Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
aramike

Microsoft's Court Ruling

Recommended Posts

Guest Shingen

heheh.. I KNEW someone would post about this!

I wonder what it costed M.$. for the ruling?

I would've thought that they would've made MORE money spliting into two companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the SC a democrat . I do wish that some good competion would start up between Microsft and another company. Just like the Intel in AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well if you don't know what started the whole thing then you would be actually VERY relieved that this has occurred. Yes, they stomp on thier competitors and Windows is incredibly buggy, but when I found out why the Clinton justice dept was going after microsoft, I was more pissed and angry at such corruption in our government then I was at Microsoft!!

Thank God the crook is gone, too bad most of the horses left the barn before we closed the door!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just glad they didn't break it up into competing Windows companies. It's hard enough programming for one company's various flavors of Windows, all of which are 99% compatible but its that 1% which constantly burns you. God save the Snowman...er...developers from separate companies with their own Windows flavors all competing against each other. Dunno about you guys, but this whole court thing makes me nervous from the standpoint of how it could affect my occupational future.

Quite frankly, an OS monopoly can be a good thing in that it provides a standard platform to develop against and you're automatically guaranteed a large market with people would could run your software. IMO an OS monopoly promotes competition among those who develop software for the OS, and promotes a desire to develop more software for it. So its a trade-off as I see it: many competing OS's with limited software for each, with lesser competition between software for that OS or few or one OS with lots of software for it and lots of competition between that software.

Remember, MS isn't being tried for being a monopoly - monopolies are perfectly legal in the US. It's being tried over accusations that it abused that power for other purposes.

.

.

.

God save the snowman, his teeth are falling out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel: It wasn't going to be broken up into two competing Windows companies - it was going to be one company for the OS and the other for the software. I do agree with your points, though.

Jaguar: Absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

What I wanna know is even if they broke M.$. into seperate companies, wouldn't Dread Lord Gates STILL be CEO of both companies and STILL own majority shares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe he can. Since being a major stockholder in both, would technically re-combine the companies. Hard to know though, since I'm not a part of the injustice department...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did the previous ruling not state that Gates could not have a controlling interest in both companies (in the case of MS been broken up) he could only control one of them he could own shares in the other co but not a controling share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Joel: It wasn't going to be broken up into two competing Windows companies.

I knew that but that actually was one of the solutions on the table at one point. Who was smokin' what when they came up with that?

I'm just relieved that breakup is now off the table, because so long as it was on, there was still a remote chance for the above lunacy. As opposed to none, now.

Heh. I remember the "MS in the poo" article. Funny, you suppose MS deliberately managed to drag things out? As in drag them out long enough for a there to be an election that could potentially tip the administration in its favor? They had a 50-50 chance...literally ...and the gamble may yet pay off.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, they did that. "We need more proof for our defense [modify existing proofs] -2-3 months later- Take that you fool!"

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Joel Schultz:

...I'm just relieved that breakup is now off the table, because so long as it was on, there was still a
remote
chance for the above lunacy. As opposed to none, now.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

Actualy, that is not all true. The ruling that MS was found to be a Monopoly was uphead and has now been sent back to the lower court to sort out.

I actually was a MS supporter when this all broke, but considering where the company is headed with future software, I am not anymore. I can't say weather to break them up or not. I do know that we as consumers can let MS know what we want and don't want. To do that Vote with your wallet!

If the current ruling was not given as such, it would have been a sad day for the Judicial System in this Country. Judge Jackson clearly had it in for MS, and if that would have been allowed to stand, God help us all.

If you cannot get an Impartial judge to hear your case, then they might as well not even have a trial, and sentence you at the police station.

Like I said, I feel MS is getting to big for Bill's britches, but I favor yesterdays ruling for the sake of Justice for All.

On a side note, I do not believe in suing your competition just because they make a better product then you do. These other whining companies could have put the money they spent in legal fees, into their R&D departments. I see no reason why MS couldn't add IE to the OS. If you want Netscape, then go get.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: GREG MILLER ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I never understood about the case - they wanted to split MS into two companies, one for the OS and one for Software. Well the OS IS SOFTWARE.

If the break up had happened I don't know who or what would have made the decision about what could or could not be integrated into the OS.

I think Netscape should have spent less money on lawyers and more money on releasing a funtioning browser that could compete with Internet Explorer.

It's too bad the original developers of Netscape sold it off. It's obvious that the company has become complacent. I've got many complaints about MS but one thing you can never accuse MS of is complacency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by hindot:

Remember, the x-box is coming... MUHAHAHA!!!


Would that be the WINDOWS 9x-box?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports are that MS may be buying DIRECTV as well. With this republican control just watch big business run amuck.

Of course as much as ole Bush is becoming "turn around George" who knows what will come of this although the hand that controls the Bush sock puppet is having heart problems again. Hopes are for Cheney to make it through ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

Well I gotta say, I'd MUCH RATHER have George Bush in office letting businesses RUN AS A BUSINESS, the Slick Willy turning everything over to the damn communists and taking away every damn private ownership right an American has!

I also gotta say, that even though I'm not really that fond of M.$. Windows OS (I'm still partial to DOS 'cause it's ain't got so many damn 'extras' cluttering up my harddrive), Mircosoft became a monoploy because of a strong business sense and a product that CREATED it's own demand! I gotta admire ol' Mr. Gates for that. (even though Microsoft is a hellva lot more people then just ol' Mr. Gates)

The liberals scream about M.$. for one reason. They said that Microsoft wasn't 'FAIR' to it's competetors(?), by linking thier browser with the windows OS, (what they were really pissed off about was that Mr. Gates was more conservative then liberal, and they didn't want that much money in the hands of someone they couldn't control) and I say that it was just good business sense!

Long Live Dread Lord Gates!..as long as that insures FREE TRADE, and free inovation, so be it!

Let the whiners create thier own damn software and see if they can corner the market the way M.$. did. That's why it's called Free Trade!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my quirky theory:

The Windows OS* is a Public Utility product, no different than what your water/sewage or electricity or 'telephone' companies provide. A non-natural monopoly condition should be created by the state, because (a)the product is so pervasive as to be deemed necessary to the public good, and (b)the public good is best served by having only one infrastructure source for the product.

For example, your house doesn't have seven powerlines coming into it and then you have to decide which company's lines to hook up to.

Same for your water pipes and your 'telephone' lines. We tried it that way and it stunk, so we invented the concept of Public Utilities. In the States, a Public Utility usually is not wholly state-owned, but its behavior is very heavily regulated. It operates under a commission (as in "Public Utilities Commission") of the state. (An ancillary litmus test for a Public Utility is that the product is consumable. Well, we 'upgrade,' don't we?)

And this would end up being Bill G's worst nightmare: "Well, Mr. Gates, we couldn't decide what to do with you, so we are semi-Nationalizing you and creating a new governmental body solely dedicated to regulating the Bejeezus out of you." www.microsoft.gov . Better than www.microsoft.mil .

(*Remember, I'm talking not about 'water,' but the value to you of having a replenishing and controllable supply of 'water.' Substitute 'communication.' It's that Medium versus Message thing.)

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My turn.

quote:

I think Netscape should have spent less money on lawyers and more money on

releasing a funtioning browser that could compete with Internet Explorer.

Netscape Communicator does compete with Internet Explorer. It's more stable, consumes fewer system resources, and includes a decent wysiwyg program that's easier to use for amateur web authors (I hated Frontpage Express, I love Netscape Composer). OK, so Netscape is not as functional as IE, but at least the system doesn't crash when Communicator stops working properly.

quote:

I see no reason why MS couldn't add IE to the OS. If you want Netscape, then go get.

I have no problem with Microsoft bundling its own software in Windows as long as I can uninstall it if I don't want it. IE is a waste of space on my hard drive, not to mention all of the other non-essential rubbish that Microsoft likes to include in Windows (has anyone EVER changed the Appearance settings in the Display Properties?).

quote:

I also gotta say, that even though I'm not really that fond of M.$. Windows OS (I'm still partial to DOS 'cause it's ain't got so many damn 'extras' cluttering up my harddrive), Mircosoft became a monoploy because of a strong business sense and a product that CREATED it's own demand! I gotta admire ol' Mr. Gates for that.

Gates is definitely proficient in business, but his overwhelming success had more to do with luck.

Microsoft did not create DOS. It was created by Tim Patterson at Seattle Computer Products. Microsoft bought the rights from Patterson and demonstrated DOS to IBM, which subsequently licensed the system for the IBM-PC (which is known as the 'PC' today). Gates had nothing to do with this deal; it was all the work of Paul Allen.

Windows was not an original MS thing either. Windows 1.0 had an interface that looked so much like the Macintosh OS that Apple sued Microsoft for stealing the idea (even the buttons were identical!). The interface was changed by the time Windows 3.0 came out.

Since Windows would only work in DOS, which had become the standard OS on the IBM-PC due to the long term collaboration between IBM and Microsoft, the monopoly was inevitable. Even IBM failed to beat Microsoft with OS/2 Warp (their collaboration ended in 1991).

Gates was at the right place at the right time. I have no reason to admire his abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

The only problem with that argument is that Windows ISN'T a public utility, it's PRIVATELY COPYRIGHTED software that's realy only leased to the public. No one really OWNS M$ Windows when they buy a copy of the OS, they're only buying the RIGHT TO USE IT.

Water and other 'public utilities are different as they aren't privately copyrighted, nor are they really 'created' but generated (power) and processed(water), no one can really OWN the electrons that make up 'power', but they can charge for the service of generating it, and thusly no one can really own 'public ' water, but can charge for the service of purifying it.

So it's really not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "copyright" is also a state-created condition of non-natural monopoly.

But you make a very good point about the "leased" versus "owned" business. We all clicked on the EULA, we knew what we were getting into.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×