As Microsoft awaits court approval of its landmark antitrust settlement with the government, the company has angered some competitors by tightly limiting the technical data it promised to release. Microsoft says the restrictions are normal for the software industry and do not violate the terms of the settlement. But competitors contend that Microsoft’s actions are reminiscent of the behavior that led to the antitrust case and reinforce their claim that the entire settlement is inadequate.
Critics Say Microsoft Is Up to Old Tricks
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft’s “Passport” identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms – one of them promising secrecy – just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.”
Screw that … make them release full details of ALL their file formats and APIs, and then put them up on the ‘Net so anybody who wants to can take a look at the information.
You want to user in competition? Then give the competition the chance to play on a level playing field and be fully compatible with MS software and file formats, and I guarantee you that we’d have something better than the current crop of POS Linux desktops in a very short amount of time.
Don’t get me wrong, I use Windows and like it, but it seems Microsoft needs a major attitude adjustment, and I don’t think this antitrust case has done the trick.
then you can either compile in a binary module of ms’s protocols or run it as a run time argument.
M$ still ain’t happy with their every second of earn money, market, wage and etc. Perhaps, M$ only will happy when they own everything; not money?
Microsoft can’t afford to release it’s protocols without an NDA. If they do, the linux folks will just take it an give it away for free. That would not be right.
I think they can license it out at a very resonable price if not free, but we can blame them for doing it under NDA because if they don’t, they are signing their death sentense at the hands of the Linux crowd.
Companies like Apple, PalmSource, QNX, WinRiver etc… can license the technology. I think it’s resonable for MSFT to as them to sign an NDA to protect it’s intelectual property. Linux can continue to reverse engineer the protocols and/or create it’s own.
As long as the license price is resonable if not free, I think the NDA is fair and a good idea.
ciao
yc
Destroy Microsoft, that is all I ever hear.
Has anyone thought about the employees who work for MS, if MS can’t keep the money rolling in, then we would get employee layoffs. Don’t tell me this would never happen.
Then everybody would shift the blame to other areas such as unemployment rates are getting higher.
Microsoft can’t afford to release it’s protocols without an NDA. If they do, the linux folks will just take it an give it away for free. That would not be right.
We don’t need to copy the code, just be able to make applications and servers that can use the APIs and protocols. These need to be in the public domain as the APIs and file formats are what have kept the M$ Monopoly alive. Anti-trust monopoly breaking is required when a company abuses its position as M$ has done.
This is just what we can expect from M$, smoke and mirrors. They talk big, but deliver too little too late. This is their Business streategy, to keep the information secret until it is no longer relevent.
M$ needs more than a slap on the hand, they need to be forced to drain their cash reserve to level the field. not only should they make the APIs and file formats available to anyone that wants to see them, they should be forced to assist any company or organization with implementing the APIs with their software. This will never happen, but it is what would be fair and equitable compensation for the years of abuse of the monopoly.
After Microsoft’s breathtaking Reverse Switch Advertising Campaign Debacle, that prooves without a shadow of a doubt what a bunch of lowlife scumbags they really are. It really does not suprise that they would take a half hearted approach and laugh the settlement off.
They think the Anti Trust Case is a joke, and they think the Justice Department is a joke. If the Justice Department can’t bring Microsoft undercontrol then maybe they are a joke.
We will see Microsoft flexing its muscle for years to come untill somthing overpoweres them.
“After Microsoft’s breathtaking Reverse Switch Advertising Campaign Debacle … ”
What are you referring to here? I’m not disagreeing with you, as I have no idea what this is in reference to
This was the story on Slashdot, I also saw in on CNN’s Page but i can’t find it right now
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/15/0044255&mode=thread&tid…
It tells about how Microsoft made a Switch add that turned out to be a person working for microsoft
We will see Microsoft flexing its muscle for years to come untill somthing overpoweres them.
Microsoft is one of the new 21st century businesses. Microsoft acts as if it is more powerful than the countries that it operates in. This is what they believe:
Microsoft is more powerful than the US Government.
Microsoft is more powerful than the EU.
Microsoft believes that they are only outreached by God himself. Then only because God doesn’t use Windows or he would have been subverted long ago.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/15/0044255&mode=thread&tid…
in a nut shell: MS was using its own employee’s in its
switch campaign.
>>We don’t need to copy the code, just be able to make
>>applications and servers that can use the APIs and
>>protocols. These need to be in the public domain as the
>>APIs and file formats are what have kept the M$ Monopoly
>>alive. Anti-trust monopoly breaking is required when a
>>company abuses its position as M$ has done.
I agree but how is Microsoft suppose to make it’s research money back in order to develop future protocols and APIs?
As long as they receive a licensing fee, they will be OK. Just documenting, maintaining and releasing the APIs and file formats costs money. Not to mention researching and developing them.
Linux on the other hand is completely against licensing fees. While this is good for the industry in a way, it’s impossible for Linux to license any technology or intellectual property. So, Microsoft and Linux simply can not mix or cross license technology. If they do, all Microsoft Technologies will become OpenSource.
The way I see it, either Microsoft will kill Linux sooner or later or Linux will kill Microsoft. Co-existance is not an option.
ciao
yc
Yep Darius in my book that is sleezy
anyways Well were on the topic of Microsoft and money, here is a article from CTV News that you may have missed. its called Bill gets a Raise
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1032619429144_1…
>>M$ needs more than a slap on the hand, they need to be forced to drain their cash reserve to level the field. not only should they make the APIs and file formats available to anyone that wants to see them, they should be forced to assist any company or organization with implementing the APIs with their software. This will never happen, but it is what would be fair and equitable compensation for the years of abuse of the monopoly.<<
How is this fair? Nevermind. Your obviously another linux-zealot who can’t see past his own penguin T-shirt.
I agree but how is Microsoft suppose to make it’s research money back in order to develop future protocols and APIs?
Microsoft broke the law. They should not be allowed to keep the profits from this. If they need their money in the form of licensing, that’s just like saying that a bank robber needs to keep his ill gotten gains and protect his Interest and profits from the investments he mand with the stolen money.
That is what Microsoft did by using its monopoly to keep other companies from breaking into the markets that it controlled. Microsoft stole the market and all of the profit is stolen money. There is no need to protect Microsoft’s profit. Who protected the profits that were lost by the companies that Microsoft drove out of business by all the strong-arm back-room deals that it made?
We cannot go back, but we need to remove the profit gained by illegal acts and use that to help level the field and remove the monopoly power from Microsoft.
How is this fair? Nevermind. Your obviously another linux-zealot who can’t see past his own penguin T-shirt.
Tried Linux but just don’t like it.Neither do I like companies that break the law. We ( USA ) have an economy that works based on trust. If we cannot trust companies to play by the rules and deliver what they promise and not interfeer with other companies and their contracts, than the whole system is in jeopardy. If Microsoft gets away with the gross violations of the Sherman Anti-trust law, then others will follow. They are already following. Enron and Microsoft share a corporate culture that I find repugnent. It’s not the software, it’s the business practices that I detest.
>How is this fair?
Opening their MS Office file formats would basically allow any competing office suite to be close to 100% compatiable with Office, and thus the competition in the office suite market would be about ease of use and features, not compatibility as it is right now. That is, there might actually be some competition in the office suite market.
How much money do you think came in only because of strong arming tactics? I doubt you can find a realistic answer anywhere. At best you get an RIAA response from microsoft’s competitors. There is no fair way to do that.
“It’s not the software, it’s the business practices that I detest.”
Well then I spoke to soon, and I’m sorry. Just gotten to used to hearing the linux crowd say how they hate bad business practices – when in fact all they really want is microsoft’s code and will use any petty excuse to “punish” them rather than a sincere stance on the subject.
The NDA discussed in the article has nothing to do with file formats or APIs, it has to do with communication protocols (examples: CIFS (what Samba most likely wants), IPv4/v6, Firewire). The API disclosures required under the settlement were done without an NDA. The protocols covered by the NDA are listed at http://microsoft.com/legal/protocols/protocols.asp
The APIs (which are not under NDA) are at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
File format disclosure wasn’t required under the settlement proposal from the DoJ, and the case didn’t go into attempting to find that Microsoft used Windows or Office as a leverage to improve the other’s marketshare, making releasing Office file formats a little hard to include in any settlement.
And in other news, Humans need air to breathe…
“Destroy Microsoft, that is all I ever hear.
Has anyone thought about the employees who work for MS….”
Did Microsoft care about the employees of Be or Gobe? How about the folks at IBM who worked on OS/2?
Screw Microsoft.
“It has done nothing to level the playing field,” said Mark Webbink, general counsel for Red Hat, which sells a version of the Linux operating system that competes with Microsoft’s Windows.
You, Mark, have done nothing to create competition for Microsoft. Sure, Red Hat Linux 8.0 is very nice, but it is inadequate. A lot of problems. What do you want? You can even make do with what you have, you want everything FOR FREE?
Oh brother.
But why do you want these NDAed APIs? To create an Windows clone to run Windows applications? Well, bang, there goes the nice thing about Linux. Windows applications are the main causes of the security problems in Windows, and making them work on Linux would only import the security problems.
Without those protocols, competing gadgets and software won’t work as well with Windows as Microsoft’s own products do.
The funny thing that the DOJ never proved that Microsoft used these protocols and APIs before its competitors. In fact, it doesn’t. Take Office for example, it is still using Windows 98-level APIs. Sure, IE, OE, WMP, etc. gets to use the latest API (wait a minute, they are the latest API :-), but they are part of Windows.
“It’s just offensive,” said Webbink of Red Hat. “Why shouldn’t every member of the general public have access to the license agreement and to the royalty rates when that is a part of the remedy in the antitrust trial?”
The settlement never touched on royalty rates and NDAs. I don’t see how companies like AOL can’t get the new information for their products.
Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special “free software” license called the General Public License that bars any payment.
Under which clause? Clause 13, “You shall not pay for any thing while making something under this license, mwuahahahahaha”. Red Hat probably could afford paying the royalty.
Linux is one of the few operating systems that presents a threat to Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. Microsoft was found guilty of using illegal means to protect that monopoly.
While some Nigerian women was found guilty of rape under stupid laws. Yeah, that’s right, stupid laws.
Breath in, breath out. Now, try to comprehend why Microsoft pull the fucking ad before it was even mentioned by Slashdot.
They have a photo of the webpage on theregister.co.uk for both the chick and the little boy genious.
“Has anyone thought about the employees who work for MS, if MS can’t keep the money rolling in, then we would get employee layoffs. Don’t tell me this would never happen.”
MS can compete and make money off of playing nice with other companies and not screwing people with hidden APIs and secretive file formats…COMPETE. thats what its all about, 2 companies trying to provide a product, the best product wins. however, when MS keeps its secrets on things that have been mentioned, windows doesn’t _have to_ be the best(regardless if it is or not) because linux, macos, beos, whoever can’t fairly compete on things like MSoffice file compatibility.
bbjimmy: Microsoft is more powerful than the US Government.
Oh really? Proof? US have a superpower status in the UN. Microsoft don’t. US can veto any UN resolution, Microsoft can’t. US can adopt any policy that can cause more African children to strave, Microsoft doesn’t.
bbjimmy: Microsoft is more powerful than the EU.
I wish that was the case. Some of EU’s countries have the same UN power as US, like France and GB. EU as a whole have a greater impact in killing more African children.
bbjimmy: Microsoft broke the law.
Microsoft has been only convicted of co-mingling IE to twart Netscape. Nothing more, nothing less. Wow.
bbjimmy: We cannot go back, but we need to remove the profit gained by illegal acts and use that to help level the field and remove the monopoly power from Microsoft.
LOL. Most, if not all, of Microsoft money is made by its own ingeniunity. It isn’t fair for a law that say, “Hey, you kill that company (which actually died because it was incompetent, but we don’t care, we talking your 40 billion bucks”.
The playing field isn’t leveled because of the competition. Why AOL has been whining about IE in Windows when they use it in their AOL client? Think about that. Netscape market share fell sharply when it was too static (mostly because of the architecture of Netscape Communicator itself, needing a 4 year rewrite). I wonder why Real is still the top after more than 2 years after NetShow has been integrated.
bbjimmy: Tried Linux but just don’t like it.Neither do I like companies that break the law. We ( USA ) have an economy that works based on trust.
Yeah right. The antitrust laws is based on a sick concept that to have competition is to break the leader’s legs. What you would have is pseudo-competition. Competition that won’t really help consumers.
Anonymous: Opening their MS Office file formats would basically allow any competing office suite to be close to 100% compatiable with Office[…]
Not neccessary. Office rose to power even though it wasn’t fully compatible with Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, Harvard Graphics, etc. Besides, Sun, one of the closest ever company to fully reverse engineer the Office formats only hires two full time employees for that. Yeah, TWO. I bet it would be much better if it has, say, 20 full time employees working on it.
Plus, one of the main things needed for something fully compatible with Office is one altenative which has all the features Office has, making it possible to have full support for Office formats.
Did Microsoft care about the employees of Be or Gobe? How about the folks at IBM who worked on OS/2?
How much employees Be had? How much Microsoft has? Now compare. Which is more castrophobic, Be dying or Microsoft dying.
Anyway, on Be, they killed themselves. They didn’t have a clearcut small (around 1 to 3 million users) target market to begin their business with. They wanted to that the short cut. In business, there isn’t any shortcuts.
OS/2 was killed by IBM’s lack of competentcy themselves. They depended too much on Windows 3.1 applications, for example, not giving ISVs any reason to make native applications. Secondly, they wanted to have an upperhand over the clone makers in a shortsighted decission. Their OEM prices was way higher than of Windows, and companies like Compaq can’t compete on price with IBM if they choose OS/2.
Oh brother. When Microsoft tries to compete, it gets beaten. Thank IE for example, by integrating it, it had an upperhand towards other competitors. (Apple for example, before IE was integrated, integrated CyberDog into Mac OS). But what happened? They get sued by some losuy scumbag company.
I have to agree with rajan on some points of his arguments, but the fact remains that none of the other companies did (well be did) come with _anything_ new (apple did it with osx but i would call that new, i’d call that repackaging of old tech)
id like to see an integrated browser in any os , no really i would, or at least some sort of heavyweight browser as responsive as opera on all platforms.
and a standard organisation that comes with new technologies not just version of old tag based markup languages.
SVG would be really good for this.
but on the other hand my personal view is still, what cant be done with html 3.2 tags Shouldnt be done, but thats my personal view.
anyways good report.
rajan, you seem beside yourself tonight. The anti-trust laws in the USA are there for a purpose. They have rarely been invoked. We have a capitalist economic system, but we do not have an unbridled capitalist system. It is not meant to work that way and anti-trust laws were enacted to both prevent and punish those who violate them. They are not “sick” and are not meant to cut the legs out from an offending company. It is the offending company or enity that has unfairly cut the legs out from under other companies or entities that is targeted. I am not speaking legally here, but the idea is sort of the same as with individual citizens – everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity. Not preferential treatment one way or the other, but simply the same opportunity as others.
They Pulled the Add because they got caught,
Its a coverup, its false advertising. It is a true blue cover up, People in Congress get burned for covering things up. Why not microsoft.
Did Microsoft care about the employees of Be or Gobe? How about the folks at IBM who worked on OS/2?
Screw Microsoft.
This is why Microsoft will win unless competitiors start to do technically better than Microsoft.
I don’t think that Microsoft will loose in the courts, eventually they will really dominate everywhere and we will hear lots of stupid comments like this one and we will have to use MS products. Why? Because instead of competing with MS, most competitors waste their time bashing MS.
If you hold any company in the IT industry to the standars that MS is hold today, no company can stand, but MS is doing better and better every year. Once they get rid of some of the security problems, everything else against MS will be more or less lies and distortions. In that case every competitor will be screwed, and it won’t be MS who screws them.
This doesn’t surprise me. They don’t play fair, and they never will. The way to make it on your own, is not to nag about MS the whole time, just launch a counter attack. Modify the GPL to say that MS cant use any of the code or something :o)
Anway, they’ll get away with it as usual, virtually unpunished.
Take Care
Kevin
That is a good idea, bog Microsoft down in restrictive licensing
Its so simple,
p13as3 has a good point.
The way to make any headway in this “game” called software development is to do your own thing.
I agree with a lot of previous posts’ points about the monopoly issue, how Microsoft has beaten down other companies and stolen massive market share in the name of “innovation”.
However, I have come to realize that there is no proper, and fair way to combat the “Microsoft problem”.
Let me clarify the “Microsoft problem”, if you would allow me to.
The “Microsoft problem” is quite simple, when it comes to realizing the big picture.
i.) Microsoft has enourmous software development experience. They leverage their massive Research & Development budget towards any and all target markets and technologies they deem as potential profit making sources that when twisted into their infrastructure, are almost always unusable by others without their special form of branding, NDA’s and license schemes.
This has always been labelled as “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.”, and has thus far been quite effective.
ii.) Microsoft only lets favoured companies play. Back room deals, special insider NDA clauses, OEM refurbishments, and custom rebate programs designed to actually create profit for Microsoft and marginally a select few hardware makers, has caused a tidal shift in market presence over the years.
This tidal shift has allowed Microsoft to subtly increase their control over “favoured” manufacturers, while stemming the opportunity and potential of any competition that aims to break into the hardware market, or introduce a new operating system on the desktop. Such was the case with Be Inc., OS/2, and more choices, of which I could not possibly name them all.
iii.) Microsoft was a great advertiser. I use past tense with a purpose. It is my opinion that Microsoft’s marketing presence, foresight, range of exposure, and effectiveness have all been diminished in recent years, starting around 1998, when exposing the integration of Internet Explorer led to many other small discoveries by the common people. It’s very much a snowball effect. In time, this feeling of disentanglement will slowly build greater and greater, as more people begin to realize the true nature of Microsoft.
I speak not just of online advocacy and zealotry by the usual communities, but also of growing dissent in the ranks in the corporate space, the medium sized business client market, and the emerging small business technologies markets that are adapting to doing more with less financial abilities. People adapt. It’s our human nature to carry on, to change our lifestyle or perish, at all costs. I predict that Microsoft, like the plague that befell millions in Europe long ago, will wither away to a non-consequential force in years to come.
It is in our best interests to deal with Microsoft by not so much as deal directly with them, but by applying similar tactics and methodologies that will give alternative software choices a chance to grow, and in time, present real choice to the consumer. We surely can achieve this goal by diminishing our combative stances towards one another, and instead, start co-operating to reach that plateau where finally, everyone has an equal chance to succeed. We need to work harder, communicate clearer, and think long on this problem. It is in everyone’s best interest to do so. Only then will the “Microsoft problem” become a non-issue.
-Chris Simmons,
Avid BeOS User.
The BeOSJournal
Just a quick request. You know how the IP address is included with the post, could you also list the user agent, that is, the browser and operating system the person is posting from?
I’m not too sure how complicated it will be, however, it will shine the spotlight onto those who troll.
“They Pulled the Add because they got caught,
Its a coverup, its false advertising. It is a true blue cover up, People in Congress get burned for covering things up. Why not microsoft.”
LOFL, you obviously no nothing about congress. Ted Kennedy, negligent homicide, no trial. Several congressmen for various financial lies, hardly any ever convicted or even tried (can only think of one). Dozens of senators and congressmen had mistresses while condemning Clinton as creating “security risks” by sleeping around. JFK won the presidential election most likely because of union, mafia, chicago democratic machine ballot stuffing. packwood (he did finally get caught, but only after years). Strom Thermond, if he isn’t in the klan I’ll be shocked. hell in the early days (late 1700s early 1800s) some congressmen would kidnap opposing congressmen before a major vote (I know of three incidents that are pretty well documented and tons more with less substantial proof). Not to mention all the “legal” but unethical kick backs they get (weekends in aspen, large ticket “gifts”, private plane use, etc.). And of course W was so closely tied to ken lay, lay had a fucking office in the whitehouse. So he could work when he came to visit. Lastly though the entire thing about “needing” to attack Iraq is a ploy to shove the whole economy is slumping bad thing under the rug. he hopes it worked better then it did for his dad (it ended too soon for Sr.)
I think you should expect that MS will abuse the terms of the antitrust settlement. MS will continue to do business as it always has because the price of doing so has been small to them and the benefits have been great.
Its best not to concern oneself too much with the inevitable. Its better to focus on improving the impact of open source (linux) on the desktop. Open source is the one thing that MS can’t kill. It is the market’s solution to MS. another course might also be evident. The dean of MIT’s business school once said that the only way to defeat MS is to change the computing landscape. The desktop killed IBM’s monopoly and something else will kill off MS’s monopoly, perhaps handhelds.
microsoft release crap software and charge a fortune for it .they should release the imformation for free theres nothing wrong with copetition qnx and linux are better than windows anyway.
i would not pay a fortune for an os when linux is free anyway cdr discs are for burning windows on
Some of the posters get it. Microsoft IS a monopoly. As a monopoly they are actively trying to manipulate how we communicate with computers. Since they now hold over 90% of the desktop they are in a position to do that. We now have not just private business and home users using their products but government at all levels, local, state, and federal. Technology is a two edged sword. On the one side it benefits are quite visible and obvious. On the other side, the more important side lies the question of whether we trust and allow a company such as Microsoft to be in control of the way we citizens communicate with our elected officials though the veil of IP patent controlled products. If we allow the situation to continue as it is now we have wedged a commercial third party (Microsoft) into the political process that should be limited to citizen and elected officials. Not withstanding all of the other issues raised by competitors unhappy with Microsofts illegal tactics, the above reason should be more than enough to make one realize how important open standards are when it comes to communication between us all.
Its not an issue of whether we see the source code to Windows, its more that file formats and communication protocals HAVE to be open for our current and future society to remain open.
Those of you using Microsoft products need to realize you are participating in the demise of personal freedoms and by your lack of will helping to make companies like Microsoft a silent partner in the polictical process.
There’s a very simple solution to proprietary file formats: don’t use them! Save your files as rich text, and don’t accept files from anyone else if they’re not in a publicly available format.
Also, the GPL does not forbid selling software. It simply mandates that if you sell software, you must give the buyer access to the source code along with the other rights you were given as part of the license.
The key role of open file formats and network protocols for creating a more nearly level playing field has been discussed. The other important piece is OEM contracts – they have to be subject to review by the government to prevent the type of abuses in the past, for example a PC maker has to pay for a copy of Windows on every machine, regardless of whether it has Windows installed. Or they pay more for their Windows licenses if they don’t install Windows on every PC. Or they’re not allowed to pre-install a dual booted Windows/Linux PC, etc. The settlement needs to specify a review board here because Microsoft has shown itself to be adept at finding loopholes in (or ignoring) the terms of consent decrees.
All of these things (open file formats, open network protocols, review of OEM contracts) should be fairly straightforward to enforce. None would amount to, by any stretch of the imagination, “the Federal government geting into the business of designing computer software”. None would curtail or discourage future innovation by Microsoft. They say they’re the best, so they shouldn’t be afraid of competition.
Microsoft’s approach to business can be summed-up in one word – tollgate. Whilst MS apologists keep re-stating that they are just a well run business, they are missing the point. The point, is simply that tollgates are against the public interest.
Save your files as rich text, and don’t accept files from anyone else if they’re not in a publicly available format I agree with the spirit of this statement, but strongly object to the fact that RTF is open. It’s been polluted by, who else, Microsoft themselves in the newer versions of Word. In addition to that, even if RTF (or whatever other non .doc format) was truly free and unpolluted (by polluted I mean having on the market a product that has 96%+ marketshare (as Word has even larger marketshare than Windows, since it’s the most used wordprocessor on the Mac as well) and therefore can -effectively- change the standardness of existing formats), that would still not be enough, because, again, it would be endorsed by such a marginal minority that it would not impact the market forces. And that’s the whole point, to use an open document format to “liberate” the potential new wordporcessor user from having to chose Word.
Usability, on the other hand, when it comes to wordprocessors, is not an issue as it is with operating systems (although, to be honest, BeOS had better usability than Windows 95, for example, expecially when it comes to hardware management). So WordPerfect is rather usable and does not require a steep entry learning curve. WordPerfect has some advantages over MS Word, and two disadvantages: not having the complete API information, their product can not perform as well as Word and, most importantly, they are a drop in the ocean of Word .doc documents. See above.
As for those of you surprised by the ads (which MS promptly pulled when the furor started to mount), I must wonder: have you not seen/read about the fake grassroots campaign that MS orchestrated 2.5 years ago, with letters from “users” sent to newspapers, supporting MS and it’s products, in the face of the DOJ investigation? It turned out, the letters were written by a PR agency under contract with MS. The names were made up, some where actual dead people, etc. That was a much nastier, dirtier trick than this.
Jay: rajan, you seem beside yourself tonight.
Jay, that’s the first sentence you said I have no idea what it meant.
Jay: The anti-trust laws in the USA are there for a purpose.
Just like CBDTPA has a reason, no promote broadband usage.
Jay: They have rarely been invoked. We have a capitalist economic system, but we do not have an unbridled capitalist system.
The reason why it is rarely invoked because there is little parties interested in invoking them. For example, if someone sues Apple, they would be in hotter soup than Microsoft. That’s one of the many problems with anti trust laws.
Besides, a true capitalistic system, one outlined by Ayn Rayn, wouldn’t have many things the US impose. There, for sure, be no antitrust laws, no companies like the US Postal Service, no import export and commercial taxes, no tariffs, no wars (like the Vietnam and Korean war, and perhaps Gulf War 2)…. In other words, China is more capitalistic than US.
Travis: Its a coverup, its false advertising. It is a true blue cover up, People in Congress get burned for covering things up. Why not microsoft.
Tell me my friend. If this wasn’t a mistake, why would they spend resources making something that they are going to pull in less than week? The switch ad, plain and simple, was a mistake. Microsoft would never do that, they have a rather clean record of keeping promises with their partners, and preventing something that could break them.
But Travis, I wonder, what does this have to do with anything regarding the article or antitrust laws in general? Nothing. Nadda.
Sergio: This is why Microsoft will win unless competitiors start to do technically better than Microsoft.
Both OS/2 and Be OS was technically better. But just because they are technically better doesn’t mean they have a chance to succeed. Heck, it doesn’t matter whether your OS is the greatest, or the worst that Amnesty considers it a crime against humanity. What matters is marketing.
Something both IBM and Be Inc. Forgot, almost completely.
p13as3: Modify the GPL to say that MS cant use any of the code or something :o)
Something RMS would never agree, considering that RMS is always against discrimination against a party in their license. Besides, why would Microsoft be bothered if they can’t use GPL software? Its not like they are crazy over it.
Chris Simmons: […]marginally a select few hardware makers[…]
Chris, I don’t understand this statment. The only reason why Microsoft beats OS/2 to the game was the OEMs. They are no respector of OEM. They would make deals with your if you can sell hardware. They have special deals with companies like Sony which needs them.
Chris Simmons: Such was the case with Be Inc., OS/2, and more choices, of which I could not possibly name them all.
I still don’t know what you mean by the first statment, but I’m making a guess with this one. OS/2 died because of IBM’s shortsightedness. They figured, with a good product, good brandname, lots of money, people would naturally buy their product. But the main problem with them is that they charge clone makers way too much for the software that if they are planning to compete in terms of price with IBM, they can’t.
Be Inc. on the other hand isn’t anything like OS/2. They figured that if they get big OEMs to bundle and dual-boot Be OS with Windows, they can get ISV and IHV support. of course, if they succeed in doing so, I doubt they would have succeed as a business. They have no target market (other than “multimedia”, lol). Big fatal flaw.
Chris Simmons: In time, this feeling of disentanglement will slowly build greater and greater, as more people begin to realize the true nature of Microsoft.
To be frank, not many people except diehard Netscape users and well geeks really understands what’s going on. Most layman people don’t know anymore than what the newspapers tell them.
The true nature of Microsoft, one you haven’t recognize, is one that is profit orientated. Not domination orienated, or politic orientated etc. In the early years, they never released a product they know wouldn’t make them money. Of course now they can afford to do so, but not 25 years ago.
Chris Simmons: I speak not just of online advocacy and zealotry by the usual communities, but also of growing dissent in the ranks in the corporate space, the medium sized business client market, and the emerging small business technologies markets that are adapting to doing more with less financial abilities.
I met more small software companies that are more pro-MS than anti-MS in the antitrust case. The corporate space, this space was the first experiement of the subcribtion plan. Of course, it backed fired. These companies are divided into three, the first is people who loose out from this, the second won’t be affected financially, and the third would benefit from this. Unfortunately, the press is actively highlighting the first group, even though they are a minority compared to the second and third group put together.
However, a true monoploy would snide, “Haha, you fools. I don’t care if you can’t afford out per seat license cost of 15 billion bucks, pay, pay, pay, mwuahahahaha”.
Funny, when AutoDesk raised their priced and adopted a methord like Microsoft, nobody in the press cared, even though AutoCAD has more than 70% of the market (therefore a monopoly).
Chris, overall, i get your point. No use of antitrust laws, just act like smart businessmen, and their empire will fall. their empire WILL fall. Most likely because of Linux. They are commoditzing software. Imagine, Linux has a 30% SALES growth. Very very impressive. Their marketshare based on sales is equally good.
Matthew Gardiner: I’m not too sure how complicated it will be, however, it will shine the spotlight onto those who troll.
How? For example, now I’m using Windows 2000, so what? If I’m using Linux, that makes me a troll? If using Windows, that’s makes me a troll?
Genaldar: he hopes it worked better then it did for his dad (it ended too soon for Sr.)
Well, he only got a few years to patch up the economy, reverse the current economic trend, otherwise, next term, we would say “Hello, Gore” or perhaps some suprise like “Hello, Nader!”.
But frankly, even if he topples Hussien, it still won’t be counted as a victory. What sounds like a better and more economical solution is to really develop the opposition.
ryan: Open source is the one thing that MS can’t kill.
Not unless they spend all their money lobbying Congress, and Parliments accross the world, to ban Free Software 😛 Maybe that’s what they meant by “outsmarting Linux”.
Announmynous: Some of the posters get it.
Apparently you don’t. Microsoft is not involve in the political process, and would never be. Like every other company in the US, they made donations to the party of their choice, End of story. That’s it. They may be a vocal critic of the CBDTPA and the Lemon Act, but that’s about it.
stahbird: for example a PC maker has to pay for a copy of Windows on every machine, regardless of whether it has Windows installed.
No court transcript said that. Proof, may I ask?
A few points for you to ponder.
First thing is that RTF has never been “poluted” by Microsoft. In Office 97, they saved files for Office 95 as RTF files with the extention *.doc. I need proof on that claim, mister.
Secondly, do you have proof that WordPerfect sucks because of lack of APIs? The companies that once handled WordPerfect did a terrible job at it, ala StarOffice. Corel did a lot to fix it, and as long you aren’t using XP (it looks really ugly in XP), WordPerfect Office 2002 is really good. Nice of you to blame Microsoft rather than the guilty one.
Thirdly is that it doesn’t matter how easy to use the product is. It really doesn’t matter. Really! Otherwise, we all be using Mac OS (which, not counting Aqua, was far more usable than BeOS). What matters is that I can do my work on an OS. That’s why I’m no longer using Linux as much. I can’t get DSL to work on Linux (waiting till the holidays to figure it out). I don’t care if BeOS had the coolest UI around, the most advance FS, or the fastest OS around. No, I don’t. If I can’t use BeOS for anything, what use is there in using it?
Fourthly, about the ads, Microsoft pulled it before the “furor” started. In fact, by time CmrdTaco found out about this from a user, the ad was pulled. This is because it was a BLATANT mistake. The same with the grassroot support, they hired the wrong agency for the wrong job. Notice they don’t hire that agency anymore. This isn’t the first nor last time this has happen to Microsoft. Take the “We Have A Way Out” campaign. What server did they use?
They are a big company, it is impossible for them to keep tabs on each campaign.
‘coz you have some talent there, I hope you don’t waste it all on these boards ;o)))))
You might work a little bit on your one-sidedness though, that spoils the effect a bit.
stahbird: for example a PC maker has to pay for a copy of Windows on every machine, regardless of whether it has Windows installed.
No court transcript said that. Proof, may I ask?
If I didn’t have to work, I could find better examples, but this should suffice:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-868413.html?tag=prntfr
Just a quick request. You know how the IP address is included with the post, could you also list the user agent, that is, the browser and operating system the person is posting from?
I’m not too sure how complicated it will be, however, it will shine the spotlight onto those who troll.
When i read the first paragraph, i thought “that’d be cool to know.” Then you made your intentions known. So because i run linux, i’m a troll that doesnt know anything about windows, and shouldnt post comments on such topics..right… You’re comment is equivalent to online-racism, and it’s attitudes like yours that make this place more and more slashdotish.
Ohh boy, some of us are Microsoft shareholders…
I see some resentment against MS from some other poeple here… I got to say something to defuse some of their arguments!
Can’t let the anti-MS sentiments spread or else my investment will begin to spoil..
I don’t care if other poeple are dumb enough not to have MS stock. Let them burn! Who cares about the future, I get a regular paycheck in the mail and that the important thing. I got to eat!
Think…think…
Well..Can’t think of anything good to say right now but I WILL and then I’ll post it here. –If I can’t come up something good I will just say something to confuse them. At least this way those that are dumb will get confused (I don’t care about the clever ones, because there are more dim people than clever people and the average people are the ones who support the economy). Good! Sounds like a plan… OK…
Jeez I’ve been thinking out-loud I hope nobody heard me…
>So because i run linux, i’m a troll that doesnt know anything about windows
I think you misunderstood.
Because most of the people who troll about MS over here, actualy are browsing with IE.
Microsoft has repeatedly beaten the rap or managed to deflect the worst of the penalties for years. While other computer companies have done their share of unfair practices, they seem to be the worst offender, at least in the past decade.
And there is no sign that’s about to change.
I’ve heard a lot of complaints about what could potentially happen to their stock price if they were sufficiently penalized for things for which they’ve already been convicted.
If you’re worried about this, consider selling your shares.
The federal government can’t force ms to open its file formats. The laws about copyrighted works can’t be circumvented. No matter what the crime, making ms open them would be the equivilant of cruel and unusual punishment. In fact the only way to make ms open the file formats is repeal all current copy right laws and make the new ones have clauses about punishment in antitrust cases. Even then it couldn’t be retroactive so the formats would still be closed, but it would stop future microsofts.
Besides there are bigger monopolies the government should take care of. Look at the record industry, granted its an industry not a single company but they’ve been convicted of inflating prices, artificially for years. Some estimates say we should pay less then $2 for a cd. I don’t know about you guys but I pay 5 or 6 times that much. Then theres the movie industry, some kind of thing (no trial yet, but I guarantee the prices are fixed). And of course there are government endorsed monopolies (gas, telephone, electric, water, trash, cable). Plus real issues like homeless, unemployed, teen pregnancy, crime, drugs, kids going hungry, kids who can’t get medicine. But hey instead of fixing any of that lets spend tens of millions of dollars to get nothing out of an antitrust suit, especially since what everyone against ms wants can’t happen.
I bet you’re not really a pro-MS troll, you’re far too coherent
Office 10, the next version of Office, all of its file formats are now XML. Talk about being open…
What are you guys going to complain about next?
If they publish the complete, documented XML schema and allow its free use, I’ll be impressed. Otherwise it’s easier to reverse engineer the format compared with binary .DOC, .XLS etc. but it’s still a huge job. Anyway the StarOffice folks have pretty much figured out the current formats.
The idea that the government can’t force them to open their file formats because of copyright law may (or may not) comply with the letter of the law, but not with the spirit of the law.
Copyright laws exist for limited periods of time for a reason – the basic intention is to stimulate creation of new works. After a certain period of time, copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain.
At any rate, it should be subject to compulsory licensing. Others wanting to create derivative works from MS file formats should be able to do so. MS would be allowed to reap a profit from the copyright, but not to keep it a secret from the world.
Plus, there is the concept of “fair use” – you are allowed to use portions of a copyrighted work in certain situations; for instance, educational settings. So by that logic, there is nothing to keep a university from showing MS source code to their students as an example of real-life, working code. Now THAT’s not likely to happen, is it? Yet if it did, under copyright law it should be legal.
So it would seem that seeking protection under copyright laws would not provide the protection that MS desires.
rajan, I just meant you seemed very upset.
Microsoft shareholders should be happy today, with its better than expected quarterly financials!
Office 10, the next version of Office, all of its file formats are now XML. Talk about being open…
Office 10 is OfficeXP (it even says Office 10 in the program files directory), perhaps you’d like to try 11?
If they publish the complete, documented XML schema and allow its free use, I’ll be impressed. Otherwise it’s easier to reverse engineer the format compared with binary .DOC, .XLS etc. but it’s still a huge job. Anyway the StarOffice folks have pretty much figured out the current formats.
StarOffice still has a ways to go. They can do most basic documents and some embedded stuff, but it’s still fairly easy to generate a document that it can’t handle. XML, on the other hand, should be self-descriptive. At the very least, if a particular item is causing problems it’s fairly easy to figure out what the formatting is in the document.
Plus, there is the concept of “fair use” – you are allowed to use portions of a copyrighted work in certain situations; for instance, educational settings. So by that logic, there is nothing to keep a university from showing MS source code to their students as an example of real-life, working code. Now THAT’s not likely to happen, is it? Yet if it did, under copyright law it should be legal.
Microsoft already licenses Windows source code to schools.
I think the whole copyright thing misses the point, though. Office was barely touched in the case (except as being leveraged on the Mac to gain IE market share on that platform), and it’s unlikely that they’ll introduce it into the case now that they’ve already been to the appeals court once. Opening Office file formats doesn’t really seem pertinent as punishment for Windows and IE licensing issues. The primary problem is that Microsoft had exclusivity deals with the majority of distribution channels for browser and operating system software. Those sorts of deals are perfectly fine for companies with sufficient competition, but once you sew up enough distribution channels you fall into antitrust territory. If you have a significantly large market share, it’s easy to do that. Changing the contractual requirements allows other developers access to those distribution channels.
What would opening the Office file formats do? Clear up those last bits that other software developers haven’t figured out in the format. It wouldn’t always mean that they could replicate the behavior properly. A lot of the stuff that other office suites have problems with are complex tasks that many of those suites can’t do in their own formats (though they’re getting better all the time).
Chris Simmons:
This has always been labelled as “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.”, and has thus far been quite effective.
It’s also a tactic of single celled protozoa.
So, what you are saying, is that MicroSoft’s business ethics are remniscent of the lowest form of life?
(Not their b usiness tactics, which seem to put them at the top of the evolutionary scale.)
Hmmm, does that mean the next version of Windows will be code-named “Ameoba?” (Just to get all of those AmigaOS users excited.)
Matthew Gardiner:
Just a quick request. You know how the IP address is included with the post, could you also list the user agent, that is, the browser and operating system the person is posting from?
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1951&limit=no#45589
and http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1951&limit=no#45590
being sequential, show the same TLD and the same blatantly hideous disregard for the English language, are really a troll by the same person?!
I didn’t mean Office 10, I meant Office 11.
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26915
mario: Rajan r, wonderful piece of PR for Microsoft – are you a lawyer?
Wish I was. That way, if I had a job, I could probably replaced the burned out PSU and start tinkering with Red Hat and get DSL running okay there, and dumping Windows. Oh, now I know why they don’t pay me….
stahbird: If I didn’t have to work, I could find better examples, but this should suffice:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-868413.html?tag=prntfr
Wait a minute, that was suppose to be my point! Notice in the article, Gateway is comparing the new terms with the old terms, perfering the old one. Which is one of my hundreds of proof that antitrust laws does suck.
Masai: Ohh boy, some of us are Microsoft shareholders…
Wish I was… just imagine the amount of money I would get! Wow….
Eugenia: Because most of the people who troll about MS over here, actualy are browsing with IE.
Or are using Opera with default settings…
Bannor: While other computer companies have done their share of unfair practices, they seem to be the worst offender, at least in the past decade.
Actually, on the antitrust scale, Apple would have taken the lead. The problem is the press. The big press, the mainstream one, is sensationalizing this case so much because it makes money! Just imagine, if Netscape didn’t sue, how would the mainstream press write so many articles with so many ad money?
Think about that. Microsoft is quite unlucky that the press hounded on them.
Abraham Tehrani: Office 10, the next version of Office, all of its file formats are now XML. Talk about being open…
Office 10 is already out. You meant Office 11. Which would come with a nice combination of XML and binary. Not totally open.
stahbird: If they publish the complete, documented XML schema and allow its free use, I’ll be impressed. Otherwise it’s easier to reverse engineer the format compared with binary .DOC, .XLS etc. but it’s still a huge job. Anyway the StarOffice folks have pretty much figured out the current formats.
Actaully, it is much much more easier reverse engineering XML formats than binary ones. Besides, note that StarOffice guys only hire two full time workers for reverse engineering. And you guys keep blaming Microsoft, heh?
Christopher Kemp: Copyright laws exist for limited periods of time for a reason – the basic intention is to stimulate creation of new works. After a certain period of time, copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain.
The limit, IIRC, is 50 years. Yeah, I can imagine 50 years from now there would be people interested in making something compliant with Office XP.
Christopher Kemp: Plus, there is the concept of “fair use” – you are allowed to use portions of a copyrighted work in certain situations; for instance, educational settings.
I don’t think you got the concept of fair use right. Fair use is where you can do anything you like with the copryighted material you bought, except for redistributing it or selling it, etc. Software has yet to fall under fair use BTW.
Jay: rajan, I just meant you seemed very upset.
I was actually. My mum didn’t bake the cheesecake I requested from her 🙂
(Actaully, I was upset. Red Hat done little to shake Microsoft from its monopoly, yet still making claims against it).
PainkilleR: Office 10 is OfficeXP (it even says Office 10 in the program files directory), perhaps you’d like to try 11?
Office 10 is, IIRC, actually Office 97-Office XP (And Office 98-Office v. X). Office XP software is 10.2.
PainkilleR: (except as being leveraged on the Mac to gain IE market share on that platform),
I doubt that’s the case. In Mac OS 9, Apple pushed IE and Netscape equally hard, and with OS X, it made it the default.
Think about the MicroSoft employees?! What about all the employees put out of business BY MicroSoft??? Give me a break.
Office 10 is, IIRC, actually Office 97-Office XP (And Office 98-Office v. X). Office XP software is 10.2.
In 1993 Microsoft moved most of their application versions to 6.0. Office 95 was v7, Office 97 was v8, Office 2000 v9, Office XP v10. Any 10.x version is based on the updates to OfficeXP and what number was on the release version (usually they don’t release a strict .0 release, one of the betas or release candidates will have that number if it’s not a purely internal build). If you install Office2k on a computer, it’s settings are stored under the 9.0 entry in the registry (under software/settings/microsoft/office/ or something along those lines), and I believe 95 and 97 follow the same method (though it’s possible it was only implemented after version problems with a previous Office release).
PainkilleR: (except as being leveraged on the Mac to gain IE market share on that platform),
I doubt that’s the case. In Mac OS 9, Apple pushed IE and Netscape equally hard, and with OS X, it made it the default.
I’m just going by what’s in the Findings of Fact and the Appeals Court’s opinion. It was based mostly on a reported statement that Bill Gates had called up Apple to discuss the end of development of Office for the Mac when they were in negotiations regarding Internet Explorer, and the eventual turn-around in the talks which wound up with Apple dropping their own browser and Microsoft signing a 5-year commitment to develop IE and Office for the platform.
Actually, rajan, I didn’t get it wrong – read the copyright act, you’ll see it. The Fair Use Doctrine also governs such things as quoting copyrighted works in news pieces.
I don’t know offhand what the legal opinion is of software vs. Fair Use – but what I was mainly saying was that if you were to seek protection under copyright law, then you have to abide by all the terms of copyright – which includes Fair Use.
And the term is life of the author+50 years, recently extended to life+70 by Congress, because some well-heeled copyright owners weren’t done squeezing money out of their soon-to-be-public-domain works (like early Mickey Mouse).
Of course, I did not put this out there to imply that anyone will give a shit about Windows source code in 75-100 years. I was merely pointing out that the limits were there, and stating the reason for the limits’ existance. Note what I said: Copyright laws exist for limited periods of time for a reason – the basic intention is to stimulate creation of new works. After a certain period of time, copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain.
PainKilleR: In 1993 Microsoft moved most of their application versions to 6.0. Office 95 was v7, Office 97 was v8, Office 2000 v9, Office XP v10. Any 10.x version is based on the updates to OfficeXP and what number was on the release version (usually they don’t release a strict .0 release, one of the betas or release candidates will have that number if it’s not a purely internal build). If you install Office2k on a computer, it’s settings are stored under the 9.0 entry in the registry (under software/settings/microsoft/office/ or something along those lines), and I believe 95 and 97 follow the same method (though it’s possible it was only implemented after version problems with a previous Office release).
Dang, I was wrong. i have just checked (my father still uses 2000, he isn’t interested in the new features of XP). Why! WHY! WHHHHYYYY! You torment me in osOpinion with always proving me wrong, now you come here!!!!!!! 🙂 (just kidding, BTW). Anyway, I doubt it is an update, Although I should get around to it, I never upgraded it since I got it. On this computer, that is a month after release 🙂
PainKilleR: It was based mostly on a reported statement that Bill Gates had called up Apple to discuss the end of development of Office for the Mac when they were in negotiations regarding Internet Explorer, and the eventual turn-around in the talks which wound up with Apple dropping their own browser and Microsoft signing a 5-year commitment to develop IE and Office for the platform.
Somebody is lying in court…. hehe. Actually, Steve Jobs killed Cyber Dog and went for that horrid beast called Netscape 4.x. Later on, they replaced Netscape (thankfully) with IE.
Christopher Kemp: I don’t know offhand what the legal opinion is of software vs. Fair Use – but what I was mainly saying was that if you were to seek protection under copyright law, then you have to abide by all the terms of copyright – which includes Fair Use.
And my point was the defination of fair use used inside the act is based on analog media, not digital. Software is digital. To be frank, I support fair use all the way, in software and digital media.
So in other words, it would be hard for the DOJ to book Microsoft on the claims of fair use. Besides, the last I checked, fair use only implies to a customer (legal customer) being able to do whatever he/she likes with the product he/she buys as long it is for his own use.