Supreme Court denies Microsoft appeal
-
zdnet Looks like MS is heading for trouble. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
Yes I agree that MS should have restrictions placed upon it as to give others a fair chance to compete. Linux will be a great beneficiary to this. :) May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
Is your real first name Hassan, Najmul, Sarah or something like that? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
How did you guess? All of the above! May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
Yes I agree that MS should have restrictions placed upon it as to give others a fair chance to compete. Linux will be a great beneficiary to this. :) May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
Don't hold your breath. Actually, hold your breath. Please. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
I think MS will ultimatly be hog tied by the government, and they will become irrelevant in the computing world just like Digital Equipment becuase of all the restrictions placed on them. The EU will beat them even worse and they won't even be a factor in Europe. The stock will go down, and all the geniuses at the company will leave, and the products will suffer. No one will buy them and the heavy fines imposed by the states will eat away the large cash horde. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
I think MS will ultimatly be hog tied by the government, and they will become irrelevant in the computing world just like Digital Equipment becuase of all the restrictions placed on them. The EU will beat them even worse and they won't even be a factor in Europe. The stock will go down, and all the geniuses at the company will leave, and the products will suffer. No one will buy them and the heavy fines imposed by the states will eat away the large cash horde. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
I agree this is a good thing. In the zdnet article, computer manufacturers have been relegated to making the same box because of MS's restrictions on modifying the OS. Therefore they could only compete on the price point because there was no other differentation between computers. This will allow manufactures to provide different products changing the dynamic in the computing world. Maybe Apple will rise again and RISC processors and Unix based systems will rule again. I can't wait for MS to taste it's own medicine. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
How did you guess? All of the above! May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
That's why you talked to yourself few threads ago, right? ;P Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
-
I think MS will ultimatly be hog tied by the government, and they will become irrelevant in the computing world just like Digital Equipment becuase of all the restrictions placed on them. The EU will beat them even worse and they won't even be a factor in Europe. The stock will go down, and all the geniuses at the company will leave, and the products will suffer. No one will buy them and the heavy fines imposed by the states will eat away the large cash horde. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
And after that, Linux will rule the World!... Two minutes later the Apocalypse officially starts! :-D We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
-
I think MS will ultimatly be hog tied by the government, and they will become irrelevant in the computing world just like Digital Equipment becuase of all the restrictions placed on them. The EU will beat them even worse and they won't even be a factor in Europe. The stock will go down, and all the geniuses at the company will leave, and the products will suffer. No one will buy them and the heavy fines imposed by the states will eat away the large cash horde. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
That's really something to look forward to. Maybe the EU can just come up with their own OS. Or maybe they could just rename Linux to 'The People's OS' and drop the pretense. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
Yes I agree that MS should have restrictions placed upon it as to give others a fair chance to compete. Linux will be a great beneficiary to this. :) May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
Is it just me, or do any others of you find the fact that you have the right to damage one product just so others can get to the same level, slightly distrubing. It's one thing if Microsoft products were genuinely worse than the competition, but the current situation is clearly the other way round. Any products capable of even being compared to Microsoft products sell on their own, they don't need a helping hand from a few greedy corporations with political connections. Not to mention that having more mainstream platforms means software prices will go up significantly - but no one ever mentions that. If a typical software project costs $n to produce now, future versions would cost $n^n with entire new teams being hired for each platform's port. Who do you think fronts that bill? It's us - the consumers. The people the antitrust lawyers are telling us they're out to protect. What I find even more disturbing is that America can dicate what it likes to the rest of the world, and we are expected to take it. I can think of more cases of this too, some of which have caused a lot of trouble recently. Come on guys, do any of you really think they have our best interests at heart? There's only one true reason any of the states and corporations pushing for any kind of punishment are doing so: MONEY. It's obviously in the competitiors best interests, and it's in the governments best interests financially to have many products competing on the same level. That means more people employed by software companies, and more software to tax. Don't be surprised if your country's government suddenly levies an extra tax on software like they do with alcohol and tobacco. Where's there's money to be had, the government won't sit around because they are thinking of us. In the end I believe that any significant measures by the DOJ/et al against Microsoft will only hurt the competition. Especially Linux. As more and more people cross paths with Linux, more and more people are sticking with Windows - not because it's easier to use, but because you can't do most of the stuff you rely on daily on any other current platforms. Linux is fine as a remotely accessed server platform. Sit in front of it and you're in trouble (I wonder if Linus ever heard of productivity - that is what drives a company's desicion to use Windows, not the price tag). To quote what someone else stated the last time this was mentioned: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Alas only home users and soon-to-be bankrupt businessed
-
Is it just me, or do any others of you find the fact that you have the right to damage one product just so others can get to the same level, slightly distrubing. It's one thing if Microsoft products were genuinely worse than the competition, but the current situation is clearly the other way round. Any products capable of even being compared to Microsoft products sell on their own, they don't need a helping hand from a few greedy corporations with political connections. Not to mention that having more mainstream platforms means software prices will go up significantly - but no one ever mentions that. If a typical software project costs $n to produce now, future versions would cost $n^n with entire new teams being hired for each platform's port. Who do you think fronts that bill? It's us - the consumers. The people the antitrust lawyers are telling us they're out to protect. What I find even more disturbing is that America can dicate what it likes to the rest of the world, and we are expected to take it. I can think of more cases of this too, some of which have caused a lot of trouble recently. Come on guys, do any of you really think they have our best interests at heart? There's only one true reason any of the states and corporations pushing for any kind of punishment are doing so: MONEY. It's obviously in the competitiors best interests, and it's in the governments best interests financially to have many products competing on the same level. That means more people employed by software companies, and more software to tax. Don't be surprised if your country's government suddenly levies an extra tax on software like they do with alcohol and tobacco. Where's there's money to be had, the government won't sit around because they are thinking of us. In the end I believe that any significant measures by the DOJ/et al against Microsoft will only hurt the competition. Especially Linux. As more and more people cross paths with Linux, more and more people are sticking with Windows - not because it's easier to use, but because you can't do most of the stuff you rely on daily on any other current platforms. Linux is fine as a remotely accessed server platform. Sit in front of it and you're in trouble (I wonder if Linus ever heard of productivity - that is what drives a company's desicion to use Windows, not the price tag). To quote what someone else stated the last time this was mentioned: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Alas only home users and soon-to-be bankrupt businessed
I agree with you that windows is an easy and mainstream OS, as is Apples's OS X. I even use Windows to use programs that are available only on windows. The only problem was that MS was overzealous in their attempts to kill it's competitors. MS made good products, and many people bought them. But instead of competing fairly, they made restrictive agreements with OEMs effectively cutting off other rivals. Since the competitors didn't earn enough money, they didn't have the resources to develope competive products. That only increased MS's marketshare becuase those competitors made inferiour products. The remedy will not be fair, becuase MS wasn't playing fair according to US law. The remedy will be designed to disarm and hurt MS until a healthy ecosystem of competitive companies develops. So in summary, my only beef with MS is their restrictive agreements with the OEMs. Once more competition is allowed, people will not have such a negative view of MS. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
I agree with you that windows is an easy and mainstream OS, as is Apples's OS X. I even use Windows to use programs that are available only on windows. The only problem was that MS was overzealous in their attempts to kill it's competitors. MS made good products, and many people bought them. But instead of competing fairly, they made restrictive agreements with OEMs effectively cutting off other rivals. Since the competitors didn't earn enough money, they didn't have the resources to develope competive products. That only increased MS's marketshare becuase those competitors made inferiour products. The remedy will not be fair, becuase MS wasn't playing fair according to US law. The remedy will be designed to disarm and hurt MS until a healthy ecosystem of competitive companies develops. So in summary, my only beef with MS is their restrictive agreements with the OEMs. Once more competition is allowed, people will not have such a negative view of MS. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
Which part of the restrictive agreements were against the law and why were they against the law? Yes, I am testing to see if you actually know what you are talking about or just repeating a mantra. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
MS would give substantial discounts and joint advertising to OEMs who agreed to install only MS's OS on their computers. I remember reading a story where a major computer company installed a competing OS on the harddrive of it's computers, and the consumer had the choise during the inital setup to choose between OS/2 or Windows. MS took legal action against that company, and they relented. This happen a few years back, but i'll try to get the story. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
I agree this is a good thing. In the zdnet article, computer manufacturers have been relegated to making the same box because of MS's restrictions on modifying the OS. Therefore they could only compete on the price point because there was no other differentation between computers. This will allow manufactures to provide different products changing the dynamic in the computing world. Maybe Apple will rise again and RISC processors and Unix based systems will rule again. I can't wait for MS to taste it's own medicine. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
I agree this is a good thing. In the zdnet article, computer manufacturers have been relegated to making the same box because of MS's restrictions on modifying the OS. Therefore they could only compete on the price point because there was no other differentation between computers. This will allow manufactures to provide different products changing the dynamic in the computing world After this happens our lovely apps won't work anymore because Dell's WinXP is different from Compaq's and Gateway's ad nauseum. Back to the DOS dark ages! X| Yuppy! Now THAT's evolution! :mad: We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
-
That's really something to look forward to. Maybe the EU can just come up with their own OS. Or maybe they could just rename Linux to 'The People's OS' and drop the pretense. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
Linux will most likely end up as a Unix replacement, because there are so many variations of propritary Unix. So customers of HP, IBM, SUN will get a very robust Linux OS in the near future. Those companies will be able to sell their propritary databases, and expensive hardware on top of Linux. Linux isn't that much of a threat to MS's desktop dynasty, but it could kill their .NET plans if there are too many Linux Servers being used. The reason Linux came about WAS because of MS. No one could compete with MS in the market place because of their anti-competative practices, so Linux like a virus or bacteria developed a resistance to the MS penecillin to become what it is today. The only way I see Linux succeed on the desktop is if they dumb it down, and give it a XP or OS X apperance. Wow MS does really copy the competitors. Apple comes out with a brand new bubbly colourful OS, then MS does the same thing. So much for inovation. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
Is it just me, or do any others of you find the fact that you have the right to damage one product just so others can get to the same level, slightly distrubing. It's one thing if Microsoft products were genuinely worse than the competition, but the current situation is clearly the other way round. Any products capable of even being compared to Microsoft products sell on their own, they don't need a helping hand from a few greedy corporations with political connections. Not to mention that having more mainstream platforms means software prices will go up significantly - but no one ever mentions that. If a typical software project costs $n to produce now, future versions would cost $n^n with entire new teams being hired for each platform's port. Who do you think fronts that bill? It's us - the consumers. The people the antitrust lawyers are telling us they're out to protect. What I find even more disturbing is that America can dicate what it likes to the rest of the world, and we are expected to take it. I can think of more cases of this too, some of which have caused a lot of trouble recently. Come on guys, do any of you really think they have our best interests at heart? There's only one true reason any of the states and corporations pushing for any kind of punishment are doing so: MONEY. It's obviously in the competitiors best interests, and it's in the governments best interests financially to have many products competing on the same level. That means more people employed by software companies, and more software to tax. Don't be surprised if your country's government suddenly levies an extra tax on software like they do with alcohol and tobacco. Where's there's money to be had, the government won't sit around because they are thinking of us. In the end I believe that any significant measures by the DOJ/et al against Microsoft will only hurt the competition. Especially Linux. As more and more people cross paths with Linux, more and more people are sticking with Windows - not because it's easier to use, but because you can't do most of the stuff you rely on daily on any other current platforms. Linux is fine as a remotely accessed server platform. Sit in front of it and you're in trouble (I wonder if Linus ever heard of productivity - that is what drives a company's desicion to use Windows, not the price tag). To quote what someone else stated the last time this was mentioned: Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Alas only home users and soon-to-be bankrupt businessed
Is it just me, or do any others of you find the fact that you have the right to damage one product just so others can get to the same level, slightly distrubing. It's one thing if Microsoft products were genuinely worse than the competition, but the current situation is clearly the other way round. That's what happens when your company (read: Microft) spends more money in research and development than in lobbying politicians (read: Sun, Oracle, etc...) We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
-
Is it just me, or do any others of you find the fact that you have the right to damage one product just so others can get to the same level, slightly distrubing. It's one thing if Microsoft products were genuinely worse than the competition, but the current situation is clearly the other way round. That's what happens when your company (read: Microft) spends more money in research and development than in lobbying politicians (read: Sun, Oracle, etc...) We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
Oh come on, do you really believe that? MS practically paid for Bush/Cheney's inagrual ceremony, and they are one of the biggest contributers to the political process. You know what I do for entertainment? I watch Bill Gate's trial videotape. It's funny watching him squirm back and forth denying this and that. MS's definition of research: Look what Apple is doing May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
I agree this is a good thing. In the zdnet article, computer manufacturers have been relegated to making the same box because of MS's restrictions on modifying the OS. Therefore they could only compete on the price point because there was no other differentation between computers. This will allow manufactures to provide different products changing the dynamic in the computing world After this happens our lovely apps won't work anymore because Dell's WinXP is different from Compaq's and Gateway's ad nauseum. Back to the DOS dark ages! X| Yuppy! Now THAT's evolution! :mad: We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
So, I can see you are a follower. Thats ok. The world needs them too. We've all heard that 100 monkeys typing in Visual C++ could come up with Windows. - thanks to MS, we now know this is true May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
I agree with you that windows is an easy and mainstream OS, as is Apples's OS X. I even use Windows to use programs that are available only on windows. The only problem was that MS was overzealous in their attempts to kill it's competitors. MS made good products, and many people bought them. But instead of competing fairly, they made restrictive agreements with OEMs effectively cutting off other rivals. Since the competitors didn't earn enough money, they didn't have the resources to develope competive products. That only increased MS's marketshare becuase those competitors made inferiour products. The remedy will not be fair, becuase MS wasn't playing fair according to US law. The remedy will be designed to disarm and hurt MS until a healthy ecosystem of competitive companies develops. So in summary, my only beef with MS is their restrictive agreements with the OEMs. Once more competition is allowed, people will not have such a negative view of MS. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
The problem is, that a healthy ecosystem of competitive companies isn't possible. You can have an ecosystem of competitive companies, but that will be at the disadvantage of the consumer, and in turn the competing companies. The ideal solution would be for the governemnt to spend the millions it's wasting/wasted in this lawsuit, to subsidise product development for existing platforms. I'm not saying that one needs to be the top dog, but if you have too many you will have problems. Just look at the issues surrounding the different Linux distros. my only beef with MS is their restrictive agreements with the OEMs No one forced the OEMs to initiate contracts with Microsoft. If indeed there were are other operating systems at that time worthy of competition *, they would have agreed contrcts with them instead. The real fact at the heart of all this is that initially everybody ignored the IBM platform, believing that Apple was the way to go. This is the main reason why Micorosft 'got a head start'. By the time people were moving back to IBM platforms Microsoft already had a good market share, which rose significantly as more and more poeple came over. Microsoft's Marketting isn't the reason why they are where they are today - we [the computer users of the world] are. Or at least the older ones amongst that is. * which based on the OSes Microsoft were producing at the time, shouldn't have been at all difficult for many companies. MS would give substantial discounts and joint advertising to OEMs who agreed to install only MS's OS on their computers. Sun have just announce substantial discounts to anybody moving to their platforms from competing ones, and already over discounts to OEMs. If they're platforms were as usable, don't think for a moment that they would'nt do the same. $un are trying to operate a viable business too. What you really need to remember through all of this is that Steve Ballmer and that Scott guy could very easily work for the other sides. They are both business men, and pretty damned good ones at that.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Oh come on, do you really believe that? MS practically paid for Bush/Cheney's inagrual ceremony, and they are one of the biggest contributers to the political process. You know what I do for entertainment? I watch Bill Gate's trial videotape. It's funny watching him squirm back and forth denying this and that. MS's definition of research: Look what Apple is doing May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
You know what I do for entertainment? I watch Bill Gate's trial videotape. This explains everything. Do you also hear voices inside your head? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
-
Linux will most likely end up as a Unix replacement, because there are so many variations of propritary Unix. So customers of HP, IBM, SUN will get a very robust Linux OS in the near future. Those companies will be able to sell their propritary databases, and expensive hardware on top of Linux. Linux isn't that much of a threat to MS's desktop dynasty, but it could kill their .NET plans if there are too many Linux Servers being used. The reason Linux came about WAS because of MS. No one could compete with MS in the market place because of their anti-competative practices, so Linux like a virus or bacteria developed a resistance to the MS penecillin to become what it is today. The only way I see Linux succeed on the desktop is if they dumb it down, and give it a XP or OS X apperance. Wow MS does really copy the competitors. Apple comes out with a brand new bubbly colourful OS, then MS does the same thing. So much for inovation. May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
but it could kill their .NET plans if there are too many Linux Servers being used. I suggest you go buy a book so you know what the hell you are receiting. Which part of "on any platform on any device" do you not understand? Think of .NET as an idea rather than a physical product, and you can visualise what exactly it is that Microsoft are trying to achieve.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com