Straight from Bill Gates' mouth

[Carl Price]

''quoteing the article" WASHINGTON--Although he's highly critical of the remedies proposed by nine states and the District of Columbia in his company's antitrust trial, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates acknowledged Tuesday that some of the restrictions would have prevented the company from engaging in behavior that an earlier court deemed illegal. "unquote"

Read the rest here.

What do you think? Will the proposed remedies stop illegal behavior now.

[Paul Victorey]

I love the quote (in another article) that says that the proposed changes would weaken Windows' security. I laughed pretty hard, as it's quite hard to weaken what was never there

[doctorgonzo]

I am a bit confused by his assertation that Netscape and Java represent a competitive threat to Windows. How can a browser and a programming language threaten an operating system? Hmm, could be that Netscape, Java, and everybody else represents a competitive threat to M$ taking over the world!

[Gnerma]

It does make sense that by releasing the source code windows would be 'weakened' but Linux is open source & it seems no less secure than windows.

Personally I think the states are in the wrong, MS should not be forced to do anything with their OS (except perhaps removing the 'spyware like' aspects in windows XP). I liked the split idea that was first proposed.

[mairving]

Originally posted by Gnerma It does make sense that by releasing the source code windows would be 'weakened' but Linux is open source & it seems no less secure than windows.

Well I am sure that MS will die before they release the source code. The main advantage of open-source is that it can be looked at, worked on and improved by people all over the world. If the source code was released, I don't know if any new major vulnerabilities would be discovered. There's enough security problems without having to look thorugh several million lines of code. I think that MS would probably be quite embarrassed for others to see their bloated code. Maybe they will compromise and release the source code for DOS.

[doctorgonzo]

Billy admits modular Windows is possible?

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pag...id=FTDO9DHMZJC

[audiyoda]

Sure Windows can be stripped down -- just look at developments like what www.98lite.net has done.

-Craig

[doctorgonzo]

Of course everybody else knows that it can be done, but for Bill to admit it; that's like the emporer admitting he is naked!

[Computer Hobbyist]

Bill knows that ultimately Windows will lose to some open source operating system or another. It's sort of like a tug of war between a giant and a hundred little people. Ultimately the little people have too many shoes and too much traction. Ultimately the little people will win.

What Gates is hoping is that before he loses his advantage he can move everybody to .Net or some version of it. .Net recentralizes computing by moving many or most functions away from the user and to the "network" (read Microsoft servers or mainframes.) In the process .Net makes the PC unnecessary. Making the PC unnecessary allows Gates to maintain and expand his empire.

As I recall, however, people moved to PC's to get away from having to pay homage to the mainframe priests who would schedule when and what work could be done. If Gates has his way, we will have to learn that lesson again.

CH

[drisley]

I always find it interesting that people's gut reaction is to bash success. The states will not rest until Microsoft fails and goes into oblivion. I, for one, hope the states fail. It has degenerated into a sad political game of "gotcha", and the victims in this charade are the consumers. They are the ones who choose to buy Windows.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by drisley the victims in this charade are the consumers. They are the ones who choose to buy Windows.

Unless you have an option, you don't have a choice.


CH

[drisley]

There are a lot of options out there, CH. Quite a bit actually. Now, you would be right in saying it is difficult to use another OS rather than Windows because of the lack of software or whatever. But, this is no different than saying it is easier to drive a Honda than a Lamborghini because its easier to get parts for a Honda.

If I want to put a non-MS Os on my PC, there's othing stopping me.

[LawyerRon]

Drisley,
I disagree. For the mainstream pc user, there is no "meaningful" or "practical" alternative to Windows. Sure, you can load Linux of some flavor, but for Joe Average, this isn't an option. He runs a Dell or Compaq or HP. He can only get it with Windows. Sure, he could buy a Mac, but they don't use those at his work, and they cost more. He uses MS Office at work and doesn't want to learn another platform.

What is objectionable about Microsoft in legal terms requires a discussion of "unfair business practices" and other causes of action that are really beyond the scope of this forum.

[drisley]

I don't consider that a fault of Microsoft. I consider that the market at work. Microsoft makes an OS that is easy to use. Developers choose to develop software for it because everyone uses it. PC manufacturers choose to use it because it is easy for their customers. Everyone's happy, except for the people trying to compete.

Mickysoft might be guily of "unfair business practices", but "unfair" from who's viewpoint? It's called capitalism.

[LawyerRon]

Microsoft has done a bang-up job resulting in their monopoly. The real issue, and the real disagreement in my view, is whether the consumer has been "harmed" by it.

[troysvihl]

the real disagreement in my view, is whether the consumer has been "harmed" by it

A point that always seems to get overlooked in the MS-debates.


Anti-trust laws are all predicated on a showing that the consumer has been harmed. Without proof of harm to the consumer, even unfair business practices are not a violation of anti-trust law.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by LawyerRon Drisley, I disagree. For the mainstream pc user, there is no "meaningful" or "practical" alternative to Windows... Sure, he could buy a Mac, but they don't use those at his work, and they cost more. He uses MS Office at work and doesn't want to learn another platform. What is objectionable about Microsoft in legal terms requires a discussion of "unfair business practices" and other causes of action that are really beyond the scope of this forum.

-emphasis mine (Tim)

Ron,
With all due respect to your averred profession, the use of legal terms here would not be germane. This is a political argument.
To prove my point- in your statement above you establish that the consumer has the freedom to purchase a Mac, BUT computer manufacturers who have chosen Windows OS are providing consumers with more cost efficient computers and with software applications that are more popular than other non Windows based apps.
What we see here is Microsoft being punished for being successful. It's a smak at capitalism.
Anti-free marketers are using the court system to win a political fight between capitalism and statism (centralized government controlling the economy more and more). Consider the alternative- if we have the government dictating the basic decisions of a red hot, high velocity tech industry, we will see as much bungling as our current health insurance system and social insecurity. It's simple, tell the government 4 words: mind your own business.

I rest my case, your honor.

Tim, da poet

[mairving]

Originally posted by drisley I always find it interesting that people's gut reaction is to bash success. The states will not rest until Microsoft fails and goes into oblivion. I, for one, hope the states fail. It has degenerated into a sad political game of "gotcha", and the victims in this charade are the consumers. They are the ones who choose to buy Windows. Of course, this is just my opinion.

I don't think that the states have anything in mind but to add some money to the coffers. Heck, as part of the settlement MS will donate computers to schools (yeah that is a way to break a monopoly). Once this was done most states said cha-ching, that is a great idea. We will get some equipment for our schools. Some states are holding out for more money. Some are holding out for more sanctions against MS.

Personal opinion is that MS has been good for the industry. They have helped bring Personal Computing into the home. MS has 97% of the desktop market, 85-90% of the browser market. Their next step is to try and control the server market. .NET is an initiative on their part to control the one segment of the market that they don't control. I would say MS main goal now is to stifle innovation either by buying up companies and making incompatibilties. One of the reasons for the explosive growth of the Internet has been Apache. Apache is so good that MS has never been able to match it. But what if there is no Apache? Well hosting plans would cost much more. If there is no Apache, there would be no MySQL or PHP or PERL. So there would be fewer sites like this one. There would be quite a few more pay-per-month sites. The Internet would be stifled. Well this is MS goal to totally dominate the internet.

[Toaster]

I guess you folks have seen Micky$oft stocks. The company is not doing as well as they had hoped and they are stymied as to why.
From reading the links, Micky$oft has "finally" discovered that users typically distrust Micky$oft or otherwise hold them in low regard.
Now it seems Micky$oft is "wanting" that trust but on terms they can deal with.
Micky$oft has been losing ground on "enterprise" software due to massive security problems. Even the "Lords of London" will only offer "hacking insurance" where a Micky$oft O/S is used at a premium price.
Otherwise, they consider several Unix variants a perferred O/S.
About 90% of the security issues come from Micky$oft IE and their "activation" methods. The removal of IE drastically improves security.
However, keep in mind that Micky$oft gives you what you want. What you wanted isn't secure or very difficult to make secure.
You made your bed...time for a nap.

[doctorgonzo]

This is not a smack at capitalism. This is not a bunch of liberals beating up on a company because it was successful. This company broke the laws, and used strong-arm tactics to get what it wanted. It threatened to stop producing Office for Macs. It threatened Intel. It has used its monopoly on OSs to get large computer manufacturers to only put Windows on their PCs. In any other industry, this would have stopped long ago. If Ford threatened to make cars that didn't run on BP gasoline in order to get BP to do what Ford wanted, would that fly? If my phone provider of Qwest threatened to slap a $1 surcharge on all calls originating from St. Paul unless the city gave up in some cable routing disagreement, would that fly? Of course not.

Ron is right: there is no consumer choice. Sure, there is an "abstract" choice that people can make: people can build their own computers and put Linux on it. But the people who do that aren't the consumers. The true consumers are the millions of people who use AOL or MSN. The true consumers are those that buy their Compaqs and Dells at Best Buy, Circuit City, or CompUSA. Sure, they could put Linux on their own machines. They could do a lot of things. But they don't, becuase your normal, average consumer doesn't have the knowledge to make those changes.

I don't think the issue is whether Windows is good, or if it should be used by the majority of PCs in the world. The issue is the law, and by threatening to withhold its monopoly product from other manufacturers until it gots its way, M$ broke the law.

[padawan]

You guys are forgetting one important fact. Sure Linux is harder to use than Windows for the average person. BUT, Apple is still out there. Why don't the consumers switch if MS is so evil? I agree with the states just wanting to get in on the $$$$. Look at how the states are suing tobacco and gun companies. Litigation is an easy way for these states to get millions of dollars, free and clear.

[padawan]

On more quick comment...
Sure, MS products are hacked more. BUT, since they own something like 90% of the desktop market, this only makes sense. If I were a hacker, I would write programs to get into Windows machines. Why write code to break into a couple of Mac or Linux boxes, when I can write code to break into millions of Windows machines?

[Paul Victorey]

I don't know how many of you remember PC-DOS, but this came out just after DOS 5.0, and had more features than MS-DOS. This was just before win 3.1 hit the market.

Microsoft sank that OS, by a smear campaign. They started rumors that PC-DOS would not be compatible with Windows 3.1, and they programmed in a little "error message" into Win 3.1 that would pop up once if you weren't using MS-DOS. Then, they made wild promises about what DOS 6 would bring (which was vaporware at the time, they never even planned on it until PC-DOS came out). Suddenly, PC-DOS was "incompatible" with win 3.1 programs, rumors went wild, and the OS went bust.

This is called the "FUD" approach (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), and, it's interesting to note -- MS employees have used this term in internal memorandums; it's actually a part of their vocabulary and a part of their accepted business strategy.

I have no beef with winning because of having a superior product. I dislike winners who win because they badmouth their competition to destroy consumer confidence in competing products.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by drisley I don't consider that a fault of Microsoft. I consider that the market at work. Microsoft makes an OS that is easy to use. Developers choose to develop software for it because everyone uses it. PC manufacturers choose to use it because it is easy for their customers. Everyone's happy, except for the people trying to compete. Mickysoft might be guily of "unfair business practices", but "unfair" from who's viewpoint? It's called capitalism.

If what you say in this post is all that Microsoft did, or does, you would be absolutely correct. After full and fair evaluation of all of the evidence, however, two courts have found that Microsoft has done more than just make a successful product. It has used its monopoly position to keep competitors out of the market place. The courts have also found that those actions were harmful to consumers. You and me are consumers. In short, after a full and fair trial, subject to appellate review, the Federal Courts have found that Microsoft has harmed you and me.

Most people seem to think the court is retrying the whole case. It is not. What the court is doing is fashioning an appropriate remedy. There were a number of plaintiffs in the case. The Department of Justice, and several of the other state plaintiffs have settled with Microsoft on a package of remedies they think are the best they can get. The remaining plaintiffs are seeking additional remedies.

CH

[LawyerRon]

Quote by mairving:
"Heck, as part of the settlement MS will donate computers to schools (yeah that is a way to break a monopoly). "

Actually, the party that stands to lose from this "donation" is Apple. In fact, they see it as a ploy by Bill Gates to move in on their market and push them out of the schools eventually.

[RayH]

The problem isn't Microsoft. It is we. All of us on this board could derail Microsoft's power by using some other OS. If you're not willing to learn some other OS, then you're part of the problem.

If those of us, who have a bit more compuer savvy than the average, don't make the move, why should anyone else?

[drisley]

CH, I am not harmed by it. I would probably use Microsoft software no mattrer what, and I'd bet most of the people here would do the same. As for the security problems, let the market take care of it. If security problems get too bad, people would stop using the product or genrally cause MS to have a hard time - and they would change it. In fact, I think the recent Gates memo shows they are increasingly concerned about the security issues and the inherent reputation.

doctorgonzo, your argument seems to be based on the fact that consumers are stupid and need to be protected from themselves. I give consumers more credit than that. If they want to use another OS, they can certainly figure it out. Most people would not because they WANT an easy-to-use OS.

Its just a pot with lots of cash, and it makes lawyers and governments drool. This is political, not a real action to help consumers. Just look at how the Clinton administration's initial attacks on MS affected the markets.

[doctorgonzo]

All of us on this board could derail Microsoft's power by using some other OS. If you're not willing to learn some other OS, then you're part of the problem.

How would that happen? I think a lot of people here already use other OSs, and M$ is still strong. Do we have more clout than I think? Is PCMech some kind of secret fraternal organization like the Stonecutters?

doctorgonzo, your argument seems to be based on the fact that consumers are stupid and need to be protected from themselves.

Where have I said that consumers are stupid and need to be protected from themselves? Again, the issue here is not if Linux is easier to use than Windows, or what people want to use as an OS. The fact that Windows is used by most people is not what is on trial. What is on trial is how M$ used that monopoly power to bully other companies and get what they wanted.

As for the security problems, let the market take care of it.

That would be great. Just hold software makers to the same liability standards as other companies and that might actually happen. As it stands now, however, if a bug shows up in a software product that leads to a security breach, software companies are not liable. Only liability will bring security to the software industry, just like everywhere else.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Drisley

How do you know you were not harmed? Do you know how much more you are paying for your OS as a result of Microsoft's anti-competative practices? Have you read or listened to all of the evidence? Do you have any idea what products you are not using because of Microsoft's anti-competative practices?

You can't know the answers to any of those questions except that you have not read all the transcripts nor listened to all of the evidence. A court has, and has concluded that the evidence supports a finding that we were all harmed by Microsoft's anti-competative practices. It is now time for us (you, Microsoft, and me) to accept what the court found and to move on.

Again, there is nothing wrong with having a good product, nor is there anything wrong with being a monopoly. What is wrong is using that monopoly to stop competition in a way that is harmful to consumers.

Our anti-trust law is fundimentally based on the notion that competition is the bedrock of capitalizm. Using a monopoly position to stop competition is bad.

CH

[drisley]

doctorgonzo, you said consumers could switch OSes, then said "But they don't, becuase your normal, average consumer doesn't have the knowledge to make those changes." I'm not saying you're wrong, because we all know its true. But, this is no reason to make it Microsoft's problem.

CH, yes, I know that I'm not harmed. I would use Windows no matter what. And, for what it does, its a bargain. Think about the amount of work that goes into Windows, ad we can buy it in a nice shiny box for close to nothing comparitively. Like I said, its just my opinion.

The courts also found OJ not guilty. I don't consider what a court says to be gospel.

I didn't want to get into a major debate here. I just wanted to express a side of this that doesn't seem to get much airtime in my opinion. It seems as if portraying this position is like walking out on a termite-ridden plank.

If the likes of Netscape want to compete with MS, they need to make a browser worth installing. NS 6.x seems to be OK, and 3.x was rock solid. But, 4.x was a piece fo crap. Still is.