Supreme Court denies Microsoft appeal
-
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:
Linux people WON'T use .NET. Thats what I meant. Can't agree with that. If .NET works well, is an open standard and is the right tool for a market then the Linux community will embrace it totally. However that's a lot of .IF They don't want MS's junk. Agreed, but fortunately not all of MS's products are junk. While I hate windows with a passion, I love NT and I really like Linux. I think that most people who hate MS do so due to excess exposure to Win95,98,etc and reading about thier marketing/business ethics. The perpose of Linux is to kill MS. We'll just use something else. I think the purpose of Linux is to provide an open source OS, written by the people, for the people. In this respect Linux is an incredible offering that benefits us all. True Linux supporters couldn't give a damn about MS and will adopt .NET for what it's worth to Linux. http://www.codetools.com/script/images/vegemite.gif
*bummer, can't find the 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
But wait; actual proof of illegal activity WAS presented before the court, and was UPHELD in the appeals court. The >only< part that has been thrown out was the remedy, and that >only< because the judge got cocky. Please don't ask me to list the illegal doings. My feelings against MS are a result of the slimy and sleazy tactics they're used in the past few years (forcing IE down everyone's throats by tying it to bug fixes in the tree control!), rarely fixing bugs in their code before bringing out the next generation of technologiies (with new bugs and a new steep learning curve), etc. ALl of this gave me a REAL BAD FEELING about the company; the courts vindicated this last year.
-
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
The case in question may not yet be finalized, but it's damn close. And so far, there has been no vindication of MS whatsoever.. except that the judge acted improperly outside the courtroom. You should not let the fact that your opoonent is a Linux bigot cloud your judgement. Those of us who depend on Windows for a living are certainly victims of MS's hubris as much as anyone else.
-
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:
You know, I would have no trouble with regulations limiting what MS can do *ONLY* if there was some kind of guarantee that as soon as those regulations begin to hamper them against their competitors (ie, their competitors become too competitive) they should be removed. The problem is that such regulations take an act of god to get removed, and by the time they do, the regulated company is all but out of business. IBM was nearly put out of business by such regulations in the 80's. Since I have no faith in our government to police its regulations and re-evaluate them objectively, I don't believe it's viable to regulate a company like MS or IBM or Intel. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
"Actual proof of illegal practices has not been shown" Yes it has. MS is in the sentencing part of the trial. It's already been convicted of murder, the prosecution isn't going for the death penalty, and now it's time to decide whether it's 25 years or Life. Ask a lawyer and you'll see I'm right. 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:
Actually, they've been convicted of Jaywalking. The Murder charge was thrown out, and the Agravated assault charge was sent back to court for retrying if the plaintif so desired. The plaintiff (the DOJ and states) has said they don't want to pursue it. Now, what MS has been convicted of is not much. A few counts of restrictive licensing and agreements. That's it. That's not to say those aren't bad, but the vast majority of the case was either thrown out, or considered by the DOJ to be not worth retrying. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
But wait; actual proof of illegal activity WAS presented before the court, and was UPHELD in the appeals court. The >only< part that has been thrown out was the remedy, and that >only< because the judge got cocky. Please don't ask me to list the illegal doings. My feelings against MS are a result of the slimy and sleazy tactics they're used in the past few years (forcing IE down everyone's throats by tying it to bug fixes in the tree control!), rarely fixing bugs in their code before bringing out the next generation of technologiies (with new bugs and a new steep learning curve), etc. ALl of this gave me a REAL BAD FEELING about the company; the courts vindicated this last year.
Sorry, but more than the remedy was thrown out. The entire browser monopolization case was thrown out. That was 1/3 the case. Another third, the tying claims was remanded back to the lower court (with prejudice i might add) to be retried, however the DOJ has said it won't bother to retry it. 2/3 of the case is now gone. The remaining third, is the monopoly maintenance charges, which are really minor offenses. Sure, they're bad. But 2/3 of the case just evaporated. Only a small portion was upheld. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
How did you guess? All of the above! May the Source be with you. :vegemite:
-
You know, I would have no trouble with regulations limiting what MS can do *ONLY* if there was some kind of guarantee that as soon as those regulations begin to hamper them against their competitors (ie, their competitors become too competitive) they should be removed. The problem is that such regulations take an act of god to get removed, and by the time they do, the regulated company is all but out of business. IBM was nearly put out of business by such regulations in the 80's. Since I have no faith in our government to police its regulations and re-evaluate them objectively, I don't believe it's viable to regulate a company like MS or IBM or Intel. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I do think that MS will be seriously hurt by the restrictions and regulations. I was reading that the courts may force MS to open up it's Windows source code, Remove any MS influence on the way OEMs can modify windows. Thats why MS is having a hard time settling with the DOJ(along with the fact that they want to postpone any restrictions as long as possible). 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 do think that MS will be seriously hurt by the restrictions and regulations. I was reading that the courts may force MS to open up it's Windows source code, Remove any MS influence on the way OEMs can modify windows. Thats why MS is having a hard time settling with the DOJ(along with the fact that they want to postpone any restrictions as long as possible). 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:
They may have been able to do the things you suggest with the original verdict, but now that 2/3 of it has been vaporized, there is little that would warrant such penalties. The punishment must fit the crime, and opening their source code has no bearing on being guilty of using restrictive contracts. Further, There must be restrictions on what OEM's can do to modify Windows. Otherwise they can change it to Compaq Windows, or Dell Windows or IBM Windows. That would invalidate their trademark and copyright. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
They may have been able to do the things you suggest with the original verdict, but now that 2/3 of it has been vaporized, there is little that would warrant such penalties. The punishment must fit the crime, and opening their source code has no bearing on being guilty of using restrictive contracts. Further, There must be restrictions on what OEM's can do to modify Windows. Otherwise they can change it to Compaq Windows, or Dell Windows or IBM Windows. That would invalidate their trademark and copyright. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I think we'll all be surprised at the serverity of the MS penalty. If it was light then MS would have settled the case by now because the US has a Republican Justice Department. ZDNET 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:
