Microsoft Admits "Embracing and Extending" (Comes vs. Microsoft - exhibit plex_5906)
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
Erik Stevenson (LCA)
From: Aaron Contorer
Sent: Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: Memo material
This is 1 page of new material, followed by some closely related material I
wrote and sent you on 2/12.
Today we face the largest threat Microsoft has faced since the success of
Windows For the first time, there is a really credible threat to our position
as the leading platform for ISVs to write to. Windows faces challenges in
satisfying end users and IT organizations, but we have a lot of smart work
underway to address these problems. By contrast, we are not executing on a
strategy that lets us maintain our leadership position as the people who
define the platform for ISVs.
Owning this platform is the Microsoft asset. It is the difference between
growing to twice our current size in the future, or shrinking to much less
than the role we enjoy today.
There are three possible ways to address the threat of the Java platform. One
is to do nothing and gradually die as others innovate around us. The second is
to join the parade of people who are saying "let's kill Microsoft and share
their market among us” - good for everyone else, but reducing us to the much
smaller role of a common software company like Lotus or Borland or even
Symantec. Thats a great way to make all our stock options worth zero, even If
we would not technically be out of business. The third choice is to make major
innovations to our platform so people still prefer to write to us instead of
some tepid cross-platform Java layer. This is our only real option.
For over half a year I have been upset that some people at Microsoft are
apparently working hard on plan 2 to destroy the value of the Windows API. Of
course I agree that we must win against the Java platform, but a belief that
we have to just match everyone else’s actions one for one is fundamentally
misguided and wrong it makes us a commodity player, one of the pack, instead
of the leader.
-
Centralized Computing
Sun, Oracle, and Netscape are all pushing a new model of [almost] centralized
computing. They all acknowledge that Microsoft holds tremendous sway over the
desktop platform, so they all want to quickly strip as much value and spending
as possible off of the desktop and onto the server where they can charge
premium prices and push their own platform offerings.
At the same time, they know this is fundamentally wrong. There are good reasons
why a big company in the 1990’s uses thousands of small and midsize CPUs
instead of one giant Cray supercomputer to do all the work. Centralized
machines have poor price/performance when they get too large; they have high
latency for ordinary interactive tasks like typing and even worse latency for
multimedia (unless you literally spend a fortune on your network); and they
fail to take advance of the principle of colocation putting the processor
close to the inputs and outputs it needs to work with.
Our competitors are not stupid, so they are pushing the Java platform as the
solution for programs that really need to run closer to the user. Sure, its a
half-assed solution and isn’t compatible with anything and in fact scarcely
exists, but hey, at least it’s not Windows. With Oracle and HTML-generating
code on the server and a browser with Java on the client, you have a very
crude, complicated, but functional platform for developing line-of-business
applications more specifically distributed applications which take advantage
of all the interactivity and media-richness that purely centralized mainframe
apps never had
Fortunately for us, this solution is an incredible hack. Real applications
require work in Oracle and Java HTML and Gci, and except perhaps for DNS, no
unifying architecture ties the whole thing together, If you
Plaintiffs Exhibit 5906
Comes V. Microsoft
TXAG 0008204
CONFIDENTIAL
MS-CCPMDL 000000292576
CONFIDENTIAL
want to write an app like Amazon.com or a comparable intranet app, you are on
your own. Even a cool tool like Visual InterDev merely serves to paper over
this disastrous platform, not to fix It.
This situation leaves open a huge strategic opportunity: to provide a better
way to write distributed applications.
We need to make clients and servers more powerful and functional. But more
crucially, we need to ensure that our platform - the thousands of person-years
of proprietary code that we license to customers - makes it incredibly easy to
write real business applicat!ons in at their richness and complexity.
- -end of brand-new material-
Switching Costs
In economics there is a well-understood concept called switching costs - how
much it costs for a trading partner to change partners. Our philosophy on
switching costs is very clear: we want low switching costs for customers who
want to start using our platform, and we want to provide so much unique value
that there are in effect high costs of deciding to move to a different
platform. There is a name for this: it is called Embrace and Extend.
Embrace means we are compatible with what’s out there, so you can switch to our
platform without a lot of obstacles and rework. You can switch from someone
else’s Java compiler to ours; from someone else’s Web server to ours; etc.
Customers love when we do this (as long as we don’t spend our energy embracing
extra standards no one really cares about); our competitors are not so sure
they like It because they prefer us to screw up.
Extend means we provide tremendous value that nobody else does, so (A) you
really want to switch to our software, and (B) once you try our software you
would never want to go back to some inferior junk from our competitors.
Customers usually like when we do this, since by definition it’s only an
extension if it adds value. Competitors hate when we do this, because by
adding new value we make our products much harder to clone - this is the
difference between innovation and just being a commodity like corn where
suppliers compete on price alone. Nobody builds or sustains a business as
successful as Microsoft by producing trivial products that are easy to clone -
that would be a strategy for failure.
If we fail to embrace, we can lose because there are big barriers to buying our
products. But if we Fail to extend, or do only humble work that is easy to
clone or to surpass, we automatically lose because our competitors will spend
literally billions of dollars to clone our work and replace us.
The Windows API
Windows was a very successful embrace-and-extend move. People already had DOS
machines and DOS apps, and we were able to go in and say "add this to your
machine and it wLll just get better.” Wow! What a deal! It seems to have
worked out all right so far. NT is a very similar move; although It’s not
trivial to upgrade from Win95 to NT. in general you can use the same computer,
same apps. and same APIs as before, plus more.
The really big win in Windows is the API. An app that calls the Windows API is
effectively calling upon thousands of person-years of engineering work to help
their app get its job done in a very specific way. You could argue !hat the
API is too hard to use, that not every library is as fast as it should be, or
other serious imperfections, but the fact remains: if you took away Windows,
that apphcation would no longer work.
The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be
crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many
Windows apps that there is a huge switching cast to using a different
operating system Instead. You can't just take a Windows app and stick it on
some weird Java NC from Oracle, for example, and expect it to work - the guts
just are not there. For many customers, the cast of reworking all their apps
would be huge.
TXAG 0008205
CONFIDENTIAL
MS-CCPMDL 000000292577
CONFIDENTIAL
It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with
Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of
a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties. People have tried to
clone Windows, but it is just too hard to do well. Customers constantly
evaluate other desktop platforms, bit it would be so much work to move over
that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.
In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would
have been dead a long time ago.
The Java Platform
So along come Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison, saying “hey, we’ve got a good
new programming language called Java.” Fine, we like programming languages a
lot. After all we are a software development company. The problem is that very
quickly they also said, “we’ve got a whole new platform, a whole new set of
runtime libraries and APIs, to go with it - so as long as you are writing your
apps in a new language, you might as well write to this new platform that we
say lacks the flaws of old Windows.’ In other words, they are saying,
switching costs will never be lower than they are right now - the barriers are
low so join us now.
You would think it would be our top priority at such a time to (A) fix any
serious flaws In Windows which could push customers over to the Java platform,
(B) add so much new and unique value that this vaporous “Java platform”
doesn’t sound very attractive anyway, and (C) make damned sure that our new
value is really hard to copy so it doesn’t show up tomorrow in Sun’s or
Oracle’s offerings.
We are doing all of this. We are fixing TCO and further improving our dev
tools. We are providing new value such as Viper and great multimedia and
unified storage. We are making sure that Windows, not some new platform, is
the most attractive place to run apps written in this now programming
language. We are building the best virtual machine in the world, and
optimizing it to run on Windows. We are even making sure you can run your
Windows apps remotely on an NT server if all you have on your desk is a GUI
terminal. As if all this work were not already hard to copy, we are also
getting a bunch of patents to further protect It against cloning.
Following the Java Parade
So It is with some amazement that I listen to a number of people who just don’t
get it who think we should do work that actually makes it easier to copy our
work and to run apps written for Windows on other platforms. That flies in the
face of everything we are trying to do - it’s almost like a suicide attempt.
The philosophy here seems to be “our competitors’ products are getting more
press than ours, so we should kill ours and build copies of theirs instead.”
This is foolish. Since when did we start believing our competitors’ press
releases instead of rebutting them?
Let me be dear we have no problem with the Java language or with running Java
apps really really well on our platform. But we are explicitly not in the
business of making it easy for people to write apps that get all the features
of Windows on a non-Windows platform. “Pure cross-platform portability” is
another way of saying “commoditize the OS.” In this vision, every OS is just
an engine for running this layer called Java as fast as possible, and adding
any value below the Java layer Is explicitly against the rules.
Sun has already figured this out and has launched its 100% pure Java” marketing
program, which literally certifies apps as running the same on any client OS.
Programs that call a Windows API or use ActiveX or DirectX, or any
platform-specific feature, are by definition not 100% Pure Java, and are
therefore evil. Hey, If you were Sun, you would say this too!
Both Sun and Oracle make their money primarily on servers. (Sun still has some
workstation market share, but NT is inevitably eating away at their share and
their profit margins on the desktop.) So these companies have every incentive
to turn the desktop platform (aka Microsoft’s main business) into a
cost-driven commodity and focus all the high-margin business onto servers
where they (especially Oracle) have a real fighting chance against us.
This is all the exact opposite of what we want to happen. It is critical to us
that application writers choose to take advantage of features that are (A)
part of Windows, end (B) extremely hard to clone. Therefore it
TXAG 0008206
CONFIDENTIAL
MS-CCPMDL 000000292578
CONFIDENTIAL
would be a huge mistake if we (A) spent all of our energy just embracing other
companies’ innovations, or (B) asked key groups to do extra work that makes it
that much easier to replace Windows, such as making Visual Basic apps run on
the Java virtual machine.
We have enough people trying to kill us without us helping! It is our goal to
make them lose while making ISVs and customers very happy by delivering great
benefits.
Making Real Progress
With technologies like DCOM, Viper, and client-side persistent caching, we are
just starting down the long road to the distributed world. There is a lot of
design work to do, and a lot of intelligence to build into the OS and the
network and the tools, And critically, each part has to be managed be the
person or program who knows how to make the best decisions. Web site designers
should not have to design their whole site around the latest statistics art
who has what browser. End users sitting at desktop machines should need to do
nothing - no Setup or anything else - to get computation to happen on local
machines, just as they do nothing to enable the server apps or Web sites they
connect to today. Business system designers should not all have to be experts
on variable-speed wide-area networking. Library administrators should not care
if a student brings in an app from home and wants to run it on a public kiosk
machine for a while. Users with laptop machines should not have to know or
care how the right things from the server magically get replicated to their
local disk before they leave for a trip. An engineer who needs a big
calculation done should not have to care which machine has spare CPU space,
and an artist who needs to save 800MB of images should not have to manually
hunt around for disk space. The list of “shoulds” goes on and on.
None of this is provided today by the Java platform, but one by one each of
these features in being worked on by many people at MS and at our competitors,
and each will get property implemented by someone. We have an opportunity to
make many of these advances part of the Windows platform we get paid for, or
part of the Java platform that is given away for free. As a shareholder, which
do you want?
12
TXAG 0008207
CONFIDENTIAL
MS—CCPMDL 000000292579
CONFIDENTIAL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpDucIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6YXgCgtDkPfXkTFSladUycP2vOlq+h
OfgAn3n3+UVrwN+MnQgD57NkrAcGr3E4
=7cU7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hans Lister
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
> From: Aaron Contorer
> Sent: Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM
> To:
1997 ?
Slow day in the SPAM department Schestowitz?
Having trouble keeping up the word count?
Are you masters cutting your funding due to lack of output?
Ezekiel
"Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>> From: Aaron Contorer
>> Sent: Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM
>> To:
>
> 1997 ?
There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails from
Microsoft.
Rick
> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>
>>
>> 1997 ?
>
> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
> from Microsoft.
It shows a pattern of abuse and helps explain why other systems have not
been able to increase usage.
(snip)
--
Rick
Hans Lister
When you can't give away something that is free, you have a
serious problem on your hands.
Ezekiel
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:97SdnV7yhNyxWN7X...@supernews.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1997 ?
>>
>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
>> from Microsoft.
>
> It shows a pattern of abuse
A nearly 13 year old email shows nothing that's relevant today. This however
doesn't prevent some people from seeing whatever it is that they want to
see.
> and helps explain why other systems have not
> been able to increase usage.
Your "explanation" is nothing more than the same tired 13 year old excuse.
Snit
6/25/09 11:42 AM:
Hmmm, here Rick is failing to mention the intrinsic reasons desktop Linux
has not been able to increase usage (much).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
--
Rick
Erik Funkenbusch
Abuse? The article talks about competing on the merits of the software.
It's talking about writing better software that clients want. There's
nothing in there that talks about any abuse.
The worst you can get from it is that they don't want write software that
can be used just as well on other platforms. But that's their right. If
Microsoft wants to create better technology, you can't fault them for it.
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:97SdnV7yhNyxWN7X...@supernews.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1997 ?
>>>
>>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
>>> from Microsoft.
>>
>> It shows a pattern of abuse
>
> A nearly 13 year old email shows nothing that's relevant today. This
> however doesn't prevent some people from seeing whatever it is that they
> want to see.
It shows a pattern. It shows what to look for today.
>
>
>> and helps explain why other systems have not been able to increase
>> usage.
>
> Your "explanation" is nothing more than the same tired 13 year old
> excuse.
Really? Explain that to the companies that have been extinguished by
Microsoft's illegal activities.
--
Rick
Rick
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1997 ?
>>>
>>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
>>> from Microsoft.
>>
>> It shows a pattern of abuse and helps explain why other systems have
>> not been able to increase usage.
>> (snip)
>
> Abuse? The article talks about competing on the merits of the software.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.. abuse.
>
> It's talking about writing better software that clients want. There's
> nothing in there that talks about any abuse.
>
> The worst you can get from it is that they don't want write software
> that can be used just as well on other platforms. But that's their
> right. If Microsoft wants to create better technology, you can't fault
> them for it.
I fault them for embrace, extend extinguish.
--
Rick
Snit
6/25/09 12:29 PM:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:55:05 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:97SdnV7yhNyxWN7X...@supernews.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>>>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>>>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1997 ?
>>>>
>>>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
>>>> from Microsoft.
>>>
>>> It shows a pattern of abuse
>>
>> A nearly 13 year old email shows nothing that's relevant today. This
>> however doesn't prevent some people from seeing whatever it is that they
>> want to see.
>
> It shows a pattern. It shows what to look for today.
So 13 year old Linux can be used to show a pattern of problems... OK.
>>> and helps explain why other systems have not been able to increase
>>> usage.
>>
>> Your "explanation" is nothing more than the same tired 13 year old
>> excuse.
>
> Really? Explain that to the companies that have been extinguished by
> Microsoft's illegal activities.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6/25/09 12:27 PM:
How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sinister Midget III
> Abuse?
Yes. What you're involved in every time you post here.
Now am-scray!
--
I'm the proud parent of the kid who beat up your honor student.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Ubuntu 9.04
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C669217D.37C99%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
anyway. It just shows up on new computers by default and next to nobody
ever has any cause to bother with anything else. One interesting statistic
might be to compare the sales of upgrade versions of Windows to new Linux
installs. That would certainly give Linux a much higher percentage of
"choice" in terms of units "sold" or otherwise adopted where some conscious
thought was involved and be a more likely comparison of what people who
fiddle with their computer configuration might choose rather than the
general population which mostly never does that at all.
Here the financial values might have much more of an impact. A poverty
stricken or otherwise impecunious hobbyist will likely choose Linux in order
to save the Benjamin or so that Windows requires. Of course that does not
apply to the warez folk, but they are hobbyists too and anything that is
free to begin with is not much of a prize to pirate.
At the end of the day, of course, it really matters not. Microsoft is too
big to be a rising star anymore and simply waxes and wanes with the economy
in general.
amicus_curious
couldn't begin to explain anything to them now that they are extinguished.
Your reply is nonsense.
Snit
4a43ddd9$0$11531$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/25/09 1:29 PM:
So give them cause: provide something significantly *better*. That is what
Apple does - and it works. They do not even sell to the low end and they
have a respectable market share and a very decent profit.
> One interesting statistic might be to compare the sales of upgrade versions of
> Windows to new Linux installs. That would certainly give Linux a much higher
> percentage of "choice" in terms of units "sold" or otherwise adopted where
> some conscious thought was involved and be a more likely comparison of what
> people who fiddle with their computer configuration might choose rather than
> the general population which mostly never does that at all.
>
> Here the financial values might have much more of an impact. A poverty
> stricken or otherwise impecunious hobbyist will likely choose Linux in order
> to save the Benjamin or so that Windows requires. Of course that does not
> apply to the warez folk, but they are hobbyists too and anything that is
> free to begin with is not much of a prize to pirate.
>
> At the end of the day, of course, it really matters not. Microsoft is too
> big to be a rising star anymore and simply waxes and wanes with the economy
> in general.
If Linux can become what I, Shuttleworth, and others want (not to say our
visions are all exactly the same!), then Linux will offer significant
benefits to users and companies that Windows (and OS X) does not. It will
then gain a lot of desktop user share... maybe in the ballpark of Apple or
even higher.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
Go Computing.
--
Rick
Snit
6/25/09 2:55 PM:
Linux distros have stopped being supported as others ones grew.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
that it is somehow better in terms of function and style and so worth a
premium price. They have always done that and have held some groups of
customers through thick and thin. Jobs has always had that vision on where
he wanted to go and it didn't involve pure financial thinking. Gates has
had a similar vision regarding being more the solution for "everyman".
Apple appealed to designers and engineers and scientists early on. MS-DOS
and Windows appealed to clerks, secretaries, and other workers who needed to
access and enter information. There are a hell of a lot more clerks and
similar workers in the world than there are designers, engineers, and
scientists, so Microsoft has had a much higher level of business.
The problem is that it takes a lot of money to reach the market and deliver
your message. With the market so huge, it takes more money than most
companies have available to spend, even if they wanted to spend it. The
idea that anyone can use it for free generally means that anyone spending
all that money to promote it is not likely to ever get it back, so they hold
onto their wallets. Shuttleworth is different, of course, and has spent a
lot of money, but no where near the amount that it would take to actually
get into the business in a serious way. The business is too big even for
Shuttleworth's wallet and, after years of trying and spending, he isn't any
further along than anyone else. Remember Linspire? (nee Lindows). Where
are they at today?
Homer
> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
> From: Aaron Contorer
> Sent: Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM
> To: Bill Gates
> Subject: Memo material
> There are three possible ways to address the threat of the Java
> platform. One is to do nothing and gradually die as others innovate
> around us.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to Microsoft to just /innovate/ right
along with everyone else, using the same tools and technology. Why would
they think that'd make them "die"?
> The second is to join the parade of people who are saying "let's kill
> Microsoft and share their market among us”
Well he missed the rather important point, that the /reason/ people were
(and still are) saying "let's kill Microsoft" has more to do with
Microsoft's unilaterally aggressive behaviour, and others' defence
against those attacks, than those others simply looking to "kill
Microsoft" for money.
> - good for everyone else, but reducing us to the much smaller role of
> a common software company like Lotus or Borland or even Symantec.
Oh the humanity!
To be ... just another company, instead of a monopoly!
So Microsoft define "die" as "lose dominance".
Interesting.
What a bunch of goons.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
23:27:54 up 28 days, 3:25, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00
amicus_curious
them? Was there any lawsuit filed in protest?
Rick
... you never heard of them... they are the company from which Microsoft
got the idea to get into pen input. As far as a lawsuit, I don't remember
reading about one. Go read up on it. I am sure you will just dismiss
Microsoft's actions as ... hardball business.
--
Rick
Snit
4a43f70b$0$11529$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/25/09 3:16 PM:
>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>>>>
>>> The answer is that Windows is so ubiquitous that no one actually buys it
>>> anyway. It just shows up on new computers by default and next to nobody
>>> ever has any cause to bother with anything else.
>>>
>> So give them cause: provide something significantly *better*. That is what
>> Apple does - and it works. They do not even sell to the low end and they
>> have a respectable market share and a very decent profit.
>>
> Well Apple has differentiated itself from everyone else and sells the idea
> that it is somehow better in terms of function and style and so worth a
> premium price.
You make it sound like the only difference is an idea they sell and not
their products.
> They have always done that and have held some groups of customers through
> thick and thin. Jobs has always had that vision on where he wanted to go and
> it didn't involve pure financial thinking. Gates has had a similar vision
> regarding being more the solution for "everyman". Apple appealed to designers
> and engineers and scientists early on. MS-DOS and Windows appealed to clerks,
> secretaries, and other workers who needed to access and enter information.
> There are a hell of a lot more clerks and similar workers in the world than
> there are designers, engineers, and scientists, so Microsoft has had a much
> higher level of business.
The MS model also leads to computers being sold at a lower end... and MS
serves the business community in ways Apple does not.
...
>> If Linux can become what I, Shuttleworth, and others want (not to say our
>> visions are all exactly the same!), then Linux will offer significant
>> benefits to users and companies that Windows (and OS X) does not. It will
>> then gain a lot of desktop user share... maybe in the ballpark of Apple or
>> even higher.
>>
> The problem is that it takes a lot of money to reach the market and deliver
> your message.
Oh, no doubt: if desktop Linux were to get there *today* (as if there is a
clear line of exactly when they get there), it would take some time to get
the word out.
> With the market so huge, it takes more money than most companies have
> available to spend, even if they wanted to spend it. The idea that anyone can
> use it for free generally means that anyone spending all that money to promote
> it is not likely to ever get it back, so they hold onto their wallets.
> Shuttleworth is different, of course, and has spent a lot of money, but no
> where near the amount that it would take to actually get into the business in
> a serious way. The business is too big even for Shuttleworth's wallet and,
> after years of trying and spending, he isn't any further along than anyone
> else. Remember Linspire? (nee Lindows). Where are they at today?
I do remember them... and they are gone. But they did not offer much in the
way of intrinsic value that Windows did not - not for the general desktop
anyway. And their was much Windows did offer that they did not.
Really comes down to Windows being cheap enough where "free" is not a
selling point for a product that not only fails to serve people better but
does not, in general, serve them as well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rex Ballard
That really is the point, isn't it? Microsoft spends $4 billion/year
on advertizing to lock out it's competitors. It pays almost $3
billion in legal costs and settlements because it illegally locks out
competitors. It uses it's trademark, copyright, and patent licenses
to lock out competitors.
In 30 years, Microsoft has been able to use vaporware, bait-and-
switch, exclusionary "per processor" contracts and "cliff tiered
pricing" to lock out competitors, it has used numerous illegal tactics
to exclude competitors, and has recruited a substantial number of OEMs
into participating in collusion schemes designed to exclude
competitors, and bankrupted those OEMs who did not agree to the
collusion. Microsoft used similar agreements to get software vendors
to participate in exclusion of competitors.
Microsoft used these tactics to not only bankrupt competitors, but
also former partners, when it decided to enter the competitor's
markets. Victims include Digital Research, Quarterdeck, Atari, Amiga,
Corel, Word Perfect, Borland, ButtonWare, the IBM PC division,
Gateway, Micron, Tandy/Radio Shack's computer division, Brief, Mark
Williams, Spyglass, Netscape, and about 1000 others less famous.
The ONLY tactic that seems to have been effective at getting product
into the PC market is to give it away. Even Microsoft tried to put
together bundles for corporations, schools, and large government and
non-profit organizations to bundle Windows with Office and Visio and/
or Project. All to "lock in" the clients and customers. The key is
to create scenarios where end-users don't perceive themselves as
"paying" for the software. In some markets, Microsoft even permits
modest amounts of "strategic piracy", not enforcing copyrights against
influencers and waiting until adoption has gone viral before going
after their employers for a coerced "settlement" under threat of a
very public copyright infringement lawsuit.
Linux is one of the few competitors who has been able to not
necessarily "beat" Microsoft at it's own game, but they have managed
to generate a huge and rapidly growing market. Linux revenues in all
markets grow around 20-40% per year on average, and some markets
double as often as every 6 months.
Linux has also subverted Microsoft, often powering inexpensive devices
costing as little as $60 each, used as routers, WiFi hubs, DVRs and
HDTV controllers. Other Unix and Unix compatible vendors such as QNX
have also joined the "Appliance Race", and now Linux/Unix powered
devices outnumber PCs.
Even on the desktop, Linux has opted not to "Displace" Microsoft's
offering but instead to "Play Nice" with Windows, allowing end users
to have the features of both Linux and Windows on the desktop at the
same time. In the early days, it was dual boot, than later Linux
"emulation libraries" such as Red Hat's Cygwin product made it
possible to have Linux APIs on your Windows desktop. Virtualization
tools such as VMWare, Xen, VirtualBox, Parallels, and others have made
it possible to run a virtual Linux Desktop on your Windows machine so
that you can have the best of both worlds.
More recently, multicore CPUs are giving better performance when Linux
is used as the "native" operating system and Windows XP or Vista is
used as the "guest". The result is better performance for both
Windows and Linux, as well as features such as multiple virtual
desktops, smoother video, audio, and 3D performance (on Linux), and
fewer "hangs" on Windows due to resource deadlocks.
Some OEMs now use Motherboards that use Linux as the BIOS instead of
an AMD or Phoenix BIOS. The Linux in Flash provides a VM environment
that allows user Linux and Windows to run as peers. Even Microsoft is
releasing hypervisors for Windows 2003 which allows Windows and Linux
to run concurrently as peers on the same computer at the same time.
With even laptops coming with 2 CPUs, 300 gigabyte hard drives, 4
gigabytes of RAM, and graphics chips that dwarf even modern mainframes
in terms of computing power, it's pretty hard to justify excluding
Linux or Unix from the desktop. Apple has figured out that putting
Unix on the desktop creates a machine that's worth significantly more
than a machine that runs Linux alone.
If OEMs, retailers, and resellers are able to sell computers running
BOTH Linux and Windows for almost double the price of the "commodity"
Windows PCs, it's going to get increasingly harder for Microsoft to
refuse to allow them to put both systems on the desktops and laptops.
There is also always the possibility that a new player will hit the
market, offering Linux on a laptop, and REQUIRING retailers to display
it on the sales floor, fully operational, within 20 feet of the other
Windows PCs, so that prospective buyers can make a side-by-side
comparison and decide for themselves.
Corporations are already purchasing more and more "inside" Linux
systems, often used for kiosks, cash registers, teller stations,
customer service stations, and call center workstations.
Linux is quietly growing, but the numbers are very hard to count.
Hans Lister
> On Jun 25, 2:47�pm, Hans Lister <styme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
>>>>> 1997 ?
>
>>>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old emails
>>>> from Microsoft.
>
>>> It shows a pattern of abuse and helps explain why other systems have not
>>> been able to increase usage.
>>> (snip)
>
>> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a
>> serious problem on your hands.
>
> That really is the point, isn't it?
Yes it is.
See the netbook example.
> Linux is quietly growing, but the numbers are very hard to count.
Except when idiots like Schestowitz find positive Linux numbers.
Then instantly Linux can be counted.
So let's say the public doesn't know about Linux, which is
really not true anymore, what about the manufacturers like Dell,
IBM etc?
Why aren't they pushing a free system?
Seems IBM would want like the dickens to free themselves from
"evil" Microsoft.
Same for Dell.
IOW if all these alleged Microsoft strong arm tactics are true,
why don't these companies leave the Microsoft fold and sell
Linux loaded systems?
Why?
amicus_curious
> amicus_curious stated in post
> 4a43f70b$0$11529$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/25/09 3:16 PM:
>
>>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>>>>>
>>>> The answer is that Windows is so ubiquitous that no one actually buys
>>>> it
>>>> anyway. It just shows up on new computers by default and next to
>>>> nobody
>>>> ever has any cause to bother with anything else.
>>>>
>>> So give them cause: provide something significantly *better*. That is
>>> what
>>> Apple does - and it works. They do not even sell to the low end and
>>> they
>>> have a respectable market share and a very decent profit.
>>>
>> Well Apple has differentiated itself from everyone else and sells the
>> idea
>> that it is somehow better in terms of function and style and so worth a
>> premium price.
>
> You make it sound like the only difference is an idea they sell and not
> their products.
>
thing that matters is what the customer believes. I personally do not think
that Apple is any better or worse than Wintel in terms of physical
capability. After all they are using the same hardware these days and doing
the exact same thing pretty much. There is a definite panache with the
Apple computers and Apple pushes that button continuously as do its
proponent customers, but you have to be willing to pay a little more for
that sort of thing.
Time is money in many ways. There is very little Linux money being spent,
at least for the desktop which is what I am talking about.
>> With the market so huge, it takes more money than most companies have
>> available to spend, even if they wanted to spend it. The idea that
>> anyone can
>> use it for free generally means that anyone spending all that money to
>> promote
>> it is not likely to ever get it back, so they hold onto their wallets.
>> Shuttleworth is different, of course, and has spent a lot of money, but
>> no
>> where near the amount that it would take to actually get into the
>> business in
>> a serious way. The business is too big even for Shuttleworth's wallet
>> and,
>> after years of trying and spending, he isn't any further along than
>> anyone
>> else. Remember Linspire? (nee Lindows). Where are they at today?
>
> I do remember them... and they are gone. But they did not offer much in
> the
> way of intrinsic value that Windows did not - not for the general desktop
> anyway. And their was much Windows did offer that they did not.
>
> Really comes down to Windows being cheap enough where "free" is not a
> selling point for a product that not only fails to serve people better but
> does not, in general, serve them as well.
>
Well, the question was in regard to how a monopoly could beat free.
Tim Smith
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
Apple has massively increase usage in the last 121.5 years.
--
--Tim Smith
amicus_curious
seen one.
But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been plenty of
legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be surprised if this company
had any real case and would have failed to join the parade. Incidentally
there have been almost no criminal suits filed against Microsoft, which is
where the term "illegal" actually only applies, and the only one that I know
of was, I thought, frivolous and was summarily dismissed by the judge
reviewing the original filings.
If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its competitors and
has often destroyed their businesses in the past using legal means that
offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but use words based on their meaning,
not on their color.
Hans Lister
Not to mention what they have done in the last 12.5 years :)
Point is, Apple made some mistakes by resting on their success
and Microsoft came along and cleaned their clock.
Apple recovered and now have an uncanny sense for what consumers
want to buy and they have capitalized on this in a big way.
I give Apple a lot of credit in this regard and to those who
make fun of Apple's products, I say why not try them some day.
They really are different and lot's of fun to use.
Snit
4a441683$0$11555$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/25/09 5:30 PM:
>>>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is that Windows is so ubiquitous that no one actually buys it
>>>>> anyway. It just shows up on new computers by default and next to nobody
>>>>> ever has any cause to bother with anything else.
>>>>>
>>>> So give them cause: provide something significantly *better*. That is what
>>>> Apple does - and it works. They do not even sell to the low end and they
>>>> have a respectable market share and a very decent profit.
>>>>
>>> Well Apple has differentiated itself from everyone else and sells the idea
>>> that it is somehow better in terms of function and style and so worth a
>>> premium price.
>>>
>> You make it sound like the only difference is an idea they sell and not their
>> products.
>>
> When it comes to opening their wallets and picking what they buy, the only
> thing that matters is what the customer believes. I personally do not think
> that Apple is any better or worse than Wintel in terms of physical capability.
> After all they are using the same hardware these days and doing the exact same
> thing pretty much.
Same can be said of desktop Linux... but software matters. A lot. There is
a big difference between the three.
> There is a definite panache with the Apple computers and
> Apple pushes that button continuously as do its proponent customers, but you
> have to be willing to pay a little more for that sort of thing.
Well, Apple sells fewer models - not quite the same thing as having to pay
more, though the effect is often the same.
...
>>>> If Linux can become what I, Shuttleworth, and others want (not to say our
>>>> visions are all exactly the same!), then Linux will offer significant
>>>> benefits to users and companies that Windows (and OS X) does not. It will
>>>> then gain a lot of desktop user share... maybe in the ballpark of Apple or
>>>> even higher.
>>>>
>>> The problem is that it takes a lot of money to reach the market and deliver
>>> your message.
>>>
>> Oh, no doubt: if desktop Linux were to get there *today* (as if there is a
>> clear line of exactly when they get there), it would take some time to get
>> the word out.
>>
> Time is money in many ways. There is very little Linux money being spent, at
> least for the desktop which is what I am talking about.
Right. But if desktop Linux were to become something better than Windows
then it would end up being in bigger demand and more money would go toward
getting Linux systems. Likely different OEMs would put money into making
their version of desktop Linux better.
>>> With the market so huge, it takes more money than most companies have
>>> available to spend, even if they wanted to spend it. The idea that anyone
>>> can use it for free generally means that anyone spending all that money to
>>> promote it is not likely to ever get it back, so they hold onto their
>>> wallets. Shuttleworth is different, of course, and has spent a lot of money,
>>> but no where near the amount that it would take to actually get into the
>>> business in a serious way. The business is too big even for Shuttleworth's
>>> wallet and, after years of trying and spending, he isn't any further along
>>> than anyone else. Remember Linspire? (nee Lindows). Where are they at
>>> today?
>>>
>> I do remember them... and they are gone. But they did not offer much in the
>> way of intrinsic value that Windows did not - not for the general desktop
>> anyway. And their was much Windows did offer that they did not.
>>
>> Really comes down to Windows being cheap enough where "free" is not a selling
>> point for a product that not only fails to serve people better but does not,
>> in general, serve them as well.
>>
> Well, the question was in regard to how a monopoly could beat free.
And the answer is they can be cheap enough (in terms of the overall purchase
price) so that free does not matter much... and they can offer a product
that serves people better. I like automatic pencils - not just any, but
some decent ones with nice grips. I pay more and I get more. If the
cheaper products were to offer as good or better of an experience I would
switch in a heartbeat.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
reply_in_group-953...@news.supernews.com on 6/25/09 5:34 PM:
Even the last 10th of that. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message
news:t8adh6-...@sky.matrix...
>
> What a bunch of goons.
>
Curiously you ignored the point of the email which was stated as:
"The third choice is to make major innovations to our platform so people
still prefer to write to us instead of some tepid cross-platform Java layer.
This is our only real option."
Here we have the essence of competitive activity, i.e. making a better
mousetrap than the other guy so as to stay in the lead. Are you against
this sort of thing? I think that you are true goon here, not Microsoft's
planners.
amicus_curious
Macintosh in pretty much the same way. Day by day more and more activities
are web based applications that are really no different regardless of what
platform is used to access them or even which browser. You are saying that
there are big differences and I would agree that there is a common
perception that there are big differences, but it is hard to enumerate any.
The only difference lies in the perception itself and how widely it is held
and by who. I say that perception is more important than the technology
differences which I believe to be mostly cosmetic.
There are other things that enter into it. First, "if desktop Linux were to
become something better than Windows" is a very high hurdle. Anyone who can
invent some sort of major difference to bring to bear would be rather
foolish, I think, and very unlikely to just give it away. Of course I am
not as generous as, say, Richard Stallman. But even if that someone were
not Microsoft itself and so formed a credible opposition to Windows, it
would be but a brief instant before the next Windows smoothly incorportated
the change.
In general people will wait a significant time for their existing vendor to
catch up to a move made by an opponent. The market leader can kill any such
initiative quickly with a mere "Me, too!" kind of move. Look at what
happened with the netbook. The Linux folk were thrilled to have the huge
lead in the first 1% of the market life cycle. Then the gears ground in the
usual way and Linux has all but disappeared there. Now the fans talk of
"Wait until next year when the ARM processor will come forth to slay the
Windows dragon!" Their theory seems to be that the ARM is such a total
piece of shit procssor that it is hopeless to run Windows effectively and so
the world will embrace it in lieu of the far faster and better performing
Intel chips.
Somehow or another they fail to reckon with the fact that a version of
Windows has been on the ARM processors for a number of years and it supports
a compatible suite of office automation functions ala' MS Office as well.
They want to distinguish between a "real" OS and the Windows CE/Mobile or
whatever the name is today. Now how are they going to get that word out to
the likely buyers of the ARM netbooks? The same old way? That should work
just dandy.
Snit
4a441f25$0$11515$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/25/09 6:07 PM:
...
>>> When it comes to opening their wallets and picking what they buy, the only
>>> thing that matters is what the customer believes. I personally do not think
>>> that Apple is any better or worse than Wintel in terms of physical
>>> capability. After all they are using the same hardware these days and doing
>>> the exact same thing pretty much.
>>>
>> Same can be said of desktop Linux... but software matters. A lot. There is
>> a big difference between the three.
>>
> What is that? You can do your personal business with Linux, Windows, or
> Macintosh in pretty much the same way. Day by day more and more activities
> are web based applications that are really no different regardless of what
> platform is used to access them or even which browser. You are saying that
> there are big differences and I would agree that there is a common perception
> that there are big differences, but it is hard to enumerate any. The only
> difference lies in the perception itself and how widely it is held and by who.
> I say that perception is more important than the technology differences which
> I believe to be mostly cosmetic.
Ok, in each you click and drag and have windows (generally) and folders and
the like. The general GUI principles popularized by the early Macs are
alive and well and they are tied to the Unix-y multitasking operations. So
in that way, yes, they are all similar.
But there are significant details of difference. Troubleshooting the
inevitable problems: on OS X you toss plist files and run something like
YASU... most problems are gone. No other OS makes it so easy. You want to
know where a running application is - easy on OS X. Proxy icons on windows
are unique to OS X and are a pretty big benefit. Consistency (relatively,
at least) on OS X is better than on any other OS and creates an environment
of greater efficiency and lower error rates. Media browsers and other signs
of the greater integration of the system components also make a difference.
Lack of window resizing options and maximize is also unique to OS X... and
bizarre. :)
With Linux, you have flexibility unlike any other OS: something that might
not benefit the general user that much, but if you want to set up a machine
for an uncommon setting or task, Linux often is far and away the best
solution.
Windows users get the niche software unlike anyone else... and that is a
benefit.
Day to day operation on the different systems is similar, yes, but you could
also say the nutritional value of a cheep cheese and a fine cheese is
similar, but that does not make them equally of value.
...
>>> Time is money in many ways. There is very little Linux money being
>>> spent, at
>>> least for the desktop which is what I am talking about.
>>
>> Right. But if desktop Linux were to become something better than Windows
>> then it would end up being in bigger demand and more money would go toward
>> getting Linux systems. Likely different OEMs would put money into making
>> their version of desktop Linux better.
>>
> There are other things that enter into it. First, "if desktop Linux were to
> become something better than Windows" is a very high hurdle. Anyone who can
> invent some sort of major difference to bring to bear would be rather
> foolish, I think, and very unlikely to just give it away.
I have talked in length about what desktop Linux *could* offer, and I think
someday will: greater consistency (similar to OS X) but *also* much more
flexibility - so that users (or distro makers, in most cases) could swap out
save dialogs and print dialogs and color selectors etc.
> Of course I am not as generous as, say, Richard Stallman.
And your diet is likely better. :)
> But even if that someone were not Microsoft itself and so formed a credible
> opposition to Windows, it would be but a brief instant before the next Windows
> smoothly incorportated the change.
Not if the change was flexibility. Apple and MS want branding... Linux need
not focus on that.
> In general people will wait a significant time for their existing vendor to
> catch up to a move made by an opponent. The market leader can kill any such
> initiative quickly with a mere "Me, too!" kind of move. Look at what
> happened with the netbook. The Linux folk were thrilled to have the huge
> lead in the first 1% of the market life cycle. Then the gears ground in the
> usual way and Linux has all but disappeared there. Now the fans talk of
> "Wait until next year when the ARM processor will come forth to slay the
> Windows dragon!" Their theory seems to be that the ARM is such a total
> piece of shit procssor that it is hopeless to run Windows effectively and so
> the world will embrace it in lieu of the far faster and better performing
> Intel chips.
Yeah... and that makes no sense. :)
> Somehow or another they fail to reckon with the fact that a version of
> Windows has been on the ARM processors for a number of years and it supports
> a compatible suite of office automation functions ala' MS Office as well.
> They want to distinguish between a "real" OS and the Windows CE/Mobile or
> whatever the name is today. Now how are they going to get that word out to
> the likely buyers of the ARM netbooks? The same old way? That should work
> just dandy.
Yup.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rex Ballard
> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
Microsoft found a way 30 years ago. In 1978, Gates told MITS
corporation that if they did not pay him $150,000, about $50 for every
computer they planned to sell, that Micro-soft (aka Microsoft) would
write BASIC for their biggest competitor, the SWTP 6900 based
computer. MITS paid the money, asking for Banking in ROM as one of
the conditions. Gates only agreed to "make a reasonable effort" to
implement BASIC in ROM for the ALTAIR. Eventually, Bill wrote a very
public article explaining why it wasn't feasable to write BASIC in ROM
for the ALTAIR, citing the complexity of the S100 bus, and the
inability to write device drivers and interfaces for all of the
peripherals (RS-232 printers and keyboards, paper tape readers, ...).
Instead of selling 3000 computers, MITS barely sold 1000, partly
because before the year was up, Gates had ported his BASIC to the
Commodore PET, which had a 32 column by 16 row monitor, and a cash-
register style QWERTY keyboard. Quite simply, Gates used
**extortion** to get the money he wanted.
The following year, Gates told Commodore that if they didn't pay more,
he would port Microsoft BASIC to the Apple ][ computer. Commodore
paid the increase, asking for a CP/M style disk operating system. The
"DOS Wedge" was a pathetic solution, but meanwhile, in 1979, Gates was
using his best people to write BASIC for the TRS-80 computer for Radio
Shack.
A key factor in Bill Gates' success was the fact that his father was
an incredibly shrewd and clever lawyer, and was helping his son stay
right on the hairy fringes of the law. I'm sure they rehearsed the
script carefully to make sure that Gates didn't actually make an overt
threat, but instead allowed his client to make assumptions based the
information did give. Much the same way a mobster offers you
"insurance" because it would be terrible if you had an accident, or if
some of the punks in the neigborhood decided to walk out with a few
cases of beer before they trashed the store. They don't actually tell
you that if you don't pay the "insurance" that they will send a bunch
of thugs to trash your store, so even if you recorded the
conversation, you wouldn't have the proof of extortion.
.
Bill had also learned that he should keep all intellectual property
rights, and even though Paul Allen was an employee of BOTH MITS and
Micro-soft, Gates was an employee of Microsoft and Microsoft owned the
rights to BASIC, not MITS.
Bill told IBM he had an operating system and could port it to IBM's
PC. He wasn't lying. He did have an operating system called Xenix,
which could have been ported, but Gates wanted more control and didn't
want AT&T getting involved, so he purchased QDOS an operating system
that had been published in a ham radio magazine in 1979, and ported
that to IBM. QDOS was openly touted as a clone of CP/M written in
Z-80 assembler instead of 8080 assembler. Ironically, one of the
things that Gates had to do to port it to 8088 and 8086 systems was to
convert the Z-80 memnonics to 8080 memnonics. In effect, Gates was
pirating CP/M then altering to 16 bit registers with offsets to get MS-
DOS.
When Gates made the deal with IBM, he only asked for $4 a copy from
IBM, but he insisted on the rights to sell it to other computer
makers. Part of this was because IBM didn't think that the PC would
be a significant market, and figured they could slip in their own
operating system, perhaps a port of EDX (used on the Series 1) or OS/
360 in a few years. Gates outmaneuvered IBM by immediately selling
licenses to Compaq and other companies, on the condition that they pay
for a copy of MS-DOS for EVERY computer they sold. This so-called Per-
CPU contract was designed to assure that before IBM could come out
with something else, there would be so many "IBM Compatibles" that IBM
would lose the market if it tried to switch. Microsoft sold several
times more MS-DOS and PC-DOS licenses than IBM made computers.
Eventually, in 1987, after several FTC investigations into Microsoft
for Fraud and other fair trade violations, each of which was "settled"
before the board voted, resulting in 4 to 3 votes in each case,
Microsoft faced Thomas Penfield Jackson, who insisted that Microsoft
had to stop "Per CPU" pricing. Microsoft got around this with "Cliff
tiered pricing" essentially, making the total cost of 120% of what you
needed cost less than if you purchased only 80% of what you needed,
with no other discount in between. For example, if you knew you would
sell 10 million computers, you could by 8 million licenses for $640
million or $80 each. But if you buy 12 million, you only pay $40
each, or about $480 million. The catch was that you had to meet that
"minimum commitment" or you would be required to pay the $40 each for
the licenses you already purchased as a penalty. Since the MSRP for
Windows was about $150,OEMs simply didn't argue and purchased the
minimum commitment. Often they placed the order and let Microsoft
finance the purchase so they could level out the payments to synch up
with their cash flow.
Red Hat was offereing to let the OEMs who were selling Wnidows 3.1 and
Windows 3.11 PCs the rights to install Red Hat Linux in addition to
the Windows license they purchased from Microsoft, in a "dual boot"
for $2 per copy on the condition that they put it on at least 1/2 the
PCs they sold. Microsoft blocked this maneuver by releasing Windows
95 and making sure that Windows 95 repartitioned and reformatted the
hard drives before it was installed, and put terms in the contract
that expressly forbid ANY alteration of the boot sequence from power-
up to final desktop being fully operation - without Microsoft's prior
written consent. Requests for permission to add vendor specific
customer service features such as warranty registration could be
approved in a few hours. Requests to configure the dual boot
configuration often went for years before being rejected, usually
citing some technical problem that had long-since been fixed. In some
cases, the request was even APPROVED, but only after the model had
already been discontinued.
Microsoft also used vaporware, not to convince the end-users not to
switch to Linux or Unix, but to convince the OEMs to not start trying
to offer a bunch of Linux/Windows systems or Linux-only systems. They
also used it to convince corporate purchasers not to purchase Unix or
Linux systems. Perhaps the most notable example was when Bill Gates
was making the big release of Windows 3.1, and Gates was giving the
Key-note speech. Sun had put together a nice display of their IPC and
SLC computers, along with some inexpensive X-terminals as well as some
X11 terminal software running on MS-DOS PCs. They showed that they
could keep the costs lower than the costs of Windows 3.1 systems. The
crowds were swarming around these UNIX systems and the corporate
buyers were getting very interested, many placing orders right on the
showroom floor.
Bill Gates had seen this once before, when he was at a "microcomputer"
show in Kansas with his MITS Altair and Steve Jobs stole the show with
his Apple][ computer. Gates took no chances. He had some of his
people go to the Sun presentation and listen for everything that
sounded like a hot button and list the ones they thought were most
exciting to the audience. By the time he stood to deliver the keynote
speech, he had compiled the list into a speech, announcing Windows
"New Technology" (NT) which would be a "Better UNIX than UNIX". If
the Federal Trade Commission enforcement had been there, they might
have filed fraud charges right then and there. However, within a few
weeks, all of these promised features had been officially put on a
"wish list" for the next version of Windows, a 32 bit version, which
actually was in progress, but nothing like UNIX, and since Gates had
admitted that he got the source code for his Microsoft BASIC by buying
a back-up tape that had been carefully marked before it was donated to
Bill's computer club. Bill put that pirate tape in his own packed
before the rest of the computer club even saw the wiped tapes which
were sold to raise money. Bill decided to make Amends to DEC by
hiring some of the VMS developers who DEC was laying off, and
promising that Windows NT would be like VMS and would run on the Alpha
chip which DEC was planning on putting on their next generation VAX
computers.
Anyone who has lived in the inner city will tell you that even though
the church is offering free food, free clothing, and even employment
opportunities and even positions in the clergy, they can't compete
with drug dealers and mobsters who can use fraud, extortion,
blackmail, and addiction to turn people from a live of piety to a life
of sin, including addiction, prostitution, and criminal activity of
all sorts.
Steve Ballmer used to brag that he and Bill had decided one day, after
the Commodore PET came out, that they needed to find a way to get
business "Addicted" to Microsoft. As long as businesses could switch
to other vendors, Microsoft was at risk. From that point on, they
patterned their whole marketing campaign around the same tactics as
those used by drug dealers. Offering new products at very low prices,
or even free, to key influencers within corporations, usually
programmers who supported PCs. Once these influencers had pirated
enough copied enough copies to get the company "addicted" Microsoft
would come in, request an audit of licenses, and make the IT manager
an offer he couldn't refuse. Instead of Microsoft filing a public
lawsuit, which would probably get the manager fired, the manager could
agree to buy copies for every employee in the organization, and
purchase upgrades as they came out. This little bit of **Blackmail**
worked very well, and soon every employee had Windows, Word, Excel,
PowerPoint, and all managers had Project and usually Visio in their
desktops. Since Microsoft controlled these products, it was now
impossible for the company to quit using Microsoft products because
they had thousands, even millions of documents stored in Microsoft's
proprietary formats. If an IT Manager started courting other vendors,
or started trying to put UNIX or Linux on the desktops of a few
workers, Microsoft would use one of the many carefully worded
technicalities to revoke EVERY license held by the corporation because
the copyright license terms for the corporate license agreement had
been violated. At this point, Microsoft could offer either the IT
Manager, or his superiors, the generous offer to reinstate the
licenses for a token fee, if they would agree to a few additional
terms, such as excluding the competitor products, and even agreeing to
fire anyone who attempted to use the competitor product on their
company PCs.
In effect, Gates and Ballmer were like Heroin, Cocaine, or Crack
dealers, cutting off the supply, waiting for their skin to start
crawling, and then offering them a "fix" if they would come to parties
and perform sexual favors, or recruit wealthy kids to come to a "new-
comers" party where there would have be lots of strung-out crack-
whores helping these guys get hooked on the "free" samples.
.
Hans Lister
All that and you still didn't answer the question.....
Snit
820b7f89-8eff-4136...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com on 6/25/09
7:59 PM:
So you have no proof?
I stopped reading at this point. You never got to the point of how a
monopoly out competed a free product.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6/25/09 8:05 PM:
I read about half of it... he was not even heading in that direction.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> Really? Explain that to the companies that have been extinguished by
> Microsoft's illegal activities.
There's never been one.
DFS
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:41:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Hans Lister" <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1qbrzhjdy5xxs$.1xr44stys0i96$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Erik Stevenson (LCA)
>>>> From: Aaron Contorer Sent:
>>>> Friday, February 21. 1997 12:47 PM To:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1997 ?
>>
>> There's no better advocacy for Linux than posting 12.5 year old
>> emails from Microsoft.
>
> It shows a pattern of abuse and helps explain why other systems have
> not been able to increase usage.
> (snip)
The real reasons are found at:
www.ubuntuforums.org
http://forums.opensuse.org/
http://fedoraforum.org/
http://www.linuxmint.com/forum/
http://www.pclinuxos.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=58
http://forums.debian.net/
http://forum.mandriva.com/
http://www.slackwarehelp.org/
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/
And in 2009 slopware like this: "[Fedora 11] Multi-Monitor support is
broken. You can't play videos. Sound is almost completely broken and
causes many other problems. Your screen randomly goes black. There is no
network by default. and the email client crashes all the time."
http://lunduke.com/?p=705
And in beady-eyed cloner statements like this: "Vista is introducing alot of
new features and I'm pretty sure we can (or will very shortly) replicate
most of those features in Ubuntu."
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-161670.html
And in (cr)apps like this: Gambas, Dia, Kivio, gnucash, gnash, XMoto,
nautilus, etc.
And in loser "advocates" like you, [H]omer, 7, Gidget, Jerry McBride, Mart,
Linosuck, HPT, RonB, Spamowitz, et al
Rex Ballard
The approach worked beautifully. Even though many of the tactics were
illegal, Microsoft had discovered that by paying for really good
lawyers, and offering carefully worded settlements that appeared to
mean one thing that would make the plaintiff want to sign, but
actually meant something completely different - and since Microsoft
was the author, it was their interpretation that mattered, it was
actually cheaper to commit the crime, get as many technicalities
thrown out, and then offer a "negotiated" settlement in which key
"weasel clauses" were requested as minor consessions after appearantly
"caving in" to the demands of the plaintiffs and prosecutors and make
the settlements actually become profitable.
Imagine if Al Capone or John Ghotti had hired about 2,000 of the top
lawyers in the country, had them bring the case to litigation, had the
head kingpin confess to all sorts of crimes under oath, and then offer
a settlement in which all executives would be granted blanket immunity
for all crimes committed up to the date of the settlement acceptance.
Furthermore, all of the evidence collected by the prosecutors and
plaintiffs would be sealed, so that they could never be used in
another case.
The irony is that the banking industry, especially the Mortgage
Brokers actually DID follow this model, offering fraudulent loans,
lying on applications, bundling them into bonds, then swizzling those
bonds into various mutual funds. Ironically, many referred to these
tactics as the "Bill Gates School of Business", inspired by books
written by Bill Gates, and biographies based on interviews with
friends like Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, and several others. Often, it
was difficult to separate myth from reality (and still is). Even
Microsoft's "official" versions of history have been known to change
repeatedly. Just read the preface of various books put out by
Microsoft press between 1985 and 2009.
Ironically, the closest thing to the "real story" may be the Combs vs
Microsoft exhibits, which includes numerous emails to and from Bill
Gates, Steve Ballmer, and other top Microsoft executives.
One of the mistakes the DOJ made was not to attempt to prove that
Microsoft obtained it's monopoly control of the market illegally. As
a result, Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact even stated that, based on
the evidence presented during the case, there was no claim that
Microsoft had obtained that Microsoft had maintained it's monopoly
illegally. Ironically it was the appeals court who asserted that
Microsoft was a monopoly and that as such it would be illegal for them
to use that monopoly power to exclude other competitors, expand their
monopoly into other markets. Even though the court disagreed with 2
elements of Judge Jackson's findings of law, they actually put more
"teeth" into their ruling, directing the court to come up with a
remedy that would prevent Microsoft from doing specific things.
Of course, Bush had been well-financed by Microsoft at a critical
moment in his campaign, and when he won the election, Bush repaid the
bill by essentially tying negotiators hands, appointing a Microsoft
Fan-boy as the compliance officer, and asking Microsoft to name the
3rd member of the technical committee - assuring that the committee
would always overrule any claim made against Microsoft for technical
issues, and assuring that the Compliance officer would do nothing and
reccomend that nothing be done when legal and contract issues were
raised.
Ironically, Bush really pissed off the Attorneys General of about 40
states, by essentially tearing up the agreement that if they
consolidated their separate lawsuits into a single lawsuit, the DOJ
would not do anthing without getting unanimous agreement from ALL of
the Attorneys General.
Of course, in the mean time, Bush was trashing the economy, building
his "house of cards" with a fraudulent mortgage industry, and telling
Americans that the best thing they could do in response to 9/11 was to
mortgage themselves up to their eyeballs and go shopping.
Hadron
>
> And in beady-eyed cloner statements like this:
OK. 1-1
You loved the Marti in the cellar joke, but that line had me in
stitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent!
DFS
ha! Glad you like it.
I always picture Linux devs sitting there with a Windows app open on one 15"
monitor, and their clone version open on another 15" monitor, shifting their
shiny, beady little eyes back and forth....
Rick
You are not the world. Maybe you should research Pen Windows.
>
> But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been plenty
> of legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be surprised if this
> company had any real case and would have failed to join the parade.
Of course you would be surprised.
> Incidentally there have been almost no criminal suits filed against
> Microsoft, which is where the term "illegal" actually only applies, and
> the only one that I know of was, I thought, frivolous and was summarily
> dismissed by the judge reviewing the original filings.
There are criminal violations of the law, and civil violations of the law.
>
> If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its competitors
> and has often destroyed their businesses in the past using legal means
> that offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but use words based on their
> meaning, not on their color.
You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman
Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
--
Rick
Hans Lister
> You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman
> Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
And OJ was found to be
innocent........................................
Rick
OJ was found not guilty, IOW words, the jury did not think the
prosecution proved its case. There is a very large difference between
innocent and not guilty.
--
Rick
Erik Funkenbusch
In the US, we say "Not Guilty", in other countries they say "Innocent".
This is based upon the founding fathers beliefs that in the judicial
system, you are innocent unless proven guilty.
Thus, "Not Guilty", by virtue of being innocent until proven guilty, means
you are in fact considered "innocent" in the eyes of the law.
Of course Civil courts have a much less strict burden of proof, and they
considered him guilty.
Ezekiel
> On Jun 25, 3:43 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
>> 6/25/09 12:27 PM:
>> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:32 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
>> >> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a serious
>> >> problem on your hands.
>
>> > Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>
>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>
> Microsoft found a way 30 years ago. In 1978, Gates told MITS
> corporation that if they did not pay him $150,000, about $50 for every
> computer they planned to sell, that Micro-soft (aka Microsoft) would
> write BASIC for their biggest competitor, the SWTP 6900 based
> computer.
(SNIP - usual lies that have no proof)
Since your entire argument is based on what Bill Gates told MIPS where's the
proof? Were you there - NO. So how do you know what he said?
Run away now liar.
Rick
And, again, in the US, a finding of not guilty simply means the
prosecution did not prove their case to the jury's satisfaction.
--
Rick
amicus_curious
cosmetic differences, so I guess we agree here. What matters is what the
buyer bases a purchase decision upon. A Mac user will strongly favor the
Mac look and feel and so on,, but most machines are used for the same
general purposes and used effectively. The user has no compelling need that
drives any urge to switch from one familiar brand to any other. Linux and
Windows have a wide price differential, but in a packaged machine that
difference is nil or even in Windows favor sometimes.
I do not understand what you mean by that.
amicus_curious
potential? Who would use it and why would they want to use it?
>>
>> But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been plenty
>> of legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be surprised if this
>> company had any real case and would have failed to join the parade.
>
> Of course you would be surprised.
>
And you might be vindicated, so you should have a stronger reason to air out
the case.
>> Incidentally there have been almost no criminal suits filed against
>> Microsoft, which is where the term "illegal" actually only applies, and
>> the only one that I know of was, I thought, frivolous and was summarily
>> dismissed by the judge reviewing the original filings.
>
> There are criminal violations of the law, and civil violations of the law.
>
Yes and you are "doing something illegal" if you violate a criminal law and
you are "liable or responsble" for damages if you violate a civil code.
Microsoft has never been convicted and almost never charged with anything
criminal.
>>
>> If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its competitors
>> and has often destroyed their businesses in the past using legal means
>> that offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but use words based on their
>> meaning, not on their color.
>
> You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman
> Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
>
But the Sherman violations were found to be simply technical breaches of the
law, not casual actions that harmed any competitor or prevented competition
itself in any way. They were enjoined to cease and desist these practices
and watchdog committees were formed at Microsoft's ultimate expense to
oversee future actions to ensure that no additional violations occur. That
was a long time ago, too.
So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal Microsoft
activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
amicus_curious
>
> And, again, in the US, a finding of not guilty simply means the
> prosecution did not prove their case to the jury's satisfaction.
>
guilty in a court of law". That is constantly posted on TV screens on A&E
48 Hours and similar documentaries when the captives are led off to the
holding cells, so it must be correct or else the FCC would shut these
content providers down for saying it so often. That can only mean that the
party deemed not guilty remains innocent. It is the only way to read the
sentence.
chrisv
> Rick wrote:
>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> And OJ was found to be
>>> innocent........................................
Dumbshit.
>> OJ was found not guilty, IOW words, the jury did not think the
>> prosecution proved its case. There is a very large difference between
>> innocent and not guilty.
Criminal court must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>In the US, we say "Not Guilty", in other countries they say "Innocent".
>This is based upon the founding fathers beliefs that in the judicial
>system, you are innocent unless proven guilty.
>
>Thus, "Not Guilty", by virtue of being innocent until proven guilty, means
>you are in fact considered "innocent" in the eyes of the law.
>
>Of course Civil courts have a much less strict burden of proof, and they
>considered him guilty.
Civil court need only show "a preponderance of the evidence".
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:2JGdnVxE9N7BK9nX...@supernews.com...
>>
>> And, again, in the US, a finding of not guilty simply means the
>> prosecution did not prove their case to the jury's satisfaction.
>>
> That is not so "simply" accomplished, though. One is "innocent until
> proven guilty in a court of law". That is constantly posted on TV
> screens on A&E 48 Hours and similar documentaries when the captives are
> led off to the holding cells, so it must be correct or else the FCC
> would shut these content providers down for saying it so often.
Now, why do you think that?
> That
> can only mean that the party deemed not guilty remains innocent. It is
> the only way to read the sentence.
One is presumed innocent. And, again, not guilty only means the
prosecution did not prove their case.
--
Rick
Rick
First, that has nothing to do with the present conversation. It doesn't
matter big or small the market is at them moment. As far as who would
want to use it... you might want to take a look at a company that did
very well, for a while, with pen input devices ... Palm.
>
>
>>> But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been
>>> plenty of legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be surprised
>>> if this company had any real case and would have failed to join the
>>> parade.
>>
>> Of course you would be surprised.
>>
> And you might be vindicated, so you should have a stronger reason to air
> out the case.
I gave you the two principals. It might help you along to go do research,
and then do some research on the references.
>
>>> Incidentally there have been almost no criminal suits filed against
>>> Microsoft, which is where the term "illegal" actually only applies,
>>> and the only one that I know of was, I thought, frivolous and was
>>> summarily dismissed by the judge reviewing the original filings.
>>
>> There are criminal violations of the law, and civil violations of the
>> law.
>>
> Yes and you are "doing something illegal" if you violate a criminal law
> and you are "liable or responsble" for damages if you violate a civil
> code. Microsoft has never been convicted and almost never charged with
> anything criminal.
Illegal is illegal. Legal is legal.
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegal>
1. Prohibited by law.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal
not according to or authorized by law
You are doing something illegal if you violate civil or criminal law. The
difference is the punishment, and the burden of proof.
>
>
>>> If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its competitors
>>> and has often destroyed their businesses in the past using legal means
>>> that offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but use words based on
>>> their meaning, not on their color.
>>
>> You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman
>> Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
>>
> But the Sherman violations were found to be simply technical breaches of
> the law, not casual actions that harmed any competitor or prevented
> competition itself in any way.
They were willful violations of the law.
> They were enjoined to cease and desist
> these practices and watchdog committees were formed at Microsoft's
> ultimate expense to oversee future actions to ensure that no additional
> violations occur. That was a long time ago, too.
>
> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal Microsoft
> activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
Why do you love Microsoft so much?
--
Rick
Hans Lister
Once again Rick can't see the forest for the trees.
Hans Lister
I've created a monster :(
Snit
4a44c282$0$11539$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/26/09 5:44 AM:
...
Cosmetic, to me, means being there for looks and not productivity - I
described a number of areas where *productivity* is effected.
> What matters is what the buyer bases a purchase decision upon. A Mac user
> will strongly favor the Mac look and feel and so on,, but most machines are
> used for the same general purposes and used effectively. The user has no
> compelling need that drives any urge to switch from one familiar brand to any
> other. Linux and Windows have a wide price differential, but in a packaged
> machine that difference is nil or even in Windows favor sometimes.
Mac users generally go with Macs because of productivity differences. Here
is an example from someone I know who switched from Windows to Mac: he had a
Sony video camera and a Sony machine with Sony video software. He could not
get it to work. The machine would not import the video. He took it to some
tech place in town and they could not get it to work. He was very
frustrated - he was losing money (this was for business needs). Someone
suggested he try the local store that sells Macs. He did. He walked in
with the camera and explained the problem. The salesperson asked if he
could try on the demo machine... he plugged the camera into the Mac and it
worked flawlessly. Pulled the video in and iMovie more than fit the needs.
The guy bought a Mac right then and there... and later bought Final Cut. He
has never looked back and is *far* more productive.
Another example: a woman I was hired by was in her 90s and wanted to get a
computer to write a book before she died. She had suffered from a stroke in
the past and had horrid arthritis... making the idea of using a two button
mouse pretty much be out of the question. I suggested a Mac for her. Her
younger sister, in her late 80s, had used Windows for years and was dead set
against the idea of going with a more expensive Mac. The customer followed
my advice and went with the Mac - and a track ball that worked well for her,
the buttons all set to be left buttons to accommodate her needs. I also
added some freeware to allow her to launch programs without using the mouse
a bit more easily... and told the customer to call me if she had any
problems after her initial training session (about an hour, if I recall
correctly)
I called a week later to see how things were going: she was not at all
pleased. Oh, she could use the machine just fine, but her younger sister
had taken over the machine and was on it for hours a day... she had hooked
herself up to the Internet, was buying music, burning CDs, using her digital
camera should could never figure out on Windows and printing out pictures,
etc.
In *years* of working with Windows she was not as productive as she was in a
week of using the Mac. The solution, of course, was the younger sister
bought a Mac, too.
These are not "cosmetic" differences: these are differences that change
people's lives - literally.
...
>>> But even if that someone were not Microsoft itself and so formed a credible
>>> opposition to Windows, it would be but a brief instant before the next
>>> Windows smoothly incorportated the change.
>>>
>> Not if the change was flexibility. Apple and MS want branding... Linux need
>> not focus on that.
>>
> I do not understand what you mean by that.
When you walk up to a Mac, the screen looks, well, Mac-like. You have the
Apple in the upper left, you have the signature red and yellow and green
dots (well, they can be set to be gray), you have the menu on the top and
drop shadows on every window. This is not done just for usability reasons -
this is done for branding. Apple wants people to know when they see OS X in
person or on TV that it is OS X. They want branding.
Linux distros can each have their own branding - and customers can change it
if they want. Neither Apple nor MS is going to give that level of
flexibility.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
Macintosh? If that is the case, then any such user would never buy a Wintel
machine, so you have a point. But the same is true, I imagine, for people
who, say, want to use some uncommon program that is not available for
Windows in their work. (Is AutoCAD available yet?)
The people who depend on video editing for their subsistence are relatively
few compared to the number of people who just use Quicken and email and some
browser. For those people, the differences are cosmetic.
>
> ...
>>>> But even if that someone were not Microsoft itself and so formed a
>>>> credible
>>>> opposition to Windows, it would be but a brief instant before the next
>>>> Windows smoothly incorportated the change.
>>>>
>>> Not if the change was flexibility. Apple and MS want branding... Linux
>>> need
>>> not focus on that.
>>>
>> I do not understand what you mean by that.
>
> When you walk up to a Mac, the screen looks, well, Mac-like. You have the
> Apple in the upper left, you have the signature red and yellow and green
> dots (well, they can be set to be gray), you have the menu on the top and
> drop shadows on every window. This is not done just for usability
> reasons -
> this is done for branding. Apple wants people to know when they see OS X
> in
> person or on TV that it is OS X. They want branding.
>
> Linux distros can each have their own branding - and customers can change
> it
> if they want. Neither Apple nor MS is going to give that level of
> flexibility.
>
I understand the branding issue. I was asking about what you meant by "Not
if the change was flexibility." You imply that someone could create a
differentiation between Windows and Linux by introducing some new
functionality for Linux that could not be adopted by Microsoft so as to
nullify the threat to their business if the "change was flexibility".
amicus_curious
continues to hold all the rights and privileges due to the innocent.
amicus_curious
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:8fc36847...@funkenbusch.com...
More accurately they considered him liable for the damages that were caused
and assessed a monetary fine which, I understand, has not been paid in full
as of today. Curiously, half of the damages awarded were awarded to his
children whom he retained custody of, in effect demanding that he pay
restitution to himself. No one seemed interested in that, though.
Hadron
You must remember that in his rush to defend wife murderer Hans Reiser,
Rick pontificated that Hand knew where the body was because he, err, saw
someone bury it there ......
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
amicus_curious
couple of questions to determine if you could sell me on the idea of doing
that amount of work. You are unable to do so as yet.
>>
>>
>>>> But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been
>>>> plenty of legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be surprised
>>>> if this company had any real case and would have failed to join the
>>>> parade.
>>>
>>> Of course you would be surprised.
>>>
>> And you might be vindicated, so you should have a stronger reason to air
>> out the case.
>
> I gave you the two principals. It might help you along to go do research,
> and then do some research on the references.
>
Microsoft "extinguishing a company using illegal means" whereas you have
asserted that it is true that they did. In effect, if you have no proof,
you are guilty of slander and should be motivated to defend yourself, but
you persist in your accusations while providing no proof, suggesting instead
that I find the proof for you.
>>
>>>> Incidentally there have been almost no criminal suits filed against
>>>> Microsoft, which is where the term "illegal" actually only applies,
>>>> and the only one that I know of was, I thought, frivolous and was
>>>> summarily dismissed by the judge reviewing the original filings.
>>>
>>> There are criminal violations of the law, and civil violations of the
>>> law.
>>>
>> Yes and you are "doing something illegal" if you violate a criminal law
>> and you are "liable or responsble" for damages if you violate a civil
>> code. Microsoft has never been convicted and almost never charged with
>> anything criminal.
>
> Illegal is illegal. Legal is legal.
>
> <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegal>
> 1. Prohibited by law.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal
> not according to or authorized by law
>
> You are doing something illegal if you violate civil or criminal law. The
> difference is the punishment, and the burden of proof.
>
concepts. A violation of a criminal statute gives the state the right and
duty to prosecute you and you can be swept up in their net if and when they
get around to it, but not until. A civil violation only occurs when some
injured party comes to the court and seeks compensation and other relief.
It is a totally different thing.
>>
>>
>>>> If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its competitors
>>>> and has often destroyed their businesses in the past using legal means
>>>> that offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but use words based on
>>>> their meaning, not on their color.
>>>
>>> You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman
>>> Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
>>>
>> But the Sherman violations were found to be simply technical breaches of
>> the law, not casual actions that harmed any competitor or prevented
>> competition itself in any way.
>
> They were willful violations of the law.
>
That can be disputed as well. There was no actual violation of the law,
willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms of
damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and the practices
were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the actions is subject to
the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power in the market situations where
the actions were taken. Absent the monopoly power, it would be no problem
for them to insist on multi-year contracts or payments based on total unit
shipments rather than individual license consumption, or contractually
forbidding OEMs to include the Netscape browser, or any other "violation".
No finding was made to any prior point in time when that power became
effective, only that it was present at the beginning of the trial and so
none of the actions taken in the past were deemed illegal or anything else.
It was only ordered that they cease forthwith.
>
>> They were enjoined to cease and desist
>> these practices and watchdog committees were formed at Microsoft's
>> ultimate expense to oversee future actions to ensure that no additional
>> violations occur. That was a long time ago, too.
>>
>> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal Microsoft
>> activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
>
> Why do you love Microsoft so much?
>
I don't. But I do detest the inaccurate interpretation of events by people
who seem to dislike Microsoft. You interpret my interest in accurate
evaluation as a love of Microsoft by reflection due to your own biases.
amicus_curious
amicus_curious
innocence was superseded by the verdict.
Snit
4a44eeeb$0$11545$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com on 6/26/09 8:54 AM:
The Sony camera *should* have worked with the Sony computer using the Sony
software. It did not.
> The people who depend on video editing for their subsistence are relatively
> few compared to the number of people who just use Quicken and email and some
> browser. For those people, the differences are cosmetic.
You keep saying this - I would love to see your support.
>> ...
>>>>> But even if that someone were not Microsoft itself and so formed a
>>>>> credible opposition to Windows, it would be but a brief instant before the
>>>>> next Windows smoothly incorportated the change.
>>>>>
>>>> Not if the change was flexibility. Apple and MS want branding... Linux
>>>> need not focus on that.
>>>>
>>> I do not understand what you mean by that.
>>>
>> When you walk up to a Mac, the screen looks, well, Mac-like. You have the
>> Apple in the upper left, you have the signature red and yellow and green dots
>> (well, they can be set to be gray), you have the menu on the top and drop
>> shadows on every window. This is not done just for usability reasons - this
>> is done for branding. Apple wants people to know when they see OS X in
>> person or on TV that it is OS X. They want branding.
>>
>> Linux distros can each have their own branding - and customers can change it
>> if they want. Neither Apple nor MS is going to give that level of
>> flexibility.
>>
> I understand the branding issue. I was asking about what you meant by "Not if
> the change was flexibility." You imply that someone could create a
> differentiation between Windows and Linux by introducing some new
> functionality for Linux that could not be adopted by Microsoft so as to
> nullify the threat to their business if the "change was flexibility".
Right: give Linux users - and distro managers of course - the ability to
swap out save and print dialogs, the ability to use their preferred color
selector, the ability to customize the machine - across applications - in a
way that is best for the user (benefits productivity) and not designed to
push branding (though Linux distos could do branding, of course). Some
users might work best with a very bare-bones Save dialog, for example, where
others would benefit from one where you can rename and move and delete
files. Some might benefit from a bare bones print dialog - others would
benefit from one where you can get previews and PDF services and be able to
see if ink is low and even link to a page where you can buy supplies.
Neither OS X nor Windows will offer this level of flexibility... along with
the ability to change the cosmetics as easily as you can on desktop Linux.
This can offer true differentiation which neither Apple nor MS would be able
to copy - or be willing to, at least.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
You are a liar. Pure and simple. A liar.
--
Rick
Rick
Yes, he was. And I did not defend him. I merely presented possible
different explanations for the evidence. I even stated I thought he
probably did do it. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that fact.
--
Rick
Hadron
Hadron
Oh, it was you then. I thought so.
Look, you can't even fathom out consistent UIs and cut/paste so you're
hardly suited to play Petrocelli.
Rick
Again, I am not surprised at your lack of interest.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> But we were talking about "illegal activity" and there have been
>>>>> plenty of legal actions taken in civil courts and I would be
>>>>> surprised if this company had any real case and would have failed to
>>>>> join the parade.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you would be surprised.
>>>>
>>> And you might be vindicated, so you should have a stronger reason to
>>> air out the case.
>>
>> I gave you the two principals. It might help you along to go do
>> research, and then do some research on the references.
>>
> I don't need any such help.
Yes, you do.
> I am certain that there has been no
> instance of Microsoft "extinguishing a company using illegal means"
> whereas you have asserted that it is true that they did. In effect, if
> you have no proof, you are guilty of slander and should be motivated to
> defend yourself, but you persist in your accusations while providing no
> proof, suggesting instead that I find the proof for you.
Let me know when that jury says I'm guilty. I'm innocent until then,
right?
>>>
>>>>> Incidentally there have been almost no criminal suits filed against
>>>>> Microsoft, which is where the term "illegal" actually only applies,
>>>>> and the only one that I know of was, I thought, frivolous and was
>>>>> summarily dismissed by the judge reviewing the original filings.
>>>>
>>>> There are criminal violations of the law, and civil violations of the
>>>> law.
>>>>
>>> Yes and you are "doing something illegal" if you violate a criminal
>>> law and you are "liable or responsble" for damages if you violate a
>>> civil code. Microsoft has never been convicted and almost never
>>> charged with anything criminal.
>>
>> Illegal is illegal. Legal is legal.
>>
>> <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegal> 1. Prohibited by law.
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal not according to or
>> authorized by law
>>
>> You are doing something illegal if you violate civil or criminal law.
>> The difference is the punishment, and the burden of proof.
>>
> You seem to have only a superficial and confused understanding of the
> legal concepts. A violation of a criminal statute gives the state the
> right and duty to prosecute you and you can be swept up in their net if
> and when they get around to it, but not until. A civil violation only
> occurs when some injured party comes to the court and seeks compensation
> and other relief. It is a totally different thing.
Illegal is illegal. Why is that a difficult concept for you to
understand? There is civil law and criminal law. There are illegal civil
activities and illegal criminal activities. Both are illegal activities.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> If you want to say that Microsoft is not very kind to its
>>>>> competitors and has often destroyed their businesses in the past
>>>>> using legal means that offend your personal ethics, go ahead, but
>>>>> use words based on their meaning, not on their color.
>>>>
>>>> You do understand that Microsoft was found to have violated the
>>>> Sherman Act several times, don't you? That was illegal activity.
>>>>
>>> But the Sherman violations were found to be simply technical breaches
>>> of the law, not casual actions that harmed any competitor or prevented
>>> competition itself in any way.
>>
>> They were willful violations of the law.
>>
> That can be disputed as well. There was no actual violation of the law,
No? Are you sure? OK ....
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 26 and 27, 2001
Decided June 28, 2001
No. 00–5212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
APPELLEE
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
APPELLANT
[quote]
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined
the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to
entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that
because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct
proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately
indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting
each argument, we uphold the District Court’s finding of
monopoly power in its entirety.
[/quote]
[quote]
In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces,
all the OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of
Microsoft’s market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed
by any legitimate justification. The restrictions
therefore violate § 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote]
Accordingly, we hold
that Microsoft’s exclusion of IE from the Add/Remove Programs
utility and its commingling of browser and operating
system code constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation of
§ 2.
[/quote]
[quote]
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s decision holding that
Microsoft’s exclusive contracts with IAPs are exclusionary devices, in
violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote]
Microsoft having offered no
procompetitive justification for its exclusive dealing arrangements
with the ISVs, we hold that those arrangements violate
§ 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote}
Accordingly, we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is
exclusionary, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote]
Because the cumulative effect of the deals is anticompetitive
and because Microsoft has no procompetitive justification for
them, we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements
requiring use of Microsoft’s JVM as the default are
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote]
Finally, other Microsoft documents confirm that Microsoft
intended to deceive Java developers, ... Microsoft’s conduct related to
its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the operating
system in a manner not attributable either to the superiority of the
operating system or to the acumen of its makers, and therefore
was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers no
procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive developers.
Accordingly, we conclude this conduct is exclusionary,
in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
[quote]
Microsoft does not deny the facts found by the District
Court, nor does it offer any procompetitive justification for
pressuring Intel not to support cross-platform Java. Micro-
soft lamely characterizes its threat to Intel as ‘‘advice.’’ The
District Court, however, found that Microsoft’s ‘‘advice’’ to
Intel to stop aiding cross-platform Java was backed by the
threat of retaliation, and this conclusion is supported by the
evidence cited above. Therefore we affirm the conclusion
that Microsoft’s threats to Intel were exclusionary, in violation
of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
[/quote]
How many violations of the Sherman act was that? And, again, activities
that violate the law are illegal activities.
> willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms of
> damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and the
> practices were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the actions is
> subject to the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power in the market
> situations where the actions were taken. Absent the monopoly power, it
> would be no problem for them to insist on multi-year contracts or
> payments based on total unit shipments rather than individual license
> consumption, or contractually forbidding OEMs to include the Netscape
> browser, or any other "violation". No finding was made to any prior
> point in time when that power became effective, only that it was present
> at the beginning of the trial and so none of the actions taken in the
> past were deemed illegal or anything else. It was only ordered that they
> cease forthwith.
Yes, they were only ordered to stop their illegal activities. Too bad.
The original order should have been implemented.
>>
>>> They were enjoined to cease and desist these practices and watchdog
>>> committees were formed at Microsoft's ultimate expense to oversee
>>> future actions to ensure that no additional violations occur. That
>>> was a long time ago, too.
>>>
>>> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal
>>> Microsoft activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
>>
>> Why do you love Microsoft so much?
>>
> I don't. But I do detest the inaccurate interpretation of events by
> people who seem to dislike Microsoft. You interpret my interest in
> accurate evaluation as a love of Microsoft by reflection due to your own
> biases.
I fully admit my bias against Microsoft. It has come from a great deal of
reading. I understand that the overwhelming number of people working
there are probably honest, hard working people and that many of them want
to help improve the quality of life for others. However, after
researching what the management has done over the years, I have come to
view Microsoft as an evil company.
Am I nervous about Google? IBM? Oracle? you bet.
And, as for my "inaccurate interpretation", I have gotten my
interpretation from the same reading. Things such as emails from
Microsoft manage detailing what they want done, and why.
--
Rick
Rick
Quark, you are an ass and a waste of time.
--
Rick
Hadron
So you think you do now understand consistency? I doubt it. You seem to
think that clicking the middle mouse to paste is a wonderful achievement
that gives your Linux based OS an advantage over windows. So I suspect
that criminal law might be a tad out of your area of expertise ...
Rick
You are a liar for constantly saying I defended Reiser.
I indeed did say that he could know where the body was for various
reasons. IIRC, I said he might have seen it buried. And AGAIN, it was
simply a possible alternative explanation for him possibly knowing where
the body was buried. And this was all before he admitted knowing where it
was and why.
And AGAIN, i wasn't defending him, merely offering some different
possible explanations of evidence, and AGAIN, I said i believed he
probably did kill his wife. Which you conveniently don't remember.
--
Rick
Snit
6/26/09 1:24 PM:
You repeatedly defended him... which is sad considering even you say you
thought he was guilty.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6/26/09 12:51 PM:
See how you call everyone liars.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
non-causal violations of the Sherman Act, the courts do not once use the
term "illegal". Do you suppose that they know more law than you? But
regardless of what you call it, the courts describe no situation wherein a
company was "extinguished by illegal activities' or even "extinguished by
violations of the Sherman Act". Have you come up with any yet?
>> willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms of
>> damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and the
>> practices were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the actions is
>> subject to the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power in the market
>> situations where the actions were taken. Absent the monopoly power, it
>> would be no problem for them to insist on multi-year contracts or
>> payments based on total unit shipments rather than individual license
>> consumption, or contractually forbidding OEMs to include the Netscape
>> browser, or any other "violation". No finding was made to any prior
>> point in time when that power became effective, only that it was present
>> at the beginning of the trial and so none of the actions taken in the
>> past were deemed illegal or anything else. It was only ordered that they
>> cease forthwith.
>
> Yes, they were only ordered to stop their illegal activities. Too bad.
> The original order should have been implemented.
>
It was found to be illegal by the appeals court.
>>>
>>>> They were enjoined to cease and desist these practices and watchdog
>>>> committees were formed at Microsoft's ultimate expense to oversee
>>>> future actions to ensure that no additional violations occur. That
>>>> was a long time ago, too.
>>>>
>>>> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal
>>>> Microsoft activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
>>>
>>> Why do you love Microsoft so much?
>>>
>> I don't. But I do detest the inaccurate interpretation of events by
>> people who seem to dislike Microsoft. You interpret my interest in
>> accurate evaluation as a love of Microsoft by reflection due to your own
>> biases.
>
> I fully admit my bias against Microsoft. It has come from a great deal of
> reading. I understand that the overwhelming number of people working
> there are probably honest, hard working people and that many of them want
> to help improve the quality of life for others. However, after
> researching what the management has done over the years, I have come to
> view Microsoft as an evil company.
>
And yet you cannot point to any specific actions save some undefined harm
done to some company called Go Computing which apparently lost out in a
market that doesn't even seem to exist in any major way. Microsoft
apparently didn't do anything to result in a lawsuit, so they either did
nothing actionable or else they settled the matter to the satisfaction of Go
Computing. It seems like a small matter anyway.
> Am I nervous about Google? IBM? Oracle? you bet.
>
> And, as for my "inaccurate interpretation", I have gotten my
> interpretation from the same reading. Things such as emails from
> Microsoft manage detailing what they want done, and why.
>
Why do you ignore the fact that, in the final decision, most of the things
described in the emails were not accepted by the management team for action
and as a result they were not done? All you read is one side of the story
as selectively presented by opponents of Microsoft trying to paint them as
malevolent folk. You do not bother to read the part where they are absolved
from that blame.
Rick
I have. I gave you an example.
>
>>> willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms
>>> of damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and the
>>> practices were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the actions
>>> is subject to the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power in the
>>> market situations where the actions were taken. Absent the monopoly
>>> power, it would be no problem for them to insist on multi-year
>>> contracts or payments based on total unit shipments rather than
>>> individual license consumption, or contractually forbidding OEMs to
>>> include the Netscape browser, or any other "violation". No finding was
>>> made to any prior point in time when that power became effective, only
>>> that it was present at the beginning of the trial and so none of the
>>> actions taken in the past were deemed illegal or anything else. It was
>>> only ordered that they cease forthwith.
>>
>> Yes, they were only ordered to stop their illegal activities. Too bad.
>> The original order should have been implemented.
>>
> It was found to be illegal by the appeals court.
Show me were it was found to be illegal.
>
>
>>>>> They were enjoined to cease and desist these practices and watchdog
>>>>> committees were formed at Microsoft's ultimate expense to oversee
>>>>> future actions to ensure that no additional violations occur. That
>>>>> was a long time ago, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal
>>>>> Microsoft activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you love Microsoft so much?
>>>>
>>> I don't. But I do detest the inaccurate interpretation of events by
>>> people who seem to dislike Microsoft. You interpret my interest in
>>> accurate evaluation as a love of Microsoft by reflection due to your
>>> own biases.
>>
>> I fully admit my bias against Microsoft. It has come from a great deal
>> of reading. I understand that the overwhelming number of people working
>> there are probably honest, hard working people and that many of them
>> want to help improve the quality of life for others. However, after
>> researching what the management has done over the years, I have come to
>> view Microsoft as an evil company.
>>
> And yet you cannot point to any specific actions save some undefined
> harm done to some company called Go Computing which apparently lost out
> in a market that doesn't even seem to exist in any major way. Microsoft
I see. Markets you know nothing about don't exist in an meaningful way.
Companies you know nothing about don't or didn't exist in any meaningful
way.
> apparently didn't do anything to result in a lawsuit, so they either did
> nothing actionable or else they settled the matter to the satisfaction
> of Go Computing. It seems like a small matter anyway.
Of course it does.. to you.
>
>> Am I nervous about Google? IBM? Oracle? you bet.
>>
>> And, as for my "inaccurate interpretation", I have gotten my
>> interpretation from the same reading. Things such as emails from
>> Microsoft manage detailing what they want done, and why.
>>
> Why do you ignore the fact that, in the final decision, most of the
> things described in the emails were not accepted by the management team
> for action and as a result they were not done?
It shows they were tested, and the management team full wanted to use
them. Emails even discussed what to do if caught.
> All you read is one side
> of the story as selectively presented by opponents of Microsoft trying
> to paint them as malevolent folk. You do not bother to read the part
> where they are absolved from that blame.
They weren't absolved from the blame of the AARD code. They weren't
absolved of the blame from exclusionary contracts in the second or first
antitrust actions. They were absolved from blame in the EU. And, of
course, you will just dismiss all of that.
--
Rick
amicus_curious
re-iterate the name of the company that was extinguished by means of
so-called "illegal activities".
>>
>>>> willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms
>>>> of damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and the
>>>> practices were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the actions
>>>> is subject to the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power in the
>>>> market situations where the actions were taken. Absent the monopoly
>>>> power, it would be no problem for them to insist on multi-year
>>>> contracts or payments based on total unit shipments rather than
>>>> individual license consumption, or contractually forbidding OEMs to
>>>> include the Netscape browser, or any other "violation". No finding was
>>>> made to any prior point in time when that power became effective, only
>>>> that it was present at the beginning of the trial and so none of the
>>>> actions taken in the past were deemed illegal or anything else. It was
>>>> only ordered that they cease forthwith.
>>>
>>> Yes, they were only ordered to stop their illegal activities. Too bad.
>>> The original order should have been implemented.
>>>
>> It was found to be illegal by the appeals court.
>
> Show me were it was found to be illegal.
>
Well, it was in your own cite, but was in Microsoft's favor, so you must
have ignored it:
"We also find merit in Microsoft’s challenge to the FinalJudgment embracing
the District Court’s remedial order.There are several reasons supporting
this conclusion. First,the District Court’s Final Judgment rests on a number
ofliability determinations that do not survive appellate review;therefore,
the remedial order as currently fashioned cannotstand. Furthermore, we would
vacate and remand the reme-dial order even were we to uphold the District
Court’sliability determinations in their entirety, because the DistrictCourt
failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to address reme-dies-specific factual
disputes.Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-cause the
trial judge engaged in impermissible ex partecontacts by holding secret
interviews with members of themedia and made numerous offensive comments
about Micro-soft officials in public statements outside of the
courtroom,giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we findno
evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge
seriously tainted the proceedings before the DistrictCourt and called into
question the integrity of the judicialprocess. We are therefore constrained
to vacate the FinalJudgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration
to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that thisdisposition will
be adequate to cure the cited improprieties."
>>
>>
>>>>>> They were enjoined to cease and desist these practices and watchdog
>>>>>> committees were formed at Microsoft's ultimate expense to oversee
>>>>>> future actions to ensure that no additional violations occur. That
>>>>>> was a long time ago, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your assertion that companies were "extinguished by illegal
>>>>>> Microsoft activities" has no merit based on any factual evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you love Microsoft so much?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't. But I do detest the inaccurate interpretation of events by
>>>> people who seem to dislike Microsoft. You interpret my interest in
>>>> accurate evaluation as a love of Microsoft by reflection due to your
>>>> own biases.
>>>
>>> I fully admit my bias against Microsoft. It has come from a great deal
>>> of reading. I understand that the overwhelming number of people working
>>> there are probably honest, hard working people and that many of them
>>> want to help improve the quality of life for others. However, after
>>> researching what the management has done over the years, I have come to
>>> view Microsoft as an evil company.
>>>
>> And yet you cannot point to any specific actions save some undefined
>> harm done to some company called Go Computing which apparently lost out
>> in a market that doesn't even seem to exist in any major way. Microsoft
>
> I see. Markets you know nothing about don't exist in an meaningful way.
> Companies you know nothing about don't or didn't exist in any meaningful
> way.
>
Well, I see nothing to show that it has any significant use or potential
today and apparently you do not see anything either, else you would be able
to enumerate examples. You are, of course, dodging your failure to be able
to provide any evidence that Go Computing was "extinguished by illegal
activities" on the part of Microsoft, which was the claim that you made.
Why not just admit that you have no basis for this statement and that it was
just an emotional response to soothe your bias?
>
>> apparently didn't do anything to result in a lawsuit, so they either did
>> nothing actionable or else they settled the matter to the satisfaction
>> of Go Computing. It seems like a small matter anyway.
>
> Of course it does.. to you.
>
It cannot be seen to be evidence of any systemic characteristic of Microsoft
in the absence of any other instances of similar behavior, so it does not
support your statement.
>>
>>> Am I nervous about Google? IBM? Oracle? you bet.
>>>
>>> And, as for my "inaccurate interpretation", I have gotten my
>>> interpretation from the same reading. Things such as emails from
>>> Microsoft manage detailing what they want done, and why.
>>>
>> Why do you ignore the fact that, in the final decision, most of the
>> things described in the emails were not accepted by the management team
>> for action and as a result they were not done?
>
> It shows they were tested, and the management team full wanted to use
> them. Emails even discussed what to do if caught.
>
That does not follow, one from the other. The management decisions were to
not do anything illegal, so there is no cause for you to suggest that they
would do so willfully as you impute.
One is reminded of the refrain "The devil deals in dying and he travels in a
hearse, he treats you like a dog now and he'd like to treat you worse."
>> All you read is one side
>> of the story as selectively presented by opponents of Microsoft trying
>> to paint them as malevolent folk. You do not bother to read the part
>> where they are absolved from that blame.
>
> They weren't absolved from the blame of the AARD code. They weren't
> absolved of the blame from exclusionary contracts in the second or first
> antitrust actions. They were absolved from blame in the EU. And, of
> course, you will just dismiss all of that.
>
There was no "blame" in the AARD code, for starters. No such thing was ever
released. Second, the only charge of exclusionary contract violations in
the trial was dismissed by Judge Jackson in the original decision. Third,
with the assumption that you forgot the word "not" in your claim the EU
fined Microsoft for a number of actions and the fine has been paid although
some things are still under appeal. The blame has been for including WMP
and IE with Windows which doesn't seem like such a crime.
Rick
Look harder.
>
>
>>>>> willful or not, and the practice was found to be non-causal in terms
>>>>> of damage to anyone, which is why there were no fines levied, and
>>>>> the practices were simply enjoined to cease. The legality of the
>>>>> actions is subject to the finding that Microsoft had monopoly power
>>>>> in the market situations where the actions were taken. Absent the
>>>>> monopoly power, it would be no problem for them to insist on
>>>>> multi-year contracts or payments based on total unit shipments
>>>>> rather than individual license consumption, or contractually
>>>>> forbidding OEMs to include the Netscape browser, or any other
>>>>> "violation". No finding was made to any prior point in time when
>>>>> that power became effective, only that it was present at the
>>>>> beginning of the trial and so none of the actions taken in the past
>>>>> were deemed illegal or anything else. It was only ordered that they
>>>>> cease forthwith.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they were only ordered to stop their illegal activities. Too
>>>> bad. The original order should have been implemented.
>>>>
>>> It was found to be illegal by the appeals court.
>>
>> Show me were it was found to be illegal.
>>
> Well, it was in your own cite, but was in Microsoft's favor, so you must
> have ignored it:
>
> "We also find merit in Microsoft’s challenge to the FinalJudgment
> embracing the District Court’s remedial order.There are several reasons
> supporting this conclusion. First,the District Court’s Final Judgment
> rests on a number of liability determinations that do not survive
> appellate review;therefore, the remedial order as currently fashioned
> cannot stand.
.. nothing illegal.
> Furthermore, we would vacate and remand the remedial order
> even were we to uphold the District Court’s liability determinations in
> their entirety, because the District Court failed to hold an evidentiary
> hearing to address remedies-specific factual disputes.
.. nothing illegal.
> Finally, we
> vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-cause the trial judge engaged
> in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with
> members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about
> Micro-soft officials in public statements outside of the
> courtroom,giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we findno
> evidence of actual bias,
... we find no evidence of actual bias,
> we hold that the actions of the trial judge
> seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called
> into question the integrity of the judicial process.
. call into question ... not illegal...
> We are therefore
> constrained to vacate the FinalJudgment on remedies, remand the case for
> reconsideration to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that
> this disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties."
It seems to me their belief was not born out.
And if the original judge did something illegal, was was he not charged?
Pen input has no significant use or potential today? No, of course not...
YOU don't use it.
> and apparently you do not see anything either, else you would be
> able to enumerate examples. You are, of course, dodging your failure to
> be able to provide any evidence that Go Computing was "extinguished by
> illegal activities" on the part of Microsoft, which was the claim that
> you made. Why not just admit that you have no basis for this statement
> and that it was just an emotional response to soothe your bias?
Why not just admit you won't do the research because it might show you
don't want to see how Microsoft "does business".
>
>
>>> apparently didn't do anything to result in a lawsuit, so they either
>>> did nothing actionable or else they settled the matter to the
>>> satisfaction of Go Computing. It seems like a small matter anyway.
>>
>> Of course it does.. to you.
>>
> It cannot be seen to be evidence of any systemic characteristic of
> Microsoft in the absence of any other instances of similar behavior, so
> it does not support your statement.
>>>
>>>> Am I nervous about Google? IBM? Oracle? you bet.
>>>>
>>>> And, as for my "inaccurate interpretation", I have gotten my
>>>> interpretation from the same reading. Things such as emails from
>>>> Microsoft manage detailing what they want done, and why.
>>>>
>>> Why do you ignore the fact that, in the final decision, most of the
>>> things described in the emails were not accepted by the management
>>> team for action and as a result they were not done?
>>
>> It shows they were tested, and the management team full wanted to use
>> them. Emails even discussed what to do if caught.
>>
> That does not follow, one from the other.
It does.
> The management decisions were
> to not do anything illegal, so there is no cause for you to suggest that
> they would do so willfully as you impute.
>
> One is reminded of the refrain "The devil deals in dying and he travels
> in a hearse, he treats you like a dog now and he'd like to treat you
> worse."
>
>>> All you read is one side
>>> of the story as selectively presented by opponents of Microsoft trying
>>> to paint them as malevolent folk. You do not bother to read the part
>>> where they are absolved from that blame.
>>
>> They weren't absolved from the blame of the AARD code. They weren't
>> absolved of the blame from exclusionary contracts in the second or
>> first antitrust actions. They were absolved from blame in the EU. And,
>> of course, you will just dismiss all of that.
>>
> There was no "blame" in the AARD code, for starters. No such thing was
> ever released.
It was released in bets>, and was present in the shipping code, but
turned off.
> Second, the only charge of exclusionary contract
> violations in the trial was dismissed by Judge Jackson in the original
> decision.
I count at least 5 in the above reference.
> Third, with the assumption that you forgot the word "not" in
> your claim the EU fined Microsoft for a number of actions and the fine
> has been paid although some things are still under appeal. The blame
> has been for including WMP and IE with Windows which doesn't seem like
> such a crime.
It doesn't seem like such a crime TO YOU. You are not the world. And the
crime is not just including the software, but also trying to exclude
competing software from equal consideration.
--
Rick
Snit
6/27/09 4:15 AM:
>>> I fully admit my bias against Microsoft. It has come from a great deal
>>> of reading. I understand that the overwhelming number of people working
>>> there are probably honest, hard working people and that many of them
>>> want to help improve the quality of life for others. However, after
>>> researching what the management has done over the years, I have come to
>>> view Microsoft as an evil company.
>>>
>> And yet you cannot point to any specific actions save some undefined
>> harm done to some company called Go Computing which apparently lost out
>> in a market that doesn't even seem to exist in any major way. Microsoft
>
> I see. Markets you know nothing about don't exist in an meaningful way.
> Companies you know nothing about don't or didn't exist in any meaningful
> way.
He is asking you to support your claims.
And you won't.
You can't.
You are Rick.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
there were none. This just proves to the world that you are just
complaining over imagined circumstances and so you continue to look silly.
There definitely were illegalities here. The Jackson judgement has
dependencies that are not allowed by the appeals court so it is illegal by
definition.
>
>> Furthermore, we would vacate and remand the remedial order
>> even were we to uphold the District Court’s liability determinations in
>> their entirety, because the District Court failed to hold an evidentiary
>> hearing to address remedies-specific factual disputes.
>
> .. nothing illegal.
Certainly it is. It would be against the law to break up Microsoft without
holding an evidentiary hearing which is what Jackson was plainly trying to
do when he was caught in the act by the circuit court. Do you say that was
a legal act?
>
>> Finally, we
>> vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-cause the trial judge engaged
>> in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with
>> members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about
>> Micro-soft officials in public statements outside of the
>> courtroom,giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we findno
>> evidence of actual bias,
>
> ... we find no evidence of actual bias,
>
What part of "impermissible ex parte contacts" didn't you understand?
Jackson violated the ethics requirements of his job. He was removed from
the case because of it.
>> we hold that the actions of the trial judge
>> seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called
>> into question the integrity of the judicial process.
>
> . call into question ... not illegal...
>
>
>> We are therefore
>> constrained to vacate the FinalJudgment on remedies, remand the case for
>> reconsideration to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that
>> this disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties."
>
> It seems to me their belief was not born out.
>
How so? Do you think that all of the charges should have been dropped?
> And if the original judge did something illegal, was was he not charged?
>
Do you think that having all of your judgements overturned or remanded to
another judge for proper adjudication is not a severe punishment? Jackson
was punished as much as any judge can be punished for such behavior.
Do you? Where? Why?
>> and apparently you do not see anything either, else you would be
>> able to enumerate examples. You are, of course, dodging your failure to
>> be able to provide any evidence that Go Computing was "extinguished by
>> illegal activities" on the part of Microsoft, which was the claim that
>> you made. Why not just admit that you have no basis for this statement
>> and that it was just an emotional response to soothe your bias?
>
> Why not just admit you won't do the research because it might show you
> don't want to see how Microsoft "does business".
>
Your alligator mouth got your elephant ass into trouble, so it is up to you
to either recant or explain how your assertions are true, i.e. put up or
shut up. Maybe you can get 7 or chrisv or the magpie to help you.
Only by offering the customer a better deal. That is anticompetitive when
the offeror has the kind of market lead held by Microsoft, but there is
still nothing wrong with it, I think. What we have here is a sort of boost
being given to the weak sisters who cannot otherwise get any business. The
leader has to be held back from making a good deal for the consumer so that
other companies can compete with their lousy deals. I would think about
getting rid of that government agency myself.
Rick
... in your opinion.
Why wasn't he charged?
>>
>>> Furthermore, we would vacate and remand the remedial order even were
>>> we to uphold the District Court’s liability determinations in their
>>> entirety, because the District Court failed to hold an evidentiary
>>> hearing to address remedies-specific factual disputes.
>>
>> .. nothing illegal.
>
> Certainly it is. It would be against the law to break up Microsoft
> without holding an evidentiary hearing which is what Jackson was plainly
> trying to do when he was caught in the act by the circuit court. Do you
> say that was a legal act?
Why wasn't he charged?
>
>
>>> Finally, we
>>> vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-cause the trial judge
>>> engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret
>>> interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive
>>> comments about Micro-soft officials in public statements outside of
>>> the courtroom,giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we
>>> findno evidence of actual bias,
>>
>> ... we find no evidence of actual bias,
>>
> What part of "impermissible ex parte contacts" didn't you understand?
> Jackson violated the ethics requirements of his job. He was removed
> from the case because of it.
... we find no evidence of actual bias...
Nothing causal...
>
>>> we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the
>>> proceedings before the District Court and called into question the
>>> integrity of the judicial process.
>>
>> . call into question ... not illegal...
>>
>>
>>> We are therefore
>>> constrained to vacate the FinalJudgment on remedies, remand the case
>>> for reconsideration to a different trial judge on remand. We believe
>>> that this disposition will be adequate to cure the cited
>>> improprieties."
>>
>> It seems to me their belief was not born out.
>>
> How so? Do you think that all of the charges should have been dropped?
No, I think Microsoft should have been broken up... after the first
action, and certainly after this one.
>
>> And if the original judge did something illegal, was was he not
>> charged?
>>
> Do you think that having all of your judgements overturned or remanded
> to another judge for proper adjudication is not a severe punishment?
It wasn't a punishment at all, his findings of fact, and IIRC, findings
of law stood.
> Jackson was punished as much as any judge can be punished for such
> behavior.
he wasn't charged. He wasn't suspended.
Every day.
> Where?
Here
> Why?
it is an easy form of input.
>> It was released in betas, and was present in the shipping code, but
>> turned off.
>>
>>> Second, the only charge of exclusionary contract
>>> violations in the trial was dismissed by Judge Jackson in the original
>>> decision.
>>
>> I count at least 5 in the above reference.
>>
>>> Third, with the assumption that you forgot the word "not" in your
>>> claim the EU fined Microsoft for a number of actions and the fine has
>>> been paid although some things are still under appeal. The blame has
>>> been for including WMP and IE with Windows which doesn't seem like
>>> such a crime.
>>
>> It doesn't seem like such a crime TO YOU. You are not the world. And
>> the crime is not just including the software, but also trying to
>> exclude competing software from equal consideration.
>>
> Only by offering the customer a better deal. That is anticompetitive
> when the offeror has the kind of market lead held by Microsoft, but
> there is still nothing wrong with it, I think.
The US District and US Appeals Courts disagree with you.
> What we have here is a
> sort of boost being given to the weak sisters who cannot otherwise get
> any business. The leader has to be held back from making a good deal
> for the consumer so that other companies can compete with their lousy
> deals. I would think about getting rid of that government agency
> myself.
A company with monopoly power is not necessarily a bad thing, unless they
restrict entry into the market, or stifle innovation. Microsoft has done
both. And more. It is obvious you will not even have an open enough mind
to look around... have fun ...
--
Rick
Rex Ballard
> Rex Ballard stated in post
> 820b7f89-8eff-4136-911c-edf784875...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com on 6/25/09
> 7:59 PM:
> > On Jun 25, 3:43 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
> >> 6/25/09 12:27 PM:
> >>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:32 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
> >>>> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a serious
> >>>> problem on your hands.
>
> >>> Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>
> >> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
OK, I'll bottom line it for you.
To out-compete "free", you spend 30 years using the same tactics drug
users use to get customers addicted to your products, with no
substitutes available because you "kill off" all the competitors. In
Microsoft's case, they simply drove competitors and uncooperative
partners into bankruptcy.
You use fraud, extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of
justice, but hire a really good team of lawyers to help you stay as
close to the fringes of the law as possible. When you get caught, and
you see that the judge or jury is likely to rule against you, you have
your team of lawyers draw up deceptive settlements which are linked to
sealed court records and blanket immunity for all executives involved,
and pay the plaintiff's lawyers in cash, and pay the plaintiffs with
coupons that help protect and extend your monopoly power.
> So you have no proof?
Microsoft has crossed the line into criminal acts several times, and
gotten caught. They pay settlements - to the tune of about $2
billion/year. But they may $80 billion/year in revenue and $16
billion/year in profits. For Microsoft crime does pay.
Many corporate executives have subscribed to "The Bill Gates School of
Business", using similar tactics in home mortgages, investments,
mortgage backed securities. Companies like Enron and WorldCom, tried
these tactics and got caught by a regulator wasn't so easily
blackmailed (Harvey Pitt). Notice that Bush replaced him. Other hard-
cases like Elliott Spitzer not only had to be blackmailed, but the
blackmailers had to publish their little "bombs", through anonymous
leaks of supposedly classified Top Secret homeland security wire-taps.
When Bush offered the velvet glove settlement to Microsoft, I said,
"If Microsoft is above the law, then there is now law". That was in
2001. 8 years later, we are seeing that indeed, the lawless had
learned to make criminal acts profitable. We saw Bernie Madoff
confess to a crime most people never suspected. We saw mortgage fraud
on a massive scale, and we saw "junk" grade mortgage backed securities
getting "AAA" ratings from the various credit agencies. When the
"house of cards" collapsed, it almost threw the country into another
"Great Depression" or worse, with millions of people losing good jobs
they had held for decades.
In the 1930s, criminals like John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Al
Capone, and Bonnie and Clyde became folk heroes, capturing the hearts
and imaginations of people who had become the victims of the greed and
corruption of Wall Street, Banks, and lack of proper oversight and
risk management.
We may see a new breed of criminal capturing the hearts and minds of
modern victims. The cyber-criminal, the uber-hacker, could become the
next folk heroes. Just this morning, on CNBC, I saw Kevin Mitnick
proudly being touted as the "Third greatest hacker of all time".
Which makes me wonder who the othetr two were.
So how you compete against free, or even very cheap, is to use fraud,
extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice, staying
right at the fringes of the law, so that you can make the crimes
profitable.
Snit
7:57 AM:
> On Jun 25, 11:14�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>> 820b7f89-8eff-4136-911c-edf784875...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com on 6/25/09
>> 7:59 PM:
>>> On Jun 25, 3:43�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
>>>> 6/25/09 12:27 PM:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:32 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
>>>>>> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a serious
>>>>>> problem on your hands.
>>
>>>>> Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>>
>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>
> OK, I'll bottom line it for you.
>
> To out-compete "free", you spend 30 years using the same tactics drug
> users use to get customers addicted to your products, with no
> substitutes available because you "kill off" all the competitors. In
> Microsoft's case, they simply drove competitors and uncooperative
> partners into bankruptcy.
How do you drive "free" into bankruptcy? Is Linux really heading that way?
> You use fraud, extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of
> justice, but hire a really good team of lawyers to help you stay as
> close to the fringes of the law as possible. When you get caught, and
> you see that the judge or jury is likely to rule against you, you have
> your team of lawyers draw up deceptive settlements which are linked to
> sealed court records and blanket immunity for all executives involved,
> and pay the plaintiff's lawyers in cash, and pay the plaintiffs with
> coupons that help protect and extend your monopoly power.
Can you give an example of how this has marginalized desktop Linux?
>> So you have no proof?
...
> So how you compete against free, or even very cheap, is to use fraud,
> extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice, staying
> right at the fringes of the law, so that you can make the crimes
> profitable.
Give an example of how MS is doing this against desktop Linux. Please.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hans Lister
> Rex Ballard stated in post
> be915a1c-1ad5-423c...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com on 6/30/09
> 7:57 AM:
>
>> On Jun 25, 11:14�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Rex Ballard stated in post
>>> 820b7f89-8eff-4136-911c-edf784875...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com on 6/25/09
>>> 7:59 PM:
>>>> On Jun 25, 3:43�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
>>>>> 6/25/09 12:27 PM:
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:32 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
>>>>>>> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a serious
>>>>>>> problem on your hands.
>>>
>>>>>> Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>>>
>>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>>
>> OK, I'll bottom line it for you.
>>
>> To out-compete "free", you spend 30 years using the same tactics drug
>> users use to get customers addicted to your products, with no
>> substitutes available because you "kill off" all the competitors. In
>> Microsoft's case, they simply drove competitors and uncooperative
>> partners into bankruptcy.
>
> How do you drive "free" into bankruptcy? Is Linux really heading that way?
Something has to be pretty darn bad if it can't be given away
for free.
That something is Linux.
>> You use fraud, extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of
>> justice, but hire a really good team of lawyers to help you stay as
>> close to the fringes of the law as possible. When you get caught, and
>> you see that the judge or jury is likely to rule against you, you have
>> your team of lawyers draw up deceptive settlements which are linked to
>> sealed court records and blanket immunity for all executives involved,
>> and pay the plaintiff's lawyers in cash, and pay the plaintiffs with
>> coupons that help protect and extend your monopoly power.
>
> Can you give an example of how this has marginalized desktop Linux?
>
>>> So you have no proof?
>
> ...
>> So how you compete against free, or even very cheap, is to use fraud,
>> extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice, staying
>> right at the fringes of the law, so that you can make the crimes
>> profitable.
>
> Give an example of how MS is doing this against desktop Linux. Please.
I think it's pretty fair to say that Microsoft blankets the
corporate world with people who claim Linux sucks etc and the
movers and shakers who make the buying decisions listen to them.
It's not any different than GM or Ford negotiating a contract
with say Hertz or Avis.
You just don;t hear much about them.
As for dirty tricks, where does Rex think Microsoft learned
them?
Hint: IBM wrote the book and still continues screwing clients
and competitors to this very day. Not to mention how they abuse
their workers.
Snit
6/30/09 8:17 AM:
...
>>>>>>> Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>>>>
>>>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bottom line it for you.
>>>
>>> To out-compete "free", you spend 30 years using the same tactics drug
>>> users use to get customers addicted to your products, with no
>>> substitutes available because you "kill off" all the competitors. In
>>> Microsoft's case, they simply drove competitors and uncooperative
>>> partners into bankruptcy.
>>
>> How do you drive "free" into bankruptcy? Is Linux really heading that way?
>
> Something has to be pretty darn bad if it can't be given away
> for free.
> That something is Linux.
For most desktop users it clearly is not ready... which is not to say it is
without value for those of us who do use it.
A monopoly cannot outcompete free... almost by definition.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
Nope. Companies pay $1000 per seat for Linux.
Try another lie.
[deletia]
--
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
Snit
AM:
In general, desktop Linux is not used... even being free.
But you are right to note that when companies do use it, they end up paying
for support and other services.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>>>>
>>>> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
Stupid, trolling, piece of sh^Hnit.
Do you *really* think the added cost of OEM-installed Windows is a
concern to the typical user?
Do you *really* think they are even aware of a free and viable
alternative?
Do you *really* not know that people have a fear of the unknown, of
being apart from the herd?
Do you *really* not know that Micro$oft employs tactics that makes
leaving them as difficult as they can possibly make it?
Do you *really* think that dumping Windows is such a trivial decision
that saving a few dollars will make it?
Good gravy, you don't mind making a fscking jackass of yourself, do
you?
Ezekiel
How did your random bullshit generator decide on $1000/seat and not
$0.01/seat of $5,000,000 per seat?
> Try another lie.
Try another random number.
chrisv
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you drive "free" into bankruptcy?
Stupid, trolling, piece of sh^Hnit.
Free software cannot be, obviously, even if some companies that employ
free software may fail.
>>> Is Linux really heading that way?
Nope. Never. Much to the chagrin of the monopolists in Redmond,
their immoral tactics can never kill Linux. FOSS is not subject to
the rules that allowed the monopolists to kill so many of their
commercial competitors.
>> Something has to be pretty darn bad if it can't be given away
>> for free.
>> That something is Linux.
Mental illness in full display, as the flatshit repeats his favorite
fallacy for the umpteenth time.
> Nope. Companies pay $1000 per seat for Linux.
>
> Try another lie.
That's about all it knows how to do, it seems.
JEDIDIAH
Those are based on actual Red Hat prices.
>
>
>> Try another lie.
>
> Try another random number.
Here's another "random" number.
Companies use Linux to run $40K per CPU software.
Ezekiel
According to Rick this isn't possible because Redhat != Linux. So companies
pay $1000/seat for Redhat support. They don't pay $1000/seat for Linux.
And what... if a company wants to use Linux on the desktop they must get it
from Redhat and they must pay $1k/seat for support? There's no other
options available to them.
Snit
...
>>> How did your random bullshit generator decide on $1000/seat and not
>>> $0.01/seat of $5,000,000 per seat?
>>
>> Those are based on actual Red Hat prices.
>
>
> According to Rick this isn't possible because Redhat != Linux. So companies
> pay $1000/seat for Redhat support. They don't pay $1000/seat for Linux.
Almost feel sorry for Rick having backed himself into a corner so badly.
Almost.
:)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Zeke's bullshit is anything but random.
Funny:
--
No violence, gentlemen -- no violence, I beg of you! Consider the furniture!
-- Sherlock Holmes
JEDIDIAH
Yes. The characteristics of Linux itself don't enter into it. </sarcasm>
>
> And what... if a company wants to use Linux on the desktop they must get it
> from Redhat and they must pay $1k/seat for support? There's no other
> options available to them.
There are plenty of options available to them.
Although I was only addressing the very generic bit of FUD expressed.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Try another lie.
>>>
>>> Try another random number.
>>
>> Here's another "random" number.
>>
>> Companies use Linux to run $40K per CPU software.
>>
>>
>
--
MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \
Rex Ballard
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 3:43 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Rick stated in post 97SdnVjyhNwuUt7XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@supernews.com on
> >> 6/25/09 12:27 PM:
> >> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:47:32 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:42:52 -0500, Rick wrote:
> >> >> When you can't give away something that is free, you have a serious
> >> >> problem on your hands.
>
> >> > Your major problem is your lack of honesty.
>
> >> How does a monopoly out-compete *free*?
> > Microsoft found a way 30 years ago. In 1978, Gates told MITS
> > corporation that if they did not pay him $150,000, about $50 for every
> > computer they planned to sell, that Micro-soft (aka Microsoft) would
> > write BASIC for their biggest competitor, the SWTP 6900 based
> > computer.
> (SNIP - usual lies that have no proof)
> Since your entire argument is based on what Bill Gates told MIPS where's the
> proof? Were you there - NO. So how do you know what he said?
> Run away now liar.
Microsoft executive bragged about it. This included Paul Allen, Bill
Gates, and later, Steve Ballmer.
They also explained that they had been using "per processor"
licensing.
Les Solomon, of Popular Electronics fame was the president of MITS
(not MIPS), and also told the story.
The scene was also shown in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" a
biograpphy of Steve Jobs, Steve Wazniak, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and
Steve Ballmer from their earliest days in the technology industry. It
includes the "whistler" which Steve Jobs and Steve Wazniak sold as a
way to cheat the phone company, until they were pulled over by the
police who didn't realize what the electronics devices were and let
them go. Woz was afraid that the FBI would bust in soon if they
didn't find a more "honest" product. Woz built the Apple as an
alternative to the "whistler".
There was also a pretty detailed description in one of Microsoft's
early books on Windows NT that was published right after NT came out,
as a way to promote NT.
Brill's Content published an issue featuring Bill Gate's mug shot at
about the time that the DOJ vs Microsoft case just opened up. Brill's
content was able to confirm that Bill had been arrested, and that his
father flew out to Albuquerque NM before Bill Gates was arraigned, and
was able to negotiate a settlement which effectively purged the
records, leaving no record of the actual charges or the actual
arrest. This was very shortly after Gates had made the demand of
MITS.
In the movie, there is a scene where Bill Gates and someone else goes
"drag racing" in a pair of steam rollers, and crushes Paul Allen's
car. This might have been the reason for the arrest.
Homer
> On Jun 26, 7:37 am, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>> Since your entire argument is based on what Bill Gates told MIPS
>> where's the proof?
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/compsoft/
Citations:
"Hard Drive - Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire", by
James Wallace and Jim Erickson, 1992 (page 114)
http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Drive-Making-Microsoft-Empire/dp/0887306292
"Gates", by Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews, 1994 (page 109)
http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Stephen-Manes/dp/0385420757
> Microsoft executive bragged about it. This included Paul Allen, Bill
> Gates, and later, Steve Ballmer. They also explained that they had
> been using "per processor" licensing. Les Solomon, of Popular
> Electronics fame was the president of MITS (not MIPS), and also told
> the story.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
00:32:57 up 35 days, 4:31, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.09, 0.22