“Attorneys for the states seeking tough penalties for Microsoft Corp.’s antitrust actions have backed off of a demand for a modular version of the Windows operating system, saying information sharing is more important than dismantling the Redmond, Wash., software maker’s flagship product.” Read it at eWeek.
States Back Off Demand for Modular Windows
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Microsoft is going to come out of this case virtually unharmed. They missed the real issues long ago and are now fighting over unimportant issues. If they really wanted to break the monopoly they would open the APIs, device drivers, and file formats, so that anyone could make an OS that runs “Windows” software, that way, Microsoft would have to compete on the value of there implimentation of Windows, instead of based on compatability with third-party software and drivers.
Unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen, and hasn’t even been seriously considered, therefore, Microsoft is going to get off scott free.
Skipp
I think the entire case is rubbish and should have been dismissed long ago. (I also think the anti-trust laws are irrational and should be eliminated.)
The message all of this nonsense sends out is clear: Don’t be too successful, or we’ll use the government as our bully to come and get you. Fortunately it isn’t working well.
http://capitalism.net/articles/microsft.htm
i dont think anti-trust laws are irrational. i dont think dialup internet would be 20bucks if we all had to go through ma bell for our internet. (at least those of us that have only dialups… you lucky high bandwidth users
For more information please send an email to the following address:
[email protected]
Is another flame war brewing ???
Man, I love the internet age!
“The message all of this nonsense sends out is clear: Don’t be too successful, or we’ll use the government as our bully to come and get you.”
No, I would rather say the message is that we are still humans and should at least care a tiny littly bit about something that is not green, made of cheap paper and has numbers on it.
Nobody has a problem with Microsoft making lots of money, but the current situation is just not fair. Just like skippy said, opening some API’s and the file formats would be a very important step. Too bad this won’t happen so there is still a big reason to fight for the freedom of software.
Call me geeky, call me a socialist, I don’t care.
Software is a big part (if not one of the most biggest parts) of my life and will be even more important for my future so I care about it’s freedom.
Best regards,
GNU/Spark 😉
“(I also think the anti-trust laws are irrational and should be eliminated.)”
Seriously, get a clue. I’m studying economics and the anti-trust laws are anything but irrational!
The real problem is that it’s so difficult to punish large companies if they broke any of them. In the States, this usually ends up in a 20-year trial which is constantly being delayed due to the hordes of lawyers involved…
If you believe in capitalism, you have to support all ways to upheld competition whereever possible. Monopolies, on the other hand, have NOTHING to do with competition.
Prioritizing a demand as number 4 is far from removing it from the demands or “backing off” of it.
The purpose of the remedy hearing is not to harm Microsoft but to prevent Microsoft from abusing it’s illegal monopoly and harming other companies and customers. I think that non-settling states’ proposal is better.The fact that Microsoft is fighting it so hard hints that they still intend to continue abusing their illegal monopoly.
I am confident that the judge will make a good, fair decision.
MSFT will have to compete instead of illegaly killing competion.
I think backing away from the modular version of windows makes sense. It was messy and unlikely to get through. It also makes for a potential appeal from microsoft. Opening up the APIs makes more sense to me. Microsoft is a bully and has to be punished but i didn’t necessarily agreee with the modular idea.
“I am confident that the judge will make a good, fair decision. ”
I hope you are right. I think the government wants to “slap them on the wrist”. Rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws benefits consumers. Think how much your phone bill might be if ma bell was still the only long distance provider.
As for opening up the API’s: MSFT has a long history of crippling other peoples’ software by hiding and putting “gotcha’s” in key API’s. But, I don’t think opening the API’s is a very good idea. It will make it easier to write decent Windows software, which could, in effect, expand the Windows monopoly.
I think Penfield Jackson had it right: break them up into a app company and an OS company.
Here’s another vote for opening up the APIs – that just makes more sense than a modular version of Windows.
The only people who would benefit from modular Windows are the few that constantly bitch about not being able to uninstall IE.
“But, I don’t think opening the API’s is a very good idea. It will make it easier to write decent Windows software, which could, in effect, expand the Windows monopoly. ”
I don’t agree, as writing Windows software with .NET isn’t exactly rocket science as it is. What opening up the API allows is for other companies to build MS compatible apps & file formats on other platforms.
“I think Penfield Jackson had it right: break them up into a app company and an OS company”
Again, I don’t agree. If you break them up, that would probably cripple the integration. While that’s good for competitors and bad for Microsoft, it’s also bad for the ‘consumers’, which is what this whole mess is about anyway, right ?
I really think that opening the APIs, device drivers and file formats is the only way that there will ever be competition in the OS market. Imagine BeOS, but could run Windows software and drivers? Now that would create some ripples in the OS market, and Microsoft might have to innovate again. None of the current punishments even come close to this, therefore, for the consumer, the case is already lost. Microsoft won.
Skipp
All of this anti-trust blather boils down to a couple of things:
1. A technological elite composed of Microsoft bashers and (losing) Microsoft competitors believes that they are better informed to make choices on behalf of consumers as to what products consumers should purchase, e.g., Linux, etc. (These products may or may not be technologically superior, but that’s beside the point.)
2. This elite believes that, if one were to formulate a hierarchy of economic virtues, competition is more important than property rights, i.e., it’s OK to violate Microsoft’s property rights in order to further economic competition, even though property rights are logically antecedent to economic competition (in a free society). (You cannot have economic competition without the right of use and disposal over the products of your labor.)
What’s fascinating in all of this is that the general public isn’t anti-Microsoft at all. When I talk to computer literate people who aren’t a part of the technology elite and aren’t Macintosh users, they are generally baffled by all of this.
Now, I think MacOS X is the greatest desktop operating system so far in history — I’m getting a Titanium laptop soon — but I’m not going to use the government as my bully to get people to use it.
“2. This elite believes that, if one were to formulate a hierarchy of economic virtues, competition is more important than property rights”
No one has less respect for property rights than microsoft.
they have stolen one idea/concept/product after another from companies they have crushed. Think apple, lotus, wordperfect, the list goes on.
MS has absolutely no respect for the “property rights” of OEMs when MS forces them to use only one OS, windows.
MS has no respect for the rights of consumers when it enacts contracts which inhibit consumers from choosing the OS of their choice at pre install.
so by your very own definition MS must be stopped because they have no respect for the property rights of consumers OEMs, or their competitors.
Like it or not, consumers and the industry will benefit from ending the dominance of this malign cancer called microsoft. I am completly puzzled why anyone would oppose this. Do you call up your long distance company too and offer to pay 30 cents per minute instead of 7 cents per minute?
I remember seeing a cartoon that showed a guy looking up at the moon. Written on the moon was:
“The Trump
(fromerly known as “the moon”)”
That was back in the 80s. Today I could see the same cartoon showing the guy looking at a map of “MS-USA”.
Computers are way too important today. There are _everywhere_ in our lives and you want one company to control us all? No thanks. One company accidentaly gained monopoly status because they had a little bit of luck, clever marketing and the right program at the right time (mainly DOS and Windows 95). Both products weren’t actually good or powerfull, they just made computers (i386) available for Joe Homeuser. So Microsoft very well deserved their success and leadership role at this time, but it has exaggerated. Because DOS always was the defacto i386 standard and i386 became the choice of almost every homeuser and Microsoft applied some clever tricks, they soon got into a position from where they could literally control everything.
Now how on earth should a new company compete? There a some major obstacles:
1) Microsoft has enough money to practically buy a whole country if neccessary.
2) Because of the monopoly, almost every important desktop software was written for this OS (because it sells, not because of technical reasons) and the API is completely hidden. So for new competitors to actually have a chance of surviving, they need to get MILLIONS of software for their operating system in VERY SHORT time (as short as they are able to survive). This is _definetly_ impossible. Especially because a lot of software will only be written for your OS, as soon as it got enough marketshare. Chicken and egg problem.
3) The same applies to device drivers.
4) The same applied to file formats like .doc. As long as only Windows applications are able to use those perfectly, competitors are out in the cold.
Now look at all thsoe 4 points and decide for yourself… Would _you_ be as dumb as to tt try rivaling Microsoft?
Now look at the reality…
Do you see _any_ company still rivaling Microsoft on the x86? I don’t. Not even the biggest multimillion dollar companies feel confident enough to have a chance against Microsoft, how on earth should a newcomer have a chance?
See, you would have to create that is immidiatly _better_ than this system that was created with billions of dollars during many many years and even if you manage to do that (I don’t see right now how this should be possible), only a VERY small part of the userbase would switch over because of the lack of applications, drivers and proprietory MS fileformat support (which you absolutely can’t influence).
GNU/Linux shows, that it _is_ possible to rival MS, but that’s only because GNU/Linux is in continouus development by a plethora of entities. If it would have been created by a company, it would already be dead.
But some of you probably know it MUCH better than everyone who tried or didn’t tried so far and would be able to develop a Windows rival without a problem… :/
“2. This elite believes that, if one were to formulate a hierarchy of economic virtues, competition is more important than property rights, i.e., it’s OK to violate Microsoft’s property rights in order to further economic competition, even though property rights are logically antecedent to economic competition (in a free society). (You cannot have economic competition without the right of use and disposal over the products of your labor.)”
Well, see the problem isn’t that MS has a monopoly and has about 97% of the PC desktop market. The problem is that MS uses this to bully OEMs in order to prevent them from distributing other operating systems, therefore making getting a computer with something besides Windows installed more of a pain in the ass than it needs to be, and making it more of a pain in the ass for anyone who tries to compete with them.
Now, I’m not one of these idiots who’s going to sit here and say that it’s impossible to buy a computer without Windows, but MS tries their damn best to make it difficult for OEMs who want to ship anything besides Windows, therefore making it virtually impossible for other OSes (mainly OS/2 and BeOS) from competing.
Not only is this anti-competitive, but it has also been found to be illegal. Why can’t people realize this?
Now, they could simply rule that MS has to lossen its stranglehold on OEMs, but this still doesn’t account for MS using that stranglehold to keep it’s current position. Not only that, but even with OEMs free to distribute other OSes, it really doesn’t matter anymore because the competition has pretty much been wiped out. And even the competition that’s left (mainly Linux) would have a real tough time, because MS basically owns the file formats (Word/Excel/etc).
Now, I’m certainly not in favor of cutting MS off at the heels either. Such would be great if you’re one of the 3% of people who don’t use Windows, but for the rest of us, this would be more than a pain in the ass, especially if we then had to switch over to *Nix (the only other OS I know of with support for modern hardware). Sure, this might be a pleasent transition for some, but not for others.
So, for all of those who want to get rid of the ‘cancer’, if you get the chance to do so, don’t do it quick and catch everybody off guard! Just open up the file formats and let MS competitors eat away at them like a cancer … that way, it doesn’t happen all at once and everyone is able to make the transition to something else, while still allowing us to port whatever documents/spreadsheets/whatever.
And if you’re anti-MS, making modular versions of Windows won’t help much either. If anything else, it’ll allow even more competition on Windows, which means that people are probably going to stick with Windows anyway.
But opening the APIs/file formats would make opening/saving MS documents on other platforms (without having to resort to Wine/emulation) would be much more feasable than it currently is.
Modular Windows in my opinion would give consumers more choice, but while that might protect companies like realnetworks and netscape I don’t see that there would be any major benefits other than being able to remove various middleware from windows. One of the major reasons that most people don’t use non-MS products is because they are unaware of the competing products. While most people who read articles on this site are well aware of Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, etc. many alternative non-ms OS’s a lot of average users see so much advertising for machines with Windows that they are unaware that they have another choice. For typing up basis documents and browsing the internet almost any major platform will do, but most people don’t know that they can do that on Linux. Then there is a lot of misunderstanding that OS’s like Linux can be used by average users and that for the most part they don’t need to know cryptic commands. The average Joe doesn’t realize he has a choice. My opinion is that the government should allow OEMs to recover damages for unfair contracts and to illegalize the future use of requiring exclusive contracts that disallow OEM’s to carry competing products loaded with windows or to sell alternative OS’s on the side. I don’t see any reason that MS must carry Sun’s JVM or any competing technologies with Windows though because who will draw the line to what third party products must be carried? What if I start a company next week with a new programming language? Does Microsoft have to carry this new language? Does Apple have to carry .NET with MacOS? My answer and most people would say no and accordingly neither does MS have to carry Sun’s JVM.
Well, the way I see it, publishing the APIs and Not restricting OEMs from replacing modules and Not retaliating against OEMs is pretty much the same thing as a Modular Windows!
Microsoft’s refusal to compete on even ground indicates that they really can not compete! They insist on making their money illegally or die trying.
I say the world can survive without Microsoft!
“I say the world can survive without Microsoft!”
Well, of course it can … just not immediately … ya gotta wean us into it
If somebody came along tomorrow and took Windows off my computer and installed something else (anything else), I’d pretty much be up shit creek. Not that I can’t function without MS apps, but that’s like having to move out of your house and not having a chance to take all of your furniture with you .. people need time!
laissez-faire capitalism.
“If somebody came along tomorrow and took Windows off my computer and installed something else (anything else), I’d pretty much be up shit creek”
Walmart is selling PC’s with “Lindows” on top of LINUX.Lindows is a reverse-engineered Windows emulator. Now, I have heard Lindows is not great– some glitches– but suppose they got it compatible with 90 plus percent of existing Windows apps. Then, hypothetically, you’d be BETTER OFF: You’d have a faster, more stable OS that cost you personally NOTHING. Sounds better to me– at least HYPOTHETICALLY.
Microsoft is going to come out of this case virtually unharmed. They missed the real issues long ago and are now fighting over unimportant issues. If they really wanted to break the monopoly they would open the APIs, device drivers, and file formats, so that anyone could make an OS that runs “Windows” software, that way, Microsoft would have to compete on the value of there implimentation of Windows, instead of based on compatability with third-party software and drivers.
Yeah, I agree. The states ask the court force Microsoft to disclose all API. But they didn’t say they shouldn’t patent royalties for the use of these APIs in other OS.
i dont think anti-trust laws are irrational. i dont think dialup internet would be 20bucks if we all had to go through ma bell for our internet. (at least those of us that have only dialups… you lucky high bandwidth users
Think how cheap fuel would be if Standard Oil wasn’t killed by the antitrust dogs. (Also, Bell was previously a governemnt sponsored monopoly, then the government turned against Bell. Microsoft didn’t recieved any sponsoring from the government).
Prioritizing a demand as number 4 is far from removing it from the demands or “backing off” of it.
Actually, the judge is asking them to make middleground. But putting the modular Windows as in the last priority would mean in the final judgement, it isn’t likely the modular Windows would be in.
Nobody has a problem with Microsoft making lots of money, but the current situation is just not fair. Just like skippy said, opening some API’s and the file formats would be a very important step. Too bad this won’t happen so there is still a big reason to fight for the freedom of software.
You know, it amazes me. Just say IBM place more marketing power behind OS/2 and becomes the most used OS in the would. Yet Windows did all the things it did till now. And people wouldn’t call it illegal. I call it double standard. Pre-Microsoft, Netscape didn’t have any good competition. Pre-Microsoft, Be Inc. failed in competition with a company that many expected to bankrupt (pre-Job’s Apple). And as for Java, I would be stupid to commodize my second biggest cash cow (though smaller ones would enjoy more apps, but Microsoft already had a lot of apps).
I hope you are right. I think the government wants to “slap them on the wrist”. Rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws benefits consumers. Think how much your phone bill might be if ma bell was still the only long distance provider.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but how on earth did consumers benefit from more expensive oil, as caused by a breakup of Standard Oil?
Bell, also, was the first telecomunications service in the world. So, for being first and grabbing all the market, they are wrong? You aren’t forced to use the phone, you know. It is a luxury. If one company, say Standard Food, has a monopoly on every food stuff; and sells it expensively, I would understand – because food is vital for life.
As for opening up the API’s: MSFT has a long history of crippling other peoples’ software by hiding and putting “gotcha’s” in key API’s. But, I don’t think opening the API’s is a very good idea. It will make it easier to write decent Windows software, which could, in effect, expand the Windows monopoly.
The only time Microsoft removed APIs is only when it had severe security problems, and they can’t fix it without removing it. For example, applications in Windows 9x could communicate to the hardware underneat without depending on Windows, but the feature was removed because it can be used for viruses.
I think Penfield Jackson had it right: break them up into a app company and an OS company.
There are far much better ways to help competitors to “benefit consumers” without getting rid of an company. Microsoft had always use code from other programs in another. Also, Microsoft won’t be able to pump out new types of stuff (like XBox, and Pocket PC), if the company wasn’t one company, but two. Also, there isn’t a gurrentee that the app company would port their apps to platforms other than Windows, because with its market share, Windows is enough for business.
Now, I think MacOS X is the greatest desktop operating system so far in history — I’m getting a Titanium laptop soon — but I’m not going to use the government as my bully to get people to use it.
Apple had never publicly supported the antitrust case, even before the deal was signed between Microsoft and Apple.
If you believe in capitalism, you have to support all ways to upheld competition whereever possible. Monopolies, on the other hand, have NOTHING to do with competition.
Capitalism isn’t compatible with anti trust laws. Read about capitalism at http://www.capitalism.org – Capitalism oppose the government oppressing or supporting any commercial organization.
Besides, if you really study economics, and study what is publicly known business decissions Netscape, Be and Sun had took, you wouldn’t accept their anti trust suite. They are sourgrapes, if you ask me. They DO NOT care about the consumers. Anti trust laws are as much for consumers as CBDTPA is for broadband adoption and DMCA is for digital media innovation.
I don’t agree, as writing Windows software with .NET isn’t exactly rocket science as it is. What opening up the API allows is for other companies to build MS compatible apps & file formats on other platforms.
It wouldn’t really benefit
a) OS competitors; because they never asked for the judge to make sure Microsoft doesn’t block the use of their patents royalty free in an implementation of Win32.
b) Consumers; some applications with the current publized API is already annoying; I couldn’t imagine what they would be like when all the APIs are available freely. I doubt consumers would benefit from annoying apps.
I really think that opening the APIs, device drivers and file formats is the only way that there will ever be competition in the OS market. Imagine BeOS, but could run Windows software and drivers? Now that would create some ripples in the OS market, and Microsoft might have to innovate again. None of the current punishments even come close to this, therefore, for the consumer, the case is already lost. Microsoft won.
It is quite idiotic. For one, applications written for Windows would not know they are running on BeOS. Their UI wouldn’t be consitent with the system’s UI. If they use hacks that rely on the operating system kernel or something of that sort to have some feature, it wouldn’t work. Also, documentation and support wouldn’t be there for users not using Windows.
What is better is to have an library like Wine or WineX, but doesn’t support installing of Windows software. Developers would find it easy to port apps ala Corel WordPerfect Office for Linux, and The Sims for Linux. However, this isn’t Wine’s vission… so…
MS has absolutely no respect for the “property rights” of OEMs when MS forces them to use only one OS, windows.
I really wonder how nvidia would react if a motherboard maker use the nForce chipset, but intergrate ATI’s graphics chipset. I doubt they would be happy, and allow you to continue doing so, in fact, I doubt they would even let you try doing so anyway.
And besides, OEMs have a choice NOT to install Windows. Like for example, pre-Windows 95 IBM, Pogo Linux, Apple and so on. Bundling Windows is totally optional for the OEMs.
Like it or not, consumers and the industry will benefit from ending the dominance of this malign cancer called microsoft. I am completly puzzled why anyone would oppose this. Do you call up your long distance company too and offer to pay 30 cents per minute instead of 7 cents per minute?
Do you call oil prices being cut by 50% harmful for consumers?
That was back in the 80s. Today I could see the same cartoon showing the guy looking at a map of “MS-USA”.
So, if Sun and AOL gets their way, under your logic, i would see a map with AOL/Sun USA.
Computers are way too important today. There are _everywhere_ in our lives and you want one company to control us all?
Are you forced to use Windows by Microsoft? No, you could use another OS, but maybe have less compatible hardware and lack of software. The same way, you don’t have to buy a Gucci, even if it doesn’t make you look fat, you could use one your bought at the flea market; which probably could make you look fat.
Hey! I’m using Linux! And Microsoft is still a monopoly! Wow!
Because DOS always was the defacto i386 standard and i386 became the choice of almost every homeuser and Microsoft applied some clever tricks, they soon got into a position from where they could literally control everything.
Actually, the “some clever tricks” was applied before DOS gain dominance. Plus, DOS was a defacto standard before 386s.
1) Microsoft has enough money to practically buy a whole country if neccessary.
Actually, they don’t have enough money to buy out America; but they do have enough money to buy out Sweden. So, Microsoft made a lot of money; they did it with their marketing skills. If you have a problem with that, try setting into Microsoft’s shoes back then, and see whether Microsoft led by you would be anyway like now. And so, when a company gets too rich, the government but stop them? What is the limit of “too rich”?
2) Because of the monopoly, almost every important desktop software was written for this OS (because it sells, not because of technical reasons) and the API is completely hidden.
One really got to wonder how apps ended up on Windows if the APIs was completely hidden.. (Sign up at MSDN, and you can get Win32)
Chicken and egg problem.
As a Christian, I believe the Chicken came first.
4) The same applied to file formats like .doc. As long as only Windows applications are able to use those perfectly, competitors are out in the cold.
Hmm, the closest company in reverse engineering the entire file format, Sun, only hires 2 full time workers on it. Wow.
And also, Microsoft had kept the file formats secret way before Office became a monopoly, and Office didn’t help Microsoft to gain Windows monopoly, as Office once was available on a variety of platforms.
Now look at all thsoe 4 points and decide for yourself… Would _you_ be as dumb as to tt try rivaling Microsoft?
I would be smart to rival Microsoft smartly, and never expect them to play nice with me. Hmm, I wonder why Opera isn’t bankrupted….
Do you see _any_ company still rivaling Microsoft on the x86?
If you mean desktop, there are thousands, if not millions of Windows-wannabes Linux distributions out there. And if you just mean x86, it seems that IBM, Sun, HP, Dell etc (all big companies) are supporting Linux for especially IA32 servers.
Not even the biggest multimillion dollar companies feel confident enough to have a chance against Microsoft, how on earth should a newcomer have a chance?
Tell that to WalMart.
Not only is this anti-competitive, but it has also been found to be illegal.
It is only illegal under anti-capitalist laws like antitrust laws. Can’t you get it? The laws aren’t there to benefit consumers; they are there to help weaker competitors by opressing stonger ones.
Microsoft’s refusal to compete on even ground indicates that they really can not compete! They insist on making their money illegally or die trying.
Maybe they would be better off if the same rules apply to everyone, which doesn’t. So, in other words, just like gender laws and apartheid laws, this is a double standard. Also, didn’t Microsoft manage to win in competition with one of the biggest companies in the world (IBM and their OS/2) and the front runner in the GUI OS market (Apple and their huge list of early OS)?
laissez-faire capitalism.
Actually, laissez-faire capitalism isn’t that good. Laissez-faire; as detailed by Adam Smith, allows gender discrimination and child labour; as well as slavery.
http://www.Capitalism.org supports the same rights for everyone, regardless of skin colour, nor richness, nor gender.
Walmart is selling PC’s with “Lindows” on top of LINUX.Lindows is a reverse-engineered Windows emulator. Now, I have heard Lindows is not great– some glitches– but suppose they got it compatible with 90 plus percent of existing Windows apps. Then, hypothetically, you’d be BETTER OFF: You’d have a faster, more stable OS that cost you personally NOTHING. Sounds better to me– at least HYPOTHETICALLY.
Actually, Lindows hasn’t been able to proven their claim about the 90% plus of Windows applications running on Lindows. Also, Lindows is nothing more than Xandros Linux but a mildly different Wine; which forces you to use root account, which doesn’t sound more secure to me.
Also, Lindows never claimed to be faster than Windows, and in fact beta testers say it is slower than Mandrake and Red Hat, both of which, out of the box, in a machine that has all the recommended stuff Windows needs; runs slower than Windows NT. As for more stable, I have never seen Windows NT crashed in my life; maybe Linux can handle more stress; but how much stress can a desktop user give.
So, in conclusion, I wouldn’t recommend Lindows to anyone depending on Windows. I use Linux too (and in about 2 months, would move to Gentoo Linux).
1) Microsoft has enough money to practically buy a whole country if neccessary.
Actually, they don’t have enough money to buy out America; but they do have enough money to buy out Sweden. So, Microsoft made a lot of money; they did it with their marketing skills. If you have a problem with that, try setting into Microsoft’s shoes back then, and see whether Microsoft led by you would be anyway like now. And so, when a company gets too rich, the government but stop them? What is the limit of “too rich”?
who fucking cares how rich they are.. it’s not about how much money they make.. they have a monopoly.. they obtained it illegally.. and they are maintaining it illegally.. it *MUST* be stopped!
how big a part of the white house is in MS’ pockets.. i mean.. the shit they can get away with.. amazing..
how many lawyers and lobbyist’s were microsoft employing again? probably more than they have programmers.. so doesn’t that make them a ‘lawyer company’ and not a software company?
Gates-Baldfuck! software attorneys at law..
If Enron is any guide, the White House is for sale to the highest bidder. I bet that Cheney isn’t having heart attacks, he’s having blue screens! Same with that pretzel incident. It’s only a matter of time before Air Force One shows up with a red, green, blue and yellow flag on the tail, and MSN ads on the side…
There are still all these mindless little capitalists running around acting like the case against MS has to do with success in business.
I think capitalism is just another religious pursuit. You have those that use it to get by happily and those that are selfish blind, delusional psychopaths that will do whatever it takes to acquire power and protect the system that maintains their position.
People who wave the flag of capitalism seem to be one of two kinds: those that have power and seek to retain/maintain it, and those that seek power and want to maintain the system they believe will bring it to them (or, what they see as their position of “next” in the corporate ladder climbing games).
As with religion, nothing anyone says to these people will have any real effect on them.
“No one has less respect for property rights than microsoft.
they have stolen one idea/concept/product after another from companies they have crushed. Think apple, lotus, wordperfect, the list goes on.”
Unless those ideas are copywrighted they can’t be stolen. Apple “stole” the gui from xerox, lotus didn’t invent anything it was just dominant for a while and wordperfect certainly didn’t invent word processing or spreadsheets (it just bundled them early).
“MS has absolutely no respect for the “property rights” of OEMs when MS forces them to use only one OS, windows.”
MS couldn’t force anyone to do that. It can legally be part of a liscensing deal. Is it strong arming? Hell yes, but its not illegal (which is why be’s suit is a joke).
“MS has no respect for the rights of consumers when it enacts contracts which inhibit consumers from choosing the OS of their choice at pre install.”
MS hasn’t. It can charge oems that bundle other oses more per liscense then someone who sells just windows pcs (thats why gateway no longer sells amd systems, intel lowered their price to create a monopoly in new gateways). btw also legal
“Like it or not, consumers and the industry will benefit from ending the dominance of this malign cancer called microsoft.”
Says you. It won’t benefit anyone except for other huge companies imo.
who fucking cares how rich they are.. it’s not about how much money they make.. they have a monopoly.. they obtained it illegally.. and they are maintaining it illegally.. it *MUST* be stopped!
Illegally getting the monopoly? How? They killed two companies that is financially much larger then theirs, and technically have better software (IBM and Apple)? Microsoft gain its monopoly because it is the best at marketing their software. OS/2 was given expensively to OEMs; OEMs won’t have the price advantage against IBM because IBM gets OS/2 cheaper. Apple Macs at that time was priced so high, and Apple laughed at the thought of having OEMs (clone makers). Really, if it is anyone who had given the market to Microsoft, it is Apple and IBM; they are the ones at fault; not Microsoft. Microsoft just happen to sell a OS cheaper than OS/2 to PC clone makers; and PC clone makers charged their computers cheaper than IBM – viola, IBM had lost its OS market share, and PC hardware market share.
As for illegally maintaining it; the things Microsoft did was legal when it is not a monopoly; and infact was practice before Microsoft got its marketshare; and all the “illegal” stuff Microsoft supposedly done is totally legal for one of its competitors to do. This is what I called double standards; punishing a company because of its success.
how big a part of the white house is in MS’ pockets.. i mean.. the shit they can get away with.. amazing..
There was no prove that Microsoft bribe the federal government. But it is amazing that AOL is one of the biggest donors for the Californian’s government, and no one claims they are bribing that goverment.
If Enron is any guide, the White House is for sale to the highest bidder. I bet that Cheney isn’t having heart attacks, he’s having blue screens! Same with that pretzel incident. It’s only a matter of time before Air Force One shows up with a red, green, blue and yellow flag on the tail, and MSN ads on the side…
Hmm, accroading to the testimonies, and the documents handed over by the Whitehouse, Whitehouse wasn’t a beneficial; but a victim. And Enron died because of bad accounting practices, which still be illegal in a laissez-faire capitalist government.
There are still all these mindless little capitalists running around acting like the case against MS has to do with success in business.
It does.
I think capitalism is just another religious pursuit. You have those that use it to get by happily and those that are selfish blind, delusional psychopaths that will do whatever it takes to acquire power and protect the system that maintains their position.
LOL, if it there is anything capitalism isn’t, it is religion. In fact, capitalism supports a secular way of life. A social structure based on capitalism promises everyone rights over their own life, and what they have made, and no laws shall punish one party for the mistake of another party. Another anti-capitalist law is the DMCA. I suppose who support that too. It is for digital innovation as much as antitrust is for consumers. In fact, ironically, both laws are to protect a bad business plan.
People who wave the flag of capitalism seem to be one of two kinds: those that have power and seek to retain/maintain it, and those that seek power and want to maintain the system they believe will bring it to them (or, what they see as their position of “next” in the corporate ladder climbing games).
I’m neither of that you have mentioned; I still support most parts of capitalism (except for the right to have a abortion…) Why? It isn’t fair for Netscape to just bring down another successful company because of what that is mainly their fault. Last time I use to be anti-MS because of the antitrust thing, then I started to rationalize. Then I asked all those early users of Windows with IE integrated (95b with IE2.0); the only ones that actually use it use it to download Netscape. Netscape dropped the ball at 4.x, it was slow and bloated (though many anti-MS blamed Microsoft; but in fact, it is bloated even on Linux and Mac OS). So, they have bad engineers; what did they do? Do a 4 1/2 years rewrite. But did they wait for the rewrite to complete before marketing the new browser? No, they shiped an unfinished browser known as Netscape 6.0, and I personally tried it (on Linux); hated it, and decided to dump Netscape Comm. 4.x too; and went for Opera (which just released a Linux version; I sticked to NS4 for a long time). Many other NS4 fans did the same..
Unless those ideas are copywrighted they can’t be stolen. Apple “stole” the gui from xerox, lotus didn’t invent anything it was just dominant for a while and wordperfect certainly didn’t invent word processing or spreadsheets (it just bundled them early).
Actually, Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox with stock options. Lotus was also the first to come out with spreadsheets. And WP, until the recent years with WP office; did not bundle a spreadsheet app. WP was, anyway, the first graphical word processor for Windows and OS/2.
But if you are saying Lotus and WordPerfect lost marketshare because of antitrust violations by Microsoft… LOL. Whoever who suggests that should be taken out and be shooted. In fact, if weren’t for Microsoft, WordPerfect would be long dead (Corel did some weird ports with it; one was to Java which failed, and another to Linux, which failed from the market standpoint).
MS couldn’t force anyone to do that. It can legally be part of a liscensing deal. Is it strong arming? Hell yes, but its not illegal (which is why be’s suit is a joke).
Actually, it is illegal under antitrust laws. Amazingly, it would be legal for Be to use the very same policies as Microsoft; and wouldn’t be illegal. That’s why I don’t support antitrust laws – it is a double standard.
MS hasn’t. It can charge oems that bundle other oses more per liscense then someone who sells just windows pcs (thats why gateway no longer sells amd systems, intel lowered their price to create a monopoly in new gateways). btw also legal
Actually, if AMD acts like a sourgrape like Netscape; it could cause Intel some serious PR…
Also, Gateway isn’t the only company strong armed by Intel; think Dell.
Anyway, strangely, one of this OEMs who opposess the equal OEM rights is Sony, Microsoft competitor (think PS2)….
Says you. It won’t benefit anyone except for other huge companies imo.
Agreed. AOL could steal a lot of market share with Netscape/Mozilla if they actually pump in marketing money into it; and not using it as a way to get Microsoft cooperation.
Finally the states are talking sense. I just hope there hapless fumbling has not botched the case beyond hope.