Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Microsoft Trial Wends Onward 509

Posted by timothy from the when-does-the-tribulation-start dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Trial Wends Onward More

Microsoft Trial Wends Onward

Comments Filter:
  • Acoording to the Register [theregister.co.uk]... Basically, MS is claiming that removing IE will destroy Win2k, WinME, and the ability for them to develop future operating systems.

    • Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:55PM (#3110644)
      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.

    • I'm surprised they aren't already playing this card. "We already tried to remove IE but it didn't work and as a result Windows has been crashing. It's all because of this lawsuit, end it or we won't be able to fix the bugs!"
  • Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!',

    Hmm, I wonder..........Insanity defense?

  • No more windows?... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Order ( 469817 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:42PM (#3110586)
    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?... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bonker ( 243350 )
      Nah, that sounds just too good to be true

      Hmmm... The 'This is my ball and I'll take it away' defense worked really well... when I was 5 years old.

      It's especially too good to be true if you consider that the only way for people to use Microsoft products after such an act would be to pirate them.

      Just think, Microsoft would be in the wonderful position of having to actively persuade people to switch to other operating systems so that they wouldn't be using Windows.

      Heheheh... Don't see that happening any time soon. It's a tactic. Nothing more.

    • Re:No more windows?... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Brian Kendig ( 1959 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @01:00AM (#3110876)
      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.

      • Ballmers performance was particularly bad in the other parts of the video that Microsoft didn't include.

        Other snippets [zdnet.com] from the video are on ZDNet and show Ballmer being worryingly inept as the CEO of multi-billion dollar company.

        He totally fails to remember the products that allow OEMs to build modular versions of the Windows platform including Embedded Windows XP and Windows CE .NET.

        This is just another example of why Judge Jackson got so pissed off with the Microsoft executives as they are blatantly lying to the court, and judges hate it when people lie to their face when they think they can get away with it.

        (sorry couldn't find a link that doesn't have the annonying ad first)

    • Rather than Microsoft pulling windows off the market they could open source it and let the community fix the problems. :-))

  • I can personally decide to stop using it. That is, I can stop using it a home. However, in 99% of the corporate environments out there, Microsoft is the only game in town. Corporations can't just stop using Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't just allow companies to go cold turkey. Even if you have excellent arguments, it is hard to get Microsoft out of companies. Forget about the technology and start thinking about their marketing machine.

    • Re:Stop using it? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by detritus. ( 46421 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:12AM (#3110712)
      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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wakko Warner ( 324 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:47PM (#3110607) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot uses the word "wends" properly.

    - A.P.
    • Really??

      wends \Wends\, n. pl.; sing. [14]Wend. (Ethnol.) A Slavic tribe which once occupied the northern and eastern parts of Germany, of which a small remnant exists.

      [15]Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998

      • Re:And, in other news... (Score:4, Funny)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:09AM (#3110694)
        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"

      • Really??

        wends \Wends\, n. pl.; sing. [14]Wend. (Ethnol.) A Slavic tribe which once occupied the northern and eastern parts of Germany, of which a small remnant exists.

        Really.

        wend v. tr.

        To proceed on or along; go: wend one's way home.


        See, later on, you'll learn about verbs versus nouns in your English classes.
  • Will anybody file a motion for trial by combat?
    • I believe a trial by combat allows for the hiring of a proxy to do your fighting.. and with $30 billion in the bank Billy boy can hire the baddest motherfucker around. :)
  • (offtopic)
    When I first arrived at this job under two years ago, I was limited in the number of non MS servers I was allowed to provide. Just 1.5 years later, ditching windows wholesale is near a reality as it is 'too hard to support our driver and our hardware' (quote from management) for windows users.
    A few years ago it was being argued on /. that geeks had no real control. I say we have decent control now that us ageing geeks have positions of influence. Do not lose hope, the only real fear should be what platform you will chose when everyone uses a Unix lookalike...

  • What are the Nine States? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jchawk ( 127686 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:51PM (#3110626) Homepage Journal
    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. :-)
  • Then I look forward to the federal judge modularizing Micro$oft into several Pico$ofts!
  • The company also is preparing a broad attack on the case as being inspired by Microsoft competitors,
    such as AOL Time Warner Inc., Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems, as a means of crippling the
    software company.

    Who are they trying to kid? What percentage of microsoft business is msn internet access? The msn access has been rated one of the worst isp's on a regular basis. Doesn't oracle primarily do databases.

    If microshaft puts this out and people actually buy it, my entire opinion of the species goes down a couple of notches.

  • About bloody time... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Demona ( 7994 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:53PM (#3110637) Homepage
    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @01:49AM (#3111018) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • We have no idea if MS is a "natural" monopoly, as you put it. MS engaged in illegal behavior to destroy all possible competition - this is a fact of evidence. Without competition MS took a monopoly position. Not a "natural" monopoly position but one based upon mafia-style tactics.

        It could be that MS would *still* occupy this position even if it had played fair the entire time. But we don't know that, since it has never played fair. It's been anything but fair. This was an indisputable conclusion of the trial which led to its conviction.

        There's simply no way to know what the outcome would've been had MS acted differently.

        Max
      • Microsoft is one of the few *natural* monopolies seen in the past few hundred years. Unlike the state-sponsored monopolies of the past

        I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws. In my view, this makes Microsoft a state-sponsored monopoly. If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code, others could develop software compatible with Microsoft's, thus destroying their customer lock-in strategy and the entire basis of their monopoly.

      • I agree with almost everything you wrote, except:
        "Microsoft rose to its position of dominance because the market wants a single company in that position."


        I don't think that is quite accurate. While that is part of the reason for MS's dominance, much of it was gained by illegal tactics (hence the court cases in the first place)...and also by a good deal of bungling from Apple in the early days.

        • Microsoft's illegal tactics fall into two categories, objective illegal acts, such as the Java copyright violation, and subjective illegal acts which only apply to those who are already monopolies, like exclusive contracts. But even without these tactics, there would still be monopolies in the software industry because the consumers want monopolies there. Let me explain.

          If everyone in the world was a geek, there would be few software monopolies. There would probably be twelve major operating systems, four major desktops, six major word processors, etc. But outside of geekdom the attitude is much different. My mother wants to use the exact same software her friends do. My CEO wants everyone in my company to use the exact same tools. A friend of mine hates Windows with a passion, but continues to use it simply because everyone he knows but me uses it.

          Given suffiently accepted standards, this probably wouldn't occur, but new industries rarely have accepted standards. Imposing standards on an industry from the outside rarely works, since it is the marketplace that ultimately decides what the standards are. The marketplace chose Microsoft to be a monopoly because they want a standard. They want to know that any random program they purchase at CompUSA will work on their system. They want to know that any random hardware they purchase will have suitable drivers.

          Should history have been slightly different, Microsoft may not have been a monopoly, but some other company would have. Perhaps the OS, browser and word processor monopolies would not have all belonged to the same company, but they would all still exist.

          Do a little thought experiment. Pretend that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. Pretend that there's just as many copies of Redhat on the shelves as WindowsXP. Pretend that for every copy of MSOffice there's a copy of StarOffice. No take away everyone's OS and word processor and see what they rush out to buy. I know what 90% of them will choose, and it won't be Redhat and StarOffice.

          ps. Even in geekdom we still want monopolies of a sort, which is why GNU has a monopoly in free C compilers, and hordes of ACs decry any new project that is even slightly similar to an existing project.
      • Actually there are a couple of things that, to my chagrin, Linux can not do as well as Microsoft.

        The one that comes immediately to mind is decent language support. With 2000 and XP, Microsoft has on-the-fly language switching integrated into the OS.
        I usually have English and the Japanese and Chinese IME's installed and can switch from one to the other at will. Unixes have bulky hard-to-use, difficult to configure servers for double-byte character entry. You can have Japanese or Chinese, but not both.
        And the incompatibility with Shift-JIS and EUC-JIS is a major major headache. You can't type shift-JIS on Linux, so you have to type all your web documents on Windows. This drawback alone probably keeps Linux off the desktop in Japan.
      • Microsoft is *NOT* a "Natural Monopoly".

        Remember that old '95 Consent Decree? They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar that time. Illegal restrictive contracts.

        How 'bout Stacker? Copyright violation.

        DR-DOS? Hmm, I wonder if you can charge a computer program with slander?

        It has been proven throughout this trial that Microsoft is more than willing to threaten and bully anyone it can to get its own way.

        Now to the more interesting statement: "the market wants a single company in that position". Where do you draw that conclusion from? If anything, the rise of standards like HTTP and HTML, the growth of Linux, the new world of Web Services, and initiatives like the Liberty Alliance show that "the market" wants standards. The numerous misstarts of Microsoft's Software Assurance Program (SAP, they should fire the guy who thought that one up) shows that "the market" is getting fed up with Microsoft's stong-arm tactics.

        Yes there have been non-monopoly related crimes committed by MS (especially the Stacker incident). The problem is that if MS is allowed to keep its monopoly then there's no way to keep them from committing the monopoly-related abuses (shoving IE into the market) that it has committed recently.

  • Ballmer on Software Design (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Serpentine ( 204075 ) on Monday March 04, 2002 @11:59PM (#3110654)
    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?

    • I'd guess that one of the following is true:
      1. The world's most "innovative", "enterprise-ready" OS, developed in the world's most prestigious and ornate cathederal -- won't run if they remove the web browser component -- even if it costs the company millions of dollars per day?
      2. Steve and [Jim] Allchin are blowing smoke up everyone's ass whenever they talk to people outside of MS.

      If it's the first option, I'd fire the guy running the design reviews. If it's the second option, I'd throw Ballmer in jail because he lied in a deposition.

      On a side note, Ballmer goes on for a bit talking about how it's impossible to document the internal apis so as to make everything modular. Why? I thought that was one of the ideas behind [D]COM[+]. It might even spur a bit of real innovation in how to document and modularize system components like authentication, (distributed) file-trading, window management, etc.

      Regards,

      Stephen

  • Monkey Boy (Score:2, Informative)

    by MikeyLikesIt! ( 313421 )
    Showing remarkable restraint and an unwillingness to shout 'Give it up for me!'...

    Just in case some of you don't get the reference, check out this video of Steve Ballmer at a MicroSoft pep rally [ualberta.ca].

    It really speaks for itself :-)

  • At least read the relevant material (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Backov ( 138944 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:01AM (#3110665)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Archie Steel ( 539670 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:16AM (#3110728)
      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?
      • 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.
        Well, hey! That's cool. I didn't know Windows XP Embedded ran all programs that run under Windows XP. That's because they don't.

        It's possible to strip out hundreds of thousands of lines of code from a product to produce a skin-n-bones approach. I don't think they ever argued that it wasn't. They argued that they shouldn't have to, and won't, castrate their product and remove components and have it so you can plug in this part to do this and that part to do that: it's a nightmare, and probably very unstable, and definitely inconsistent. Not what they want Windows to be.

        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?
        It's possible to remove the browser. Everyone knows that. The problem is, how do you deal with all the programs that rely on the MS HTML rendering engine that's ASSUMED to be in every version of Windows by many programs?

        Why are we getting so upset over the internet browser? Why not the file browser too? Windows Explorer took marketshare from things like Midnight Commander. ;)

        Let's face it, Internet Browsers are essential components of modern PCs, and logically should be bundled with the OS. Nobody is stopping consumers from downloading Mozilla, Opera, KMelon, or any of those other browsers on their computer. It comes with a very basic, simple web browser that suffices for the vast majority of consumers. That's how it is.

        As much as people love to hate Microsoft, I can't fault them for bundling IE. It's a logical decision. I realize it basically drove Netscape out of business...but the real question is, what business? 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.
        • They argued that they shouldn't have to, and won't, castrate their product and remove components and have it so you can plug in this part to do this and that part to do that: it's a nightmare, and probably very unstable, and definitely inconsistent. Not what they want Windows to be.

          So what if Microsoft doesn't want Windows to work that way? The whole point of the antitrust case is that Microsoft was doing things with the design of Windows that were illegal because the design illegitimately continued their monopoly. Losing the case means that Microsoft no longer has sole discression about what Windows can and should be; it must meet legal scrutiny to ensure that it doesn't continue to illegally maintain Microsoft's monopoly. That inherently means that some things that Microsoft would love to do- even some that may have valid engineering and/or marketing reasons behind them- may be disallowed because they are anticompetitive.

        • Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @02:43AM (#3111136)
          "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.
        • I realize it basically drove Netscape out of business...

          I don't really think so. Right around the time IE started gaining interest, Netscape was starting to...err..show it's age[1].
          The bundling of IE certainly didn't /help/ NS,
          but what really caused them to fail was that they let their product stagnate while MS was banging away full force on IE.

          It's like the story of the Lovecraftian monster and the Hare.
          The hare was sitting on it's fuzzy white ass while the Beast of Redmond slithered by unnoticed.

          I think if Netscape had started work on their new (fasterbettersmaller) rendering engine 3 years earlier, they might still exist.

          Be's case appears a whole lot more valid.
          They had an excellent product, but because of
          MS's stranglehold on the distribution channels,
          it never really got any mainstream recognition.

          C-X C-S
          [1] "Show it's age" - also spelled "suck donkey balls".
        • Note that the bundling of IE is only *part* of the issue at hand.

          The other part is the whole "cutting off the air supply" thing. Microsoft engaged in exclusionary deals with OEMs and ISPs to prevent Netscape from distrbuting their software to the channel. (Recall the story of MS threating to pull Compaq's right to ship Windows because ONE crappy Presario model came with a Netscape icon on the desktop?)

          In reality, this was far more damaging than bundling IE -- Microsoft had 50% browser marketshare before Windows 98 even shipped. The problem is that you can't go back in time to fix this, but you could prevent them from doing the same to media players or whatever comes up in the future.
      • without serious hacking. _THAT_'s what's this is all about. Sure they can replace a lot of lines of code to make Windows XP have a true modular interface for a webbrowser component so that that webbrowser component can do the help system, be the webbrowser of the system, work inside the filemanager (explorer) and be the desktop shell.

        But that will take serious time and effort. Because it's not DESIGNED that way. Like the Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel where you can't just say "I want this and that in stead of what's in it now". You have to do serious hacking and patching and TESTING, since it will make the system probably unstable.

        IE is the result of the usage of a lot of system components that are used ELSEWHERE in the system also. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making statements like "[he] is telling a big, fat lie", because you don't know jack shit about system design nor developing large pieces of software.
        • The Linux kurnal may well be monalithic, but even thats changing, however I can compile in only those things I require.

          If I don't have a scuzzy card then I can ditch the support for that from the OS.

          No LAN card then that can be ignored.

          Try doing that with Windows.
          • I ment: I want a different VFS, a different VM etc. You can't change that overnight. That takes serious effort and testing to see if all applications work with the new element in the OS.

            Of course I can compile different stuff into the kernel. You can do that with windows too (install different services, drivers etc). It's about replacing OS parts with other parts from 3rd parties.
    • >He's not saying "Screw you, DOJ" he's saying "WTF, do you think we're gods?"

      One time long ago, in a land far away, there was no Windows. Microsoft built Windows from the ground up (DOS base and lifted "look-and-feel" arguments aside, please; I'm talking about the code that drives the OS). It was Microsoft talent, Microsoft employees, and Microsoft dollars that built Windows. Now they want to jump in and claim that IE can't possibly be removed without breaking Windows, that they couldn't continue development even if such a move were possible, and that it's not possible anyway. Because Microsoft are not gods.

      I say bullshit. No, Microsoft are not gods, they're humans; but what so many people (especially politicians) fail to see is that Windows is a human creation, not a godly one. I don't know of anything mankind has done once which it cannot collectively do again. Microsoft built Windows once with far less industry power, far fewer programmers inhouse, and far less money than they have today. Why couldn't they recreate it, from scratch if need be, without the need for embedded IE (perhaps they could fix a few bugs while they're at it)?

      Shaun

    • It doesn't matter if he's lying or not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by S. Allen ( 5756 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:24AM (#3110765)
      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.
      • 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
    • Bottom line - MS is not always the evil empire. Sometimes they're the ones getting fucked.

      This would be a much more convincing argument if Microsoft hadn't already been found guilty of illegal behavior. That's really the point here; MS did something illegal and they are supposed to be punished for it. If it's really impossible for MS to separate IE from the rest of the OS tough shit. They never should have tied it into the OS that tightly in the first place. They signed a consent decree that said that they wouldn't. If having broken that agreement puts them in a tight spot it's their own damn fault.

      Remember that XP was developed and released after Microsoft had already lost the anti-trust lawsuit. If they were so arrogant that they kept digging themselves deeper and deeper into the very behavior that lost the suit after they had already lost it, they deserve all of the pain that complying with a reasonable settlement will cause. It's not as though they shouldn't have seen this coming.

    • Then they should welcome decree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @01:13AM (#3110916)
      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.)
    • Stop taking in all the MS Flamebait and read what Ballmer said that inspired this orgy of MS hate[...]

      Offtopic, but since when did the word "hatred" drop out of the English language? I always thought that "hate" was a verb and "hatred" was the noun form, as in "this orgy of MS hatred."

      I know it's not the fault of anyone here. I blame the subliterate toehead who came up with the slogan "Hate Is Not a Family Value."
  • This reminds me of the time Harold Ballard [www.tsn.ca] had a large Hamilton Tigercats crest painted under the ice at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. When asked to remove it he basically said it was his arena and he could do whatever the hell he wanted in it.

    Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft can basically do whatever the hell it wants to with it's products...

  • Consider This (Score:4, Interesting)

    by johnthorensen ( 539527 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:03AM (#3110674)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 )
      That's only if you believe the Slashdot propaganda. That ten years mentioned in the blurb does not refer to a single case, but several consecutive cases, the earlier ones of which have been settled.
      • What do you mean by "settled"? Those of us who "believe the Slashdot propaganda" don't consider 'Microsoft did illegal things, agreed not to do them again if they wouldn't get prosecuted, then did them again' to be much of a settlement.

    • Re:Consider This (Score:5, Funny)

      by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos.chipped@net> on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @04:27AM (#3111434) Homepage Journal

      • 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?
  • If the settlement continues to carry on (like M$ keeps on trying to make it do) and they continue this assertion this might seriously hurt windows dominance. Corporations don't like uncertainty and if they think no more windows is a legitimate threat they just might decide to put a few of their eggs in another basket and get some other boxes.

  • Just as M$ likes.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:07AM (#3110690) Journal
    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.

    • Wrong. You cannot remove IE at all. While it is true that you can hide the browser interface... that is, you can delete IEXPLORE.EXE and unregister the components... but the core rendering engine remains.

      That HTML engine is what powers Outlook Express, Explorer folder browsing/searching/etc, Control Panel and associated applets (like Add/Remove programs), the Help system, etc.

      You can pretend the browser isn't there, but the core browser components are still powering the User Interface (and various 3rd party programs.)

      The only version of Windows that can have the browser interface AND core components removed is Windows 95, because it was a true bolt-on after the fact. But I certainly wouldn't go back to Win95 from 2000/XP.

      Quote: "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."

      1) Source -- fine. If you wanna take a look, it doesn't bother me. Almost everything is well documented on MSDN anyway; it really won't help me that much to see the source code (in fact, I have access to the source legally right now.) There are no hidden APIs or other magic things to be found. Just a lot of boring code.

      2) I've already established that the core HTML engine would be impossible to remove without ditching the entire UI and starting it over from scratch. This would also break tons of 3rd party enhancements and plugins for the interface that rely on the current standard, as well as screw over all the 3rd party apps that don't wanna take the time to write their own web browser so they use the available COM components.

      3) While adding features has driven some companies out of business, it has also HELPED consumers by far. In 1994, you had to BUY a TCP/IP stack to get on the Internet with Windows. These days, it's standard... in fact, Windows 2000 Server's CIFS protocol and Active Directory run exclusively on TCP/IP. Are we to cry a river for Trumpet which can no longer sell their IP stack to hordes of Windows users?
      Or how about we bemoan the reduction in the market for dialup terminal applications since Microsoft started including Hyperterminal.
      The fact is that the OS needs to include more and more features in order to deliver better value to consumers and force the 3rd party marketplace to advance. You people seem to forget that capitalism requires that companies live and die as the markets change. That's life; deal with it.

    • It occurs to me that Microsoft might actually be pleased by this never-ending legal "battle".

      +1 Insightful? Blinding flash of the obvious?

  • Bad Analogy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BoyPlankton ( 93817 )
    If Red Hat decided to stop shipping Red Hat Linux, perhaps because a court told the company it must include both Gnome and KDE on its bootup menus, it would be a minor irritation at most. (I use Red Hat as an example only because it is the best-known Linux distribution publisher, not because I suspect Red Hat management is as juvenile as Microsoft's.) Linux development would go on. RPM packages would still load and run. Kernel bugs would get fixed, security holes in software packages currently included with Red Hat would continue to be patched. SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake, Lycoris, ELX, Xandros, and all the other commercial Linux distribution publishers would see their business increase, and Debian download servers would be hit hard. But there would still be all the Linux anyone could want, growing and improving, moving forward, powering everything from mainframes and supercomputing clusters to PDAs and other small, special-purpose devices.

    What bugs me the most about this analogy, and what bugs me about the whole trial, is that it's the government telling Microsoft (or RedHat in your analogy) what they can and cannot provide with their product. It's like telling an automobile manufacturer that they can't sell you a car with a stereo installed because there are companies like Pioneer and Sony who also make car stereos. I mean sure, they can sell cars without stereos, but would you want to buy one?

    • Re:Bad Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by banky ( 9941 )
      What if Ford made a car that a)had a dash that could not be opened or modified, under penalty of law, and b)produced connectors for their stereo that could not be reverse-engineered by Pioneer, again under penalty of law.

      This is exactly the case. Ford provides a stereo, in fact a number of options IIRC. There is, however, a thriving market centered around replacing the factory stereo. Microsoft can attack any company OR ENTITY they feel threatens it. Pioneer doesn't threaten Ford or Chevy. Samba, Apache, and many others threaten MS.
      • The car analogy is apt as according to this blurb (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story _page/0,5744,3892004%255E462,00.html), the Australian government slammed MS accusing the software giant of "dictating to government". If Linux every takes off in India, the days of CPU-guzzling overplated software (aka US cars in 50-60s) will be wiped out by high quality indian software. The US legislature has the responsibility of protecting the people and balancing conflicting socio-economic needs. Stamping out anti-competitive behaviour has been a hallmark of their long-term economic edge over Europe. If MS ever gets to the stage of dictating to the government of the most powerful nation on earth, I hate to think of the long-term consequences.

        LL
  • What does the MS trial have to do with wends, sorbs, or trees in the rose family? [dictionary.com]

  • Everyone's out to get me! The sky is falling... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Erris ( 531066 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:30AM (#3110789) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Perhaps he should look at the Jargon Filke for a proper definition.

    15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
    16 moment ago and I --
    17 A. Hmm?
    18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
    19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
    20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
    21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
    22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
    23 It's kind of like a variable to the
    24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
    25 know --

  • It seems that the fact that Microsoft could make this threat and make it sound so dire, is further evidence of Microsoft's monopoly position.

  • Oh woah is M$ (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tmuller ( 101932 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:45AM (#3110830)
    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... (Score:3, Funny)

    by T3kno ( 51315 ) on Tuesday March 05, 2002 @12:56AM (#3110866) Homepage
    Then Steve Balmer is the alien that says "You are smart, you can make us go"

  • From the Washington Post article:
    Microsoft will assert that under the law, antitrust sanctions should not be punitive, nor should they be designed to help competitors.

    Hmm... IANAL, but I sure thought that was *exactly* the point to the antitrust law. The violater should be stripped of it's illegal gains and the competitors are supposed to benefit by a leveled playing field. Duh...

    If I'm wrong, can someone please correct me.

    When I read that line I blew Code Red out my nose. Is there no depth to which these bastards won't reach? No lie that they won't tell? I guess all those jocks are really getting theirs for calling little Billy G a wimp back in high school. Microsoft - Bill Gates ego made manifest in the form of the most powerful lying, cheating, stealing marketing corporation.

    And further in the Washington Post:
    the company would be forced to pull its latestWindows computeroperating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.

    Go ahead Bill, take your marbles and go home, won't hurt my feelings a bit. Besides, you know this is a PR spin tactic. You have no plans to do this, your ego wouldn't allow it. And, you have shareholders who would never permit it. In addition, it would open you up to even more litigation. Don't make bluffs that it's not possible to follow through on.

    If our legal system buys this BS, it's *really* time to pack it up and go live on that island in the South Pacific.

    Feh!

    • Our legal system really can't swallow this. It's just too extreme- they should have tried some other argument. This was a _very_ bad mis-step and one of the most spectacular blunders I've seen the Microsoft side make.
  • It seems to me from reading the timeline, and a little plain observation, that Microsoft has had a singular tactic since day one: appease where strategically possible, otherwise, stall. They will argue the dumbest point to death. It seems from time to time they file motions only to force their opponent to respond.

    I'm sure this is, on some scale, pretty much standard legal maneuvering. What bothers me is that since MS has so much money, they can basically just keep stalling, delaying, and appealing until the cows come home. Since this isn't a murder trial there's less impetus, it seems, to hurry up and wrap things up - after all, it's not like Bill and Steve are weaing orange denim.

    Does anyone know of any information about this legal stalling? Is there any precedent, or even any grounds, to say "please stop mucking about and get on with the fucking case"?

  • Intel MacOS X (Score:2, Insightful)

    by regem ( 84133 )
    In the unlikely case that Windows actually does get pulled, the world might not be screwed as Microsoft would want us to believe.

    Consider that Apple has programmed MacOS X to be easily ported to new architectures. The underlying OS, Darwin, already runs on many Intel-based machines. With this operating system for the people who lack the confidence required to try linux (most of the market) and linux and BSD for the rest, Apple would have everything to gain from releasing their OS for sale on the Intel platform. The world still might be withing Jobs reach.

    Granted, trading one monopoly for another might not be the best thing to happen to the world, but Microsoft would surely try to fight its way back and a strengthened Linux would be fighting away, too.

    In the alternative distantly possible case that MS removes IE from their OS in a day after being ordered to do so and prevents Apple from making such a move, at least some MS people might get nailed for lying for years about the feasibility of removing IE from their products. And with the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, people really might look at a non-MS browser.
  • So let them take it away. Proof positive that they hold the monopoly position they've been convicted of building through illegal means. After that there'll be no doubt in anyone's mind (except for the BillyG-fanboys, of course) that they're guilty as sin.

    Not that any of this matters. Kotar-Kelly is well aware of what happened to the previous two judges on the MS case and isn't about to sacrifice her career to fight a rigged game. MS will get a slap on the wrist and continue on its merry way, fucking over anyone who dares to defy it. And the Bush administration, along with the corporate whores in Congress, will provide MS with whatever aid it needs to retain its monopoly and avoid any punishment for its actions.

    It'd be nice to try actual capitalism for once. You know, that idea of free, unimpeded markets where the laws applied equally to all players. Just my personal crack-pipe dream.

    But hey! If the SSSCA passes it's all moot anyway. MS will be the only player in town in the U.S. Forever.

    Max
  • ...or is Microsoft making themselves an awfully easy target lately?

    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 latestWindows computeroperating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.


    I couldn't decide which smartass comment to make, so what the hell? I'll post 'em both.

    ...And a collective cheer was heard from computer users worldwide!

    ...and...

    Good! Pull 'em! Start over and hope you can get it right this time. I mean, the previous code must have been horrible if it wasn't possible, as you claim, to remove something as unrelated to operating system funtionality as the web browser!
  • So they product a version of windows without IE and maybe some other things. Nobody would buy it. Everyone would just buy the full version. Why don't they just do it and keep everyone happy.
    • No, consumers might all go and buy the full version, but big businesses and government might well use the smaller version. Large businesses typically spend a lot of time creating a build to roll out to their desktops, and then deploy thousands of identical machines with an identical image blown onto them. And this is where, for example, Staroffice might make significant inroads - as part of a corporate standard build.

      Assuming that the smaller version was cheaper.

      And consider this: You're a large company wanting thousands of identical utility desktops, configured in bulk to be desk ready, and you're going to spend several man years developing this build. All of a sudden the seeds of doubt are sown in your mind as to whether you will actually be able to deploy this build, because the people you must get licences from are suggesting they might pull the product from the market at some point. Would this make you more or less likely to consider developing a desktop build which doesn't depend on getting licences from this company?

      Dunstan
  • I don't think so. If MS will create a system where all it takes is a set of com components that then can be used as IE is used now in XP, would Netscape adopt that scheme and create such a set of components? They don't even do that today with NS6.x. They don't even use the native windowing code of Windows to render the interface. So chances are that MS will change XP, strip IE from it, create that interface so other browsers can plug right into the system, but no browser will! Sun made a Java plugin for IE. Did you see them advertise for it so users would download it? No. I bet the majority of the XP users doesn't even know that Sun makes that plugin.

    And there is the problem: the USER doesn't care. Only MS competitors, blind zealots and professional whiners care. The USER wants XP with a browser. It comes with a browser, so he/she is happy. "Oh, there are more browsertypes? Are they better? No? Why would I want to use them then?".

    So ask yourself: is this really about the customer (i.e.: the USER) ? Or is this about the sour grapes of the MS competition plus their loudmouth supporters?
  • The video deposition [com.com] is now available from CNET. This version is a much better quality for broadband users.
  • THIS is an argument? They are trying to say that if thier product is mandated to NOT break the law then it can't be sold or supported any longer?

    I don't know about you, but that sounds like PROOF that the software is *inherently* illegal.

    If they are able to pull it off, that ploy would beat even the Chewbaka Defence...

    "Judge, please! If Mr. Thugga can't sell smack to minors, how exactly s he going to addict the youth in his neighborhood?"

    "We are sorry to inform the court that if Auther Anderson is no longer allowed to cook the books, then they will simly not be able to defraud investors."

    "I'm sorry your Honor, if my client were to go to jail, he would have no choice but to stop killing people."

    "If my client is not a wookie, you must aquit..."

Slashdot Top Deals

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team

Close