Regulating Microsoft - Linux

This is a discussion on Regulating Microsoft - Linux ; Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as guideposts for the future development of the information economy. [Media Player story. MS should provide specs for interoperability, which will ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Regulating Microsoft

  1. Regulating Microsoft


    Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    guideposts for the future development of the information economy.

    [Media Player story. MS should provide specs for interoperability,
    which will stimulate innovation.]

    Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    [OTOH, balance needed...don't want to stifle innovation by MS
    itself...effects of decision on Apple, Intel, others, with their own
    monopolies...EU now leading way on regulation, worldwide impact...]

    The scrutiny of regulators appears to have already produced some
    positive results. Responding to complaints by Google that it would use
    the search box in its new version of Internet Explorer to steer users
    toward the MSN search engine, Microsoft made it fairly easy for
    consumers to choose which search engine to use with the feature.

    [American regulators howl, but decision is healthy step.]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html

    Well, there goes the a big chunk of the NYT's advertising budget.


  2. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    ____/ nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu on Monday 24 September 2007 15:36 : \____

    >
    > Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    > welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    > guideposts for the future development of the information economy.
    >
    > [Media Player story. MS should provide specs for interoperability,
    > which will stimulate innovation.]
    >
    > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.
    >
    > [OTOH, balance needed...don't want to stifle innovation by MS
    > itself...effects of decision on Apple, Intel, others, with their own
    > monopolies...EU now leading way on regulation, worldwide impact...]
    >
    > The scrutiny of regulators appears to have already produced some
    > positive results. Responding to complaints by Google that it would use
    > the search box in its new version of Internet Explorer to steer users
    > toward the MSN search engine, Microsoft made it fairly easy for
    > consumers to choose which search engine to use with the feature.
    >
    > [American regulators howl, but decision is healthy step.]
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html
    >
    > Well, there goes the a big chunk of the NYT's advertising budget.


    Yes, I think she posted another one from WSJ (I grouped them together) to show
    that the main journals that are usually very obedient to Microsoft actually
    sidle with the EC.

    How about that ACT soldier for Microsoft (Zuck) and the other spinners who were
    quick to defame the EC. Have you seen all the articles where very scary mugs
    of Kroes are used to make her seem like a monster?

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz The Holy Bible: http://www.gtk.org/documentation.html
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 26.4%us, 4.7%sy, 1.0%ni, 63.2%id, 4.3%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

  3. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 7:36 am, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    wrote:
    >
    > Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    > welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    > guideposts for the future development of the information economy.


    What? That government should control consumer choice?

    > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > innovation by rivals...


    If they feel "hurt" by it -- then they should install Linux and by
    their PCs without an OS -- or just order a Dell with Ubuntu.

    > Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.


    Should Konqueror be bundled with KDE? And shipped on each and every
    distro?

    > [OTOH, balance needed...don't want to stifle innovation by MS
    > itself...effects of decision on Apple, Intel, others, with their own
    > monopolies...EU now leading way on regulation, worldwide impact...]


    EU now funding it's cheese-eaters with heft fines because they can't
    find real work.

    > The scrutiny of regulators appears to have already produced some
    > positive results. Responding to complaints by Google that it would use
    > the search box in its new version of Internet Explorer to steer users
    > toward the MSN search engine, Microsoft made it fairly easy for
    > consumers to choose which search engine to use with the feature.


    LOL! Google owns 65 percent of all search!

    Who is "regulating" them ?!?

    >
    > [American regulators howl, but decision is healthy step.]
    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html
    >
    > Well, there goes the a big chunk of the NYT's advertising budget.


    They'll make up for in Swiss Chocolates, truffles and linden torte.




  4. Re: Regulating Microsoft


    wrote in message
    news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >
    > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.
    >

    Such a silly sentence just shows how ignorant and uninformed the anti-MS
    crowd is. They pay absolutely no attention to facts, particularly when it
    is more dramatic to make up things that sound ponderous. The truth of the
    matter is that Netscape's Navigator was not such a technology leader at all
    and Netscape had no real technology edge on anyone. Judge Jackson himself
    ruled that Microsoft's actions had not been anticompetitive in regard to
    Netscape and that Netscape had sufficient distribution channels for its
    product that were not estopped by Microsoft. But once IE became popular,
    there was no reason for anyone to bother with Navigator.



  5. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 11:47 am, "John Bailo, Texeme.Construct"
    wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 7:36 am, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    >
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    > > welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    > > guideposts for the future development of the information economy.

    >
    > What? That government should control consumer choice?
    >
    > > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > > innovation by rivals...

    >
    > If they feel "hurt" by it -- then they should install Linux and by
    > their PCs without an OS -- or just order a Dell with Ubuntu.
    >
    > > Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    >
    > Should Konqueror be bundled with KDE? And shipped on each and every
    > distro?
    >
    > > [OTOH, balance needed...don't want to stifle innovation by MS
    > > itself...effects of decision on Apple, Intel, others, with their own
    > > monopolies...EU now leading way on regulation, worldwide impact...]

    >
    > EU now funding it's cheese-eaters with heft fines because they can't
    > find real work.
    >
    > > The scrutiny of regulators appears to have already produced some
    > > positive results. Responding to complaints by Google that it would use
    > > the search box in its new version of Internet Explorer to steer users
    > > toward the MSN search engine, Microsoft made it fairly easy for
    > > consumers to choose which search engine to use with the feature.

    >
    > LOL! Google owns 65 percent of all search!
    >
    > Who is "regulating" them ?!?
    >
    >
    >
    > > [American regulators howl, but decision is healthy step.]

    >
    > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html

    >
    > > Well, there goes the a big chunk of the NYT's advertising budget.

    >
    > They'll make up for in Swiss Chocolates, truffles and linden torte.



    Hey Bailo...

    It's time to poke a little fun at ya'

    There is one thing I can never understand about you Texas
    Conservatives (this is as opposed to California or Massachusetts
    conservatives who are at least *educated*). You TCs obediently repeat -
    not unlike Muslims- "It is not the business of government to [fill the
    blank]", and don't even bother to read and study the reasoning for
    said principle.

    You see, this issue is not philosophical, nor is ideological. The
    issue of capitalism belongs to the realm of the Science of Economics.
    You and that bunch of hilly-billies who leave outside of Austin, would
    be well advised to pick a book on the topic ("Economics for Dummies")
    and read it.

    There will be more, and I am sure...

    -Ramon formerly from Cambridge and then from Austin
    (currently in friggin' Venezuela, a land which
    has the oil in common with Houston, but is is going
    in the opposite economic and political direction)



  6. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 12:44 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > wrote in message
    >
    > news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >
    > > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    >


    > Such a silly sentence just shows how ignorant and uninformed
    > the anti-MS crowd is.



    Hey Amicus:

    I hope you are directing your heavy artillery to the COLA folks,
    because if your claim is against the Linux/Unix users in general I
    have a homework for you.

    Just draw up a chart of the college quality versus their use of non-
    Microsoft OSs in their campuses and teaching. You will find an almost
    perfect correlation: the Mickey Mouse community colleges (specially
    from TX :-)) are heavy users of Win-crapola while the MITs, Berkeleys,
    CMUs and Stanfords of the world (not to mention the corporations with
    the brightest people such as Google, Amazon, Fedex, Bank of America,
    and a long etcetera) use U*x based computing.

    Tell us that Windows has more applications, is well-entrenched, is
    easier or has a central authority keeps its protocols under a tight
    rein, and I will not argue. You may say that Linux is too
    "dispersed". But the knowledge and intelligence are clearly camped in
    the opposite sidewalk from where you are standing.

    -Ramon




  7. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > wrote in message
    >news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >>
    >> Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    >> the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    >> innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    >> bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    >> as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.
    >>

    >Such a silly sentence


    So "silly" means "true" in M$-speak?

    >just shows how ignorant and uninformed the anti-MS crowd is.


    Nope. But what you wrote shows what a filthy lying rat that you are.

    >(snip claptrap)



  8. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    >> Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    >> bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer


    RealPlayer? That piece of adware ****?

    Lasse



  9. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    amicus_FUD.ious wrote:

    Previous MS deleted ..

    > .. Judge Jackson himself ruled that Microsoft's actions had not been anticompetitive in regard to Netscape and ..


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    `the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
    anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
    market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the
    Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating
    system.'

    http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html





  10. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:08:59 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > amicus_FUD.ious wrote:
    >
    > Previous MS deleted ..
    >
    >> .. Judge Jackson himself ruled that Microsoft's actions had not been anticompetitive in regard to Netscape and ..

    >
    > CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    >
    > `the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
    > anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
    > market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the
    > Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating
    > system.'
    >
    > http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html


    You know damn well that this was largely, and unanimously, overturned on
    appeal.

    "We upheld the district court's ruling that Microsoft violated 2 of the
    Sherman Act by the ways in which it maintained its monopoly, but we
    reversed the district court's finding of liability for attempted
    monopolization, and we remanded the tying claim to the district court to
    apply the rule of reason rather than the rule of per se illegality. See
    Microsoft III. We also vacated the district court's remedial decree, for
    three reasons: "First, [the district court had] failed to hold an
    evidentiary hearing despite the presence of remedies-specific factual
    disputes"; "[s]econd, the court did not provide adequate reasons for its
    decreed remedies"; and third, we had "drastically altered the scope of
    Microsoft's liability, and it [was] for the District Court in the first
    instance to determine the propriety of a specific remedy for the limited
    ground of liability which we ha[d] upheld." Id. at 107."

    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f204400/204468.htm

  11. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 10:36 am, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    wrote:
    >
    > Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    > welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    > guideposts for the future development of the information economy.
    >
    > [Media Player story. MS should provide specs for interoperability,
    > which will stimulate innovation.]


    I find it amusing that the DOJ things that regulating and limiting
    Microsoft's ability to dump second-rate shovelware into the market to
    bankrupt competitors is somehow preventing "innovation".

    Look at most of Microsoft's "Innovations" in the last 2 decades.

    - User Help
    In 1990, Microsoft set up a 1-800 help desk service which allowed
    users to get free user support for Windows 3.1. Microsoft then
    codified this help into context sensitive help in a variety of forms
    which made it possible for new users to start using Windows, Word,
    Excel, and PowerPoint without needing to read extensive user manuals.

    HOWEVER

    Context sensitive help isn't actually a Microsoft innovation. Richard
    Stallman provided context sensitive help in a number of different
    froms, including a precurser to hyper-text as early as 1978.

    - Graphical User Interface
    Microsoft first decided they had to have Windows when they saw the
    Apple LISA computer. The Lisa was expensive, tempermental, and had
    very few 3rd party applications, but it was obvious that such a
    computer could completly displace MS-DOS.

    Of course, graphical user interfaces were not new. E-macs had
    multiple windows, drop-down menus, multitasking interfaces, file
    system browsers, and many of the fundamental tools common to windows
    in the early 1980s, possibly as early as 1978, when Bill Gates was
    still trying to create a functional "DOS Wedge" for the Commodore Pet,
    and using Tape storage for the TRS-80.

    By the time Microsoft released Windows 3.0, the first commercially
    successful version of Windows, Sun, HP/Apollo, Mac, DRI/GEM, and Amiga
    all had successful and effective graphical user interfaces. In fact,
    by the time Windows 3.0 was released, X11R4 was already offering
    features that wouldn't be introduced by Microsoft until Windows 95,
    almost 5 years later.

    In fact, Microsoft would not match the reliability, security,
    stability, performance, and functionality of machines using X11R4
    until the release of Windows 2000 nearly 10 years later. However,
    Microsoft was able to use it's monopoly power to prevent OEMs such as
    Dell, NEC, Sony, HP, and IBM from introducing their own Unix powered
    PCs, even though Unix, with X11, and Open Desktop, were available for
    these machines as early as 1989.

    Office Suites
    In 1992, Microsoft released the Microsoft "Office" suite, consisting
    of a Word Processor, Excel Spreadsheet, and PowerPoint presentation
    graphics. The word processor supported the ability to combine
    drawings, text in various fonts, tables, and other "embedded objects"
    into a single document.

    By 1990, Unix versions of these applications already supported Frames
    which could support numerous capabilities that are STILL not available
    in Windows versions. Frame-Maker could support frames of content that
    could be updated in real-time. Lotus 1-2-3 for Unix supported
    spreadsheets and charts that could be updated in real-time - the
    application is still used to calculate the S&P 500 and several other
    Index values as well as mutual funds in real-time with up-to-the-
    second accuracy. The charting available through VRML and other UNIX
    based charting tools far exceeded the abilities Excel. The drawing
    and graphics tools provided direct support for editing postscript -
    which is the precursor of PDF documents (PDF is essentially compressed
    postscript), in the late 1980s. The X-fig editor supported WYSIWYG
    graphics and charting as well as the ability to import dot-matrix
    images if necessary. Since the graphics were scalable, it was easy to
    use them for presentations.

    Again, Microsoft was able to use it's monopoly power to keep these
    superior competitors products out of the marketplace, by maintaining
    strict control of the OEM channel, limiting their ability to ship
    superior applications and setting quotas and minimum commitments so
    high that they effectively prenented the OEMs from offering superior
    products at the retail level.

    Supporting the Microsoft Monopoly only supports one kind of
    "Innovation", the ability of Microsoft to openly engage in piracy,
    plagerism, and violation of intellectual property rights of others,
    and to prevent superior products, which would enhance real
    productivity, from ever making it to the marketplace. Microsoft's
    "innovation" is making sure that customers are unable to make an
    INFORMED CHOICE, by excluding competitors from all consumer channels.

    Imagine if the railroads had been able to keep people outside Michigan
    from ever seeing the automobile. How would that have impacted
    innovation? If they never saw cars, they would have to take the
    train. If they never saw cars, they couldn't create trucks, so only
    the stores that had railroad spurs would be able to compete in the
    marketplace, and if the railroads owned the stores, then they could
    charge far more for goods sold to the farmers and pay far less for the
    crops those farmers produced. With such restricted transportation,
    would most of the other innovations have taken place? Would we have
    airplanes? Would we have electricity? Would we have radio? Keep in
    mind that all of these innovations would have adversely impacted the
    profits of the railroads, who would not have wanted the communication
    which would allow farmers to know how much the markets in the cities
    were paying for their crops and livestock.

    > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > innovation by rivals...


    Microsoft has attempted to counter the argument that they overcharge
    by pointing out that they sell their software to OEMs for far less
    than the retail price. This leaves one to wonder why they feel they
    have the right to charge the rediculously high price in the first
    place? After all, is it really fair that Microsoft should be allowed
    to charge nearly $400 for a replacement copy of software required to
    recover a corrupted drive - when they are already licensed for the
    software and the software is merely replacing the already licensed
    copy? Microsoft is able to charge this exstortionist price because
    the replacement is usually needed by custotmers who have corrupted
    hard drives while on the road, about to make a presentation.

    Microsoft deliberatly subverts most attempts to make reliable recovery
    possible. In fact, when third parties did provide reliable recovery
    technology, Microsoft bundled in their own "back-up" software which
    prevented such reliable image-level recovery.

    The "emergency full-license purchase" isn't a huge market, it's less
    than 1% of the market, according to Microsoft. Still, because that 1
    percent can be sold at 10 times the regular price, there is the
    potential for some ridiculous revenue.

    > Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.


    How about some of the other victims it killed in the marketplace
    Tarbell Basic
    Wang Basic
    Applesoft
    Xerox
    Apple II
    Apple Pascal
    Apple Lisa
    Apple Mac
    Apple iMac
    Apple Finder
    Apple OS/X
    Tandy TRS-80
    Tandy 1000
    Tandy Color Computer
    CP/M
    CP/M 86
    MP/M
    SCO
    UnixWare
    Novell
    Banyan Vines
    Corel
    Borland - SideKick
    Borland - Turbo C
    Borland - Turbo Pascal
    Borland - Turbo C++
    Borland - Turbo Prolog
    Borland - Kylix
    Borland - Paradox
    Lotus
    WordPerfect
    Applix
    Hummingbird
    Chameleon
    DBase
    IBM (OS/2)
    IBM (PCs)
    HP (Apollo)
    Sun (Workstations)
    DR-DOS
    DRI GEM
    OS/9
    Atari ST
    Amiga
    Commodore
    Button-Ware
    Netscape
    Prodigy
    Compuserve
    Symantic
    McAffee
    Norton

    In short thousands of innovations have been cut off in their infancy,
    and in many cases, Microsoft didn't re-introduce their versions of
    these innovations until even the possibility of a patent had expired.

    All of these casualties were the direct result of an organized and
    well planned campaign by Microsoft and the OEMs to exclude these
    competitors from the marketplace.

    The OEMs are either willing co-conspirators, or the victims of an
    extortionist monopoly. In either case, it is clear that Microsoft's
    interactions and contracts with these OEMs have not been properly
    monitored, regulated, and supervised by any branch of any government
    agency.

    Microsoft openly engages in fraud, promising products that are nowhere
    near being released, to prevent competitors who already have working
    implementations available, from gaining access to the marketplace
    through the OEM channels.

    Microsoft openly engages in extortion - threatening to revoke, and
    even revoking licenses of OEMs who attempt to make unauthorized
    changes the the configuration of hardware, software, applications, or
    packaging.

    Microsoft openly engages in obstruction of justice, allowing their
    officers to testify to criminal acts in court, then offering
    settlements that include court seals and immunity for future
    prosecution of the company or it's officers for subsequent acts of a
    similar nature.

    Microsoft openly engages in sabotage - ranging from willfully
    destructive changes to products designed to render customer systems
    nonfunctional, forcing them to discontinue the use of competitor
    products. For example, stacker.

    Bill Gates has personally hijacked an airplane by claiming that unless
    he applied an antivirus patch to the plane's computer before it took
    off, it would crash. (See Pirates Of Silicon Valley - based on a
    story told by Steve Ballmer).

    Microsoft has willfully refused to discontinue releasing and promoting
    software which is known to cause vulnerabilities that have caused
    hundreds of billions of dollars in damages annually. When these
    vulnerabilities were first disclosed, Microsoft had the courts slap
    the publisher with an injunction.

    At what point to we say "Enough". At what point does either the
    courts, or the markets, say Microsoft is a criminal organization who
    deliberately exposes end-users to unnecessary risk in hopes of
    invading their privacy, for the purpose of increasing the revenue they
    can extort from customers through indirect channels.

    The courts, and the DOJ, tend to be less willing to impose antitrust
    actions and restrictions - because 99% of Microsoft's PC-based revenue
    is from direct sales to OEMs and corporate customers, who are exempt
    from most consumer protection laws. The assumption being that if
    these corporate entities choose to purchase the software under terms
    that would be illegal for a retail consumer, it's their choice.

    The problem is that it is NOT just the corporation that is impacted.
    Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage is done by Microsoft's
    deliberate exposure to malware, even though more resiliant software
    may be available. However, most of these damages are in the form of
    unpaid, involuntary, uncompensated, mandatory overtime. PC users in
    corporations and schools are required to meet deadlines regardless of
    the number of times their PCs go berzerk because of malware attacks
    successfully staged by infesting Outlook, IE, and Office.

    In some cases, users of Windows/Office are required to compete with
    UNIX/OSS competitors on a price basis by working unpaid involuntary
    overtime "off the books" as a means to provide "competitive" pricing
    of their solutions.

    Ironically, Microsoft is immune from a lawsuit by end-users who work
    more than 40 hours/week in involuntary overtime - because THEY are not
    Microsoft's customers.

    Microsoft has repeatedly argued in court that end-users are not
    entitled to any kind of class-action compensation from Microsoft,
    because they did not buy the software from Microsoft. It seems that
    these consumers should be filing class-action lawsuits against Dell or
    Compaq or HP, but since it's the CIO who chose to purchase the Windows
    software, the employees have to sue their own employers, who would
    have to pay for the settlements by either cutting jobs or cutting
    wagest - or forcing more involuntary overtime.

    It would almost be humorous. Unfortunately, the millions of people
    around the world who work billions of hours of unpaid overtime aren't
    really laughing much.
    In the US, there are 300 million people, about 60% of whom use Windows
    computers. If each of them works only 10 hours/week of unpaid
    overtime for a year, that's 500 hours/year, times .180 million people
    or about 90 billion hours in unpaid overtime. At an average cost of
    $20/hour (1/2 time), that's about 1.2 trillion in involuntary
    overtime.

    But the DOJ doesn't feel that the US consumer has been 'harmed' by
    Microsoft.

    > [American regulators howl, but decision is healthy step.]
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21fri4.html
    >
    > Well, there goes the a big chunk of the NYT's advertising budget.

    For a day or two.

    Just pulling 3 full page ads for 3 days will be more than the annual
    income of the writer, the editor, and the editorial director combined.




  12. Re: Regulating Microsoft


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:fd8ufp$r2t$1@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_FUD.ious wrote:
    >
    > Previous MS deleted ..
    >
    >> .. Judge Jackson himself ruled that Microsoft's actions had not been
    >> anticompetitive in regard to Netscape and ..

    >
    > CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
    >
    > `the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
    > anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
    > market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the
    > Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating
    > system.'
    >
    > http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
    >

    Did you miss the part where his bosses tossed that out? "Judge Jackson's
    and idiot!" the appeals court ruled. "The dumbass didn't even establish
    that there was a browser market!" "Get out of here and don't come back!"
    was the verdict of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in
    reversing Jackson's conclusion. With predjudice.


  13. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 10:19 am, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 12:44 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    >
    > > wrote in message

    >
    > >news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

    >
    > > > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > > > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > > > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > > > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > > > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    >
    > > Such a silly sentence just shows how ignorant and uninformed
    > > the anti-MS crowd is.

    >
    > Hey Amicus:
    >
    > I hope you are directing your heavy artillery to the COLA folks,
    > because if your claim is against the Linux/Unix users in general I
    > have a homework for you.
    >
    > Just draw up a chart of the college quality versus their use of non-
    > Microsoft OSs in their campuses and teaching. You will find an almost
    > perfect correlation: the Mickey Mouse community colleges (specially
    > from TX :-)) are heavy users of Win-crapola while the MITs, Berkeleys,
    > CMUs and Stanfords of the world (not to mention the corporations with
    > the brightest people such as Google, Amazon, Fedex, Bank of America,
    > and a long etcetera) use U*x based computing.
    >
    > Tell us that Windows has more applications, is well-entrenched, is
    > easier or has a central authority keeps its protocols under a tight
    > rein, and I will not argue. You may say that Linux is too
    > "dispersed". But the knowledge and intelligence are clearly camped in
    > the opposite sidewalk from where you are standing.
    >
    > -Ramon


    Thanks for a decent piece of advocacy, decently stated.


  14. Re: Regulating Microsoft


    "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in message
    news:1190654357.782761.135710@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Sep 24, 12:44 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    >> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >>
    >> > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    >> > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    >> > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    >> > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    >> > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    >>

    >
    >> Such a silly sentence just shows how ignorant and uninformed
    >> the anti-MS crowd is.

    >
    >
    > Hey Amicus:
    >
    > I hope you are directing your heavy artillery to the COLA folks,
    > because if your claim is against the Linux/Unix users in general I
    > have a homework for you.
    >
    > Just draw up a chart of the college quality versus their use of non-
    > Microsoft OSs in their campuses and teaching. You will find an almost
    > perfect correlation: the Mickey Mouse community colleges (specially
    > from TX :-)) are heavy users of Win-crapola while the MITs, Berkeleys,
    > CMUs and Stanfords of the world (not to mention the corporations with
    > the brightest people such as Google, Amazon, Fedex, Bank of America,
    > and a long etcetera) use U*x based computing.


    And Ramon once again spews made up lies just like your typical COLA
    "advocate" does? Any proof or evidence for these remarks - of course not.
    Not a single one of these schools that he mentions even support linux. But
    just like Rex, that doesn't stop him from claiming otherwise. So only
    "Mickey Mouse community colleges" use Windows. If Ramon were smart enough to
    actually go to a decent school he would know otherwise.

    GAME. SET. MATCH. Another COLA clown knocked down and made to look like the
    fool he is.


    MIT - Check!

    http://itinfo.mit.edu/product.php?vid=642

    All MIT students are entitled to obtain one copy of Windows XP Professional
    for use on a personally owned computer via the Microsoft Campus Agreement
    (MSCA). See the MSCA web pages for further details.



    Stanford - Check!

    http://windows.stanford.edu/Public/I...AdminGuide.htm

    Infrastructure Overview
    The Stanford Windows Infrastructure is built on Microsoft's Active Directory
    and the Windows Server 2003 operating system.


    Harvard - Check!

    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/computing/kb/kb0129.html

    For the 2007-08 academic year, the system requirements are:
    Windows (PC):
    Recommended minimum for new purchases: Intel Core Duo Processor, 1 GB RAM,
    60 GB hard disk, Windows XP or Vista.
    (No support is offered for Linux, other versions of Unix, or operating
    systems earlier than Windows 2000 or Macintosh 8.6.)


    Princeton - Check!

    http://helpdesk.princeton.edu/kb/display.plx?id=9874

    Princeton University
    Office of Information Technology

    If you are a current or incoming student and purchase your new Windows
    computer through the University, all new SCI 2007-08 computers will be
    delivered to you with Vista Ultimate installed.







    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  15. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sep 24, 4:41 pm, "Sir Michael Clayton" wrote:
    > "Ramon F Herrera" wrote in messagenews:1190654357.782761.135710@d55g2000hsg.g ooglegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 24, 12:44 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > >> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:1190644579.018714.299140@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

    >
    > >> > Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    > >> > the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    > >> > innovation by rivals... Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    > >> > bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    > >> > as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.

    >
    > >> Such a silly sentence just shows how ignorant and uninformed
    > >> the anti-MS crowd is.

    >
    > > Hey Amicus:

    >
    > > I hope you are directing your heavy artillery to the COLA folks,
    > > because if your claim is against the Linux/Unix users in general I
    > > have a homework for you.

    >
    > > Just draw up a chart of the college quality versus their use of non-
    > > Microsoft OSs in their campuses and teaching. You will find an almost
    > > perfect correlation: the Mickey Mouse community colleges (specially
    > > from TX :-)) are heavy users of Win-crapola while the MITs, Berkeleys,
    > > CMUs and Stanfords of the world (not to mention the corporations with
    > > the brightest people such as Google, Amazon, Fedex, Bank of America,
    > > and a long etcetera) use U*x based computing.

    >
    > And Ramon once again spews made up lies just like your typical COLA
    > "advocate" does? Any proof or evidence for these remarks - of course not.
    > Not a single one of these schools that he mentions even support linux. But
    > just like Rex, that doesn't stop him from claiming otherwise. So only
    > "Mickey Mouse community colleges" use Windows. If Ramon were smart enough to
    > actually go to a decent school he would know otherwise.
    >
    > GAME. SET. MATCH. Another COLA clown knocked down and made to look like the
    > fool he is.
    >
    > MIT - Check!
    >
    > http://itinfo.mit.edu/product.php?vid=642
    >
    > All MIT students are entitled to obtain one copy of Windows XP Professional
    > for use on a personally owned computer via the Microsoft Campus Agreement
    > (MSCA). See the MSCA web pages for further details.
    >
    > Stanford - Check!
    >
    > http://windows.stanford.edu/Public/I...AdminGuide.htm
    >
    > Infrastructure Overview
    > The Stanford Windows Infrastructure is built on Microsoft's Active Directory
    > and the Windows Server 2003 operating system.
    >
    > Harvard - Check!
    >
    > http://www.fas.harvard.edu/computing/kb/kb0129.html
    >
    > For the 2007-08 academic year, the system requirements are:
    > Windows (PC):
    > Recommended minimum for new purchases: Intel Core Duo Processor, 1 GB RAM,
    > 60 GB hard disk, Windows XP or Vista.
    > (No support is offered for Linux, other versions of Unix, or operating
    > systems earlier than Windows 2000 or Macintosh 8.6.)
    >
    > Princeton - Check!
    >
    > http://helpdesk.princeton.edu/kb/display.plx?id=9874
    >
    > Princeton University
    > Office of Information Technology
    >
    > If you are a current or incoming student and purchase your new Windows
    > computer through the University, all new SCI 2007-08 computers will be
    > delivered to you with Vista Ultimate installed.
    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


    As in 90% of the COLA discussions, we have to differentiate between
    Linux on the server side, and Linux on the client side. Additionally I
    clearly stated the use and *teaching* of *ux (that is: Unix, its
    different flavors, and Linux) in those schools.

    With 95% monopoly on desktops it would be pretty ridiculous if those
    schools didn't allow or even prescribe Windows for their students.

    Incidentally: I have nothing against Windows [desk|lap]tops, I am
    writing this from my Windows desktop.

    -Ramon
    Former Computer Manager for Course I (CE) at MIT. Also worked for
    EE&CS, ME and others.
    Was involved in the initial connection of MIT to the Internet.





  16. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > You know damn well that this was largely, and unanimously, overturned on appeal.


    In Microsoft III we upheld the district court's finding that Microsoft's
    integration of IE and the Windows operating system generally "prevented
    OEMs from pre-installing other browsers and deterred consumers from
    using them .. Accordingly, OEMs had little incentive to install a rival
    browser, such as Netscape Navigator.

    'We therefore hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    fashioning the remedial provision concerning Microsoft's disclosure of APIs'

    > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f204400/204468.htm


  17. Re: Regulating Microsoft


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:fdasnq$ktd$1@news.datemas.de...
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> You know damn well that this was largely, and unanimously, overturned on
    >> appeal.

    >
    > In Microsoft III we upheld the district court's finding that Microsoft's
    > integration of IE and the Windows operating system generally "prevented
    > OEMs from pre-installing other browsers and deterred consumers from using
    > them .. Accordingly, OEMs had little incentive to install a rival browser,
    > such as Netscape Navigator.
    >
    > 'We therefore hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    > fashioning the remedial provision concerning Microsoft's disclosure of
    > APIs'
    >
    >> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f204400/204468.htm


    That is a case of apples vs oranges. You seem to have only a vague
    understanding of the laws. More specifically on the issue you originally
    raised, Judge Jackson himself, in the findings of law document you yourself
    cited, found in regard to Netscape:

    "Notwithstanding the extent to which these "exclusive" distribution
    agreements preempted the most efficient channels for Navigator to achieve
    browser usage share, however, the Court concludes that Microsoft's multiple
    agreements with distributors did not ultimately deprive Netscape of the
    ability to have access to every PC user worldwide to offer an opportunity to
    install Navigator. Navigator can be downloaded from the Internet. It is
    available through myriad retail channels. It can (and has been) mailed
    directly to an unlimited number of households. How precisely it managed to
    do so is not shown by the evidence, but in 1998 alone, for example, Netscape
    was able to distribute 160 million copies of Navigator, contributing to an
    increase in its installed base from 15 million in 1996 to 33 million in
    December 1998. Id. 378. As such, the evidence does not support a finding
    that these agreements completely excluded Netscape from any constituent
    portion of the worldwide browser market, the relevant line of commerce. "

    Netscape was damaged by Microsoft, certainly, but it was just a case of one
    monopoly replacing another. All perfectly legal.


  18. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > That is a , , ranges. You seem to have only a vague
    > understan |\ /| ore specifically on the issue you originally
    > raised, J \ `-.\ \/ /.-' / , in the findings of law document you yourself
    > cited, fou \_ / \ _/ tscape:
    > __.--/ __ __ \--.__
    > "Notwi `\__.| (. .) |.__/` hich these "exclusive" distribution
    > agreements | /\ | ___ ) or to achieve
    > browser usag \ | | / ___ /,--.\ ( ) oft's multiple
    > agreements w |_/ \_|.......---''`` ``-./ | \\___// cape of the
    > ability to / \ ` | '---' an opportunity to
    > install Nav \ ^ ^ / \ m the Internet. It is
    > available th \ .-''-._/ | nd has been) mailed
    > directly to a '``''`` / | precisely it managed to
    > do so is not | | \ e, for example, Netscape
    > was able to d | \ | | or, contributing to an
    > increase in it \ \ \ \ | 96 to 33 million in
    > December 1998. `._\ / _\ / s not support a finding
    > that these agree \ \ /'''-------\ '-. \ from any constituent
    > portion of the wo \ \ | / / \ | ( of commerce. "
    > ( ( | / ' | | ( ) )
    > Netscape was damag | | | / / | | ) _ ( a case of one
    > monopoly replacing | | | _/ .` / / ( \_
    > _| _| | / ( _/ / _(_\ \)_
    > / / ( ---` / ( (____\___)
    > ---|___\ |___\
    >
    >



























  19. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    John Bailo, Texeme.Construct did eloquently scribble:
    > On Sep 24, 7:36 am, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Microsoft's resounding defeat in a European antitrust case establishes
    >> welcome principles that should be adopted in the United States as
    >> guideposts for the future development of the information economy.


    > What? That government should control consumer choice?


    Bailo, still jealous?
    Europe did what AMERICA failed to do because they had no backbone.
    DoJ? What a laugh. All that speculation on breaking up microsoft and what
    happened?

    **** all.

    >> Microsoft's near-monopoly can hurt consumers in two big ways: allowing
    >> the company to charge more for its software and potentially stifling
    >> innovation by rivals...


    > If they feel "hurt" by it -- then they should install Linux and by
    > their PCs without an OS -- or just order a Dell with Ubuntu.


    Moron.
    Windows comes INSTALLED on the vast majority of PCs.
    What consumer choice is that?

    >> Microsoft should not be allowed to use the
    >> bundling of its products to bury RealPlayer and other companies, just
    >> as it was convicted of doing to Netscape's Navigator.


    > Should Konqueror be bundled with KDE? And shipped on each and every
    > distro?


    Another crap analogy, you're on form today.
    Konqueror may be installed with KDE but so what?
    There're half a dozen other browsers and file managers to choose from in the
    average distro.

    >> [OTOH, balance needed...don't want to stifle innovation by MS
    >> itself...effects of decision on Apple, Intel, others, with their own
    >> monopolies...EU now leading way on regulation, worldwide impact...]


    > EU now funding it's cheese-eaters with heft fines because they can't
    > find real work.


    Sad sad man.

    >> The scrutiny of regulators appears to have already produced some
    >> positive results. Responding to complaints by Google that it would use
    >> the search box in its new version of Internet Explorer to steer users
    >> toward the MSN search engine, Microsoft made it fairly easy for
    >> consumers to choose which search engine to use with the feature.


    > LOL! Google owns 65 percent of all search!


    > Who is "regulating" them ?!?


    They're not an illegal monopoly forcing their products on people.
    monopolies aren't illegal unless you use them to stifle competition
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  20. Re: Regulating Microsoft

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:13:43 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:

    > Halliburtan can engage in war profiteering,


    Unfortunately, that would likely require for there to be a war. No war was
    ever declared by congress, therefore it may not be possible under current
    laws to prosecute Haliburton and others for war profriteering. This is
    likely by design, and why the bush administration never sought an official
    war declaration from congress.

    > Many farmers cheered Jesse James as he road across their farms, and
    > misdirected the posse as they attempted to follow in hot pursuit.
    > Wyatt Erp was considered a criminal by many of the farmers, who just
    > saw him as a murderer with a badge.


    Jesus, you really believe all those dramatizations, don't you? Jesse James
    and Billy the Kid were cold blooded killers. There's no doubt about that,
    and there's plenty of evidence. They were not the good, honest people you
    seem to think they were. Certainly Wyatt Erp and crowd were little better
    (if, even they were better) but that doesn't mean those outlaws were just
    misunderstood.

    > McCain has no chance - he can't be bought reliably and cheaply.


    Maybe not reliably, but certainly cheaply. He's been toeing the party line
    for the last few years. He's no better than any of them.

    > Thompson was too close to Watergate and probably too honest to be
    > backed.


    Hardly. His entire "good old boy" image is a farce. he rides in his limo
    to 2 block before his appearance, then gets in a pickup truck to drive the
    rest of the 2 blocks to appear as if he's just a normal guy.

    > With Windows, the issues are more subtle. Is the hacker stealing
    > information from your computer a highly skilled thief, or a Microsoft
    > sponsored probe sold to a preferred partner who wants to see
    > information about your bid and proposal to a prospective client?
    >
    > Did your laptop start malfunctioning hours, or minutes, before the
    > presentation because you unwittingly installed a virus with your
    > browser, or because Microsoft set a time-bomb on your presentation?
    >
    > The problem is that there is no way to know, one way or the other.


    Oh, jesus Rex. Not more of you "It could have happened that way" bull****.
    How, in your fantasy world, does possibility equate to probability?

+ Reply to Thread