“On behalf of all people who would like to see a more fair and competitive market for desktop operating systems beunited.org has submitted a brief to the court involved in the Microsoft antitrust trial. The brief outlines the issues that are important for OSBOS projects to survive and how the remedies need to be changed in relation to these projects. The full press release is available here. You can also get a copy of the brief from our publications section on this page.” Get the .rtf & .pdf files at BeUnited’s web site.
BeUnited.org Submits Brief to Microsoft Antitrust Trial
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well, I was reading some of their stuff and one of the proposed remedies would be to force Microsoft to fully disclose file formats, so that other operating systems could be compatible.
Personally, I think this is a good idea. Together with rules that would govern how MS could and could not deal with OEMs, I think this would put other operating systems like Linux and OpenBeOS on a more level playing field, while benefiting consumers at the same time.
I think this is a much better approach than trying to split Windows in half or trying to kill it outright, because as far as the end user goes, that would prolly cause more confusion than anything else. (ie – “This program doesn’t work because it relies on the Internet Explorer APIs, which have been stripped out of the version of Windows that I have). Even though such a move would probably be a just punishment for MS, because Windows is so tightly integrated and because so many apps now days depend on this integration, it would sure be a nightmare for Joe User. And afterall, isn’t this whole thing about benefiting the ‘consumer’ anyway?
If you can’t cripple Windows without causing its users a headache, then at least give other operating systems a chance to be compatible with it.
I love the BeOS angle on this lawsuit. BeOS wasn’t perfect, but one thing that cannot be denied is that the user experience was better than any OS when the hardware was supported. This means it was perfect for OEM’s that could ensure proper driver support. Be, Inc. had OEM deals. Microsoft was a factor in Be, Inc. not getting larger, more successful OEM deals.
This does not mean that BeOS was perfect or even better than Windows, but it was cheaper and the user experience was awesome. It would has done better if Microsoft did not have then “Coke at this soda fountain only” discount. It painted OEM’s in a corner and left BeOS out in the cold.
Be NEVER had much of OEM deals.
Quote from Be’s SEC filing:
“Existing agreements with OEM customers, for example, those with Compaq, Qubit and Fountain, and arrangements with our other strategic partners including National Semiconductor, FIC and Arima, generally do not contain any minimum purchase commitments or minimum payment obligations.”
Those PR announcements only looked good to BeOS fans because they don’t know better. It’s all smoke and mirror — Be Inc. never had a single firm OEM contract.
I am sorry for the highly off-topic comment, but I would like to ask if OSNews now renders ok on Opera and Konqueror. OSNews now creates that 3D look you used to see with IE on the tables, by using CSS and not with pure HTML. This way, the 3D look is now working with Mozilla and Opera and even Konqueror (haven’t time to test the Mac browsers yet). Problem is, Konqueror does not support the
border-collapse: collapse;
CSS property, resulting on rendering many levels of borders around the table cells, instead of a single set of borders.
Konqueror users, is this annoying for you and you would like me to special-case Konqueror, or should I leave it as is?
Looks fine in Konquerer (and Opera).
Looks good here in Konquerer 3.0.0
Be died mostly because of it’s own fault. Be lost to a bankrupting company (at that time), Apple, once, and hardly changed its strategy when competiting with a flourishing company 100x bigger than Apple. I really got to wonder, Amiga managed to get hardware OEMs, same with Linux. Be Inc. wanted to get itself onto a lot of OEM machines in order to get a lot of market fast. It doesn’t, however, work that way. Did they ever try to make deals with ISVs and IHVs, like Microsoft did when competiting with IBM OS/2 and Apple Macintosh at the days before Windows was a monopoly? And besides, in the current DOJ settlement and the opposing states settlement already have clauses where OEMs have a chance to bundle any other OS with Windows, and any other middleware with Windows. What BeUnited is asking is something so obviously biased for their sake, and apparently not written for majority of the consumers in mind (after all, the anti trust laws were suppose to be there for the consumers). IIRC, the motion for filling doesn’t tell the full story on the demise BeOS. They didn’t mention Be’s failure at BeIA, they didn’t enclosed verbatims of the deals with OEMs to be studied and so on. My view on BeUnited had just went down.
Anyway, just asking, what does Office got to do with Microsoft’s Windows monopoly? It is not in the same product family, it won in fair competition against its competitors, and apparently it is the biggest cashcow for Microsoft. If Microsoft were to auction off rights to port their software to other OS, they would loose significant amounts of money, not because of the lack of sales on Windows part, but the lack of Office sales. So really, if AOL doesn’t have to document their protocols and so on, why must Microsoft do all this? Because some companies lost to otherwise fair competition? Why didn’t Be sued Apple for antitrust violations?
Can’t find any problems with Mozilla.
The top-right pixels of the comment borders are a bit wrong under mozilla. Looks fine under IE.
No problems with Opera 3.6 on BeOS. It’s even better.
“Be died mostly of its own fault”
This is irrelevent (true or false) in this case of law. Law is very specific in this case since the issue is whether MSFT (in its special position as a monopolist and required to abide by special rules) took actions that restricted the free operatiing of the marketplace. Be only has to demonstrate that it’s free access to the marketplace was restricted by the monopoly practices of MSFT. The question as to amount of damages is a separate isssue.
“What does Office have to do with Windows monopoly?”
Again, since MSFT is a monopoly they have to operate by special rules. Refusing to port Office to other platforms contributes to reinforcing their Windows monopoly or restricts competition. The court could consider various options here including making much of Office public so it is less of a barrier.
The issue that is the keystone of many misunderstandings is that MSFT is obliged by US law to have special business practices now that it has been found to be a monopoly. Many arguments that are brought up are simply iirrelevent. It is all about how MSFT must change the way it operates as a monopoly. It must learn to compete purely on the basis of features. Any effort to use traditional competitive business practices will probably be found illegal now that they are a monopoly.
Monopolies are not illegal. It is only illegal to protect your monopoly once you have it. Therefore almost every possible business advantage must be abandoned once you reach monopoly status. MSFT is in court now because once they became a monopoly they refused to abide by the special laws that apply only to monopoly holders. They broke the law after they became a monopoly.
***
It’s also working OK on the no-Javascript no-CSS browser that I
generally use.
Please keep it that way.
> The top-right pixels of the comment borders are a bit wrong under mozilla. Looks fine under IE.
Please send me a .jpg screenshot on my hotmail account, because Mozilla on BeOS and Windows renders it perfectly here. Do you use a very old Mozilla? Which OS?
> It’s also working OK on the no-Javascript no-CSS browser that I generally use. Please keep it that way.
OSNews is designed to render in any browser, almost perfectly. Even with the light CSS I added (which they will be ignored by older browsers). It is just that my Konqueror 3.0.1 shows double borders and it makes it look a bit “thick”. Other than that, it still renders it fine.
Haven’t try Mac and QNX yet though.
I remember that the ‘Vobis AG’, the largest computer chain in Germany (with his Highscreen/Highpaq computers) some years ago sold computers with Windows and BeOS preinstalled, for some month.
Microsoft gave them a very hard time (financially: with higher costs for the Windows OS and all the M$ middleware Software) so they gave up selling the Computers with both OS.
This is the kind of monopolysm that must be wiped out!
“Monopolies are not illegal. It is only illegal to protect your monopoly once you have it. Therefore almost every possible business advantage must be abandoned once you reach monopoly status.”
LOL, I call bullsh*t. If this was true at&t would’ve been forced out of the long distance business decades ago. Coke would’ve been forced out of the soda business decades ago and ford would’ve been forced out of cars decades ago. They all held monopolies for long times and none was ever pursued by the doj, the reason being sprint, pepsi and chevy didn’t give major support to politicians to attack any of those companies. If anyone actually thinks this is about ms illegally forcing competitors out of business has their head up thier ass. btw the vorbis case doesn’t matter since this is a us court (and even if it was that action isn’t illegal).
“Be NEVER had much of OEM deals….
….Those PR announcements only looked good to BeOS fans because they don’t know better. It’s all smoke and mirror — Be Inc. never had a single firm OEM contract.”
That’s not correct. Be had deals with Hitachi in Japan and Fujitsu in Europe to put BeOS on some models in their desktop computer lines. But the fact that Be could only manage two OEM deals, and even in these cases the vendors yielded to MS pressure to make BeOS invisible until after the purchase when the buyer had to add the icons and menu entries himself, shows the stranglehold Microsoft has on the market.
If you read the actual Be’s lawsuit against Microsoft, Be never had a written contract with Hitachi.
Quote from the lawsuit:
“In September 1998, Hitachi verbally committed to Be that it would load BeOS alongside Windows on a line of its personal computers.”
Since the wording in the lawsuit contains only claims written in the most positive light possible, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if Be’s lawyers can only SPIN the Hitachi deal as “verbally committed” — then there is much less than it meets the eyes. Therefore, I come back to my original statement — Be never had a single firm OEM contract.
Fujitsu was never mentioned in the actual microsoft lawsuit nor was it mentioned in any of Be’s SEC filings.
What BeUnited is asking is something so obviously biased for their sake, and apparently not written for majority of the consumers in mind (after all, the anti trust laws were suppose to be there for the consumers).
I’d like to be clear that beunited is not asking for anything more than the court to understand that it isn’t only Sun and RedHat that is interested in the remedies proposed. We did not propose any of the states’ remedies, we are only asking that they are upheld. And it is not biased for beunited only for our sake, it is for the betterment of all operating systems in general – to help bring choice to all consumers – for any operating system to have a chance to be a viable choice.
beunited has nothing to gain from doing this, other than the remedies possibly being upheld. However, we have already lost on it, as we paid for counsel and lawyer fees to do it. Put up or shut up. We chose to put up.
IIRC, the motion for filling doesn’t tell the full story on the demise BeOS. They didn’t mention Be’s failure at BeIA, they didn’t enclosed verbatims of the deals with OEMs to be studied and so on.
Those points were already made by submitting Be’s own suit filings. The court has heard Be’s story over and over, to be sure. It is the classic argument against the monopoly, and the argument revolves around whether the monopoly affected Be’s demise or not. That is not beunited’s argument to fight, and we really have no say in such argument to be truthful. OSBOS platforms are the decendents of Be’s once powerful operating system, and thus, the references must be made. The references made were the only ones necessary. My original draft weighed in at almost twice the size – it needed to be trimmed down to “meat only”, and thus, the un-biased viewpoint was lost in the trimming (I mentioned in the original draft many other OSes, trying not to focus on the BeOS only – Linux, AtheOS, HURD, Amiga, and many other names were in the draft).
We have only stating that for other up and coming operating systems to have even the slightest fighting chance at any commercial or non-commercial success, the remedies should be upheld.
My view on BeUnited had just went down.
That’s too bad. And here I thought we were “fighting the good fight” for everyone’s sake. I guess you only like Windows, and believe it should be the only viable choice for consumers and businesses.
That’s all I have to say, and I think I have said enough.
Deej
“That’s too bad. And here I thought we were “fighting the good fight” for everyone’s sake. I guess you only like Windows, and believe it should be the only viable choice for consumers and businesses.”
Windows isn’t the only viable choice for consumers or businesses. If it was no one would be using macs or linux or bsd. Is it the easiest choice? Yes. Should ms shoot themselves in the foot and help make other oses more viable? No. What people don’t understand is if you give them a real reason to switch they will. Is it hard to convice people to switch now that most people use windows? Yes. But it was an uphill fight for windows when dos dominated pcs and macs dominated the gui. btw having “a better product” isn’t the whole fight, its marketing. Ever notice how much marketing apple does? Now look at how much marketing be did (in the states, since I can’t speak for europe or asia), I don’t ever remember seeing any. Granted I wasn’t into computers at the time but I had seen ms ads and apple ads, hell I almost bought an imac in the fall of 98 when I was getting my first computer just because of the ads. Did ms make it harder for be to become a contender? Yes. But didn’t apple make it harder a few years earlier? Yes. So why isn’t beunited going after apple? Because apple is considered a “good guy” while ms is a “bad guy”.
I do not disagree with you at all. Less Macs dominating the GUI (because I don’t think Apple ever had enough market share to say they “dominated” it – but I could be wrong).
But, can you see Apple gaining any more market share than they have already under the current market conditions? Did MS not basically bail out Apple? If MS didn’t port Office any more to Macs, do you think that Apple would lose market share? Do you see RedHat Linux getting on businesses desktops without some of those remedies – at least to a point to be considered a viable alternative in the desktop market under the current market conditions? Do you see any other OSes being able to “start” and accumulate enough cash to even start marketing against MS in the current environment?
That’s why beunited supports the remedies. We speak out for change in the current environment, we are agreeing with the states viewpoints. That’s all. Of course it appears to be of benefit to us. It would be in an indirect way. It would also help Linux, Apple, the BSDs, and every “alt” OS out there have a better chance to gain even a 5% market share. More so to many others, since they already have money to better market themselves.
I, nor anyone at beunited, are MS bashers. I think Win2K is a good, stable OS (finally). We are not doing this because we hate MS, nor do we blame them for any business practices that any competitive business would have done in the same given situation. But, we wish to see the playing field leveled out just a little bit. MS will not magically be “dethroned” from the remedies, but they would offer other OSes a small chance at smaller success. MS will not lose out immediately from the remedies, they still have the mindshare, ease of use, marketing muscle and application base needed to maintain their market share for some time. However, as time progresses and other OSes can approach Windows functionality, then MS would have to compete on the basis of real innovation and quality products, not on the fact that you need Windows to run Office, use Exchange services, and play Star Wars Galaxies. I’m sure you get my meaning here.
If a BeOS-derived OS could reach 2% marketshare in the desktop market, I’d consider it wildly successful. If I could run BSD and not lose any of my Windows apps/functionality (such as working flawlessly in a Windows networked environment), I’d consider that successful. If I can install Linux and play all of the newest games, I’d consider all the efforts by all parties involved in the hearings successful. I don’t see any of this happening anytime in the future without people speaking out now. We are not looking for an end to the MS empire, just a chance for the choice to use something else without losing functionality that MS has made critical in both business and home environments.
And, just so you know, I’m not trying to argue with you, per se… I’m discussing my viewpoints with you.
I grew up with DOS on my computer and on the computers of my friends. Initially… There was no Windows, but I remember all of a sudden Windows was on every machine because you got that with DOS when you bought your computer.
It was always DOS, DOS, DOS… And then Windows 3.1 showed up… And for us it was still DOS, DOS, DOS… My father who used the computer for work continued to use DOS, my friends’ parents continued to use DOS, my friends and I used DOS, and yet Windows was now on our machines because of the OEMs. Then after a little while people started using it.
Maybe I missed the “uphill battle” when I was a kid. I’ll admit that’s quite possible since all I was concerned with was games and a little bit of programming… (Perhaps someone else can shed some light on how this was an uphill battle for me. Perhaps the battle was occuring in the business world? Or among computer techs? Sure wasn’t occuring here in our homes I know that.) But I don’t remember a soul using it until the OEMs started to just stuff it on our computers. (Well… I used it a little, because I was curious and I always liked to try different things.)
And then… Windows was the defacto standard all of asudden. First applications… Then sometime after Windows 95, games. Even then I remember returning to DOS for quite some time. It’s just all the new stuff was coming out for Windows.
“LOL, I call bullsh*t. If this was true at&t would’ve been forced out of the long distance business decades ago. Coke would’ve been forced out of the soda business decades ago and ford would’ve been forced out of cars decades ago. They all held monopolies for long times and none was ever pursued by the doj, the reason being sprint, pepsi and chevy didn’t give major support to politicians to attack any of those companies. If anyone actually thinks this is about ms illegally forcing competitors out of business has their head up thier ass. btw the vorbis case doesn’t matter since this is a us court (and even if it was that action isn’t illegal).”
some corrections are necessary here. 1) At&T was broken up for being a monopoly. 2) AT&T holds no where near a monopoly in long distance. Just look at their earnings (or lack there of). 3) Ford’s has not held more than 30% of the US car market for DECADES!!! 4)MCI (microwave communications Inc.) did petition to get access to the long haul/long distance market and you now pay 7 to 10 cents a minute as a result of competition in long distance. 5) Coke holds a strong position in the soft drink field but there is considerable competition to coke and pepsi. Moreover, competitors to coke and pepsi can succeed and are not encumbered by coke or pepsi because distribution to food stores is considerable and not controlled by coke or pepsi.
I encourage you to read up a bit on corporate history. MS is an illegal monopoly that should be dealt with severely. If you own stock in them, as it sounds, then sell it now because things will get worse for MS, despite the for purchase corporate controlled joke of a president the US now has.
Interesting comment, Deletomm…. its very similar to the way I perceived the last 20 years. When I was 13 (back in 1984) my Apple2+ was replaced by a Mac. However, I provided “technical support” for most of my friends and family who used IBM PC’s or clones. What I noticed was:
(1) yes, all of the DOS users even when they had Win3.1 OEM bundeled… preferred to use DOS
(2) Most people still ended up using the IBM PC or clones… they preferred DOS. (This reminds me of my family choosing VHS in the early 80s… when most professionals e.g. Doctors, etc… had bought Betamax for their familys years earlier). Macs at that time were much more expensive (to prop up Apples high profit margins and investments into R&D)… hence consumers wanted IBM PC’s or clones.
(3) By the time Win95 came out… the OEM aggreements continued to help put Win95 on desktops…. but there was already a sh*t load of x86 hardware out there. Win95 then created Microsofts domination of Office suites. Before that… DOS users loved WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. It was Mac users that used MS Word and Excel (anyone remember “Multiplan”) 🙂
Also…. speaking about OEMs…. look what happened with CD-ROM:
(1) CD-ROM was available from about 1986 – 1990… but the drives were expensive and the CDs were expensive “subscribtion” deals for library type stuff.
(2) In the early 1990s… *I beleive* the OEM’s artifically created economies of scale and started bundling CD-ROM drives in all of the computers. These drives just sat there and did nothing… until… MYST came out… and concurrently other software titles were now in the works.
Anyway… Microsoft just leveraged OEM deals from the DOS days into new deals for the Win95 generation.
Since I became a SW Engineer many moons ago… I became a Win95/NT user professionally (for MS Word and MSMail/Outlook) and a UNIX (BSD/AIX/Solaris) developer professionally. At home… it was always Macintosh… until I had to bring work home… now we have an Macintosh, Ultra5 and a P3 system at home 🙂
Bottom line: Maybe Microsoft became a monopoly…. but thats just because of the x86 hardware consumers chose to buy… because it was *cheaper*.
ps: I’m just as geeky as the next guy…. and I finally played around with a Redhat distro…. sure I’m cool with it… but its not exactly consumer friendly…. (e.g. I can’t see my mother ever using it).
L8R.
Someone mentioned the be, inc suit. Anyone know what is up? Any progress? Any court days yet? Any progress? Have be, inc lawyers met with MS lawyers? Any attempts by MS to settle? It has been close to 6 months now.
When I mentioned at&t, ford and coke having monopolies I mentioned it to prove the point that the government doesn’t have to stop a monopoly. All it requires is time and real competition. I didn’t mean to imply they have a monopoly now. btw I don’t own stock in ms, it just bugs the hell out of me that a company that is only guilty of strong arm tactics is getting sued right and left wasting tons of taxpayers money for no gain for the taxpayer, especially since other companies are doing much worse things (i.e. stanley tools considering nominally moving the companies headquarters out of the US so they don’t have to pay US taxes, a loss of $34 million for the federal government).
When I mentioned at&t, ford and coke having monopolies I mentioned it to prove the point that the government doesn’t have to stop a monopoly. All it requires is time and real competition. I didn’t mean to imply they have a monopoly now. btw I don’t own stock in ms, it just bugs the hell out of me that a company that is only guilty of strong arm tactics is getting sued right and left wasting tons of taxpayers money for no gain for the taxpayer, especially since other companies are doing much worse things (i.e. stanley tools considering nominally moving the companies headquarters out of the US so they don’t have to pay US taxes, a loss of $34 million for the federal government).
But your point is moot. AT&T was no longer a monopoly once splited up by the DOJ. Ford doesn’t have any monopoly, and the same goes to Coke. AT&T was a monopoly when it banged into trouble.
And as for Stanley Tools moving out the HQs out of USA, it is not only legal, but morally okay. So, just because it was formed in the USA, it must stay in the USA? USA should instead give Stanley Tools a reason to stay in America; but Stanley Tools, IIRC, saves much more than just tax cuts as result of the moving.
[i]company that is only guilty of strong arm tactics is getting sued right and left wasting tons of taxpayers money for no gain for the taxpayer[i]
I just wanted to clarify, in case it is needed, that beunited.org is NOT suing MS. We are in no way seeking any benefit or retribution. We have simply filed a document that states we support the remedies proposed by the states to rectify the imbalance in the levels of competition in the marketplace – to _reduce_ (not remove) barriers to entry for new competition, due to MS’s “strong arm tactics”.