A Microsoft Corp. executive urged the company to quietly retaliate against supporters of the rival Linux operating system in an August 2000 memo that nine states still suing the software giant want admitted as evidence. In the meantime, Microsoft executives apparently attempted to steer the direction of a Web services standards body away from rival Sun Microsystems, according to evidence and testimony introduced during the software giant’s ongoing antitrust trial. “I can live with this if we have the positioning clearly in our favor. In particular, Sun not being one of the movers/announcers/founding members,” Gates is said to have written in an internal email.
Microsoft’s Plot to Block Sun, Linux Revealed
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
made up by the MS competators trying to use the court system as a means to compete illegaly with MS.
isn’t that how the MS appoligists put it…I can’t remember 🙂
Wooot!
Okay, I don’t think we can really be surpised by this now.
I hope the judge lets it in, but even then, it is a violation of evidentiary procedure, and could be appealed.
Looking forward to 5 more years of this!
windows xp is the best especially for a programmer. i just hope more and more if the kernel undocumented API is revealed.
“Gates is said to wrote in an internal email.”
look, i’m not here to bash (not the shell), but could you please correct your grammar..
wasn’t there a spell checker in OpenOffice?
spill the beans Eugene! what are you using?
Even if Gates did say this, so what? I would have said the same thing if I were him. That’s what business is all about. I fail to see the problem. Could someone explain it to a poor simple advocate of laissez-faire like myself?
Or maybe not. But lets at least split that clay footed behemoth into several companies with different lines of work, that are very resticted when it comes to cooperating with each other.
Honestly though, my favourite scenario would have been if the courts had said: “Enough is enough. Your business practices stinks! Scavengers like you have no place in our free market”, then forced them to shut down and pay the shareholders what they owe them.
Yes, I *am* very biased against microsoft, but come on… Anyone who has seen all the turns in the saga and still doesn’t think that microsoft, at least morally speaking, is the business scum of the earth, can’t see what we other do.
I could almost accept inventing new laws only to stop the bull run of microsoft.
>but could you please correct your grammar..
No. If you pay me for it, I would do the extra effort.
About my grammar. Click on my name above and read about it.
>spill the beans Eugene! what are you using?
Notepad.
First, Sun has absolutely no right to be a founding member, they have rejected web services from the beginning. And of course, the article fails to mention that IBM feels the exact same way that MS does.
And of course, Microsoft is JUST saying “No, you can’t be a founding member”, not “No, you can’t join the organization.”
WS-I has said that if Sun wants to join, they can come in as just a standard member, but certainly not a founding position.
…or did i just hear someone say “first post” and “w00t”?
oh dear.
>>spill the beans Eugene! what are you using?
>
>Notepad.
nice. i cant tempt you with TextEdit.app?
Notepad.
Hmm, may i reccomend EditPad Lite? It’s better than notepad, IMOP. It allows you to have multiple files open at once, and it will automaticly convert unix/mac textfiles to windows text files for easy view… a very nice app.
“That’s what business is all about. I fail to see the problem.”
I understand what you mean, if two businesses are competing fairly, then it isn’t out of the question that company A would want to be against the competing company B.
But what aboue company A holding 95% of the market that company B is competing for??? If MS and linux had a more equal market share, this whole thing would be no big deal, but MS has an overwelming monopoly. the rules for competition change when you are a monopoly.
>Hmm, may i reccomend EditPad Lite?
I use Luckman’s WebEdit Pro 3.04 for my web needs. I use it since 1998 (same binary as back then, as the company has bailed out since then :o).
However, when I write an article, a TODO or a recipe down, I do not need anything more powerful than Notepad. I just need something to type in and save it. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Well, it’s true that people can say what ever they want but sometimes it can get you into trouble. If for example you keep stating publicly that you want to kill someone, guess who the law enforcement people will come after if that person dies for any reason? Even if you didn’t do it!
Microsoft does a lot of illegal things. They think they are above the law and can buy their way out of anything. They also appear to be pretty sloppy internally and that’s what’s making matters worse for them in court!
ciao
yc
However, when I write an article, a TODO or a recipe down, I do not need anything more powerful than Notepad. I just need something to type in and save it. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Cool, no problem.
I think that when bill gates said that if MS was forced to do what ever it was, cant remember, with windows he would withdraw it from the market, the Judge should have said “Fine. Go ahead and do it”.
Sure, all these ms supporter would scream – “The economy, ohhh the economy”, but I think that the only segment affected would be the brain dead mcse’s (must consult someone experienced). How fast do you think IBM and Sun would move to fill the void? Exactly.
I believe is Laissez-Faire but that theory believes in an equal opportunity market where competition exists. Explain to me where you would find competition in this market? Yes Linux and Mac OS compete against Windows, but are they really competing or just there?
Capitalism was never meant to become Corporatism like it is now. Face the facts Monopolies wreck equal opportunity if Microsoft is really the best they won’t have to use dirty business tactics to maintain their position.
…the only people that will miss Micky$oft are the idiots that are too stupid to try any other OS, so i hope they crash & burn…
GO Linux #1
i can see there are a few Micky$oft lubbers here…
The rules of competition do not (or at least should not) change when you become a so-called “monopoly”. (I don’t agree that Microsoft is a monopoly.) As a business leader, my goal is to *utterly dominate* the market I’m in. Take no prisoners. Now, I am not a Microsoft apologist. I don’t give a flying phzuck about Microsoft per se. It’s laissez-faire capitalism that I care about. (Note that laissez-faire does *not* mean business at any cost. The only limitations are no *physical* force and no fraud.)
“Gates is said to wrote in an internal email.”
look, i’m not here to bash (not the shell), but could you please correct your grammar..
If you have any issues about the spelling/grammer/structer/writing style/whatever of the articles on OSNews, write a private e-mail to the author. I’m tired of you guys whining becuase Eugenia’s grammer isn’t 100% accurate! I’d like to see you speak a second language and not make any grammer or spelling errors.
Eak, it’s slashdot, first posts & grammer pricks
Face it guys there are more and more things to consider these days then when the idea of a Capitalistic economy was designed. Marketing was in it’s early stages, there were far less people. The effectiveness of Capitalism changes and so must the philosophy. I don’t tons of government internvention, I just want to see fair competition.
>>…the only people that will miss Micky$oft are the idiots that are too stupid to try any other OS, so i hope they crash & burn…
GO Linux #1
i can see there are a few Micky$oft lubbers here…<<
You are one of the best reasons why so many will never bother to switch. Comments like your make people not want to have anything to do with linux. They do not want to feel or look or anything else like they have anything to do with the likes of you. Calling what people use and are fine with stupid and calling them stupid will not never cause people to join you. I feel bad for those who do love linux, have people skills, have there head somewhere near reality and overall want to see linux do well. People like you will ruin this for them. But if you want to go your route go download and burn alot of copies of linux (you chose what distro, doesn’t matter since it’s so easy even for an idiot right) go to a street corner start calling people stupid and give them copies of linux and tell them they can be just like you and free themselves from Microsoft (note the spelling, M I C R O S O F T ) see how many takers you get.
Microsoft moles can be identified by their unwavering committment to preventing windows users from installing linux. A microsoft mole might be identified by one or more of the following activities:
1. Tells a newbie who is having a problem to shut up and RTFM
2. Claims that a user-hostile program that lacks any kind f usability is “perfectly ready for the desktop”
3. Tells said developer of program to “keep up the good work”
4. Tells people who criticize a badly designed free software UI to “quit whining” or “you get what you pay for”
5. Uses the word “Idiot”,”Simpleton” or “Moron” in the same sentance as “GUI”. An example would be the sentance “GUI’s are for morons who can’t think”.
6. Runs around screaming “Don’t standardize linux GUI’s. It’s a matter of choice–don’t promote facism.”
If you see your friend, spouse, employer, LUG members, or poster to on-line forums such as Slashdot engaging in one or more of these counter-revolutionary activities, there is a very good chance that they are agents of microsoft committed to making sure that linux will not be installed on the machines of existing windows users.
A rumour about an email, stating something. How can any of us know if this is real? Can we find out if Mr. Gates really did send that email? Do they have verified witnesses who has recieved said mail at that point in time and can prove it? You all should know how easily you can forge an email (fire up notepad, save, change date).
The reason I dislike the Microsoft case is that it’s grossly unfair against Microsoft. Instead of trying to figure out what laws they have broken, petty competitors (who has failed in the market) try to missuse a weak legal system to improve their status and businesses by acting like Nazis and calling Microsoft evil Jews that will destroy the country.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft’s software, and in no way has it anything to do with Linux. I rather see Microsoft investigated, proper action being taken (opening up the products more for instance) and this costly matter resolve. Trying to split up the OS is a horrible idea, and can only help those who wants to replace it alltogether. Bitch about Microsoft putting more emphasis on speed and reliability instead of putting in even worse 3rd party software solutions that nobody knows if they will work together with the rest of the system.
Microsoft tests a full release, and continues to test it to release patches. 3rd party products (like Adobe Photoshop) can then test against that full release. FreeBSD (and other BSDs) use the same system with a full release for the OS. This is why I love Microsoft and .NET and dislike linux. Get a sensible release plan (once or twice a year, not distro), test it properly, make sure it’s complete (non of that “We don’t suppoer this yet. 1993”), and document it properly (RTFM? I can read C/C++ just fine, it’s just that we need this done, I am not dinkering around on my spare time…).
Hmm, well, you all should be able to see why I like Microsoft here, and why I don’t want linux. I also want what is fair, software fighting software, instead of lawyers fighting lawyers.
(As a side note, notepad is a great piece of software, as it can’t do crap more than load, save, set the font and word wrap. I don’t spend much time in it, I keep text in it, and write short pieces of text in it. If I want to really edit text (C/C++ really) I fire up devstudio/emacs/whatever is there)
((Second side note. English is my second language as well. I don’t mind you correcting me, it can help my English to get better. But many feel sensitive about this subject, and feel that you would be picking on them. I hope that everyone can be nice about it, neither picking on others, nor being snappy back))
This may be off topic but,
M$ will be changing their site licensing soon. You must license every machine on your site including Macs. Even if you do not intend using the software on some machines and even if the software will not run on a machine like a Mac.
Only M$ could come up with something like that!! God bless America.
Sim
Billy Borg Gates will take care of you and be your big daddy, you just be sure to give him your first born son and your eternal soul,and don’t forget to give him all your money too (bill likes money) and maybe big daddy gates will give you a copy of Winders…
and while you are mortageing your house for that next copy of Winders, (if you even own your own home) i will have my servers, running the latest Linux that did not cost me any more money than a six pack of beer would cost in a QuickieMart…
and while you are keeping a eye on WindersUpdate for the latest patch, & updating antivirus software for the over 5,000 something virus’ trojans & worms, i have a script that checks for updates automatically and it emails me what is available…
The problem is everyone is too bloody apathetic
Not that i claim to be much different (im currently using win2k to write this)
People only start to care about an issue when it directly effects them. All the non-geeks out there that don’t really understand enough to know what MS is doing just don’t care and will continue to use whatever the hell MS throws at them because thats what they do.
This Apatheticism can be seen in many problems of todays society and in my opinion is one of the main failings of democrosy, capitalism, wars and all the other things not right in todays world.
If people were actually prepared to stand up for what the believe in, as apposed to just half heartidly jumping in when it suits them, then MS would either be a nice friendly company that no one has any major reason to complain about, or would be out of existance.
(Am i ranting?
)
As soon as I saw that headline I thought of Mr. Burns’ plot to block the sun over Springfield…
– chrish
If SUN’s stock price was worth 1000% more than Microsoft’s <ahem>, SUN would be in court right now fighting off Microsoft’s ticky-tack ‘they make a lot of money, we don’t make any money’ schpiel.
;P
It’s not about stock price, market cap or market saturation.
It is about bussiness practices. Even if M$ had twice the money they have now, BUT acted fairly in the market place without abusing their power, there would be no law suit.
….I’m sick of rehashing this…
Here’s a little information that may help. Companies that become dominant in a market are allowed to remain thus until competition catches up. If the Justice department deems that it has been dominant for too long, they perform an investigation to determine if the company is violating anti-trust laws. Monopolies exist and are allowed a semi-charmed existance, short-lived though they may be. After all, local telephone companies are controlled monopolies. How soon we forget about them. Now, bear in mind that Microsoft garnered 90% of the OS market with the release of Windows 3.0. They held this amount of the marketplace BEFORE any of the current charges arose. Nobody challenged their lead. The current case that plagues our Justice department and Microsoft was brought about by Joel Klein finally deciding that Microsoft was, and I place his exact words here, “becoming too arrogant and was making a joke out of the Justice department.” Hurt pride, anyone? Once he had the backing of 20 states and a viable case from Netscape, he went with it.
Thanks to Netscape, we have progressed through several phases, judges and years to the current point. Now I ask you this. Since the original gripe was with MS providing a free internet browser bundled with its OS and not allowing Compaq (then a leading PC manufacturer) to put Netscape on Windows, do you think that they should be forced to do that? Essentially market a thrid party middleware on their OS? Some say the bigger issue was MS’s tactic in telling Compaq that they could not install Windows on their PCs if they put Netscape on them also. Are you so sure that no other company has EVER pulled such a maneuver? Do you realize that Microsoft is a software company and they, therefore, will produce *gasp* software. So many people think we need to limit them to “break up” the company. Do you realize how many other companies have their hands in a little bit of everything? There are greater issues at hand and the fact that this case has evolved to what it is today is a joke. IE has NEVER prevented my ability to use another browser if I chose. Media Player has NEVER prevented me from using another media player. True, you cannot uninstall them to “save disk space” (as some people like to use as an excuse), but is that a huge concern? Nothing irritated me more than buying a new computer and having to delete all the ads for AOL and all the other ISPs from my OS. If I wanted those there, I would have asked for them. That’s one reason MS ceased the practice. Consumers did not like it.
When I buy MS Windows, whether it is on a new PC or to upgrade a PC I own, I expect certain things from it. First and foremost, I expect a user friendly GUI (and I have yet to be disappointed). Second, I expect IE and Media Player and MSN Messenger. Why you ask? Because MS put them there to enhance their OS and make the consumer experience better, and easier. Some may argue that MS put IE there in the first place to prevent Netscape from being the browser of choice. Maybe they did, but that certainly did not hurt consumers as it was FREE (and has been since). Remember that Netscape used to be free, but to get all the features, you had to buy Netscape Gold. Also remember that when Netscape came out, they garnered over 80% of the browser market. Why weren’t they investigated? Because their software quickly became obsolete and then they stopped supporting WWW standards. Now they have a piss poor product and blame MS for it? Give me a break. This case should have been dropped long ago. It has been dragged out for years because of rumors and supposed “bad business tactics” that are no more bad than everyone else uses. It’s just that they are brought to light to drag this on.
And I use a Linux on my web server box, so no, I’m not an MS fanboy. I’m a concerned consumer who’s pissed with the U.S. government for wasting taxpayer money.
“Since the original gripe was with MS providing a free internet browser bundled with its OS and not allowing Compaq (then a leading PC manufacturer) to put Netscape on Windows, do you think that they should be forced to do that? Essentially market a thrid party middleware on their OS?”
MS isn’t being forced to do anything in this regard. They were forcing *Compaq* to not put Netscape on COMPAQ’S OWN COMPUTERS. Once a copy of Windows is installed on a Compaq computer at the factory, Compaq owns it…copyright issues do not come into play here. Windows is *only* a piece of software on the hard drive when it’s all said and done. So is Netscape. Do not think of software being installed “in Windows” because it is not. It is installed on a hard drive owned by the computer manufacturer.
This practice is even more evident in the case of Be, Inc., where MS intimidated OEMs from selling BeOS along with Windows in a dual-boot system…again, the computer system belongs to the manufacturer, yet MS wants to tell the manufacturer that they cannot install certain software on their own computers. Funny how MS supporters don’t want the govt. telling MS that they can’t bundle certain pieces of software, yet MS has been guilty of doing it to OEMs all along.
“MS isn’t being forced to do anything in this regard.”
At the moment, no as the case is not resolved, but the original proposed settlement by the biased judge who was promptly removed from the case, was to force MS to cease those tactics. Fair enough. MS did not want to license Windows to OEMs who were going to put Netscape on the PCs as well. I can’t say I blame them. I wouldn’t want that poorly developed product in any way related to mine either. Now once an OEM has Windows licenses, the ball is in their court. Of course, there may be clauses in the license that say MS can pull your licensing for <stated reason>. The problem was with how MS licensed. The solution would be to set a technology market standard for licensing software. But instead we have a case that now seeks to “open up” Windows to competitors? This is far from what the original problem was and will not prevent other companies from pulling the licensing scams that MS is guilty of in the past. Tell me how NOT setting a law that will force ALL companies under regulation is good? Instead, they ruin MS. Another will step up if MS ever falls and they will do the same. They would miss out on alot of revenue if they didn’t. I am not denying that MS is guilty of some seriously TOUGH business dealings, but this is a tough industry. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It’s funny how America cries out for individual rights and for prevention of Big Brother taking over, but when someone gets rich in a good economy with an innovative product and astute business maneuvers, we want them put on the guillotine. Founded by revolutionaries, stuck in perpetual revolution.
The government is pandering to corporations who feed their campaign. Don’t believe me? Look at the recent developments with the California government and Oracle. I find it laughable that the CA State DA is still allowed to prosecute MS after he was found to return the $50,000 “donation” from Oracle to him since Oracle is being investigated by the CA government for “shady dealings”. I wonder who was looking the other way? It’s all about politics and who has the money and since everyone wants a piece of the MS pie, MS has no one to buyout. You might remember the saying yourselves… It’s lonely at the top. Fact of the matter is, MS exerted force. Someone didn’t like it. The only mistake MS made was appearing arrogant to a middle of the class lawyer cum Head of Anti-Trust division and hurting his pride by making his department seem like a joke. If the shoe fits…
windows xp is the best especially for a programmer. i just hope more and more if the kernel undocumented API is revealed.
Perhaps in some dope smoking haze it is. Windows XP is great for Wannabe programmers.
“MS did not want to license Windows to OEMs who were going to put Netscape on the PCs as well. I can’t say I blame them. I wouldn’t want that poorly developed product in any way related to mine either. Now once an OEM has Windows licenses, the ball is in their court.”
You nullified your argument. What MS wants or doesn’t want installed on their customers’ property is irrelevant, especially after licenses are paid for. If anything, they’re being childish and annoying for complaining in the first place.
“It’s funny how America cries out for individual rights and for prevention of Big Brother taking over, but when someone gets rich in a good economy with an innovative product and astute business maneuvers, we want them put on the guillotine. Founded by revolutionaries, stuck in perpetual revolution.”
There are thousands of sucessful companies that actually innovate, rather than copy off of others and hop on bandwagons several years down the road. However, none of those companies are having trouble with the government because they are not breaking the law. It’s one thing to compete and be aggressive, but when one starts taking deliberate measures to put others out of business, then it’s just a corporatized form of a mafia.
“Some say the bigger issue was MS’s tactic in telling Compaq that they could not install Windows on their PCs if they put Netscape on them also. Are you so sure that no other company has EVER pulled such a maneuver? ”
The difference is, Microsoft is a MONOPOLY. If a company with a small market share did this, it wouldn’t matter. The fact that Microsoft controls the vast majority of the PC OS market gives them the power to make or break competing software makers, competition and inovation in general.
“Tell me how NOT setting a law that will force ALL companies under regulation is good? Instead, they ruin MS”
Yet again, Microsoft is a MONOPOLY. The rules are different for a monopoly. Soukyan, You don’t seem to realise what is going on here.
I suppose strong arming OEMs and rivals into submission with shady deals with the direct and planned intent of squashing competing products are “astute business maneuvers”, and a ripped off OS from IBM with more bugs added than real improvements that can bog down the fastest new computer an “innovative product”. One must wonder if either you haven’t been paying attention the last few years are merely there is some other agenda involved in those statements.
“It’s one thing to compete and be aggressive, but when one starts taking deliberate measures to put others out of business, then it’s just a corporatized form of a mafia. ”
Well said, rude turnip.
“The difference is, Microsoft is a MONOPOLY.”
Look up monopoly and you will find that they are NOT one and never were. The are guilty of what the government likes to term “monopolistic practices”. But they were never a monopoly in any denotation of the word.
And, Rude Turnip, you make some very valid and correct points. It’s good to see there are some other people who know what’s happening in the case and trying to see past all the bullshit that it is becoming. I certainly hope this turns out for the better.
MS was determined to be a monopoly. A monopoly in and of itself is no big deal; if that’s how the market lets things turn out then that’s ok. As long as there is a free market, then anyone can compete with the monopoly on a level playing ground. Look at Cisco…they rule the router market by playing the rules of the game, making a good product. The field is so open that Dell is now trying to compete against Cisco with their own brand of routers.
What is illegal is “monopolistic practices,” such activities being those that only serve to preserve the monopoly for the sake of being a monopoly and effectively destroy the free market system in a given market. We have to go after the offenders because society is better served and improved by having a competitive market…without the ability to compete, monopolists have no reason to innovate and would be competitors are punished for trying to innovate (ie, read the legal brief to see what MS did to Be, Inc. for their innovation)
A monopoly does not mean 100% ownership of the market, just a major piece, the percentage of which is defined by the specific market. If 100% were the actual definition, then technically monopolies have never existed since there’s always going to be small players in any market.