Continuing Twists In Microsoft, Intel Cases 315
An Anonymous Coward writes: "New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer have threatened to pursue their own sanctions against Microsoft if they conclude that the Justice department isn't being tough enough. Amongst other things, they demand that Windows XP "receive close scrutiny in arriving at a judicially ordered remedy. Go NY!"" NaughtyusMaximus points us to this message at Anandtech about Via reacting to Intel's patent-infringement suit by turning around and suing Intel -- for patent infringement -- in Taiwan and the U.S.. Via is also countersuing Intel in England.
Why arent they just going with the original punish (Score:2, Interesting)
Now seems to me that the government is getting its foot in the mouth because they're trying to impose more stupid laws, DCMA isnt doing much, MPAA is being a lecherous bulldog, and now they're trying to figure out how to make a law thats fair? shouldnt they just work on repealing their laws that arent working.. they should have enough experience in repealing their dumb laws like Prohibition back in the 40's.. ( it was the 40's right? )
Alternate punishments (Score:2)
How would this be done?
First have all OS related software rollouts under the supervision and approval by a special committee of supervisors, at least three from named each suing state, and three from the federal government. A nice unwieldy body to slow things down.
Second, prohibit them from rolling out any new versions or revsions or updates to any OS or Platfrom for a significant period of time, proportional to, and at least as long as the length of time that they have had their illegal advantadge in the market. I recommend 8 years
Third, - All licensing for the operating systems shall be permanent licensing, no rental licenses of any sort allowed, ever.
If this screws up .NET, tough. Penalties are supposed to hurt. And they deserve enough pain to get their attention, and focus it on the idea that they messed up.
Re:Alternate punishments (Score:3, Insightful)
"I won't use the services!" you say? Well why use the MS software under licence either? The govt doesn't need to step in, people just need to excercise thier economic right NOT to buy something.
Oh, you can't play your games without an MS product? Tough, thats call free market, to get the benifit you want you pay the cost that the person offering that benifit charges. If its too much don't pay.
I agree that MS shouldn't be allowed to make illegal contracts with OEM's (that will be stopped in the remedy) and they shouldn't be allowed to do any of the illegal stuff with pricing (which is stopped by the lawsuit as well). I don't think that the contents of the OS should be limited in any way. Maybe its sucks that you have to buy Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer as part of the OS but that should be MS's right to decide. Its your right to decide if you want to pay the price to get those things.
Interesting (Score:3, Troll)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
-Chris
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the other monopolies? (Score:2, Offtopic)
If this was a free market, that would be one thing - but the government grants a monopoly to the Bell companies. That's the real problem.
It'll be interesting to watch this one play out (Score:3, Flamebait)
Unfortunately, no. If there's one thing the current administration believes even more strongly in than federalism is political power to override such matters of principle when a pet interest is implicated. If the feds aren't going to break Microsoft up, you can bet they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that their will isn't obviated by some ragtag liberal states like New York or California (both of which voted for Gore).
It's going to be one hell of a political grudge match ahead. The trenches have already been dug; we'll have to see who's the first to start lobbing chlorine gas.
Re:It'll be interesting to watch this one play out (Score:2)
I think what you meant to say is how the Republican Party in general are stalwart anti-federalists. Consider when Jesse Helms announced he would not seek re-election (good riddance), he listed among his party's acheivements during his tenure the large amount of power that was devolved from the federal to the state governments. It's all that states' rights crap that southerners bring up as their "real" reason why the Civil War was fought.
Having this in mind, it was very interesting how the Republicans about faced when the Presidential Election was decided at the federal level by the Supreme Court. It again proves your point that they will cave in when real money is on the table.
/END LIBERAL RANT
Don't Blame Me, I Voted Green.
Re:It'll be interesting to watch this one play out (Score:2)
Re:It'll be interesting to watch this one play out (Score:2)
Even if you can vote that dosn't guarentee any representation. In the case of the USA machine readable ballots appear to have a worst error rate (as well as vulnerability to tampering) compared with manyal counting systems used in the rest of the world. The 2000 presidential election turned into an utter farce and parody.
Even if there were fair elections lobbying (to the extent of writing laws for rubber stamping) from extreamist political groups and big business renders the whole thing academic anyway...
a punishment suggestion (Score:4, Interesting)
Simpler Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you will IMMEDIATELY see competition in the market as companies dump WMP for Real, Quicktime or home brewed solution.
Re:a punishment suggestion (Score:2)
A third party performing a service in data storage, transmission or processing must, on demand, reveal details of exactly how that data is stored or transmitted.
This would be a good move because while it gives MS their right to, ahhh, innovate it also stops the other wankers in the industry (that's you, Sun) from trying to pull the same thing.
I'm also not sure that the API's are the crown jewels here either. As we have seen, it's the transmission and storage of data that make the difference - the Exchange wire protocol, butchered Kerberos protocol and Word file formats being the cases that come most immediately to mind. Strict limits on breaking compatibility are probably not necessary since MS got where they are today by ensuring backwards compatibility to an almost anally retentive degree.
Anyway, work beckons.
Dave
Re:a punishment suggestion (Score:2)
That would make good sense to do, except that you probably won't find any lawyers who even know what API stands for, let alone see the affectiveness of opening it up. The solutions the DoJ seek are less technical.
Secondly, as we've seen from recent legislation, the gubment has markedly sided with non-openness. It would be a bit two-faced of them to ask for openning up of microsoft's "intellectual property" while in the same breath, pursuing the punishment of Skylarov, etc.
No way... (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, do you really want the government handing down technology decisions like this? Just look at some of the other idiotic technology-related government mandates... DMCA, anybody? Awarding a patent for one-click shopping? etc etc....
Oh yeah, go donate to the EFF...
-sd
Re:No way... (Score:2)
Why not? Doesn't the govt regulate Airplanes, automobiles, telvisions, cigarette lighters, wood products, baby stollers, steaks, vegetables and just about every other product made in the US. Why should the software industry be the only industry to escape from govt standards and regulations?
Good idea, and with precedent (Score:2)
In both cases, the companies were required to publish specifications. They did, and whole industries developed around them.
Re:a punishment suggestion (Score:2)
Think C# after the courts said they could no longer enhance their J++ offering.
Re:a punishment suggestion (Score:2)
Re:a punishment suggestion (Score:2)
I'd much rather see the sourcecode something else. Most people PAY for microsoft's OS because they don't want to worry about anything accept getting there job done and going home.
They could care less if linux is free or the merits of either OS.
Re:Forfeiture of all illegal gains (Score:2)
30% of this market, 50% of that one, etc.
Add up the billions and send them a bill.
Problem is that it's very difficult to tell what the damages might be. Since they have been let loose for so long. Remember that the current trial resulted from their circumventing a previous judicial ruling.
The basic problem here is that something which started life as a legitimate company is handled with "kid gloves". An individual would have long ago been tossed in jail, a company set up by gangsters would have been long ago broken up (regardless of how many innocent customers they might have had).
Leave XP Alone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Agreed (Score:3)
User: "Umm, yeah, I just downloaded this program, but I don't know what to do with it."
Support: "And why are you putting this on your company PC? Do you have root access for this machine? That's like Administrator access, in case you weren't sure."
Re:Agreed (Score:2)
Ahhh... no more users installing stupid screensavers that crash their PC...
Eventually I think they'd give up and stop trying to download and install things.
Things in MSFT's favor (Score:4, Interesting)
just my 2c
Re:Things in MSFT's favor (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there is no way to make that money available to others. For every seller, a buyer: while the market cap can expand and shrink by the whim of the investor, the money is pretty much permanently unavailable to other companies.
Which is a shame. Spreading the investments around might have been helpful. Might fund some competition, f'rinstance.
Although, come to think of it, most of the MS shares are actually employee stock options, created out of thin air and used by MS as a means of (a) avoiding paying cash to employees and (b) dodging taxation [indeed, paying employees with stock creates tax *refunds* (as if MS needs a refund!)].
I think it's arguable that employee stock options are valueless, until such time as the employee gets lucky enough to find someone willing to fork over some coin. Until that point, the stocks don't actually represent money unavailable to other companies...
Disclaimer: These are idle late-night speculations, and are subject to correction by folk with far more investing knowledge than I!
Re:Things in MSFT's favor (Score:2)
> Although, come to think of it, most of the MS
> shares are actually employee stock options, created
> out of thin air and used by MS as a means of (a)
> avoiding paying cash to employees and (b) dodging
> taxation
As was posted on Slashdot a while ago, Microsoft didn't pay taxes in 2000. If you don't remember, the San Francisco Gate reported [sfgate.com] that Microsoft paid no taxes in 2000 because of laws that let them take deductions for employees exercising their options. It's estimated that this action reduced Microsoft's tax burden by $3.6 billion dollars.
Luckily, Microsoft was able to divert some of that tax savings to certain campaigns of GWB and other Republicans, and now they're getting a better ROI than they ever would have gotten if they had actually paid any taxes.
Re:you have no idea what you are talking about (Score:2)
Re:you have no idea what you are talking about (Score:2)
That sounds a little short-sighted. Competition is very good for a free market. If innovation (in the dictionary sense) was actually allowed in consumer operating systems and office-productivity tools, more companies with new and better products would come along, with more cash circulating to more people.
Re:you have no idea what you are talking about (Score:2)
A breakup would also free the baby Bills to pursue opportunities that they were disallowed from pursuing before because it might upset a monopoly position of another division.
Re:you have no idea what you are talking about (Score:2)
In practice it's probably impossible to "cash" it out anyway. Since as soon as you attempt to sell any sizable amount of the stock it's value drops through the floor.
And I'd like to hear you expound on how MS has paid employees with stock. They've been diluting their own stock, to a ridiculous extent. That scam has worked really well, as long as everyone was duped into driving the price up, and no one cashed out bigtime.
But how long can this kind of creative accounting continue?
Re:Things in MSFT's favor (Score:2)
Somehow I'd doubt it. Redmond is not a ghetto and MS has plenty of money to keep a massive security force around to crack some skulls. What you may end up seeing however is some people taking the law into their own hands and committing terrorism against the company. Maybe blowing up a building or killing some programmers or something. That seems much more likely because it will happen randomly (no security force can prevent it really) and it can be done by a small cell of highly motivated individuals. It might not even be a deadly assault. Something as simple as a smoke bomb set off just to send a message. Although to be fair you will most likely be punished just as harsh for a smoke bomb as with a real bomb so might as well do some real damage.
Getting tired of the spin... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Although many legal experts were not surprised to see the Bush administration relenting on a position strongly advocated by Clinton trustbusters, the apparent support of the state attorneys general for that move did catch them off guard. "
While popping over the pond to www.theregister.co.uk [theregister.co.uk] gives you a bit different view.
"Although the DoJ's statement last week was seen in some areas as the Bush administration letting Microsoft off, as yet there's no justification for such an intepretation. Unless the powers that be in the DoJ are lying (which is of course is possible), then they are simply trying to speed up the imposition of adequate and achievable remedies, while abandoning the tricky, dubious and legally lengthy ones. A Microsoft break-up always seemed a dubious and probably unworkable solution, and there was a fair bit of justification to Microsoft's claims that it would have destroyed the company. You and we might think that'd be richly deserved and a good thing for the industry anyway, but the US legal process is only supposed to be stopping Microsoft abusing its monopoly position."
While GWB may be an easy target these days, I'll take Wall Street's reaction to what the DoJ did as better insight - stock prices dropped rather than jumped when they said they were going to do some behavior modification rather than just break them into two baby bills. You really think the DoJ is going to call off the dogs and let them off easy? Buy stock. I for one think they are going to get it in the ass and am grateful to have jumped out when it hit the 70's....
Re:Getting tired of the spin... (Score:2)
You really think the DoJ is going to call off the dogs and let them off easy?
Yup.
The DoJ started investigating Microsoft when Clinton put Reno in the seat. Bush I didn't do any antitrust work.
Remember, the DoJ is controlled by the White House, and the Republicans think that antitrust is bad for business.
And no, I won't buy stock. That would imply my support beyond the bare minimum M$ tax I pay.
Re:Getting tired of the spin... (Score:2)
In the United States the laws are designed to benefit the rich not to server the public. If you acted in a criminal way you would be jailed. Welcome to America!
They can't do anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Only the federal government has the power to enforce actions like breaking them up. NY state may slap a fine but ms does not have to pay it. The constitution clearly states that only the state of Washington, or the federal government can slap a fine on MS because state powers can only regulate their own states. It will be a cold day in hell before the state of Washington investigates them. The federal government is paid off by Microsoft so they can only slap them on the wrist if anything. In other words ms won. Only a true breakup will end their dominance. They have shown in the past to not follow or respect the law. Just look at the bundling case with Windows95. Basically the DOJ investigated Microsoft's pricing with various OEM's. Ms promised to clear the situation out. Instead Microsoft wrote a more repressive one and labeled it a "trade secret" to prevent the DOj from reading it. The new one is rumored to have a clause that states that if the DOJ requests information about Microsoft, and then they must contact Microsoft's headquarters. In other words Ms has a heads up from OEM's to destroy and obstruct justice so the doj wont find anything. Actions like these and the dragging on with the windows98/Ie case show that ms will never give in and only a breakup can free the industry.
In other words were fucked. Not meaning to be a pessimist here but the UE and the states are quite powerless. The only thing they can do is ban sales of ms products in their states or in Europe. They wont and can't do this. If businesses and individuals couldn't buy a computer at all (remember that windows is required), then they will be so much public outcry will reverse the case.
I'd pay to see that... (Score:3, Funny)
DOJ: But... I saw a monopoly!
RMS: Oh dear... Bad evil naughty naughty Bill!
DOJ: What?
RMS: He started a monopoly. And we all know there can be only ONE punishment for starting a monopoly! We must have... a SPANKING!
MS Engineers: A spanking! A spanking!
RMS: Yes! You must spank him well and good and after you are done... spank me!
MS Engineers: And us!
RMS: Yes! You must give us all a good spanking! And after the spanking, the oral sex!
DOJ: Well, I guess I could prosecute a BIT longer...
Re:They can't do anything (Score:2)
You're a pessimist. They don't need to do anything as draconian as that.
Nothing stops either the states of California and New York, or the European Union, mandating that all computers in use in the public sector run only software to which the full source code is freely available. If they do this, then they constitute a market force sufficiently large to guarantee that all the software needs of a very large organisation can be met from open source. In which case,
Microsoft would not even have to be mentioned by name in this legislation. The legislation could be justified simply on grounds of security, as France has been suggesting, or on grounds of cost, as Brazil has been suggesting. But it would destroy Microsoft's dominant position utterly and permanently. Interesting times lie ahead.
Re:They can't do anything (Score:2)
Alas, that won't fly, if it's imposed by CA and NY. The Interstate Commerce Clause, while generally abused by the Feds, does reserve to the Federal government the right to regulate Interstate commerce. Therefore it doesn't fall under the 10th Amendment, and would be an unconstitutional attempt by those states to interfere with Interstate Commerce.
Re:They can't do anything (Score:2)
However, average user does not recieve such "Piracy letters". What kind of engineers were they? If they used unix or are network engineers then they deffinetly would recieve such letters or have used alternatives. Many engineers still use unix. Also many mac users hate microsoft and perhaps your teacher used macs at school. I don't know.
Bussiness users demand ms office and will go nuts without it. The IT managers would only recieve the piracy letters so the others wouldn't care. Remember the IT managers performance is evaluated by teh pro ms users. The states only have the power to ban sales in their own states and they will not do this because of bussiness users. Also many home users who need to buy another windows box and will be pissed on why Dell won't sell them any pc's. The only alternative is a fine. Ms does have a very strong constitional case if states try to fine them on constiutional grounds. So even though over a quarter of americans live in states that are investigating ms, they can not do much. I believe a fine might work after years of appeals and would have to be done by a federal court. I bet ms would just raise the price of windows in that state to make up for it and uers will actually be more screwed then before the case began. MS is in a great situation right now.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:They can't do anything (Score:2)
The Constitution says something about the state of Washington?
Read the post. "state powers can only regulate their own states". If I recall correctly, MS is headquartered in Washington State. Of course, the OP did phrase it badly.
Legal mumbo jumbo... (Score:3, Interesting)
while I'm sure it will just end in Intel and Via
coming to a mutal licensing agreement, if it does
actually go to court(s), Via's pursuing it in
three separate avenues, and if they win in just
one of them, they've hurt intel severely.
I'm sure Intel is quite reliant on sales and
resources those three (US, England, Thailand).
On the other hand, if Intel wins, it's of relatively
less inconvience for VIA, they
just have to retool some things in their chipset
(where Intel's patents are laying claim),
but if Via wins in just one place, Intel
would have to retool the P4 itself, thanks
to the S3 patents. A much bigger job.
<begin semiunrelated rant>
Sigh. Why don't they just merge,
then get bought up by AOL/TW,
and then have complete vertical integration.
Next up: company script!
</the rant shall never end>
-Slackergod
the Via case is a bigger deal! (Score:2)
has a thread going down in their forums commenting on what the ramifications of this are. This could be huge-keep an eye on it. Via has the potential to really smack Intel where it will hurt the most-in the courts.
What Good Will It Do? (Score:5, Interesting)
What possible good would it do anyone out there if Microsoft were broken up onto two Baby Bill's?
Do you really think MicrosoftOne will stop offering deals for exclusive contracts just because they can't through Office into the package?
Do you really think MicrosoftTwo will open up the Office File formats just because they don't work down the hall from the OS guys anymore?
Re:What Good Will It Do? (Score:2)
1. MSN
2. MS Applications
3. MS Operating System 1
4. MS Operating System 2
5. MS Operating System 3
From then on, the three OS groups, which get identical snapshots of the code base, have to compete with each other, and deal with the software world, including the MS Apps group, as foreign entities. First one to go open-source and get compatible with Linux wins a lot of interesting markets (not to mention undercutting the closed-sourcedness of the other two).
The Apps group has to treat the browser as a software product, rather than an integral part of the revenue generator for its networking and OS divisions.
And MSN has to compete with the rest of the internet for the Apps and OS groups' support.
This of course would never happen, especially not under a Bush DoJ, but not even under Clinton's DoJ, because it makes perfect sense, and there's no way that something that makes perfect sense can be allowed to happen so long as Bill and Ballmer have money to spend.
--Blair
Re:What Good Will It Do? (Score:2)
We would see how competitive is that "Free" product.
Quite a Bit, Potentially (Score:2)
Those are the few that I can think of right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, but Office and Windows complement each other in such important ways... how many times do we hear about how the Linux Office suites aren't good enough, and if it weren't for Office people would move over? Well, because Office and Windows are pretty much bundled together, they represent a massive power block. Splitting the company would cleave this block in half.
Re:What Good Will It Do? (Score:2)
Then Windows loses its monopoly and they can no longer hold OEMs hostage or cram their technology down people's throats (IE, Hotmail, MSN, MSN Messenger, WMP, etc)
Re:What Good Will It Do? (Score:3, Interesting)
How come, despite the supposed love affair with Linux that IBM has, Lotus SmartSuite has not been ported to Linux yet?
Features (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Features (Score:2)
Being tired in multiple places? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall having seen a documentary (really, it was a documentary) on the evolution of the pornography business in the 70's and 80's. One of the laws that this documentary said saved the industry was the ruling that actors couldn't be tried in different states simultaneously for breaking decency laws. Essentially, the court ruled that doing so would make the ruling of the courts in the decency cases a moot point, since it would bankrupt the stars and studios being sued.
I wonder if this ruling would apply to to MS. Obviously, they'd have no problem defending themselves simultaneously in all 50 states, but I think it might set a dangerous precedent if every single state is allowed to impose different "sanctions" on a company.
Everyone knows about "California Emissions" vehicles, but can you imagine what would happen if every single state had a different emissions standard for vehicles sold in their state? Now picture that with a software vendor. MS can't bundle explorer in Texas, Michigan, New York, and Florida. They can't allow VB scripting by default in Wyoming, Delaware, or Oregon. Washington would, of course, make no sanctions
I'm certainly not saying that I condone MS' practice, or that the world is better off with their dominance. I just think that it opens the floodgates for problems when individual states can make different claims.
Hopefully the Europeans will have some sense and pull a GE/Honeywell on MS.
Re:Being tired in multiple places? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Being tired in multiple places? (Score:2)
Re:Being tired in multiple places? (Score:2)
What country do you live in? Do you live in the United States? If so you must be aware of what happened with the tobbacco industry. Like it or not we have state laws and the states can and do impose thier own regulations on just about everything. Why should MS be exempty when R.J Reynolds was not?
Re:Being tired in multiple places? (Score:2)
What ends up happening is that the automaker just builds cars that complies to the toughest ones and sells those cars with the same emissions hardware across the rest of the country.
My new car has two precats on it in addition to the main cat in order to meet california emissions standards. My '84 ranger that emitts blue smoke out the tailpipe passes emissions where I live. Slight contrast.
Re:Being tired (vs tried) in multiple places? (Score:2)
But perhaps "tired" is more appropriate than "tried" for this case in this administration. I no longer anticipate any good out of the antitrust suit, no matter how much I would like to see file formats, protocols, and contracts opened, and compulsary license terms for patented "standards". That is, unless it drags on for 4 more years, and then we'll see what the next administration does with it.
Re:Being tired in multiple places? (Score:2)
Wether or not you perceive the threat is of no consequence. MS continues it's monopoly and continues to abuse that monopoly to surpress innovation and to punish innovative companies.
In any system there are winners and losers. Even the most oppressive dictatorship or the most corrupt govt has a handful of citizens who benefit greatly while the masses suffer. It may very well be that you are one of those people who benefit from an MS monopoly but the govt should be there to look out for the population as a whole.
"I do think that overblown government breaking companies and dealing new rules left and right is a big danger but that seems to be of no concern for majority of
I can't speak for all the
EU Action Against Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
A ruling by the EU against Microsoft could be significant, and affect Microsoft's products within the US. For instance, while the US did not oppose the merger, the EU ruled against the merger between GE and Honeywell. And, as a result, GE and Honeywell did not merge.
Re:EU Action Against Microsoft? (Score:2)
They're accepting input on the M$ case, by the way.
The address for the EU competition office is (obfuscated - sending them spam won't do us any good)
Infocomp [at] [put "cec" here] dot eu dot int
Or, if you prefer snailmail
Linda Jones
Information officer, DG Competition
European Commission
200 Rue de la Loi; J-70 0/123
1049 Bruxelles
Belgium
The worst thing the EU can order, though, is a financial penalty, AFAIK.
The one thing that annoys me on the MS stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
What annoys me, and probably our friends in NY and CA, and is being heavily downplayed by the press, is that the DOJ is also dropping persuing the tying of IE into WinXX. IMO, this is the most important information here, and it drastically would affect XP as well given that an IM and media player is also built into the system. While I know the appeals court said that the case as given wasn't strong enough for this particular charge to carry through, it certainly didn't say that it wasn't false either. Fortunately, it looks like NY and CA see it this was as well, as well as the EU commission.
In other News... (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, federal and state prosecutors have decided to suepend antitrust proceedings against auto manufacturer Ford, Ford has been accused of violating antitrust laws by bundling engines, seats, and wheels with their automobiles. The DOJ originally sought to force the auto manufacturer to sell a stripped-down model minus these key items to allow competitors the opportunity to sell their products to Ford consumers...
Re:In other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft allows none of this. When you get a MS OS, there are no standard tools for changing the way Windows works. Your choice of OS is whatever MS decides to dictate today. Right now it's ME and 2000. In two months it'll be ME and XP. There are no other choices.
A better analogy for your car would be this:
Ford is the only car manufacturer. If you want to repair your car, you can only do so at the dealer. If you want to fix it yourself, you have to buy the tools and parts from the dealer. Want a radio? If you buy one from Circuit City, every time you start your engine, your radio has a chance of blowing up. If it doesn't blow up, you'll get a prerecorded message from your car saying the radio is not authorized and may cause damage to your car. I'll leave the fuel type, gas mileage, and safety factors to your imagination.
Ford has no monopoly on cars. If they did, we'd be complaining. We're not. There is actual choice in the automotive industry. Want to buy a Dell without paying for MS? Try it. You can't. Want to follow the terms of the Microsoft EULA and try to get your money back? Good luck. Sure you can build your own PC. You can also build your own car.
Re:In other News... (Score:2)
So what? When you buy a Ford, you get a Ford engine. Don't like Ford engines? Don't buy Ford. Don't like MS tools (or lack thereof)? Don't buy MS. Besides, it's their O/S...they can do whatever the hell they want with it.
Want to buy a Dell without paying for MS? Try it. You can't.
Then I don't buy Dell...
I do however buy O/S-free PC's from other reputable vendors, both for myself and for other clients. There are more vendors than Dell, just like there are more desktop O/S's than Windows, just like there are more ISP's than AOL...
There is actual choice in the computer industry as well. It's not Microsoft's fault people don't exercise their right to choose (or they do and their choice is Microsoft)...
Re:In other News... (Score:2)
The fact that you can buy a car from someone other then Ford, and Ford doesn't say to petrolum manufactures, "If you want your gas to work in Ford cars, it'd better not work in Cevy cars!". This is what MS is guilty of (as decided by a judge.)
Re:In other News... (Score:3, Funny)
Cars are obviously different from software. Why, if Ford were to make a vehicle that was as prone to crashing as Windows, then people would be lining up in droves to sue their asses and their executives would be hauled before congressional committ...
umm, wait a minute...
I've got a punishment (Score:4, Interesting)
BIG SPENDERS (Score:4, Interesting)
During the last election campaign, Microsoft employees gave more than $50, 000 to the Bush campaign, while the company and its workers gave $500,000 in unlimited, soft money donations to the Republican National Committee for use in Bush's battle against Democrat Al Gore. Gore did not receive any money from Microsoft, according to election commission records.
According to data supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees also donated $22,500 to Bush's recount effort, and a Microsoft executive gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inauguration Committee.
Quoted from the SF Chronicle [commondreams.org]
Microsoft software through time (Score:2, Insightful)
You see, it all started with Windows Version 1, just an attempt at an operating system for the newly spreading PC ideal, alas, Version 1 was far from a hit. Version 2 followed right in the footsteps of Version 1. Despite the initial failures, however, Version 3.0 was developed for another attempt to win the PC populus, which wasn't even much at the time, but its popularity was borderline. Then came Windows 3.1, which turned out to be a great deal more popular than its predecessors. Next, as an addition to Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 was developed, a Windows environment for Work Groups! As soon as 3.11 was developed, it was not soon after that Windows 95 was in the making, and when 95 reared its head, the idea of such a simple-to-use GUI in a more flexible environment than what Macintosh offered had spread through the minds of the spreading PC user society. By the time Windows 95 emerged, Windows had pried the minds of hundreds of PC users, and from there, Windows became the only way to go for the average computer user. Its simple point and click environment offered such amazing flexibility to the user it was astounding, thus urging the development of Windows 98, the upgrade to 95, and 2000, the upgrade to Windows NT 4.0.
Windows had to work its way up just like anything else, but it was more successful because it offered a simple user-environment to the average user without that user having to learn a great deal about computers. Dah... move dah mouse, George... There wasn't a multitude of commands or macros one had to learn to get around the OS--I mean come on, the average user even has trouble locating files they just downloaded or installed. Microsoft's popularity is simple to see, and its degradation over time is actually expected: think about the first time you meet a beautiful girl or guy, what's on your mind? Giving it your all and attempting to be the dearest angel, just to make a good impression, right? Well, this lasts for about four weeks or so, the so-called Honeymoon phase, but after those first few weeks elapse, you start becoming more slack and comfortable, doing things you could never see yourself doing in the beginning. And when you move in together, oh! That's when shit really starts to fly! But this is beside the point. So, now here Microsoft is, owning 75% [just a guestimation] of the PC world, producing far-from-optimized code, and bundling neat, miscellaneous things into their distros for the users that made Microsoft so big to begin with! It was the average PC user who brought MS to such levels of grandeur, so why shouldn't MS bundle the programs it does? It's not just an operating system, it's a source of usability for millions of average PC users.
Don't get me wrong, I use as little MS products as I can [Litestep], but we have to keep in mind how MS got to where they are, and do what they do. Now, this is just my opinion, as far as it may be from accepted, but I'm just allowing for some passiveness in the case of Microsoft, even though I don't advocate it as being a great operating system.
Do you think MS is going to suffer in any way? (Score:2)
When I see the way things are going I have to conclude that it is unlikely that MS will be punished in any way meaningful. They will probably get slapped with a fine or two that equal to the amount they spend on softdrinks in any given day, and will have a pile of restrictions on their business dealings set in place by the court - but its not going to change a damn thing. They will continue to bundle software free with their latest OS that is solely intended to put some perceived competitor out of business - even if the courts limit their freedom to "innovate" like this - and continue to expand into new markets and dominate them. Nothing the courts can do or say is going to have any effect worth mentioning. Its probably cheaper for them to pay lawyers to sit in court and fight any accusations that they have broken the law than it is for them to stop these practices.
Now that Bush has been placed in the Whitehouse by the Supreme Court, he is free to help his business friends who got him put there via their contributions. The change in the DOJ's approach to the MS case is obviously just a matter of Bush paying back his masters, in this case Microsoft.
I hope to hell I am wrong, but I don't think that the DOJ or the courts are going to have any noticeable effect on MS or its business practices.
OTOH, I think that its licensing scheme for XP is going to kill it dead in the water once IT departments get a chance to explain to management why its a bad idea to have your OS operate under a subscription system. I think MS has shot itself in both feet with this plan. </RANT>
Yes this probably is a troll, but I am just too frustrated to care about my karma...
Via has a STRONG case (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel used certain S3 technology in the design of the P4 and chipsets (what I don't know), and in exchange, S3 got rights to make P4 chipsets.
Intel is trying to have it BOTH WAYS in claiming that Via, thru it's purchase of S3, does not have the right to make P4 chipsets, while still claiming to have a license for the S3 tech they are using.
I honestly don't see how that argument will fly, Intel clearly filed their lawsuit purely for harassment purposes, to harm Via's product release and name, and to delay it reaching the market (at a time Intel is apparently unprepared to release a DDR chipset of their own).
And the stupid thing is, having a DDR chipset for the P4 out now can only HELP Intel. Looks like the people who have been in charge over there in Santa Clara thru the Caminogate and RAMBUS fiasco are still in charge.
Intel's action can only help AMD further erode their marketshare.
Real Legal Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, someone needs to explain what breaking up Microsoft would accomplish. If the OS is isolated in a separate company I can't think of any of the current bad behavior of Microsoft that is restricted unless you also have conduct restrictions. Second and more important for the DOJ, the Appeals Court clearly signalled that a break-up is a punishment of last resort and would take a very high level of proof. In other words, a Microsoft break-up will take extensive court hears to pursue, will guarantee another tedious, time consuming appeal and the Appeals Court would be very likely to overturn the break-up order again.
As for bundling other products with the OS, the Appeals Court also clearly stated that this issue needs more proof before it could be allowed as a claim. The DOJ was looking at extensive hearings and a difficult issue to prove. (Anyone who is interested in actually knowing why, there are about 15 pages in the Appeals Court decision explaining the tying issue.) So again, the DOJ was looking at a great deal of time and money to try to prove something that would very likely not stand up on appeal since the Appeals Court has already indicated scepticism on this issue.
On the other hand, conduct restrictions are going to be relatively quick to formulate and get through court proceedings because there is very little additional to prove. Microsoft has already been proven to be a monopoly. And certain anti-competitive behavior has already been proven. The DOJ needs only to fashion conduct restrictions that fit the proven bad behavior. Since license issues were involved in the already proven illegal activity of Microsoft, the license would seem like the natural place to restrict Microsoft's behavior.
And the key to controlling Microsoft is to go after the license. The license is the tool that Microsoft uses to punish and reward the hardware companies. Consider fot instance that Jean-Louis Gassee said that one of the primary reasons for the failure of the BeOS (from a marketing point of view) was that he could not get OEM's to install it on new PC's even if he gave the OS to them at no cost. The only reason: Microsoft license restrictions. It is also worth noting that Steve Ballmer said that the temporary conduct restrictions in Judge Jacksons original order were, from Microsoft's point of view, almost as draconian as a break-up order. Quite a lot of these conduct restrictions involved the license.
An additional benefit to pursuing license restriction is this. Licenses are contracts. Contracts are something that courts understand quite well. Courts generally don't like most conduct restrictions because then they have to monitor them and it takes their time. But of all the conduct restrictions, license restrictions would be most appealing because its in writing and its something the court understands.
So, to summarize, here is the implied DOJ thinking based on the Appeals Court decision and the DOJ's written statement:
1. A break-up will require extensive proceedings, will be difficult to prove and will probably not be approved by the court or would be reversed on appeal.
2. This may not be the best case in which to prove product bundling that is detrimental to the consumer and the Appeals court has indicated scepticism on this issue.
3. Since the appeals court has already reviewed and agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that certain licensing practices were anti-competitive, the DOJ can seek remedies on this subject with almost no additional evidentiary hearings. Licenses will be in writing and therefore, the most appealing to the courts that will have to administer the restrictions.
So what is it people would want really? A symbolic break-up of Microsoft that would take years to get done after all appeals, etc. and would probably accomplish nothing. Or a real solution that is a positive for all consumers and can be accomplished in a few months. Plus, nothing is really given up. Because of the obvious issues in XP, DOJ can pursue bundling and other issues any time they chose (that is, any time they don't like Microsoft's behavior!)
Consider this, if the original restrictions of Judge Jackson were imposed we could now be purchasing machines that have a desktop free of Microsoft software and links and whatever software the hardware vendor chooses. Oh yeah, you could probably buy a machine that dual boots Windows and Linux. Sound like a good plan to me!!
Microsoft Passport cracked. File formats needed. (Score:2)
Generally, I find that people who complain about a particular Microsoft abuse don't know all the facts. If they did know all the facts, they would realize that the situation is worse than it first appeared.
However, coverage of Microsoft is beginning to be more complete. See Brian Livingston's column, Microsoft Passport Cracked [infoworld.com] for a few of the shortcomings of Microsoft's Passport authentication scheme, which, surprise, benefits mostly Microsoft, and puts the user at very serious risk.
Knowledgeable people realize that Microsoft is abusive. But I don't think there is anyone who knows the full extent of the abuse. The first step in deciding judicial remedies should be to write down all the abuses in one place. The result would be a large book. Just the Court's Findings of Fact [usdoj.gov] in the Microsoft anti-trust case lists 207 pages of descriptions of abuses. There are some intense abuses listed, but what surprised me was that they were not the abuses I knew.
In my opinion, one of the most important judicial remedies is that Microsoft should be required to publish FULL descriptions of its file formats. Then other office software would be able to compete, for example. A full description would include descriptions of all the ways Microsoft's software does not follow the intended design, that is, descriptions of the bugs.
Oh, please (Score:2, Insightful)
I've said all along that the only viable remedies here are behavioral, and they must include, at a minimum, forcing MS to use one pricing schedule for licensing products to any OEM, forcing them to open their API's, and forcing them to give up control over how OEM's can configure and set up Windows. Even that combination probably isn't enough, but it's the bare minimum that I would want to live with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Interesting)
They keep them closed and describe just in part and just to someone so they would selectively decide, which ISV's products will work better on their OS and which will work slower or with more problems or won't be that much compatible through their line of OSes. Does in your opinion has Microsoft a right to decide on this? Do you think they have even right to artifically create such situation when different competing companies have uneven conditions?
In case they are abusing such closed API to enter other markets, like Web browser market, Multimedia Viewer Market, Office Suite market. (It ain't done if Lotus still works....) Then its from the legal stand point abuse of monopoly powers and this is illegal, not having the monopoly, but abusing it and leveraging the monopoly into further markets.
To make long story short, they are bloody thieves and ought to hang on next tree.
Re:Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
>I just dont agree with you on that. No competitor, ever, regardless of market position, should ever ever ever be forced to actually assist
>the competition in hurting themselves.
As otherwise mentioned, an API is supposed to be an interface point, where different parties can interoperate. Microsoft is the master of the Oxymoronic API, where they want the appearance of interoperation, and enough to grow markets, yet reserve the ultimate rewards for themselves.
As for precedent on being "forced to open APIs", there are two most noteworthy:
1) The telephone system, including but not limited to those lovely RJ11 and RJ45 jacks we all use. IIUC, much more than just physical connectors was opened with that judgement.
2) The System/360 I/O Channel, to allow Plug Compatible Manufacturers to really make things to plug into those mainframe channels.
>It would be absurd to suggest that Standard Oil should have given away its oil to competitors because of its monopoly position. Its just as
No, but take a look at any pump, with its three buttons for 87, 89, and 93 Octane. That's part of the equivalent of an API for gasoline. It's the reason you can drive up to ANY gas pump, not just a Standard Oil subsidiary, and have reasonable confidence of driving away again without eating out your engine's innards.
>absurd to suggest that MS give away its property - intellectual as it may be - to their competitors. The API's belong to MS - they were
>developed, refined, tested (hahaha.. well obstentibly}, and maintained by MS. To force them to give that away is simply wrong in all sense of
>the word.
Once again, one must understand the political sense of what an API is. One must also understand that when one wishes to become the STANDARD of the industry, there are additional rules to play by.
Re:Paradox situation? (Score:2)
The rule of law (should) exist in this country to prevent this sort of thing. Microsoft broke the law, and they should therefore be punished. The fact that I'm being almost criminally optimistic is beyond the scope of my point. : )
Doubt it. (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you change someone's preferences? Make your OS appeal to their needs (simplicity & compatibility) or do more promotion. Microsoft does a helluva lot of promotion. Who here doesn't think the average Windows user prefers simplicity over stability and security? At the Help Desk where I work, people complain regularly about how their computer locks up constantly, but they continue to use Windows 9x.
I tend to prefer Windows because of its efficient GUI and driver support (although not perfect by any means), I'm smart enough not to leave it wide open for hackers (as best as I can, anyway), and Windows 2000 has proven incredibly stable for me. I also enjoy my Linux machine for reasons Microsoft has yet to provide (IMO, Linux dominates in the web development arena).
There is no one-size-fits-all OS.
Re:Doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
In exactly what area? Mind you, I'm talking about development, not web serving. I should also mention before going into my rant here that I would dearly love your statement to hold up. Typing this from a FreeBSD desktop now.
Exactly which Linux application is a suitable replacement for Dreamweaver, FrontPage, or even GoLive? Which Linux app supports syntax hi-lighting half as well as HomeSite or JEdit(available on Linux as well)? How about graphics support comparable to Photoshop, Imageready, or Fireworks? Any FTP clients out there that match up feature and stability wise to FTP Voyager or even Dreamweaver's file manager?
To date I've seen attempts at trying to implement portions of the above, but none that are production quality kind of apps. Perhaps I'm gonna get slammed down to troll for stating this, but as someone who does web development I just don't see any truly compelling applications on the *nix side of the house. In my mind, this is FAR more critical for the future of *nix on the desktop then any office suite, Quicken or Outlook clone.
The market right now doesn't need another platform for the "average" user. It desperately needs one for those who look to publish, create, and develop web content. So long as better apps for this are available for Microsoft's platform, none of the efforts going into the *nix desktop will effect market share one bit. Not even the justice department can make that happen.
Re:Doubt it. (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way I was able to reproduce photoshop functionality much more using gimp when I tried developing under linux. But I suspect that is because I don't do a lot of graphics work and I don't use either tool to its full capability.
I think web design is one area linux could seek to offer advantages, but not until it's able to offer designers advanced and relatively intuitive tools we will probably stick with whatever we're using. I don't see myself as the "average" user, but I'm neither a programmer nor a hacker and while I don't mind typing ./configure make once in a while, I have neither the time nor the inclination to learn new command and keystroke set (as well as a whole new way of explaining each) for every minor task I need to accomplish.
Lisp programmers could probably develop a set of emacs extensions that make it as easy to use and friendly as bbedit as an html editor. Perhaps nedit could turn out as something like that. (perhaps it already has - I have not played with it for a few months). I am willing to bet that there are a fair number of HTML coders and web designers using proprietary bloatware who would much prefer for intellectual reasons to be using open source tools if they were available.
By the way, I did not mean to imply that I consider BBEdit "proprietary bloatware" - quite the contrary. It's not free as in speech or beer but it is well worth the cost, and the support offered by its developers is amazing. In my opinion, they could open source the program and easily charge exactly what they charge now for support alone and not lose a penny (and probably gain many more paying customers). But I digress....
Re:Doubt it. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not the operating system's job to be making copy and paste work! Or even to be rendering fonts. All of this stuff should be and is taken care of by other programs on linux.
The fact that those things (what the users actually see) works on Windows has nothing to do with whether the operating system works.
The win9x OS does not work. It's a complete failure as far as stability (BSOD anyone?) and speed (it's way too bloated). Anyone care to disagree?
The Win(NT||2K) OS is way better, and I think it's as good as linux on almost every point. The only reason I use linux over win2k is the fact that I can infinitely customize it (whereas Windows always looks, feels, and acts like Windows), and because linux is Free software, so I feel better about not having to steal it.
Please note that i'm not flaming, or trolling... just stating my opinion. Don't mod me down.
Re:Paradox situation? (Score:2, Interesting)
And it's happening elsewhere, in smaller chunks, but it's happening.
Re:Paradox situation? (Score:2)
Lets look at through there eyes.
Joe-six pack does not know what an operating system is or even cares. He buys a computer to do email,word processing, and spreadsheets. He uses what comes with his computers because it does what he needs. If his pc crashes, then its the computer's or the applications fault not Windows. Windows is just a great interface from a great and innovative company that invented personal computing. MS office is needed and required to type a letter and outlook is required to send email as well. Without these innovative MS apps, his computer is a paperwieght. In his eyes computers are suppose to crash. His NT servers crash at work, every computer he ever used crashes. Macs also crash. Win3.1 was bad but windows95 was better and now his XP installation is practically rock solid and each new OS release is better and better.
With all these preconsumptions in their minds, do you think he or she would want to give this all up and trash Windows and Office? I didn't think so. THey believe Microsoft is the good guy trying to fix instability problems and the doj is the bad one who will change all this and bring down their level of security and all they ever know. People are very sensitive to their platforms and paid alot of money for them. Just look at the OS flame wars. Mac vs Windows, Solaris vs Linux, etc. The issues are the same. They have invested alot in windows and new and different things changes their level of security and their investment.
They will become more support of Microsoft over time. Chairman MAO is still highly regarded in China and his support is actually growing. They only know what is taught to them and will ignore some of the issues of his leadership. This includes murder and abuse of power because they have invested so much into their beleives that they will not change.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paradox situation? (Score:2)
Does this line scare anyone else? This is exactly the kind of doom we were scared of hearing. Saying Microsoft invented personal computing goes hand in hand with "Five years from now people will be saying Microsoft invented the web browser." Of course, this line could just mark this post as a blatant troll, but the fact that it's there at all really scares me.
Re:Paradox situation? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) People like my mom. She's till using a Pentium 100 with 32 MBs of RAM and a 33.6K modem. All she cares about is that she can read her email and "why does it say there is no dialtone when there clearly is one?" She doesn't care about Microsoft's computer practices. All she wants to be able to do is use her computer.
2) Sure there are IT specialists who are in the know about alternative operating systems, but do they represent the people they support? What about the secretaries who use the computer with Windows telephony products? How about the Graphic designer who is fluent in Page Maker and Photoshop? Are they going to want to take time out of their day to learn an OS? I worked for a networking company, and I remember how much of a hassle it was to migrate from GroupWise to Outlook, or even Windows 98 to Windows 2000. We did a multimillion dollar install at a church once with full remote administration capability, and the most amount of time we spent on support was from frustrated users who couldn't use their old screensavers anymore.
Folks, these people don't care about MS, they don't care that they are a monolopy. Furthermore, most of these people can't separate the concept of the operating system from the computer. The idea of a PC without Windows is unnatural to them. And these are the people to whom microsoft sells all those client licenses and home licenses. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft gets, as long as they provide the user with a familiar and comfortable computing experience, they will probably always be on top. It would take a MASSIVE PR campaign to convince people otherwise, but it still probably wouldn't work even if you're pushing a superior product or philosophy.
Remember the OS/2 Warp campaign?
You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
Actually, if there was only one car maker people wouldn't have any alternatives. Tires blow out? Brakes lock? Well, that's just what cars do. Nothing else to compare them to.
Re:VIA's move.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now Intel is saying that one way of the deal is duff now that S3 belongs to VIA. So VIA are now saying that the other way in the deal is duff. I.e., Intel now do not have the rights to use the old Exponential patents.
IF those patents are used in the P4/i845/P4 FSB in any way (as they might be, Exponential as about extremely fast, but low IPC (PowerPC) processors in their time, reminds me of a certain P4 processor!) then VIA can basically grip Intel's balls.
To futher evidence this, it would take Intel a couple of years to incorporate Exponential technology in a processor. The P4 is the obvious choice for the first Intel CPU to have Exponential patents in it.
Exponential had high clocks PowerPCs (533MHz when Pentiums were at 200MHz and PowerPCs at 250MHz). However the 533MHz Exponential PPC barely outperformed the 250MHz PPC, and was a lot hotter to boot. Exponential never got their act together though, so products were never released.
S3 bought Exponential's IP after they went to the great chip-maker in the sky. S3 did a cross-licensing deal with Intel. S3 were subsumed by VIA. Intel say the licences they gave away in the deal are now void. Logically, the licences they gained are now void as well (barring strange/one-way licensing terms, Intel are so much bigger than S3)!
If Intel is going to punch below the belt, then VIA might as well too.
Intel will not want a court to uphold VIA's claims. That could mean VIA licensing this technology back to Intel for an awful lot of money. Like $50 a processor and chipset if they wanted. Intel would have to pay up, or scrap the P4, i845, i850 and any other P4 chipsets or variants. Possibly even a product recall if VIA got really nasty. Of course, Intel would refuse to ever license anything to VIA ever again, but would VIA care if they were getting $50 a CPU from Intel, and the market swung towards non-patent encumbered technology such as AMD and VIA processors whilst Intel frantically took 1 year to redesign the P4 without the infringing technology?
The above paragraph's occurences will not happen of course. Intel and VIA will re-crosslicense the technologies, say sorry to each other, and Intel can then tell its other licensees that it tried its best, but VIA have a valid license.
They will still hate each other though. and none of the above is guaranteed to be correct. speculation, okay?
Re:VIA's move.. (Score:2)
AMD chips are a completely viable alternative to Intel chips, so couldn't a bunch of pissed-off Taiwanese manufacturers get together and "punish" Intel by perhaps being a bit slow to market with whatever Intel's next socket design is, effectively giving the processor market to AMD?
Re:DOJ attack on MS helped cause the dot-com crash (Score:3, Funny)
:)
Re:DOJ attack on MS helped cause the dot-com crash (Score:5, Insightful)
But did they deserve to be in business if they couldn't make a profit? My answer is no.
You can blame it all you want on the DOJ trial and interest rates, but when your entire business plan rests on being profitable enough to survive until one company buys you out, then you've got some bigger issues there.
The Valley is considered America's number one profit center and economy driver, and when nearly all of said area is beholden to a single company from afar, you have to question whether or not this is a good thing. Obviously, many people think not. Netscape/Sun/Other Java people were trying to change that.
Java was not going to be a replacement for MS-DOS or whatever else. JavaOS, while much hyped back in the day, turned out to be shit, and most anyone could have guessed it. Java needs an OS under it, the difference is that the OS doesn't have to be Windows any more. While this was aimed straight at Windows' heart, Microsoft was able to leverage their power unfairly in ways that Netscape was totally incapable of doing. This is why they were found guilty in the trial. I don't disagree that they should have provided a free competing product to deal with the threat. I do also acknowledge that they used their near infinite power over the desktop computing landscape, in everything from licenses to integration to proprietary extensions, to compete unfairly with Netscape and Java.
When a company has this much power, and can stamp out anyone who poses a threat this easily, it is time for it to be dealt with. The brightest, biggest, and best companies in computing, all unified behind java, couldn't beat Microsoft. And you want to tell me this is a "bogus issue"?
No company should hold this much power. No company should ever think "What is good for us is good for America," which is exactly what Microsoft has gotten to thinking. No country should hold them most important and vibrant sector of America's economy entirely within its thrall.
You want to blame the DOJ trial for the dot-com crash which was bound to happen anyway. I say the DOJ trial put things in perspective. The whole thing really started when Netscape itself was the darling of the stock market, and then everything internet would be huge, riding on Netscape's coattails. Microsoft killed this vision with Netscape, putting a cold, hard dose of reality in those VC's eyes. The dot-com bubble needed to burst, and Microsoft needs to be regulated.
Re:DOJ attack on MS helped cause the dot-com crash (Score:2)
When that happens, the least risk taking segment of the investors pull out of the stock market and put their money in bonds and as deposits instead.
Which means that liquidity in the stock market is reduced. Which means some medium risk investors will pull out of VC funds, and find safer investments, such as heavy established stocks or (if they're spooked enough) bank deposits and bonds.
So while I do agree with you that hysteria (for good reasons) was the major factor, interest rate hikes certainly do affect the investment climate too.
You're suprised? (Score:2)
You're suprised? That's precisely what "big government" does! Sticks it's hands into everything it can (and usually manages to screw everything up in the process)! After all, it also wants to get it's hands into your computer! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If you MS haters are so smart, answer this. (Score:2)
Why not get together and put your money, talents and intellects where your collective mouths are?
I know a couple of people that are doing so, it's some weird OS product involving penguins...
Build a company that will kick Microsoft's ass in the marketplace. If each of you were to throw in say $1k and perhaps build on some existing projects, I'm sure you could come up with products that would be superior to the stuff MS puts out (not much of a challenge). Then all you need to do is to be really good at selling it (if you don't want to make a profit that is up to you but you need to make the masses want and need it). I'm absolutely serious here and don't intend to sound sarcastic.
The problem is the term "superior" and getting good at selling it.
There is technically superior and there is superior relative to the market. There are many products that are technically superior to Windows in many ways, though inferior in others. No product is superior in the market to Windows. By definition, if it was, it would have more market share.
As far as getting good at selling it, se have gotten beyond the point where marketing and selling will be enough to gain market share relative to Microsoft. With rare exceptions (possibly Palm), if you come up with the greatest thing since sliced bread, people figure that MS will either buy it or sabotage it. That's the chilling effect that Microsoft has on the marketplace. It creates a market singularity where the normal laws of economics no longer apply.
Now I know someone will say "M$ will destroy any company that tries to compete with them" but that doesn't fly, it's just an excuse, if your better at playing the game you win.
I'll be the one to say it. It's hard to be better at the game when your opponent pays the referees and has the money to buy the game board. Because that's what Microsoft does.
The software biz is all about intellectual property, which means that it lives and dies in court. Microsoft has a huge lobby in DC, and their sheer size all but guarantees that Washington state senators (and certain of their congresspeople) push the Microsoft agenda. The latest MS push to tell people how OSS is so un-American is a direct attempt to get the US government to stop funding OSS software and start funding MS software. It's amazing what you can do with the Law on your side, whether or not it's legal.
Then there's money. Microsoft can directly buy threats to its position (as it did with WebTV, and one other I will mention later), and can buy support to crush its competition (as it did with Netscape). Its position also allows it to force its customer base to crush the competiton for them (again, Netscape).
The only reason that Linux is surviving Microsoft's assaults is that it isn't a company. Linux survives because it is a brand new way of organizing people, and it transcends business.
Logic and history suggest that no entity, regardless of power or abuse there of, is unstoppable.
Somebody had better tell Christ, Muhammed, the Buddha...
For the record: I think that most MS products suck, bless there little hearts they just aren't very good at writing software, but they sure know how to sell the stuff. And I'm typing this from OS X.
Ah, yes. Windows for Mac. You know why MS bought so much Apple stock, oui non? It was to show that they had competition. It was also to shut up a new round of patent lawsuits from Apple. As I propmised above, another example of Microsoft buying off a threat to its position.
Re:Well you can't expect... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually they'll probably go down very easily if the right methods are used. The right methods are to actually treat Microsoft as a criminal organisation.