Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts IT News

Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft 424

Posted by Hemos from the looking-more-closely dept.
cyberlaw writes "The Supreme Court's deadline for filing a final appeal in the landmark U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust case expired yesterday with little notice. But it's a day Andrew Chin has been anticipating for six years. Today Chin, a former legal extern who assisted Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the drafting of the November 1999 Findings of Fact in that case, makes his first public comments on the merits of that case, in keeping with the D.C. Circuit's admonition that officers of the court should not comment on impending cases. He has written an op-ed article in today's Raleigh News and Observer.

Chin is currently an associate professor teaching antitrust and intellectual property law at the University of North Carolina. According to his faculty biography, Chin also earned a doctorate in computer science in 1991 as a Rhodes scholar at the University of Oxford. After a few years of teaching math and CS, he picked up a J.D. at Yale Law School, and eventually ended up working behind the scenes on the Microsoft case.

Chin's article raises some new points about the Microsoft case that don't seem to have been considered by any of the parties, courts or commentators during the trial, such as the fact that the Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code. A longer piece by Chin is being published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft More

Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • This way they have more time to fight other stuff! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:12PM (#10398327)
    The government wasted its best opportunity to avoid this result three years ago, when the incoming Bush Justice Department, in a stunning reversal, decided to drop its "tying" claim. Still, the road not taken -- pressing Microsoft to offer a neutral choice of Web browsers for use with Windows -- started to look a lot more appealing this summer, when Internet Explorer's security flaws made national headlines.

    Well at least now the DOJ has a lot more pressing matters at hand... Like getting the recent ruling against the Patriot Act overturned so those evil fucking terrorists can't get away and those sneaky American citizens can't hide their financial records from them.

    I always felt that if the government continued to pursue their case against MSFT they would only pay for it in higher licensing fees later. Choose your battles... Money from the terrorists and the citizens or money from MSFT?

    • Who's modding? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by phyruxus ( 72649 )
      This is not flamebait.
      • I can't even point out that his post isn't flamebait? Abusing the moderation system makes this forum less enjoyable for everyone.

      • Re:Who's modding? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AviLazar ( 741826 )
        Sometimes, unfortunately, people mod things in a negative manner because they do not agree with it. I have had many of my posts modded down because the mod did not agree with my post...i.e. receiving flamebait when it was obviously not a flame...oh well here comes another negative mod point my way---luckily I am in Excellent status :)

  • Coralized... (Score:2, Informative)

    by kzinti ( 9651 )
    For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized: http://www.newsobserver.com.nyud.net:8090/opinion/ story/1686331p-7930186c.html [nyud.net].

  • security vs economics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:15PM (#10398352)
    Sure a secure Microsoft product is what the consumer wants but so is profit margin and familiarity. Sometimes inferior products dominate the market for no good reason whatsoever, remember the Chrysler K car?
    • At the risk of being off topic, the Chrysler "K" car (Dodge Aries / Plymouth Reliant) dominated because it was cheaper than then alternatives, and easier to purchase.

      In contrast, windows is significantly more expensive, and dominates the market for a good reason: people are too lazy to change. Why do you think banks still use AS400's and code in FORTRAN? It costs too much to change now, even though there are better alternatives.

      This is why Microsloth still makes money. When you upgrade from one versio

      • Re:security vs economics (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:36PM (#10398607)
        Laziness is not what keeps banks on AS/400, and laziness is not what keeps people coding in FORTRAN. If its not broke, don't fix it. Windows does everything people want it to and will run any software you buy, so even if you showed everyone on the planet Linux, a good deal would continue to use Windows.
        • > Windows does everything people want it to and will run any software you buy,
          Runs just about every virus too.

          > so even if you showed everyone on the planet Linux, a good deal would continue to use Windows.
          I dunno. I've had quite a few successful opportunities to introduce people to Linux. And, I've had 8 out of 10 go for it.

          I see smiles on their faces when they come back to have me build another computer to install Linux on. Whereas, the Windows people keep coming back, with frowns on their face

      • FORTRAN? WTF?? (Score:3, Informative)

        by r_j_prahad ( 309298 )
        Why do you think banks still use AS400's and code in FORTRAN?

        FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. The language of choice for banking is COBOL.
      • In contrast, windows is significantly more expensive...

        Yes, $149 is way too much for a K car, even when new.

    • The consumer wants profit margin?? Um.. I don't think so. The consumer wants security. Microsoft wants profit margin... and Microsoft doesn't give a flying f@ck whether you are secure or not.

  • Yet... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fizban ( 58094 )
    ...another reason to remove the Bush administration from office: it's inability to push for open markets when it would hurt existing market stranglers like Microsoft. Republicans like to talk about free markets, but as soon as it takes away their power, they cringe in fear.

    • Re:Yet... (Score:3, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "..another reason to remove the Bush administration from office:"

      Yet another reason for me to ignore people who start a sentence with 'yet another reason'.
      • Ignorance is lovely, isn't it?

      • "Yet another reason for me to ignore people who start a sentence with 'yet another reason'."

        Irony, meet NanoGator. NanoGator, meet irony. I'll leave you two alone to get acquainted now.

    • Re:Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:22PM (#10398435) Homepage
      Sorry but your Beloved Democrats are no different or better in any way, shape or form.

      the DMCA was signed by one of the most loved Democrat Presidents in history, Bill Clinton.

      Most Innovation Stifiling laws are proposed by Democrat Senators.

      Anyone thinking that the Republicans or Democrats are any different are really blind. The only difference they have is the way they do things, they have the same goals and agendas.

      Personally I hope for sanity in the madness that is our current government... I just wonder how many decades it will take and how far behind the United States will have to fall behind the rest of the world before those in power take notice.

      • Re:Yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by j0nb0y ( 107699 )
        Uhmm...

        Bill Clinton's DOJ was pressing this case big time against Microsoft. George W Bush called off the DOJ once he was in office. You couldn't possibly have been paying attention four years ago if you think there's not difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue...

        I'm a Republican, btw...
      • Most Innovation Stifiling laws are proposed by Democrat Senators

        Yeah, INDUCE was introduced by a Democrat, oh, wait, it wasn't. How aboute that PIRATE crap, no, that was the Senator from Disney, Mr. Hatch again.

      • Re:Yet... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by kmo ( 203708 )
        I just wonder how many decades it will take and how far behind the United States will have to fall behind the rest of the world before those in power take notice.

        It's not those in power that have to notice; it's the sheep that continue to elect them.

  • Hopefully a false assumption (Score:4, Insightful)

    by samberdoo ( 812366 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:16PM (#10398365)
    "Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web. " Only if a better alternative is not adopted as the 'browser of choice' by the WWW community. Go FireFox!

    • Re:Hopefully a false assumption (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oDDmON oUT ( 231200 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:28PM (#10399116)
      *BZZZTT!!*

      < Don Pardo overvoice >
      We're so sorry, but it was never the "WWW Community" that chose Internet Exploder in the first place.

      It was Joe Sixpack, Ma Kent and Arthur Schmidlap, all of whom had it bundled into the nice, shiny, new computer that was sold to them as an information appliance/labor saving device by the pimply shlep at (take your pick):
      • a. CompUSA
      • b. Fry's
      • c. Best Buy
      which enabled IE to gain market share and win hearts worldwide.

      That answer will cost you five points and the lead in today's game.
      </Don Pardo overvoice>

  • Who would buy it? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:18PM (#10398389) Homepage
    From TFA:
    If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.

    Yeah, but who would want to buy it?......

  • I wonder.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:19PM (#10398410) Homepage
    I often wonder what would have been the reaction if some judgement had been passed against, say, the FSF or a contestation of the GPL or something like that, which had been negative, and then we'd seen the presiding judge (the fucking judge) giving interviews to Barb Walters and doing the DC clubscene (well that's a bit too much).

    I'm not about to contest the verdict - that a monopoly existed and so on. That's done. But I think the whole thing smacked of a hurried witch hunt decided from the beginning. Back then Microsoft was pretty much apolitical and their legal team was about a fifth of what it is today. Since that case they've wised up to lobbying and campaign contributions as a way to "play" the system, just like any other big corporation in this country.

    Ah well.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:29PM (#10398513)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:I wonder.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
        IMO, the reason for their newfound attention to government is more like this:

        Personal computing was originally like a vast new uninhabited continent that was discovered some time in the 70s. Microsoft was one of a few pioneers exploring the land and building new settlements. Up until the 90s, there was still enough exploring to do that the "lawless frontier" way of life worked out fine for them. They didn't need the government.

        Now, the boundaries of personal computing are pretty well defined, and most of

      • Re:I wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AviLazar ( 741826 )
        So, unfortunately, a company that was more interested in creating a product for its consumers is now forced to play the political game - and forced to pay the thugs...I mean our politicians money so they are not sued as much by the gov't.
        In this case, MS is the good guy.

      • Re:I wonder.... (Score:3, Funny)

        by mfago ( 514801 )
        > In less than 10 years they went from a political
        > non-entity to a political-powerhouse.

        Amazing what $50 billion can do, isn't it? Democracy at work...

  • It did it's job, now let's move on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:20PM (#10398414) Homepage
    It slowed down Microsoft's monopoly engine long enough for Linux to rise, Apple to recover and release a very successful new OS and for groups like Mozilla to start fighting against Microsoft. Does anyone really want the court to hand a "victory" to those of us not fond of Microsoft? Does anyone think that Netscape or Sun or any of the other plaintiffs were really good, noble, altruistic companies that didn't salivate at the thought of filling in the vacuum left by a devastated Microsoft?

    The way I see it, the case was good for another reason as well. It forced debate on both sides of the political spectrum, especially the right. Many conservatives were floored when Robert Bork, a well-respected conservative legal authority, agreed with Ralph Nader on Microsoft's trial. It helped bring new ideas and attitudes into respectability on the right, and it allowed left-leaning libertarians to point to a good example of how unfettered corporate power is still a real danger.

    I would go so far as to say that the case did its job just fine, and coupled with Microsoft's recent security problems, a door is opening for free market enterprise once more. I will go so far as to say that there are a lot more Firefox users out there than we'd have previously guessed. I read comments all the time on sites like FreeRepublic which aren't known for their technical insight saying how Firefox kicks ass. In fact, of the dozens or so on threads about Firefox, most are overwhelmingly "I can't believe I ever used IE now that I have Firefox."

    Microsoft, like Rome, didn't build their Empire in a day, and thus we won't dismantle it in a day. It'll take several more years of whittling away at them on multiple fronts. We just have to learn from history and be more civilized and cooperative if we win, than the barbarians were when they took down the Roman Empire.

    • Re:It did it's job, now let's move on (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kurt Gray ( 935 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:44PM (#10398682) Homepage Journal
      You make a good point that Microsoft's competitors are no more or less noble than Microsoft. But to me the most troubling outcome is Microsoft was able to prove that any company with a large enough legal budget can effectively DoS attack the legal system with appeals and paperwork while simultaneously releasing newer versions of the product in question. While the courts were arguing about Windows 95 Microsoft was already selling NT Server 4, Office 97, Windows 98, and so on. If the court even decided that bundling the web browser into Windows 95 was in violation than it was too late by then anyway.

      Microsoft also punished via stock price, in fact all of Nasdaq got punished on that fateful day of April 2000 when the judge released his initial findings not in favor of Microsoft and the Nasdaq went into freefall.

    • Re:It did it's job, now let's move on (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I totally agree.

      I support the free market and believe that in the long run, it fixes all problems, but I have been consistently flabbergasted at why people *choose* Windows.

      As a free marketer and based on my own experience I can only conclude that for people who don't like windows but still use it: 1) the cost of switching is too high and/or 2) people don't have enough information.

      #1 is coming down now that web apps and open standards are being used more and more.

      #2 is finally happening too. the court c

      • I support the free market and believe that in the long run, it fixes all problems, but I have been consistently flabbergasted at why people *choose* Windows.

        Third party product support is a big issue. When the majority of hardware peripherals and software packages are made for the platform, then people end up using it. There are a lot of hardware peripherals and software packages I'd love to use on my computer but can't because it's a Powerbook. I've also found that when I look at a lot of exotic technol

    • I mostly agree with you bug Bork was paid for his opinion. I doubt many other neanderthal conservatives were impressed.

    • I would go so far as to say that the case did its job just fine, and coupled with Microsoft's recent security problems, a door is opening for free market enterprise once more. I will go so far as to say that there are a lot more Firefox users out there than we'd have previously guessed. I read comments all the time on sites like FreeRepublic which aren't known for their technical insight saying how Firefox kicks ass. In fact, of the dozens or so on threads about Firefox, most are overwhelmingly "I can't be

    • While you make a good point that the antitrust case gave mozilla a chance to rise, I don't think you should attribute the rise of Linux to the antitrust case. To me, Linux, the free software movement as it stands today in general is completely attributable to the internet. If nothing else, Linux helped Microsoft's case with their "Oh yes there is competition! See?!?! *point at Linux*" argument.

      To me, the antitrust case just kind of fizzled out, without answering a truly important question in the softwar

  • Either Mr. Chin is living in a cave, or he wrote this piece some time ago. With Firefox numbers skyrocketing and even CERT suggesting that running IE is inviting virus infections, his statement, "Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web" seems quite out of touch with present reality.

  • An appeal for self-restraint (Score:4, Interesting)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:22PM (#10398440)
    If Judge Jackson had kept his mouth shut just a little longer, we'd be living in a considerably different world today.

  • The Users of Windows Are Still Paying... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:23PM (#10398443)
    Any company that purposefully builds a Web browser (IE) into an OS (Windows) as deeply as possible and as quickly as possible in an attempt to win a court case is asking for trouble. Any software engineer with an IQ above 70 knows that this is a bad idea. The sad part about this is that people who use Windows/IE/Outlook pay the price. How many IE vulnerabilities are in the wild? Hundreds.

    In short, MS tossed sound engineeing principles out the window and placed legal and marketing concerns ahead of everything else. They deserver the shitty security reputation they have. They built it themselves... purposefully to win a court case (period).

    • Re:The Users of Windows Are Still Paying... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fitten ( 521191 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:38PM (#10398625)
      Unfortunately, that's not what it really is. IE was used as the FileManager replacement and to do many things... like do the help system, and such, and also handle http and ftp and all those other things. Basically, the idea was "why have 82 tools, each one displays a similar, but seperate thing and duplicates code, when one tool can easily do it all". With that, it needs to be a core part of the GUI.

      Now, that doesn't sound bad to me. Implementation-wise, maybe it shouldn't have been as much in the kernel and the implementation had problems (security and otherwise), but I can see the logic in having a "universal viewer" and not having to load/use 20 other programs to do the same thing, just with different data streams.

      They built it themselves... purposefully to win a court case (period).

      Funny... since the court case was *about* this particular thing, it's funny that they would have built it into the system in order to cause a court case to happen in order to win a court case with it. I think you have the order in which things happened mixed up.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:24PM (#10398467)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Analysis (Score:5, Interesting)

      by argent ( 18001 ) <(peter) (at) (slashdot.2006.taronga.com)> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:38PM (#10398627) Homepage Journal
      Microsoft was right. Using this method of integration is very common place now.

      I would appreciate it if you could document this claim. So far as I know nobody else has integrated the browser and the desktop in anything like the way Microsoft has done. Providing an embeddable browser or HTML rendering engine is not the same as using the same component to access, interpret, and render both trusted and untrusted documents.

      If anyone else is doing this, rather than merely providing an HTML renderer or an embeddable (but still sandboxed) browser, then they need to be encouraged to find another path. One example: from what I've seen so far of Apple's Webkit, it's not taken that step. But... I haven't seen Tiger and Dashboard, so I don't know if they've stepped over the line there.

      Every time this is brought up some Microsoft apologist writes something like "MS's argument all along was that it's market share was at risk, and that any moment, a competitor could grap the reigns and win back the web. [...] Low and behold, the best browser on the market is free, open source, and multi-platform. On top of that, other browsers like Opera are low-cost and multi-platform (and also superior)." and then, after a few months and years and IE has kept its market share, they never come back and apologise for their naivete... they just make the same claims again the next time it comes up.

      And in any case, as I have pointed out, the BIG problem with IE has nothing to do with competition, it's the security problems. They've been glaring and obvious for seven years now, and it's only in the past few months that Firefox has begun to make some tentative inroads into its market, and not because it's better but because people are losing confidence in Microsoft's security. If Microsoft can reestablish that trust (whether they address the underlying problems or not), they'll get all that lost share back again.

      You cannot corner the supply side of software!

      If that was the case Microsoft wouldn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage into a browser monopoly in the first place.
    • That's right. A web-publisher can put any conditions he/she wants on viewing the content in the question. You can be asked to pay money, watch an advert, or use certain software.

      Yep, my bank used to purposely stop people from logging in if they weren't using the specific version of IE. I sent them a few notes expressing my "disappointment that your organization is unconcerned about the security of my financial information" and "dissappointment that your organization insists on using a web browser that ha
  • According to Microsoft, antitrust law should never require changes to the design of software products, because this will chill the freedom of programmers to innovate. One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.

    I wondered throughout the original trial, and later, why there were no security experts called by the DoJ to testify to the security problems inherent in this integration?

    The integration was clearly done at a very late stage in the design and in such a way that they had to use "guess and hope" to figure out whether a document was originally a local document called up by a component like Windows Explorer, or a remote document called up by Internet Explorer or Outlook. If they had left the web access as part of the web applications, and just used the HTML control to render HTML, then a huge percentage... probably a majority... of the worms and viruses and spyware spread by remote attacks on Windows via web or email would not have been possible.

    But they already had IE, and they needed to come up with a reason to bundle IE with the desktop despite their agreement with the DoJ from the previous case, so they made pretty much the whole thing into an embedded component and set us up the bomb.
    • I wondered throughout the original trial, and later, why there were no security experts called by the DoJ to testify to the security problems inherent in this integration?

      I don't think it is relevant to the question at the heart of the case: Did MS illegally use monopoly power? It doesn't matter how good or bad their product is.
  • Just like the assault weapons ban and stem cell research funding. Soon you'll see things quietly expiring all over the place... the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and the political opponents of the 'quiet expiration' domestic policy.
    • Actually U.S. Consitution is pubic domain but RIAA has plans to copyright it and sue Congress for not providing royalities for it's use.

  • Sharing of Code (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kf6auf ( 719514 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:33PM (#10398557)

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.

    Just a side note: Safari is integrated into Mac OS X (share some GUI code with the rest of the OS and probably some HTMl rendering with Mail.app) and if a user decides that he doesn't want it installed all he has to do is delete it - why can't Microsoft make this work?

    However the real question is not why can't one remove IE, but why can't there be a level playing field? Why does M$ get to use its OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from also installing Netscape, Mozilla, or any other browser? Anyway, is any of this a surprise? No; not at all.

    -Scott

    • MS makes a contract that numb nuts like Dell and HP sign that states OEMs can't add any software similiar to what MS makes on the PC. Thus, we get stuck with Windows. Want Linux? Only available on servers? Want no OS? Hard to get at times. Best thing to do is make your own PC or have someone else make it for you and don't support OEMs that offer no choice.

    • Re:Sharing of Code (Score:3, Interesting)

      by multimed ( 189254 )
      That's always been my gripe from the time the first antitrust stuff started. They should have in one way or another split the OS division from everything else. It wouldn't have had to even be anything as drastic as actually forming separate companies--just set up a Chinese wall between divisions. The Office & other divisions cannot use any APIs or code not published to the rest of the world. That would have fixed a major portion of the uneven playing field.

  • New infractions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:35PM (#10398591) Homepage
    Now that the apeal time has passed... do we expect MS to start up new and improved underhanded dealings?

    If they did, it would be a hard sell for the government to bring another case against the giant. "Yeah, we got crap last time and spent a bazillion dollars on the prosecution, but this time will be better!"

  • Its All Political (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slashpot ( 11017 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:40PM (#10398637)
    Here's what I got out of the article:

    The Clinton DOJ trailed to(rightfully) nail Microsoft in an antitrust case.

    The Bush DOJ was not interested in nailing Mircrosoft in an antitrust case.

    My opinionated speculative unfound but probably correct conclusion - Microsoft bought its way out through campaign donations supporting Bush.
    • I think that either way the 2000 election went, Microsoft would have gotten the case dropped. Granted, the Republicans would have been more likely to drop it. Of $4.7 million in political donations, 53% went to Republicans [commondreams.org]. By your reasoning that MS bought it's way out, it would seem that MS was hedging it's bets.

  • No choice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1000101 ( 584896 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:41PM (#10398643)
    I'm about sick and tired of the argument that Microsoft locks in customers by including IE with Windows installations. The fact is that there is choice in today's market. If you want to point the finger, point it at the end user who is to damn lazy to install a new browser. Also, point the finger at web developers who create web sites that will only work properly with IE. If Microsoft put code in their OS that prevented the user from installing or using a browser other than IE, I could see where that would cause concern. The fact is that they don't. I realize that many people on here will not like my views, and that's fine. I know there are plenty of things that Microsoft does/has done that aren't exactly ethical business practices. But the browser argument is old. In fact, just about every single extra application (notepad, media player, etc.) that Microsoft includes with their OS can be found from other software vendors or for free. The only people Microsoft is locking in are the computer manufacturers and other hardware companies. John Doe has more choice these days then ever before.

    • Re:No choice (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It could be because Microsoft requires you to use Internet Explorer to use Windows Updates. Yes, you could manually download them, but the average user cannot remember a password let alone which updates they already downloaded and installed.

      It could be because Microsoft made Internet Explorer and Explorer to be joined at the hip so that you cannot remove one from the other. So anytime you are looking at your own harddrive you are running parts of IE. This also in effect has created one of the biggest se

    • Re:No choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 )
      You're absolutely right, Microsoft does not lock-in customers by including IE, but most users are of the "use what's there" mentality, and aren't interested in much else. I've worked in a computer shop for 3 years, and from my experience I can say John Doe's biggest problem is simple and intentional ignorance to what else is happening in terms of OS/browser competition, nor is it his business to know. All he knows is he buys a computer to browse the 'net, check his email, and pay his solitaire. He doesn'

    • Re:No choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pjrc ( 134994 )
      You are right about one thing... IE is old news. Microsoft won.

      So how about Windows Media Player?

      Microsoft provides marketing funds to major computer manufacturers (which are critical to survival in such a competitive market), but there are numerous terms and conditions. Among them, those OEMs are not allowed to make several important MIME types default to any media player other than Microsoft's. Sure, they can install Real's player, or Apple's Quicktime. But they're not allowed to let those launch

    • Re:No choice (Score:3, Interesting)

      by i_r_sensitive ( 697893 )
      That's more than a little misleading...

      Notepad is not like IE at all:

      1) I don't have to install notepad, I have a choice there.

      2) I've never seen a single exploit around Notepad, there is practically an exploit a week with IE.

      3) Notepad is not tightly integrated with the OS as a whole.

      4) I can uninstall Notepad, easily, without compromising any other facet of system health.

      Really is it a choice to be able to install an alternate browser when you can't uninstall the buggy one, or forgo instal

    • Re:No choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )
      Microsoft does not allow OEM's to sell machines with Windows where the default browser is not IE. That is locking a customer in (an OEM is a customer, you know...).

  • I hate to play devil's advocate but.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gphinch ( 722686 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:42PM (#10398656) Homepage
    I hate MS as much at the next guy, excluding work where I have no choice I've moved to solely Apple and Linux, and even gotten all my friends/family to get Firefox. Implying that web pages not working in any browser but IE, however, is not entirely true. The fault lies in the hands of web developers who were too lazy/short sighted to see beyond IE compatibilities. While MS did only enflame this problem by making pages that shouldn't work actually work in IE, if these sites had been properly coded to begin with, they would have still worked in IE and also in every other browser.

  • rights and restrictive licensing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Astro Dr Dave ( 787433 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @03:47PM (#10398711)
    From the article:
    Actually, what you own is a license consisting of certain legal rights derived from Microsoft's copyright in the Windows code, together with the technological ability to use the code with your computer in the exercise of those rights. (Similarly, when you buy a movie on a Region 1 DVD, you acquire a license to view it at your home in the United States or Canada, and the technological ability to play the DVD in those countries but not others.)
    Does anyone else find this disturbing? Since when do companies have the right to tell us what we can do with our software, or in which countries we can view movies? Of course the DMCA has clauses for access control, and the impetus for that was corporate lobbying. But I don't understand the legal basis for this; why do the courts allow copyright owners to control how their products may be used?

  • Don't blame the Bush administration (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wouldn't even mention this if Chin would have left the politics out of it...

    I am disappointed by the Bush administration's handling of the case but the fact is that the case would have _never_ happened if the first Clinton DOJ investigation hadn't ended in the consent decree.

  • capability, not code (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rufus88 ( 748752 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:29PM (#10399127)
    Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code

    Uh huh. And an RIAA product contains not waveform data, but rather the capability to produce pleasing auditory sensations in a subset of the population.

  • The DoJ pushed the wrong solution. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:29PM (#10399575)
    In my humble opinion, I think the Feds pushed the wrong solution in the US v. Microsoft case.

    Why didn't the Feds push for separating sales of the operating system from the hardware? By pricing the operating system as a separate cost item it would have actually enhanced competition for the operating system market on x86-compatible PC's, and it would have encouraged the FreeBSD and Linux crowd to develop their operating systems much faster because there would be a truly healthy competition of what operating system you want install on your computer.
    • That's still not going to allow your windows programs to work on non-win32.

      Yes wine. But finally something is being done at a faster pace with cross-over-office.

      They're considering supporting games also, and since their work is based on the lgpl fork of wine, I suggest you point as much support (money) twards them as possible.

      Yes there are other alternatives, but the majority of people are not intuitive on the computer. They have to be shown, or once they figure something out it was a lot of time spent

  • easy solution: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @07:01PM (#10400247) Journal
    If websites stopped serving pages to Internet Explorer, users would be forced to install another browser. Or, for example, if IE is detected add an extra large banner promoting a Mozilla based browser. Instead of 'Best Viewed with Internet Explorer', it would be 'Worst Viewed'

    that reminds me of something else I was thinking of...

    Websites and other internet services should start denying services to 'bad' net citizens, a sort of global blacklist.

    Say everytime a monitor machine recieves a spam email, a ddos attack, worm propageation attept, etc; it sends a note to one of the blacklist servers. The blacklist server won't instantly list for one bad action, but would require multiple monitors to report a problem with an IP address.

    every once in a while ISPs, Servers, Service Providers (think perhaps Battle.net, Steam, web-comics, free e-mail providers, along with free/cheap hosting providers) would download the current list, and start providing blank/warning pages to any requests from those addresses. Corporate internet connections could just outright block any packets at the firewall.

    8 bad IP adresses in a C block, blocks the whole c block.

    The Monitor servers would have to be authenticated and somewhat secret, otherwise false reports could be used to deny service to a target or the IP addresses excluded from future worm versions and the Blacklist distribution security would still be an issue (if served normally, it would be a DDOS target, if 'push' delivered, it could be spoofed without good authentication.) I'm thinking of a USENET style list distribution method. a listing would also expire fairly quickly.

    The distiction with this being, that it's cross service. You send bad e-mails, your web browsing is blocked. You run an open proxy, you can't send e-mail. You have a worm?, you can't play Counterstrike. You run a Starcraft cheat? you can't instant message.

    The exclusions would have to be customizable, you wouldn't want to block someone with a worm from downloading a virus remover, or otherwise seeking assistance, but they don't need to play an online game before fixing it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Close