Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End. - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End. - Linux ; Microsoft's rapid rise to power and its ability to hold onto control over the PC desktop throughout the 90s has long been revered by pundits as a classic example of copying an existing business model and then defeating all competition ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

  1. Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.


    Microsoft's rapid rise to power and its ability to hold onto control
    over the PC desktop throughout the 90s has long been revered by
    pundits as a classic example of copying an existing business model and
    then defeating all competition through price efficiencies, despite the
    fact that Microsoft's Windows software has only ever gotten
    progressively more expensive with the passing of time. This copy-
    killing strategy, also described as "embrace, extend, and extinguish,"
    is now reaching a dead end. Here's why.


    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...end/#more-1368

  2. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.


    wrote in message
    news:133f53f9-ebcd-4d04-96c9-cc0b5828ee09@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Microsoft's rapid rise to power and its ability to hold onto control
    > over the PC desktop throughout the 90s has long been revered by
    > pundits as a classic example of copying an existing business model and
    > then defeating all competition through price efficiencies, despite the
    > fact that Microsoft's Windows software has only ever gotten
    > progressively more expensive with the passing of time. This copy-
    > killing strategy, also described as "embrace, extend, and extinguish,"
    > is now reaching a dead end. Here's why.
    >

    >
    > http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...end/#more-1368


    Just another limp lamer with a tortured interpretation of events and a
    thesis that Microsoft stole the cheese out of the community rat trap and
    owes it success to nothing more than being a poor sport. One wonders why
    others have had such limited success, though.


  3. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.


    > Just another limp lamer with a tortured interpretation of events and a
    > thesis that Microsoft stole the cheese out of the community rat trap and
    > owes it success to nothing more than being a poor sport. One wonders why
    > others have had such limited success, though.



    By the end of the 90s, reality reigned in on Microsoft and it began
    racking up a series of settlement obligations it was forced to pay to
    other victims of its copy-killing efforts and related anti-trust
    actions:

    * Microsoft paid Caldera $275 million for its antitrust actions
    against DR-DOS.
    * Microsoft recently settled with IBM in an antitrust suit
    involving OS/2 and IBM's Lotus SmartSuite applications to the tune of
    $775 million.
    * Microsoft paid Novell $539 million to settle its antitrust suit
    over the NetWare operating system, and Microsoft is still being sued
    by Novell over claims related to WordPerfect.
    * Microsoft paid Palm over $23 million to settle an antitrust suit
    over the unfinished BeOS.
    * Microsoft settled with Sun in an agreement that included $700
    million in antitrust and $900 million in patent infringements, both
    related to Java.
    * Microsoft paid AOL $750 million to settle the antitrust suit
    over Netscape.


    Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"

  4. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.


    wrote in message
    news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"


    Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    commercial disputes, Microsoft has come to the end of the trail and the
    silly sort of OSS is finally about to triumph.


  5. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    ____/ nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu on Sunday 16 December 2007 23:13 : \____

    >
    >> Just another limp lamer with a tortured interpretation of events and a
    >> thesis that Microsoft stole the cheese out of the community rat trap and
    >> owes it success to nothing more than being a poor sport. One wonders why
    >> others have had such limited success, though.

    >
    >
    > By the end of the 90s, reality reigned in on Microsoft and it began
    > racking up a series of settlement obligations it was forced to pay to
    > other victims of its copy-killing efforts and related anti-trust
    > actions:
    >
    > * Microsoft paid Caldera $275 million for its antitrust actions
    > against DR-DOS.
    > * Microsoft recently settled with IBM in an antitrust suit
    > involving OS/2 and IBM's Lotus SmartSuite applications to the tune of
    > $775 million.
    > * Microsoft paid Novell $539 million to settle its antitrust suit
    > over the NetWare operating system, and Microsoft is still being sued
    > by Novell over claims related to WordPerfect.
    > * Microsoft paid Palm over $23 million to settle an antitrust suit
    > over the unfinished BeOS.
    > * Microsoft settled with Sun in an agreement that included $700
    > million in antitrust and $900 million in patent infringements, both
    > related to Java.
    > * Microsoft paid AOL $750 million to settle the antitrust suit
    > over Netscape.
    >

    >
    > Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"


    nessuno, don't bother with Weisgerber. He is a shill, a troll (provoking in
    groups he has nothing to do with), and a total waste of time. He also has
    something to do with Microsoft's PR, so you're talking about an agent here.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Those who can, Open-Source
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    00:20:02 up 6 days, 13:08, 4 users, load average: 0.47, 0.88, 1.35
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  6. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    * nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu fired off this tart reply:

    >
    > Microsoft's rapid rise to power and its ability to hold onto control
    > over the PC desktop throughout the 90s has long been revered by
    > pundits as a classic example of copying an existing business model and
    > then defeating all competition through price efficiencies, despite the
    > fact that Microsoft's Windows software has only ever gotten
    > progressively more expensive with the passing of time. This copy-
    > killing strategy, also described as "embrace, extend, and extinguish,"
    > is now reaching a dead end. Here's why.
    >

    >
    > http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...end/#more-1368


    Gates delivered his line after Microsoft announced "Windows
    1.0" for the IBM PC in November 1983, a few months prior to the
    Macintosh shipping in 1984. Years earlier, Microsoft had signed an
    exclusive development deal with Apple in which it agreed not to
    introduce mouse based software for IBM's PC until a year after
    the Mac shipped. Microsoft discovered it could violate its agreement
    on a technicality, allowing it to advertise Windows---but not
    release it---prior to the arrival of the original Macintosh.

    . . .

    Two years later, Windows 2.0 expanded beyond the Apple licensing
    agreement and signaled the clear intention of killing off Apple using
    a port of Excel to the IBM PC.

    Apple fought the betrayal in court, which lingered on in hearings
    that stretched out into 1994, an eternity in tech years. In the
    meantime, Microsoft pursued additional copy-killing work against
    Apple's QuickTime, even appropriating Apple's code directly
    into Windows in order to catch up, as documented in the San Francisco
    Canyon case.

    . . .

    Those cases between Apple and Microsoft established that the legal
    system wasn't going to prevent or curtail criminal behavior in
    software development, but could only offer at best a review of copy
    infringement well after the damage was done. In 1997, Apple resolved
    its complaints against Microsoft in a deal involving Office, Internet
    Explorer, and a token $150 million investment.

    6 big settlements with Caldera, IBM, Novell, Palm, Sun, and AOL are also
    noted.

    The comparison of the effectiveness of Microsoft's tactics against
    Netscape and Apache is interesting, and a testament, I think, to
    community development.

    Ten years ago in 1998, Microsoft assumed that it could publish its
    own video codecs and push partners toward abandoning the ISO MPEG
    standards. Its Windows Media 9 video codec copied from the MPEG-4
    Part 2 (H.263), but was released with proprietary extensions.

    Say it ain't so!

    Anyway, enough reading my quotes. Read the article yerself.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > wrote in message
    > news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"

    >
    > Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    > commercial disputes, Microsoft has come to the end of the trail and the
    > silly sort of OSS is finally about to triumph.


    Read the article.

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:YNk9j.24697$_m.3089@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> wrote in message
    >> news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>> Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"

    >>
    >> Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    >> commercial disputes, Microsoft has come to the end of the trail and the
    >> silly sort of OSS is finally about to triumph.

    >
    > Read the article.
    >

    Hardly an article at all. Just another rant from an uneducated computer
    techie, IMO. His tagline reads "Self-indulgent crap about me.", which at
    least shows he knows his position even if the rest of you do not.

    Perhaps I should start referring to my posts as "articles", too.



  9. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    Linonut wrote:

    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...end/#more-1368
    >
    > Gates delivered his line after Microsoft announced "Windows
    > 1.0" for the IBM PC in November 1983, a few months prior to the
    > Macintosh shipping in 1984. Years earlier, Microsoft had signed an
    > exclusive development deal with Apple in which it agreed not to
    > introduce mouse based software for IBM's PC until a year after
    > the Mac shipped. Microsoft discovered it could violate its agreement
    > on a technicality, allowing it to advertise Windows---but not
    > release it---prior to the arrival of the original Macintosh.
    >



    Ahhh yes... the birth of VAPORWARE... It's probably the last and only
    innovation that Microsoft ever did.

    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

  10. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    news:4765b7e4$0$25537$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >> Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"

    >
    > Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    > commercial disputes,


    So paying out over TWO BILLION dollars in ten years is "fairly common sort
    of dispute"? Sheeeesh, what sort of commercial world do YOU live in?



  11. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > Hardly an article at all. Just another rant from an uneducated computer
    > techie, IMO. His tagline reads "Self-indulgent crap about me.", which at
    > least shows he knows his position even if the rest of you do not.


    Pfffft. Like your stuff shows any education about computer history.

    > Perhaps I should start referring to my posts as "articles", too.


    You already do that, implicitly.

    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    Microsoft has a very checkered past, and it needs to be aired.

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    * Gordon fired off this tart reply:

    > "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    > news:4765b7e4$0$25537$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >>
    >> wrote in message
    >> news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>> Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"

    >>
    >> Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    >> commercial disputes,

    >
    > So paying out over TWO BILLION dollars in ten years is "fairly common sort
    > of dispute"? Sheeeesh, what sort of commercial world do YOU live in?


    And most of us are helping finance Microsoft's legal ventures, through
    our purchases of desktop and laptop computers.

    It's always too little, too late. If there were justice, Bill and Steve
    (and some of their cronies) would have served some jail time.

    --
    Tux rox!

  13. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    Linonut writes:

    > * Gordon fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    >> news:4765b7e4$0$25537$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >>>
    >>> wrote in message
    >>> news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    >>>>
    >>>> Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"
    >>>
    >>> Why the asinine interpretation that, due to these fairly common sorts of
    >>> commercial disputes,

    >>
    >> So paying out over TWO BILLION dollars in ten years is "fairly common sort
    >> of dispute"? Sheeeesh, what sort of commercial world do YOU live in?

    >
    > And most of us are helping finance Microsoft's legal ventures, through
    > our purchases of desktop and laptop computers.
    >
    > It's always too little, too late. If there were justice, Bill and Steve
    > (and some of their cronies) would have served some jail time.


    Another armchair lawyer. You really are going off on the deep end you
    know. Get some meds. You guys are simply crackers.

  14. Re: Why Microsoft's Copy-Killing Has Reached a Dead End.

    ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 01 January 2008 16:17 : \____

    > Hence why Microsoft's business position is extremely perilous, but few
    > folk have recognised this. *Yet. *Microsoft no longer have the income to
    > build up huge cash reserves in order to pay off these kinds of lawsuits.
    > Their whole model is broken. *They desperately need a new model, but
    > they don't have one which works.


    Lobbying, pressuring and blackmail seems like their most effective model in
    Holland at the moment. They are already pulling some nasty tricks for all I
    can tell. Criminals don't play by the rule, unless it's part of their /own/
    rules.

    What worries me is that Google gains great power while absorbing such vain and
    criminal-minded people from Microsoft. It's like a relocation. Google
    accommodates the same evil (and sometimes with conviction to show this) minds.

    Let's hope for the best...

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "We have increased our prices over the last 10 years
    [whilhttp://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    18:05:01 up 22 days, 6:53, 4 users, load average: 0.95, 0.71, 0.75
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

+ Reply to Thread