<< we'll see who the idiota is when MS is requiring you to run windows on their MSPC. >>
What's wrong with that? I have no problems running a stable, compatible computer -even if I have to buy the whole freakin thing from Microsoft.
nik
<< we'll see who the idiota is when MS is requiring you to run windows on their MSPC. >>
What's wrong with that? I have no problems running a stable, compatible computer -even if I have to buy the whole freakin thing from Microsoft.
nik
<< 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. >>
If you want to use Java, use Java. Microsoft can not prevent you from going to java.sun.com and downloading the damn JDK. I use Java on windows, I also use C#. C# is their creation (don't show your myopia by saying Java == C#, although syntactically similar), why should they not be able to promote it?
<<
<< 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. >>
If you want to use Java, use Java. Microsoft can not prevent you from going to java.sun.com and downloading the damn JDK. I use Java on windows, I also use C#. C# is their creation (don't show your myopia by saying Java == C#, although syntactically similar), why should they not be able to promote it? >>
While that is true, and anyone can run Java is one wishes. anyone can also download Netscape and use it if they want to. But the fact remains that MS uses their dominance to push their other products like IE for example). That would not be a problem if MS was not a monopoly. But they are, and monopolies can't do some of the things non-monopolies can do.
<< While that is true, and anyone can run Java is one wishes. anyone can also download Netscape and use it if they want to. But the fact remains that MS uses their dominance to push their other products like IE for example). That would not be a problem if MS was not a monopoly. But they are, and monopolies can't do some of the things non-monopolies can do. >>
So, any company wishing to permeate a given market only has to find an extremely salient company and sue to have their product included with theirs?
<< So, any company wishing to permeate a given market only has to find an extremely salient company and sue to have their product included with theirs? >>
No. Having a monopoly and being salient are two different things. Oracle is a salient company, yet they are not a monopoly.
You can have a monopoly without having to ship competitors products. But the monent you start to use your monopoly to compete with other companies in other business-areas, you are abusing your monoply and it has to be corrected. One way is to make sure that your competitors have equal exposure to your products or that you stop using your monopoly to push your other product. MS failed on both accounts: they prevented OEM's from offering Netscape and they failed to remove IE from their OS.
Like it or not, that is the law. And living by that law benefits both companies and consumers in the long run
Nemesis, is it not true that Sun agreed to Microsoft?s terms that they will not include any version of JAVA?
Now if they agreed to it, why would they now want to force Microsoft to include JVM? Unless the previous case was only to stop MS from releasing MS's version of JVM. But I did not read anything like that on some of the articles posted here.
I see the point you are trying to get at by comparing the 2 cases, but should that be applied in this case? Cause Sun already agreed to MS's terms? (AFAIK, they agreed to not include any version of JVM)
Now if they agreed to it, why would they now want to force Microsoft to include JVM? Unless the previous case was only to stop MS from releasing MS's version of JVM. But I did not read anything like that on some of the articles posted here.
I see the point you are trying to get at by comparing the 2 cases, but should that be applied in this case? Cause Sun already agreed to MS's terms? (AFAIK, they agreed to not include any version of JVM)
<< Nemesis, is it not true that Sun agreed to Microsoft?s terms that they will not include any version of JAVA?
Now if they agreed to it, why would they now want to force Microsoft to include JVM? Unless the previous case was only to stop MS from releasing MS's version of JVM. But I did not read anything like that on some of the articles posted here.
I see the point you are trying to get at by comparing the 2 cases, but should that be applied in this case? Cause Sun already agreed to MS's terms? (AFAIK, they agreed to not include any version of JVM) >>
To my knowledge the previous Sun-MS lawsuit was about the "polluted" version of Java that MS made. MS lost that case and was forbidden to distribute their version of Java. To my knowledge they were not forbidden to distribute any version of Java. Now, Sun sues MS because they don't support Java in their OS, but it has to be downloaded separately.
But, I could be wrong there, I haven't paid much attention to the Sun-MS fights. In my book they are both rather sucky companies.
lol, got an image of Dr Evil saying 1 billion dollars doing his pinky thing when i read the title
suns about evil as microsoft, screw em. they want a monopoly on net applications..bah
suns about evil as microsoft, screw em. they want a monopoly on net applications..bah
Nefrodite, what are you referring to? How is Sun evil? They work with a whole coalition of companies to develop and promote J2EE. It's well-known that Sun does not derive any direct profits from its Java software business. Sun isn't benevolent, but comparing them to M$ is a joke.
It's crazy how well the Microsoft PR machine works. They have everyone believing that Sun asked them to take Java out of WXP.
Listen, the first lawsuit was because Microsoft broke its Java licensing agreement, a legal contract. Period. As a result of that lawsuit, Microsoft lost its Java license, and will no longer develop Java technologies. I believe the settlement terms allowed them to continue shipping their current Java 1.1.4 virtual machine for a period of time.
Secondly, your perspective is myopic if you think this lawsuit is just about shipping Microsoft's weak Java 1.1.4 virtual machine in WXP. Although that product is functional for running older appets, it's otherwise a non-issue in the marketplace. You can still download the MS Virtual Machine for IE if you want that older functionality. Applets in general are pretty irrelevant in the marketplace anyway.
The new lawsuit claims anti-competitive actions by Microsoft aimed at damaging Java and J2EE. IANAL, but my guess is they will argue that Microsoft's attempts to pollute Java were anti-competitive actions aimed at damaging Java/J2EE. I won't argue the merit of this claim, but the argument is that if Microsoft didn't care for Java, they should have ignored it from the beginning.
However, by signing a Java licensing agreement, and then breaking that agreement, there is a (tenuous) logical connection that can be made that their actions were illegal and anti-competitive. Sun's legal team now has to introduce the government case as a legal precedent, and tie it all together. It's anyone's guess how the trial ends up.
In conclusion, the obsolete Microsoft Java 1.1.4 virtual machine is really just a footnote in the case.
It's crazy how well the Microsoft PR machine works. They have everyone believing that Sun asked them to take Java out of WXP.
Listen, the first lawsuit was because Microsoft broke its Java licensing agreement, a legal contract. Period. As a result of that lawsuit, Microsoft lost its Java license, and will no longer develop Java technologies. I believe the settlement terms allowed them to continue shipping their current Java 1.1.4 virtual machine for a period of time.
Secondly, your perspective is myopic if you think this lawsuit is just about shipping Microsoft's weak Java 1.1.4 virtual machine in WXP. Although that product is functional for running older appets, it's otherwise a non-issue in the marketplace. You can still download the MS Virtual Machine for IE if you want that older functionality. Applets in general are pretty irrelevant in the marketplace anyway.
The new lawsuit claims anti-competitive actions by Microsoft aimed at damaging Java and J2EE. IANAL, but my guess is they will argue that Microsoft's attempts to pollute Java were anti-competitive actions aimed at damaging Java/J2EE. I won't argue the merit of this claim, but the argument is that if Microsoft didn't care for Java, they should have ignored it from the beginning.
However, by signing a Java licensing agreement, and then breaking that agreement, there is a (tenuous) logical connection that can be made that their actions were illegal and anti-competitive. Sun's legal team now has to introduce the government case as a legal precedent, and tie it all together. It's anyone's guess how the trial ends up.
In conclusion, the obsolete Microsoft Java 1.1.4 virtual machine is really just a footnote in the case.
Now, here are the facts. These facts are not open to debate.
Microsoft is a monopoly. This is a finding of fact confirmed by two separate and independent courts. This is not open to debate.
Microsoft abused its monopoly to unfairly leverage its dominant position in the desktop OS area to gain illegal, anticompetitive advantage in other areas of the marketplace. This too is a finding of fact confirmed by two separate and independent courts. This too is not open to debate.
Building on these findings of fact, Sun is making the case that Microsoft tried, and continues to try, to gain illegal, anticompetitive advantage in the middleware area of the marketplace. The argument is that using the desktop (XP) to leverage Microsoft's own middleware (.Net, Passport, C#) in order to defeat competitors (Java) is illegal, anticompetitive, and an exact repetition of the Netscape situation. Monopolies are not allowed to leverage their success in one area of the marketplace in order to gain advantage in another area of the marketplace. This is what the law is. This is how American capitalism works.
I think Sun's suit has a lot of merit, and will win. It mirrors the Netscape situation very precisely.
Once you look at the findings of fact, and the situations that led to these findings of fact, you should easily be able to see why Sun will easily win, although it may not be able to collect 1 billion dollars. However, what it does collect will be plentiful.
Microsoft is a monopoly. This is a finding of fact confirmed by two separate and independent courts. This is not open to debate.
Microsoft abused its monopoly to unfairly leverage its dominant position in the desktop OS area to gain illegal, anticompetitive advantage in other areas of the marketplace. This too is a finding of fact confirmed by two separate and independent courts. This too is not open to debate.
Building on these findings of fact, Sun is making the case that Microsoft tried, and continues to try, to gain illegal, anticompetitive advantage in the middleware area of the marketplace. The argument is that using the desktop (XP) to leverage Microsoft's own middleware (.Net, Passport, C#) in order to defeat competitors (Java) is illegal, anticompetitive, and an exact repetition of the Netscape situation. Monopolies are not allowed to leverage their success in one area of the marketplace in order to gain advantage in another area of the marketplace. This is what the law is. This is how American capitalism works.
I think Sun's suit has a lot of merit, and will win. It mirrors the Netscape situation very precisely.
Once you look at the findings of fact, and the situations that led to these findings of fact, you should easily be able to see why Sun will easily win, although it may not be able to collect 1 billion dollars. However, what it does collect will be plentiful.
yellowplastic,
The only fault with your analysis is that you have too much faith in the legal system. Although your statements regarding the federal anti-trust suit are correct, you fail to mention that the Bush administration has essentially told the DOJ to not press for any meaningful regulations or punishment for the findings of fact.
In other words, they've essentially usurped the justice system. I don't think most observers feel that the judge in this phase of the trial will reject the DOJ's proposed meaningless settlement.
The only punishment to be meted out as a result of the findings of fact will be from separate civil lawsuits and perhaps from the EU.
I'm not holding my breath.
The only fault with your analysis is that you have too much faith in the legal system. Although your statements regarding the federal anti-trust suit are correct, you fail to mention that the Bush administration has essentially told the DOJ to not press for any meaningful regulations or punishment for the findings of fact.
In other words, they've essentially usurped the justice system. I don't think most observers feel that the judge in this phase of the trial will reject the DOJ's proposed meaningless settlement.
The only punishment to be meted out as a result of the findings of fact will be from separate civil lawsuits and perhaps from the EU.
I'm not holding my breath.
<< The only punishment to be meted out as a result of the findings of fact will be from separate civil lawsuits and perhaps from the EU. >>
The findings of fact will cause Microsoft's downfall, not the (non)remedies to be handed down by the Government. The findings of fact will give anyone with a grudge against Microsoft and a half-decent case carte blanche to sue and collect hundreds of million apiece. The findings of fact are incontestible. We are looking at the beginnings of a legal DoS attack against Microsoft.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
<< No. Having a monopoly and being salient are two different things. Oracle is a salient company, yet they are not a monopoly. >>
No they are a company who got big by selling broken Software to the Governement. Go to the Dictionary and look up "Shysters" and it will say "See Larry Ellison" and "Oracle"
So us paying more now would be good for both us the buying (and stealing) public and for whiny companies that produce complete sh!t like Nutscrape and AOL right? Tell me Nemesis, are you a Nix Weenie per chance?
<< No they are a company who got big by selling broken Software to the Governement. Go to the Dictionary and look up "Shysters" and it will say "See Larry Ellison" and "Oracle" >>
Yet, that doesn't turn them in to a monopoly.
<< So us paying more now would be good for both us the buying (and stealing) public and for whiny companies that produce complete sh!t like Nutscrape and AOL right? Tell me Nemesis, are you a Nix Weenie per chance? >>
by allowing several companies to compete with their products increases competition (duh!) and therefore results in faster technological improvement and also lower prices. Isn't that one of the key things in capitalism? Right now, capitalism does not work in PC industry, because you have exactly one choice of OS: Windows. It continues to amaze me how people who call themselves capitalists have no problem with single monopoly controlling their PC's. Both in the long run and in the short run, competition is GOOD for the consumers. Just look at AMD vs. Intel! Prices have dropped and both companies keep releasing better and better CPU's in their attempts to outdo each other! There is no competition in OS-market now, and price of Windows has been steady. Or has it even increased in price?
Suppose we went to the direction MS wants us to go: We all used MS-OS, surfed the net with IE, only used Windows Media for our media-needs, we would authenticate using Passport... Would you REALLY be comfortable with MS having that much control over you? I sure as hell wouldn't. It would stagnate the industry since it would be practically impossible to compete with MS, so MS wouldn't have the need to compete with either quality of their software or by pricing. We can already see that happening
Nix Weenie? If you mean that do I use Unix/Linux, then the answer is yes. I use both W2K and Linux. And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
<< Nix Weenie? If you mean that do I use Unix/Linux, then the answer is yes. I use both W2K and Linux. And what does that have to do with the issue at hand? >>
Oh nothing..nothing at all.
<< by allowing several companies to compete with their products increases competition (duh!) and therefore results in faster technological improvement and also lower prices. Isn't that one of the key things in capitalism? Right now, capitalism does not work in PC industry, because you have exactly one choice of OS: Windows. It continues to amaze me how people who call themselves capitalists have no problem with single monopoly controlling their PC's. >>
Build a better mousetrap and you will sell it. Build a better Desktop OS for the Consumers and you will sell it too. As far as I know MS doesan't have a monopoly on the MAC OS, Apple does..including the hardware too. Linux has been around forever, how come they can't develop a version that's easy and intuitive like Windows? With all the PNG's who claim that it's so great how come they haven't been able to do that?
Regarding I.E and Nutscrapes Navigator, At first Nutscrapes Browser licked ass on I.E. but MS dumped a ton of cash making I.E. a better product and people migrated to it. Sure it was free but so was Nutscrapes POS Browser. If Nutscrape had buiilt a better Browser people would still be using it in droves. Unfortunately they could only muster up a POS Product and the consumer kicked it to the curb where all crap belongs.
<< Build a better mousetrap and you will sell it. Build a better Desktop OS for the Consumers and you will sell it too. >>
Oh, how are you planning to sell that OS, since MS has denied OEM's the right to sell that competing OS? Buying that OS from retail and installing it afterwards is too complicated for about 90% of PC-users.
<< As far as I know MS doesan't have a monopoly on the MAC OS, Apple does..including the hardware too. >>
Apple has about 5% market-share, what does it have to do with this?
<< Linux has been around forever, how come they can't develop a version that's easy and intuitive like Windows? With all the PNG's who claim that it's so great how come they haven't been able to do that? >>
They already have. Linux looks better than XP, it's just as easy to use, it's order of magnitude more stable and secure, it has MS-Office compatible Office-suites, it has games, it has apps... Most people still steer clear of it because they can't buy PC's with Linux pre-installed. You can get some systems from smaller retailers, but not from any of the big names.
<< Regarding I.E and Nutscrapes Navigator, At first Nutscrapes Browser licked ass on I.E. but MS dumped a ton of cash making I.E. a better product and people migrated to it. Sure it was free but so was Nutscrapes POS Browser. >>
Difference was that IE came with Windows, Netscape did not. And MS denied Netscape access to the distribution-channel. They used Windows-license as a weapon when they blackmailed OEM's. How can you compete when you competitor can saturate the market by default and you cannot effectively distribute your product?
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
<<
<< It wouldn't be the first time. There was an old MS-saying "Remember: DOS ain't done 'till Notes won't run!". >>
That's absurd. Incompatibility is a far cry from "intentionally injected code to prevent the execution of <said program>."
You expect every transition of Microsoft's product to be 100% compatible w/ ALL third-party applications? How is that possible? I suppose you're going to sue Intel for going to IA-64 when you figure out your 32-bit applications don't run properly? >>
Exactly, expecting the makers of the world's most widely used OS to ensure complete compatability with every single bit
third party software application out there is unrealistic. Seems to me that the onus is on the third party software vendors to ensure upgrades for their products. I personally think MS has done a pretty good job of bring standardization and compatability to desktops all over the world.
<< Exactly, expecting the makers of the world's most widely used OS to ensure complete compatability with every single bit third party software application out there is unrealistic. >>
It would be OK if MS just made Win3.1 and by chance it didn't work on DR-DOS (like some drivers work on W2K but not on XP). But the reality was not so. They DELIBERATLY made sure that it wouldn't work on DR-DOS. After they made those changes they denied developers of DR-DOS access to the needed information so they couldn't make the needed changes to DR-DOS so it would again work with Win3.1.
That was just plain wrong and that's why MS got sued. And they would have lost the case, and that's why MS settled.
EDIT:
<< I personally think MS has done a pretty good job of bring standardization and compatability to desktops all over the world. >>
They are compatible as long as they are MS-systems. It wouldn't be difficult for MS to support open standards, yet they choose not to to so. By using proprietary standards they tie consumers to their platform, since competing platforms would have difficult time working with Windows. A case in point: DOC file-format. They could use open standards, yet they do not. Also, they keep on changing the specification of DOC, so people trying to make filters that let other word-processors read/write DOC-files have hard time making them work.
And MS hasn't really improved standards and compatibility. I mean, different versions of Windows are incompatible with each other in some cases, that's hardly my idea of "compatibility".
<<
<<
<< It wouldn't be the first time. There was an old MS-saying "Remember: DOS ain't done 'till Notes won't run!". >>
That's absurd. Incompatibility is a far cry from "intentionally injected code to prevent the execution of <said program>."
You expect every transition of Microsoft's product to be 100% compatible w/ ALL third-party applications? How is that possible? I suppose you're going to sue Intel for going to IA-64 when you figure out your 32-bit applications don't run properly? >>
Exactly, expecting the makers of the world's most widely used OS to ensure complete compatability with every single bit
third party software application out there is unrealistic. Seems to me that the onus is on the third party software vendors to ensure upgrades for their products. I personally think MS has done a pretty good job of bring standardization and compatability to desktops all over the world. >>
Why are you people so dense? Nobody said Windows is responsible for being compatible with all applications.
However, if Microsoft willfully altered its flagship operating system to specifically break compatibility with a third-party product, then that's anti-competitive behavior. They've done this multiple times with SMB networking to thwart the open-source Samba server.
They've also done it before with DR-DOS and W 3.1, so I don't see why it's so difficult to believe they haven't done so since. Proving it in court is a different matter.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
<<
<< Build a better mousetrap and you will sell it. Build a better Desktop OS for the Consumers and you will sell it too. >>
Oh, how are you planning to sell that OS, since MS has denied OEM's the right to sell that competing OS? Buying that OS from retail and installing it afterwards is too complicated for about 90% of PC-users.
<< As far as I know MS doesan't have a monopoly on the MAC OS, Apple does..including the hardware too. >>
Apple has about 5% market-share, what does it have to do with this?
<< Linux has been around forever, how come they can't develop a version that's easy and intuitive like Windows? With all the PNG's who claim that it's so great how come they haven't been able to do that? >>
They already have. Linux looks better than XP, it's just as easy to use, it's order of magnitude more stable and secure, it has MS-Office compatible Office-suites, it has games, it has apps... Most people still steer clear of it because they can't buy PC's with Linux pre-installed. You can get some systems from smaller retailers, but not from any of the big names.
<< Regarding I.E and Nutscrapes Navigator, At first Nutscrapes Browser licked ass on I.E. but MS dumped a ton of cash making I.E. a better product and people migrated to it. Sure it was free but so was Nutscrapes POS Browser. >>
Difference was that IE came with Windows, Netscape did not. And MS denied Netscape access to the distribution-channel. They used Windows-license as a weapon when they blackmailed OEM's. How can you compete when you competitor can saturate the market by default and you cannot effectively distribute your product? >>
How much contact do you have with average end users ?
If I suggested to my clients that they switch to linux and alternative office suites I'd be laughed right out of business.
Linux is great for security on servers but for your average person nothing beats MS products.
<< How much contact do you have with average end users ? >>
I work with end-users about 40 hours a week
<< If I suggested to my clients that they switch to linux and alternative office suites I'd be laughed right out of business.
Linux is great for security on servers but for your average person nothing beats MS products. >>
People are doing just that. They can get OS and office-suite for free, and they are giving it a shot. the things holding Linux back is the bootloader-issue (which I linked) and general perception that Linux is an arcane hacker-OS.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
<<
<< How much contact do you have with average end users ? >>
I work with end-users about 40 hours a week
<< If I suggested to my clients that they switch to linux and alternative office suites I'd be laughed right out of business.
Linux is great for security on servers but for your average person nothing beats MS products. >>
People are doing just that. They can get OS and office-suite for free, and they are giving it a shot. the things holding Linux back is the bootloader-issue (which I linked) and general perception that Linux is an arcane hacker-OS. >>
Then you know that the largest cost to a company in rolling out a new OS is end user training,from the Network Admin
and entire IT dept right on down to the typing pool. I'm not seeing any call for Linux and alternative office suites, indeed I have many clients who are still very happily using NT4.0 as it meets their needs, it's paid for and they don't wish to go to the expense and loss of employee productivity involved in teaching Sue Ann and Kelly down in the typing pool all the in's and out's of Linux
Sue Ann and Kelly have no business messing with the in and out's of Linux.
They should be given a KDE GUI configured to look a lot like Win XP, with the taskbar menu configured to look like their previous Windows installation, including all the work-alike apps, including Star Office, etc.
In most cases, an average user is simply unable to tell the difference between a friendly-looking Linux installation and a new version of Windows.
They should be given a KDE GUI configured to look a lot like Win XP, with the taskbar menu configured to look like their previous Windows installation, including all the work-alike apps, including Star Office, etc.
In most cases, an average user is simply unable to tell the difference between a friendly-looking Linux installation and a new version of Windows.
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