Microsoft Trial Wends Onward 509
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.
And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:4, Informative)
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
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.
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2, Informative)
iexplore.exe (aka IE, Internet Explorer) and explorer.exe (aka Windows Explorer, the file browser) are identical binaries with different names.
If you can still browse your C: drive with explorer, IE is still on your system.
Now, this makes one of two things true:
1) IE really IS an integral part of the OS
2) Microsoft intentionally commingled the code for IE with that of WE
Since IE came about after WE, we have to assume that case #2 is true, despite Microsoft's continued assertations that they did no such thing. [com.com]
Wait a minute... Microsoft lying in court [appleturns.com]? Why would they do such a thing [go.com]? And how could they get away with it [com.com]?
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2)
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2, Insightful)
So why is this distinction important?
Because of the concept of *leveraging*.
If MS has a monopoly in the OS, and it bundles an application in with its OS for the purpose of leveraging a monopoly in that application's market, this action is illegal under anti-trust laws.
So the argument isn't whether an html renderer is a *useful addition* to *bundle* with the OS. The application being useful to have with an OS is completely irrelevant to the fact it was illegally bundled with the OS, and then the code was comingled to try and make them look like they're the same.
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2)
Why?
Because menny of the programs email the user who was running them when somthing goes wrong. ie vim
Why is this diffrent from Microsoft.
Any one can write a drop in replacement for sendmail as the API is well known and documented.
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:3, Funny)
An internet browser and/or HTML renderer is NOT properly part of the OS. It is an application that runs ON TOP OF the OS.
[You're obviously a bought and paid-for apologist of the envious competitors of Microsoft (Sun, Oracle, IBM, etc.)]
You technical people think you know so much! Let the knowledgeable and capable innovators from Microsoft, one of the true American success stories in business, saving jobs for working families, paying taxes^H^H^H^H^Hlobbyists^H^H^H^Hgrass roots procompetition advocacy organizations, reducing America's trade deficit, enlighten you about the wonderful things you can expect from your PC that come from Microsoft.
Not only is an HTML renderer one important innovation to an operating system, but there are many important MS Innovations© in the operating system of a computer.
I, for one, like the convenience of automatically signing up for MSN, even if I forget for a few minutes, Windows reminds me of the necessity of doing this important thing. You have to admit that is an invaluable service to the Consumer®.
Also, as part of a patriotic effort to stop piracy, curb terrorists and the preying pedophiles dead in their tracks, Windows also is on a crusade to sign up Americans® to Passport! I look forward to the day when all Americans have to present their MS Passport at airport ticket counters to reduce terrorism. Remember 9/11!
Finally, I'm looking forward to new services from a single convenient and innovative supplier that knows what customers want - Microsoft®®.
I've purchased all of my latest consumer electronics to insure that it Works Best With® genuine Microsoft Windows, a brand name that I have come to know and to trust [microsoft.com].
But excuse me. I have to run MS Talk© to tell my MS Spouse® that the MS House© needs to be rebooted.
Re:And the Register adds this MS Tidbit... (Score:2)
Um, hate to break the news to you, but KDE is not an operating system.
Insanity Defense (Score:2, Funny)
Hmm, I wonder..........Insanity defense?
No more windows?... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh please, please, please!!!
Nah, that sounds just too good to be true.
Re:No more windows?... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
There are two possible responses to the threat of Microsoft pulling Windows form the marketplace:
(1) "Oh my god! Windows is far too important, losing it would ruin the American economy!"
... which would be proof that Windows *is* too powerful, and that this extreme dependence on one operating system and one vendor who provides it must be broken -- for the same reason that America can't rely solely on one country for its oil, and the same reason that American farmers can't all grow the same identical strain of corn lest one virus wipe it all out.
(2) "Who cares? Linux can easily fill the void left by the loss of Windows."
... which is a thought Microsoft doesn't want to have cross *anyone's* mind. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft pulled Windows and the fallout lasted for a few months and then it was over and people found alternatives and nobody cared any more?
So I really have no idea what Ballmer hopes to achieve by threatening to pull Windows from the market.
Re:Ballmer may have flubbed up. (Score:2, Informative)
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
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)
Re:No more windows?... (Score:3, Funny)
Stop using it? (Score:2)
Re:Stop using it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
- A.P.
Re:And, in other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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"
Re:And, in other news... (Score:2)
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.
See, later on, you'll learn about verbs versus nouns in your English classes.
Another option? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Another option? (Score:2)
Just looking for a good excuse to ban MS products (Score:2, Interesting)
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
What are the Nine States? (Score:5, Informative)
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Florida
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Minnesota
8. Utah
9. West Virginia
Also the District of Columbia.
I wish they would state this in each article.
Re:What are the Nine States? (Score:5, Funny)
Florida Utah California Kansas
Massachusetts Iowa Connecticut.
Too bad Minnesota and West Virginia can't spell ROSOFT.
If Micro$oft cannot modularize their OS (Score:2, Funny)
the part that amazed me... (Score:2)
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)
Re:About bloody time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a state-sponsored monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About bloody time... (Score:2)
Ballmer on Software Design (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Ballmer on Software Design (Score:2)
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
Re:Ballmer on Software Design (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that Free & Open-Source Software haven't done API documentation; it's just that the size of Microsoft's entire API would be a rather complex and daunting task.
Re:Ballmer on Software Design (Score:2, Funny)
Monkey Boy (Score:2, Informative)
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 :-)
Developers, developers, developers... (Score:2, Funny)
Lesson learned; don't wear business casual when you intend to do high-impact aerobics.
At least read the relevant material (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Also, look at it this way: if you can't take a browser away from the OS without breaking it, then you've got a pretty shitty product in the first place. Now, even I can't believe that MS Windows is that shitty, so IMHO Steve Ballmer is trying to pull a fast one here. It is feasible - it might cost a whole lot of money, but it is definitely feasible. Or, if it isn't, it is unavoidable proof that MS Windows was never a well-designed OS in the first place...so, which one is it going to be?
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
you know what? That's just what I feel about operating systems.
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2)
Sure they could. All kinds of business go running to the DOJ or congress when their bottom line is threatened. Just look at the RIAA or Disney for example. In this case it may or may not work. Dell does not have a monopoly. Everything changes when you have a monopoly.
BTW. MS went running to the DOJ and the govt many times themselves. They complained to the DOJ about AOL IM remember that? That and the 4.3 million in bribe money proves that MS sees nothing wrong with govt interference in the tech sector.
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2)
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
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".
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2)
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.
I can't replace a part of the Linux kernel either. (Score:2)
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.
Re:I can't replace a part of the Linux kernel eith (Score:2)
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.
No that's not what I ment (Score:2)
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.
Re:I can't replace a part of the Linux kernel eith (Score:3, Informative)
So what you're describing is much easier to do with Windows.
While I agree mostly with what you've said -- both Windows and Linux have kernel based modular device support -- the ease of use part is not correct.
Under Linux, most distributions are pre-configured with the kernel consisting of modules. If you want to remove any module, you can without rebooting safely as long as it is not being used. Hotplug support and manual enabling/disabling of parts of the kernel using insmod/rmmod or runlevels make module management simple if not automatic.
Drivers under NT serve the same basic function as modules under Linux. NT Drivers are usually loaded at boot time and can not be unloaded. The exception are hot plug devices...just like they are under Linux.
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2)
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)
That this IS a threat IS the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.)
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:2)
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."
Re:At least read the relevant material (Score:3, Funny)
Myself, for example.
Though perhaps criminal penalties for developers who write spaghetti code might have a positive effect on the software market.
This reminds me of the time... (Score:2)
Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft can basically do whatever the hell it wants to with it's products...
Consider This (Score:4, Interesting)
And I don't even want to start thinking about the $$$'s involved... -JT
Re:Consider This (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consider This (Score:2)
Re:Consider This (Score:5, Funny)
So, what you are saying is: Contrary to popular opinion, violence DOES solve things, and rather quickly.
Bomb Microsoft?
I Wonder... (Score:2)
Just as M$ likes.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just as M$ likes.. (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re:Just as M$ likes.. (Score:2)
+1 Insightful? Blinding flash of the obvious?
Bad Analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Bad Analogy (Score:2)
LL
"Wend" without opening "While" (Score:2)
Everyone's out to get me! The sky is falling... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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$haft, you have earned your beatings and are begging for new ones with the new XP licensing system, SSSCA, DCMA and other unAmerican activites.
Ballmer uses 'Foo'? (Score:2)
15 Q. What is Foo? You mentioned Foo 1 a
16 moment ago and I --
17 A. Hmm?
18 Q. Foo, F-o-o. Are you familiar with
19 that name, code name, label, whatever it might be?
20 A. Used a hundred times a day around
21 Microsoft. If I just used it you'd have to read
22 back the quote to tell me Foo is --
23 It's kind of like a variable to the
24 mathematician. Instead of -- when something -- you
25 know --
More evidence of monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh woah is M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh woah is M$ (Score:2)
Exactly right. And one someone has "won", the competition is over, and it's time to start another game. Hence anti-trust legislation.
Moron.
Why don't you give it a little thought yourself, before posting childish flames?
If Bill Gates is the Borg... (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? Will the lies never end? (Score:2)
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!
Re:Huh? Will the lies never end? (Score:2)
Protections against stalling (Score:2)
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)
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.
let them take it away (Score:2)
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
Is it just me... (Score:2)
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!
Why do microsoft care? (Score:2)
Re:Why do microsoft care? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Will Netscape make that browserplugin? (Score:2)
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?
Video Deposition (Score:2)
Thanks for playing, MS, but it's time to go home. (Score:2)
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..."
Re:You can just hear... (Score:2)
Re:Ads (Score:2)
Re:Ads (Score:2)
And, for the record, I have nothing but respect for you personally. I just don't have a problem with disabling the ads here and bypassing part [most?] of your revenue stream.
Re:My question, ultimately, is.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or maybe you do want something done, otherwise known as "a slap on the wrist".
Or maybe you're playing devil's advocate like I sometimes do, and you'd really prefer revoking their corporate charter, disolving their company, putting M$ source code in the public domain, and forbidding and of the senior execs from ever sitting on a corporate board of directors ever again. Sure, it may be a bit lenient, but I'm a forgiving kind of guy. I'd never forgive myself, if they actually tortured them all to death with with lots of redhot razor sharp power tools.
Re:My question, ultimately, is.... (Score:2)
It's called the law. The law says if the gov't thinks someone has a monopoly, and that someone abuses their monopoly, and then they prove it in court, then they can indeed tell people how to run their business.
"Uhh, yeah, Sun.... uhh.... we think you have a monopoly on... uh... Sun servers. You're gonna have to stop and do what we say from now on."
If you could convince the courts of this, that would be a valid course of action (good luck).
If you don't like the law as it is written, why don't you run for congress or buy your local congressman? Complaining about the law on /. has been proven
to be a very poor way to influence legislation.
Re:My question, ultimately, is.... (Score:2)
I can't tell, because your question doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What does the color of a non-monopoly manufacturer's product have to do with anti-trust law? Nothing.
The above link logs off Windows XP users... (Score:2)
The above link logs off Windows XP users, demonstrating once again the quality of Microsoft code.
Re:What has MS done??? (Score:2)
And there you have it, in your own words. Dell had to agree to pretty much any terms Microsoft cared to set, or else Dell would have gone bankrupt. If that's not a "gun to the head", what is?
Re:Where's David Boies when we need him? (Score:2)
We have Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, saying "You can't enforce the law on us, because then we would be _forced_ to intentionally do horrible damage to the economy of the tech sector. We wouldn't want that now would we?"
He is saying this to a _judge_.
I think things have gone well beyond the stage where David Boies is needed to bring to light the insanity of the defendants. These guys have no idea how deep the hole is that they're digging for themselves... "Let us go free or we'll destroy the economy singlehandedly" is not a sensible argument for the defense of a monopoly. These guys simply do not grasp that they are subject to law- and it's becoming painfully obvious- and the other shoe will have to drop.
With luck, Judge Improbably-Percussive-Name will be able to restrain herself from expressing sentiments of outrage and scorn- but she is damned well going to understand how Judge Jackson felt.