Final Arguments in MS vs. the States 381
Bistronaut writes "Reports are in today on the final arguments between the 9 State Attorneys General and Microsoft (articles from eWeek). CNN also has a summary. Spoiler: States say, "Here are our priorities for reforming MS." - MS says, "We don't need no stinkin' remedy.""
Let's stop and reflect (Score:5, Funny)
Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us. We should think of this before we totally bash (no pun intended, well just a little) them.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, Microsoft's gaming/input/hardware development has been the shining jewel of their whole company.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2)
Hardly. That honor goes to an engineer at HP if memory serves.
No opinion on anything else, but MTM is really good, mindless fun and the Sidewinder is Second only to The Logitec Wingman (too bad the hat switch did not last worth a damn)...or if you have money to burn...a ThrustMaster (really stiff stick, but, what would you expect from a company called "ThrustMaster"?).
Perhaps they should get out of the software business and make gaming/input hardware?
(joking, BTW...tho that depends on what CKK will say in the near future).
Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything. (Score:2)
Re:Please, don't claim they've innovated anything. (Score:2)
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about what you're saying, and quit trolling for Microsoft.
Not trying to troll just pondering (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Windows do for me?
Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB. OS2, I don't know, but IBM isn't really pushing its updating now are they... Other things also fall into this pit. Alot of hardware is Windows only, while this isn't Microsoft's fault, its certainly nice to have an OS that's 'standard' on most desktops, no it's not the only OS I use, I have 3 linux boxes and 5 windows boxes around the house, all different flavors on all.
Simplcity- While Mac OS offers this as well, which I am grateful for. I know Windows well. I know linux well too. However, there are too few 'standards' around for linux setups and configs. Its hard to troubleshoot. Perhaps thats just me, but it still needs maturing for standard setups, etc...
There are a few other ways that Windows helps me, but I am outta time....
Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do. Anyway, there goes my Karma...
Re:Not trying to troll just pondering (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do.
Indirectly, they did. By not allowing OEM's to preload BeOS on their computers (That's an anti-trust violation!) they have not only prevented me from getting a quality OS from a quality OEM, but now I can't get BeOS at all! The same thing with Netscape. I can't get Netscape preloaded from an OEM because Microsoft is able to punish OEM's who want to sell me what I want. (Another anti-trust violation) For goodness sakes, they are supposed to be system integrator's. If I want Netscape 7 and Realplayer 8 on 40 PC's I purchase, I shouldn't have to pay someone else to install them. I should be able to get them preloaded from Dell. I can't though, and the reason is that Microsoft went around to OEM's and told them to not preload Netscape, or else. And we all know what, "Or else" means.
Consider your feeling for Clear Channel. They have an increasing more powerful ability to control record companies. Suppose they told a record company to not sign up a certain group, or they'd not play any of the record companies music? Now all of a suddenly that band finds itself forced to sign with a small record company. Sure, you could probably buy the CD mail-order or something, but the music isn't heard on mainstream radio, sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets, and for the most part unknown. But it hasn't stopped you from listening to the copy you were able to purchase.
See, it's the same thing with Microsoft. Sure, you can still use Opera. But because Microsoft is willing to break anti-trust law, you can't get Opera on your new Dell PC.
Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB.
This is one of the strangest pieces of logic I've ever seen. And I really wish that people would get some common sense and I'd never hear it again. Okay, maybe companies write drivers for Windows because it's the most popular. But that doesn't mean that drivers couldn't be written for other OS's. It just means that the companies don't want to write the drivers for other OS's. If Windows didn't exist today, companies would be writing drivers for at least one other OS. And that's a fact.
-BrentRebut (Score:4, Insightful)
As for 3rd party apps, you can expect an unchecked monopoly to stop you from using them in subtle ways. I'm not saying that everything they have done is bad for us, I'm saying that a person who says "there is nothing wrong here" is ignoring the facts. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is smarter than you or I, and he studied this issue for a very long time and heard the best arguements money could buy, and he came to the conclusion that there is something very wrong here, and that it is bad for you and I, and that drastic measures are warranted.
Re:Rebut (Score:2)
Not only that, but the appeals court, with a very conservative reputation, upheld most of the findings of Judge Jackson. The only important thing they overturned was the remedy, but mostly because of insufficient hearings into possible remedies. This doesn't preclude the present judge from recommending the same remedy, although this appears to be unlikely.
Judge Jackson already screwed us before it began (Score:2)
As is documented at the end of today's article here [theregister.co.uk].
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, when I got into computers back in 1991 I started with DOS and only began the love affair when I discovered OS/2.
Where would we be without MS? Imagine a best of breed OS that evolved from the best aspects of OS/2, BeOS and Linux, all three of which would have had mainstream support and decent marketshares years ago if the OEMs weren't scared shiteless of retaliation from MS.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:5, Insightful)
Running Netscape on OS/2 Warp? Running Mosaic on MacOS? Despite what they'd like you to believe, Microsoft has not contributed anything particularly vital to the ease of use of computers. The basic concepts can all be found elsewhere(and earlier). Windows at Xerox PARC and on MacOS. The mouse was invented well before Microsoft was founded. DOS was certainly nothing special, and Win95 didn't offer anything OS/2 wasn't doing well before. I fail to see any big favors they've done us.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, until I completely swore off developing on Microsoft I was rebooting several times a week ("Mouse movement detected. Reboot now?"), having to reinstall several times a year, spending days scouring bbs, usenet, msdn to see if anyone else had seen my particular microsoft problem before. Always wondering when Microsoft would break existing implementations in their attempts to force upgrade. I still have to help out relatives who think they've broken their system when Microsoft changes an Office format, I still spend much time deleting Outlook worm mail, I've had to spend time telling clueless managers what all that nimda traffic was in the (Netscape) webserver logs.
So all in all, without Microsoft I'd probably have a couple months of my life back, lower stress levels, and a healthier liver.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2)
Thats the nice thing about Linux. Everyone has problems. You join any linux irc channel, and six people will give you four different URLs each telling you how to fix your problem, after reading only the first half of your question. (:
*note: I use linux. I like it. At least the problems are consistant and fixable.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3, Interesting)
* This is not based on recent, more mature Linux desktops. About 18 months ago at my last Job I had a Win2K box, a Linux box, and a laptop that dual booted Win2K/Linux. The Linux boxes where setup by our in house "Linux Guru" with a fancy CS degree, OSS dogma, and lack of showering all intact. Both Linux boxes - as a desktop - were booted at least once a week if not more. My Win2K box, which ran MSSQL server, IIS, Cold Fusion, ActiveState Perl, etc. ran incredible circles around the Linux boxes when it came to stability. I don't know how things are now (I gave up on Linux for the desktop, I'll take OS X for my Desktop Unix please), but at one time there's no doubt in my mind that Win2k was a significantly better desktop OS then Linux was. Needless to say, our Linux admin was cool, and I gave him a cool button that said something like, "It said I needed to upgrade Windows, so I installed Linux!" He liked that, and maybe he'll read this post and defend his boxes
I think you are trolling. (Score:2)
Firstly, a MAC is STILL easier to use and more straightforward than windows. So there goes that argument.
Microsoft has NEVER made computers easier to use. Yes, they have become somewhat easier for joe average to use.
And I sure didnt' get my start on DOS or Win3.1.
And as for those that found their 'love of computers' on dos and win3.1, they would have also found it on any other computing system they used at the time.
Re:I think you are trolling. (Score:2)
Video Toaster was the latest and greatest!!!!!
of course now I'm all grown up and of course I use a 'grown up' OS, OSX, a mature(FreeBSD) and elegant (Quartz/Aqua/Cocoa) operating system.
Microsoft happens to make a piece of software my employers bought for me that I use maybe 2 times per month to open a file that 1 out of 2 times could have been made in notepad/textedit. The other time is with a Powerpoint doc which is a 'just fine' implementation of presentation software.
I only follow this M$ stuff cause of the drama and the humor of watching such an ego-inflated corporation squirm.
p.s. Try YellowDog Linux on a G4 and you will swear off of X86 for the rest of your life. Yes the performance is that freakin' good (linux has and always will run better on the PPC architecture, why do you think that 9 out of ten embedded chips running linux are PPCs). In other words, you get what you pay for.
To quote Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The availability of all this cheap but effective hardware was an unintended consequence of decisions that had been made more than a decade earlier by IBM and Microsoft. When Windows came out, and brought the GUI to a much larger market, the hardware regime changed: the cost of color video cards and high-resolution monitors began to drop, and is dropping still. This free-for-all approach to hardware meant that Windows was unavoidably clunky compared to MacOS. But the GUI brought computing to such a vast audience that volume went way up and prices collapsed. Meanwhile Apple, which so badly wanted a clean, integrated OS with video neatly integrated into processing hardware, had fallen far behind in market share, at least partly because their beautiful hardware cost so much.
But the price that we Mac owners had to pay for superior aesthetics and engineering was not merely a financial one. There was a cultural price too, stemming from the fact that we couldn't open up the hood and mess around with it. Doug Barnes was right. Apple, in spite of its reputation as the machine of choice of scruffy, creative hacker types, had actually created a machine that discouraged hacking, while Microsoft, viewed as a technological laggard and copycat, had created a vast, disorderly parts bazaar--a primordial soup that eventually self-assembled into Linux."
Re:To quote Neal Stephenson... (Score:2)
MS received the most benefit from this situation (i.e. huge income and an eventual monopoly), but was not the cause of it.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:5, Insightful)
An honorable sentiment, BUT...
...seeing as Microsoft stole their user interface from the Apple Macintosh (which stole it from Xerox PARC's "Altos" system),
...and seeing that Mac had long filenames and REAL plug-and-play (with its pure SCSI architecture) years before MS had a clue that these might be good things,
...and seeing that the loss of Mac's market share to PCs was really due to price and NOT capability or ease of use (in 3 words: cheap PC clones),
...what exactly do you think we owe to Microsoft? Not one innovation in computing or user interfaces has come from Redmond. NOT ONE. And software? Their best products were purchased, not developed by them (Visio, PowerPoint, FrontPage, MSIE nee Spyglass Mosaic, etc., etc...). Even C# is just a Java ripoff.
Let's leave Linux out of the picture for a minute. Sit down with a Mac (if you haven't already). Every good thing MS has given you, they got from Apple or other software vendors. Except the Internet, which was old when I was a pup... and the Web, which came from Tim Berners-Lee and a little NeXT box called info.cern.ch. :-)
Apple stole nothing from Xerox! (Score:2)
1. The Altos was much less developed than the Mac, and only served as an inspiration for some of the UI features, perhaps 20% of them.
2. Apple actually paid Xerox quite a hefty sum of money to get to come over and look at their system.
OTOH, M$ did in fact steal and copy large parts of the MacOS wholesale.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3, Interesting)
Word was a pale shadow of WordPerfect for many, many years. I will admit that Word took a huge leap in quality (and bloat) with Word for Windows 6, but all prior versions were markedly inferior to WordPerfect. WordPerfect faltered through a couple of very poor ports of their application to Windows from DOS. That was the same time Word for Windows 2 and then Word for Windows 6 (what happened to 3, 4, and 5? They were skipped to give Word a higher version number than WordPerfect!).
I cannot think of a single thing, not one single thing Microsoft has done that wasn't done first by somebody else. But guess what? None of that matters. First to market can help you win in business, but it doesn't guarantee a win in business. Nope. Microsoft wouldn't be here at all if that was all it took.
Microsoft did two things extremely well. Both of them were marketing. They got their predatory, exclusionary OEM deals, guaranteeing them a piece of every single PC made, and they leveraged that money flow into hiring some damned good people. Microfsoft products took a huge leap forward around 1993-4. That was the same time they killed their first real competitor: DR-DOS. Remember that? A truly superior DOS. They rushed out DOS 5 and DOS 6, jam packed with the same add-ons and bells DR-DOS had innovated. Did MS write them? Nope. They bought out other companies that made these products and gave 'em away with the OS. A monopoly on the distribution channel, bundling, and price-dumping. Sound familiar?
They have crushed every real innovator, even trivial ones. Remember AfterDark? That last truly original app? Just a screen saver, sure, but MS put that in the OS. AfterDark dead. DR-DOS dead. Netscape, dead. Dead, dead, dead. I'd have no problem with this if the whole thing were on a level playing field, but their total control of the OEM channel gave them total market control. There was (and is) no possibility of competition!
Linux is giving them a run, but it is a run on a space they were just entering: The server market. Linux still cannot compete, even at a price of "free," because of the control of the OEM channel!
I agree with the states. Open the APIs and protect the OEMs from retaliation. If you won't break them up (which I thought was a perfectly sound idea), then you must do this.
The sad thing is, the DoJ did this. They broke MS's control of the MS-DOS channel. They said they couldn't have those ageements with DOS. Do you know whay Windows 95 booted directly to Windows? Because MS-DOS was gone? Hell, no. MS-DOS was still there and still directly provided parts of the application API. It booted directly to Windows solely so Microsoft could say DOS doesn't exist and they could put their punitive OEM agreements right back in place without violating the letter of the consent decree.
It is these dishonest, deceptive, and, yes, I think evil behaviors that earn the unending hatred many techies have for Microsoft.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not because i am some kind of rabid mac fanatic. It is just because there has never been a point that any Microsoft OS looks compelling.
When i need server work done, or webpages or CGI or whatever hosted, i use a variety of Unices (linux for my main server box, my college's Solaris box). I have been quite satisfied with the performance of all of them.
I can quite honestly say Microsoft has never, ever done anything for me.
The only Microsoft product i've ever owned was MSIE/OE; and i honestly believe that if it hadn't been for MS flooding the market with free IE to destroy Netscape's revenue, it would have been possible for a competitor to Netscape to appear, one i doubt would have been any worse than MSIE. So, OK, they gave me a stable, standards-compliant web browser, but they also destroyed the web browser market, preventing anyone else from creating a stable, standards-compliant web browser. So i'm going to say that those two things cancel each other out.
I want to stress this hasn't just been "i won't use it if it's microsoft". Every time microsoft has released a product, i have looked at it, evaluated it, and simply come to the conclusion it is an inferior product compared to the competition.
My sole experience with Microsoft's existence has been a steady train since 1991 or so of finding really cool new products and technologies, using these cool new products, and watching Microsoft destroy the corporations responsible for those products.
So, what has Microsoft done for me? Well, i have a long list of really neat products that i think would have developed into something cool, but because of Microsoft's aggressive business practice, they were put out of business, and their ideas were developed no further. With the exception of Microsoft Office (sometimes), and MSIE (again, doesn't count, because Netscape is crap undeserving of a comparison and MS blocked any third parties out of the market), I have never, ever seen Microsoft put out a product superior to its competitors; the one exception, Office, was superior as such because 1), Microsoft knew that word processors were such a fierce field that they could only get by if it were on merit, and 2), they had ungodly amounts of resources from their more-dubiously-attained markets, and they threw all of them into making Office. Now that Office has successfully wiped all of its competitors, I seriously doubt it will improve any further. I also notice it seems to be about $200 more expensive than it as when Wordperfect was a viable alternative.
I have seen MS steamroll over products that had the potential to be superior to all else, and be useful to me, if MS hadn't steamrolled them. Also, becuase Microsoft created a singular entity that turned the OS market into a single huge block, no one seems to care about making cross platform games, meaning I don't get many games these days. I mostly play old NES stuff.
So, i'm reflecting. Everything that Microsoft has done for me ("to" me?) has come down to corrupting all software markets, making the software industry a horrible mess in which all other companies either squabble over MS's leftovers in specialty markets & die horribly at the drop of a hat or are existing "off the grid" (as it were) in the Open Source Fairy-Land. They have locked up ALL the resources in the industry into one huge industry, and absolutely destroyed choice; i have no serious options for my desktop machine except mac os x. (Linux's desktop abilities are incomplete, and Windows is just overall a joke. Where is Be? Where is Amiga? Where is OpenDoc? Where is the cool NaviOS from LAIN? Where is the evolution of basic computing assumptions?) And the funniest thing is, with all its absolutely rediculous resources and market presence and locked-in, NDA'd programmers and contracts and mindshare, Microsoft still can't and never has fricking created a better product than the underfunded, starving minority producers they stomp out, in any field except the very most recent versions of Office and MSIE, and they're even beginning to lose the advantage in THOSE areas!
Wow. That's quite a lot Microsoft has done. Now tell me why i should think of the ending of this trial in any terms except for "the remedies must be as drastic as possible in order to save the software industry"?
I live without Microsoft. I've also, incidentally, at school and jobs, used Microsoft products enough to know what living with Microsoft would be like.
I can quite simply and honestly say that if you had to live without Microsoft, too, you would be absolutely no worse off.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2)
Although I agree that MS Office is a good product it is no better than WordPerfect Suite, which had the dominance before MS took over. The only product in the suite that was slightly better than WP Suite was Excel. MS did some of the same things to WP Suite that it did to Netscape, it used its monopolistic power in the OS market to force OEM's to only ship MS Office. Frankly WP Suite 2000 was as good in every way, if not better IMHO, than MS Office 2000. I haven't had the chance to compair Suite 2002 to Office XP but considering the improvements made on office suites have stangenated I have a feeling that there is very little diffence.
No one yelled when WP Suite was beaten up because it was no companies main product when it happened... Novel, Corel...
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, my memory's been wrong before, but i seem to quite clearly remember, when i started using netscape, that
- It was NOT free, it was free for educational use and $30-50 shareware for everyone else
- Netscape's sole competitor was NSCA Mosaic, which was free anyway.
I also quite clearly remember that shortly before Netscape went under for the last time, their CEO was bitterly complaining to Time magazine "A year ago [before MSIE and NS's subsequent switch to 'oh, okay, netscape is free now too'] 60-70% of our revenue came from Navigator. Now none of it does."The problem was mainly one of this: because of Microsoft's business prowess in other markets, Microsoft was free to do things that didn't make sense; they were able to take losses; in short, they were able to put out a free product with a quality level and budget far beyond what a free product could possibly have supported.
At the time the MSIE project started, there was a demand for a web browser of the quality level of IE 4. If it had not been for MSIE being dumped free on the market, someone certainly would have begun a similar project-- perhaps they would have even started with the same Spyglass/Mosaic codebase MS bought to begin the project!-- and charged enough money that an MSIE4-quality-level level product could have been funded with it. If someone had indeed charged this for a web browser of MSIE4-quality while Netscape was churning out the same old crap, people would have bought it. A free product, however, could not have afforded to reach this level of engineering and quality, at least not by going the Open Source route-- and the Open Source route would require overcoming an absolutely painful level of inertia, becuase that's how Open Source works. (Look at how long it took Mozilla to make a "finished" product, and they had AOL funding programmers for this Free product most of that time!)
Microsoft's sole purpose in creating IE was that they saw that this demand existed-- people would pay cash money for a quality web browser-- and they sought to cut the legs out from under this demand, thus preventing a potential future competitor (who might, like, you know, support java and stuff, eww) from having a chance to arise. So they threw away money into creating a good enough web browser and giving it away free.
Any company with intentions other than microsoft's desire to crush potential competitors (only Microsoft would interpret "anyone who can create a new market of some sort" as "potential threat"!) would never in a million years have funded a project as large as MSIE without expecting some kind of payback.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:3)
Wow, this really shows your age (or mine) because I remember starting off with a Sinclair and finding a love of computing in Apple IIs running prodos, Osbornes running CP/M, Commodore 64s running GEOS, and Acorns running RISCOS. I would say my love of computing is still intact *despite* suffering 4 long years (1992 my amiga dies - 1995 I discover Linux) under the Microsoft yoke.
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2)
> copy file1 file2
"Copy file? Copy file??? I'm the prince of $#@!ing darkness, I'm not copying your bloody file! You're all @#%$ing mad! SHARON!!"
Re:Let's stop and reflect (Score:2)
Apple had the software edge for quite some time, but their hardware was so expensive that no one cared. The real breakthrough in the PC revolution wasn't DOS, Windows, or any sort of office suite. The real revolution was the open IBM PC specifications that allowed hundreds of manufacturers to turn PC hardware into a commodity (read low priced) product.
The low-priced commodity hardware is the reason that Apple remained a niche market. It wouldn't have mattered what OS ran on the PC (in fact, DOS was about the worst excuse for an OS you could have hoped for). If Microsoft wouldn't have been there someone else would have.
Competitor's Integration... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Competitor's Integration... (Score:2)
I've got Dell Windows (Opera and RealPlayer)
Oh...I've got Gateway Windows (Netscape and Quicktime)
I've got Compaq/HP Windows (Opera and Quicktime)
I still don't see where a technical solution is needed, just a contractual solution.
Here's ZDNet's Article (Score:2, Informative)
What about penalties? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about penalties? (Score:2)
Under some circumstances, the fines can go even higher.
This is very open ended, IMNAL but one could possibly interpret this as inflation has outdated the cap of $10 million and MS needes a $10 billion fine due to the damage it has done to the entire technology sector.
Immovable object and ? force... (Score:2, Insightful)
---snip---
For their part, the non-settling states said additional disclosure of the source code that would allow rival software to work with the Windows operating system was their most important demand. "If you forced us to articulate the single highest priority -- that's it," states' attorney Steve Kuney told the judge.
---snip---
As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.
---snip---
Hello? Essentially, Microsoft says it's top priority is NOT doing what the states feel is the topmost remedy to the entire situation.
Again, DOJ and MS lock horns head on and it will come down to the Judge.
Dear god let us have a resolution already.
States Demand == New Ad Campaign! (Score:2)
Hilarious.
I just noticed, that one part of the non-settling states' demand, boiled down into a small phrase...
if I were to change it just slightly, toThere's a subtle distinction going on that says a lot.
Microsofts attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial. Take your lumps and move on.
Re:Microsofts attitude (Score:5, Funny)
Attitude, hell... I'm getting tired of the fact that the DOJ has been humoring it. In what other court case can you think of where, after the conviction (upheld on appeal) the judge basically says...
"Gee, guys... given that you're guilty and all, umm, you know... would it be okay, if, like, you maybe met with the injured parties and agreed on a sentence that was a little, you know, inconvenient for you? If that's ok with you, of course..."
Re:Microsofts attitude (Score:2)
Change in administrations tends to do that. The Bush administration favoring big companies, surprise surprise.
Re:Microsofts attitude (Score:2)
Think of it: Microsoft acts like they're in a position to negotiate. And if there's something we've learned by now, it's that they may be crooks, but they're definitely not stupid.
Actually, I think Dave Winer wrote something about it (can't find the link though -- sorry!). Maybe there's indeed something MSFT can negotiate: government access to people's data. Remember that thing about the FBI wanting to spread viral spyware? I'm sorry, but that just didn't make sense -- why would they spread malware at random and hope to infect the right terrorists^Wpersons? Either they're clueless... or it's a cover-up story. I certainly hope they're clueless.
Gosh. I dearly hope I'm being paranoid here. Not that I use Microsoft software, of course... But still, that such a thing could happen scares the bejeesus out of me. Please tell me I'm wrong!
Re:Microsofts attitude (Score:2)
Micro$oft logic (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft also previously has argued that the states' demands go far beyond addressing the antitrust violations it actually committed and would harm consumers and the entire computer industry.
So, disclosing source would benefit all of Micro$oft's competitors, but harm the entire computer industry??? How can that be, unless Micro$oft considers themselves to be "the entire computer industry"??? What economic textbook teaches them that reining in a monopoly harms consumers?
You've got to give a lot of credit to the M$ lawyers for actually making these claims in court while keeping a straight face, but I suspect the judge is not amused by these insults to our intelligence.
various possible penalties. (Score:2, Interesting)
Since they should not have any benefit from any illegal act they have done, and since they were convicted of something, they should probably "dis-intergrate" the connection with the internet, and take anything primarily connected to the internet such as browsers, and MSN, and web server stuff, etc, and spin it all off as a separate company.
things which are not primarily an internet thing (the OS thing, Office, etc) should be retained as another company.
And the two compamnies should not be able to do any business with each other for 5 or 6 years, basically the length of time they have had the benefit of their illegal actions.
nothing much, just my rant.
[evil cackle] (Score:2)
A somewhat mediaeval punishment, but can we send them there now instead of waiting for nature to take its course?
Re:[evil cackle] (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer the Ivanova option,
The People versus Bill Gates (Score:4, Funny)
Basically, I've rewriten Bill's uninteresting personal life to be just like Larry Flynt's. Sorry, to be just like the personal life Larry was given in the movie. In Bill's case, we can gloss over the child pornography because it didn't happen.
If someone had asked you before The People vs. Larry Flynt "can Courtney Love act?" you would say "No," but she did. Therefore, Britney Spears will play Mrs. Gates. She will play a heroine addict - she will win an Oscar. If Britney Spears gets an Oscar, it must be God's will. He works in mysterious ways.
Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt, is the hero of the picture. Only one man can make such a part work: Samuel L Jackson. Seth Green ("Scott Evil") spins well among teens - he'll cameo as Ashcroft. We've seen recently that only one man has the radiant malifluousness to play Judge Thomas Penfied Jackson: Christopher Lee. He'll really bring home the senseless brutality of the breakup order. Kevin Costner will produce and direct - he'll also play a fictionalised Gestalt of all of Bill's lawyers. Kevin is the only one who can make this star-bloated, ishtaresque monster expensive enough to actually sink a studio. Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.
At the end of the picture, we roll Bill on in a wheelchair and he dedicates the picture to that mousy wife of his. Oh, yeah, she needs to die.
The only question is - how can we convince Bill Gates to go before the court of appeals wearing a diaper?
no no no, it's more like this... (Score:2, Insightful)
BillG + lawyers: Well, I'm rubber and you're glue, your thousands of reasons bounce off of me and stick to you!
States: Uh, uh, uh, wait, that doesn't mean anything! I read in some law book that you actually have to refute our reasons and stuff!
BillG + lawyers: Too late! We already said it! And look, here's our press release declaring that you smell your own farts! Nyah-nyah!
States: Rats! We'd better focus our remaining arguments on declaring that we're not fart-smellers!
Ballmer: Hey! I don't smell my own farts! (dances like a sweaty monkey)
----------
Seriously, does anyone expect anything genuinely more informative than that from their arguments? the DOJ let MS dictate many of the terms of the debate, and wasted too much effort fighting MS on their own semantic turf, focusing insanely on the conceptually murky(-able) browser issues rather than looking at the "smoking gun" issues (such as OEM licensing and dual-booting, DR-DOS "incompatibility", even Apple and MS-Office). The states haven't done much of anything to expand on the DOJs well-supported, but poorly-executed arguments.
Not that MS has come up with any non-philosphical arguments themselves - most of their objections are based on the idea that the law shouldn't apply in their "special case", which is based on "software is different/MS is too economically vital to mess with/Gates is a lovey-sweetums and everyone should just love him back".
For crying out loud, the debates about post-modernism I attended in art school never achieved the bull-headed, pseudo-articulate, self-important levels of idiocy that this trial has.
And now I've added to it..
Blech.
Re:no no no, it's more like this... (Score:2)
Art students, unlike lawyers, at least care about the positive or negative aesthetics of what they are debating. They are just (generally) overeducated to the point that they actually think that 'subliminal counterinfluence of the overriding metaphor of substance' means something. Lawyers, on the other hand, are carefully trained to know exactly how to say something which sounds like it means something, while actually having no semantic content.
Special treatment? (Score:2, Interesting)
So if some normal schmoe is convicted of a crime, does this person get to have remedies changed so it's more "acceptable"?
Re:Special treatment? (Score:4, Interesting)
-if the judge asked me 'Will you obey the restraining order?' I would likely have sense enough to protest that of course I would, your Honor.
-if the Judge asked me 'What parts of this restraining order are fair and reasonable?', I would likely erupt in wild diatribes about how it's all totally unfair and unreasonable... which would be the truth as I saw it... and would be a far more revealing answer to the first question than you'd get from asking me the first question directly.
Microsoft, in their closing argument, have made it absolutely clear that they will not cooperate with the eventual ruling in any way, and will continue to devote all their resources to evading it and denying it. I think the Judge asked them about it on purpose, to see how they'd react. Now we know. And now she knows.
Microsoft's complaint (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, imagine that. Being convicted of a crime and then actually being punished. What a crazy world we live in, huh?
Cheap humor aside, can anyone explain (and IANAL, so I'm asking honestly here) why a company that lost an antitrust suit gets to make arguments about what the punishment should be? If a private citizen is successfully sued, does s/he get to go through another round of hearings arguing that s/he shouldn't be penalized?
Frood
Re:Microsoft's complaint (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Microsoft was not sued.
2) In a criminal case, yes.
Re:Microsoft's complaint (Score:2)
I feel like many others that it should be a punitive case, since they knew the lines and they crossed them, but I've been informed that that apparently is not the way we do things.
No, that is the way we do things, but in a different context. The government's role in anti-trust cases is not to punish for past offenses, but to ensure that everyone plays fairly going into the future. And, of course, a monopoly has to play by more restrictive rules than a regular business to avoid being anti-competitive.
But harm *was* done by MS' anti-competitive behavior, and recompense/punishment is in order. Who should get it? Under our system, the companies who were damaged by it.
All of the individual companies that can demonstrate their businesses were significantly damaged by MS' anti-competitive tactics can now file suit (and several already have) and ask the court to award compensatory and, I have been told, even punitive damages. Now that the Feds have done their part and gotten the courts to rule that Microsoft is and was a monopoly, the way is clear for everyone else to attack.
Want job security? Get a law degree and join Microsoft's legal staff.
Re:Microsoft's complaint (Score:2)
The real punishment will come in the form of judgements in other trials in which the damaged parties (like Netscape) sue Microsoft for damages.
Jusr NAIL "EM to the X86 platform (Score:2)
Verification?
ANY M$ product appear for ANY other platform and Gates and Balmer sleep in the Big House and they better NOT DROP THE SOAP. (Jobs will just have to push OpenOffice for OS X.)
Total cost of verification and enforcement $0.00
That's IT. That's ALL.
we can only hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
The commercial software establishment is largely like these now non-existant railroad franchises. People have discovered that it's just software, and they are happier to enjoy a level of compatibility accross a variety of systems.
Of course, once the railroad industries agreed on standards it became possible for mass production of standards-based railway hardware. This eliminated much of the guesswork, tracks were wide enough to support trains of various sizes and shapes. Without these standards, the golden age of travel would have been unachievable.
Software needs to adopt standards, and the open source community has been vital to that process.
Given Microsoft's track record in this area, I think the best outcome now is for the judge to force MS to abide by standards for all present and future networking protocols. If a networked feature of MS software does not employ a documented RFC, W3C recommendation, etc. it must be fixed.
And there should be a federal committee responsible for reviewing and enforcing this. It is not acceptable that standards can be implemented along with a proprietary MS protocol (eg: MS Exchange).
Ultimately, all commercial software should be made to follow these rules, only the open source community will be allowed to innovate networking protocols. Most of the significant protocols came from open source / public domain anyway, let's mandate that tradition and stop companies like Microsoft from meddling with a good thing.
Re:we can only hope... (Score:2)
I don't know what punishment I would prescribe (probably open the APIs), but I think 100% standard compliance isn't it. If we were to act along those lines, maybe part of the action could be that MS could not extend any standards.
The judge has been favoring MS... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is pretty clear that the states are only representing Sun ('Make MS use Java'), Novell ('Make Windows work with NDS'), Red Hat ('Make MS give us the Office source code'), et al, and don't give one whit about the public interest. The judge has picked up on this and kept telling the states to stop bringing up 'new' transgression and tell her how the states' changes serve the public interest. The states continued to ignore her at their own peril.
Can't wait for the final decision.
Re:The judge has been favoring MS... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief? (Score:2, Informative)
I do provide a link there. And, I can thank The Register for digging it up.
Re:Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief? (Score:2)
"It is our recommendation that the court cast a wide net, looking for rules or actions that will increase competition today by lowering entry barriers."
You have a lot of good information on your site. I wish I had known about it earlier.
Kollar-Kotelly amused (Score:2, Interesting)
During closing arguments, Microsoft lawyer John Warden refused to give any ground.
"We have been through this. We negotiated. We went as far as we can go," Mr Warden said. "That's the deal."
The judge, who had asked both sides to find middle ground, smiled slightly through Mr Warden's statements.
Interesting, the first indicator of personal attitude from KK that I've heard of (You can draw conclusions whichever way you want). I remember an earlier /. post saying that if you wanted to slam MS with a killer verdict, you'd shut up and keep the appearance of impartiality until the end. I'd like to think that's what she's doing :) Just as long as she keeps it subtle and don't do a Jackson.
I know if I were in her position and hearing that from Warden, I'd be blowing raspberries.
I think the solution should be.... (Score:5, Interesting)
OEMs may ship computers with any other OS, or with no OS at all. If people truly want Windows, they are welcome to purchase and install it separately, and Microsoft can include anything they want in it, so there's no restriction on "innovation". They would not have to stick to standards, dislose APIs, include Java, whatever. Consumers would just be forced to make the conscious choice to buy and use it.
For existing installations of Windows, Microsoft would be prohibited from selling upgrades to anyone other than consumers who bought retail - OEM installations would require a new retail purchase.
Clue for the Lawers (Score:2)
[Microsoft attorney John] Warden also took exception to Sullivan's portrayal of Microsoft as some kind of scofflaw. "We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind," he said.
I don't know what planet this fellow just landed from, but Microsoft's behavior speaks far louder than any of their press releases. Statements like this only make me more certain that Microsoft as a company revolves around the legal and marketing divisions, not product development-- since it seems that instead of trying to develop quality software, they push crap out the door (caring nothing for quality or whether patents stand in the way), and just let "the suits"- marketdroids and crack legal teams- sort it out, hypnotizing everyone into buying Windows/Office/WhatHaveYou and then suing into oblivion (or buying out) the meager competition. Furhtermore, it seems the backup plan is dumping product (ala Internet Explorer or Media Player) via the $30b float. In fact, given the above statement and the history of Microsoft Corp., I can now see the rationale behind the vicious statments against GPL'd software they keep publishing: they're jealous. Here are crack programmers worldwide, giving away a quality product, and doing it in a way that Microsoft can't ride on their coattails.
Of course, I must only wonder if any of that jealousy is directed toward the quality aspect or just solely at the widely touted "viral" aspect of GPL software. Wait a minute, what am I saying? Microsoft couldn't define "quality" with a dictionary. Their copy of Meriam/Webster also seems to be missing "scofflaw"....
Re:Clue for the Lawers (Score:2)
"We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind, but we're just going to ignore it like we always do."
Latin América Perception (Score:4, Informative)
Here, people is convinced that the DOJ is hurting USA's economy by fighting MS. They are convinced that MS is the "good guys" of the movie.
When I try to explain that MS is really an unethical monopoly, no-one understands.... whats worst, is that there is people that doesn't wants to understand the facts.... "No, No, Microsoft is the messiah".
It is sad to live in a third world country. Big companies like Microsoft can convince everyone of their lies.
I have seen all kind of people beleiving MS's lies, in person. High school students, college students, government people in the highest positions (like our president), PhDs (not in computer science, of course).
What could I do to make people open their eyes and see the truth???
Show them the letter from Peru... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/villanueva
Re:Latin América Perception (Score:2)
Perhaps my perspective is a bit skewed because I live in Washington state, but I've only come across a handful of people who feel that MS should be punished as strongly as I do. The prevailing attitude is, "Awww, who cares about Microsoft, as long as Word still works?" They don't want to be bothered to learn the details of the case.
Re:Latin América Perception (Score:2)
Where lies the real fault? (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's a brave (or stupid) businessman who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity when it comes along -- and in the case of a listed company, management has a responsibility to stockholders to ensure that they get the maximum return on their investment.
If this means taking full advantage of the capitalist environment and using all of ones abilities to gain a dominant position within a competitive marketplace then so be it.
Gates & co have only done what thousands of other companies would love to have done. We hate M$ but we don't hate the others. The only difference is that Bill got lucky or was better at exploiting the opportunities that came along.
And ultimately -- you've got to apportion some of the blame to stupid consumers. If people are prepared to pay the prices that MS charges for the products they sell then if they find themselves in the merciless grip of a monopolistic tyrant then who do they really have to blame?
Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "You must buy Windows or we'll kill you" do they?
No -- over the past 20 years or so, people have chosen to buy Billy-Boy's products because they thought they were getting a good deal (even if perhaps they weren't).
Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them -- but many have simply dropped the ball.
Anyone remember Digital Research? They once owned the OS marketplace with CP/M and had a good slice of the languages marketplace with CBASIC and Pascal/MT+ Both of these products were superior to Bill's pathetic Basic80 and MS Pascal equivalents.
Then Gary Kildall dropped the ball and MS took over the OS marketplace.
And what about Borland? After the demise of Digital Research, they owned the most popular structured programming language in the world -- Turbo Pascal. Now, even though Delphi retains a band of loyal followers, Microsoft has effectively eclipsed Borland as the main vendor of PC-based computer languages (Java not withstanding).
Then there was Ashton Tate and their dBase products. They owned the PC-based database marketplace -- and then they dropped the ball, allowing MS products such as Access and MS-SQL to take up the slack.
Or what about Visicalc? When the IBM PC launched, Visicalc was the number-one spreadsheet. Look who owns that market now -- who dropped the ball?
Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.
Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.
If we chose to all flock like lemmings to the abys that is Microsoft then we get what we deserve.
However, there's now some light at the end of the tunnel. OSS such as Linux and its growing number of applications gives us the chance to break free of this self-induced addiction to MS products.
But once again, nobody can force consumers to go the OSS way -- it's a choice they have to be make for themselves. Unfortunately, the consumer has already proven that they're none too bright when it comes to choosing the best long-term option eh?
So, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to blame others for our own stupidity and short-sightedness.
usual bs (Score:2)
You should read the findings of fact of jackson's opinion, and tell us why what judge jackson discovered microsoft to have done is ok.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
So you're saying that BeOS had the same options and opportunities available? They could have gone to the hardware companies and said "Look, if you give any indication that you're putting Windows on the same system, we're going to charge you double for the BeOS license" and not get laughed out of the office?
You're suggesting that Netscape had the opportunity to use the revenue from their massive monopoly on OEM OS sales to back them giving away their browser until it crushed the competition?
Possibly you're suggesting that Word Perfect or Lotus had the opportunity to leverage their intimate knowledge of propietary Windows APIs to make their software run as fast as any competitor, or that they could modify the underlying OS to cause problems with Microsoft Word or Excel?
Now, can you argue that other companies dropped the ball? Sure, some did. But don't be so quick to assume stupidity on the part of a public that was robbed of any choice from a company leveraging it's monopoly in one area (the OS) to eliminate competition in other areas.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:3)
So Sun and Apple and SGI and Linux and BSD etc. all had the opportunity to supply the operating system for IBM's PC? Do remember that microsoft didn't get to where it is by some sort of tactical genius on the part of bill gates, it got where it is largely by luck. Microsoft was chosen to supply the operating system on what wasn't planned to be a huge product. However, when compaq reverse engineered the PC and started making them cheaply, the market for them exploded handing microsoft the dominant position as the OS distributor.
Microsoft's boat was carried by the rising waters of the PC hardware industry - rising waters that they were in no way responsible for.
Now, granted, it was possible for microsoft to lose its tremendous windfall, and to their credit (as tactitions) they didn't. They managed to kill their competition for PC operating systems (of course, the only competition that I can think of was OS/2 which came late in the game (and unmarketed) and something called NeoGeo (or something of that kind), which was also later on). But had microsoft not had this tremendous advantage, had their company not been hugely bolstered by events far beyond their control, they would have found their dominance much harder to win.
Another advantage little commented on is the boom that the internet has provided for them. They were again in a good position when the internet gave a huge number of people a reason (email + the web) to own a computer. So again with a giant boom in computer purchases stimulated by this new reason to own a computer, microsoft again had its boat brought up by rising waters.
And as the saying goes, there's nothing so conducive to success as huge gobs of money. But give microsoft time. They may yet drop the ball that they've been handed. There are some interesting rumors of what will happen when they become a mature company whose stock does not rise in value (abnormally) and thus they are unable to print money in the form of stock options. But that isn't relevant to the current discussion.
You said that everyone had the same opportunities. They did not. That doesn't make microsoft any better or worse than other companies, but it also means that they are not comparable. Microsoft has been immensely successful and they have immensely abused their success. That is what's really important. We need to undue the damage that they've done and unshakle computing from the bonds that microsoft put on it in an attempt to keep it from running away.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you real? The only thing resembling logic in your post is the paragraph about Gary Kildall. But hey, even that can be argued. After all, the guy had a passion for life and flying. Had that fateful day been overcast, we would be in a very different world today.
Everything else you say is a contradiction to your assumptions. Yes, Microsoft did bully their way in every one of those examples.
Borland? Go ask Phil what he thinks about this. After getting hammered over and over by not having access to the same information Microsoft had for its own development tools. After being chronically late and behind Microsoft new operating systems because most of the stuff had to be reversed engineered (while Microsoft's own tools came ahead of these releases).
Visicalc? Lotus 123 came up with something for the 8086 faster (Visicalc was CP/M only for quite a while). That turned Lotus into a winner overnight. Overtime, Microsoft turned its dreadful Multiplan into Excel, forced it down the throat of every OEM and robbed the market share (as opposed to "winning" it). Not to mention it did everything it could to make Lotus 123 not to work with Microsoft products.
I can go on and on about this. Heck! I lived though all this and I am very intimate with all these scenarios as I was directly involved with many of them.
I get you point and it could be a valid one had you chosen very different examples. As is, it feels more like a paid Microsoft drone trolling around to create confusion.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:2)
Word processing? It used to be Micropro's WordStar, then Word Perfect -- now it's... you guessed it, Microsoft Word.
Did Microsoft bully all these other products out of the marketplace or force consumers to buy its versions instead? No, they simply turned out a better product at an acceptable price that was promoted with superior marketing.
Okay, so WordPerfect Suite had over 70% of the market at one point or another. What happened next, MS Office 95 became competative and Novell fscked up by not releasing an NT version at all. But there are other issues that one should look at, MS Office 95 was not necessarily a better office suite nor was it "superior marketing" or Novell's screw up that drove the nail into the coffin. There were several other things that did it:
Using a monopoly to force OEM's to ship not ship certain products is abuse of monopoly. Purposefully breaking compatability with other products to enforce the use of your own is illegal when it is your monopoly that allows you to do that. It is one thing to offer a choice while at the same time have a superior product, it is another to forcefully stifle choice with superior resources to favor your product. It is a fine line between agressive and preditory and MS is WAY on the side on preditory.
As I said before this is but one example. People have already given examples using BeOS, but there is also the issue of Eudora, CC Mail, Notes, etc... Also, Borland sued MS because of preditory hiring practices. MS was targeting key Borland programmers with obsene amounts of money to leave Borland even when the programmers were not needed (not all were unused but some were removed for the sole purpose of making sure Borland didn't have them). This was settled out of court. And although no one puts a gun to your head telling you to buy a computer not everyone wants to build their computer from parts and until recently it was hard/impossible to buy a PC without Windows pre-installed because OEM's feared retaliation.
Sure we shouldn't be quick to set the blame to when others are short sighted but one looks at this case it is as obvious as a neon beer sign in the window of a bar that MS blatently abused its power. MS shouldn't be punished for others mistakes it should be punished for its illegal actions, to which there are numerous.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is at least one comment that explains why in every
Microsoft is NOT ON TRIAL for being a monopoly.
There is NOTHING WRONG with being a monopoly under US law.
Microsoft were ABUSING their monopoly, which there ARE laws against.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:2)
Yes. Microsoft did this (Albeit in a financial way) to a local company wanting to change from MS to Novell / Linux. The company (Now bankrupt) felt that MS didn't live up to their demands and wanted out of a contract binding the to upgrades and MS-only networking. MS says; Of course you can get out of the contract, just pay up the agreed upon fee. This fee was of course a mandatory part of the contract, non-negoitable and large enough to keep the struggeling company from affording anything else after getting out of the MS deal.
The ball was kicked out of their hands (Score:2)
M$ OfficeSuite being bundled in with the OS murdered the competition in their beds.
If Tony Soprano wanted you to sell his brand of cigars and ONLY his brand of cigars at your store, you would quickly have HIS brand and ONLY his brand of cigars at your store. Furthermore HE doesn't pay and he tell you how much you're going to sell his cigars for.
M$ did not sell to consumers, they twisted the arms of OEMs, blatantly and illegally (there's NO dispute about that. Its already been proved in a prior case,) to get their OS forced onto the machines.
Don't make excuses for M$.
They need to get LOCKED onto the X86 architecture under pain of imprisonment for Gates & Balmer.
And then we let history resume its proper course.
Re:Where lies the real fault? (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Microsoft (as many will testify) but before we all make a huge noise about how Billy Boy and his sidekicks ought to be hung, drawn and quartered
I think you don't understand the anti-trust process.
First, the current trial, Ashcroft v. Microsoft, isn't about punishing Microsoft for what they've done at all. The purpose is to:
There is no punishment of MS to be found here, just steps to ensure that anti-competitive behavior is quashed now.
Of course every company behaves in the same ways that MS has. Or should, if they want to be aggressive competitors in the marketplace. The difference is that once you become a monopoly the rules change and you have to be more careful about how you compete, because you have disproportionate power to affect the competition.
Separately, the companies that can prove they were unfairly damaged by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior will sue (some are suing already) for damages. They'll rely on decisions 1 and 2 from the current trial but will still have to prove that it was Microsoft's anti-competitive actions that damaged them and determine how much damage was done. In those trials, Microsoft's lawyers will pick apart every bad business decision made by those companies and try to show that it was their own failings, not Microsoft's actions that caused them to lose in the marketplace.
Had Microsoft abided carefully by the terms of the 94 consent decree, and had they generally taken note of the fact that they were now a monopoly and had to be more careful, none of this would have been necessary. Essentially, the investigation and the consent decree were Microsoft's warnings that "for you, the rules have now changed", but Microsoft chose not to heed those warnings. Since MS won't voluntarily reign in its excesses, the courts are trying to figure out how to reign them in going forward.
"Reconstructs Microsoft's Business" - normal (Score:5, Informative)
When AT&T lost an antitrust case, the whole phone system had to be rearchitected. That was a massive technical effort of enormous complexity. Supporting multiple long distance carriers was a huge job. But, by court order, it was done.
The sanctions proposed for Microsoft are mild by comparison. A comparable remedy for Microsoft would be to force Microsoft to separate into an applications business unit and an OS business unit, with a requirement for published APIs.
Since all the antitrust lawyers and the judge know the history of antitrust law, they know all this, and Microsoft is just grandstanding.
I cain't wait... (Score:2)
"I ama truuly sorry yo'onor, but I cain't take me no time in no jail cell for robbin them there store. Iffin I did, then just how do you reckon that I rob me some more stores in the future?"
"I see your point, sir. Based on th eMicrosoft Precident, I find that, while guilty, you simply cannot be given any penalty as that would hamper your ability to commit further crimes. Case dismissed!"
Breaking delay tactics? (Score:2)
Years pass, and Microsoft is left to self-regulate while the trial passes by. We all know how controlled and ethical the Redmond juggernaut is..
On the bright side, their products have admittedly improved quite a bit during the trial, if you look away from the security.
AAAAAHHH!! (Score:2)
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Now youve ruined the whole trial for me, I thought MS was going to pull one of its trademark change of hearts and say please, please break us up. Thanks a lot.
My solution (and the states?) (Score:2)
Re:finally (Score:2)
Uh, no, the judge still has to make a decision. And then it may be appealed. Sorry.
Re:finally (Score:2, Funny)
Appeal? @#$%. I'm not sure I can handle this. Screw the CompSci major, does anyone know where I can get information on becoming a witch doctor to some tribe in Brazil thats never even heard of computers?
Re:finally (Score:2, Insightful)
It's never over (Score:2)
M$ is more doomed by Wal Mart's promotion of Linux. It will eat M$'s revenue stream and leave them breaking their apps to dominate an OS that no one wants any more. The end is indeed near. Go Mandrake!
Re:It's never over (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's never over (Score:2, Insightful)
In America we love our freedom but give it all away to Bill
Guess file compatibility's worth more to us than our free will
"Kick" - Irrational Exuberance
Re:Disclosing Source (Score:2)
Re:Something really wrong here (Score:3, Insightful)
Never underestimate the twistiness of a lawyer- and judges are uber-lawyers.
I'd have done the same thing. It's way more effective than asking them, "Are you going to obey the outcome of this proceeding, or laugh at it and scorn it?" You don't ask them directly, 'are you going to obey the law'. You ask, 'how much of this is reasonable and just'. If they take it as an opportunity to grandstand, you know they're gonna ignore the ruling, because they don't believe in it, or in the law.
FWIW, I burst into incredulous, delighted laughter just seeing the news.com subhead about what Microsoft had done for a reply to the question. Forget foot-shooting: they've blown off their f**king leg here. Spectacularly bad judgement. And Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a smart lady :D
Re:Something really wrong here (Score:2)
In this case, like most antitrust cases, the penalty is a complicated one as it is supposed to restore competition in the affected markets and it is not a matter of a fine or jail time. MS and the DOJ agreed on a penalty, but that does not remove the role of the judge to impose a greater penalty. That the remaining states pushed for a specific proposal just makes her job easier in that regard.
Look for MS to get a severe spanking.
Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem wasn't just giving the browser away, it was leveraging their OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly. Yes, legally, if you have a monopoly there are some things you can't do that everyone else can do.
It's never been 'a Technically Right Choice' in any sense of the word, that's just horseshit. It's been done for one reason and one reason only - to sabotage the consent decree.
They were? Huh? They still use the same tactics today.
Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus (Score:2)
The first sentence is true, and it does hint towards some substantial theoretical problems with antitrust law. Just for the record, I'm not in favour of our antitrust laws. But it's ridiculous to think that MS wasn't aware that they had a monopoly which they were leveraging to gain another one - their own emails made that fact incredibly clear. They knew what they were doing was illegal - they didn't know that they would actually be *charged* or *convicted* for it, true, but that's hardly an excuse.
It's a commonly used application. There are plenty others. None of them have any business being "integrated" into an OS for technical reasons - and even if that was not true, it's clear that the actual reasons for the integration were to force usage of IE for business reasons, not technical ones. Do you understand the difference between an OS and an application?
By your logic, should't all common applications be "integrated" with the OS? MSOffice could be a system component too. How many "consumer" computers are used without an internet connection? Maybe MSN should just be integrated into the OS too?
An OS isn't an application program. OSs which work well are designed by those who understand that fact. They provide a critical abstraction layer between applications and the hardware, enabling the users to run the applications they choose with the minimal of unecessary effort. That's ALL they do. "Integrating" applications is bad design, from a technical point of view. But very good design, of course, if you are a monopolist trying to leverage your monopoly to capture new markets...
Re:This is hilarious. (Score:2)
Re:TWO things! (Score:2)
thats their problem. If they don't want to reveal internal design (ie what the data structure look like) then they should have designed a save file protocol and stuck to that instead.