Bill Gates Knowingly Breaks the Law?
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
This was never posted in COLA, but someone has just found it...
- ---------------------------
- ---original message---
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 10:34 AM
To: Paul Maritz; Brad Sliverberg
Cc: Nathan Myhrvold; Aaron Conforer; Jim Allchin (Exchange); John Ludwig;
Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan;~ Steven Sinofsky
Subject HTML. Opervieec
There has recently been an exchange on email with people in the Office group
about Office and HTML.
In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work equally
well with all browsers and that we shouldn’t force Office users to use our
browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.
Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral
extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.
[...]
- ---------------------------
Bill Gates... what a 'nice' guy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklWKj0ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4fKACfZ98uzrbU52DQNT1GniMo7wy1
DgUAn18sTrb4TaP6Q3fKlH9PKtw2Y/HY
=IRiz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ezekiel
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:2111823.o...@schestowitz.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This was never posted in COLA, but someone has just found it...
>
> - ---------------------------
>
> - ---original message---
> From: Bill Gates
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 10:34 AM
> To: Paul Maritz; Brad Sliverberg
> Cc: Nathan Myhrvold; Aaron Conforer; Jim Allchin (Exchange); John Ludwig;
> Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan;~ Steven Sinofsky
> Subject HTML. Opervieec
>
> There has recently been an exchange on email with people in the Office
> group
> about Office and HTML.
>
> In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
> equally
> well with all browsers and that we shouldn't force Office users to use
> our
> browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.
>
> Another suggestion In this mail was that we can't make our own unilateral
> extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this
> also.
>
I'm sure you can cite the exact law that was broken. Surely there was a law
in Jan-1997 that specifically mandates what software needs to work with
which browsers.
Run along idiot. Once again you prove that you have no clue.
7
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This was never posted in COLA, but someone has just found it...
>
> - ---------------------------
>
> - ---original message---
> From: Bill Gates
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 10:34 AM
> To: Paul Maritz; Brad Sliverberg
> Cc: Nathan Myhrvold; Aaron Conforer; Jim Allchin (Exchange); John Ludwig;
> Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan;~ Steven Sinofsky
> Subject HTML. Opervieec
>
> There has recently been an exchange on email with people in the Office
> group about Office and HTML.
>
> In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
> equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn?t force Office users to
> use our browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.
>
> Another suggestion In this mail was that we can?t make our own unilateral
> extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this
> also.
>
> [...]
>
> - ---------------------------
>
> Bill Gates... what a 'nice' guy.
This would have broken anti-trust laws and a lot of browsers too.
Its the failure yet again of regulators to separate OS maker from
application maker - i.e. split micoshaft.
Classic example of deep corruption within governments and regulatory
cicles and its always the consumer that suffers.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
> I'm sure you can cite the exact law that was broken. Surely there was a
> law in Jan-1997 that specifically mandates what software needs to work
> with which browsers.
>
> Run along idiot. Once again you prove that you have no clue.
You little asstroturfing pervert!
Monkey see, monkey do!
Without Roy you wouldn't be able get your rocks off can you
you dreadful little dead duck fscker?
No one believes in your lies. Especially the IT crowd.
The IT Crowd Universally Rejects Micoshaft and Embraces Linux
-------------------------------------------------------------
Talking to the IT crowd, its apparent now that they are
aware of micosahf FUD, munchkins, asstroturfers and what
they do in terms of lying, FUDing, asstroturfing and twisting
opinion when the alternative views are more relevant.
For example, free software means free as in freedom not price.
You can release your product both with a freedom license
and charge for support. One guy finally got it today and
he can see that he had been conned by micoshaft.
More specifically, he knows he has been conned AGAIN
by the micoshaft munchkins, FUDDIES and asstroturfers.
Needless to day, Linux is taking a front seat for most
new projects. IT crowd universally rejects micoshaft.
The word I hear is that they all want multi-CPU machines
and virtualisation. They also want virtualisation to
to speed up stuff that is just too slow under the windummy OSen.
2009 could be a hard year for fuddies, munchkins, asstroturfers.
micoshaft sponsored TCO studies, and gatner crappy reports.
They are fscktards and every IT admin knows about them.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ 7 on Saturday 27 December 2008 14:01 : \____
Bear in mind that my resentment is fueled by knowledge that I have and other
people don't bother with. Microsoft is a PR machine; you /must/ look
underneath.
Of relevance to many companies (someone in IRC brought them up along with the
PDF from the courts):
"I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait
until we have a way to so a high level of integration that will be harder for
the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real
advantage."
--Bill Gates
"We should design some of our extensions explicitly so that IBM can't run them
under OS/2. We need to put real thinking into this."
--Bill Gates
Here is some real code from MS-DOS (shown in Comes vs MS):
/********************************************************
*DisplayAlienDosMessage
*
*Purpose:
* Displays a warning message if the user is running
* a non MS or IBM PC DOS machine (Le. pirated DOS). C.)
* Returns:
* none
********************************************************
int near DisplayA1ienDosMessage(void)
{
print(9,TAE,”WARNING: Microsoft QuickPascal has been tested for use”);
print(lO,TAB,‘only with the MS-DOS and PC-DOS operating systems.”);
print(12,TAB,’Your use of this product with another operating system");
print(13,TAB,’may void valuable warranty protection provided by”);
print(14,TAB,”Mlcrosoft on QuickPascal.’);
print(16,TAB,”...Press any key to continue’);
getch();
return(1);
}
/***
*main - setup's main
*Purpose:
* main code for setup. Initialize stuff and do the setup.
*
*Entry:
* argC, argV as in ‘the bible” (K&R)
*Exit:
* void, note that setup exits from “terminate" not main.
*******************************************************************
/ void NEAR main ( argC, argV )
int argC;
unsigned char *argV [];
{
extern ME1~4U contMaiu;
extern unsigned char sDrive; // set if sourcedir non-
default
int retVal;
unreferenced (argC);
InitVideo();
.
if (!Verify_DOS ();
DisplayAlienDosMessage ();
if (argV[O](1)==’:’) // don’t assume
drive A:
sDrive = (unsigned char) toupper(*argv[O]);
JnitDefOptions ();
if(GrabMemory())
{
retVal = DoThatStateThing ();
ReleaseMemory Q;
}
else
(
ppszErrLns= ppszErrTable [ OUTOFMEM ];
AlertState ( &contMenu, 1.2, dispGenErr);
retVal = rv_JtJSTEXIT;
}
terminate (retVal); // exits setup}
}
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Apache: commercial software's days are numbered
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
15:20:01 up 72 days, 23:38, 2 users, load average: 0.75, 0.82, 0.83
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklWSEgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4d/gCfU47zJSvXhLK3VnLF713X8141
dIMAmwSqgQbs7XurgoEnmw2+r4P2v3W7
=Jky2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Homer
> Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel wrote on
> behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
>>> ---original message---
>>> From: Bill Gates
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 10:34 AM
>>> To: Paul Maritz; Brad Sliverberg
>>> Cc: Nathan Myhrvold; Aaron Conforer; Jim Allchin (Exchange); John
>>> Ludwig;
>>> Richard Fade; Jon DeVaan;~ Steven Sinofsky
>>> Subject HTML. Opervieec
>>>
>>> There has recently been an exchange on email with people in the
>>> Office group about Office and HTML.
>>>
>>> In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to
>>> work equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn’t force
>>> Office users to use our browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to
>>> correct this.
>>>
>>> Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own
>>> unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong
>>> and correct this also.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>
>> I'm sure you can cite the exact law that was broken. Surely there
>> was a law in Jan-1997 that specifically mandates what software
>> needs to work with which browsers.
The pertinent law which applies here was actually introduced over a
hundred years earlier:
[quote]
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act[1], July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26
Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1–7) was the first United States Federal statute
to limit cartels and monopolies. It falls under antitrust law.
The Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".[2]
The Act also provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Microsoft has been prosecuted under the Sherman Act:
[quote]
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILES ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT FOR UNLAWFULLY
MONOPOLIZING COMPUTER SOFTWARE MARKETS
Action Would Give Consumers More Choices 20 State Attorneys General and
the District of Columbia File Similar Lawsuit
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Justice Department today charged Microsoft with
engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary practices designed to
maintain its monopoly in personal computer operating systems and to
extend that monopoly to internet browsing software. Twenty state
Attorneys General and the District of Columbia filed a similar action
today.
[/quote]
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm
Here's the interrogation videos:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=GatesDepo
Six years later, they have still failed to uphold the terms of the 2002
settlement agreement:
[quote]
As surely as night follows day, so Microsoft is regularly upbraided for
not complying with the US government's landmark 2002 settlement for
breach of antitrust laws.
Now, six years into a seven-year settlement monitoring process,
presiding settlement judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has told Microsoft's
she doesn't think it's going far or fast enough in meeting the terms of
the deal.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly has reportedly said the oversight of Microsoft - as
per the 2002 settlement - would not end in November 12, 2010 unless the
company publishes all the documents needed by competitors to write
applications to Windows.
[/quote]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/25/mcirosoft_antitrust/
Then there's European law, specifically the Treaty on European Union
(1993), which makes this kind of activity illegal under Article 82:
[quote]
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the
common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as
incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade
between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or
other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
prejudice of consumers;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other
trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the
other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or
according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of
such contracts.
[/quote]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12002E082:EN:HTML
Microsoft have also been prosecuted under Article 82 of the EU Treaty:
[quote]
The European Union Microsoft competition case is a case brought by the
European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for
abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition
law). It started as a complaint from Novell over Microsoft's licensing
practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft
to divulge certain information about its server products and release a
version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player.
In 1993, Novell said that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of
the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centred on
the license practices at the time which required royalties from each
computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or
not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft
reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices.[1]
Sun Microsystems joined the fray in 1998 when it complained about the
lack of disclosure of some of the interfaces to Windows NT. The case
widened even more when the EU started to look into how streaming media
technologies were integrated with Windows.
...
On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million
(US$1.44 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust
decision. This represents the largest penalty ever imposed in 50 years
of EU competition policy. This latest decision follows a prior €280.5
million fine for non-compliance, covering the period from June 21, 2006
until October 21, 2007.[20] On 9 May 2008 Microsoft lodged an appeal in
the European Court of First Instance seeking to overturn the €899
million fine, officially stating that it intended to use the action as a
"constructive effort to seek clarity from the court"
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
Like the US ruling, Microsoft has yet to fully comply.
[quote]
Governments contracting IT work could conclude that Microsoft's
antitrust history constitutes "grave professional misconduct" and ban
the company, according to the European Commission.
...
Article 93 says that candidates for projects should be rejected if they
have been convicted of a criminal offense concerning their professional
conduct by a judicial authority or if a contractor can justify excluding
them based on "grave professional misconduct."
[/quote]
http://pcworld.about.com/od/businesscenter/EU-Says-Governments-Could-Bar.htm
>> Run along idiot. Once again you prove that you have no clue.
You were saying...
Either you are the idiot that you claim others to be, or you're a lying;
revisionist; denialist Astroturfer.
Which is it?
> No one believes in your lies. Especially the IT crowd.
Or anyone with even a passing knowledge Microsoft's criminal behaviour.
In fact anyone with even the slightest moral integrity would implicitly
understand that what Microsoft does is wrong (and in many cases actually
illegal too). Both US and EU law clearly state this, and have enforced
it in court on several occasions.
Microsoft are convicted criminals. Fact.
Microsoft's practise of "limiting technical development to the prejudice
of consumers" is illegal. Fact.
Microsoft could spend a thousand years in court, that still wouldn't be
enough time to prosecute them for all their crimes. Frankly it'd be
easier (and more conducive to seeking justice) if they were subject to
involuntary liquidation; the assets sold to compensate their victims;
and the executives (Gates and Ballmer) prosecuted for racketeering;
jailed; and stripped of /their/ assets to similarly compensate the victims.
I personally will not be satisfied until that happens.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
05:59:02 up 53 days, 13:41, 5 users, load average: 4.32, 4.06, 4.11
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Monday 29 December 2008 05:59 : \____
> Either you are the idiot that you claim others to be, or you're a lying;
> revisionist; denialist Astroturfer.
Their presence here it geared towards Big Lies. Watch the "TE" material. It's
part of their plan.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Proprietary, lockin-based tools lead to regrets. Doc(umen)tor, heal thyself.
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklgF1IACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7MMACfZhKmRLoBpBdNhRB60kW9343w
Wm8An3PYbutWJzZ0uMXEPk/lfJDBryyr
=aXTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----