Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Microsoft Not Out Of Anti-Trust Hot Water 320

Posted by timothy from the lukewarm-is-more-like-it dept.
tickticker writes "EWeek is reporting on the Anti-Trust follow up, and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice: 'The judges 'were encouraging in the sense that they went to the heart of the case,' Robert Bork, who represented the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association, said following the court arguments. Bork formerly was a judge on the appeals court.' Microsoft comments included the 'abundance of choice' defence. Which to me means that Microsoft wants the last of the hold-outs to choose Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Not Out Of Anti-Trust Hot Water More

Microsoft Not Out Of Anti-Trust Hot Water

Comments Filter:

  • obligitory pun (Score:5, Funny)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:45PM (#7402004) Homepage Journal
    lets just hope that the attorneys pushing for stiffer guidelines dont Bork the process ;-)

  • MS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:46PM (#7402014)
    What will happen?

    Wrist slap, a million in free software to schools, lawyers get money, MS expends monopoly even further, profit.

    --
    Talk to me. 1-888-633-3446

  • On to more relevant things (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tarzan353 ( 246515 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:46PM (#7402020)
    After sifting and sorting through the myriad of posts pointing out that this site is running IIS 5 and how the govt. is so hypocritical for doing so, I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's are too riled by minor details. It conveys a serious lack of intelligence on our part. But I digress...

    While going through some of the PDF docs on the site, mostly pertaining to court judgements, I noticed that many of these documents reference the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

    2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2

    Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court

    For those that don't know, this is Section 2 of the Sherman act, which Microsoft was found in violation of. I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's. There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior that should be taken away. $10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.

    I'd be interested in filing a complaint regarding their procedures regarding the computer sales market, how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it. THAT is a complaint worth filing. I am being FORCED to pay for a PRODUCT that I NEVER asked for nor implied that I wanted.

    • Re:On to more relevant things (Score:5, Funny)

      by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:50PM (#7402066) Homepage
      I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's [sic] are too riled by minor details.

      Oh, the irony that forces me to make this post....
    • I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's.

      I'm sure it was a mega-crapload in 1890 when the Sherman act was written. What needs to happen is fines specified in legislation need to be indexed to inflation. So that $10 mil would be like $1 billion today or something.

      • Was changed to 10million in 1990, originally $5000 (Score:5, Informative)

        by dmeranda ( 120061 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @08:48PM (#7403027) Homepage

        If you read the complete Title 15 Section 2 (15USC2) [gpo.gov] and look at the amendments log at the end you'll see that the fee was updated to $10m in 1990 as part of Public Law 101-588, and a few times prior to that as well. In fact the original law in 1955 was only a $5,000 fine and only a misdemeanor. Note that those fees/punlishments are for the felony act. That doesn't necessarily limit what the government can do to end the monopoly or act in the public's interest.

        However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2. See the 15USC Chapter 1 [gpo.gov]. In particular you may want to read section 21, 24, 37 among others.

      • Well dude, the law should just read, "And thy penalty shall be a mega-crapload of dollars," and you not only automatically adjust for any inflation, you also preserve the original intent of the law perfectly!
      • I'm sure it was a mega-crapload in 1890 when the Sherman act was written. What needs to happen is fines specified in legislation need to be indexed to inflation. So that $10 mil would be like $1 billion today or something.

        Er, not really. Consider that billionaires are not a 20th century phenomena. J.D. Rockefeller was a 19th century billionaire that had no problem making $10M/year. That penalty would have been poorly received, but hardly would have curbed the behavior. Who gives a shit about a $10M fine w

    • Re:On to more relevant things (Score:4, Funny)

      by Kakurenbo Shogun ( 64436 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:17PM (#7402325) Homepage
      or by imprisonment not exceeding three years

      Hmm, maybe they could imprison the whole corporation. They could convert the Redmond campus to a federal facility and require all outgoing mail to be stamped with a notice like:

      "This mail originated from a federal pententiary. The contents have NOT been checked by any government entity, and you should exercize care in accepting the validity of any claims made herein."
    • I'm curious if that amount ($10,000,000) is adjusted for inflation. 100+ years would make a bit of a difference!
    • " how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it."

      The tax is easy to avoid, build your computer instead of having it pre-built .

      I know Microsoft's done nasty stuff. Not arguing that. However, you can't buy a car without tires just because you don't like Firestone. Why should computers be different? Why's Dell obligated to sell you a computer sans OS? I mean, they could but how would they support it? "Uh, I bought this computer from you, a
      • If you purchased an OEM version of Windows with a system you are *not* allowed to move it to another system regardless of what happens to the original system. This is part of their EULA and it's clear and non-disputable. Whether it's morally right is another story altogether, but...

        On the other hand, if you purchased a retail version you can transfer it from one cpu to another in the case of retiring a system.

        Unfortunately I've had to read the EULAs top to bottom to know this information as much as I hate

      • The tax is easy to avoid, build your computer instead of having it pre-built .

        Some people want the security of having a company behind the hardware. Not everyone knows how to build a PC, and some of those may still have a desire to use a different OS, while still having the manufacturer's warranty. Warranties on individual components vary, and sometimes it's difficult to determine exactly which component is bad.

        [...] you can't buy a car without tires just because you don't like Firestone. Why should com
    • There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior...

      That's not a very good idea - profits are easy to alter legally. Accounting offers possibilities, which might not be obvious for the lay-slashdotter, but easier to understand is eg. choosing to all of a sudden increase R&D, which will benefit the company later but only increase costs at the moment. And besides, theoretically a company could break the law and be unprofitable - should they then be receiving m
    • If there's one thing that I've learned since the mid-80s when I started becoming aware of monopolies, insider trading, junk bonds, etc., it's that white-collar crime is always profitable. If you're willing to do the time, you won't ever be fined as much as you gained from the illegal behavior.

  • Maybe they finally get what they deserve (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:48PM (#7402036)
    One can only hope that they get two black eyes, and a broken arm, instead of a tap on the hand with a ruler(it might sting for awhile but you'll recover). It's about time someone of high authority how Microsoft kills the economy with their illegal tactics. People always argue that a complete break-up would hurt the enconomy, well I have a question for people, why did you integrate Microsoft so much into the economy, and why did you invest all your money in Microsoft.

  • cynical take ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Gates forgot to write the check for the campaign contribution to "Committee to Re-Elect the President in 2004".

    Ashcroft is just reminding him about his dues.

  • Justice for whom? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spectecjr ( 31235 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:52PM (#7402090) Homepage
    and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice

    Justice for whom?

    Microsoft's competitors, who were the people who lobbied the government with huge donations to bring the case in the first place?

    Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?

    Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?

    So I ask again... Justice for whom? Anti-microsoft zealots?

    • Re:Justice for whom? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tres ( 151637 )
      Yeah, I guess it doesn't really matter whether they broke the law or not. It just matters that the victims weren't really all that innocent.

      And I guess it doesn't matter how many people you murder, so long as they were prostitutes.

      This is long sought after justice for an industry plagued by a behemoth which uses underhanded means to drive competitors out of business.

      This is long sought after justice for every single one of the investors, developers and users of products which Microsoft destroyed because

    • Re:Justice for whom? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by einer ( 459199 )
      I'd like to see justice for consumers who were forced to pay for MS on OEM pc's. Of course, I'd also like to win the lottery.
    • So, are you ignorant or are you a deliberate liar? Those are the only two possiblities given that you said the suit over Java between Sun and MS was based on the speed of the engine, when over here in the real world it was based on MS claiming their engine was Java when it didn't fit the standard to be called Java.

    • Re:Justice for whom? (Score:5, Informative)

      by DogIsMyCoprocessor ( 642655 ) <dogismycoprocessor.yahoo@com> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:37PM (#7402494) Homepage
      "Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?"

      Point 1 - Java started life as Oak, a language for small devices, and the JVM was designed to be portable to CPUs with limited numbers of registers. That is why it is a stack-based VM. Oddly enough, this also favors Intel architecture more than Sparc. The only person to claim that the JVM was designed expressly for Sparc was a single professor funded by Microsoft.

      Point 2 - The Microsoft VM, while performing better in some cases than the Sun VM for Windows, was buggy as hell.

      Point 3 - There is no law requiring Sun to sue Netscape like they did Microsoft just to satisfy your sense of "justice". Netscape was a strategic partner, what was Sun supposed to do?

      But thanks for posting your revisionist bullshit. Have a nice day.

      • Java started life as Oak, a language for small devices, and the JVM was designed to be portable to CPUs with limited numbers of registers. That is why it is a stack-based VM. Oddly enough, this also favors Intel architecture more than Sparc. The only person to claim that the JVM was designed expressly for Sparc was a single professor funded by Microsoft.

        If that is the case, then explain why Sparc's floating point implementation - not entirely IEEE standard - was the one used for the Java VM, and if you wa
        • Although we are talking about the same Sun that told Microsoft they couldn't ship any newer version of the JVM, and then sued them for not shipping a newer version of the JVM. Actually, Sun that told Microsoft they couldn't ship any newer version of their egregiously non-compliant JVM. If Microsoft had agreed to fix their JVM to meet the criteria for Java compliance, Sun would have settled out of court. But of course Microsoft would never have done this. Microsoft's aim was always to subvert Java's cross

    • Re:Justice for whom? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jonabbey ( 2498 ) * <jonabbey@ganymeta.org> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:40PM (#7402522) Homepage

      Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?

      Oh, neat. There were other browser manufacturers before Netscape?

      Spyglass was charging Microsoft a percentage of revenues for each copy of IE sold before Microsoft decided they simply weren't going to collect any revenues for any copy of IE.. thanks, Spyglass, sorry you didn't realize any income whatsoever for giving us your technology!

      Besides, Microsoft innovated in paying ISPs and ISVs to not support Netscape. They didn't just give the browser away for free, they paid people not to use Netscape. You really couldn't ask for a clearer violation of the Sherman antitrust act.. monopolist uses monopoly rents to fund an anticompetitive attack against a new market.

      Could Microsoft have prevailed over Netscape without the dirty tricks? Sure, absolutely they could have done, probably.. but they didn't. They broke the law to stick the knife in Netscape, they got caught, and they deserve to be held to account for it.

      "Tough but fair," please.

      Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?

      All of which has nothing to do with what Sun sued Microsoft over. Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft declined to support JNI, which allowed C modules to be written which would work against any standard JVM that supported it. Microsoft preferred their own native code solution, fine, but the contract didn't allow them to unilaterally decide not to support part of the Java spec.

      • Oh, neat. There were other browser manufacturers before Netscape?

        NCSA Mosaic, Lynx and Athena all predated Netscape. All were free.

        Besides, Microsoft innovated in paying ISPs and ISVs to not support Netscape. They didn't just give the browser away for free, they paid people not to use Netscape. You really couldn't ask for a clearer violation of the Sherman antitrust act.. monopolist uses monopoly rents to fund an anticompetitive attack against a new market.

        Netscape paid the ISPs and OEMs to support Ne

        • NCSA Mosaic, Lynx and Athena all predated Netscape. All were free.

          They weren't the product of browser manufacturers, though.. they were non-commercial university projects. There's a significant difference between that and an actual manufacturer in the sense of a commercial enterprise.

          Netscape paid the ISPs and OEMs to support Netscape in the first place. Or don't you remember all the deals at the time saying "Sign up with XYZ provider, and get Netscape free!", right around the Netscape 1.0 timeframe

    • Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?

      I always found the arguments that IE was not free rather compelling. If they start bundling Office with Windows, and the cost of a Windows upgrade climbs to $400, is Office now free or did you get forced into buying it?

      Surely Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Outlook Express a
      • And if its free, who pays for it`s development?
        IE is only free if your running it on a mac, solaris or hpux.. so then windows users are effectively contributing towards the development of this too.
        Also, look how development of ie has stagnated lately, css is still broken as hell... translucent png`s still dont work, aswell as thousands of other rendering and security bugs. And i believe all the non windows versions have stopped being developed, or are in the process of being stopped.. why? because they dont

  • My thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:53PM (#7402099) Journal
    As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?

    Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.

    If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there.

    Microsoft is a powerful mega-giant corporation that has a bunch of power, but why don't we focus our attention on developing alternatives?

    It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.

    Corporations are starting to get royally pissed at Microsoft. They're using their corprorate dollars to fund alternatives and migrate away from Windows at least in the server room. Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.

    • Confusing (Score:3, Funny)

      by JMZero ( 449047 )
      At first you sound like the way to go is concerned citizens making responsible decisions...

      It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their product..

      ..but then you turn around and say do it with lawsuits:


      Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.

      Which is it?
      • Hehehe :)

        I say we do it with lawsuits!

        Not necessairly because I think MS is wrong (though I probably do).

        I don't even know that I care that the punishment 'repairs' the market failure.

        I just want them to feel the pain of wave after wave of faceless horrors...I mean lawyers...biting their ankles....I mean negotiating a settlement. ;-)
      • That was funny, man.
    • Microsoft has more money than god. Everyone on Earth could sue them and they would still win.

    • Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by strags ( 209606 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:12PM (#7402281)
      That's all well and good, but recall that the case is not about Microsoft being a monopoly, but abusing its monopolistic position.

      When Microsoft abuses their dominant position (for instance, to prevent hardware vendors from preloading Linux on their machines), there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    • Re:My thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

      by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gmaSLACKWAREil.com minus distro> on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:13PM (#7402299) Journal
      "As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?

      Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.

      If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there."

      This is astoundingly missing the point. In economic terms, the issue is whether a company has "monopoly power" which means that it controls so much of the market that they can artificially control the market (i.e. inflate prices, suppress competition, etc.). This does not mean that it has 100% market share -- in many other markets, it's been sufficient that a single company controls more than 30% of a market to establish that it has "monopoly power". Given that Microsoft controls well over 90% of the desktop OS market, it's pretty clear that they have "monopoly power" in the desktop operating system market that gives them great leverage to suppress any competing operating system (witness the contracts that prohibited Windows OEM's from also shipping BeOS), and to leverage that monopoly in order to have an unfair advantage in other markets (witness the contracts with Windows OEM's that inhibited them from shipping Netscape).

      The fact that there are some alternatives such as Linux that allow some users to avoid running Windows doesn't change the fact that MS could shut down any PC company at a whim by withdrawing its Windows license. If Microsoft had even 1/2 the desktop OS market, they'd still have "monopoly power" that would trigger limits on their behavior.
      • In economic terms, the issue is whether a company has "monopoly power" which means that it controls so much of the market that they can artificially control the market (i.e. inflate prices, suppress competition, etc.).

        But if you read the very next chapter in your "Economics for Dummies" book, you'll find that monopolies are very fragile entities. Inflate prices too much and people stop upgrading or start switching to alternitives. And of course, to suppress the competition, you have to lower your prices t

    • Re:My thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ejaw5 ( 570071 )
      I'm going to guess that you built your Linux machine yourself. I have a notebook so that option wasn't exactly feasible for me. Whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly, I wouldn't be too suprised to find out they've been doing some anti-competitive practices such as strict contracts with OEMS.

      I know this gets mentioned a lot, but go try to buy an 'out-of-the-box' PC/x86 computer the same way as 'typical users' would which either:

      1.) Does not have an operating system pre-installed that you don't intend to
      • Legally, according to the EULA, I can't sell it to anyone who could put it to good use. I also can't install it on another computer if someone else wanted it.
        Are you really sure about that? I don't know about the US but in the EU, where I live (in Finland), consumer rights explicitly state that all EULAS are invalid - you can tell Microsoft to take their EULA and shove it. So reselling software that has come bundled with you computer isn't illegal in any way - at my previous job one of my coworkers had th

    • Thoughts vs. Facts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johnos ( 109351 )
      Every time MS anti-trust news comes up anywhere, someone invariably voices the opinion that MS is not a monopoly. This is utter nonsense and should be roundly condemned. Monopoly is both a legal and economic concept. In legal terms, this is settled. They have been so found by the US Federal Courts. Both at trial and on appeal. You may know a lot about computers, but I think US Federal judges know more about the law. One can debate the relevancy of the legal definition, or the fairness of the process,
      • Monopoly is both a legal and economic concept. In legal terms, this is settled.

        So whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision, we must all agree? No thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.

        You may know a lot about computers, but I think US Federal judges know more about the law.

        Nice appeal to the authority. Care to tell my why I'm wrong?

        The economic definition of monopoly is looser than the legal. Anyone with a dominant market position could qualify.

        A monopoly means there is no choice. We have choice. Hence, no

    • They don't have to run everything with a logic gate. To qualify as a monopoly, they just need the power to distort what would otherwise be a free market. To prompt justice dept. action, they need to abuse that power.

      In both cases, BINGO. Does MS have the power to distort the market in desktop operating systems? What market? MS offered different prices to different OEMs, for the same thing. As I recall, Gateway was screwed in a relative sense, they all were in an absolute sense.

      Anticompetitive pricing
    • If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly?

      It doesn't matter that alternatives exist. It matters that Microsoft uses tactics to ensure that competing products can't get into large parts of the market. For example, you can't buy a PC from Dell, HP, Compaq, et al without paying for a Windows license.

      If this were Dell/HP/Compaq's choice, then that would be fine. But it's not -- it's part of their OEM agreement, and violating (or not agreeing with) it forces them

    • As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?

      Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.

      Thus demonstrating your complete inability to understand that a monopoly does not require 100% of the market.

      If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly?

      Judge Jackson said there "exists no commercially viable alternative [to Windows]". Obviously you k

    • Ever notice that 95% of people bitching about the Microsoft monopoly aren't running Windows? It's scary how those numbers correlate so closely with the 95% of people running Windows who don't bitch about the monopoly.
      • Most of the people I know who are Windows users have no idea that alternatives even exist. They hate that their computer crashes all the time (WinXP too!) and their applications act flaky, but they don't know of any alternatives. The lack of alternatives keeps the average expectations of computer users low. People sometimes interpret computer problems as some sort of mystical property of a computer, which makes them believe all the more that they just don't know how to use it. The funny things is, if so
    • As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?

      YES.

      Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.

      Tell that to the poor schmucks with BeOS pre-loaded on thier machines with the MS bootloader.
  • And Microsoft will be forced to run only their own programs internally... as they are off the shelf... plus, provide customers with any patches they have to write for themselves. DOH!

  • What's not in the news entry... (Score:5, Informative)

    by IversenX ( 713302 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:55PM (#7402120) Homepage
    Is that the article goes on to explain that "[...] there is no evidence indicating that the settlement will have a meaningful impact.", and that "To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS.".

    On the subject of API Disclosure, Michael Lacovara (who represents Microsoft), said that "the challengers' request for greater API disclosure is not based in fact.", and further went on to state that "The theory of the states is that more is better.".

    It's really no wonder they don't like Linux, when not even their own API's are open. For crying out loud!

  • Anti-Trust Hot Water (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @06:55PM (#7402121) Journal

    I think "mildly warm water" would be more appropriate here. I don't recall this Anti-Trust thing being anything more then laughable and a symbolic victory, at best, anyways.

  • Justice (Score:2, Funny)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
    A decision in your favor - Ambrose Bierce
  • 'Zee joodges 'vere-a incuooregeeng in zee sense-a thet zeey vent tu zee heert ooff zee cese-a,' Rubert Bork, vhu represented zee Cumpooter und Cummooneeceshuns Indoostry Essuceeeshun und zee Sufftvere-a und Inffurmeshun Indoostry Essuceeeshun, seeed fullooeeng zee cuoort ergooments. Bork furmerly ves a joodge-a oon zee eppeels cuoort. Bork Bork Bork.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Karma was getting too high, anyway.
  • all the people "in the know", the people who comment at slashdot, already know that linux is our new master. why don't they?

  • Now Now (Score:5, Funny)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:01PM (#7402186)
    Kuney said that Internet Explorer is a fruit, but Microsoft's Lacovar said that there is no evidence to show that.

    I admit that I hate microsoft just as much as the next guy but reverting to this kind of name calling is just plain wrong.

    Internet Explorer's preferences are its own buisness and nobody elses!
    We should all acknowledge Internet Explorer's decision to operate in whatever way it sees fit and allow it to use whatever plugins it enjoys. I know it acts a little differently than the other browsers but that's their choice to make and for what it's worth I support its decision and hope that despite all the Microsoft bashing the slashdot community chooses to show Internet Explorer no predjudice.

  • Splitting MS (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Have I grown so cynical that I have a problem finding a "good enough" solution? I've thought this through -- the OS isn't as stable, the interface isn't all that grand either (c'mon, all of you KDE/Gnome users out there who got used to middle-clicking to paste...tell me you don't miss it in Windows), the OS cost is laughable, the security has let MANY companies down -- and yet people use it. Like staying in an abusive relationship, really.

    Sure, MS leverages their monopoly to get things done...but ultimat

  • Consistent Theme, Unfortunately (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @07:10PM (#7402264) Homepage Journal

    Reading through some of the articles, I get the impression that many of the judges are

    • woefully out of clue w.r.t. technology, open source (witness the confusion about what would happen if IE's source were freely available). I'm afraid the only judges that understand the full extent of what MS does become enraged, like Jackson, whose public ranting damaged his work.
    • more prone to read for exact compliance with the letter language of earlier rulings, without questioning larger issues, keeping a careful, limited view.

    Since the settlement, the software developers competing with Microsoft have heaved a collective sigh of relief, exclaiming to the world,

    "Things sure have improved!"

    Competing products are springing up like weeds and resellers are completely ignoring MS by putting all kinds of cheap inexpensive software onto PCs!

    • more prone to read for exact compliance with the letter language of earlier rulings, without questioning larger issues, keeping a careful, limited view.

      Judges are given a wide latitude in determining justice, but the above is really what they're supposed to do. Particularly if any decision on the matter has come from a higher court (US Supreme Court or an Appeals Court under whose jurisdiction the lower court falls), they are essentially bound to that precedence.

      Now, they can decide that the matters a


    • I'm afraid the only judges that understand the full extent of what MS does become enraged, like Jackson, whose public ranting damaged his work

      Actually his public ranting was a reflection of his inability to understand technology. Did you ever read the decision and his interpretation of the technical details? Appalling stuff. For example, he seemed to think that including the browser with the OS was some kind of undue burden on the consumer because of the amount of disk space the libraries consumed. In add

      • > by any measure, Intel is a bigger monopoly than MS.

        I'm sorry? That's simply not true.

        If I look in the ads in any computer magazine, I can find an advert for PCs with Intel processors, and on the next page one for PCs with AMD processors. Sometimes even from the same OEM.

        But both sets of PCs are supplied exclusively with Microsoft(r) Windows(r) XP Home Edition.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close