Cringely On Microsoft Settlement 234
sandalwood writes: "Robert X Cringley has a new article about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. He includes information on where to write to make your views known (the 'proposed Final Judgement' accepts comments from the public for a period of 60 days after it's been published)."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a troll, but useless (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent to this is NOT a troll, but his comments, though valid, are useless. I am thoughouly convinced that not only do none of the slashdot editors read any of the comments posted to the stories (otherwise they woluld have to take notice to the many duplicate story postings we point out), but they don't even frequent their own site. The story duplication is getting insanely ridiculous. For every duplicate story, a good one gets rejected. How can we get THROUGH to these guys? PAY ATTENTION TO THE SITE YOU WORK FOR! God, and people want me to pay for a subscription for this???
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, even the kings of slashdot could benefit from idiot-proof software.
but useless, i guess (Score:2)
I think a week or two would be adequate. Although to implement it would possibly be a pain because you would need a seperate table for both for Stories and links. I could see it in a three point zero release, however.
Translation: Not this week, anyhow.
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
Oh well, I now have taken to reading the Trolls. They are getting more creative everyday.
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
You got to be kidding
What idiot would want to read this crap?
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2, Insightful)
As to your technical points, I agree that the perl-based slashcode is probably not ideal unless you have tons of CPU. Probably the best solution is to rewrite the code in C, possibly embedding it right in a web server, or vice versa. Having a high performance database that can deal with lots of text would be crucial as well, but I'm sure there are solutions out there. Frankly, given the immense popularity of Slashdot, I'm surprised they still run it all in perl. Imagine the performance improvement if it were all re-written in C.
Bandwidth would be the biggest hurdle, as it would be the most expensive component in a serious slashdot competitor, I would think. Does anyone know the real bandwidth requirements of slashdot? Would any serious academic or corporate sponsers be able to handle the load if it were hosted at a university or corporation, in exchange for advertising rights, for example?
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
What makes Slashdot valuable? Why was Rob able to sell his site for big big bucks? Where was the value? In some Perl code? No. In his editing skills? Hell no. Journalism? Nope. It's our brains and eyeballs. Us. The community. We made them rich by hanging out on their website. They owe us.
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at
Classic network effects - competitors can't reach critical mass.
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
-that anybody can submit a story and then other users rate it and "mod" it up to eventually the main page.
-the articles tend to be less technical and technology oriented and more political(not just government politcs) and philosiphical.
Personally, I can't stand it. It was ok in the beginning, but now its kind of repetitive. You've got a fairly high User ID so you probably don't know who Signal 11 is (i'm not going to explain him here, if you want to know, email me [mailto]), but if you do....its essentially a lot of him and people like him. The site has been down for a bit(reasons why can be read about by going to the site) but should be up again soon.
Another similar site to K5 is Half-Empty [half-empty.org]. The site was done completely in Java and is a little better done community-wise than K5 (IMHO).
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this so called duplicate story has generated over 50 good or excellent comments (not including these meta comments) and some every interesting discussion threads. I didn't know this was a duplicate, and, apparently, many more people than you didn't know either. That makes you wrong.
Most people have better things to do than refresh Slashdot every 5 minutes and bitch about duplicates -- especially on a weekend, for crying out loud.
So what are you going to do if you don't get the service you demand from Slashdot? Raise a stink and bitch some more about another problem that doesn't exist, I suppose. Good on ya.
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
Slow down, cowboy!
You already posted this story 1004235436 seconds ago! No need to post it again!
Re:Not a troll, but useless (Score:2)
Re:Huh, I always thought.. (Score:4, Funny)
PBS IT Guy 1: Oh no! Slashdot linked to us again!
PBS IT Guy 2: Those bastards! The last Slashdot effect nearly killed us! What'll we do boss?
PBS IT Guy 1: We pray they realize it's a duplicate story son. We pray...
CmdrTaco: Good Evening Gentlemen etc etc etc
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:5, Insightful)
Better to demand they publish their file formats and networking protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2, Insightful)
The file formats and networking protocols need to not only be published but also be free for anyone to use. Remember the kerfuffle about the "undocumented" portion of Microsoft's Kerobos token authentication. They did indeed "publish" that (evenutally) but hung a license on it such that any use of the information was not possible.
Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. "Here is the protocol specification, but if you actually use it for anythng we'll sue you" isn't of much value and could actually be detrimental to someone who's trying to write a compatible interface. "Prove you didn't use our published spec, or we'll sue you."
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2)
Anyway, FWIW, here [anti-dmca.org] is my reply to their request for comments (Cced to the dmca_discuss mailing list). Not that they'll take any notice of me, because I'm not a US citizen - but what the hell.
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:3, Interesting)
Realy smart, because you gave away your software, placing your stuff on almost every desktop in the world We'll punish you by letting you teach hundreds of thousands of school kids to use your software. Hell let's take it farther, we'll make a law that if a drug dealer is caught giving free drugs to school kids to get them hooked, the punishment is to take a way the drugs and give them to the school kids for free!
I guess that this is the difference between an air-head and a vacuume-packed head! They just don't get it do they.
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that is precisely the sort of thing MS wants. Publishing the APIs merely keeps people tied into the MS operating system world. It does nothing to address the Barrier To Entry issue on other platforms.
I am considering what sort of Public Comment form to submit to the court. The only thing I can think of that will address the Barrier To Entry issue is to prohibit MS from releasing any middleware product that competes with a product that has previously been subjected to illegal anticompetitive pressure by MS. As far as I can tell, the only solution is to force MS to completely withdraw Microsoft Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Passport. Completely prohibit them from the market. Let Quicktime/Real, Netscape/etc, and Kerberos continue without any MS competition. MS must not be allowed to use the power and the cash hoard it accumulated in its OS monopoly to move into new areas. Deny them the fruits of their illegal efforts.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:3, Informative)
What CODEC did the pirates, who could choose any one they want to swap pirate video, choose to use? Quicktime Sorenson? RealMedia? No, Media Player.
media player isnt a codec, divx is, although media player is one of the few players that doesnt have a problem with using 3rd party codecs to play stuff.
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2)
I suppose that's technically a true statement, since there are only a few major media players total. For the record though, QuickTime [apple.com] is perfectly happy using a multitude of codecs [siggraph.org].
(very disappointed that Discreet [google.com] took down CodecCentral)
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course it would be stupid to deny that MS software has flaws, but in most cases I believe the better product won, the MS product.
So much for karma...
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2)
Not quite accurate. The point is to prevent companies with a monopoly from using it to quash competition and innovation -- especially in new markets. It's actually a very common practice to use cross-subsidization to quash the competition.. Use the profits from the monopoly side of things to sell a product at a price below what the incomming competition can sell their product for.
Giving a product away for free -- actually forcing it down the throats of consumers whether they want it or not -- is pretty much the ultimate in price undercutting.
Once you've run the competition out of town by undercutting them, then you can jack the prices and milk consumers. The price gouging is also a secondary to the fact that consumers then have no effective choice.
For people who try and claim that Netscape was giving away their browser -- they weren't. They were only giving it away to home users and non-commercial interests. Companies were asked to pay for it. Microsoft then came in and:
Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was. (Score:2)
They consumers do have a choice, they can choose to not purchase the product. I myself have often chosen not to purchase Microsoft products based on price.
No consumer will pay a price for a good greater than its value to the consumer. It may mean there is a shift in profit margins from the software consumer to the software producer, but there will still be profits made by the consumer. "Price Gouging" is IMPOSSIBLE - it is just that the true value of items change. A snow shovel is much more valuable in a snow storm than in summer.
Moreover, the price will always remain "fair enough" to keep consumers coming back to purchase the product. If Microsoft started charging $1 million for Windows, their market share would pretty much dry up. It wasn't all that long ago in human history that operating systems cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Obviously, the current price of Microsoft products is "fair," given the incredible demand for them. Microsoft products provide a significant amount of value add for businesses.
Due to competitive pressures in the marketplace (despite Microsoft's "monopoly"), Microsoft products have become much more stable in recent years. If there were no significant competitive pressure, why would Microsoft have turned to NT micro-kernel technology? They could still have Win 3.1, if it wasn't for MacOS and Unixes.
Now anyone who TRUSTS Microsoft or believes in their NICENESS is a nut. But that doesn't mean we need to have government regulation of them beyond REAL crimes like fraud, environmental damage, etc.
Producing popular software that provides for a dominant platform is obviously good, or else everyone on the planet would be running their own flavor of Unix, right?
I remember back in the days of 8-bit PCs, the incredible balkanization of Atari/Apple/Commodore products made it nearly impossible to produce one program to run in every business and home.
BTW, if we want to talk about DUMPING, what about the companies making Linux available FOR FREE? Talk about your PREDITORY PRICING examples. We all know that the real cost to Red Hat of creating a distribution and running an ftp server is greater $0.00, yet they make Red Hat Linux available for $0.00. Those who believe in monopoly theory would clearly label this a preditory attempt to restrain the trade of Microsoft...
force them to open/license their W32 API (Score:4, Insightful)
MS must then release all its OS source to this board. Then the board should finance Win32 API (including Active X & Direct X) ports to the other X86 OSes, such as BeOS, Linux, Sco/Caldera Unix, BSD, OS/2, Solaris, QNX, etc. So those OSes could be compatible with W32 apps without emulation (a la WINE 'n Odin)
Also MS must not be allowed to release any of its application software (Office, Works, Encarta, 'Empires', etc) untill they bring out native BeOS, OS/2, Mac & Linux ports of those apps (the Linux port must be designed for transparent recompiling to other nixes, such as Caldera Unix, Solaris 'n QNX). They must be tested by the previously mentioned trustee before release.
To avoid claims that this would make thing too complicated for stockists & retailers, make MS retail all ports of each application together in the same box - like BeOS 'retail' has both the X86 & PPC ports bundled together, or like the way Claris works had both the Mac Classic & W16 ports bundled together (with 'Mac & Windows compatible' printed on the box) or like the way the new Gobe office suite has both the BeOS, W32 & Linux ports bundled together complete with a cross port license. MS could then have 'compatible with Windows, Macintosh, OS/2, BeOS & Linux' stickers on their boxed applications, so its spelled out to the customers that they can be used with all 4 of those OSes.
I bet within a year MS would have developed a development API for itself for developing applications that transparently port them across to X86 W32, X86 OS/2, X86 BeOS, X86 Linux & the PPC Mac.
God can you imagine how Gates 'n co would react if the court came out with a judgement like this.....LOL
Have you tried the new Opera 6? (Score:2)
& now that MS has dumped Netscape plugins its even more compatible. Plus it has its own mail, news 'n ICQ clients built inside it.
& it gives you the choice of SDI & MDI GUIs
only in a couple of small areas does IE do better.
But a Active X Netscape plugin is being developed as we speak [www.iol.ie], so soon Opera will be Active X plugin compatible via its netscape plugin vacility.
I admit that Opera 4 was as iffy as hell, but Opera has to be the most improved browser in the last year or so.
Here's the Opera homepage [opera.com].
This is a great Opera resources FAQs & tips site. [searchengineworld.com]
Opera is very configurable, here's how I have it configured [optushome.com.au]
Here's what it looks like without the add [optushome.com.au]
The competition has changed (Score:2, Interesting)
The most dangerous guy in the world is one with computer access, and an ability to write a killer app, like the original MS basic. That is what Bill Gates is worried about.
The API's need to be available to anyone with USD $50 at a bookstore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a chance (Score:5, Interesting)
MSFT is lobbying HARD on this to get this settlement through cause they know they will come out smelling like roses in the end, but with the growing awareness of the language of the settlement, it seems highly unlikely that it will breeze through. If enough people like
Then again, I am just preaching to the choir on this, right?
Am I to understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this legal FUD practiced by both sides of this case?
My solution? Require Microsoft to develop its own technology without outside help for 5 years. They can't acquire technology, buy companies or lease patents. See how long they last...
Re:Am I to understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
But to be effective, wouldn't it also require a hiring freeze?
Re:Am I to understand... (Score:2)
IE: exactly what they've been doing all along
A Representative's take (Score:4, Interesting)
Rep. Ed Markey's letter to John Ashcroft [house.gov] (pdf) in opposition to the settlement.
steve satchell? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:steve satchell? (Score:2)
//rdj
Apple's supplemental brief... (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw this today and it had a very interesting tidbit of information. In the settlement, Microsoft is valuing the software part at $840 million. Apple contends that actual cost of that software would be more like $1 million and only 5%-6% of the value of the settlement would be able to be used to buy non-Microsoft technology.
What I wrote: (Score:4, Informative)
------------
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to Microsoft's main competitor: Free and Open Source Software ("Free" defined as "without restriction" not "free of cost").
This software is created largely by individuals in informal and generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant movement, and provides great potential benefits for American consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software *the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release information: namely, "viable businesses", with Microsoft being able to interpret that as they wish.
I am personally involved in many projects that have the potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a commercial organization.
It is essential that the API information be made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers.
It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so many times in the past.
It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private period to resolve security issues before making them public, all aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of their system. However, they should not need to be private about their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has existed.
Re:What I wrote: (Score:2)
III(J)(2), Maybe. III(D), No Way (Score:4, Informative)
Section III(J)(2) reads:
So, that does indeed seem to give MS the right to stonewall Free Software projects like Samba, but only on security APIs. However, section III (D) reads:
And "ISV" is defined in VI (I) as:
The 'or' doesn't seem to leave much room for MS to define who the section applies to.
MS gone too far this time. (Score:3, Insightful)
What they are basically are doing is to kill off Apple and pay fine using their own software. it's like printing money to pay for your stuff.
This time, MS had gone way too far, they shall pay dearly for this.
DOJ should just be honest; US will agree (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps the DOJ needs to borrow Microsoft's PR spin doctor folks.
< /cynic >
ChicagoFan
Proposal... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can add an automatic link to the newest article from your Slashdot Homepage Preferences [slashdot.org]. Scroll down to the Customize Slashboxes tab and add I, Cringely.
My proposal is this: rather than having to submit a story about Cringely's latest article (as is done every week) in order for the article to receive acceptance by a Slashdot editor in order for it to become a story and receive a Slashdot forum, why not just have an automatic forum placed at the bottom of the I, Cringely slashbox? Every Thursday, a new forum is created for the new article, and there's no need to submit the story to the editors and wait until Sunday to post our comments. Kind of like the way the Slashdot Poll is handled.
--
My Letter (Score:4, Informative)
What about Be's stockholders? (Score:2)
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
Re:What about Be's stockholders? (Score:2, Interesting)
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
Correlation != causation. If I weren't using Windows, I certainly wouldn't be using Be - nor would many others. How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business? They should have floated Be a loan, to keep them around, because as we all know businesses like to have competition!
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer. Most people who buy computers with Windows preinstalled - WANT a computer with Windows preinstalled. They don't want to have to fuss with "what operating system should I use?" or "how is Debian different from Redhat?" They want to turn the computer on, type their letters to their families in Word, get on AOL, or play Half-life.
Not to mention that Microsoft, like any other company in the world, should be free to sell their product for whatever they want. This "Microsoft is a monopoly" stuff - despite the judgment of the court - is crap. They didn't count Macs, didn't count servers, and this was a few years ago, before the rise of linux. Basically, all they said was "Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating systems of all computers with Microsoft operating systems on them." If Microsoft's product is priced too high, people won't buy it. Really, they won't. (They'll probably just pirate it - even XP isn't pirate-proof.)
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
Do you have any documentation here, any proof that we'd be paying 1/4 of the current costs for their applications? Was this a proven fact in court proceedings? How do we know that all applications of similar quality would not be priced just as high? Do you have some kind of "market clairvoyance" we're not aware of? And if so, can you give me stock tips?
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
Define "had to." Did MS put a gun to your head and say "You have to buy Windows"? Were there not options - albeit a bit more difficult - to buy an OS-less machine? You have not been forced into anything - even the fact that you own a computer is YOUR CHOICE. Choosing to use MS products may have been the wiser thing for you to do, but you can't blame them for being the smarter choice.
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
Compensating them for what? Going out of business? Not being good at competing? Why does MS owe it to every competitor they have now to make sure they stay in business? Does MS owe their employees jobs? And who can honestly say that the competitors' products wouldn't have failed in the long run? If a company other than MS had come out with the IE browser - it would still be better than Netscape. Tell me, how was it bad for consumers to get a free web browser rather than having to pay for it? Tell me, how is it bad for consumers to be able to view movies in a single program that is built into the OS, flashy, and not have to worry about "I need this program for avi movies, and this program for mpg, et cetera."
The only people Microsoft owes anything to is their stockholders, and that is to create the most profit possible while staying within the law. If they break the law, they should be punished - but only for the damage their lawbreaking can be proven to have done. None of this "Microsoft is really big so they deserve to go down" crap.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Re:What about Be's stockholders? (Score:2)
Loophole for open source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cringely sez APIs are available only to viable companies, but not government or non profits, under the proposed settlement.
So what if a viable business such as RedHat or IBM reads the APIs, then modifies Apache, Samba, Linux, etc. to work well with Windoze. Of course, the GNU license would require that the source code for those changes be made available. But RedHat/IBM/whoever never published the MS API.
No problem, right?
-jimbo
Re:Loophole for open source? (Score:2)
Microsoft's biggest advantage: they have a plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's biggest advantage over the open source community is that they have a plan. What the open source community needs is a meta-project to plan how Linux, Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL, and Mozilla (to name some representative products) can combine to form a complete end-to-end platform.
Microsoft can and does improve the interdependent functionality of it's corresponding products (XP, IIS, C#, SQL Server, and IE) to more closely tie users into a complete platform. As soon as a developer decides that one component (e.g., IE) is superior to its competition there is an overwhelming seductive pressure to adopt the other components.
Re:Microsoft's biggest advantage: they have a plan (Score:2)
Typcial MS BS (Score:4, Interesting)
To make a long story short, I was told by the person taking my order that I am required to purchase a copy of Windows XP with the new system. I told him that I wasn't going to put Windows on that machine, it would be a Linux only system. The guy didn't really care. If I wanted them to pre-install a copy of Red Hat, they would charge me quite a bit. Mainly, becuase I would need to buy a higher up machine. Either way, I already own (Haven't used in years) a copy of Windows 98. Why should I buy required to buy another copy when I already own a copy (older yes, but it would work if I had to) of Windows. I am being charged $200 for a OEM version of XP. If I removed Windows XP, and install another OS, then decied to go back to XP. (Not like I would) I would have to call Dell for an authorization number. I am not sure how true it is, but it pisses me off to say the least.
I think this should be apart of the settlement as well. If I don't want an OS installed, or there custom software. I shouldn't have to pay for it. The computer comes with a few other applications that I have no choice but to pay for. Most of which, is MS products. Why do I have to pay for a copy of MS Office, when I would use Star Office if anything at all.
Thats like buying a TV (just a normal TV) and having the salesmen tell me I am required to purchase a cable hookup on the spot. I have no choice, other then not buying the TV.
Once I got the computer, its littered with stickers giving disclamiers and license numbers for all the MS products I didn't even want. On the side of the computer is a lable with the XP license number AND a warenty number. Which, I can't remove or I loose the warenty. Which, IMO, is complete BS. Don't mind me, I am just sick and tired of dealing with MS these days. I want to run something else, and keep getting backed into the wall. Yes, I could have build the computer for her. But, my family just wanted to buy it right off the bat, and not worry about fixing it them selfs. (More like me fixing it
Something seriously needs to be done.
Re:Typcial MS BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats like buying a TV (just a normal TV) and having the salesmen tell me I am required to purchase a cable hookup on the spot. I have no choice, other then not buying the TV.
No, it's not like that. Rather, Dell sells a product in a standard configuration that they are willing to support because they have tested it in this configuration and are equipped with trained personnel to support this configuration. What you want is akin to walking into a Ford dealership and telling them you want a Camaro with the normal chassis and transmission and leather interior, but without the engine because you have a Toyota Supra engine at home that you intend to transplant into the Camaro, and insisting that they deduct the engine cost from the cost of the car.
New User Preference (Score:2, Funny)
"Do not display duplicate story postings."
Re:Lame. (Score:2)
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until the last paragraph, this was a very intelligent comment. Then all of a sudden you start promoting virii and DDOS attacks??? This makes you sound like an immature teenager.
How about instead of breaking the law, and making Open Source hackers look like thugs in the process, we design our own micropayment system, BSD license it, and offer it up as a vastly more secure and powerful solution that passport? Or would that me to "non-31337" for you?
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Why?
My opinion on the subject is this: if I were changed a dime to read a story on the CNN.com web site, I would recognize that I'm not paying for the information itself, but rather the method of delivery. Paying somebody to deliver something to me is a concept that I'm very comfortable with, as my local pizza delivery will testify.
So why are you so convinced that micropayments are bad?
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
I think you should send your info to Cringely. He'll run with it. Maybe he can even get confirmation that you're right.
This is A Troll!! (Score:3, Insightful)
First you have the guy saying he knows someone on the inside, and getting quotes so it sounds more authoritative and authentic.
Then you have a bunch of links that really add nothing but look good.
Next, you have a bunch of opinions stated as facts. IE as an unprofitable venture?? Microsoft was giving the damn thing away from day one!
Lastly, the coup de grace, advocating virii and worms to stop MS!
Please moderators, read thru the damn thing before you automatically mod something because it looks or sounds good.
Hack the planet! (Score:2)
If you +1 this funny, -1 the parent troll, punk.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh great idea there. (Score:2)
It does take strategic thinking- for instance, in my opinion Microsoft wants horrible security problems on the Internet, because their long range plans involve outright replacing it with a MS-only net, and possibly having the original Internet outlawed if necessary (on grounds of hacker risks). Tearing hell out of Microsoft stuff now does them damage now but also positions them better for this future goal- it's a question of whether they can implement such a plan, and how quickly. It's possible that now would be better than later, because they don't work well when rushed, and are likely to screw up their concept for a replacement Internet if they have to scramble to offer it quickly. Wait too long, and they'll have a more solid proposal- which would be a bad thing.
Another aspect is remembering to keep PR pressure on, by specifying how these Microsoft vulnerabilities are Microsoft vulnerabilities, rather than 'internet' security problems as MS will be spinning it. They have a lot of money to throw behind that spin- but rather low trustworthiness, so it's a fairly even fight.
I daresay fighting by ALL means necessary is the proper course of action. After all, we are attempting to fight an entity that is more powerful than the United States Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh great idea there. (Score:2)
I wrote that in the summer of 1998.
Welcome to the world of .NET, X-Box ('soon to develop greatly expanded usefulness!') and 90% and up Internet Explorer, everywhere.
I'll repeat that: I wrote that in 1998.
Now I am saying, Microsoft do want security problems on the Internet to position for the future selling of their own entirely MS-controlled version- and the taking away of the original Internet, and yes, I think if things go their way they will try to make unauthorized networking illegal, for 'security reasons'.
Germany's Third Reich was just a bunch of Europeans 'running scared' because they'd been hammered in the Versailles Treaty and were determined to never again be weak. It was just a bunch of people- and things got out of hand- and a lot of people at the time said, 'but- they've done good things for the economy!' and 'is that really any of our business?'.
Quit downplaying our current reality! Your Pollyanna (or Quisling?) behavior is not appropriate when reasonable people are _trying_ to figure out how to outmaneuver a very major world power that is a very real threat to freedoms and civil liberties.
I realise you don't want to 'project outcomes' but damn- can't you even see patterns, count money, read news, see what's going on around you?
I think it speaks very well of you, if you're determined to refuse to believe Microsoft would ever hurt anybody or restrain their liberties- it's very 'nice'- but I have no intentions of going down the tubes with you so you can have the luxury of going 'Oh my! Oh dear! Imagine, it turned out we couldn't trust them after all!'. And I am totally uninterested in extending Microsoft any benefit of the doubt at this point.
What did _you_ predict for Microsoft in 1998? Did you predict product activation, .NET, the desire to hijack all e-commerce?
The trouble with you (and many like you) is that you have difficulty in separating fantasy from reality. The difficulty I am speaking of is that you can't do anything BUT separate fantasy from reality. If someone imagines it and expresses a dsytopian view of it, you can't accept that it could ever ACTUALLY be true...
How many spots in London are NOT monitored by hidden surveillance cameras?
How many people have been thrown in prison so far because they learned the secret computer program of a commercial company which is not itself the government?
If you can't accept these realities _as_ realities, we certainly _will_ have to agree to disagree- which does not imply that there is any justification for your position!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh great idea there. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do feel an obligation here to point out that every army that ever "fought fair" has lost the war.
Microsoft has used illegal unfair business practices in the past; the court decided such, and I agree. But not everything that is unfair is illegal, nor should it be.
The playing field is not level, all men are not created equal, and there is no Santa Claus.
Welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.
Re:Oh great idea there. (Score:2)
True, the playing field is not level. But why is the playing field not level? Is it becuase something that you cannot help, or is it becuase of something you can fix, but are too morally backrupt to do so?
Re:Oh great idea there. (Score:2)
The individuals that are better at something will succeed at it more easily than the rest of us. In fact, some people are so good at something that it's damn near impossible for the rest of us to even compete with them. The same is true for companies. Some companies are incredibly good at things, and their competitors have a rough time.
This is a fact of life. Even before you figure in things like illegal monopolies and collusion and nasty temper-tantrums, there's always going to be one company that's the best at something. Some companies might even be-- oh, horror!-- the best at two or three things!
Would it be moral to try to level that field by imposing limits on the success of the best competitors in it? Sure, you could put arbitrary limits on all sorts of things. You could make a law that says all computers must be sold without an operating system, and one that said all operating systems must be sold for the same price, and one that said all operating systems must have published APIs. But would even that make it fair? What if one of those equally priced operating systems came in a bright green box with a yellow smiley face on it, and more people bought it because their box was prettier? That's unfair! All operating systems must be sold in plain brown boxes!
See how quickly it can get ridiculous? That's because limiting the successful to protect the unsuccessful-- as long as everybody's playing within the laws-- is morally unjustifiable.
So, to answer your question, society could choose to make rules to level the playing field of the open market. But it would be morally wrong to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I remembered reading Atlas Shrugged in college, and I understood.
I've looked at your posting history, dfeldman, and find you to be a pretty reasonable sort most of the time. But on this occasion, your post smacked of the worst kind of collectivist rhetoric.
(Sorry about the name-calling. I'm all grouchy now.)
This is, in my opinion, the exact sort of rhetoric that makes the open source community look, all too often, like a bunch of neo-hippie outsiders, forever isolated from the mainstream of society. Not that I'm saying the mainstream is so great, but as long as people assume that you subscribe to weirdo politics because open-source software is your hobby or passion or whatever, you're effectively prevented from making any kind of political comment whatsoever.
Please leave off with the talk of how the government must stop Microsoft. That's ridiculous. Does anybody here believe that Microsoft is actually evil, in the Hitler-Darth Vader-Satan sense? No, of course not. Is Microsoft (personified by Bill Gates) greedy? Of course! So am I, deep down inside, and so are most of you. If you say you're not, then you're either a saint, a liar, or a fool, and one of those is much less likely than the other two.
Does Microsoft make crappy software? A lot of the time, yes. Do I trust Microsoft, with their track record, to design a secure system for conducting business on the Internet? No, I don't.
But I don't think they should be prevented from doing so by the government, or a bunch of hackers as you suggest, or anybody else. What I'd like best is if somebody could come up with something better than what Microsoft is pushing this week.
The rules of the open market are not at fault here. The simple, unvarnished truth is that, for all Microsoft's faults, they do things right (in the business, not moral, sense) most of the time, and nobody-- not Apple, not IBM, not the Open Source Community-- has figured out a way to beat them in the open market yet.
And posts like yours aren't going to get us anywhere closer to that goal.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Flamebait)
Are you joking, 'foobar'? How is it that at this point in time, you are still saying 'Please leave off with the talk of how the government must stop Microsoft. That's ridiculous.' when the real question is, can EVEN the government stop Microsoft?
I'm not sure how old you are, but when you argue Microsoft (collectively) is not 'evil' in the 'Hitler-Darth Vader-Satan' sense, you're talking like a high school kid who's just discovered Ayn Rand. Is Union Carbide evil, after Bhopal? What makes you class the leader of the Nazi Party with a fictional character and an archetype? It may have escaped your memory but one of those guys was REAL- and after power, just like Microsoft- and didn't think in terms of playing nice with others, just like Microsoft- where do you get off drawing a line in the sand and saying 'OK, this is evil and this is not'?
The rules of the open market ARE at fault here- at least in practice, because as practiced by Microsoft they are cancerous. In completely denying the concept of 'benefit of society' or 'commons' and operating only on the value of maximized local profit they are suboptimal to the point that, taken far enough, they can _ruin_ society, reduce it to a state that resembles totalitarian states. Instead of a government mandating only one overpriced, defective solution for everything, you get no government control- and the same pitiable failure of the market, but this time because any smaller entrant is so easily crushed that there is no sense in underwriting such an effort.
Don't believe me? Write a better word processor than Word, and get someone to underwrite your IPO.
You can't beat a cheater. This would seem obvious, but clearly it's not obvious to you. Your definition of 'business right' strongly resembles racketeering and organized crime- using ALL the possible 'incentives' to seize total control. You seem to be supporting this because it clearly returns the most profit of any business method. However, it's a scorched-earth policy: it destroys the very market you claim to revere! And THAT is why we need government to set rules: in this context rules are like bricks, used to make buildings instead of tents. You can say they're in the way, inflexible, limiting- but you can't build up multiple stories, keep out the cold, resist hurricanes etc. without 'em.
I guess I am just wondering- WHY do you hate rules so? You are over two years old, I trust? Is your sense of morals and ethics also over two?
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
But to answer your question, no, Union Carbide was not evil. Negligent, sure. In a horrible way, with devastating consequences. But not evil; evil implies malicious intent, and there simply was none then.
Likewise, I don't believe (as you seem to) that Microsoft the company, or any of its board or executives, intends to do harm to any person. They're just doing what they have to do: trying to make big bunches of money for Microsoft's shareholders. That's how companies work.
The question of whether anybody could market a better word processor than Microsoft Word is kind of a double-edged one. On the one hand, of course you're right; trying to convince millions of people to use SurfWriter (or whatever) instead would be tough because Word is so entrenched. But on the other hand, it seems clear that nobody yet has written a better word processor than MS Word, so the whole question is moot.
I'm a programmer, so I don't word-process much. But when I do, I use Word, because I value the ability to exchange documents with coworkers without having to handshake first; this is a boost to my productivity and to that of my company. It seems to me that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in that example.
So, in a very real sense, having most everybody using the same word processor is a good thing. It means I can spend more time feeding my family and less time worrying about whether Phil downstairs in Marketing can open a SurfWriter 2.5 document, or whether I need to convert it to plain text first.
I think the most important thing we have to remember here is that we are in the very earliest stages of the-- for lack of a better term-- information age. I'm writing this on a laptop in my living room wirelessly connected to a high-speed Internet connection. That would have been impossible ten years ago, and unimagined fifty years ago. In less than two generations, our entire world view has changed with respect to information and the role of computers in distributing and accessing it.
In that context, how can you be so arrogant to assume that Microsoft's technologies must be a bad thing? I don't mean bad in the sense of flawed and imperfect; we can poke holes in every idea they've ever marketed, but the same is true of any product in any industry. I mean "bad" in the sense of "bad for society." No one alive now can possibly know what impact Microsoft will have on the evolution of society thorough the next century and beyond. Could you have predicted that the mass production of cars would lead directly to the growth of suburban areas around big cities? To think that we can see into the future is sheer hubris.
I think Microsoft has probably used some unfair business practices in the past, and they probably continue to do so now. And I think that some kind of legislative penalty is probably the right thing, although I don't pretend to know that that penalty should be.
But I simply refuse to jump to the conclusion that a number of relatively minor regulatory violations (minor as compared to the deaths of well over 1,000 people in India; you brought up that comparison, not I) means Microsoft is an evil force out for world domination. That's just... silly.
Okay, with all of that said, I want to send one last passing wave to my karma and conclude with this: people who deride other people's work without having the skill, talent, or tenacity to do anything of merit themselves piss me off. If you don't like MS Word, or Passport, or whatever, fine! Lord knows that I don't, especially. But at least I'm respectful and level-headed enough to see that Microsoft has been very, very successful, and to acknowledge that they have accomplished some things that make my life better, in the same breath that I use to criticize them.
Credit where it's due. Or, in even more appropriate terms, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you know HOWMS Word became the dominant word processor?
When Win 3.1 was released the ONLY company that knew the APIs as Microsoft. Word Perfect couldn't get their product working. That is how Word took over from Word Perfect, and Excel took over from Lotus 123.
Is that the "free market"? Or is that an ILLEGAL MONOPOLY excercising monopoly power to crush competition?
What really strikes me about the libertarians and Republicans is that they didn't have these philosophical arguments about the government picking on poor little Microsoft until Microsoft started spreading the influence cash around.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of those things were against the law; a court said so. These things should be rectified in some way. If Microsoft and the government can't come up with a compromise that they can both accept, it'll be up to a judge to say how Microsoft should be penalized.
But the rest of the things Microsoft did, mean and nasty and downright unfriendly they might have been, were not against the law. At least, they weren't until a judge says that they were.
My thesis, since apparently I haven't gotten the idea across so far, is that Microsoft was not morally wrong to do the mean, nasty, unfriendly but legal things that it has done. That is how a competitive market works. The executives of Microsoft Corp. have a responsibility to their shareholders to make them lots of money, doing everything necessary to achieve that goal as long as they stay within the limits of the law.
They didn't. As I said, fine. Punish them for that.
But you can't-- we, as a society, cannot-- punish Microsoft for being nasty. Being nasty isn't against the law. Bundling PowerPoint with Word and Excel and whatever else and calling it Office and not allowing me to buy just PowerPoint is nasty. But it's not illegal. And it's not immoral, and it's not unethical, and it's not wrong.
Look, think of it like basketball. Ever play basketball, or even watch it on TV? The players on each team know that they have to do whatever they can to win, but without breaking the rules. So you get in there and you push a little bit, and you shove a little, and you get a little rough, and as long as you don't foul your opponent, it's okay. Better than okay, it's good basketball.
If the other team can't take a little push now and then, a little elbow at the net, then they shouldn't play basketball. They should play tennis instead, or some other game where you don't have to worry about being jostled.
Microsoft is like a really good basketball team. A nasty one with a bad attitude that nobody, not even their fans, like very much, but a really good one. They get out there with their game faces on and they rough it up a little. And when they foul, they get caught and they lose the ball and that's the end of it.
When the Bulls were winning championship after championship in a row and nobody could touch them, did you hear other teams whining that the Bulls were playing too rough? Did anybody complain that they were cheating? No, of course not. Because they weren't. They just happened to be playing the game better than anybody else.
That's Microsoft. They play the game, and when they get a little too rough, they get penalized, but that doesn't make them stop playing the game. They're rough, and they're serious, and they don't have any fans, but if you understand the game, you've gotta respect the fact that they know how to play.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
And if you think the relative merits of your products is the only criterion that defines success in the marketplace, then you're being pretty naive. For better or for worse, that's simply not how the world works.
Why are these things hard to understand?
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because Big Bill isn't going "Bwahahahaha" the whole time, doesn't mean that M$ ain't evil. Your definition sounds more like a cartoon stereotype than a reasonable working def. Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Would you say that a corporation that considers the welfare of people, whether workers, consumers, or general public, as unimportant, to be evil? I would, and that to me makes Union Carbide evil. They exemplify what I consider to be values that are *morally wrong*, ie evil. Remember too that many of the atrocities committed in this world weren't committed out of a desire to make people suffer: they were motivated by some other desire, and the suffering of others was considered negligible. *That's* evil, not some barking mad Evil Overlord with plans to take over the universe.
I'm not sure that I'd consider M$ evil, but I"m damned sure they're bad for a lot of reasons. This "everything goes in the market" crap is foolish and irresponsible: capitalism is an *economic* theory, remember, and offers no guarantees as to morals. Lots of things can be (and have been) justified in the name of profit, and I'm damned sure I'd call some of those outright evil. Responsible adults should consider the consequences of whatever they do, and accept the responsibility for same: saying "Oh, I'm innocent, I was just after a profit" is cowardly and selfish.
End rant. Sorry, but there's too damned much rights and too little responsibility in some of these arguments. If we can hold wee script kiddies responsible for *their* actions, why not CEOs? Why not directors? They make the decisions, for god's sake. And get paid handsomely for doing so.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
I just don't know of any companies like that.
Back to the Union Carbide example: they chose to cut corners, with the intention of being more profitable, and those shortcuts ended up leading to a horrible accident. Whether a reasonable person could have foreseen the consequences of those actions is up for debate, but I think it's fair to say that either way, nobody intended to cause that accident, or to kill anybody.
Likewise, I don't have any evidence that makes me believe that Microsoft, or anybody associated with Microsoft, intends to cause anybody personal harm. They intend for everybody in the world to use their operating system and their applications, you bet. And they intend for all the web sites out there to run on their servers, uh-huh. And they're willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
To the extent that they stay within the law, I say good for them. That's exactly what they should be doing.
Step outside the law, get caught, pay a fine or some other suitable penalty. But then get back to work. That's how that's supposed to happen, too.
So, through all this rhetoric, will somebody please convince me I'm wrong? Will somebody give me just one example of Microsoft's doing something that could be considered bad for society as a whole?
Okay, they never killed anybody. Did they ever maim anyone? Did they ever run over anybody's puppy? Did they ever prank-call your house in the middle of the night? Anything?
They produce software that isn't up to my personal standards. I wish, since I have to use it sometimes, that their OS and applications were better designed. But that doesn't equate to personal harm.
All right, let's really reach. Microsoft designed a scripting architecture for Windows that gave malicious users the ability to write viruses that can overload systems and cause the indirect loss of money for companies that use Windows (i.e., pretty much all of them) and users individually. All right, that was a pretty bad idea. But let's remember to put it in perspective: did anybody die because of ILOVEYOU?
I'm no Microsoft fan, not by a long shot. But I guess I just don't think they're as horrible as many people seem to believe they are.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft employees gave misleading testimony during the trial including faking a demo comparing a computer with Internet Explorer to one with it removed and several times denying that they had made statements which the prosecutors then showed they had made (via email). So perjury is the one glaring wrong that I see MS guilty of. And I am not one bit reluctant to hit each liar with jail time or a major fine.
As for the rest, I agree, I don't think taking MS down in court is the right way to go about things. I wouldn't call them evil but definitely bad. I would prefer a world without MS's dirty tactics to one with and as such, I try to refrain from buying and using their products as well as discouraging others. Just because they have a right to do business doesn't mean people shouldn't try and force _them_ out of business
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Okay, conceded. I forgot about that. That's definitely wrong.
I don't know the whole story-- I don't know if that was an organized attempt to deceive or just the misguided work of a couple of idiots-- but that definitely qualifies as a screw-up.
One point for you.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, then, show me one - just one - example of Microsoft's having taken anybody's life, health, and freedom.
Let me clarify a little here, before you *nix-freaks breathe down my throat.
By "life," I mean just that. How many people have died as a direct result of anything Microsoft has ever done? I can't think of any.
By "health," I mean physical health. How many people have gotten physically sick (and I'm not talking about hand injuries from smacking the computer from the latest BSOD) from MS? Again, I can't think of any.
And finally, "freedom from pain." First off, I don't think that this is a valid freedom - pain is and must be a part of life. But even still, show me one person who has been physically harmed as a direct result of MS's actions. Show me just one.
Calling Microsoft evil because they want to make money is ridiculous. Calling them evil because they drove a few competitors out of business is also ridiculous... perhaps they have acted unethically, but "evil" is another step up.
Putting Jews in concentration camps, or killing thousands of innocent farmers in purges - that's evil. But driving one's competitors out of business by making a better product available at a lower cost, or even by the arguably-unethical act of packaging it with the newest version of your OS - that's business. That's not evil, that's profit.
I'll agree with you when you show me an example of someone whom Microsoft has deliberately killed, or deprived of their health.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
I also see the same pattern you describe quite a bit. The markets I work in are pretty rarified-- flight and visual simulation, media, and stuff like that-- so I've never had to compete with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly. I'm lucky, I guess.
But I simply don't believe that Microsoft is unbeatable. Yeah, they have a lot of advantages. But having more money than God is not against the law; it just sucks if you're the other guy.
I don't have the answer to this problem. I don't know how to counter Microsoft's defense. It's just that I get annoyed by defeatists and collectivists who stop talking about how to beat Microsoft in the market and start talking about how to beat them in the courtroom or in Congress.
If-- and when-- Microsoft breaks the law, they should be punished. But we're just hurting ourselves and our society if we-- the smart people, I mean, the people who can do things-- just give up and stop trying.
I have a friend who recently took this idea to a surprising conclusion: he took a job at Microsoft. The company he was working for was on hard times-- because of mismanagement rather than competition-- and Microsoft was hiring, so he signed up. He told me he got plenty of hassle from ex-coworkers about joining the "evil empire" and other hyperbole, but in the end, he did it so he could improve Microsoft's products in some small way.
Hell, there are a lot of talented programmers out there who hate Windows and Office and IIS and all that. That's fine. But most of them seem to channel that into hating Microsoft, too. That's a shame. If enough of them got together to improve the products they hate so much, maybe they could actually make a difference.
Choose whatever path you like; just play within the system instead of trying to legislate Microsoft out of it.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Insightful)
I know precisely why this is. As much as you'd like to think that Microsoft is breaking the law left and right, and that everything they do is immoral and wrong, the fact is that their infractions have been fairly limited. If you consider how much business Microsoft does in a single year, you'll see that they're within the law the vast majority of the time.
The reason why the market is the way it is right now is simple: Microsoft is kicking their competitor's asses.
I don't happen to like this, but at least I'm sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that it's true, and to understand that it's not up to the government to step in and sort this all out. If we (the community) want to change this, then it's up to us to do it. But we should do it by improving ourselves and our products to beat Microsoft at their own game, or by cooperating with Microsoft where we can't beat them. If we tried to change the market by hindering Microsoft's legal business practices (as opposed to their illegal ones, which I've said before are bad, bad, bad), then we're doing ourselves, our industry, and our economy a disservice.
On the whole, Microsoft has been more of a good thing for the industry in particular and the economy as a whole than a bad thing. They're ruthless and nasty and I wouldn't want them to house-sit for me while I'm out of town, but they're excellent at what they do, and (I'm repeating myself here) you have to respect that.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Thus, I will take a weak government and abusive companies over weak companies and an abusive government any day of the weak. Surely this is reasonable.
The part many people refuse to see is that any government, given too much power, becomes abusive towards someone -- a concept better codified simply as "power corrupts".
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:3, Insightful)
History and law. The worst a company can do -- the worst any company has ever (legally) done -- is to produce a bad product, sell it at a high price and try to prevent any competition from coming in and giving the consumers a fair deal. The only companies which have ever done anything worse than this have been able to do it only because of having government support. The most abusive monopolies, from The East India Company to Pacific Gas & Electric, always exist because of government support. (You think this is false? Counterexamples welcome!)
Even if you can find worse abuses, none of them compare to those committed by governments against the people they supposedly represent. Did Nazi Germany represent the Jews? Does the "People's Republic" of China really acting in the best interests of the people? The Soview Union? The worst massacres, the worst slaughters, are always done by the hand of government.
Yes, I prefer authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects which are limited to producing bad product and selling at a high price (corporations) to authoritarian decision making, made by a few rich people, with effects that result in wars, jail sentences and unjust laws (government). The United States Government does not represent me, and it represents you no more. The best it can do, therefore, is get out of the way.
Corporate power is inherently limited; when I give money (power) to a corporation, it is because I have freely entered into a contract with that corporation because I thought it in my best interests to do so. When I give money to the government, I do so at the barrel of a gun. You tell me which is better.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Nothing of the sort. I don't ask for any kind of authoritarian control (if I did, I'd be a right-winger, but I'm not). I ask, rather, for a lack thereof.
If Americanism is believing the shared dream (that the government truly is representative of the governed), then yes, I'm out of it. Can you sit back and watch Vietnam, Cuba, Iran-Contra, Watergate, the DMCA, the USA Act, the PATRIOT Act, the Zimmerman case, the Skylarov case, the SSSCA and tell me the government is acting in your best interests? Name one thing the Federal government does other than those powers explicitly granted in the Constitution that you think we're better off with it doing.
America is about the PEOPLE making decisions. Maybe you should be living somewhere with the authoritarianism you crave?
Yes, America is about rich, white PEOPLE making decisions. Early in American history, rich, landed white men made the decisions while pretending to speak for the country as a whole. Today, rich, landed white men make the decisions while pretending to speak for the country as a whole. Those in government don't act in your best interests or mine, but rather in their own. The political system may attempt to align their interests with ours, but such alignment is merely coincidental. I see far too many people who "drink the Kool-Aid" and come to think that those in power are truly looking out for them. Nobody looks out for anyone but his or herself -- not me, not you, not anyone -- and those who claim they do are fools or liars (to themselves if not to others).
That said, I am by no means interested in an authoritarian government. As I said, I want less government, not more. Anarchy (which is just a bit further than I'm willing to go, but in the same direction) is most certainly not authoritarian.
I'd like to see you back your claim that the Nazi government came about for the purpose of maximizing corporate profit. I suppose you're going to tell me that Pol Pot was acting in the interests of corporate power as well, and that Stalin's massacres of his own people were done for financial gain. Even if some government massacres were done at the urging of (rich, white) men who happened to own businesses, they are still government massacres. I doubt we'll ever see tanks with McDonald's logos rolling over protesters.
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
Also there no longer is any kind of open market in this area of software.
You can't beat a cheater. This would seem obvious, but clearly it's not obvious to you. Your definition of 'business right' strongly resembles racketeering and organized crime- using ALL the possible 'incentives' to seize total control.
This is to my mind part of the problem. Whereas RICO laws have been applied to some rather bizare cases it hasn't been applied to Microsoft. Even though things such as their OEM contracts look not unlike "protection rackets".
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:2)
As I've said before, I agree that Microsoft broke laws, and that that's a Bad Thing, and that penalties should be assigned somehow. This is not in dispute.
My gripe is with people who apply the fruit-of-the-poison-tree principle to everything Microsoft produces. I don't like the Passport idea much, but I'm not okay with arguing against it on moral grounds.
I believe this: the playing field is not level, and it never will be. It's okay for society (in this case, the gub-mint) to establish boundaries for just how un-level the field can get, but the purpose of these boundaries is not to make the playing field level. Any attempt to level the playing field by limiting the success of a company that has not broken any laws is, in my opinion, morally unjustifiable, and short-sighted to boot.
Of course, my philosophy can't be applied in a black-and-white fashion; my whole point here is that, while Microsoft has broken some laws and should pay for that somehow, it is irresponsible of us-- people who understand technology, I mean-- to advocate going beyond the socially established guidelines for business behavior in an effort to somehow make the open market more "fair."
Re:Time to watch our backs (Score:4, Insightful)
Micropayments? Getting a cut of internet sales? Sites being propped up by venture capital? Money being made from "internet wallets"?
It all sounds soooo "late 1999", doesn't it? Which is approximately when the business plan for Passport was turning this dumb wallet into a replacement for the operating system as a means to survive.
Forward to today. The hot model is site subscription with premiums. The internet is facing skepticism as only 3% believe it is an important information source. There IS no venture capital money - forget about propping anything up. The only sites that are seen as viable are those with a strong business model oriented around actually making money - not giving bits of money up to other vendors, when your competition is busy leaving the net altogether.
Remember the Amazon vs B&N vs Borders war? Try borders.com now. Amazon doesn't want Passport if it's the only Internet vendor that anyone uses -- Passort can only do them harm. Neither will any of the Yahoo Stores. If the size of the whole pie is smaller, the worth of a slice of that pie is diminished as well, y'know?
Getting in bed with MS is not like getting a Visa merchant account to handle payments. Along with your customers' financial data, MS could have access to their personal information, buying habits, etc. This means that the competitors of any MS partner will avoid signing up, no matter what. I'm not talking about Borland, here; I'm talking about AOL Time Warner, Sony, Sears, Visa/MC themselves, and many others that aren't rolling off the tip of my tongue.
Dominating the software world is one thing; dominating the rest of the world is entirely another.
Most companies have barged cluelessly into the net and it has hurt them. I don't see why MS's hard right turn into the net should not give them a few fits as well. And they're hardly omnipotent - as your "Bob" example should point out.
Re:parent post is a lie (Score:2)
Re:Who needs APIs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Prime example: CSS and the ways to break it. According to some interpretations of the law, if you can write the code yourself you can use it, but you can't provide a library for others to use or use a library written by others.
This is completely contrary to the reason why IP laws were created in the first place, of course, but IP laws haven't served the public interest for some time now.
Re:Isn't anti-trust about the marketplace? (Score:3, Insightful)
The judge should show concern over the effect of the settlement on Free Software, as it seems that Free Software, too, has become a viable competitor. No more is the software market made up largely of producers such as Microsoft and consumers, who were the users of shrink-wrapped software. The market is now more complicated than that, because much of the software that now runs the Internet and which most of us /. readers use all the time is created and used by prosumers, to borrow a neologism from Alvin Toffler's The Third Wave [amazon.com], and this software created by and for the users, is rapidly becoming a major part of the software marketplace. GNU/Linux, Apache, and their ilk are testimony to that. To ignore it as the DOJ has, or to not think of it as part of the marketplace, as you have, is to ignore this fact about today's software industry.
Yes, Microsoft is right, the software industry is radically different from the more traditional industries that antitrust law was originally created to address, but not in the way Microsoft presented to the DOJ. In the software industry, anyone and everyone can potentially be a viable part of the marketplace, so the only choice really will be to totally open up the protocols and API's to anyone and everyone who wants to see them, if the DOJ's settlement is to have any real effectivity in fulfilling the spirit of antitrust law.
Re:Vote Democrat next time! (Score:2, Funny)