Supreme Court denies Microsoft appeal
-
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
-
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:
Same old, same old. Can't you guys find something new other than "Look what Apple is doing". How do you propose any field moves forward without building on what's available? Any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous. Especially considering that Linux - right down to the base idea - was plagiarised. It's funny watching him squirm back and forth I could say the same thing about you right now. How long will it be before the name calling comes out again?
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
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
Linux people WON'T use .NET. Thats what I meant. They don't want MS's junk. The perpose of Linux is to kill MS. We'll just use something else. 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:
-
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:
Not that I'm denying that MS has done things with OEMs that at best border on illegal and are obviously unethical, but your response here shows that you really don't have the facts. You claimed actual illegal practices. When asked for evidence to support it you tell a story in which MS took legal action to prevent a company from installing a competitors OS alongside their own. If they took *legal* action this indicates that either MS was fully within their legal rights and that the OEM wasn't, or that a ruling on it was enough in the grey area that the OEM simply didn't fight MS on it. In either case this is evidence that they weren't firmly in an area that can be described as illegal practice. This is my main problem with most MS rants/raves/bashes. They are based solely on repetition of mantras published by MS's competitors so that there's no evidence of fact. MS does use a lot of muscle to retain and even gain market share, and IMO this often results in unethical and possibly illegal actions, but so does every other company in a competitive market. Until actual proof of illegal actions appear before a court the MS bashers are nothing but an annoyance. William E. Kempf
-
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:
Ah, you do know parts of the case. :) But one of major points of the case was the bundling of IE. Was IE part of the OS or not? That is an EXTREMELY important part of the case. If IE is not part of the OS (which the DOJ has given up on trying to prove which makes most of the case worthless), then Microsoft violated the Sherman Anti-Trust laws by tying one product with another. Microsoft can not enter in agreements forcing people to install products such as Office with Windows. That is a clear violation. (Look up the Kodak case on www.antitrustcases.com). But, like I mentioned, the DOJ isn't even going to try to show that IE isn't part of the OS now. So the big questions is "Where is the beef". I would love to see specifics on the other stuff. Looking at other exclusive cases such as "UNITED STATES v. GRIFFITH ET AL" and "STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES", I don't see much connection. Here is a good summary of the DOJ case: http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/TDT2000/topics/completed-research/microsoft.html Here is an interesting view: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/january/ts\_myth\_antitrust\_law.htm And finally my favorite site: http://www.antitrustcases.com/ Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Same old, same old. Can't you guys find something new other than "Look what Apple is doing". How do you propose any field moves forward without building on what's available? Any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous. Especially considering that Linux - right down to the base idea - was plagiarised. It's funny watching him squirm back and forth I could say the same thing about you right now. How long will it be before the name calling comes out again?
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
I could say the same thing about you right now. How long will it be before the name calling comes out again? Oh yeah, I forgot. MS supporters are really into being pushed around S&M style by Microsoft. If they don't get it from Master Bill and Steve, they want someone else to give it to them. :-D 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:
-
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:
-
Linux people WON'T use .NET. Thats what I meant. They don't want MS's junk. The perpose of Linux is to kill MS. We'll just use something else. 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:
The .NET vision has been around for a long time now, and even Sun - sorry $un - share the same vision. Linux people WON'T use .NET That's a bit hypocritical seeing as a bunch of Linux people are currently developing a Linux version of the .NET CLR. Or aren't they true penguins? The perpose of Linux is to kill MS. We'll just use something else. Well they're not doing a very good job. As I understand it they are oinly just getting to the same level UNIX was at fifteen years ago. Still, what can you epxect from a group of non-collaborating people who are so preocupied with spreading their newfound inner peace to the rest of the world than they are to actually get off their arses and make something of it. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Home users (inc. students) particularly like Linux because they can burn a copy of a friend's copied CD without breaking the law. 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 Cool, I never knew that fact. Maybe you could put me in touch with some people who have written an operating system on the same level as Windows XP. I would be very interested in licensing it to make my billions. ---- Would you like me to find you a book so you can read some educated discussion about the .NET idea? I mean the SlashDot forums are hardly a place for valued discussions - anything they don't like is ranked so low that most people won't even see it. Only penguins would come up with a system like that!
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
I could say the same thing about you right now. How long will it be before the name calling comes out again? Oh yeah, I forgot. MS supporters are really into being pushed around S&M style by Microsoft. If they don't get it from Master Bill and Steve, they want someone else to give it to them. :-D 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:
Arrrr come on, can't you do better than that? A personal insult just isn't personal without at least two references to my obviously small cock and sexual orientation involving penquins. If you want to insult someone, at least have the decency to do it properly. If you are short on insulting phrases, just post a message to the effect of "I love Microsoft products" www.slashdot.org and look at the top few replies (probably within a minute of posting as they seem to have nothing better to do).
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
LOL, it is VERY VERY common for large corps to give money to both parties. Bill was actually contributing more money to the Dems at one point. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
So you mean I've been wasting my time with all this work stuff these past few years? All I really need to do is move to the US and run for president, then pull out at the last moment. :-D
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
Not that I'm denying that MS has done things with OEMs that at best border on illegal and are obviously unethical, but your response here shows that you really don't have the facts. You claimed actual illegal practices. When asked for evidence to support it you tell a story in which MS took legal action to prevent a company from installing a competitors OS alongside their own. If they took *legal* action this indicates that either MS was fully within their legal rights and that the OEM wasn't, or that a ruling on it was enough in the grey area that the OEM simply didn't fight MS on it. In either case this is evidence that they weren't firmly in an area that can be described as illegal practice. This is my main problem with most MS rants/raves/bashes. They are based solely on repetition of mantras published by MS's competitors so that there's no evidence of fact. MS does use a lot of muscle to retain and even gain market share, and IMO this often results in unethical and possibly illegal actions, but so does every other company in a competitive market. Until actual proof of illegal actions appear before a court the MS bashers are nothing but an annoyance. William E. Kempf
Not that I'm denying that MS has done things with OEMs that at best border on illegal and are obviously unethical, but your response here shows that you really don't have the facts. You claimed actual illegal practices....Until actual proof of illegal actions appear before a court the MS bashers are nothing but an annoyance. MS DID illegal things. They are a convicted Law breaker. The Federal Court said it, the Appeals Court said it, and now the US Supreme Court said it. The only thing left is the punishment. You need to get your facts straight. 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:
-
Not that I'm denying that MS has done things with OEMs that at best border on illegal and are obviously unethical, but your response here shows that you really don't have the facts. You claimed actual illegal practices....Until actual proof of illegal actions appear before a court the MS bashers are nothing but an annoyance. MS DID illegal things. They are a convicted Law breaker. The Federal Court said it, the Appeals Court said it, and now the US Supreme Court said it. The only thing left is the punishment. You need to get your facts straight. 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:
Ahhh... I'm dealing with an advocate (i.e. you've got your brain turned off and your dishing out rhetoric). It's not worth arguing so I'll point this out only once. The case in question is not finalized yet. Actual proof of illegal practices has not been shown. Even if the case were finalized the actual findings in this case are unrelated to the questions you were asking. So, in the end, when I show you the flaw in your argument you resort to attacking the messenger. Doubtful anyone will listen to you after that. William E. Kempf