Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
detikon's understanding of the law:
is derived entirely from web-sites devoted to rationalizations for copyright theft 50%
is an oxymoron 12%
is at its most pathetic when he posts anonymously 25%
becomes outright illegal when he attempts to pose as a member of the bar 12%

Votes: 16

 Microsoft [continues to fight a legal challenge in a consistent manner]

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jun 20, 2002
 Comments:
[editor's note, by RobotSlave] This story has been edited to conform to linking requirements imposed by The Register. Detikon, though he illegally reproduced those terms at length, was apparently too stupid to figure out what they meant. Some editorial comment has been added, and appears in italics throughout.
diaries

More diaries by detikon
Trustworthy Computing !?!
Attn: Yoshi
If it ain't broke...break it!
Microsoft gives Korean developers little cause for worry
[ I just can't ] stop whining
Analysis of The Beast and a friendlier BG?
What is MS really saying?
Microsoft bloat and easter eggs?
That's right, they're at it again. Microsoft attorneys have refused to comply with an [unenforcable] order demanding some [extremely vague] level of compromise between Microsoft and the dissenting states.

"We have been through this. We negotiated. We went as far as we can go. That's the deal."

Anyone reading [a biased selection of] the reports covering the hearing know this isn't the first time Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and the attorneys for the states have dealt with [refusal to comply with questionable demands of dubious legal validity]. All through the hearing [detikon believes] there has been a sort of "just shut up and sign off on the deal vibe from Microsoft attoneys [even though he hasn't been there, and has nothing of substance to offer in support of this opinion]. Microsoft at one time [quite reasonably] offered to pay the states' legal fees if they would just shut up and sign off. Sorry, MicroSoft, but you were found guilty and [may be] required to pay them [once the appeals process is over] anyway.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and the states didn't put up with it the first 10 or 15 times [nor have MicroSoft's attorneys agreed to the blunt demands and sham of compromise offered by the states] and are not about to this time. Read the [full story at The Register].

2002 Robert P. Detikon. All Rights Reserved

[editor's note, by RobotSlave] Material under copyright belonging to The Register and illegally reproduced by Detikon has been removed.

       
Tweet

nice job (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jun 20th, 2002 at 10:40:16 PM PST
I actually read this story before it was editted. I was over a The Register and had something to do so I couldn't come back and respond until now. Give that he did provide the notice at the bottom (which seems to have vanished) I believe The Register would feel that it was ok as it did provide some notice as to the link provided in the story. However, it's relly up to The Register as to whether or not they see it as such.

I have seen numerous articles on this site which make no mention of The Register or other new sources. Usually it's from linking obscure words. I can do a search if you doubt me.

Now to the legal matter. The judge order the states and Microsoft to hold negotitations in case both settlements were seen as too extreme. Rather than starting the process completely over she ordered both sides to discuss POSSIBLE compromises. If you think she can't inforce it maybe you'd like to discuss antitrust laws with her. Either that or you should look into two little things called the Tunney Act and the Sherman Act.

As for the order being vague, if you read the article (from The Register) and the transcipts from the hearing (which you obviously didn't) the order was quite clear. Microsoft doesn't have to comply but it's rather stupid as the judge has the ability to throw out the MS-DoJ deal and accept the states or come up with something herself (she is not limited to either). It's like shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you do a little research into the case before shooting your mouth off and the read up on the Sherman Act and the Tunney Act while you're at it.

Now let's talk about repayment of legal fees. You wrote that Microsoft MAY BE required to pay legal fees. Although federal law mandates that corporations found accountable for violations of antitrust laws must reimburse the costs those states incurred for prosecution, they are not obligated to pay for litigation costs incurred by the federal government. Shows how much you know about "the law".

Another item you touch on is the appeals process. There is no appeal. Microsoft has been found guilty. The trial is regarding the Microsoft violation of the Tunney Act as well as it's undocumented meeting with various parties involved on going antitrust trial. In other words holding secret back room meetings is a violation of the Tunney Act. All in all (to make it so clear a 3 year old could understand it) it's to determine if the punishment fits the crime. Once again, do a little research, ok?

As this is a phase in the trial to determine punishment Microsoft cannot appeal. they have tried appealing at every turn. Finally they were denied as there were no grounds for appeal. This lead to the MS-DoJ settlement which the remining states (of those suing MS not all 50 dumbass) did not sign off on. This once again shows you know very little about the legal system.


I rest my case. (none / 0) (#2)
by RobotSlave on Thu Jun 20th, 2002 at 11:06:44 PM PST



© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Can't rest what you never had (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jun 20th, 2002 at 11:24:36 PM PST



Again, your honor, I rest my case. (none / 0) (#13)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 02:18:18 AM PST



© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Oops (none / 0) (#18)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:10:01 PM PST
I sorry but just before you were to rest your case, the MS legal team burst in and asked for yet another fucking delay. You will not be able to rest for at least another 6 months.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Your psychosis has reached a dangerous level. (none / 0) (#21)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 02:39:32 PM PST
Though you may have intended to convey humor with your post, your totemic obsession with your father-surrogate, Microsoft, has become so pronounced that it is obscuring anything else you try to communicate.

You need help, detikon. You need help very badly, and you need it soon. You must secure the services of a Freudian analyst without delay. If we had diagnosed this problem earlier, I would venture a brief bit of preliminary analysis on my own, asking you to describe your father and so forth, but I fear there might be a risk to your own life if I unwittingly touched on the source of your psychosis outside of a controlled environment.

We love you, detikon, and we don't want to see you hurt yourself. Please, please, please seek help before it is too late.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I get it (none / 0) (#24)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 05:03:54 PM PST
I have come to the conclusion that you and elenchos are the same person. Both of you abuse your editorial powers and both of you are so caught up in this Freudian father figure bullshit. Just like elenchos. When you have no argument you result to this crap over and over again.

HELLO! The only reason people go on about Microsoft is because you people are so pro-Microsoft that you wouldn't even mind Bill Gates fucking you in the ass. Oh we love you Billy and AOL too (XOXOXOXO). It would seem I'm not the one with the problem.

Lovey, lovey Microsoft, Windows, and AOL. All the stuff about AOL suing MS and Gates bad mouthing AOL's management are just slashdot rumors, Microsoft monopoly good. We don't know what a monopoly is but Bill says they're not so they're not!

Feel free to respond. That is when you're done sucking Gates' cock.

Oh by the way. Just in case you want to discuss more laws (although you don't know squat and never bothered to actually study it) I'm up for it. So if you like to discuss the homosexual comments and argue slander or defamation of character, I'll be more than happy to have my attorney contact the site's administrator regarding the poll you slipped into this diary entry.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

No, they're different. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by because it isnt on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 06:16:57 PM PST
'Slave was never in the military and Ref' doesn't wear a buttplug.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
My god, he's foaming at the mouth. (none / 0) (#27)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 07:25:33 PM PST
Look at that. It's reached a point where he's lost all ability to distinguish one father-surrogate from another.

Once you're in therapy, detikon, you will at some point find that you have transferred all of your fixation to a new father-surrogate, the one who is trying hardest to help you: your analyst. This is a perfectly natural, and often encouraging development, but you will never get that far if you don't get help!

Your screeching homophobia is just part of your psychosis, detikon. This much is obvious to everyone but yourself, as you continue to labor under a self-imposed cloud of imagined father-persecution. I'm sure it's very confusing in there, and I think I speak for all of us when I say I'd love it that fog began to clear.

The brighter users of Adequacy are lauging their asses off at your attempt to insult me (of all people!) with accusations of mere anal and oral sex. Guess what, detikon? I consider that sort of stuff very tame, as you'd know if you'd been paying the least bit of attention to anything other than your imagined father-totem. I suppose I've been a bit slack of late; this sort of misunderstanding would be much less likely if I'd made the time to finish The Anal Sex HOWTO.

Please do contact your lawyer immediately-- I'm sure that once he hears that an Adequacy editor has put a poll up at adequacy.org, and that you would like to start a legal action over this, he will make every effort to help you get the treatment you so desperately need.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

OK elenchos (none / 0) (#28)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 10:09:33 PM PST
1. I get along perfectly well with my father. Our relationship is quite healthy. Maybe your constant need to talk about someone else's father is a way to compensate for your poor relationship with your own pappy.

2. I do have any problem with gay people. I work with 4 at my office. While I would never try anything (although my wife did in college one drunken night) they're really great people. Unlike most people on this site I have no problem with homosexuals, blacks, or anyone else except for ignorant people.

Now if you don't mind I have to get to bed because I'm supposed to take my son and his friends to play baseball. Maybe later I'll sit down and have a "lovely tea party" with my two little girls.

I suggest that you give your old man a call and tell him how much you love him and blah blah blah and all that other mushy shit. Perhaps then you won't find the need to constantly talk about everyone else's dad after you resolve the issues between you and your own.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Detikon: World's Most Incompetent Liar. (none / 0) (#29)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 10:33:02 PM PST
You can make up a nice little fantasy world for yourself detikon, but you're all alone in there.

So, you have three kids, and yet you spend all this time posting to inter-web discussion boards? Clearly, you don't even have any friends who have kids.

The fact that you have convinced yourself that your relationship with your father is "healthy" is merely one more aspect of your psychosis, in which you have transferred emotional problems that you can't cope with onto your surrogate father.

Similarly, the fact that you can share an office with real, live gay people does not mean that you are capable of coping with the emotions surrounding your real, live sexuality. If you were comfortable with your sexuality, it wouldn't occur to you to use accusations of cock sucking or ass fucking as insults.

One other thing:

Little boys don't play baseball in the middle of the night, detikon.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

whoa are you an idiot (none / 0) (#31)
by detikon on Sat Jun 22nd, 2002 at 07:00:38 PM PST
I don't spend all my time posting on discussions boards. Perhaps you think this because of the "My Online Buddies". Amazingly enough right at the bottom it reads "This thing ain't none too reliable." Ever consider the refresh time of the thing? Even after I have logged off or simply gone to another site it would still read that I am here. Didn't consider that one did you?

Now to the gay bullshit. So let me guess. Anyone who makes a refgerence to cock sucking or anal sex is gay? What are you retarded?

The simple fact that both you and elenchos just LOVE to jump on the surrogate father bullshit constaly and discuss homosexuality at SUCH GREAT LENGTH shows that you may have issues of your own. Perhaps the only way you can deal with your own issues is to "make believe" it's someone else with a problem. This is not healthy and I suggest you seek help. Go see a shrink talk about your probelms, cry like a baby, and maybe then you can think about rejoining society.

As for playing baseball in the middle of the night, where did you get that? My post was submitted at 10:03pm PST. I live in the midwest (CST). Do the math moron. I said I need to get to bed. Huh, gee, it doesn't take a mathematical wizard to figure it out.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Come back when you learn how to lie. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by RobotSlave on Sat Jun 22nd, 2002 at 07:57:08 PM PST
Would it be asking too much to request that you come up with a more convincing response than "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm not the one who brought up cock sucking and ass fucking, detikon. That was you. And you did so in a manner that suggests you fear your own emotional reaction to these things.

You know your emotional problems have reached a dangerous level, and you know you need help. Why else would you keep coming back again and again to the people who are trying to help you? We're happy to serve as an outlet for your uncontrollable anger, detikon, but you need to realize that this will only provide temporary relief, and that relief will, after a while, no longer be enough to keep your psychosis from doing great harm to you and those around you, unless the root causes are addressed.

I will, at every opportunity, continue to urge you to seek professional help, because I love you, detikon.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

help? HA! (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 05:13:56 AM PST
All you (and the other editors do) is belittle people. You like to go around like a bunch of pompous asses expecting everyone to bow down the this image that you create which everyone is supposed to believe. You attemot to argue a point yet never manage to present anything worthwhile to the discussion other that childish name calling and interpretation. You offer nothing more than opinion base bullshit and delve ever more into childish feuds.

"Oh I don't like this person this week so I'm gonna be an ass an really piss them off. Let's see how far we can push them. Then when they lash out, I can wonder why."

"I'm an intellectual and I'm so mature. Anyone who doesn't believe the EXACT same way I do and believe all the crap coming out of my mouth is a stupid, idiot, lunix, teenage, hacker crminal, blah blah blah bullshit with a Microsoft father complex."

"I want proof but don't have to provide it. Everyone is just supposed to believe whatever I say."

You know you thinks just like that? Teens. Maybe when you realise that people have their own thoughts and opinions you can be a real grown up. Maybe when can actually bring something to the discussion beyond a superiority complex and interpretational bullshit people might actually take you seriously.

It's starting to get old.

"Last week I was a lawyer. This week I'm a psychologist."

What are you gonna be next week? A fucking astronaut?

One last item. Since apparently you have missed it and gone off on some wild adventure. The references to cocksucking or anything else does not mean you are gay. Have you ever heard of the terms boot licker, ass kisser, or brown noser? Do I really need to spell it out for you? You semm to have trouble with things.

I sriously hope this isn't the intelligence and maturity of a "grown up". If so, I'll stick to simply being an adult.

That's it. The end. I will no longer engage in this or probably any other discussion with you because frankly you bore the shit out of me.


piece of shit won't stay logged in (none / 0) (#34)
by detikon on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 05:17:20 AM PST
-- Detikon




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Oh, I don't think you're finished, yet. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 02:15:45 PM PST
I see you've noticed that it is difficult for you to argue against a person whose knowledge spans more than computers-minutia. You then jump to the conclusion that no-one could possibly be smarter than you, and have expertise in more than one area. Charming.

If you'd been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything other than computers-related trivia, you'd know that the editors of Adequacy are a wildly diverse bunch, and that many a spirited argument breaks out within our ranks.

This is as it must be, for if our opinions were uniform, it would be a grave disservice to the Adequacy, which seeks to be a safe haven for controversy in an inter-worldly web-net all too prone to that peculiar strain of censorship born of absolute democracy.

Your characterization of teenagers makes it sound as if your own teen-aged experience was (or is) that of a social outcast, a condition most likely brought on by a false sense of entitlement and superiority, perhaps generated by an overindulgent mother and a weak father (that last is naturally vague and speculative, of course).

Most teen-agers, of course, are nothing like the picture that you paint. In fact, I think your view of teens is more in line with that of elenchos than it is with more moderate views, such as my own.

No, I will not be an astronaut next week. I'm afraid ærospace has never held much fascination for me, or demanded anything of my professional life.

And you, detikon, will return. You need to, and you know it.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
I love the change in title (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jun 20th, 2002 at 11:26:14 PM PST
It shows Microsoft's history of dragging court cases on and on and on and on and on and on and...


 
This case will never end (none / 0) (#5)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 12:20:01 AM PST
It's older than the internet itself, for God's sake! Why don't the states realise what the federal government already has? Not only are they legally outmanoevred, they are in the wrong. It is quite simply impossible to win an antitrust case against a company that does not hold an illegal monopoly. If Microsoft loses, democracy has betrayed capitalism. Sadly, for those of us who still love freedom, there is nowhere left to move to, so we must pray that sanity and common sense triumph over irrational hatred and conspiracies to subvert and manipulate the market through the courts.


Maybe you should write... (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:44:48 AM PST
...as to how Microsoft doesn't have an illegal monopoly. Sure they have done a lot of things in recent months and stuff has changed. You wanna know why? Just ask Steve Ballmer or read the internal Microsoft memos. The federal government gave up because of money. Unlike the states the federal government isn't reimbursed for shit. Also the federal government found MS guilty. It's the punishment that's an issue now.

Why is it that you guys still think they haven't done that? You do know that part of the trial is over, right? You guys act like it's the first friggin trial. It's been a serious of trial and appeals.

Wanna know why it got so expensive?

MS lawyer:
"We need more time to..."
"We ask for 2 weeks to...
"We would like to request a period of time for..."
"We request and undetermined amount of time..."

They tried that kind of stuff numerous times during this set of hearings.

Bill and Steve and other spinmaster (PR guys):
"The states proposal will do this and this and [more exaggeration and bullshit]"

States clarify proposal and make Bill and Co. look like idiots.

MS lawyers:
"We didn't actaully expect the states to clarify the proposal. So we request 2 weeks for [our spinmasters to come up with new bullshit]"

Judege denies request

MS legal goons forced to use old bullshit.

They wanted to present evidence but didn't want the other side to have access to it.

"If you exam the source code.."

Wait a minute

How about when they presented the same video that in the previous trial had been proven to have been falsified. The states wanted to present evidence showing it DID work. What did MS do? They asked for an undertermined amount of time to prepare...something/anything. UNDETERMINED!?! Translation: Let's delay this as long as possible and hope it just goes away.

Think that's funny? European countries are now investigating MS anticompetitive practices. Hell Isreal is getting ready to drag MS into court.


Not illegal (none / 0) (#7)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:54:18 AM PST
Microsoft's monopoly would only be illegal if they had engaged in anti-competitive practises to get it. The simple reality that you fail to understand is, they haven't. They invented the operating system and the desktop computer. It isn't their fault that nobody else can gain a foothold in their market. They aren't obliged to make it easy, as you seem to think. As for the web browser market, MS has every right to sue netscape for predatory pricing of mozilla. Now that is a genuine anti-competitive practise.


Now you're just trolling. (1.66 / 3) (#12)
by because it isnt on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 02:08:59 AM PST
They invented an operating system for the desktop computer invented by IBM.

Mozilla is the same price as Internet Explorer for the common user. That's just price-matching.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Funny or Stupid? (none / 0) (#19)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:20:04 PM PST
Are you trying to be funny or are you just a fucking idiot?

MS invented the OS?
Let's not forget about Unix and CP/M. Also there were three versions of DOS. Only one was branded by MS. And let's not forget that they had licensed and bought that one.

MS invented the desktop computer?
Sorry but you can thank a few companies like Tandy and Apple for kicking that off. IBM would later tap into the market with the PC-AT. It wasn't until the PC-XT that IBM sold a computer with MS-DOS.

MS suing Netscape over Mozilla?
Nope sorry but Mozilla is not owned by Netscape. In fact the only ties with Netscape are through licensing.

Foothold?
****EXAMPLE****
So you believe that Coca-Cola should have the right to walk into every store where Coke sells better than Pepsi and demand the store stop selling Pepsi or they will pull their product and stop all shipments even if they are already paid for? Then it's ok to tell the store that they will not be reimbursed?




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

How do you come up with this stuff? (none / 0) (#35)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Jun 23rd, 2002 at 06:31:16 AM PST
Unix is based on MS's xenix operating system, which they developed in the early eighties and sold to AT&T when it became obsolete. CP/M doesn't have multitasking or preemption, so it's really more of a monitor program than an operating system. All pre-PC systems were little more than pocket calculators with big keyboards and monitors attached. Modern pocket calculators easily outperform those old machines. Netscape does, in fact, own Mozilla. If they want, they can release the next version closed source. It's their program, under law.

Finally, I'm not suggesting that MS is allowed to force vendors to carry their system. I'm saying that their competitors are not justified in trying to put them out of business through the courts. They got their monopoly fair and square.


Hmmm.. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by DG on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 03:09:15 AM PST
I don't know why I reply to this misinformation.. I pretty much enjoy reading aq, then do something else thats productive.

But anyway even though i know it's all about pissing off computer history buffs..

IIRC xenix was not the first unix the first unix was made by at&t.. oh just forget it.. no one cares.. I don't either anymore, please less computer related postings please. they are boring and are repeated ad nausium ( or how ever it's spelled.. it's 5:00am) anyway good night
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
MS knows better (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:56:07 AM PST
"Microsoft believes it knows "better than anyone else what's best for this PC ecosystem. What's good for Microsoft is therefore good for the economy, good for consumers and good for everybody else." --Steve Kuney, states' attorney.


 
millions (none / 0) (#9)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:58:51 AM PST
According to the DoJ, just the very last portion which lead to the eventual MS-DOJ deal cost nearly $7.7 million.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Yes, millions of your dollars (none / 0) (#14)
by Icebox on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 07:12:59 AM PST
Yet you seem to be happy about this whole Microsoft on trial thing. Why?

The State is just wasting your money in some futile attempt to harass Microsoft into handing over a big chunk of money, just like they did to the tobacco companies. Would you pay some State lawyer in a suit and tie millions of dollars to poke a caged gorilla with the pointy end of a stick? Then why are you so happy to shell out your most-likely-ill-gotten coin to have them do it to an upright citizen of the corporate community?

I for one am pleased to see Microsoft fight this. If they are willing to spend this much money and this much effort, and brave this kind of vitriol, just to defend their right to innovate, imagine what they'll do to some morally bankrupt hacker who finds a way to compromise their software!


Huh? (none / 0) (#17)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:07:50 PM PST
Sure you could consider it a waste when comparing it to the fight against Big Tobacco. However, Microsoft won't get off as easily. You see the tobacco companies pay the states so much every year. Microsoft must pay the states legal fees in one lump sum (unless otherwise arranged).




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
I'm not following the trial. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by koanhead on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:59:29 AM PST
Is this the one that threatens to split MS into two companies? If so, it is a curious thing to root for, Dekiton. According to my calculations, splitting Microsoft will have two forseeable consequences. First, Lenix will immediately fall twice as far behind and take four times longer to improve according to the inverse square of its inferiority. Second, Bill Gates will become the world's two richest men.

The comrades will not be pleased, Detikon. We deserve an explanation for your complicated happiness.


---
God hates logic.

Crawl out of your hole and... (none / 0) (#16)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 12:56:59 PM PST
...rejoin the rest of the world. That phase of the trial has long since come and gone. Microsoft appealed the decision.

Besides, splitting Microsoft into two companies would suck. You getted fucked by two companies instead of just one.

You must remember though that the current judge does still have that option.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Rest of the world? (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 03:51:58 PM PST
You're delusional if you think anybody cares about this but you and a few other obssesive losers on Slashdot.


I see... (none / 0) (#23)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 04:45:06 PM PST
...so the entire industry isn't in anyway concerned about how this might affect its future? Sure not even the corporation involved in the case. Let's not forget the many consumers who pay attention and wonder how this will change computing for them.

Stupid.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

You're right. (none / 0) (#42)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 10:31:26 AM PST
My colleagues and I don't actually do any productive client work anymore. We just sit around and wonder how the Microsoft trial will affect our office computing system.



 
Most consumers.. (none / 0) (#43)
by DG on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 12:10:40 PM PST
are thinking "Microsoft who?"
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Er, no. (none / 0) (#44)
by because it isnt on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 03:05:43 PM PST
Thanks to judicious use of the "Microsoft" trademark on their products, most consumers associate Microsoft with Microsoft Windows™, Microsoft Office™ and Microsoft Intellimouse™.

They may also think "that big company run by Bill Gates, The Richest Man In The World™*".

*: by value in stocks and shares rather than by cash and land
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
err...what? (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 02:01:03 AM PST
The states have remained doubtful that Microsoft will change its business practices.

"I suggest to you that Microsoft still doesn't get it and you're the only one left to tell them what it's all about," states' attorney Brendan Sullivan said to Kollar-Kotelly in closing arguments.


 
Remedy proposal (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 11:55:26 AM PST
Force them to fully document their APIs, file formats, and protocols.

Neuter their customer lock-in schemes. Allow everyone from every platform to seamlessly both read and write .doc and .xls files (and all the other ones, though they are less critical). Forbid them from extending the protocols (to prevent affairs like the Kerberos one), force them to document any proprietary extensions, both future and past.

Interoperability is crucial anti-monopoly measure. When the players are small, compatibility with the other companies is crucial for survival. However, when one player becomes disproportionally big, the balance gets upset and the incompatiBILLities can be used to force the competition out of the market. Which requires an intervention.

Forcing Microsoft to play fair will require a lot of effort; they don't have much more to offer than their market share and they know it. Without their grip on the customers, their market share will fall faster than a F16 after too close encounter with a surface-to-air missile. But they will still be able to do business in energetics; their marketing and PR departments can produce enough hot air to run a power plant.


Sounds like you... (none / 0) (#20)
by detikon on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 01:45:28 PM PST
..have been reading the states' proposal as well as some of the opinion of various authors who have written about it. Sure some of it is a little extreme. However, sometimes it's necessary. Just look at AT&T and IBM.

As for lock-in schemes IBM was found guilty on 2 out of 3 occassions for the same thing (second antitrust case). So was AT&T.

The MS-DoJ deal is a good idea in theory. It allows for a party to monitor Microsoft's actions and decide whether or not they are playing fair. However, through numerous loopholes, it not only allows MS to choose that pary but to choose itself and monitor itself. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now does it?

Imagine if IBM and AT&T got the same deal. You wouldn't own your computer you'd lease it. You wouldn't be able to buy anything for that computer unless you bought it from IBM. Hell you wouldn't even own a computer because the only ones able to afford it would be coporations.

What if AT&T were the only telephone provider in your area? You wouldn't own your phone you would lease it while remaining a customer of AT&T and pay outrageous fees. If you bought a phone from someone else AT&T could cancel your service and take your phone. Even the one you bought elsewhere.

People that remember know I'm not doing a "WHAT IF" here. Ask your parents or grandparents about how they (AT&T customers) didn't actually own their phone. You might even hear stories about when modems in the home became popular. Reps went around telling people they could use them because they would damage their lines and equipment. Some would tell people they needed to pay for an expensive service to use it.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Proposals and telcos (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jun 22nd, 2002 at 08:26:34 AM PST
I actually read only parts of the proposals. It's dragging like OJ trial, wasting resources and producing paperwork instead of results. (Because of brilliant delay-as-you-can strategy of the main culprit.) Regarding phone services, it was very similar here (and still quite is). However, a family of electrotechnicians with friends everywhere usually doesn't have to eat everything they're served; we had the access to the phone lines' and switchboards' specs (agents insiders (parents' classmates) between the telco techs), we knew how the Telco does line checking. So if the line parameters (ring current, DC and AC characteristics) are within tolerances, nobody can figure out anything from the outside. So we had two phones instead of one allowed, having a mini-party line, and couple more mods. So I later got an "unlicenced" modem - I was supposed to tell the telco, but as long as the signal is within the switchboards' specs, why they should know. Two years later when there were unrelated problems (on their own lines - on our segment we diagnosed and repaired anything within half hour) and they asked if I told them about the modem, I said I think someone done it and that it works flawlessly for years already - they believed as their paperwork is messy. Shame Microsoft's specs can't be accessed this way. Then there would be much less of problems - if they wouldn't give out the formats themselves, they'd be available anyway. I don't think I could be sued for using a format-shifting mail filter.


 
GODDAMMIT!!! (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 21st, 2002 at 05:13:44 PM PST
Microsoft "quite reasonably offered" to pay the legal blah blah blah. Then it goes on to say how Microsoft "may be" required then more stuff about appeals.

Hey RobotSlave, your editorial skills and grasp of the legal system is shit.

How do you get that offering to pay legal fees they already had to pay was quite reasonable?

MS lawyer >> "We'll pay your legal fees if you just sign off on the deal and go away.

States >> "How is that such a great deal? You have pay anyway.

One MS lawyer to another >> "Did you know about this? Well luckily enough the public has read the story so it helps our 'nice corporation' image and makes the attoneys look like they just wasted all that money and get nothing in return."


Case. Rested. (none / 0) (#40)
by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:25:30 AM PST
n fucking /t.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
What is really happening to Microsoft. (none / 0) (#39)
by gordonjcp on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 04:44:11 PM PST
The problem that Microsoft is facing, is that the market for closed-source software is slowly dying. Fewer and fewer companies are prepared to risk their data to closed formats that, next week, when Microsoft issue a patch to fix the latest Outlook exploit, they somehow cannot read any more.

There is nothing new in the process by which free and open source software is gradually pushing closed source software out of favour. Consider the "big iron" of the 1960's. If you bought a computer then, it came with a special operating system, and a set of programs, designed and written by the manufacturer. It was considered impractical for the customer to write programs for these behemoths, and in many cases, the hardware was specially customised for specific clients.

Move on, now, to the late 1960's and the DEC minicomputers. Here were machines where everyone could have a time-sharing terminal, and write programs themselves (in Fortran, COBOL or many other languages, some still with us, some, like RATFOR, long gone). You still bought the OS and software from the manufacturer, but you could pay someone to write code for you, or write it yourself. This situation remained more-or-less unchanged for nearly 25 years.

The really big change took place in the mid-1990's, when public interest in the Internet really took off. Since nearly all of the Internet servers ran some sort of Unix-y operating system (Windows could barely do TCP/IP at this point, but that doesn't really matter), Unix conventions became the standard for the Internet. Ever wondered why it's not backslashes for directory trees in URLs? Linux was just an interesting student project, back then... Now nearly all the servers that make up the Internet as we know it run some variant of Unix, be it *BSD, Linux, Solaris, or any of the other really wierd and unusual ones. Windows is being pushed aside.

The situation is akin to the farrier of the last century. Imagine that you have a nice living shoeing horses for farms. Gradually, more and more people are turning to tractors and machinery, instead of horses and hand-steered ploughs. You have a choice. You can shoe the horses that are left until your children starve, or you can learn to fix tractors.

Times change. It's a shame that Microsoft cannot manage to adapt. Why should they be allowed to change and break laws to prop up their ailing business model?


Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by DG on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 07:31:32 AM PST
I think the close source model is ok, after all If you program, or sell software for a living you should get some return value other than a "Thank you" for all your hard work.

The biggest problem with microsoft is they think they should be the only company making OS software. or at least from the way they seem to like to bash other big names.

but anyway, over all it seems like no one wants to move forward.. the internet makes companys less sellers of cds/software and more servicing firms ie: like Redhat, or other linuxy shops, which for companys that base themselves on how many cds are bought, it hurts them the most.. But I could be wrong


2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.