Microsoft Trial Wends Onward

Sinistar2k writes: "Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!', Steve Ballmer comes across as a poor, beat down soul in the video deposition (Windows Media or RealPlayer required) released today by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Also available are text depositions of Ballmer and Allchin." gouldtj adds: "Here is a timeline on the Microsoft trial. It is pretty complete, and it goes back to 1990. It is nice to see all of this in one place, I'd almost forgotten about the old stuff. It just reminds you how long this stuff can take." Finally, ackthpt writes: "The nine non-settling states have modified their requirements, rather than Microsoft having to sell various versions of Windows, they would have Microsoft Windows sold as a modular platform, where the user could opt for different vendors software for different uses. Just days ago the nine settling states were rattled by Microsoft's end-around, challenging state attorneys' general participation in anti-trust procedings." And if your own computing (or career) depends on a Microsoft operating system, Roblimo suggests that you stop using it, because Steve Ballmer says Microsoft may take it away.

Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit...

The only thing that keeps you from removing IE is the WFP, Windows File Protection.

1. Disable WFP (registry hack)
2. Delete IE files
3. Wohoo!

You can also create your own Win2k install media where the file lists & install scripts do not even originally have IE along. WFP will not worry about IE being absent :)

What's the catch? SOME programs require IE to run. Not because they really really NEED IE, but because the developers have re-used some components that come with IE. For instance Media Player requires some .dlls but you can just simply insert them into your SYSTEM32 directory and voila.

Some programs though check for IE and if absent, just prompt you to install it back. You will have to stop using those programs, but there are always options.

Note that Microsoft can claim that WIN2k requires IE to function properly since some included tools and applications such as the Media Player require its presence. Most likely it will go through in the court as well.

No more windows?...

Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.

Oh please, please, please!!!

Nah, that sounds just too good to be true.

Re:No more windows?...

Ballmer may just have flubbed up.

There are two possible responses to the threat of Microsoft pulling Windows form the marketplace:

(1) "Oh my god! Windows is far too important, losing it would ruin the American economy!"

... which would be proof that Windows *is* too powerful, and that this extreme dependence on one operating system and one vendor who provides it must be broken -- for the same reason that America can't rely solely on one country for its oil, and the same reason that American farmers can't all grow the same identical strain of corn lest one virus wipe it all out.

(2) "Who cares? Linux can easily fill the void left by the loss of Windows."

... which is a thought Microsoft doesn't want to have cross *anyone's* mind. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft pulled Windows and the fallout lasted for a few months and then it was over and people found alternatives and nobody cared any more?

So I really have no idea what Ballmer hopes to achieve by threatening to pull Windows from the market.

Re:Stop using it?

Imagine if Microsoft actually did it, though. I have no doubts the backlash will be Companies and consumers reaffirming their love (addiction) to Microsoft, and making the DoJ look like the bully.

It would be exactly what Microsoft wants, because they know they have their clientele hooked like a heroin addict. Microsoft's presence in the government's agencies would be a signifigant mount of pressure when their support contracts and computer systems are in the hands of a corporation they themselves are trying to censure. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they did it, or at the very least, use this to get favorable media attention and the sympathy they want.

And, in other news...

Slashdot uses the word "wends" properly.

- A.P.

Re:And, in other news...

v. wended, wending, wends
v. tr.
To proceed on or along; go: wend one's way home.
v. intr.
To go one's way; proceed.
[Middle English wenden, from Old English wendan.](Dictionary.com)

Should of read a little farther.
Besides timothy didn't use it right, Sinistar2k did. If it was up to the editors it would probably be "Macrosoft Triel Wids Onwarde"

What are the Nine States?

In case you were wondering the nine states that are not settled yet are:

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Florida
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. Utah
9. West Virginia

Also the District of Columbia.

I wish they would state this in each article. :-)

Re:What are the Nine States?

I prefer to see them listed in that order:

Florida Utah California Kansas
Massachusetts Iowa Connecticut.

Too bad Minnesota and West Virginia can't spell ROSOFT.

About bloody time...

Rob Limo suggests Microsoft may finally "take their ball and go home" by pulling Windows off the market? More power to them! I've said for years that Ballmer, Gates and the rest of the kids ought to grow a pair and actually pull a Galt's Gulch. Unfortunately for them, the world, rather than realizing how necessary they are, will instead quickly wonder how anything ever got done with Microsoft around.

"If everyone thought like you, we'd have anarchy and chaos!" Poppycock. There isn't but one person in a thousand -- if that -- who even wants to be free, let alone knows how. Let the slaves continue to be slaves -- they'll never know the difference.

Re:About bloody time...

As someone who actually understands your reference to Galt's Gulch, I think you're missing a vital point. (I generally agree with you, so keep reading)

Every piece of functionality offered by Microsoft on the typical PC is provided by numerous other companies. Browsers? We got em. Word processors? We got em. Component based development tools? We got em. Funny little panels with a start button? We got em.

There's only one thing Microsoft has that other companies don't: a monopoly. And that's what this case is about. If Microsoft does a Galt's Gulch, the result will be chaos and mayhem. Not because the industry loses a whole bunch of functionality, but because the industry loses a monopoly at precisely the same time the market is demanding one. (ooh! heretical words!)

Microsoft is one of the few *natural* monopolies seen in the past few hundred years. Unlike the state-sponsored monopolies of the past (railroads, AT&T, your CableCo) Microsoft rose to its position of dominance because the market wants a single company in that position. This is an artifact of the infant consumer software industry. Eliminating state sponsored monopolies is a good thing. But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.

There have been some bona-fide, non-monopoly related, crimes, infractions and illegalities committed by Microsoft. But because everyone's so focused on the monopoly thing, they simply get ignored. Microsoft should be punished for their illegal actions, but allowed to keep its monopoly. The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.

Ballmer on Software Design

From the Reuters article [reuters.com]: "That's the way good software gets designed. So if you pull out a piece it won't run"

cf. "Last November, Allchin presided over the launch of Windows XP Embedded, which consists of about 10,000 components that can be assembled into custom products..."

Can't, won't or don't?

At least read the relevant material

Stop taking in all the MS Flamebait and read what Ballmer said that inspired this orgy of MS hate - to make it easy for you, I will put it down here:

The proposal as put forward by the nonsettling states would -- would not be a decree that I would know how to comply with. I actually think we would need to withdraw the Windows product from the marketplace. That -- that would be the only way I understand to comply with the proposal as put forward by the nonsettling states. The degree to which it requires documentation of internal interfaces, the degree to which it requires -- what do they call that stuff where, you know, you can't degrade the performance of anybody else at any time in any way on any interface, and all interfaces, all pieces of the system have to be infinitely replaceable. There -- there's no way to -- not only is there no way to do new effort, new product, new technology, there's simply no way to do that for the existing -- the existing product set. It -- it guarantees that the only way to comply effectively is to remove the product from the market.

The way I read that is quite simple - he's a guy who might actually understand a little bit about the SCOPE of Windows as an OS and knows what an incredibly monumental task it would be to go in and clean up all the little kludges and hacks and all the general design changes it would take to make Windows compliant.

He's not saying "Screw you, DOJ" he's saying "WTF, do you think we're gods?"

The states are being unreasonable and probably indeed bought by the companies he mentioned at least in part - don't you think that Oracle would love to see MS take a fall? I KNOW they would.

AOL? Same thing - I'm sure they would love to market an AOL Windows or their own crappy version anyway. They've talked about it in the past (their own OS) as has Netscape.

Bottom line - MS is not always the evil empire. Sometimes they're the ones getting fucked.

Cheers,
Backov

Re:At least read the relevant material

Except of course that Ballmer is telling a big, fat lie: Microsoft has already produced a stripped-down version of Windows. It's called Windows XP Embedded.

Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?

Re:At least read the relevant material

"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."

you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.

It doesn't matter if he's lying or not

The simple fact of the matter is that if Microsoft had honored the first consent decree they probably wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they thumbed their nose at the court and went straight back to business as usual. They deserve to have their products pulled from the market at this point. The industry would be far stronger if it had to figure out how to live without Microsoft.

That this IS a threat IS the problem

The fact that they CAN and apparently are willing to use pulling their "premiere" product from the market place, I think, shows that they know they are a monopoly. They are essentially thumbing their noses and saying, it's our way or the highway; and while wo know there ARE in fact alternatives, it is not feasible, nor is it plausible, to have the entire world switch away from Microsoft. Yet the fact that they can leverage their monoplolistic stronghold in their own antitrust trial is amazing! just my 2 cents OctaneZ

Then they should welcome decree

His position only makes sense if MS management is so weak that they haven't been able to force their programmers to document their internal interfaces and file formats... in which case they should thank the courts for coming in and making those bastards document their work since they're blowing off billg and Balmer.

Yeah, right.

I'm sorry, but this is should be a non-brainer. Every major API and every file format should already be documented - or the person in charge of that group should be fired on the spot for incompetency and his/her replacement's first task will be getting that documentation in place. The same managers should also have in place a review and approval process for changes in that API.

Bottom line - either Balmer can produce the requested documentation by releasing internal documentation, or he's incompetent. Or he's taking his lead from the Enron leadership and deliberately lying because he figures that jail time for perjury and contempt doesn't apply to the likes of him.

(Of course, I'm sure that the internal documentation includes hundreds of unpublished calls that they've denied exist. Tough shit - they made their bed and it's time they lie in it.)

Consider This

In comparing their respective timelines, it can be found that the amount of time taken to date to resolve the Microsoft anti-trust case is:

• Approximately as long as the American Revolution
• Approximately as long as the Russian Revolution
• 1 1/4 times as long as the time from the date the IC was invented to the date of the first handheld electronic calculator
• 1 1/2 times as long as it took the U.S. to put a man on the moon
• Nearly twice as long as WWII
• More than twice as long as the Civil War
• 36 times as long as Desert Storm/Desert Shield

And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT

Re:Consider This

• 
  
• Approximately as long as the American Revolution
  
• Approximately as long as the Russian Revolution
  
• Nearly twice as long as WWII
  
• More than twice as long as the Civil War
  
• 36 times as long as Desert Storm/Desert Shield
  

So, what you are saying is: Contrary to popular opinion, violence DOES solve things, and rather quickly.

Bomb Microsoft?

Just as M$ likes..

It occurs to me that Microsoft might actually be pleased by this never-ending legal "battle". Besides the nearly constant news coverage which is easy advertising that comes with the relatively marginal cost of the lawyers fees (from a multi-billion dollar corporation's standpoint), it also allows them to continue doing as they please without anything such as an injunction to prevent them from continuing to expand their monopoly and snuff out would-be competitors. During the past 6 some-odd years of high-gear courtroom battles, Microsoft has only had to contend with a single injuction (circa '97) which was later thrown out on appeal. This means they've had plenty of time to virtually wipe out Netscape, Be, and a slew of other companies by using the same illegal tactics they continue using today.
It's been shown for years that Internet Explorer can be removed safely from Windows with only a minimal loss in functionality, yet it remains. Participants have been after the Window's source code for years, yet it remains safely locked behind Redmond's doors. Illegal, anti-competitive practices have been on-going, if not accelerating over the course of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that this on-going court battle has yet to solve a single problem with the software giant, and has probably only helped it. Let's not forget that were some sort of settlement reached with the Federal government some time this year, (don't hold your breath) it would almost certainly have absolutely no real consequences, and if the initial settlement proposal is any indication, may only serve to allow Microsoft to further force its products into the marketplace, giving it further penetration in such areas as schools where it has been lacking.
Then one may look at the other nine states, who appear to be seeking a much better legal settlement against Softzilla. They want the source, they want IE out, and they want other versions of Windows available at a lesser cost without the unwanted "features" Windows buyers pay for. Well first of all, this would probably drag on for years, meaning no changes would take place. Were there to be a settlement, I doubt Microsoft would aggree to anything which does not eventually come out to their benefit; ie. selling a stripped-down version of Windows at a cheaper price would probably increase rather than decrease their sales figures. Were there a judgement issued against them, they would most certainly appeal time and time again, adding yet many more years to the total length of this litigation, by which time, any possible good coming forth from the judgement would have long since lost any tangible meaning.
In all this, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should be trying Microsoft and large corporations like it in a tribunal [cnn.com] much like the ones being used around the world for war crimes. A swifter, more final form of judicial proceeding is obviously needed for a company who's resources allow it to drag on court battles for year apon year, thereby pretty much defeating the judicial system in place. Draconian laws obviously had to be updated to deal with high tech companies, perhaps the courts should take a note from the legislators and realize you can't treat M$ like Standard Oil.

Everyone's out to get me! The sky is falling...

I can't believe they said this:

"The reason the non-settling states have proposed relief that is significantly broader than the [settlement agreement] . . . is no secret," Microsoft attorneys wrote. "They seek to advance the commercial interests of Microsoft's competitors."

Nine seperate states out to aid Microsoft's competitors? Who would that be, the rest of the computer industry and anyone who's ever dreamed of programing so much as a digital watch? Pathetic paranoia, or rampant propaganda. It's almost as good as today's earlier anouncement that the US government would fail, Universities would stop researching, and the world would end if M$'s software model failed to earn lots of money hawking the same old shit forever to a gullible clientel. From Mr. Mundi's Zdnet quotations:

If there is not commercialization there (because the big bad GPL supposedly denies this, bzzt - wrong!) , a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do," said Mundie.

They really are afraid, but why? What do they know that we don't? I've read that M$ is a kind of ponzi scheme with the emloyees being paid in stock options, that pay no dividens, instead of cash... Could the Enron disaster be hitting home?

Blah, enough irresponsible speculation tonight. As I sit here at a Debian powered 486 with a big 24 megs of ram and a 420MB hard disk used as an Xterminal to a more reasonable computer, I know it just does not matter. Microsoft can dissapear tomorow and I would not notice. If I can do it, anyone can. Really.

Go away Micro$haft, you have earned your beatings and are begging for new ones with the new XP licensing system, SSSCA, DCMA and other unAmerican activites.

Oh woah is M$

37 billion in the bank and even today, M$ still insists that they are offering consumers "Value".

If they cut the prices in 1/2, they'd still make money hand over fist.

It is quite suprising to me that a company "Clearly convicted of a Monopoly in these United States", can sit there and dictate what they think is clearly harm to consumers. It's like AT&T saying, "If you break us up, who will offer long distance?" "Who will offer phone service?" "Who will supply any type of quality and price competativeness?"

Well, that just goes to show that even AT&T was wrong in there arguments. We still have phone service, and yes mom, we have some, though not alot, of competition.

M$ would have us believe that this ruling would cause a major buckle in the computing industry, but in fact, it would put the M$ developers on the same playing field as the rest of the world.

Live on competition, destruction to monopolies. Innovation exists not in monopolies, but in competition.

If Bill Gates is the Borg...

Then Steve Balmer is the alien that says "You are smart, you can make us go"