Microsoft Case Proceeds 307
YeOldeCurmudgeon writes "This story just posted on Yahoo: Federal Judge Denies Microsoft Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Case. Microsoft's motion to dismiss the suit filed by the 9 dissenting states was denied. The judge agrees the states can sue." An article in the San Francisco Chronicle summarizes the case's current state and what's coming up next.
Still a chance (Score:1, Insightful)
The idea of the antitrust suit was to enable competition. Here's a test of the result of the Bush "settlement" - has there been increased investment in companies competing with Microsoft in the OS and productivity software arenas?
A decent solution (Score:3, Funny)
and (Score:2, Funny)
Re:and (Score:3, Funny)
--
It's funny. Laugh.
Re:A decent solution (Score:2, Funny)
Other punishments... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Forced full and free release of all fileformats they created and will create in the last+next 10 years
2) Held liable for security flaws (this is one for another trial
3) Forced standards compilance for html
4) Some huge powerfull comittie above their head, that needs to approve the defaults and quality of all releases. Install ms haters in it
5) Absolute forbidden to arrange per-oem deals, one price policy, clear and open
6) Full refunds for all ever-bundled software!
...
1 and 5 seem to be the most feasible...
Of course, there is still bill-torture, per crash refunds,
Re:A decent solution (Score:2)
And $39-billion back to their customers.
A wonderful turn of events. (Score:2, Troll)
Hooray! The Microsoft case continues! Kudos to the judge who agreed the states can sue. This is a happy day for the good guys, because although the war against the EVIL EMPIRE hasn't yet been won, this decision brings us one step closer to a world of freedom, without the limitations and problems Microsoft sees fit to impose on the good people of the world.
This is a happy day for the BSDs, for Linux, and for all the freedom-loving people of the world.
Re:A wonderful turn of events. (Score:1)
Is there a simple solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
This should be all very, very simple. provisional punishments like "you will now allow people to take off IE" does not stop MS from behaving anti-competetively.
I mean, just fine them! in fact, fine the crap out of them. You are found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, you choke up 80% of your profits for the next two years (as from SEC filings) or 10% of the company net worth -- which ever is higher. if you do it again, 90%/15%; third time -- dissolution of charter. (third might be a little harsh, but again, we are following the "simple" route of spirit)
-- when the share holders suddenly realize that, wow, my $$ are going away because the corporate lawyer / managers are screwing up by doing illegal stuff, i don't think they will be happy about the anti-competitive behavior anymore -- i mean, $$ drives the company, so hit it where it hurts; not some bs settlement that they can just circumvent later.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
So the large papers are important because they are the law.
I like the precident. (Score:2)
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Companies can hide their profits by investing their money. If a company has $6 billion in profit, they can invest $5 billion, leaving them with $1 billion in profit.
Ten percent of Microsoft's net worth does not even begin to compare to the benefits Microsoft has gained from their anti-competitive actions. And that's only counting to the present day. The benefits of increased market share and customer lock-in will continue to go on long after the case is settled.
This case has been going on for six years. 80% of Microsoft's profits for the next two years is far less than their monopolistic practices netted. Your proposed minuscule punishment will tell Microsoft, "go ahead and carry out your anti-competitive practices. We might take 20% next decade."
third time -- dissolution of charter.
People (e.g. Ralph Nadar) say this all the time. What good would it actually do?
If you really want to fine them, why not force them to sell stock (with the government collecting the proceeds)? This will cause an immediate drop in their investor's net worth, and decrease the investor's control over the company.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2, Interesting)
* a ruling similar to what i have mentioned would set a case-law for future anti-competitive behavior with defineable, universal reprimand that, i believe, should have an impact on any company regardless of their size or the nature of their business. furthermore, hopefully with a case law such as this, the trials will not take such a long time.
* dissolution of charter would be stupid, in fact i would not even vote for it. Like i said, it would be kind of severe -- and all the windows users out there would be royally screwed. It was a suggesting in spirit, not meant to be taken literally.
Lastly, I am not sure who you intend MS sell their stock to. make the stock public would be met with similar problems as we have right now -- individual investors and fund administrators will see the difference between "getting $$ from illegal activities" and "behaving morally". my bet is that they will be taking the money route. besides that, who would buy stock that you *KNOW* the price would be going down? If you sell to the government -- it would also run into problems -- first is that the government is horribly inefficient, and 2, you are GIVING THEM MONEY for breaking the law. (i am pretty sure the last one is not what you meant, though)
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
It depends on how it's done.
As far as I'm concerned, dissolution of Microsoft's business charter should be done by (a) selling off all their assets and (b) taking all the resulting proceeds plus the money in the bank and distributing it equally amongst all working citizens of the United States, except for those who own stock in the company.
The reason for doing it that way? To make it clear to everyone that if your company breaks the law too much, it will die and the people who have invested in it will lose everything they've invested.
Seems to me that it's the only way to keep companies from behaving like Microsoft: make it clear that doing so will, in the long run, be so unprofitable that the people running the show won't even think about it.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you are *really* onto something here. Somehow MS is able to squiggle out of stuff -- lying in court -- corporate income taxes -- court settlements -- etc
You are right on the money when you say the courts need to damage the shareholders, because they are the only people that have leverage over MS. The legal system has been ineffective.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Similar threats were made to OEMs who used products competing with MS Office. In the process, Microsoft totally destroyed the market share of Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro, Paradox, Wordperfect and a few others whose names escape me. They very nearly killed Borland as a company, and did kill Wordperfect (who were bought out by Corel). I'm don't recall how Lotus fared (bought out by IBM?).
Those four products, at least, were _all_ respected market leaders. Many people still talk about Wordperfect as some hallowed "golden age" of word processing. Lotus 1-2-3 and Quattro Pro BUILT the spreadsheet market, and Excel was the poor cousin for years, until MS strongarmed it onto half the world's desktops. There is certainly a case for the argument "Netscape would have died anyway" (I used 4.61 - crash central), but not all four of these. In short, MS abused its windows monopoly to totally obliterate its competitors in a very lucrative market.
Microsoft is guilty as hell of abusing its monopoly, and IE vs Netscape is only a sideshow. Even the Findings Of Fact make it clear that Netscape was just "in the way", and MS's real target for their IE behaviour was Java.
There are many who say that the DOJ case was run badly. I think I agree with that in many ways - they went chasing after side issues all the time, and the whole Netscape-Java-Windows-OS-Competitor chain is too tenuous for many people to even follow (never mind the "Java would never have threatened windows anyway" argument). MS Office would have made a much easier target.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
LOL... sure, and you're all equal in the eyes of the law, whether you're a white male millionaire with three houses, a helicopter, who belongs to the same clubs (and went to the same schools) as the bloatocracy of the state's machinery, or an unemployed black man living in poverty in an inner-city. Suuuurrrreeee... and the easter bunny comes and leaves you chocolate eggs. Give me a break!
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be interested to know how giving away a product that costs money to make for free, deliberately, in order to "cut off their air supply" (I think that was the phrase MS execs used, right?) is not anti-competitive. Please enlighten me.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
MS deliberately added a feature to an OS that their customers wanted. Many people use Internet Explorer more then the windows file explorer. It's just like punishing MS for "giving away Dialup Networking" for free because then there was no need to buy Trumpet Winsock (see Win3.x). It also made sense to use DHTML and ActiveX for simple GUI's for apps like MS-HELP plus easier 3rd party Windows development. It make a ton of sense on the technical side, it gave the customers what it wanted, and it pissed off Netscape because all of the suddon the browser became a commoddity just like "file managers" or "shells" did in the days of DOS when Win2.x came out.
Finally, you missed my entire point. Regardless of my arguments, I've simply proved that the issue is complex, and is not as cut-and-dry as anti-MS fanatics seem to make it. Any intellectually objective person should be able to look at an issue and say, "Ok, I dissagree with you, but I see how some of the points are arguable and worth discussing further". This being said, even if they've been found guilty, if the issue is as complex as I make it out to be, then the "resolution" is just as complex. The punishment for pre-meditated murder is a lot more harsh then someone who accidentally killed someone (an analogy NOT a comparison, people here tend to confuse the two). If MS intended to extend the OS just as they have in many other ways, and since a web browser is now a commodity, it's hard to prove that MS was being completely evil (all corporations are "evil" to an extent) in trying to crush the competition in an anti-competitive manner. If they were ignorant of the fact that adding an obvious feature to Windows was illigal (I sure was), then the rememdy should reflect this.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
What, you mean like Linux, Mozilla, ...?
These things all cost to make, whether in terms of the time and resources of the developers, or the investments made by companies like Red Hat. However, they are all given away for free under the GPL or something similar. Many of those behind them would love to see MS' commercial equivalents (Windows, IE, ...) lose market share to the free alternatives.
Is the whole Linux community guilty of anti-competitive behaviour?
I don't like some of the MS behaviour in recent years any more than you do, but you can't just make black-and-white arguments like that. If you could, we wouldn't need all the legal hassle going on just now -- as opposed to just not needing most of it, which you can't help thinking is actually the case... ;-)
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
But at some point the court has to make a decision. Microsoft was convicted more than a year ago and has run out of appeals. If you don't like the verdict, oh well, but the judge needs to go forward. What you and I say doesn't affect the verdict.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
Granted, doing this would be a punishment for MS, but the purpose is not a punative system but rather a corrective system. This is a civil, not criminal case.
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
It's not as simple as people sitting around and having a high-level conversation on the merits of one point or another.
Communication in the western legal system is very 1-way. Each party has a very specific period to say very specific things. The other party may offer limited response during this period. The legal system is crafted to make it extremely difficult to get your point across in a matter that 'pleases the court' unless you're a lawyer.
Once this system is in place, it is up to the lawyers how long the case goes on for. Now how long do they want it to go on for? As long as friggin possible!
In this case in particular, I also assume that there is some serious 'incentive' for the court to find in Micro$oft's favour. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome had already been decided and everyone's just 'going through the motions' now. After all, the justice department did switch sides...
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
It is because the MSFT corporate lawyers are paid huge money to come up with hundreds of silly ideas why the case should be dismissed and the judge has to refute every one of them. You said yourself that this will eventually annoy the shareholders and I agree. Refuting many ideas takes many words.
I hope that in this case and in the hundreds of upcoming private suits resulting from Hon. T. P. Jackson's "Finding of Fact," it will be MSFT's own lawyers that suck them dry. The irony will be rich like tarte au sucre* the day when MSFT gets brought down by the fees from their own legal cousel.
* this literally means "sugar pie" which is an extremely sweet traditional French-Canadian treat [betterbaking.com].
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
secondly, have you used KDE, mozilla, open office lately? these products are currently shaking up the M$ camp. if all M$ developers, engineers, etc. were sent on leave for one year (keep a core nimbda resolution team around), they would be playing catch-up for the next few years (possibly some of those workers would contribute to the os projects as well).
Re:Is there a simple solution? (Score:2)
I mean that is the point of being punished for breaking the law isn't it? If a criminal was convicted of a crime and was facing jail time would many too many people object to that because it would be an inconvenience?
Yippee! (Score:1, Insightful)
Screw suing MS, how about actually DOING something about it? Instead of suing them for 'monopoly practices', which will be next-to-impossible to prove in court, why not just STOP BUYING THEIR SOFTWARE.
Stupid yuppie government decision-making.
Re:Yippee! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:2)
The Gov is a big enough purchaser of computers, that this could be feasable - why not build their own? Set up a factory somewhere, and build custom government computers, assembly-line style. Only include hardware and software that's needed, and save money all over the place. Most computer dealers include crap the Gov doesn't need, so it'd work well, probably.
Re:Yippee! (Score:2)
Re:Yippee! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which Microsoft Anti-trust trial have you been watching? Microsoft has already been found guilty of abusive monopoly prcatices, and the case didn't even deal with their most damaging practices; their OEM agreements. In fact, their appeal has nothing to do with overturning that verdict, that appeal was rejected. This one is about trying to reduce the punishment.
I agree about not buying their software, though.
Re:Yippee! (Score:2)
The interesting part... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a powerful statement from a judge and should be taken by Microsoft as a warning. It seems that the last thing they should be doing is demonstrating to the Court a complete and utter disregard for truth and for the law.
That's the kind of thing that makes a judge mad and judges are bad people to have mad at you.
Re:The interesting part... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The interesting part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The interesting part... (Score:2)
And therein lies the problem. Spankings hurt for what, a half hour at most?
Re:The interesting part... (Score:2)
Nonsense. They'll be making that claim no matter what.
Re:The interesting part... (Score:2)
Of course the whining will happen, but if it'd been Jackson assiging punishment, we'd never hear the end of it.
Re:maybe not the strategy but... (Score:2)
Microsoft committed a no-no that can often be gotten away with in lower courts in lower profile cases with less competent judges.
Case law is a tricky thing, and any lawyer will try to use it to best advantage or to explain it away. No question.
There is however a line you must be careful to avoid crossing. When you say a holding says samething that it does not, you can be seen by the judge as saying that you don't think the judge knows the law or will bother reading the cases.
Good judges don't like that. Worse, judges will scrutinize your submissions all the more carefully when you have established that you are not trustworthy. In this case its even worse. Microsoft has high-priced lawyers. The judge will presume any attempts to mislead the court are the product of malice, not of incompetence (a presumption that most lower courts cannot safely make).
attorney: they're slow learners . . . (Score:2)
Predicting judges' rullings from comments is difficult, but the language used here is as telling as we're likely to get.
The first rule of litigation is, "Don't piss off the judge." Microsoft violated this repeatedly in the original tri8al, and then drew a lucky break when the judge that they had utterly alienated (hey, judges get upset by perjury and frauds upon the court; guess which single group was *most* upset with Clinton?) ran off his big mouth and generally acted like the wrong end of a horse.
From the language she used, it looks like they're well on their way to alienating another.
hawk, esq.
while I'm at it (Score:2)
They tossed out *everything* that Jackson did following his opening of his over-sized mouth to the press, on the grounds that he'd undermined credibilty of the system. THe court *explicitly* noted that they had not ruled out a breakup or any other remedy.
hawk, esq.
Re:while I'm at it (Score:2)
The court, in light of Jackson's stupidity, had no choice but to send the remedy back for review and clarification.
What generally gets lost is that the actual verdict was upheld by a unanimous court. That's unanimous as in don't count on the Supreme Court to grant certiori, and this from an appellate court generally regarded as both conservative and sympathetic to big business.
Re:while I'm at it (Score:2)
For that matter, Jackson was generally regarded as conservative and sympathetic to big business. MS alienated him.
One qualification, though: while the findings of fact were upheld unanimously, the appellate court did find more evidence needed for a couple of the conclusions of law--so that portion of the case got dropped.
hawk, esq
Re:while I'm at it (Score:2)
You're right, of course.
Bottom line thinking on my part.
;0)
Truth and Law (Score:2)
The american justice and legal system is a wonderfully complex chess game. You find the cleverest way to use the law to avoid having to tell the truth, and you win.
Microsoft understand this very well.
Re:Truth and Law (Score:2)
I'm beginning to wonder. Of late, it doesn't seem that their chess game is working very well.
They got lucky when Jackson got stupid, but they still have a verdict standing against them. Worse, that verdict's been upheld unanimously and is about as likely to ever be overturned as I am to grow feathers.
Now, in the remedy hearing, at at time when they really could make up some serious ground -- who cares if you lose the case but get off with a hand slap -- they are blowing it again by showing utter disdain for the judge.
There were fortunate that the new Justice Department is sympathetic and unwilling to press for appropriate sanctions. The judge, however, is not part of the Justice Department and is not part of the current administration at all. They still have time to screw the pooch.
And, of course, we haven't even mentioned all the civil actions that are lying around out there.
Microsoft's grounds for dismissal (Score:5, Funny)
Please note, this is a joke.
Now go back to your daily lives.
You know (Score:1)
1. Modular windows for OEM's
2. Retail windows which forces you to use MS products
This setup would mean, basically.. if you want a "nice" version of windows, you have to get it from OEM's
End Result? Microsoft is 50% happy (but who really cares except their investors), OEM's are happy, developers of replacement software (real player, netscape, etc) are happy
Sections of Interest (Score:3, Insightful)
and later on...
A final footnote noting Justice's objections was the only reference sympathetic to Microsoft in the 35-page opinion.
Is it possible she is starting to show what she thinks about the case? Up until now, at least from what I have read, she has remained very unbiased.
-Pete
Re:Sections of Interest (Score:1)
As for the second line, I'm thinking that is simply the press' view on things, and I hope a reading of the actual statement can confirm or deny this. Counting the times the judge seemed sympathetic to Microsoft without making the same judgement call as to the number or times the judge was sympathetic to "the other guys" is just bad reporting.
Re:Sections of Interest (Score:3, Funny)
You naughty, nasty, subversive, sneaky little insinuator, you. ;-)
I catch a ill-defined whiff of a nebulous hint of an unclear suggestion of a vague implication that having thoughts is bias.
When? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft that is, not the trial.
Re:When? (Score:4, Funny)
> Microsoft that is, not the trial.
A reliable source (Slashdot) whispers: 'when The Hurd is done'.
go Mike Hatch (Score:1)
does anyone even care any more? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:does anyone even care any more? (Score:3, Funny)
But think about it.. this case is taking longer than it took to build Mozilla. If that's not saying something...
Re:does anyone even care any more? (Score:2)
IBM managed to tie its antitrust case up in court for 13 years. Finally during the Regan administration Baxter dropped the case due to "lack of merit".
Microsoft just needs to keep stringing it out. File endless appeal after endless appeal on whatever grounds they can find.
Of course, by that time, the next paradigm shift may have come along, just as microcomputers largely made mainframes irrelevant to most people. (Of course, Apple's John Scully said it best in Boston MacWorld 1987: The mainframe isn't irrelevant, it's a perfectly good perhiperal [for obtaining data from].) So even if MS can keep this in court for many years, the world will go on.
Re:does anyone even care any more? (Score:5, Informative)
IBM has it's points good and bad, however the DOJ case (brought by the Johnson administration) was severely flawed (in ways that the MS case is not at least imho).
Among other things the prosecutors made their case on the basis of the market for mainframes. In presenting their case they eliminated the sales of Digital (then the #2 manufacturerer of computing equipment). Then they *included* the sales of IBM's competition in plug-compatible into IBM's 'market share'.
This is how they came up with the '80%' supposed market share figure that was widely published and believed. There were numerous other stupidities in this case.
MS has not, and while they managed to effectively sidestep a weakly worded consent decree after the '95 case, that very disrespect for the law is a big part of why the opposition is playing hardball this time around.
First time the rumor was that Gates threatened the Clinton administration that he'd take MS offshore. As has been said in posts above this one, you can only thumb your nose at the judge for so long before she decides to flex her muscles.
MS has begun to clean up it's act and behave in ways that are required of a monopoly. If they are found guilty and then go back and try to do the same cr*p yet again I daresay they will be facing a truly PO'd judicial system.
Re:does anyone even care any more? (Score:2)
What do you mean, if? They already have been found guilty - everything that's going on now is to determine how they should be punished.
All of the arguing is over what they can and cannot be forced to do, both legally and technologically (eg is it technologically possible to force them to offer a "modular" version of Windows, etc)
Cheers,
Tim
The trouble with apathy... (Score:2)
Yippee! Go states! (Score:1)
Yahoo!:
"Microsoft quotes selectively from a number of cases with the effect of mischaracterizing their holdings," U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in response to the settlement argument. "The court finds this tactic unpersuasive."
I said "wow!" out loud when I read that. That is fantastic, perhaps we have a judge that isn't going to lay down to all of MS's bullshit this time. Great!
Before her ruling, the judge asked the Justice Department for its opinion. Department lawyers -- as well as representatives of 25 other states that backed up the nine attorneys general -- agreed that the states should be able to bring their case.
Well well, perhaps a few more states can hop on.. If that's possible.
That Other Site:
Each side gave Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly plenty to chew on as she prepares for final oral arguments,
And I was hoping for anal,
The judgement. "You're condemned to the x86." (Score:4, Funny)
Any M$ app/OS on anything BUT an x86 box and Gates and Dancing Monkey Boy kiss their assets good bye and rot in jail for as long as the app/OS is available on anything but the x86.
Steve Jobs will just have to learn to like OpenOffice or StarOffice.
With .NET, this case might not worry MS much more. (Score:4, Insightful)
This may not be the case for much longer. With the advent of Linux, operating systems have been somewhat commoditized. With
Believe it or not, in 5 years, you could see Mac/Linux people buying, and running natively, stuff like Office and Visual Basic.NET, thanks to Microsoft embracing the concept of the virtual machine.
I think Microsoft is going to bank on the success of its virtual machine (.NET) and this whole new platform-independant architecture. Even if Microsoft was forced out of the OS game.. it's not a disaster for them. They still have the critical mass of users to sell software to (Office, etc), and a critical mass of developers used to developing for their platforms.
In essence,
BTW, there's a discussion about this. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:BTW, there's a discussion about this. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the OS is commoditized, they still have to make their money elsewhere.
*wavy lines*
Office? No problem! Don't buy that expensive Dell workstation - buy the cheapo thin client for your drones, and a big old server running WinXX and use
Oh yeah, now we got you where we want you on per seat licensing, and even though you just realized it, what you gonna do? Eat the cost of those 400 thin clients? Or pay us our per-seat fee?
Good boy, sign here.
*/end wavy lines*
Re:BTW, there's a discussion about this. (Score:2)
That's true, but it solves the core issue of the anti-trust case -- Microsoft muscling OEMs that had no other reasonable choice but to ship Windows.
Microsoft might have dodged the bullet on the breakup plan, but that only buys them time to use pre-installation to get everyone hooked on
Furthermore, it's a hellava lot easier to switch word processors than it is to switch OSes. There's historical precedence of that actually happening (WordPerfect once had 80%+ marketshare).
Re:With .NET, this case might not worry MS much mo (Score:2)
sed s/.NET/JAVA/ | sed s/Microsoft/Sun/
I don't think so Tim...
Java != .NET (Score:3, Interesting)
sed s/.NET/JAVA/ | sed s/Microsoft/Sun/
I don't think so Tim...
Microsoft has many advantages now over Sun in 1994.
For a start, Microsoft has an extremely large user base who are going to end up using
.NET is already being ported to other platforms. Ximian are working on something for GNU/Linux, and MS even released their own source code [microsoft.com] demonstrating a FreeBSD
Java was on lots of platforms, but it was VERY limited in what it could do on each one.
Java limited people to one language, a language that many coders didn't like.
Either way,
I might not love Microsoft, but I have to hand it to them.. they're speculating, and I think it's the right one.
Re:Java != .NET (Score:5, Interesting)
Like? From what I can tell,
".NET is just a VM/platform, whereas 'Java' was both the JVM *and* a language."
Well,
"You couldn't load up your old C software, and get it working in Java."
Woah! Could that have been a feature!
"with VB.NET, VC.NET etc.. this is a possibility."
Yes, because the goal of
"People have already created FORTH and COBOL compilers for
Will wonders never cease! Perhaps you want to take a look at a list of the many languages that run on the Java VM [tu-berlin.de] (the page says "160 systems"...I'm not sure what that means, but there are a whole bunch). All this, long before
"but it has several very important things going for it, and Java had none of them."
Come on, be fair, you are really pulling this out of your ass.
Actually I'd have to say I like, and am impressed by the
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
If you are wondering what I'm talking about, the easiest example is to try and compile jdk13 from the ports in FreeBSD, you can't w/o agreeing to about 500 agreements and giving them plenty of marketoid info. That along was enough to make me recomend against using java in favor of a VC app on a NT server for our most recent project (And I'm an 'Open Source Weenie'). Java just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and they left one in MS's also when they tried to talk licenses.
If the java specs were published, and the source was Free (Free as in speach, not free as in downloadable), Java would be alot better off than it is today, by shutting out MS they screwed themselfs, by bundling themselfs in legalese they turn everyone who has to deal with that junk off.
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
And you think you will have better success with
"That along was enough to make me recomend against using java in favor of a VC app on a NT server for our most recent project (And I'm an 'Open Source Weenie')."
I thought we were talking FreeBSD. So not being able to build a proprietary VM on FreeBSD makes you choose an even more proprietary solution on an even more proprietary OS...?
"If the java specs were published"
They ARE published: Language Spec [sun.com] VM Spec [sun.com]
"and the source was Free (Free as in speach, not free as in downloadable)"
Again, how is
"by shutting out MS they screwed themselfs"
Dude, MS shut *THEM* out, once they saw Java as a threat.
To their credit Sun has done a great job with Java...they still maintain control (and with a competitor like MS and
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
Java apps just don't look as good and don't work as well as regular apps. Java apps have a reputation for being rather unstable.
OTOH, many Java apps have weird customized UIs, or use awful Motif style interfaces. Thta's not what we want, we want people using native interface libraries, and
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
Granted. But even
"Java apps just don't look as good and don't work as well as regular apps."
"many Java apps have weird customized UIs, or use awful Motif style interfaces. Thta's not what we want, we want people using native interface libraries, and
Again, true. Then again, let's just see how "nice"
That said, it is true that Java isn't as good on the client as it is on the server. Take a wild guess as to why that is...
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
Which language would that be, then? Would it be BASIC [mbay.net], or COBOL [legacyj.com] or ADA [gnat.com] or Python [jython.org] or FORTH [willware.net] or PASCAL [qut.edu.au] or C [uq.edu.au] or PERL [ebb.org] or FORTRAN [utk.edu] or LISP [umb.edu] or Scheme [sourceforge.net] or Smalltalk [smalltalkjvm.com] or one of these [tu-berlin.de]?
In fact, surprise, surprise, there are over 200 different programming languages you can use to write Java VM programs in.
CLR != .NET (Score:2)
FUD. Of the roughly 1200 classes in Dotnet today, less than 200 are part of the ECMA standards (CLR, C Sharp). Most of the Dotnet functionality is contained in APIs such as Windows Forms and ADO.NET and these are not standardized, and are covered by a number of patents. Ximian may be attempting to clone them but any use of these components will entail risk. This is not the case with the Java (J2SE, J2EE) platform, which is well established on Linux and other OSes.
Re:Java != .NET (Score:2)
Did this happen last night, because I just woke up?
Which, IMO, is not so bad. (Score:2)
This doesn't mean that open applications aren't great- what I mean by this is that we do not suffer nearly as much from closed applications as we do from closed infrastructure systems and closed file formats.
.Net has infrastructure elements, but those are remarkably well documented, and the need to standardize will keep major elements of
A
Re:With .NET, this case might not worry MS much mo (Score:2)
I understand the point you're trying to make, but... I can already buy Office for Mac.
Yeah, right. (Score:2, Troll)
Sure thing Rilpley. Can you give me one reason people tie their work up in bloated, secret, propriatory formats that change once a year so that your previous work must be redone? Oh, that's right, people used Word because that's what the friendly M$ agent gave them in business school, then later it was the only comercial package that you could buy from a large retailer like Dell. So now with so many free alternatives available, you think people are going to continue to flog themsleves with M$ crap?
M$ is going to have to legislate themselves out of their current predicament. Their usual anti-competitive marketing policies will simply destroy their old friends. FUD is failing them as more people free themselves, and dumping is NOT something they can continue forever. Without some kind of horrid digital rights denial laws, the coomiditization of OS is the death of M$ and friends. If the feds want money from M$ they had better fine them or regulate them like tobaco. Otherwise M$ will slip away like glass bottle makers.
Re:With .NET, this case might not worry MS much mo (Score:2)
Funny, people were saying the same thing about Java five years ago.
The only
Do you honestly think Microsoft is going to maintain OS X or Linux/x86 versions of their VM with the same enthusiasm as their Windows VM's?
Re:With .NET, What About Competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has totally opened up the specs to
But it doesn't matter if the users aren't running Microsoft's VM. Unlike in the old days, Microsoft is not going to get rich by selling its platform anymore. It's going to stay rich by providing the best
Let's jump ahead 3 years. Let's say that Linux and MacOS X have a perfect compatible
Look it in terms of the browser war. Microsoft gave away the browser, but locked developers into its solution with proprietary coding styles. Many pages only appear correctly in IE nowadays! The same will happen with
Re:With .NET, What About Competition? (Score:2)
Re:With .NET, What About Competition? (Score:2)
Two things:
Firstly, Microsoft has submitted a few of the .NET specs to ECMA. However, ECMA is a standards organistion that, unlike say the IETF or W3C, allows patented "standards". This means that Microsoft can, and almost certainly do, have patents on key parts of the .NET infrastructure. And that means that they can stop anybody they like from building a .NET implementation, if they so wish.
Secondly, I'd say Windows Forms is one of THE most important parts of the whole framework. Why did Java fail on the client side? Well, the general lameness of the MS virtual machine didn't help, but largely it was because the AWT sucked hard, and Swing was just as bad, except slower. The Java GUIs were always bad, basically. Also, if you look at the Windows Forms disassembled code, you'll see that really it's just a big wrapper around GDI+ - do you honestly think that MS will say "Whoa, we'd better not add feature X to WinForms because Linux/Mac doesn't support it". I mean really, is that likely?
But it doesn't matter if the users aren't running Microsoft's VM. Unlike in the old days, Microsoft is not going to get rich by selling its platform anymore. It's going to stay rich by providing the best .NET solution.
Providing the best .NET solution is easy when you own .NET
Let's jump ahead 3 years. Let's say that Linux and MacOS X have a perfect compatible .NET framework on them. This means people can go out and buy Microsoft Office 2005, and it'll run on their PC, Mac, or Linux box. What has Microsoft lost here? Nothing really, infact, they're likely to gain market share.
3 years? That's optimistic. Wine has been in development for 10 years or more, and they still haven't got a complete implementation of the windows APIs! I think it's pretty likely that Microsoft, with it's huge teams of developers, can outpace any Linux development team at .NET compatability. Maybe there will be .NET for the Mac, in fact I expect there will be, but that'd be bad news for the Mac in the long term too..... I know one thing though, MS hates Linux, never forget that. I seriously doubt they'd want to see a fully working .NET on Linux.
Oh, one last thing. Microsoft seems to have an institutional hatred of rewriting stuff. They did it for Windows, because Windows 9x was such a piece of trash, and now they say they're doing it for IIS, because IIS is getting its ass kicked by Apache. They once tried to rewrite Word though, the project was called Pyramid iirc, but it got cancelled early on, and written off as a huge mistake.
If one day a .NET version of Office does appear, what will it be? A port? A transition to Managed C++? Office bear in mind is surprisingly insular, and uses a lot of its own code which is already present in Windows. A proper, fully paid up .NET version would be a huge undertaking. Then they'd have to do IE, and then they'd hit problems with VM performance and so on. I think hoping that Microsoft, after all these years, will suddenly become "enlightened" and give away a large amount of its intellectual property and try and make money selling the best products is, well, massively over-optimistic.
.NET is not a typical MS proprietary technology (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, it has been mentioned in the Parrot FAQ that Perl 6 may well be developed for
Ximian's [ximian.com] Mono project also goes a long way to demonstrate that there are plenty of people who want a
Microsoft could turn a profit with no products (Score:2)
Clever point. You can make more cash from cash, so Microsoft could, in theory, keep making a profit every year even if they had absolutely no products and just made wise investments.
There's an idea.. they can give up software, and invest their money into Linux and cream the profits off of the next generation of computing!
Re:With .NET, this case might not worry MS much mo (Score:2)
Businesses can change. Just look at the story about Sony selling songs on the Net for 99 cents a pop.
Re:With .NET, this case might not worry MS much mo (Score:2)
Anyone who actually thinks that
So Ximian's [ximian.com] Linux port is nonsense. Oh, and Microsoft's own source code for
I am, however, interested in this OCP thing you mention. What is it?
Imagine the Judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine you were really set to hit them upside the head with a nasty verdict. What would be the smartest thing in the world to do. Right... keep quiet about it. Never give a hint or whiff that you felt that way, or you'd never get your chance to apply a verdict at all. You'd know the previous judge really f*cked up when he talked about the case, so you wont make the same mistake. In fact, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to guess what you were planning on doing.
This is clearly conjecture on my part, but god it would be nice if it was true.
Remember Sporkin (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the first two came to hate MS because they could see clearly the utter contempt MS has for the justice system, or anyone else that might get in their way. MS is still at it in this new courtroom. Lies, half truths, FUD, remorselessness, arrogance, self-serving "compliance" and disrespect for the intellegence of the bench are usually not part of a winning formula in court. Eventually, MS will find a judge that does not get provoked, but simply hammers them with the law. Hopefully, this judge will be the one.
Simple solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
They should do time.
Sling them in the slammer.
Probation after 12 months.
Computer no touchee for at least 3 years.
Why is that not too hash?
- They have created software which is so faulty that it's caused losses to other people counted in the Billions of Dollars. ( The cost of time needed to clean up after all the viruses and worms. )
- They have charged hundreds and thousands of dollars for bits of plastic worth cents. That's a con job netting 40 Billion Dollars.
- They have totally abused their monopoly position, and thus seriously impeded the progress of innovation in the data processing industry.
- They are now demanding money from people on a regular basis to provide continued access to their programs. In my country that's called a protection racket.
Those are the reasons why they are nothing more than a criminal gang and should do time.Assuming that you weren't trying to be funny... (Score:2)
Who have? Gates and Ballmer? The executive VPs? Hundreds of developers? All Microsoft employees, inclusing the potwashers in the cafeteria?
They have created software which is so faulty that it's caused losses to other people counted in the Billions of Dollars. ( The cost of time needed to clean up after all the viruses and worms. )
1. Microsoft never created and released a product called MS Virus, nor MS Worm.
2. The losses that are reported due to virus attacks are 80% bullshit.
They have charged hundreds and thousands of dollars for bits of plastic worth cents. That's a con job netting 40 Billion Dollars.
IIRC the value of the raw chemicals that make up the human body is under $20. Should people be allowed to kill whatever people they want, so long as they pay twenty bucks?
Value of raw materials is not a meaningful indicator of total value.
They are now demanding money from people on a regular basis to provide continued access to their programs. In my country that's called a protection racket.
My landlady demands hundreds of dollars from me every month to provide continued access to my apartment. In my country that's called a lease.
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
So let me get this right. You're saying Honda should be held resonsible if someone steals my car and drives it into a tree, claiming that the car should be intelligent enough to avoid the tree? Bullshit. While the technology does exist to do this, it is expensive, and avoiding trees is your responsability. Similarly, if a script kiddie hacks your server, its the kiddie's fault.
A better analogy is this: you know how in some cars, when the door is locked, if you pull the inside handle the door will automatically unlock and the door will open (so the door is only really locked to the outside)? Well, suppose Chevy made a car where this was backwards; if the door is locked, anyone outside can pull the handle and open the door. Now, some person buys this car and accidentally drives through a bad neighborhood. Being prudent, they lock their doors just in case. At a stop light, some guy comes up and pulls the door handle, opening the door, and carjacks this poor Chevy buyer. This happens to thousands of Chevy buyers because every car of theirs is like this. Guess what happens to Chevy? They get sued for huge damages from all these people because their door locks are so faulty, and lose billions in settlements.
Microsoft makes systems which claim to be secure, but in reality aren't secure at all in comparison to any other OS. These security problems have been pointed out for years yet are never or very belatedly fixed. These faulty products cost customers (who are basically forced into using their products because unlike the auto market, there's no easy drop-in replacements like Toyota, Honda, BMW, VW, Ferarri, Porsche, Chrysler, Mercedes, Lotus, Panoz, etc. etc.) billions of dollars in damages, and Microsoft should pay billions in compensation to these customers.
This business has performed an illegal operation (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft has been clicking "ignore" for a while, but it looks like its no longer working. Lookes like they'll have to click "close"
There's news and there is news (Score:2)
In other words, this is just the normal grinding of the legal wheels. I am a dyed-in-the-wool MS hater (just so you know my prejudices), but when I sit back and really try to be objective about it, I'm not sure that I can think of a remedy that would be effective that would not also represent a fairly egregious exercise of state power. The best one I can think of would be a mammoth fine (and I mean mammoth). Breakup actually worked for me, but it seems clear the appeals court wasn't going for it (and I'd have had a 3-way split: OS, apps, and media holdings). Forced opening of code seems to me to be a seizure of property which, again given my limited knowledge, seems unprecedented in a case like this. Besides, John Locke would come back and haunt us...
No, I'm thinking a mammoth fine. Something that really devalues the company. Something that will make shareholders spank MS management if they behave this way ever again.
Complicated stuff...
Re:Will it ever end? Just give Bill all the $ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every piece of MS software I've used has been lightyears ahead of most other competing SW -- free or not, with the exception of Vis InterDev, Media Player, and VJ++ (ugh -- use JBuilder :-).
The REAL problem is that the reason they can develop such powerful software by paying for research/large dev teams and backing it is because they are already a juggernaut monopoly that needs to be checked. Because of that they shove it down everyones throats by patenting "intellectual property" as a reason to keep their formats closed while using things like undocumented APIs to gain tighter intergration.
I still say split MS into a SW and OS companies.
Re:.NET VM.. (Score:2)