West Virginia Joins Massachusetts in MS Appeal Bid 385
diwolf writes "West Virginia is seeking to join Massachusetts in appealing a U.S. District Court decision that rejected a tough antitrust remedy sought by nine states in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case. This is also being reported at CNN and ZDNet."
Alright! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alright! (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had modpoints today, I'd undamage this one, currently at 0. Whether I agree with the comment or not, it's a valid sentiment for someone to express (that going against the flow, against both the government and a very successful corporation, takes guts) and didn't deserve to be modded down.
On another note, KI, last I heard all the other states had signed on... WV was the last of the "uncommitted" to be choosing a side. So I doubt there will be a "#3".
--
* Helen *
Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
West Virginia and the other non-settling states had argued that Microsoft should be required to sell versions of Windows without a Web browser, music player and other software to make room for competing products.
On the other hand though, how hard would it be for Microsoft to just give the option upon install of not installing these components? Would it be worth MS's time and money (in terms of legal costs, etc) to give this option? Though I'm sure they're more than willing to spend the money to keep their products on as many PC's as possible
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hrm... (Score:2, Interesting)
mm lawyers (Score:2)
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is true, M$ have themselves to blame for it. If they had designed and built their software cleanly, they could test everything seperataly and be done with it. If instead, the whole of Windows, Internet Explorer, and whatever else they ship on the CD is a big interdependence nightmare (which apparently it is), then, indeed, they have to test all possible combinations.
A well-designed and well-implemented operating system works with a web browser, without a web browser, and with a broken web browser. Similarly for any other application. Seperation of system and applications, people!
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are right about when you say "A well-designed and well-implemented operating system works with a web browser, without a web browser, and with a broken web browser. Similarly for any other application. Seperation of system and applications, people!" you would be lying if you told me you would package a Linux distro and not test the installiations of all the products you put in it.
If MS put together a OS "the right way" and did not test some options we would be complaining about their QA process...
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Funny)
I suggested to Bill's people that they produce a version of Windows called Windows DS (Dissenting States) Edition. This would be exactly the same as normal XP except that the media player, browser etc shells would not be there (but the dlls they access would be since they are pretty fundamental).
My guess is that absolutely noone would buy it since the idea of getting half a loaf was never something the consumers were demanding, it was the software houses.
No response yet on that one, although Bill did tell me in an email that in a move to demonstrate his appretiation of the open source movement, Melinda is going to cook a penguin for Christmass dinner.
Easy but... (Score:3, Insightful)
MS (correctly) perceives that it is doomed if it does not branch out into newer and different industries from its stalwart OS. It is not enough to keep its OS's on as many machines as possible, because its monopoly will not hold forever, and when it breaks so will their profit margins. The Web caught it off-guard; now it thinks it can conquer it. The easiest and most familiar way to do so is to bootstrap via the OS advantage. Hence its aggressive efforts to slot IE into everyone's desktop including Apple's (which seems to have gone away now).
Also, MS has for years now used a scorched earth policy towards any competitor. It viewed the government as just another opponent. Its recent recent experience appears to be making it less arrogant and more political. There was even an NYT magazine article on the kinder, gentler Steve Ballmer.
I really hate doing this (Score:3, Offtopic)
Its good to see (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Its good to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Executives across the country are empowered with discharging mercy where due--a breakup is a death sentence for a corporation, and Bush would be in his right to give MS a pardon to avert their breakup if he felt it was good for the country. That's his call, and if we don't like it we can pick someone else in two years.
Justice should also be a lot swifter than this. That Microsoft case should have been over in at least 6 months.
Yes, it should have. Jackson should have mentioned future versions in his original consent decree way back when, he should have kept his mouth shut so his original antitrust ruling could stand, and President Bush should have left the extant prosecution stay on to finish the re-trial.
Re:Its good to see (Score:2)
A break would be a good thing, if you think about it, it forces more competition, innovation, and everything else that is sorely needed in this industry.
Re:Its good to see (Score:2)
Re:Its good to see (Score:4, Interesting)
That's how it's supposed to work, at least.
The reality is that we're not going to get the option to elect a president who stands for rigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws, because such a candidate would have great difficulty raising money from business interests who aren't particularly fond of such laws.
Of course, probably the only reason we ever saw an anti-trust case brought against Microsoft to begin with was that Gates & co. hadn't wised up to the need to make generous campaign contributions. With $4.6 million in contributions in the 2000 cycle [opensecrets.org], I'd say they've now figured things out, and the DoJ's antitrust division can now go back to sleep.
Re:Its good to see (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong. (Score:2)
That's something you don't see ever. Especially in Texas.
Reality check: No death penalty was in the offing; this isn't even a criminal prosecution; and the only thing really at stake was Bill Gates's shot at becoming the first trillionaire. If Microsoft had been divided into software and OS divisions, does anyone seriously think that either BabySoft would have failed? Or that the quality of their products would have declined? (MS haters: substitute could for would.)
President Bush comes from a political philosophy that is anti-antitrust. It's pretty simple.
Re:Its good to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Just look at how quickly AT&T went out of business after it was broken up...
Do you have any evidence to support this opinion? Certainly Micro$oft applications would be more successful if they weren't forbidden from supporting other platforms in order to prop up the Windows monopoly. In my opinion, a breakup would be good for for innovation, shareholders, for employees, and for customers. The only thing it would be bad for is Bill's ego. What proof can you show me that the combined revenues of the separate companies wouldn't be greater than Micro$oft's current revenues?
Re:Its good to see (Score:2)
Well, without a monopoly Windows would have to be priced competitively. So the O/S division's profits would definitely suffer from a breakup.
Re:Its good to see (Score:5, Funny)
LOL. There's a couple of hundred guys down in Texas you can ask about W's sense of mercy when it comes to death sentences. Oh wait... you can't ask them any more.
Well, at least he's found it in his heart to spare poor Microsoft. All is forgiven. Go forth and sin no more.
Re:Its good to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its good to see (Score:2)
And how much are you paying for local service these days?! (We're seeing local competition, finally.)
I don't think I came out ahead, and now we have all these annoying ads for long-distance service and 1-800 alternatives. (On the bright side, Carrot Top [carrottop.com] has found gainful employment.)
But yeah, breaking up the Death Star was probably good for the economy. Yippee.
Um ... ExxonMobil? (Score:2)
Where's Virginia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where's Virginia? (Score:4, Informative)
But the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the City of Virginia Beach's jank, anyway. The city is pretty much an independent government, as far as day-to-day (including computer) operations go.
Who benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is quite clear that there will be no noteworthy changes to the original settlement, so any interested parties (mostly Microsoft's competitors) don't have anything to gain. It is also quite clear that the main loser is going to be the taxpayer. So who is the winner of this case (other than the army of lawyers)?
The answer is that a bunch of people (e.g. the attorney generals of these states) gain some free press and cheap popularity from the ongoing coverage of the case. The important thing to notice is that the case itself is absolutely irrelevant, these people would attach themselves to any other high-profile case just as quickly.
So don't ever think this is about "freedom" or any other nice ideas, it's only about buying votes and personal agendas.
Re:Who benefits? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't. When both higher courts toss it out, THEN it'll be clear. Until then, its' worth pursuing.
It is also quite clear that the main loser is going to be the taxpayer.
The lawyers pursuing the case the government lawyers paid a salary, not hourly wages. The taxpayers don't pay much extra by pursuing this case... and since MS has to reimburse the legal expenses of the government at market rate, the taxpayers will, if anything, MAKE money.
lawyer fees (Score:4, Informative)
So Microsoft pays. It's a win-win, ha-ha. I doubt the states will be reimbursed more than actual costs. I also assume/hope the law has some safety valve against nonsense prolongation of the litigation, but this appeal sounds meritorious if doomed.
(And, it should be noted, an appeal costs peanuts compared to the $25 million -- tens of thousands, maybe. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind, they want to be sure this is done right.)
Re:Who benefits? (Score:2, Insightful)
we all do (Score:3, Insightful)
A loss doesn't look good; the attorneys general that are pursuing this case wouldn't waste time on if if they thought they didn't have a chance to win it.
The real question is why the other states aren't pursuing it further. I suspect that's because of heavy lobbying and "campaign donations" by Microsoft, convincing politicians that what's good for Microsoft is good for the country.
we win even if we don't win (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, there was never really a decisive victory against IBM, but the decade of ongoing legal scrutiny caused IBM to change their business practices greatly, in many areas. As a specific example, the fact that the PC is a fairly open architecture is a result of such legal efforts: IBM only outsourced the PC operating system to Microsoft because they were afraid that bundling hardware and software would get them dragged into court again.
While this created another monopoly in the form of Microsoft, the overall outcome was still better than the alternative, a closed, all-IBM solution. The fact that the PC software was separate from IBM hardware allowed a third party hardware market to flourish and indirectly made software like Linux possible.
So, nibbling away legally at monopolists like IBM and Microsoft does produce long-term benefits, even if such efforts fail to produce groundbreaking short-term victories. The efforts against IBM opened up the PC hardware/software platform, and similar long-term efforts against Microsoft may kill the Microsoft monopoly as well.
And there are indications that Microsoft is changing subtly under this pressure already. But the point is: the longer the legal pressure is on them, the more they will change. This is not the time to lean back and say "oh, we'll just stick with this little settlement". It is on-going lawsuits, not some signature under a settlement, that ultimately keeps companies like Microsoft in check.
Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that MS has driven many of it's competitors underground, and it's too late to save them. That doesn't mean they should get away with it.
But then neither should the law be used in a way that allows other companies an anti-competitive edge over MS.
Who knows what technological innovations are around the corner? It's important that these type of laws be enforced, but even more importantly, that they are tested and utilised, so that when this starts to happen with the Next Big Thing, we can act in a reasonable amount of time.
Re:Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that it's not entirely clear whether MS 'drove them into the ground' illegally or not. Noone's doubting that MS did some shitty stuff that they should most definitely be punished for, but the flip side is that they also make really useful software. Did Netscape lose to MS because they couldn't bundle it with Windows, or did they lose because IE was just plain a better browser?
Frankly, I think it's time for everybody to move on. The damage is done, we might as well let MS move on. With today's economy, we need new stuff like TabletPCs. Focus on boosting the market instead of drawing blood on MS.
Re:Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice philosophy.
Let's apply this same logic to Enron, WorldComm, and the next Jeffrey Dahmer while we're at it.
I will agree that it is not entirely clear whether MS's illegal practices were the primary culprit or Netscape's poor software, however, that still doesn't mean that there should be no punishment at all - which is effectively what the current settlement is. It's a settlement whereby Microsoft has basically agreed to obey all the laws that it should have been obeying (but didn't) in the first place.
Re:Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe I saw a trial about a rapist used the similar approach to defend.
The difference is MS getting away with its crime.
Re:Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to compete with MS windows you have to go the Apple route [just don't do those stupid switch commercials, those make me sick].
You need shiny, simple, hard to screw up, easy to setup OSes.
RH 8.0 for example is really shiny but really easy to screw up [even while following the directions to the letter].
That and the "control" panel thingy needs more work.
Tom
Re:Too Late To Save, Not Too Late To Punish (Score:3, Informative)
That's not so. Read the findings of fact and see how Microsoft drove IBM out of the PC operating system market by refusing to license Windows to them if they continued selling OS/2, drove Netscape into the ground with various exclusionary tactics, and forced Apple to do their bidding by threatening to withdraw MS Office for the Mac. These facts are not in dispute.
Reasons? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reasons? (Score:2)
Uhh, does that mean their concept of life is modern, or something else? Classical? Renaissance? Impressionist? Or from the music scene, modern? Progressive? Punk? New wave?
Re:Reasons? (Score:2, Interesting)
Since someone said the state has mostly passed the big money part of the case, of course the state will keep pushing for it's 'investment' to flower
Remember the basics of law... (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, who has more money to throw at the case, M$ or the 9 states?
(I'm too lazy to research it, so I'll just make my own assumptions and keep an eye on M$ stock prices...)
7 of 9?? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm... so 7 of 9 is handling enforcement? Borg fighting Borg... didn't I already see that episode?
Microsoft Nervous About Something (Score:5, Interesting)
Of Course, they have confused Free (as is speech) Software with free (as in beer) software, and didn't always realise that Linux is not the only free software out there.
and note: they didn't save the sale for Microsoft.
Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago (Score:4, Interesting)
1. M$ is scared shitless of Linux. They have no real strategy to deal with something that even they know is more stable and secure, and know they can't compete on price.
2. Win XP and M$'s licensing went over with customers even worse than what you read - even here. M$ kept a tight lid on how badly Win XP cratered in the corporate world.
3. M$ rank-and-file are a bunch of arrogant asswipes who think big corporations and gov't have no choice but to buy M$
Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago (Score:2, Interesting)
While MS costs more to "buy", linux I'd say costs more to install. Almost anyone can setup and use a MS windows platform. Compariatively noone can install and use a linux distro. Ask some business student to install Apache [when they aren't that computer literal to begin with] is fun
The rest of your post is fairly typical of MS-hate speak.
Tom
Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I have no reason to leave Win2K since a) I didn't pay for my copy, b) works like a charm and c) have yet to have problems installing drivers or using any app.
What boggles my mind is why Distro should be 3 full CD's to begin with. If they just consolidated their fucking support libs/apps then it wouldn't be so big.
Last time I installed Linux [RH 8.0] I got three versions of QT, five different kernels, two copies of GCC, KDE/Gnome support libs, various versions of Motif, etc, etc...
Now I know every linux user likes having "their" version of a program but this is very useless for the "I just want to use the damn thing" user [e.g. me].
Choice be damned, when you have to install 1400 packages [4GB] to get your RH install to work properly without any depend bitching there are serious problems.
If Mandrake is completely the opposite then maybe I should go check it out some time but so far I'm not that inclined.
Tom
Re:Got a friend who quit M$ a few months ago (Score:3, Funny)
He probably did not like to lie so much. I heard that if you don't lie to dozen people by lunch you get fired from MS.
Re:Microsoft Nervous About Something (Score:3, Informative)
Check the date time stamps next time
The Register article Posted: 02/12/2002 at 14:24 GMT
The Slash Dot Comment by Anonymous Coward on 12:51 PM (EST) [slashdot.org] -- Monday December 02 2002
The Slash comment was posted after the Reg Article.
how dare they plagarize a future article like that
Think about it.
MS == Clones (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when a decent PC cost at least $4000 (US)? Then came the clones and we were able to get a PC for about $2000. After the clones came into their own, the prices just started free-falling. The reason was that IBM couldn't keep their own monopoly on PCs and charge whatever THEY wanted too - and you can bet that they wanted too! Look at Apple. They had control of everything to do with their machines and they insisted on gouging their customers. It wasn't until recently that they decided to price their machines in line with the rest of their (PC) market. Yes, they have a superior design, blah, blah, blah,... But when it comes down to it, their design wasn't worth the premium that they used to charge - sorry Mac folks.
MS turned the PC market into a commodity market. Since MS wanted to grow/keep their monopoly, they charged pretty damned cheap in my book.
What I'm trying to say is ... here it comes ... that if it weren't for MS, we would still be paying an arm and a leg for PCs.
For the record, I'm a Linux Luver
Re:MS == Clones (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was competition in software as there is in hardware Microsoft would have had to bring their price down. If Microsoft gets their long-dreamed-of 100% market share and no piracy, do you really thnk that they'll keep their price at $100?
Not likely.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
Or add a lot more to the product which is exactly what they did, unless you have the quaint belief that there is absolutely no difference between MSDOS and Windows.
Measured by features Windows is pretty cheap. And expect the price of Windows to start to decline as PCs drop further in price. The OEM price of windows is much less than the retail box price already. Microsoft is already seeing erosion in its prices as good mainstream PCs are now available at the $750 mark and discount models are $500 or less.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
2. As long as OS X is selling, as an upgrade (there are, after all, no "full versions" of OS X because you have to have purchased it with hardware) at $129 and RedHat Professional is selling at $149, $99-$199 upgrades for Windows (which most end users don't actually near that much because they get OEM) will continue to be the norm.
3. Dell, Gateway, etc. don't pay nearly $100 for OEM copies of Windows. More like $40.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
2: Why do you believe OS X and Redhat are priced that way? Perhaps because Micrsoft, as a monopoly, has 'fixed' the price at which an OS sells for? Oh, btw, I bought a full version of OS X 10.0 and 10.2, and both worked fine on my PowerBook *and* my PowerMac; and yes, I actually own multiple copies, but I was lazy and didn't open the version that cam with my PowerMac, so there are indeed full versions of OS X.
3: I think $100 was chosen because it's even, it's round, and it's pretty. It's more likely consumers would pay $150 for a box of W2k or WXP, anyway, no? So it would be stupid for Dell, Gateway, et el to not charge close to market value and reap every percent of margin they could.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:3, Interesting)
On the hardware side, once you've designed, say, a USB 2.0 chipset, you can license it and build millions of them at, incrementally, a very low cost, and the design might not change substantially for years. They're two separate businesses, and it's not really rational to say that, since hardware is getting cheaper, software should be too.
2. Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. Maybe OS X and RedHat are priced that way because that's the price the market will bear for an OS. MS doesn't *make* anyone sell competing products for the same amount (or more).
My point about OS X was that there are no full *licenses*. What I'm getting at is that OS X only runs on Macs. If you've bought a Mac, you've bought a copy of OS 8/9/X. Therefore, the only thing you can install is an upgrade -- the only use for a so-called "full" version would be on a machine on which you don't already have a copy of OS 8/9/X which is, thanks to the Mac's closed architecture, not possible.
3. Not sure what you're getting at here. All I'm saying is that the cost of an OEM product is often substantially less than the cost of a retail product.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:3, Insightful)
To use an example, Sony prices at $400 for a TV. JVC wants to sell a TV, but because it doesn't have the name Sony does, it has to price lower in order to make any sort of sale, for similar features.
That's my point, though. RedHat and Apple (presumably the JVCs of this analogy) *don't* sell their products for appreciably less than Microsoft. $149 for RedHat Pro and $129 for OS X is right in line with $99 for XP home and $199 for XP pro.
There are Macs that don't come with OS X 10.2, 10.1, 10.0, or OS 9.
Um... no, not really. I just clicked through all of the G4 towers, Powerbook G4s, iBooks, iMacs and iServes on the Apple site and every one of them came with a MacOS operating system. Apple's never sold systems without a bundled OS.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with your comparison of software prices, you're ignoring the fact that Apple builds the cost of its software into its hardware. When you're buying a boxed copy of OS X server, you're adding it to a machine that already has the (ahem) Apple tax built-in.
As for used Macs, I still don't quite understand your point. Any Mac that has ever been sold has been sold with a copy of MacOS [something]. Just because you buy it used with no OS doesn't mean that Apple didn't sell it with one. Since the OS is tied to the hardware, yes, upgrading from OS 8.6 or 9.1 to X is an "upgrade."
Agreed that it's a totally semantic argument.
Put another way, the least expensive new Windows machine is about $300. The least expensive new Mac is about $900. Either Apple's hardware is 3x the cost of the PC hardware, or you're paying extra for built-in costs (like bundled iApps or the operating system). Shouldn't people be making the same complaints about Mac hardware/software not declining in price in concert with PC hardware/software?
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
Cloning is only possible because IBM lost control over the software platform. If IBM had succeeded in foisting OS/2 and microchannel on the industry the clones would have been killed.
Of course nobody was going to let OS/2 win for exactly that reason. The industry choose Microsoft because IBM was a much bigger threat at the time.
If Lotus and Wordperfect had figured this out a few years before it happened rather than many years later they might have survived.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
Howabout Netscape? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just about any OS can run a browser, so what did MS do? I mean other than bundle a free browser with their OS. PCs may be 1/4 the price but Microsoft's software sure isn't.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
Bullshit. Pick up a book, troll.
Compaq and Netscape and AMD and Cyrix and USB (Apple) turned the PC market into a commodity market.
MS exists because of anti-trust efforts agnst IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and you know why MS got the opportunity to do this? Because IBM was subject to the same legal scrutiny as Microsoft is now. IBM outsourced the PC operating system to MS because IBM was afraid of more anti-trust action if they did both the PC hardware and software in-house. Note that influencing IBM in this area wasn't the result of an actual settlement, it was the consequence of on-going legal scrutiny and the threat of lawsuits.
Today, Microsoft is the monopoly that kills innovation and competitiveness. And we can apply the same strategy to Microsoft as we did to IBM decades ago: on-going legal scrutiny and on-going lawsuits. Discovery, legal proceedings, and the threat of legal judgements have the teeth that anti-trust settlements lack. This is what will keep Microsoft in check, just like it did IBM.
Re:MS == Clones (Score:2)
They were a part of it, there is no denying that... a HUGE part of it.. but to imply they are responsible for it is another matter entirely."
The right product at the right time. Windows 95 came out at the dawn of the internet explosion. The only comparable product out there was Macintosh, and people didn't want Macs.
No Windows 95 = much smaller PC explosion in the mid-90's.
Distributed Litigation (Score:2, Interesting)
From the CNN article (Score:3, Funny)
Well... okay. Isn't that what punishing a company and making an effort to restore competition usually does? How can you accomplish those two goals without bring benefit to the competitors?
Re:From the CNN article (Score:3, Insightful)
Antitrust rulings are not about restoring competition to an industry.
The only concern is to help consumers. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly.
Other States should follow suit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other States should follow suit? (Score:2, Informative)
Soap Opera (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they should spice it up for sweeps with some guest appearances in the courtroom...maybe Larry Lessig, Steve Jobs, and the perennial courtroom favorite, OJ! :-D
At last! (Score:2)
If MS has proven anything in the many years of settlements with the DOJ over breaking the law, it's that a settlement with them is as worthless as one with Saddam.
Re:At last! (Score:3, Funny)
That is insulting, to the Iraqi leader. No real sanctions have been applied to Microsoft, no demands that they submit to inspections or bombings either.
For the FIRST TIME EVER... (Score:2)
Go Tom Go Tom Go Tom!!!
(and Doug!)
Above the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that these states should be congratulated for not stopping. That is what the court of appeals is for. And I hope the other seven decide not to back down either.
WV has a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
Stereotypes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stereotypes (Score:2)
As for WV, well, I bought gas there once! I too would like to know the political considerations. Really, they're not risking much money, and maybe they have less to lose by possibly alienating MS.
Would other states join if economy were better? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Would other states join if economy were better? (Score:2)
This trial is incredibly expensive. States have a limited budget for prosecuting, they recieve this budget regardless of the state of the economy. Each states District Attorneys has to make due with that budget as best they can. They have murders and rapists to deal with, MS rates pretty low on the scale as far as prioity is concerned. The average citizen could care less about the MS case, but they do care if a rapist is roaming their neighborhood.
Besides that the point of this trial was to draw attention. The states and feds never would have gotten what they wanted, it just wasn't in the cards. These trials ar more about bringing public awareness than justice. Now everyone knows there is something wrong in Redmond, where before they may not have. In the end consumers will decide.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
David Boies did his job-the rest is post game (Score:2)
That rotten judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
His indiscretion cost the whole world global domination for one company.
If he would have kept his mouth shut, none of this would have happened.
Jackson's findings of fact were correct, Bill Gates and other Microsoft execs lied in court, and Microsoft should be broken up--period.
Ken Starr could crucify Gates over his testimony if he could put forth as much effort as he did over Clinton's perjury. Put Gates on trial, that's my solution. I bet Boies would do it pro bono if Ellison and co. sent him a few briefcases full of cash.
The judges have to eventually take notice (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventually, we have to get a judge that either sees the sense in all of it, or cannot be bought, or (hopefully) both. How much more can will it take?
In Other Words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good grief. How many lynch mobs have behaved in precisely the same dull-witted, imbecilic, zombie-like manner? Not knowing, not caring about the "facts," a lynch mob doesn't rest until the noose snaps tight. After that, it takes the time to consider its actions.
Your idea that "nearly the entire computing industry hates Microsoft," is truly one of the most egregiously ridiculous statements I've ever heard. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of software and hardware companies world wide which owe their existence--their entire success--to the market Microsoft built with Windows. In fact, Microsoft could never in a million years have built such a market without the aid of all of these companies consciously working to build a market. The idea that Microsoft did it alone is sheer nonsense *chuckle*--the Dells, Gateways, Microns, HPs and all the rest in this world have contributed just as much if not more to the Windows market as Microsoft has.
The kind of thinking which places Microsoft in its current position and forgets all of the other corporations sharing in and assisting in Microsoft's market illustrates the most extreme kind of ignorance.
Frankly, I'm sick of the self-righteousness of deluded people who think the courts, the companies--and anybody else who stands in their way--is wrong. It's really looking like a pathetic viewpoint these days.
Imagine if all this money were spent on Linux!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Imagine if all this money were spent on Linux!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This Will Get Modded Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent poster has a point. Slashdot's turning into an Anti-MS tabloid. Though this story is legit, some of the recent stories like "Apple Users Hate Microsoft" illustrate how ridiculously low this site can reach.
Remember the good old days when Slashdot was about posting cool geek stuff? I can't believe a site that's so pro-Linux can't help but watch MS's every move.
Re:This Will Get Modded Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you mean, "this forum"? Slashdot is a news service, with many individual forums on many individual topics. If you don't like article posts about Microsoft and it's illegal business practices (and that's not speculation BTW, CKK's ruling found that Microsoft HAD practiced business illegally) then don't fucking read them!
Re:This Will Get Modded Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
We want our vendors to have the right to sell us a linux or dual-boot box without losing their right to sell MS.
We want MS to tell the damned truth.
As of Win 3.1, BG was oblivious to the Net/WWW. He figured that the world's computers would all be connected by the MSNetwork, when *he* was ready to do it. 3.1 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack. Suddenly IE is a core component of the OS? Of course not, it was purely an embrace-and-extend tactic.
"It's soooo old."
Yeah, it's old, but not so old that we don't remember the exciting and competetive mini and micro days before the 800 pound gorilla sat on us all. The personal computer revolution was about to happen with or without the kid from Seattle. He jumped aboard the train as it was gaining steam and highjacked it.
Believe it or not, I'm not religiously anti-MS. I was very happy to have Bill's Basic available on many pre-PC machines. I was happy to be able to walk into the store buy a copy of DOS5.0 when I bought a used PC with the drive wiped clean.
What I'm vehemently against is their ability and willingness to stifle and/or steal the fruit of other people's ideas and hard work. If I were still a customer, I'd also be very upset at the way my data was being held hostage.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Economics. (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Though I agree with the 'competitors that couldnt keep up' bit, it has been proven MS has done some illegal stuff.
However, what's never really talked about is that MS needed cooperation from outside sources to pull their stunts. Just as an example, it's in Gateway's best interests to have only 1 (one) O.S. to support. Extra OS's = extra support staff = extra QA testing = extra $$$, passed on to the consumer. You'll notice that the retailers weren't crying foul until long after the charges were filed against MS. You'd think they'd be complaining before Netscape did, afterall they do have demand to fulfill.
Heh. The point I'm making is that if MS gets punished, why not punish the companies that went along with it? The answer is simple: You don't. If you punish everybody that went along with MS's monopoly, you basically punish everybody that's keeping this economy alive. The truth of the matter is that the majority of the market wanted MS to be the standard.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Or what happens if they heavily fine MS? Besides making their stock price plummit (bad for economy as other companies would suffer from that as well), what would it really do? I'm hard pressed to imagine that a fine would make them say "well we better prevent that from happening again". At best it'll make them say "huh. We can act like this, and it only costs this much. Let's figure out how efficient we can be!"
Heh.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Whatever.
You may resume goosestepping around chanting "Down with Microsoft". You wouldn't want to waste any brainpower actually thinking about the situation.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you confuse economies of scale (which drive down unit cost, to a point) with network effect. There was an astroturf economist who, based on astroturf product reviews, claimed that MS products were better than their competitors at the time they took over the market. Never mind that the reviews were generally atrocious journalism, the reason Office took over was because of clever bundling. The reason IE took over was because you couldn't get a machine without it, but had to do something extra to get Netscape. Once you start to lose momentum vs. MS, the rest of the world smells blood and the downturn accelerates. If everyone else uses it, you sort of have to as well.
Once you have the power to own everything that can generate the power to own things, it's over. Markets are great. Monopolies are not markets. Libertarians take note! And MS wasn't just a Baby Huey, good-naturedly and inadvertantly squashing competitors. It wasn't just big, it was evil. MS is a sleazy, sociopathic entity. It cheats, it lies, it extorts, it bullies, it bribes.
Re:What good comes out of this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine that you're Real Audio a couple of years ago. You've come up with a great product. However, Microsoft not only tries to make your product irrelevant (i.e. building Windows Media Player into Windows), but also uses their OS to crash your product (demonstrated during initial trial).
Actions against monopolies are to protect against one company using dominance in one area to corner other markets. I for one, as a CS undergrad, am for court action against MS. Why? 'cause what happens if 5~10 years from now I create a great app for windows. MS decides that they want to sell my app, so they build a clone. Not only that, after the latest "Service Pack," my app crashes constantly and their's becomes more stable. Protection against that scenario is the good that will come out of a ruling against MS. A fair ruling would protect developers and developers that want to build on top of Windows.
By the way, I was born and raised in West-By-God-Virginia
Re:What good comes out of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The above is false. The miranda case currently in review is in regards to a police officer who shot and blinded/crippled a mexican immigrant for no particular reason and is now trying to justify a false confession from him while riding in the ambulance to the hospital with him and harrassing a confession out of him. The case is bogus background noise to try and save the officer from going to jail.
"Suppose they manage to shut down MS [or severely disrupt it]. What comes of that? 1000s of people lose their jobs."
No one is trying to shut down MS. They are trying to find justice for the companies MS has destroyed.
"By making MSFT illegal and leaving linux as the only option you'd actually be hurting the industry, not helping it."
There are many options, Apple, Linux, FreeBSD, Sun. The list would be much larger if it wasn't for MS shutting down companies such as Be Inc. and destroying OS/2's chances of making it. If MS got out of the way today, there would be 20 companies inline tomorrow to pick up the slack. It's called a free market and is the only proven method for economic stability and growth.
"When linux distros actually compete with Windows [e.g. in a meaningful sense, having 1500 packages on 3 CD's is not "competition" when installing a GFX driver can kill the install] then we'll see the beginning of the demise of Windows."
Agaian, no one is wishing for the demise of windows. It has it's place just like Linux does. Linux will never be as userfriendly as Windows or MacOS. Linux developers don't care about that nether do most Linux users. It's only when a "company" is held accountable for it's products due to bad sales/no sales that the product advances. Linux for this reason will always be playing catchup until some company picks it up and actually does something with it. However they cant do something with it because they have to make it freely available and like my mom says "If you're going to give it away, no one is going to pay you for it". It's just as simple as that.
Re:Of course they are capable of more they can say (Score:4, Informative)
It's not so much the application, iexplore.exe, that is the fundamental part of the OS, it's the MSHTML rendering engine that comes in the Internet Explorer backend DLLs.
Most applications, if they want to launch a web session or access HTML content, load an iexplore.exe inside of their own window, instead of rendering the page itself. Easier that way...
IE isn't just the program people use to browse the Internet; the API (seems) to involve quite a bit of talking to the application itself, not just the backend. Designed, no doubt, to make something like that easier -- for my database program to be able to show me the manufactuerer's web site, inside it's own window, while still correctly rendering all the scripts, etc.
(IANA Developer)
Re:WV not W.Va. (Score:2)