Halloween Document: A *Microsoft* conspiracy?
Daniel J. Morris
> Lastly, ask yourselves: now that the document is out in the open, is
> Microsoft in any weaker position?
>
> Is the entire Linux community being played as fools by the master
> puppeteer?
>
I thought this too. I agree with all that Bob says. I don't think this
document represents MS strategy, but will be used to show that MS doesn't in
fact have the monopoly that the DOJ accuses.
Daniel.
Jonathan
>
> Yo peoploids!
>
> The Linux community in general seems to be jumping up & down with joy
> with the recent "exposure" of an internal memo by a Microsoft employee,
> which in no uncertain terms identifies Open Source software in general,
> and Linux in particular, as a serious threat to Microsoft's dominance in
> the OS market. This was seen as a significant boost in confidence to all
> who believe that "great men must have great enemies", and in the
> software world, there can be no enemy greater than Microsoft. It appears
> that the document was released via some undeterminable source from
> within Microsoft, and now, confronted with the wildfire distribution of
> it, they are acting in accordance to what is expected of a corporation
> which has its dirty laundry hung in public. Shame on them. Tut tut.
>
> But just suppose...
>
> What if this document was not *leaked* out by some careless/disgruntled
> employee? What if the document was *planted* by Microsoft?
>
> "What good would that bring to Microsoft?" some might ask. Just think:
> with the DOJ actions against Microsoft for essentially using its
> monopolistic position to eliminate competitors in other fields, what
> better defence if this very monopoly is brought into question?
One that doesn't propose using some of the very tactics for which the
DOJ is now bringing MS to trial. Further, the DOJ case doesn't rest
upon the notion that there are no competitors -- competition exists. It
just doesn't have much of a market share, overall.
Regards,
Jonathan
Tracy R Reed
>What if this document was not *leaked* out by some careless/disgruntled
>employee? What if the document was *planted* by Microsoft?
You definitely aren't the first to come up with this idea. I think I've seen it
in other threads here and it's been beaten to death on slashdot.
>around. It isn't a monopoly. Look how easy Linux got into the market.
>And see, even Microsoft is "grudgingly" considering it a threat and are
>taking appropriate measures. And the world agrees. Over 7 million people
>don't use Windows. What kind of monopoly is that?
Look how easily?!?! I've heard people say MS can point to Linux to show that
there is no monopoly but I think this really has the opposite effect. It shows
that you can only compete with MS by rounding up THOUSANDS of BRILLIANT people
willing to work for FREE for 7 YEARS to produce an OS which will be GIVEN away
for FREE. I think the fact that Linux is Microsoft's competition right now
shows that there is something VERY wrong with the market.
>strategy to 'deal' with Linux/Open Source only comes from one employee.
>They'll just say, "well, it doesn't mean we accept all suggestions by
>employees, right?"
Whether they accept those suggestions or not will be very obvious. I think they
have already accepted them. In fact, I think those suggestions are business as
usual for MS. They already have many proprietary and extended protocols. This
is exactly how the author suggested they deal with OSS.
>"well yeah, now they know we know, they *can't* follow those
>strategies". But what if they never wanted to follow those strategies in
They can, and they will. They will do it because this is how they have done
business for years.
>Lastly, ask yourselves: now that the document is out in the open, is
>Microsoft in any weaker position?
Yes.
>Is the entire Linux community being played as fools by the master
>puppeteer?
Impossible to tell.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"I want an Internet. Can I have one of those?" -- Spice Girl Mel B.,
aka Scary Spice, pointing to a monitor during an AOL press conference
Jonathan
>
> Low, Kuan Loong <lo...@hom.pc.my> wrote:
> >What if this document was not *leaked* out by some careless/disgruntled
> >employee? What if the document was *planted* by Microsoft?
>
> You definitely aren't the first to come up with this idea. I think I've seen it
> in other threads here and it's been beaten to death on slashdot.
>
> >around. It isn't a monopoly. Look how easy Linux got into the market.
> >And see, even Microsoft is "grudgingly" considering it a threat and are
> >taking appropriate measures. And the world agrees. Over 7 million people
> >don't use Windows. What kind of monopoly is that?
>
> Look how easily?!?! I've heard people say MS can point to Linux to show that
> there is no monopoly but I think this really has the opposite effect. It shows
> that you can only compete with MS by rounding up THOUSANDS of BRILLIANT people
> willing to work for FREE for 7 YEARS to produce an OS which will be GIVEN away
> for FREE. I think the fact that Linux is Microsoft's competition right now
> shows that there is something VERY wrong with the market.
Indeed. Back in the days of the AT&T monopoly, an analogy would have
been a movement of thousands of people donating their time to make
telephones, wire up every home, and build directory services and
switching equipment from scratch -- all in donated time, and free of
charge. Hardly easy, and hardly an indicator (in fact, just the
opposite) that AT&T didn't hold a monopoly.
> >strategy to 'deal' with Linux/Open Source only comes from one employee.
> >They'll just say, "well, it doesn't mean we accept all suggestions by
> >employees, right?"
>
> Whether they accept those suggestions or not will be very obvious. I think they
> have already accepted them. In fact, I think those suggestions are business as
> usual for MS. They already have many proprietary and extended protocols. This
> is exactly how the author suggested they deal with OSS.
And they are, to a large extent, the reason the Department of Justice
has taken such an interest in their business practices.
> >"well yeah, now they know we know, they *can't* follow those
> >strategies". But what if they never wanted to follow those strategies in
>
> They can, and they will. They will do it because this is how they have done
> business for years.
And arguably, it is their only option for beating the Linux movement and
maintaining their stranglehold on the desktop.
<snip>
Regards,
Jonathan
DarrenR114
do with whether M$ is a monopoly or not.
What the crux of the case is that M$ has committed specified acts which can be
classified as anti-competitive - eg. they tried to put a competitor out of
business using dirty tricks.
The existence of Linux has little or nothing to do with this. The 'we're not a
monopoly' argument is a typical red herring by M$ legal team to try and cloud
Judge Jackson's vision. Their main problem now is that he ain't buying it -
very unusual for a judge to be tech-savvy.
Regards,
Darren
John G. Sandell
DOJ suit - if any - and whatever Microsfot's intentions, there are some
juicy admissions concerning OSS, some of which would make fine advertising /
advocacy copy.
John Sandell
Low, Kuan Loong wrote:
> Yo peoploids!
>
> The Linux community in general seems to be jumping up & down with joy
> with the recent "exposure" of an internal memo by a Microsoft employee,
> which in no uncertain terms identifies Open Source software in general,
> and Linux in particular, as a serious threat to Microsoft's dominance in
> the OS market. This was seen as a significant boost in confidence to all
> who believe that "great men must have great enemies", and in the
> software world, there can be no enemy greater than Microsoft. It appears
> that the document was released via some undeterminable source from
> within Microsoft, and now, confronted with the wildfire distribution of
> it, they are acting in accordance to what is expected of a corporation
> which has its dirty laundry hung in public. Shame on them. Tut tut.
>
> But just suppose...
>
> What if this document was not *leaked* out by some careless/disgruntled
> employee? What if the document was *planted* by Microsoft?
>
> "What good would that bring to Microsoft?" some might ask. Just think:
> with the DOJ actions against Microsoft for essentially using its
> monopolistic position to eliminate competitors in other fields, what
> better defence if this very monopoly is brought into question?
>
> The argument would then be: Microsoft can't be pushing other companies
> around. It isn't a monopoly. Look how easy Linux got into the market.
> And see, even Microsoft is "grudgingly" considering it a threat and are
> taking appropriate measures. And the world agrees. Over 7 million people
> don't use Windows. What kind of monopoly is that?
>
> Microsoft can't lose! Right now, with the bad publicity it's getting as
> a giant bully, what better tactic than to show a vulnerability.
> Furthermore, they can readily admit the document is from within as the
> strategy to 'deal' with Linux/Open Source only comes from one employee.
> They'll just say, "well, it doesn't mean we accept all suggestions by
> employees, right?"
>
> Also, Linux/Open source cannot sue!! How can you show anti-competitive
> behaviour on an entity that has no legal existence? Especially one which
> makes no profit?
>
> And the best part is that now that the document is "in the open", they
> wouldn't be expected to actually follow the strategies outlined. The
> world would think,
> "well yeah, now they know we know, they *can't* follow those
> strategies". But what if they never wanted to follow those strategies in
> the first place? Then there would be no loss. Case in point: when was
> the last time Microsoft gave away (as in open source) any serious code?
>
> Lastly, ask yourselves: now that the document is out in the open, is
> Microsoft in any weaker position?
>
> Is the entire Linux community being played as fools by the master
> puppeteer?
>
> Bob Low
Paul Doherty
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> for FREE. I think the fact that Linux is Microsoft's competition right now
> shows that there is something VERY wrong with the market.
I agree here, but BeOS still has some hope (I hope :-).
--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day... coincidence? I think not.
Paul Doherty
CNA/CNE/MCP+I/MCSE
http://www.nationwide.net/~pdoherty
Low, Kuan Loong
perr...@my-dejanews.com
primarily in terms of it's competitiveness in the server area. In addition
the memo recommended propietizing network protocols to create "barriers to
entry" That's not the kind of thing they want to release intentionally.
Perry
In article <36407E16...@hom.pc.my>,
"Low, Kuan Loong" <lo...@hom.pc.my> wrote:
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Daniel Taylor
is not taking Microsoft's claims at face value. Given their
prior "respect" for the court and DoJ this is an
understandable position on his part.
Of course he should be taking both MS and DoJ's arguments
conservatively and not be granting any concessions to
either side until the arguments are complete for both sides.
--
Daniel Taylor
Unix is a Linux-like operating system.
Toon Moene
> Whatever Microsoft's motives regarding the so-called Halloween memo and the
> DOJ suit - if any - and whatever Microsfot's intentions, there are some
> juicy admissions concerning OSS, some of which would make fine advertising
Indeed - I wouldn't know how to promote the GNU tools better than the
hodge-podge this memo describes the various development groups inside
Microsoft are using - what a mess ...
--
Toon Moene (mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: mailto:for...@gnu.org; egcs: mailto:egcs...@cygnus.com
Peter A. Koren
One thing that everyone is not talking about is that the DoJ case has little to
do with whether M$ is a monopoly or not.What the crux of the case is that M$ has committed specified acts which can be
classified as anti-competitive - eg. they tried to put a competitor out of
business using dirty tricks.
of the suggested approaches to defeating a competitor. I think that this is illegal, given the motives
and Microsoft's monopoly status.
I seem to remember Microsoft getting into trouble for hiring away a
programming team from,
I believe, Borland. Didn't they get sued? Does anyone remember what
resulted?
What is being bought out by the trial and external events typified by
the Halloween memo and the
temptation of Alan Cox is the image, correct in my view, of a criminal
corporate culture which holds
the law in utter contempt. MS has used many illegal tactics to crush
competitors. I just hope the courts
recognize the big picture and reign these gangsters in.
Regards,
Peter Koren
-- Remove the 'zap-this' from the email address to reach me. Progressives: "... that dreary tribe of high minded women and sandal wearers and bearded fruit juice drinkers who come flocking to the smell of 'progress' like blue bottles to a dead cat." -- George Orwell
o r c e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s
Peter A. Koren <pko...@hex.zap-this.net> wrote:
>
>--------------30D58D0DCF5E24F7872D66E5
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>DarrenR114 wrote:
>
>> One thing that everyone is not talking about is that the DoJ case has little to
>> do with whether M$ is a monopoly or not.
>>
>> What the crux of the case is that M$ has committed specified acts which can be
>> classified as anti-competitive - eg. they tried to put a competitor out of
>> business using dirty tricks.
>
>And now we also learn that Microsoft tried to hire Linux kernel guru Alan Cox.
Thus proving that MS wants to hire the best developers they can find.
Though I can bet that MS conspirovision would produce the most amusing
employment agreement you could ever think of, even in the paranoid
world of software development.
____
david parsons \bi/ "You can't touch a machine that can run Linux for
\/ 10 years after working for us!" "No posting to
usenet." "No email, and you must disconnect your
phone." "You will work at our research lab in
Antarctica, but NO LOOKING AT THE PENGUINS!"
Rob Chauncey
"Daniel J. Morris" <dan...@hilly.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob Low wrote
>
> > Lastly, ask yourselves: now that the document is out in the open, is
> > Microsoft in any weaker position?
> >
> > Is the entire Linux community being played as fools by the master
> > puppeteer?
> >
>
> document represents MS strategy, but will be used to show that MS doesn't in
> fact have the monopoly that the DOJ accuses.
Is there any question of authorship? Is the memo in fact authentic? How do
we know?
They made for fascinating reading for me, and I can't imagine that anyone
would fake them, but I think ducks have to be in a row, no?
Rob
Christopher Browne
>And now we also learn that Microsoft tried to hire Linux kernel guru Alan Cox.
>of the suggested approaches to defeating a competitor. I think that this is
>illegal, given the motives
>and Microsoft's monopoly status.
Illegal in what jurisdiction?
I am not aware of any MSFT lawsuits in the UK, which is, if I understand
correctly, where Alan lives and works.
I think you're going to have to be a little more specific about what
legislation leads you to believe that this is illegal.
Unethical, perhaps... Illegal? I don't think so...
--
"take USABLE from UNSTABLE and you get NT"
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>