on a fair playfield.
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:4, Informative)
Still nobody took Be up on it. Even adding a free operating system to their PC's would have incurred so many penalties from Microsoft that no PC vendor wanted to take the hit.
Re:About 20-40 billion smackers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I love BeOS intensely. I still have it installed, and I use it, but I still have to have MS. Why is that? It's not because they make a better product, not because they have better marketing (though that helped...), but because they established an illegal monopoly. I'm stuck because they broke the law.
That's why they should be punished. I just wish I could sue them myself. But I'll settle for a painful lawsuit from Be.
One Employee? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One Employee? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One Employee? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Re:One Employee? (Score:3, Funny)
There's this going for it... (Score:5, Funny)
At least they won't have any problem demonstrating irreparable harm.
Re:There's this going for it... (Score:2)
The trick is demonstrating microsoft is responsible for it. When you have 36 billion is cash on hand people just see deep pockets so why not play court room lotto.
Today Be employes a single person... (Score:2, Redundant)
A LAWYER!
Weren't you paying attention? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Today Be employes a single person... (Score:3, Funny)
Very Fashionable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very Fashionable (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember - it's not illegal if you're not a monopoly, and it's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's just that certain things *become* illegal when you're a legally defined monoply. Most monopolies like utilities (power, water, phone, cable), just kowtow to heavy regulation and limited profits to maintain their monopoly.
--
Evan
Re:Very Fashionable (Score:2)
Wonderful summary! They never managed to be that clear in my (few!) law classes.
Note those monopolies are or were government granted monopolies, that is they convinced the government to bar any competitors (that sort of stopped for phone companies in the 80s, and sort of for some power companies recently, but is still largely true of cable in most places in the USA, a few places the local governments granted two companies hte rights and they have much better and cheaper service then avg, and fewer small dish users...I think water is still a monopoly everywhere...).
P.S. the above applies to the USA, it's a big world, and I'm sure other countries do things other ways...
Re:Very Fashionable (Score:2)
Nope - cable companies, power companies, water companies, even today's new micro phone companies all paid for their growth. The single difference being that of the old railroad system, three words that necessarily involve the government in the operation of these companies: Right of Way. They all have to work across private and public property, and as a result occupy a special category *in this respect*.
I highlight those words because it's very important to remember that the government regulates *all* companies in one way or another, even if just for taxation, corporate status, business license or other paperwork. This does not mean that they are "quasi-government" agencies - just that the government has requirements for them. The necessity of most utilities to gain right of way access to private property brings governmental regulations in the door. The subsequent monopoly they tend to gain then cements that regulation.
In this respect, MS is an interesting case - a monopoly that has had very few regulations, and has managed to establish that monopoly, possibly turning their product into a utility required for business. Comparisons to prior cases in other domains is important - but it's also important is recognize the differences in each case. In MS's case, I worry, those differences nearly negate the conclusions you can draw from prior cases.
--
Evan
Not fashion. Justice. (Score:2)
Since Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who has been proven to have abused its market position to destroy competition (and thus numerous companies, disrupting countless lives), calling this "fashion" marks you clearly as a Microserf, at least, and quite possible a paid PR lackey (as so many who pollute open source and free software sites such as this with their nonsensical "astroturfing" campaigns).
This isn't fashion, it is justice, and long overdue.
Re:Not fashion. Justice. (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't say with a straight face that any of the companies bitching about MS executed their strategy perfectly, especially Netscape. They sat on their ass for too many years and tried to increase the revenue on the server side first. MS went the other way and said that once we have the end user mind share, we can take the back end.
Re:Not fashion. Justice. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Very Fashionable (Score:4, Interesting)
Novell invented MS-DOS networking. If not for Novell, there would have been no usable networks in the Wintel world (here come the Vines flames!) and the Wintel sales juggernaut would have been slowed down quite a bit.
Long-timers can remember MS-Office 97 Service Pack 2, or, The Service Pack That Ate Novell. That innocuous SP broke all the Windows networking conventions (which Novell had invented!!) and rendered Netware uninstallable on W95 for about 4 months until a patch was developed. I am sure that Microsoft had no such intent when it released that patch. Very sure.We'll see.
sPh
Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're wondering why they'd do so *now* of all times, when they can't do anything.
Easy: Nothing to lose. The company has nothing left. Normally it is unwise to sue MS. They'll just drag it on and you won't get a significant gain (i.e. Apple's suit), even if you do win. But now, the worst the spending can do is bankrupt them: which is basically where they stand now anyway. OTOH, the damages they could land could put Be back on its feet.
Sounds like the smartest option left to them.
Re:Why now? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't go that far. AFAIK they still have stock holders and are trying to disolve the company. Some of the stockholders may not want any more money wasted and just liquidate what's left.
Of course, since the potential payout is much, much larger if they sue I doubt anyone would pitch a fit, but you never know.
Re:Why now? (Score:3, Informative)
So, what are the odds of Be being able to siphon off a billion or two from MS?
Re:Why now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong... as a stockholder for a long time, I can tell you the only thing we're holding on for is a lawsuit just like this. The only reason Be is suing now is to win money to try and give some money back to their shareholders.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they feel that the company is worth more being liquidated (which is typical with software companies, which Be has been for the last few years) as opposed to rebuilt, then they will make that decision and recover whatever they can. Since Be has sold it's assets to Palm and auctioned off eveyrthing else, I think that the debt holders have already been making the calls.
As far as a lawsuit goes, it seems to be a good idea. You lose and get $0 or you win and get $2 Billion of computers that were going to be put in public schools with WindowsME (wait.. different lawsuit).
The potential gains from a lawsuit will go to the debt holders. I would be surprised if the stockholders see any of it.
Since Be has already sold it's IP to Palm, there is 0% chance that they would ever go back into OS business and frankly, everybody else is gone.
The debt holders will reap the rewards of the lawsuit. This is how it is done. I do wonder who is paying for the attornies, since I doubt the debt holders would do that. It's probably a contigency case that somebody else already mentioned.
I worked at a distressed securities hedge fund in Manhattan for a few years, although, I mainly stuck to IT activities.
Re:Why now? (Score:2)
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. is a law firm that limits its practice to litigation, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants.
Gee, that seems awfully limiting....
paying the venture folks (Score:3, Insightful)
need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
But Dell has been able to sell Linux (which apparently they dropped, but don't worry, HP is now selling them). And other PC companies have been able to do the same (albeit in limited numbers).
To prove that it was impossible for OEM's to sell PC's with alternate OS's, you would need to demonstrate some sort of collusion between Microsoft and Intel, making it difficult for developers to produce alternate OS's on Intel CPU's. That clearly has not happened. The x86 Intel platform certainly didn't hinder kernel development, and Intel has been relatively open about publishing specs.
Good luck Be. Truly, I feel your pain.
Robert Nagle Idiotprogrammer [idiotprogrammer.com]
Austin, Texas, idiotprogrammer, Technical writer
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
The question wasn't whether anyone could have sold machines with non-MS OSs; clearly they could because some did. It's rather whether or not you could run a business exclusively selling machines with non-MS OSs. When the basic requirement to sell Windows pre-installed on your machines at all is to purchase a Windows license for every machine you sell regardless of whether or not it's actually installed, and when you're forbidden under the terms of the OEM agreement to sell machines with some other OS installed next to Windows, it simply does not make economic sense to offer more than one pre-installed OS. In that case, which OS are you going to choose? If you don't choose Windows, you're in a situation analagous to that of the liquor store owner who chooses not to sell Bud, but with a vengeance. Instead of locking out 50% of the market (or whatever Budweiser's market share is) you're locking out 99%. That's just foolish. It's a formula for going out of business. If it was a workable buisness model, VA Software would still be VA Linux.
Maybe, just maybe, if you're Dell or HP you have enough muscle to get MS to strike the offending clauses from its standard OEM contract. But for Joe's OEM and Bait Shop around the corner here, it would be impossible. To sell any other OS than Windows would be financial suicide.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:2)
Actually, if you're Dell or HP, you have such narrow margins and tight schedules that any hiccup (such as late delivery of a preview of the next windows operating system, delayed certification of hardware etc.) will totally fuck up your supply chain, your developement and testing cycle and any hopes of profits you may have had. As long as Microsoft keeps their "trade secret" exclusionary license, Microsoft has the top PC manufacturer's by the short and curlies and they all know it. Microsoft doesn't care if they Dell or Gateway drops off the face of the earth tomorrow: HP, Sony and Compaq will just sell more Microsoft licenses. Why do you think not a single major PC manufacturer testified during the trial? They're all scared out of their minds that Microsoft will fuck them out of business in less time then it takes to say, "Sorry! Your licenses are held up. Please press 1 to speak with a Microsoft sales representative or 2 to leave a message".
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe Dell and Gateway were both heavily in favor of the Government seeking to divide up Microsoft. Then something happened. People stopped buying as many new PCs. It turned out that people were able to run everything they wanted on their current machines.
So, where could they find the next "killer app" to drive the PC upgrade process?
Redmond, WA of course. Windows XP is the only reason that Dell, Gateway and all the other computer makers aren't hurting big time right now. The bloated nature of Windows software is actually as selling point to companies bundling software with new PC's.
Ever wonder why the government suddenly changed its mind about breaking up Microsoft? It had a lot to do with the Dells and Gateways of the world asking them not to (and a bit to do with content companies requesting the same thing).
Microsoft has a lot more than just their short and curlies in its hands.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be partially true but I believe the core reason the DOJ changed their mind about breaking up Microsoft was not because of Dell or Gateway but because Bush became POTUS and ordered a review of the case by Ashcroft. If Gore had become president, the DOJ would still be asking for a breakup of Microsoft. Well, maybe not after 9/11...
Don't you think Dell and Gateway would prefer to be able to say to consumers, "Hey, you can boot into Windows, Darwin, FreeBSD *and* Linux if you buy one of our laptops/desktops!" Or "Configure your own multi-boot system, we'll set it up for you!" ? I think it would make the PC market much more interesting and add more value for the customers.
And yes, Microsoft has more than just the short and curlies in its hands. They've got them all by the family jewels.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:5, Interesting)
taco
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:3, Interesting)
The key was impossible. Things have changed in the last five years. Five years ago Be still had a chance. Five years ago, Microsoft's OEM agreements charged for a copy of Windows on every machine shipped, even if Windows wasn't actually installed. Five years ago Microsoft's OEM agreements forbade putting a "Boot into BeOS" icon on the desktop. Five years ago you could not purchase a desktop PC from a mainstream OEM with a non-Microsoft operating system.
Microsoft's tactics deliberately made it nearly impossible for an OEM to offer customers alternate operating systems. Maybe BeOS didn't have what it takes to survive in the market, but we'll never know, since Microsoft effectively kept BeOS out of the market.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:2)
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Jean-Louis Gasse offered BeOS free
to any hardware manufacturer at one point. That not one took him up on it is a fairly positive indication that MS was putting some major pressure on PC makers. It's been shown that the secret licence that MS forced PC makers to sign specifically prevented PC makers from offering any alternative. The only PC maker who did offer BeOS pre-installed (Toshiba?) was forced to hide it, rather than make it a menu choice.Be has a very good case. Put it this way - there are folks who would be happier to invest in this suit, than in Be as a successful seller of operating systems.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an indication of anything. In addition to the cost of the software, there must be demand for it -- after all, it costs OEMs a substantial amount to support additional OSs and unless they're going to sell in significant bulk (and there's no indication that Be would -- there weren't that many downloads even after it became free [as in beer]).
After all, Linux is a free OS and Dell didn't find it worthwhile to continue to provide it on their workstations. (Yeah, yeah... mod me down... doesn't make me wrong)
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's agreements with OEMs (the agreements themselves were trade secrets, by the way) forbad creating multiple-boot machines. Be's business strategy was to be a "helper OS": used for things that Be did best without losing access to Microsoft Apps. It's pretty much the same strategy Microsoft used in weaning people from DOS to Windows 3.0. Microsoft's OEM agreements prevented this kind of arrangement. Realistically, given the amount of software on the market, it also prevented desktop competition.
For an OEM, on a thin margin, that's pretty much like putting a gun to your head. It's also illegal as Hell for a monopolist to do.
Be is in a pretty good position, here, I think. Microsoft has already been established as a monopolist and the OEM agreements very clearly represented an illegal abuse of their monopoly power.
If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, this suit will be in a class of Federal suit whereby the loser pays. If so, Microsoft will be responsible for all legal fees if they lose.
I wouldn't be completly surprised if some enterprising law firm adds up the merits of this case and agrees to go for a big score here, matching MS blow for blow.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they do it because if they didn't do it, they would be out of the PC OEM business, because Windows has a monopoly on the PC desktop market.
Silly example: if I was the only person on earth who could provide you with food, you would be free to "not deal with me at all", by starving, right? So therefore any contract I asked you to sign, no matter how draconian, would be a "mutual agreement between two consenting parties"?
No, it's a gun to the head, and anyone who tells you otherwise hadn't thought the situation through.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work for a small OEM and yes, MS could hurt them too. This small OEM had bussiness sales and most of those companies wanted computers with windows. If our OEM could not provide them with it (ie if MS cut them off) then they would have gone to an OEM that could provide it.
I have the "Microsoft Windows NT Server and Windows NT Workstation OEM Preinstallation Kit" booklet right here in front of me. I'll quote you some of the more juicy bits:
"To comply with the terms of your OEM license agreement, you must conform to the requirements and restrictions described in the sections that follow."
"You must preinstall Windows NT using one of the two methods described in this book; you may not preinstall Windows NT using any other method."
"You must preinstall Windows NT on the hard drive of every computer that you ship to a user."
"You cannot ship only a compact disc containing the Windows NT operating system; Windows NT must also be preinstalled on the computer's hard drive."
"You can install ONLY the Windows NT 4.0 operating system on a computer. You cannot include an additional operating system (such as Windows NT 3.51, windows 95 or Windows 3.1) unless you have a seperate legal agreement with Microsoft."
There are some of the restrictions word for word. There are a bunch of other things like the computer has to boot directly into windows, which rules out lilo. You also can't modify/delete almost anything including the IE start or search pages.
Re:need to prove Intel/Microsoft collusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Dual boot machines would be absolutely lovely, and maybe this will be more of an issue when PC's have multiple hard drives and fast loading times. But honestly, except for hardcore developers, the majority of business users don't have a need for dual booting.
Robert Nagle
As A Long Time BeOS User... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft hit BeOS hard with the release of Windows Me. You see, BeOS PE needed a way to exit Windows without shutting down. This was possible in Win 95 and Win 98, but removed in Win Me.
Microsoft never gave a reason for this, and it is assumed that MS made this change to restrict other OSes from running along side of Windows.
Microsoft's strong-arm tactics in OEM licensing also hit Be hard. Many companies were going to start shipping BeOS machines, but they noticed a clause in their license that would require the purchase of a Windows license, even though Windows would not be used. This would be very costly, so the OEM BeOS idea failed.
Some have said that the size of Be will hurt them. I diagree. Think from the jury's point of view.
You see one large company against one man. That one man used to be a large company, but the other large company killed it.
It is just this kind of tale that will help Be the most in the courtroom.
Be vs. Me confusion (Score:4, Funny)
According to legal opinion in Redmond, "Lindows" may confuse consumers into thinking they're getting "Windows". So switching the first letter of your product name with that of another player is bad, right?
Well, "Be" only had two letters to begin with, and MS went and took one of them for their shiny new consumer OS! It's like the David and Bathsheba of the software world. Truly shocking.
Re:Be vs. Me confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it was the boot loader (Score:4, Interesting)
Good. I'm glad. (Score:4, Interesting)
More to follow me thinks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good economic reason for suing MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether they'll be successful is another story altogether...
Ode to my BeBox (Score:5, Funny)
and the blissful memories fade
visions of objects and mime-types
and the neat little scripts that i made
Hope for the future has past
from my elegant blue Beth
to various *n*x machines
what little hope I have left
For as much as gnu's full of bounty
and the empire looks to fall from it's hill
I remember a time that was simpler
only a BeBox my wish could fulfill
The Reason Why Be Didn't Make It (Score:3, Interesting)
The place for #3 in any market is always small, but obtainable. Linux now owns this space in the desktop OS market (with Apple being #2). Be failed to really develop themselves and build what is known as "mind share". How many people have even HEARD of Be? Not many.
As entertaining as it might be to generate conspiracy theories that somehow the big evil M$ "kept them down", there are other more down-to-earth reasons why Be has always been doomed.
Linux squashed Be. This is because Linux caught onto a market wave as it was happening (the open source movement).. Be tried to catch on to this as well but it was too little too late.
Re:The Reason Why Be Didn't Make It (Score:2, Interesting)
THis is why you never ever see any computer sold with a dual boot one being windows and the other not. If this law suit is sucessful it might me great things, such that computer stores will be able sell linux and other OS's along the side of Windows and MS won't be able to do a damn thing a bout it.
And yes, This is what hurt Be OS. Microsoft. This is why they don't have "Mind Share" its all becuase of Microsoft.
The reason why Linux is succesfull is because it doesn't play by the normal economy rules. Not because it marketed itself better than Be.
Remember Technicalities: This is the Legal System (Score:2, Interesting)
Since Be is getting into the ever technical legal system with their actions, this could be a very good case, however I feel Microsoft will win this one.
If the contracts Microsoft signed with OEMs stated that theirs was the only OS to be installed on computers, then that is clearly anitcompetitive, and this is what Be is alledging (only Windows on a computer). However, from what I gather from the article Microsoft's contract with OEMs made it so they could be the only OS listed on the boot loader.
Now, this may be cutthroat business, but it's not what Be is alledging. Their software stinks, but Gates is a ruthless business man, which I do admire to a certain extent.
Thus, in this world of legal technicalities, I think Microsoft will win.
You knew it would happen. (Score:5, Informative)
They tried to get the DoJ to use this in the antitrust trial, but the DoJ said that their case was for illigal tying, not for exclusionary agreements. DoJ urged Be to go to trial separately.
When BeOS was purchased not too long ago, they reserved the right to sue MS based on the judgement of the court in the DoJ trial. Since it appears that the DoJ sold out, Be is finally doing what they should have done earlier.
Better late than never. Good luck, Be!
The Death of a Thousand Cuts Begins (Score:5, Interesting)
Palm Inc. owns their IP now... (Score:2, Informative)
Unpopular opinion follows (Score:2, Interesting)
Please folks... substituting MS for a society where companies cannot compete due to fear of lawsuits is about 100x worse. Be messed up bad, and now they want a lawsuit to recover as much as they can. I hope that the libertarian folks among you can see this at least.
Flame on.
Re:Unpopular opinion follows (Score:2)
Microsoft could pressure OEMs because no OEMs could ever afford to loose the goodwill of MS. If they didn't sign exclusive agreements, they'd very well be out of business because of the fierce competition in the PC-business.
The fact is that Microsoft have been PROVEN to be abusing monopoly power in a parallell case.
Be most surely has a case. But what will probably happen, is that this is all settled out of court with a pretty sum that enriches a few Be-investors, and doesn't really affect Microsoft.
Re:Unpopular opinion follows (Score:2)
taco
Re:Unpopular opinion follows (Score:2)
Of course not. IBM holds no monopoly in operating systems. MS does.
Signing exclusive agreements is NOT illegal!
But when you're a monopoly it changes the rules. You're missing the key word here, and that word is monopoly.
Re:Unpopular opinion follows (Score:2)
This is true, except in one case. When you are a monolopy and those agreements preclude any competition.
Which is what appearantly happened here.
Re:Unpopular opinion follows (Score:5, Informative)
Signing exclusive agreements is NOT illegal!
This has been covered extensively in the antitrust decision (which, BTW, was upheld unanimously by 9 appelate judges). The exclusive agreements are illegal when you have a monopoly in that particular market. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. (*) Therefore, the exclusive agreemets are illegal. End of story. You'd do well to actually get a clue before spouting nonsense.
(*) Oh, and before some moron decides to beat the "MS is not a monopoly" horse, I will not argue with that. I'll merely point out that the district judge and 9 appellate judges disagree with you. And they probably understand the laws a bit better than you.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
It might seem pedantic, but think about it -- nowhere else in the law (that I'm aware of) can you be punished retroactively to before your infraction was established.
clearly you don't understand anti-trust law (Score:2, Insightful)
Therefore actions which by themselves might not be illegal, when taken in the context of a monoply can be illegal.
Look at it this way. Pretend Ford owned 95% of the gas stations in America and said that their gas could only be sold to Ford cars. Now you (the consumer) want to a buy a car. Normally you would never want to be limited to a car that can only use one vendor's gas. But because Ford own's 95% of the gas stations, you have no choice. If you buy a non-Ford car only 5% of the gas stations will sell gas to you making it unlikely you'll find gas when you need it. Take that one step further. Since everyone buys only Ford cars, no one is going to start a non-Ford gas station since there aren't enough non-Ford cars to support it. Hence Ford can sustain its monopoly through its monopoly power. There is no way to break out of this cycle, no matter how much better or cheaper compeitors make thier cars. The only way to open up to competition is through government intervention via anti-trust law.
Did MS really hurt them? (Score:2)
It looked like a nice OS, although I never got it working on my system. Of course that may have been a significant barrier for PC makers too, as far as hardware support. Technical support may have been another issue. I'm sure they already have their support staff trained for Windows, where BeOS would require retraining. All that for an OS that's really a hobbyist OS doesn't seem like a wise investment for PC makers to jump into. It's not liek Be was finding it's way onto corporate systems anywhere.
I agree with the other poster that said Be should have made and sold it's own systems. Maybe with some hardware specially designed for musicians. They may have even gotten some school contracts with that, but I guess lawsuits are the only remaining option.
Palm Inc --- The Phantom Menace? (Score:2, Interesting)
With Microsoft making inroads into the PDA market, is this lawsuit just a ploy by Palm to distract the competition? It forces Microsoft to expend additional resources, while Palm can focus and regroup. Or so they might be thinking . .
"My young apprentice, there is something else behind this . .
BE is going to win or lose (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people are missing the brilliance of this tactic. Yes, Be is no more. It has ceased to Be. (haha) However, they are illustrating the WHOLE POINT of suing by being out of business.
What better way to illustrate a Monopoly that prohibited vendors from bundling competing products, therby limiting the market and competition to any Microsoft monopoly, than to be a competing product driven out of business by the same monopoly?
Now, as long as they can afford the legal fee's, they may actually have a chance at illsutrating WHY MS should be broken up, and WHY MS IS a monopoly in the truest sense of the word.
Re:BE is going to win or lose (Score:2)
Re:BE is going to win or lose (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketplace != fair. And Be had lots of apps and tons of development support. Heck, they even had DOOM - which is my first test to consider something a real OS
inky
You could see this suit coming.... (Score:4, Informative)
I knew it was MS (Score:2)
What was that old thing about... (Score:2, Funny)
Testimony could run long (Score:2)
Boot Loader lockout workaround (hint hint OEMs...) (Score:4, Interesting)
Then just put a little icon on the Linux desktops. "Tire of using a floppy to boot linux?" Curious users will click it, and it will Druid them right through installing a multiOS bootloader on their harddrive. Probably LILO or GRUB. And voila, you're done.
Of course, most OEMs aren't too bright when it comes to getting around license restrictions. The legal departments tend to jump onto the MS bandwagon pretty quickly since it's been their bread and butter for so long.
Re:Boot Loader lockout workaround (hint hint OEMs. (Score:4, Interesting)
The OEM Licensing agreement you are refering to is considered a trade secret. NOBODY but the legal teams at the OEMS are allowed to read it. Your idea assumes that the licensing agreement doesn't explicitly exclude the "loophole" you described.
Okay, giving your idea the benefit of the doubt, Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements are contingent on the whim of Microsoft. If an OEM, and I'm not talking about Joe OEM, I'm talking about the big names, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, even look at Microsoft crosseyed, Microsoft may yoink their OEM license agreement, which would subsequently mean immediate death to said OEM. They can't afford to sell computers if they aquire Windows at a retail price. This means that Microsoft has a lot of leverage outside of their exclusionary licensing agreement that does not leave a lot of room for OEMs to be "creative".
This topic is what Be's complaint [beincorporated.com] is about. When Compaq announced that they were going to market a Internet Applicance running Be's BeIA, well, read this quote from Be's complaint [beincorporated.com]:
Microsoft used monopoly illegaly (tried and convicted by the highest appeals court). Their control over OEMs extends past their written contracts.
Re:Boot Loader lockout workaround (hint hint OEMs. (Score:4, Informative)
And guess what? It didn't work.
The fact is, sticking in a floppy and a sheet of paper is vastly inferior to having the software appear in front of the user when they boot.
So, you can get around the letter of the license agreement with this tactic, but you can't get the same market leverage. And it's market leverage that pays the bills, not a "clever" legal trick.
The registers coverage (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21410.html [theregister.co.uk] The register's summary of this Byte article:
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s
daniel teske
Had the information for 3 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the press statement, it's for "for the destruction of Be's business". It would have been fairly hard for Be to sue Microsoft for destruction of their business three years before Microsoft had finally destroyed their business.
When you're trying desperately to stay afloat and keep your shareholders on board, the last thing you do is publicly sue someone for having irreparably harmed you. Admitting that you're sunk simply guarantees you'll lose whatever remaining chances you have.
Kind of funny seeing this on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Be wasn't free, it wasn't open source. Who wants to use that crap anyway?" was the response of the
Now the slashdot masses want to complain that Microsoft killed Be?
This is hilarious.
Re:Kind of funny seeing this on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's annoying when people generalize like you did.
Time to Gamble (Score:3, Interesting)
BG: Nextwave was the company who bought the spectrum many of the cellular companies are deploying new services on. Well they didn't pay their bills and the FCC took back the spectrum and reauctioned it. Nextwave sued the FCC for taking it away and it dragged through court for about three years and Nextwave won. Now their worth a TON of money because, the Cingulars and Verizon's of the world already have service. Guess who the FCC has to buy from to get the spectrum back.
Now let's apply this to the current situation. Be is currently worth about 4.4 million total right now in stock. Since the company doesn't really have any debt anymore roughly $1.5 million with most of that in current liabilities so the company is close to $3 million total.
Roughly 130 million computers (got this off a CNN article correct if wrong) were sold last year. Now watch this. Judge finds that Be was killed by Microsoft. Take the previous two years of sales will say 225 million PCs. Judge says 150 million (round ball) were shipped by OEMs and Be considering its size would not be have penetrated no more then 2% of the market. That means they could have put their OS on 3 million computers. Ok, let's now say Be charged $25 for each copy (below MS because they are trying to gain market share and they will be considered an inferior product to most of the marketplace). Now we have at least a verdict of $75 million or roughly a 17x the current stock price. Of course Be is a penny stock at 12 cents and they very well could lose the case but if you got money that you would take to Vegas it might be worth a shot.
BTW, we haven't even talked about the chance for punitive damages and if MS lost the case and decided to settle you could be looking at handsome pay day.
HT
Silly Slashdotters :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
Be, Inc did negotiate a preload deal, with a big vendor. The product actually did ship in limited quantities, after it got Microsoft'ed.
Be, Inc. and Hitachi created the Prius 1, and neat little desktop for the Japanese market. It was going to be a dual boot, Windows 98, BeOS box, with the 2 operating systems side by side. Before it shipped however, Microsoft evidently went in an played hardball, forcing the preload to be modified in such a way that the BeOS bootloader couldn't be displayed until after Windows was running, and even then it was buried in a menu in the programs folder of the start menu. Now considering that most users don't even know how to get to the calculator, this is pretty much a death knell. The deal fell apart a couple months later.
Now I'm not an insider to either company, but I've been around the industry and I've had enough exposure to make an educated guess about what happened. It probably went something like this.
1. Be makes press release announcing deal and is queitly nearing deals with at least one major US Vendor, probably Gateway or Compaq.
2. MS low level staffer tasked with watching the press wire sees the announcement and shuffles it into the channel for 'handling'
3. Hitachi and Be spend a month or so working out the technical details and prepare the machine for shipping.
4. The press release finally gets to the upper management at MS and the marketing and account relations machine goes into action. Considering Hitachi's size and volume in the the Pacific Rim, Steve Ballmer gets on a the phone with Hitachi's president and explains the 'hidden' costs of this preload deal. Namely no more discounts on MS Office, and discounted price of Windows just tripled. And oh yeah, if you reread your contract the we signed with you, Windows boot process cannot be alter in these methods. You are going to have to do it our way.
5. Hitachi cannot fight this in a market that is operating on increasingly tight margins.
6. MS sends out a private reminder of the preload agreement's fine print regarding bootloaders and dual booting non Windows Operating Systems. This effectively closes the US Vendor deals and seals Be's fate.
7. Be begins the 'Focus Shift', attempting to invade the only market left open to them.
8. Be discovers that the market that appeared open to them has a couple of entrenched players, and one entering the market that has assets and marketing to kill them.
9. Be runs low on cash and begins the liquidation process.
10. Part of the exit strategy is to liquidate all assets and IP, then using the entity, sue the snot out of MS.
11. This would pave the way for Palm or whomever to then invade the x86 market once again.
On a side note, as brilliant as Apple's Mac OS X is, all the furor about bringing to x86 presents the exact same stumbling blocks, and make it therefore a 'Bad Idea' (tm).
Andy Satori
dru@druware.com
So why prosecute murderers? (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re:i fail to see the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Comeback, Be! (Score:3, Insightful)
Allegedly Palm is using the Be technology as the basis for their next OS. The current Palm OS can't really do the type of things that, thanks to Microsoft et. al, everyone thinks a handheld device needs to do.
Also don't think that even if they get some money, they will return as a viable software company. More likely any money they get will go to their creditors.
Re:end result (Score:2)
last employee "woohoo I'm rich"
knock-knock "Hi, where the VCs, give us the money"
last employee "D'oh I'm broke"
Re:Methinks... (Score:3, Informative)
And amusingly enough, it just may work. We all think of Be as dead, dead, dead but there was over ~$4 million bucks worth of their stock traded today. It closed up 20%. Gone? Not quite. Forgotten? Mostly... Will Be ever exist again in the form some of us were quite fond of? Never.
Beware the Seattlement (Score:2)
Re:What a surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Be is one of the few companies that genuinely do have a case, me thinks. With browsers the situation is bit convoluted (no one ever made money selling browsers). With BeOS, Be had snowball's chance in hell getting h/w manufacturer's to pre-install the OS because of Microsoft's strong arm tactics. Consumers didn't get to choose... perhaps they wouldn't have wanted BeOS in any case, but MS didn't want to take a chance. Of course MS didn't just fight BeOS but all potential competitors... Be just happens to be the one that had closest match on intel hardware (for 'normal' consumers).
Oh and yes, these tactics were hardly "tiny little thing" that Microsoft "didn't even know it was doing"... the whole industry has known about this for years now... but big names (Dell, Gateway et al) have been too scared of Don Bill to publicly complain (and/or greedy and content with status quo... they just sell hardware, OS is just a tax they have to pay)
Netscape too deserves this along w/ many others (Score:3, Informative)
From the early license agreements, Netscape was free for educational use. Businesses and personal non-educational use required you to pay for the license. I remember seeing boxed copies for sale all over the place back in 1995. It was available for nearly every flavor of *NIX, Mac, and Winblowz. They sold the "killer app" that made the web a household name. There's no reason they couldn't still be licensing Navigator to this day; except for one: Microshaft's fear.
Microshaft pissed in the punchbowl. They dumped an inferior web browser (everything before IE 3.0 was a joke) on consumers and killed of what could have been a serious cash cow. They did this because they couldn't compete on any real merit (typical Microsoft there) so they undercut the competion on price relying on the OS monopoly to fund the dumping untill they drove the competitor out. They did this with word processors, and spreadsheets if you ever stop to wonder what happened to WordPerfect and Lotus 123. The OS monopoly funds screw-up after screw-up of crappy versions and learning while eating into the competitors customer base with cheap prices. By the time version 3 is out, they've cought up. This "business strategy" works great if you've got the cash to burn and nobody to answer to for doing it since smaller companies don't get to spend years screwing up at least three times .
My point is this: Netscape's complaint is more than legit. Microsoft's monopoly/preditory practices go way further than Netscape or BeOS as well. With the finding of facts to go on, over $20,000,000,000.00USD (yes folks, that's over TWENTY BILLION in the bank), a huge list of enemies, a corporate culture of arrogance, and the current economic slump, they're a prime target to get swamped with lawsuits for the next 5 to 10 years.
It's been a long time coming, they more than deserve it, and I for one am looking forward to watching the show.
Re:How many... (Score:2)
There are three ways of getting a lawyer. Pro Bono, which is where they work for free because they think the cause is just and worth their time, or because they think they can make a big name for themselves and the "free" advertising is worth the time. Paying them outright (you might get a better price if they believe int he cause or want publicity though). Contingency, which is where they take a percentage of the winnings (if any), which is where they may or may not believe in the cause, may or may not think the PR is worth it, but sure do think they have decent odds of winning!
Re:get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
1)You can't blame Microsoft for running a business for profits
2)You can't blame vendors for wanting to sell to largest majority
3)MS is simply giving the consumers what they want
etc. etc.
LISTEN: It doesn't matter if you are anti-MS, a VB Developer or Linus himself - Microsoft is a monopoly. It "earned" it's position in the marketplace through illegal practices.
It broke the law. It didn't do this yesterday, or a couple days ago, it's been doing it for years, ever since it came to be. All of the above arguments for "get off Microsoft's back" are invalid by means of history. The current industry landscape wasn't anyone's choice - it's the result of a crime.
"vendors install MS because they know people will buy it"
No, vendors install MS because MS has a monopoly on the OS market, giving them LITTLE CHOICE. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's fact.
Let Be sue Microsoft. We all should be suing Microsoft. How many hours of productivity have we lost to operating system which stole the industry? How much money have we given Microsoft without having a choice of where to spend it?
This isn't a "Microsoft sucks" thing - it's a "Microsoft broke the law" thing. Just because the Bush administration asked the DOJ to back down doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. They were still found guilty.
Thanks to this, we have Windows. We have an OS based on business, not technology. We the government buying it droves, which not only makes our national security at risk, but has actually caused battleships to "crash" (Anyone else remember the "smartship" that had to be dragged back to dock thanks to NT?)
Nobody should be letting Microsoft off early, especially Windows users. Imagine how much better Windows would be if they had a little competition to keep them busy?
inky
Palm does not own Be (Score:3, Informative)