Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
<<
There is a case that borders on this. Namely, the DR-DOS. Basically, DR-DOS was a competitor to MS-DOS. DR-DOS was superior in many ways to MS-DOS, and it had things like disk-compressor and memory-manager (you know, to maximise the amount of free base RAM) years before MS-DOS got 'em. In order to harm DR-DOS, MS deliberatly Modified Windows 3.1 in such way that it checked what version of DOS it was running on. If it was DR-DOS, it would display error-messages. The truth was that there was no reason why Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS, MS just made sure that it wouldn't Caldera then sued MS over that issue, and MS settled out of court. >>
Actually, CP/M (control program / monitor) was written by Digital Research Inc (DRI). Microsoft DOS was basically a clone of DRI's CP/M version 1.4(86), but further modified and called QDOS by a man named Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, was then purchased by Microsoft and then licensed to IBM. To keep DRI quiet about this, Microsoft claimed it would offer CP/M-86(the basis of MS-DOS) as an alternative to MS-DOS with IBM. However Microsoft charged almost 6 times as much for DRI's version.
This is when DRI went back to work and released DR-DOS, which as you said, was very superior to MS-DOS because of all the reasons you listed. This forced microsoft to alter it's pricing for DOS, and to also release versions 4,5,6 of DOS to try and catch up to DR-DOS. What you said about 3.1 checking for DOS versions is probably true, though I cannot confirm this information. It would make sense, since Caldera, which bought the rights to Novell's ownership of DRI, sued MS over this and I think they won.
I'm sick of the f****** companies filing suit against Microsoft claiming absurd amounts of damages.
Java went to court to force Microsoft to stop distributing the Microsoft version of the JVM with Windows XP.
Now they're going to court to force them to distribute the Java version of the JVM.
They're also going to court to force Microsoft to show them their source code.
Let's review:
1) Stop selling your version.
2) Start selling our version.
3) Show us your code so we can make our version as good as your version.
WTF?
As a developer, crap like this really blows my mind and p_sses me off.
Write your own f****** code and and make your own f****** success.
What ever happened to the Java operating system that was rumored for so long?
Nothing ... Not because Microsoft got in the way, but because Sun dropped the ball.
Same thing with Netscape. They didn't lose the browser war because Microsoft acted improperly. They lost the browser war because their product failed to evolve and improve. Most Netscape users stopped using Netscape at version 4.x. My office still uses that version when distributing Netscape because it's the only real formal release that works and isn't horrendously slow.
As far as I'm concerned, Sun and Netscape should stop concentrating on using the nation's legal system and press releases to fight their fights and start writing some code. That's where it started, and that's where it should end.
Telstar
Java went to court to force Microsoft to stop distributing the Microsoft version of the JVM with Windows XP.
Now they're going to court to force them to distribute the Java version of the JVM.
They're also going to court to force Microsoft to show them their source code.
Let's review:
1) Stop selling your version.
2) Start selling our version.
3) Show us your code so we can make our version as good as your version.
WTF?
As a developer, crap like this really blows my mind and p_sses me off.
Write your own f****** code and and make your own f****** success.
What ever happened to the Java operating system that was rumored for so long?
Nothing ... Not because Microsoft got in the way, but because Sun dropped the ball.
Same thing with Netscape. They didn't lose the browser war because Microsoft acted improperly. They lost the browser war because their product failed to evolve and improve. Most Netscape users stopped using Netscape at version 4.x. My office still uses that version when distributing Netscape because it's the only real formal release that works and isn't horrendously slow.
As far as I'm concerned, Sun and Netscape should stop concentrating on using the nation's legal system and press releases to fight their fights and start writing some code. That's where it started, and that's where it should end.
Telstar
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
Regardless of these lawsuits, which frankly in Sun's case are silly, all of these companies need to get out of the courtroom and back into the code labs, I am tired of getting seeing half-assed software and non-robust OS's because all the money and time is being used to sue each other out of existance. Grow up and stop acting like children.
Sun originally sued to prevent Microsoft from shipping Microsoft's own, incompatible, corrupt, embraced-and-extended, bastardized version of MS-Java.
Now they are suing in order to get Microsoft to include an original, clean, standards-compliant version of Java produced by Sun.
The two suits are over different complaints.
Now they are suing in order to get Microsoft to include an original, clean, standards-compliant version of Java produced by Sun.
The two suits are over different complaints.
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
<< Sun originally sued to prevent Microsoft from shipping Microsoft's own, incompatible, corrupt, embraced-and-extended, bastardized version of MS-Java.
Now they are suing in order to get Microsoft to include an original, clean, standards-compliant version of Java produced by Sun.
The two suits are over different complaints. >>
From what I have seen of your posts, though sometimes warranted, you seem extremely biased against Microsoft. You should look at the bigger picture rather than judge a company on mistakes of the past.
<< Sun originally sued to prevent Microsoft from shipping Microsoft's own, incompatible, corrupt, embraced-and-extended, bastardized version of MS-Java.
Now they are suing in order to get Microsoft to include an original, clean, standards-compliant version of Java produced by Sun.
The two suits are over different complaints. >>
in other words: sun got f*cked over by their own terms, and now they want to blame it on ms.
MS should just say you want us to put Java in XP, you PAY US $1billion. Its our software, we cant use our own version of Java(which many think is superior than Sun's), we certainly wont put yours in for free.
This case should be thrown out. No one should be forced to include other companies software in their software for free. If Sun wants in in XP, they should have to pay for it.
This case should be thrown out. No one should be forced to include other companies software in their software for free. If Sun wants in in XP, they should have to pay for it.
CorporateRecreation,
And most people are biased in favor of Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with bias as long as it can be substantiated with fact.
It seems some of the replies are simply confused about last year's trial. Sun sued because Microsoft violated its Java licensing agreement, plain and simple. Sun would have easily won that trial, and both parties settled. For those who snicker M$ has no interest in Java, I counter that C# and .Net are largely a clone job of Java technologies. If you can't beat 'em, just steal 'em.
In this new suit, Sun is claiming illegal anticompetitive business actions. I don't know the merit of this suit. But like a few others have mentioned, it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft has broken compatibility for seemingly arbitrary (or even illegal) reasons.
I will tell you that AOL Netscape's suit has a lot of merit. Face it, M$ buried Netscape by leveraging its OS monopoly to gain a browser monopoly. They essentially dumped IE on the marketplace for free, and threatened OEMs to not sign deals with Netscape, or risk losing favorable Windows licensing. In reality, IE wasn't free as consumers paid for it every time they paid for a Windows license.
I don't mind if people in general are happy with Winblows, or consider Microsoft a pinnacle of American software. However, they've been found guilty of abusing their monopoly, and based on those findings of fact, it's a joke that DOJ is bending over backwards to give them a slap on the wrist.
If the government isn't going to punish the company for its illegal actions, at least other companies can step in and use the government case as a legal precedent. They still have to make their own case in court.
And most people are biased in favor of Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with bias as long as it can be substantiated with fact.
It seems some of the replies are simply confused about last year's trial. Sun sued because Microsoft violated its Java licensing agreement, plain and simple. Sun would have easily won that trial, and both parties settled. For those who snicker M$ has no interest in Java, I counter that C# and .Net are largely a clone job of Java technologies. If you can't beat 'em, just steal 'em.
In this new suit, Sun is claiming illegal anticompetitive business actions. I don't know the merit of this suit. But like a few others have mentioned, it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft has broken compatibility for seemingly arbitrary (or even illegal) reasons.
I will tell you that AOL Netscape's suit has a lot of merit. Face it, M$ buried Netscape by leveraging its OS monopoly to gain a browser monopoly. They essentially dumped IE on the marketplace for free, and threatened OEMs to not sign deals with Netscape, or risk losing favorable Windows licensing. In reality, IE wasn't free as consumers paid for it every time they paid for a Windows license.
I don't mind if people in general are happy with Winblows, or consider Microsoft a pinnacle of American software. However, they've been found guilty of abusing their monopoly, and based on those findings of fact, it's a joke that DOJ is bending over backwards to give them a slap on the wrist.
If the government isn't going to punish the company for its illegal actions, at least other companies can step in and use the government case as a legal precedent. They still have to make their own case in court.
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
manly, I was stating that he only posts anti-microsoft rhetoric. And I don't see the need to defend myself about it.
I for one dislike everything about microsoft and choose not to use their products if I can help it. It is too late to do anything about Microsoft now, the world depends on it sadly.
I for one dislike everything about microsoft and choose not to use their products if I can help it. It is too late to do anything about Microsoft now, the world depends on it sadly.
CorporateRecreation,
I see your point, but what about all the knee-jerk "defenders of innovation"? Nobody's criticizing them for the rhetoric.
I have to disagree with your conclusions though. Nobody's saying Windows is evil; in reality a standard OS is something that most people want. However, given the circumstance in which a company holds an entrenched monopoly as Microsoft does, they cannot abuse that monopoly.
The government trial has shown Microsoft not only maintains its monopoly, but tries to win other markets illegally. So it may be too late to hurt the Windows monopoly, but its not too late to get Microsoft to operate legally like most other companies. In fact, the essential bottom-line is that competition in not only software, but many wide-ranging markets in which Microsoft is challenging how, hinges on effectively halting their illegal business actions.
Like I said in my diatribe, I don't care how others feel about Windows or Microsoft. However, in contrast to your opinion, I do feel its important that a company that illegally abuses its monopoly needs to be both regulated and punished for past illegal actions.
I see your point, but what about all the knee-jerk "defenders of innovation"? Nobody's criticizing them for the rhetoric.
I have to disagree with your conclusions though. Nobody's saying Windows is evil; in reality a standard OS is something that most people want. However, given the circumstance in which a company holds an entrenched monopoly as Microsoft does, they cannot abuse that monopoly.
The government trial has shown Microsoft not only maintains its monopoly, but tries to win other markets illegally. So it may be too late to hurt the Windows monopoly, but its not too late to get Microsoft to operate legally like most other companies. In fact, the essential bottom-line is that competition in not only software, but many wide-ranging markets in which Microsoft is challenging how, hinges on effectively halting their illegal business actions.
Like I said in my diatribe, I don't care how others feel about Windows or Microsoft. However, in contrast to your opinion, I do feel its important that a company that illegally abuses its monopoly needs to be both regulated and punished for past illegal actions.
I can see the lawyers preordering their trophy mistresses and other expensive toys if they get a hand on this case.
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
I agree about the monopoly aspect, but is it really a monopoly? I recall reading many stories about how Microsoft saved Apple's ass on many occasions by just giving them money so they could get back on their feet. While this seems foolsih, it is actually brilliant on Microsoft's part. For one thing, without competition, the industry would flat out die. Hardware, software and marketing would fall through the floor because everyone would be producing parts for the same machines over and over. I think Microsoft's practice of trying to get a hold of other markets illegally is dispicable and wrong and should be punished, but how far is the line between capitalism and greed? Our society is based on huge monopolies from the past. Look at John D Rockerfeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc. Big business forces people to innovate and come up with something better. Thus the double-edged sword rears it's ugly head again.
MS didnt break compatibility, you can freaking download the stuff they didnt include in XP. Nothing is broken, it works just fine. MS didnt gain market share until their product was superior to Netscapes, it was bundled with Windows from version 1 to present, and know what? They didnt gain any ground till 4, and with 5 they took the majority.
If one company cant use leverage, then neither can anyother company. Fact of the matter is every company uses its leverage to get other companies to use its products. If its illegal for MS to do it because they are a monoploy, it should be illegal for EVERYONE.
If one company cant use leverage, then neither can anyother company. Fact of the matter is every company uses its leverage to get other companies to use its products. If its illegal for MS to do it because they are a monoploy, it should be illegal for EVERYONE.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
The funny thing is that Microsoft's JVM sucks, and can't run many applets written in Java 2. They did Sun a favor by NOT including it, and by making people download and use the far-superior Sun Java plug-in.
Microsoft didn't do anything that would make Windows XP/IE6 "incompatible" with Java. Just download the plug-in, and you're good go. Case closed, Microsoft wins.
Microsoft didn't do anything that would make Windows XP/IE6 "incompatible" with Java. Just download the plug-in, and you're good go. Case closed, Microsoft wins.
LH,
Your opinions don't carry enough weight if you don't take into account anti-trust law.
Basically, you're using the Microsoft trial defense, "we're innocent because we're defenders of innovation; competition is healthy in software". And the courts found that defense to be weak at best.
If you were ever busted for possessing marijuana, and went to court, would you tell the judge that "marijuana is not a bad thing, so just let me go home?"
A common misconception of Adam Smith's capitalism is that regulation is a bad thing. History has shown quite clearly that capitalism is not optimal without government ensuring that some standards are adhered to. These standards do change over time...
Your opinions don't carry enough weight if you don't take into account anti-trust law.
Basically, you're using the Microsoft trial defense, "we're innocent because we're defenders of innovation; competition is healthy in software". And the courts found that defense to be weak at best.
If you were ever busted for possessing marijuana, and went to court, would you tell the judge that "marijuana is not a bad thing, so just let me go home?"
A common misconception of Adam Smith's capitalism is that regulation is a bad thing. History has shown quite clearly that capitalism is not optimal without government ensuring that some standards are adhered to. These standards do change over time...
<< how far is the line between capitalism and greed? >>
It is up to the courts to decide this, not up to you, and not up to me.
The courts have decided (twice, in their findings of fact) that Microsoft's business conduct has flagrantly broken the laws that govern capitalism in America. In other words, whatever the legal line is, Microsoft crossed it.
As for not judging a company by its past conduct, that is frankly bull. There is absolutely no other way to judge a company except for its past conduct. This also holds for people.
Nobody can disclaim responsibility for his illegal actions. Corporations are no different in this regard than persons.
<< JAVA is Sun's product. The client distribution is free, yes, but the development tools cost real money. Microsoft broke the license agreement in the use of JAVA by not developing it exactly to Sun's specifications. >>
That was the last case ... which was settled.
The primary focus of this case is claiming that Microsoft damaged Sun by not including the Sun JVM with Windows XP ... and it throws in some stuff related to the monopoly and anti-competitive practices to make sure they cover all of the buzzwords and perhaps add a bit of clout to their argument.
The problem is that Microsoft is a big target. You don't see too many lawsuits about what's installed on a Solaris installation. Microsoft makes Windows ... it's my opinion that they should be allowed to install whatever the hell they want on it. Sun makes Solaris, a very prominent operating system in the UNIX world ... and they're free to install whatever they wish. They're able to use their success in that arena to install and promote Java. The truth is Sun has every opportunity to make Java a success ... and to a great degree, it has been a success. It's used by a tremendous number of companies and developers, it's used in a number of phones on the market today and coming to the market soon, and quite frankly, the in-browser use of Java, in the form of applets, is probably the least signifigant market that Sun stands to benefit from. I see their lawsuit as frivilous and a pathetic attempt to exploit the court's findings that Microsoft abused their monopoly powers.
Telstar
<< WTF! You don't like XP not having a certain functionality? DON'T FREAKING USE IT. >>
gladly, sucka
<< nik
| IDIOTAS! :|) >>we'll see who the idiota is when MS is requiring you to run windows on their MSPC.
I think my favorite quote from their legal filing is this:
"Neither Sun nor other members of the Java community can achieve distribution for the Java platform on PCs that is comparable to Microsoft's distribution channel, absent judicial intervention."
No s**t. So what ... They're supposed to distribute YOUR product?
The whole thing is one long whine.
link
"Neither Sun nor other members of the Java community can achieve distribution for the Java platform on PCs that is comparable to Microsoft's distribution channel, absent judicial intervention."
No s**t. So what ... They're supposed to distribute YOUR product?
The whole thing is one long whine.
link
can microsoft like counter sue? I mean if these asswads are gonna force microsoft to waste millions of dollars on legal fees, (yeah I know it aint much for big bill, but still...) isnt there any way of saying "dont FVCK with us again"? And what the hell? All these stupid asswad companies suing microsoft, just mad cuz they aint nothin next to money man Bill.
What was the deal a short time ago about someone all pissed off about microsoft bundling IE into windows? isnt it microsoft's goddamn right to toss whatever the hell they want into their OS's?
EDIT: Hey how is microsoft a monopoly? I mean people dont HAVE to use windows, they can just download linux and stuff. So how is it considered a monopoly if there are quite a few different alternatives? it isnt microsoft's fault if the average person doesnt understand the other operating systems.
What was the deal a short time ago about someone all pissed off about microsoft bundling IE into windows? isnt it microsoft's goddamn right to toss whatever the hell they want into their OS's?
EDIT: Hey how is microsoft a monopoly? I mean people dont HAVE to use windows, they can just download linux and stuff. So how is it considered a monopoly if there are quite a few different alternatives? it isnt microsoft's fault if the average person doesnt understand the other operating systems.
<< I think my favorite quote from their legal filing is this:
"Neither Sun nor other members of the Java community can achieve distribution for the Java platform on PCs that is comparable to Microsoft's distribution channel, absent judicial intervention."
No s**t. So what ... They're supposed to distribute YOUR product?
The whole thing is one long whine. >>
I don't care much for Sun either, but... You could look at this from same perspective as courts did in the Netscape-case. That is, is MS using their monopoly of the desktop to gain other markets? Using your monopoly to push in to other markets is illegal, and MS was found guilty of using it's desktop-monopoly to push in to browser-business. Now, you could say that this is a case of two competing products: Java and C#. MS uses their monopoly of the desktop to shut Java out, and they use their monopoly to push C#. If you replace Java with Netscape and C# with IE, this case looks alot like the first case.
<< can microsoft like counter sue? I mean if these asswads are gonna force microsoft to waste millions of dollars on legal fees, (yeah I know it aint much for big bill, but still...) isnt there any way of saying "dont FVCK with us again"? And what the hell? All these stupid asswad companies suing microsoft, just mad cuz they aint nothin next to money man Bill. >>
I don't think MS is in a position to do that. I mean, it had been demonstrated in the courts that MS is a monopoly, that they have abused that monopoly and as a result, companies and consumers have been hurt. That ruling makes sure that there alot of ground for many more lawsuits.
<< What was the deal a short time ago about someone all pissed off about microsoft bundling IE into windows? isnt it microsoft's goddamn right to toss whatever the hell they want into their OS's? >>
It's not as simple as that. the core of the lawsuit was that MS denied OEM's from shipping a competing product. You could say that "isnt it microsoft's goddamn right to toss whatever the hell they want into their OS's?", but you could also say "Don't OEM's have every goddam right to ship whatever they wish with THEIR PC's?". According to MS, they don't have that right. And that was found to be abuse of monopoly.
In short: Having a monopoly is not illegal as such. But it is illegal to abuse that monopoly. If you use that monopoly to gain market-share in other businesses, it's considered to be abuse and it's illegal. MS used their monopoly to push in to browser-business. They did that by:
1. Saturating 90+% of the market with their product by bundling it with Windows
2. Denying a competitor access to the distribution-channel (OEM's)
They could do both that things because they had 90+% share of the desktop-market and because OEM's relied on Windows, which gave MS the opportunity to blackmail OEM's in to dropping Netscape. Both 1 and 2 are considered to be abuse of monopoly, and therefore illegal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter