In reality. Even M$ gets broken into 3 different ones there are over 80% of the existing PC using general public still will stick with Windows. They will still think of Office for business, IE for web, WMP for media playback..........
Break up is pretty much just an icing on cake....not very practical IMO.
MS's mono. is pretty scary isn't it...the influencial power they could have, and how above the law they seem...another 10 yrs and it will be interesting to see where and how the world is run
windows XP is what really scares me, 98 is a independant OS...XP relies heavily on the MS servers...can you imagine if MS decided that they disable a MS feature and the OS doesnt' work...they could have the US at their mercy...i mean it wouldn' tmake sence for them to do this, but they easily could...i wonder if the DOJ typed their reports on a PC...MS hacked it probably to help prepare
<strong>Did you hear how much MS got fined for slapping those MSN butterfly stickers all over NYC? $50. Not each...FIFTY WHOLE DOLLARS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrible terrible. Nobody dares go against Microsoft...
Bill gates probably got his chaffeur to pay the fine.
Is there anyone here with some serious business acumen that could tell us exactly what the destruction of Microsoft would do to our economy? Or can anyone point to a link or two?
I'll repeat what I said in the thread I should have locked that murbot eventually did:
Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.
<strong>Is there anyone here with some serious business acumen that could tell us exactly what the destruction of Microsoft would do to our economy? Or can anyone point to a link or two?
I'll repeat what I said in the thread I should have locked that murbot eventually did:
Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you for real? Do you live on this planet? Come on, everybody and their dog knows MSFT only got to where they are today and wield the kind of power they do because they lied, cheated, strongarmed and played dirty games to force the PC manufacturers to do business by MSFT's rules which are far from fair competition. Anderson got destroyed for far less than what MSFT has done to the software landscape. MSFT's success is what it is becasue they have NEVER been seriously spanked by the DOJ for their corrupt business tactics and contempt of justice. Where are the mutli-billion dollar fines for MSFT's mafia-style business arrangements which forced Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc .. to bundle MS Office otherwise they didn't get the OS?
Nobody is saying to destroy MSFT. But where is the true justice? Why has MSFT gotten off scott free with no fine for all the companies they destroyed through their illegal tactics? Why is MSFT being told in today's ruling that they can police themselves?
Yesterday's ruling on MSFT's behaviour is a sham! Justice has not been served and the DOJ has shown once again that $$$ can buy power. I really do hope the Europeans decide with more ethics and integrity in seeing that juctice is served once and for all.
I think the tricks they pulled with Apple ("So how do you want to announce the death of Office for Mac?") are a lot worse than what they pulled against Netscape or even IBM. Netscape was just undercutting the competition, dirty but legal. The IBM thing stemmed from way before they were a monopoly, and was simply what made them a monopoly, which isn't illegal.
How they treated Apple on the other hand was essentially extortion, simple as that. Nevermind the old "look and feel" BS. Their tactics with Apple in 1997 were a real abuse of their monopoly.
<strong>Are you for real? Do you live on this planet? Come on, everybody and their dog knows MSFT only got to where they are today and wield the kind of power they do because they lied, cheated, strongarmed and played dirty games to force the PC manufacturers to do business by MSFT's rules which are far from fair competition. Anderson got destroyed for far less than what MSFT has done to the software landscape. MSFT's success is what it is becasue they have NEVER been seriously spanked by the DOJ for their corrupt business tactics and contempt of justice. Where are the mutli-billion dollar fines for MSFT's mafia-style business arrangements which forced Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc .. to bundle MS Office otherwise they didn't get the OS?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's the rub: I don't give a rat's ass. All I hope is that the DoJ takes a lump of cash from Microsoft, Netscape (Or whichever failing conglomerate owns it now), Sun, and everyone else who really thought that bringing this action would result in "justice." How much public money has been wasted on this? Everyone knew what the outcome would be.
Netscape, Sun, and developers of alternatives to Office all screwed up long before Microsoft turned "evil." And Apple can take a large part of the blame.
[quote]<strong>Nobody is saying to destroy MSFT. But where is the true justice? Why has MSFT gotten off scott free with no fine for all the companies they destroyed through their illegal tactics? Why is MSFT being told in today's ruling that they can police themselves?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It'd just be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Given your average PC, do you know how many pieces are made by American businesses? Created in American labs?
Microsoft is a huge cornerstone of our economy, and one of the few bargaining tokens we have when dealing with the technology center that is the far east.
[quote]<strong>How they treated Apple on the other hand was essentially extortion, simple as that. Nevermind the old "look and feel" BS. Their tactics with Apple in 1997 were a real abuse of their monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree wholeheartedly, but it's still my opinion that Apple was moronic for ever allowing itself to get into a position to be blackmailed in this way.
Could someone please tell how and in what instance Microsoft has initiated force against someone or a company? Every example given so far of Microsoft being illegal or immoral have all involved Microsoft leveraging it's assets in contracts between mutually free companies (not giving a license to PC manufacturers if they don't bundle other Microsoft products is an example of this).
If you base your arguments on reason, you arrive at true conclusions, and almost every single person who has responded is guilty of false conclusions. Furthermore, if these companies hate Microsoft so much, beat them the ethical way. Introduce truelly innovative products to market that are clearly better than Microsoft's. Apple has clearly made the right decision in staying out of this. Apple introduces truelly innovative products, and is not concerned with getting something for nothing, which is exactly what this whole case is about.
The companies that have supported this case are trying to get something for nothing. They cannot compete with Microsoft directly (Netscape) so they support the government in attempting to cripple it.
It's quite disgusting, do all of you consider yourselves socialists?
The nine(?) states still left in this final ruling should get over it. They lost, right or wrong, good vs evil, it's over.
Instead, the plaintiffs, the above mentioned nine states, should use the money involved in the lawsuits to abandon Microsoft as soon as feasible. Get together, map out a plan for the replacement of ALL microsoft software from their respective states. How long would this take, years if not decades, but get over it, try a new strategy. They will always lose, Microsoft has too much $$$$$$ and will not let the company lose.
<strong>Could someone please tell how and in what instance Microsoft has initiated force against someone or a company? Every example given so far of Microsoft being illegal or immoral have all involved Microsoft leveraging it's assets in contracts between mutually free companies (not giving a license to PC manufacturers if they don't bundle other Microsoft products is an example of this).
If you base your arguments on reason, you arrive at true conclusions, and almost every single person who has responded is guilty of false conclusions. Furthermore, if these companies hate Microsoft so much, beat them the ethical way. Introduce truelly innovative products to market that are clearly better than Microsoft's. Apple has clearly made the right decision in staying out of this. Apple introduces truelly innovative products, and is not concerned with getting something for nothing, which is exactly what this whole case is about.
The companies that have supported this case are trying to get something for nothing. They cannot compete with Microsoft directly (Netscape) so they support the government in attempting to cripple it.
It's quite disgusting, do all of you consider yourselves socialists?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're so unbelievable wrong it hard to grasp. Read up on the history of the lawsuit.
<strong>...can you imagine if MS decided that they disable a MS feature and the OS doesnt' work...they could have the US at their mercy...i mean it wouldn' tmake sence for them to do this, but they easily could...
</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sure you have proof of these claims. It couldn't be FUD.
[quote]Could someone please tell how and in what instance Microsoft has initiated force against someone or a company?<hr></blockquote>Check the exclusionary contracts with OEMs. IIRC ms could make demands with the threat of not selling windows at the same price as other oems got.
Well, you're right that Apple was pretty stupid in lots of ways before then to help give MS this hand to play, but that doesn't excuse their behavior then anyway. MS is also a dirty player, not saying that's illegal, but it's as much a part of why MS is the monopoly as much as Apple's mistakes. In any case, Apple had a better case than the real instigators of the whole saga, Netscape and Sun. I still feel bad for Netscape because what could they really do when MS first gave away their own browser for free? It's like all those little stores that Wal Mart puts out of business by undercutting them. (Then of course, Wal Mart's price "rollbacks" become a little more modest.) It's legal, it's dirty, and it's just discouraging that this is the way the world works.
Here is an example of Microsoft's activities,a new lawsuit that wasn't even included in the DOJ case,this is how Microsoft will act in the future.This has all the hallmarks of how Microsoft acts-someone builds software that is superior to MIcrosoft,Microsoft breaks the 3rd party software,the liscenses said 3rd party software,then steals the code and incorporates some of the superior 3rd party technology into its own software in a mediocre watered down version.The real losers are consumers,who miss out on the fruits of great programming,and have to waste time and money in their personal lives and businesses because of Microsoft's tactics.The link is here:
<strong>Here is an example of Microsoft's activities,a new lawsuit that wasn't even included in the DOJ case,this is how Microsoft will act in the future.This has all the hallmarks of how Microsoft acts-someone builds software that is superior to MIcrosoft,Microsoft breaks the 3rd party software,the liscenses said 3rd party software,then steals the code and incorporates some of the superior 3rd party technology into its own software in a mediocre watered down version.The real losers are consumers,who miss out on the fruits of great programming,and have to waste time and money in their personal lives and businesses because of Microsoft's tactics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is like those religious threads - show the same text to a believer and a non-believer, and they'll both see it a different way.
As far as I'm concerned, this article makes Lang look like a complete boob. He obviously thought the interest that Microsoft took in Burst's technology to begin with was a great chance to sell the company at a premium. Now he's pissed because Microsoft wasn't interested.
While I admire Linus Torvalds for what he has achieved, I've disagreed with him on many subjects. However, this is worthy of quoting:
[quote]"I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad."<hr></blockquote>
[QB]Is there anyone here with some serious business acumen that could tell us exactly what the destruction of Microsoft would do to our economy? Or can anyone point to a link or two?/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't have serious business acumen or links, but who has ever said anything about the "destruction of Microsoft." Even the most serious remedies would have left all of MS's assests intact, albeit in different companes.
[quote]Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.<hr></blockquote>'whether the case holds water or not?" That's odd reasoning. Because MS's competitors were dumb, MS should be off the hook for anything they did, illegal or not?
So if I don't buy home security equipment, someone's allowed to break into my house and they can't be charged because I was stupid? No, the question is what did MS do, not what did Sun or Netscape do.
<strong>I don't have serious business acumen or links, but who has ever said anything about the "destruction of Microsoft." Even the most serious remedies would have left all of MS's assests intact, albeit in different companes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps "destruction" was too strong a word, but reading opinion here, and elsewhere, it's quite clear that people want retribution. They want to harm Microsoft. They want punishment. It's my bet that doing any serious damage to Microsoft will do us absolutely no favors. And it's one of the few things that ol' Penguinhead is right about.
[quote]<strong>'whether the case holds water or not?" That's odd reasoning. Because MS's competitors were dumb, MS should be off the hook for anything they did, illegal or not?
So if I don't buy home security equipment, someone's allowed to break into my house and they can't be charged because I was stupid? No, the question is what did MS do, not what did Sun or Netscape do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just don't care what Microsoft did. The situation need never have arisen if Sun, Netscape, Apple, and a thousand other companies, had any business acumen whatsoever. Microsoft was well along the road to becoming a monopoly because of their failings, long before any of the purportedly illegal actions it took.
As a user of computers, punitive damages against Microsoft will do me no favors whatsoever. Innovation on the part of developers will.
The current situation in the PDA world is a perfect example. Pocket PC devices are very quickly eating up market share once held firmly by Palm. Why? Because Palm was moronic and sat still for too long thinking its devices would reign. Of course if Palm hits real financial dire straits, no doubt it'll find some reason Microsoft should be sued.
<strong>Here is an example of Microsoft's activities... <snip></strong><hr></blockquote>
This basically points out the standard practice for MS: they've been signing these agreements with backdoor hooks into other peoples' work since the old MS/IBM contract for the IBM PC. They did it with Apple and got their hands on the stuff to make Windows, they did it with lots of companies. The poison pill for all these little guys is the "partner" contracts they sign with Microsoft. The language of these contracts is often so vague, so open to interpretation and hidden in so much doublespeak that they can do as they please with other people's technology and claim ownership of it once they have their hooks into it.
Be extremely wary of signing any contracts with Microsoft. Too many companies have been screwed this way. Think about it: if they can screw over IBM, they can screw over any Tom Dick or Harry who is foolish enough to court Microsoft for support. Microsoft has made it the American way: through the lawyers. Microsoft is innovative with the law, not technology.
I think this ruling proves that the sun is setting on M$. As well, with the state of the economy, there is no way the Bush's government is going to punish a giant. Everyone predicted this when Bush was elected.
People are leaving for Linux in DROVES. Companies with excess of 40 000 seats are switching to a platform wich is superior in almost every respect and FREE. There is no way M$ can compete. They can't even afford to give African schools free software. By the time this 5 year deal is over, M$ will have lost at least 1/2 of it's market share.
<strong>I just don't care what Microsoft did.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well I'm glad our attorney general's office doesn't feel that way about whether or not people break the law. Oh wait...
Comments
Break up is pretty much just an icing on cake....not very practical IMO.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
windows XP is what really scares me, 98 is a independant OS...XP relies heavily on the MS servers...can you imagine if MS decided that they disable a MS feature and the OS doesnt' work...they could have the US at their mercy...i mean it wouldn' tmake sence for them to do this, but they easily could...i wonder if the DOJ typed their reports on a PC...MS hacked it probably to help prepare
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: ast3r3x ]</p>
<strong>Did you hear how much MS got fined for slapping those MSN butterfly stickers all over NYC? $50. Not each...FIFTY WHOLE DOLLARS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrible terrible. Nobody dares go against Microsoft...
Bill gates probably got his chaffeur to pay the fine.
I'll repeat what I said in the thread I should have locked that murbot eventually did:
Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.
<strong>Is there anyone here with some serious business acumen that could tell us exactly what the destruction of Microsoft would do to our economy? Or can anyone point to a link or two?
I'll repeat what I said in the thread I should have locked that murbot eventually did:
Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you for real? Do you live on this planet? Come on, everybody and their dog knows MSFT only got to where they are today and wield the kind of power they do because they lied, cheated, strongarmed and played dirty games to force the PC manufacturers to do business by MSFT's rules which are far from fair competition. Anderson got destroyed for far less than what MSFT has done to the software landscape. MSFT's success is what it is becasue they have NEVER been seriously spanked by the DOJ for their corrupt business tactics and contempt of justice. Where are the mutli-billion dollar fines for MSFT's mafia-style business arrangements which forced Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc .. to bundle MS Office otherwise they didn't get the OS?
Nobody is saying to destroy MSFT. But where is the true justice? Why has MSFT gotten off scott free with no fine for all the companies they destroyed through their illegal tactics? Why is MSFT being told in today's ruling that they can police themselves?
Yesterday's ruling on MSFT's behaviour is a sham! Justice has not been served and the DOJ has shown once again that $$$ can buy power. I really do hope the Europeans decide with more ethics and integrity in seeing that juctice is served once and for all.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: DVD_Junkie ]</p>
How they treated Apple on the other hand was essentially extortion, simple as that. Nevermind the old "look and feel" BS. Their tactics with Apple in 1997 were a real abuse of their monopoly.
<strong>Are you for real? Do you live on this planet? Come on, everybody and their dog knows MSFT only got to where they are today and wield the kind of power they do because they lied, cheated, strongarmed and played dirty games to force the PC manufacturers to do business by MSFT's rules which are far from fair competition. Anderson got destroyed for far less than what MSFT has done to the software landscape. MSFT's success is what it is becasue they have NEVER been seriously spanked by the DOJ for their corrupt business tactics and contempt of justice. Where are the mutli-billion dollar fines for MSFT's mafia-style business arrangements which forced Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc .. to bundle MS Office otherwise they didn't get the OS?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's the rub: I don't give a rat's ass. All I hope is that the DoJ takes a lump of cash from Microsoft, Netscape (Or whichever failing conglomerate owns it now), Sun, and everyone else who really thought that bringing this action would result in "justice." How much public money has been wasted on this? Everyone knew what the outcome would be.
Netscape, Sun, and developers of alternatives to Office all screwed up long before Microsoft turned "evil." And Apple can take a large part of the blame.
[quote]<strong>Nobody is saying to destroy MSFT. But where is the true justice? Why has MSFT gotten off scott free with no fine for all the companies they destroyed through their illegal tactics? Why is MSFT being told in today's ruling that they can police themselves?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It'd just be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Given your average PC, do you know how many pieces are made by American businesses? Created in American labs?
Microsoft is a huge cornerstone of our economy, and one of the few bargaining tokens we have when dealing with the technology center that is the far east.
[quote]<strong>How they treated Apple on the other hand was essentially extortion, simple as that. Nevermind the old "look and feel" BS. Their tactics with Apple in 1997 were a real abuse of their monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree wholeheartedly, but it's still my opinion that Apple was moronic for ever allowing itself to get into a position to be blackmailed in this way.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
If you base your arguments on reason, you arrive at true conclusions, and almost every single person who has responded is guilty of false conclusions. Furthermore, if these companies hate Microsoft so much, beat them the ethical way. Introduce truelly innovative products to market that are clearly better than Microsoft's. Apple has clearly made the right decision in staying out of this. Apple introduces truelly innovative products, and is not concerned with getting something for nothing, which is exactly what this whole case is about.
The companies that have supported this case are trying to get something for nothing. They cannot compete with Microsoft directly (Netscape) so they support the government in attempting to cripple it.
It's quite disgusting, do all of you consider yourselves socialists?
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: stevenr ]</p>
Instead, the plaintiffs, the above mentioned nine states, should use the money involved in the lawsuits to abandon Microsoft as soon as feasible. Get together, map out a plan for the replacement of ALL microsoft software from their respective states. How long would this take, years if not decades, but get over it, try a new strategy. They will always lose, Microsoft has too much $$$$$$ and will not let the company lose.
just my 1 penny thought
<strong>Could someone please tell how and in what instance Microsoft has initiated force against someone or a company? Every example given so far of Microsoft being illegal or immoral have all involved Microsoft leveraging it's assets in contracts between mutually free companies (not giving a license to PC manufacturers if they don't bundle other Microsoft products is an example of this).
If you base your arguments on reason, you arrive at true conclusions, and almost every single person who has responded is guilty of false conclusions. Furthermore, if these companies hate Microsoft so much, beat them the ethical way. Introduce truelly innovative products to market that are clearly better than Microsoft's. Apple has clearly made the right decision in staying out of this. Apple introduces truelly innovative products, and is not concerned with getting something for nothing, which is exactly what this whole case is about.
The companies that have supported this case are trying to get something for nothing. They cannot compete with Microsoft directly (Netscape) so they support the government in attempting to cripple it.
It's quite disgusting, do all of you consider yourselves socialists?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're so unbelievable wrong it hard to grasp. Read up on the history of the lawsuit.
<strong>...can you imagine if MS decided that they disable a MS feature and the OS doesnt' work...they could have the US at their mercy...i mean it wouldn' tmake sence for them to do this, but they easily could...
</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sure you have proof of these claims. It couldn't be FUD.
[quote]Could someone please tell how and in what instance Microsoft has initiated force against someone or a company?<hr></blockquote>Check the exclusionary contracts with OEMs. IIRC ms could make demands with the threat of not selling windows at the same price as other oems got.
Well, you're right that Apple was pretty stupid in lots of ways before then to help give MS this hand to play, but that doesn't excuse their behavior then anyway. MS is also a dirty player, not saying that's illegal, but it's as much a part of why MS is the monopoly as much as Apple's mistakes. In any case, Apple had a better case than the real instigators of the whole saga, Netscape and Sun. I still feel bad for Netscape because what could they really do when MS first gave away their own browser for free? It's like all those little stores that Wal Mart puts out of business by undercutting them. (Then of course, Wal Mart's price "rollbacks" become a little more modest.) It's legal, it's dirty, and it's just discouraging that this is the way the world works.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/29/microsoft_media_one/print.html"; target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/29/microsoft_media_one/print.html</a>;
<strong>Here is an example of Microsoft's activities,a new lawsuit that wasn't even included in the DOJ case,this is how Microsoft will act in the future.This has all the hallmarks of how Microsoft acts-someone builds software that is superior to MIcrosoft,Microsoft breaks the 3rd party software,the liscenses said 3rd party software,then steals the code and incorporates some of the superior 3rd party technology into its own software in a mediocre watered down version.The real losers are consumers,who miss out on the fruits of great programming,and have to waste time and money in their personal lives and businesses because of Microsoft's tactics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is like those religious threads - show the same text to a believer and a non-believer, and they'll both see it a different way.
As far as I'm concerned, this article makes Lang look like a complete boob. He obviously thought the interest that Microsoft took in Burst's technology to begin with was a great chance to sell the company at a premium. Now he's pissed because Microsoft wasn't interested.
While I admire Linus Torvalds for what he has achieved, I've disagreed with him on many subjects. However, this is worthy of quoting:
[quote]"I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad."<hr></blockquote>
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
[QB]Is there anyone here with some serious business acumen that could tell us exactly what the destruction of Microsoft would do to our economy? Or can anyone point to a link or two?/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I don't have serious business acumen or links, but who has ever said anything about the "destruction of Microsoft." Even the most serious remedies would have left all of MS's assests intact, albeit in different companes.
[quote]Microsoft's competitors have used this case to hide their own, unforgivable faults. Whether the case holds water or not, Sun, Netscape et al. screwed themselves long before Microsoft ever did.
The pathetic bitching and whining amongst these companies makes them, in my opinion, undeserving of any sympathy.<hr></blockquote>'whether the case holds water or not?" That's odd reasoning. Because MS's competitors were dumb, MS should be off the hook for anything they did, illegal or not?
So if I don't buy home security equipment, someone's allowed to break into my house and they can't be charged because I was stupid? No, the question is what did MS do, not what did Sun or Netscape do.
<strong>I don't have serious business acumen or links, but who has ever said anything about the "destruction of Microsoft." Even the most serious remedies would have left all of MS's assests intact, albeit in different companes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps "destruction" was too strong a word, but reading opinion here, and elsewhere, it's quite clear that people want retribution. They want to harm Microsoft. They want punishment. It's my bet that doing any serious damage to Microsoft will do us absolutely no favors. And it's one of the few things that ol' Penguinhead is right about.
[quote]<strong>'whether the case holds water or not?" That's odd reasoning. Because MS's competitors were dumb, MS should be off the hook for anything they did, illegal or not?
So if I don't buy home security equipment, someone's allowed to break into my house and they can't be charged because I was stupid? No, the question is what did MS do, not what did Sun or Netscape do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just don't care what Microsoft did. The situation need never have arisen if Sun, Netscape, Apple, and a thousand other companies, had any business acumen whatsoever. Microsoft was well along the road to becoming a monopoly because of their failings, long before any of the purportedly illegal actions it took.
As a user of computers, punitive damages against Microsoft will do me no favors whatsoever. Innovation on the part of developers will.
The current situation in the PDA world is a perfect example. Pocket PC devices are very quickly eating up market share once held firmly by Palm. Why? Because Palm was moronic and sat still for too long thinking its devices would reign. Of course if Palm hits real financial dire straits, no doubt it'll find some reason Microsoft should be sued.
<strong>Here is an example of Microsoft's activities... <snip></strong><hr></blockquote>
This basically points out the standard practice for MS: they've been signing these agreements with backdoor hooks into other peoples' work since the old MS/IBM contract for the IBM PC. They did it with Apple and got their hands on the stuff to make Windows, they did it with lots of companies. The poison pill for all these little guys is the "partner" contracts they sign with Microsoft. The language of these contracts is often so vague, so open to interpretation and hidden in so much doublespeak that they can do as they please with other people's technology and claim ownership of it once they have their hooks into it.
Be extremely wary of signing any contracts with Microsoft. Too many companies have been screwed this way. Think about it: if they can screw over IBM, they can screw over any Tom Dick or Harry who is foolish enough to court Microsoft for support. Microsoft has made it the American way: through the lawyers. Microsoft is innovative with the law, not technology.
People are leaving for Linux in DROVES. Companies with excess of 40 000 seats are switching to a platform wich is superior in almost every respect and FREE. There is no way M$ can compete. They can't even afford to give African schools free software. By the time this 5 year deal is over, M$ will have lost at least 1/2 of it's market share.
<strong>I just don't care what Microsoft did.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well I'm glad our attorney general's office doesn't feel that way about whether or not people break the law. Oh wait...