| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2001/6/28-29 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:21670 Activity:insanely high |
6/29 To complement the satanism that happened yesterday and 2 days ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/06/28/national1211EDT0622.DTL
\_ ya that ruling was BS
"But it threw out the allegation that Microsoft illegally gained
a Web browser monopoly, and sent back to the lower court the
question of whether Microsoft improperly bundled its Windows
operating system with its Web browser. "
anything they bundle in the OS should be illegal. It is really
nice and convient that they do still- it has killed a lot of
companies which could have provided some flourishing industries.
\_ People only have a right to buy what people wish to sell
them. How would you like it if anyone buying your old car had
the 'right' to just pick the parts they liked, and leave the
rest to you?
\_ People only have a right to buy what people wish to sell them.
How would you like it if anyone buying your old car had the
'right' to just pick the parts they liked, and leave the rest
to you?
\_ i'll sell you my old car at gunpoint then. you have to buy
all of it, ok? I'll sell it cheap too. - paolo
the vendors to sell Microsoft stuff. If the
vendors also sold linux-equipped systems, Microsoft
allegedly raised prices or revoked the offending
vendor's licenses. -mice
\_ Troll. No one is forcing you to buy Windows. If you are
buying, it means you want it. If you don't want it, don't
buy.
\_ I think the case had more to do with Microsoft forcing
the vendors to sell Microsoft stuff. If the vendors also
sold linux-equipped systems, Microsoft allegedly raised
prices or revoked the offending vendor's licenses. -mice
\_ Microsoft is not forcing (i.e. using force) anyone
to do anything. If Microsoft positions itself in
such a way as to make it advantageous for vendors to
sell Windows, good for it. But they are not using
force.
\_ why should this be illegal? they didn't "force", they
gave better deals in exchange for exclusivity. you
could always have bought a Macintosh, Sun, IBM, HP,
Amiga, etc.
\_ I guess you would have been comfortable paying
the Standard Oil and AT&T taxes in addition to
state and federal tax.
\_ the point is that the competition was always
there. the real issue is the developer support.
people use windows primarily to get the software
they can't use on other OSes. that is fact. why
didn't all the other OSes recognise this and
try to work together to build a common dev API?
because they all want to be like microsoft
themselves. Apple is just an incompetent M$.
\_ WTH are you talking about? M$ is the one
vendor that always does one offs. Sun,
HP, IBM, and even Apple (with MacOS X)
all support common UNIX apis. M$ is the
one with proprietary WIN32 shit.
\_ More inept troll. I don't want Windows. Unfortunately,
MS has managed to convince enough people to use Windows
that it is not financially feasible for me not to buy
Windows. Having been forced to purchase Windows, an OS
I don't want, I find it even further infuriating to find
IE, a browser I don't want, inextricably linked to the OS.
--erikred
\_ HP bundles Netscape. Sun bundled Hotjava. SGI
bundles Netscape. What's the problem? --dim
\_ the problem is, HP, Sun, and SGI are not using
their monopoly power to kill a competitor
(Netscape). HP and SGI aren't even bundling
their own product. Do you really not
understand this? -tom
\_ Make up your mind. Financially advantageous == want.
\_ this logic is flawed. you say you don't want windows,
yet you buy it of your own free will. you contradict
yourself, in addition to not formatting properly.
\_ Untrue: I buy Windows because not buying Windows
puts me at a disadvantage when doing business with
people who use Windows. To say that I buy
Windows of my own free will ignores the pressure
a market-dominant OS brings to bear on those who
do not wish to buy into said OS yet are forced to
do business with those who have bought into said
OS. As for formatting, ok thnx. --erikred
\_ why are you forced to do business with these
people? why did they choose windows?
\_ Huh? Its not financially feasible for you to buy/beg
a cheap computer and net install Free/Net/OpenBSD
(which are all FREE)? I don't understand. Perhaps you
mean that without knowing windows you cannot get a
job. In which case I completely disagree. Its is quite
easy to get a job coding for UNIX, and these jobs pay
quite a bit better than windows jobs.
\_ You're obviously confused about both the law and
economics. The law changes when you have a monopoly.
\_ The law is not always right. I am talking about rights,
which the law does not always enforce consistently. You
can't argue from 'law' because 'laws' are often unjust.
For instance, they were unjust in Nazi Germany.
\_ You go Randy! Invoking Nazi Germany, that's the way
to make a point in online forums!
\_ Go go gadget well-reasoned post!
\_ This is stupid. Did you know that the free market is
broken when you have a (non-natural) monopoly? It's
inefficient, bad for consumers, bad for the country, etc.
\_ There are no (long-standing, stable) monopolies in
a free market system. Give me one counter-example,
or, failing that, give a reasonable account of how
one might arise.
\_ oh god. Please ignore the troll behind the
curtain. -tom |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/06/28/national1211EDT0622.DTL In a rare rebuke, the appellate judges said the trial judge "seriously tainted" the case with his derogatory comments about Bill Gates and his empire. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aide the breakup order, narrowed the antitrust case and sent it to a new judge to decide whether a breakup or some other penalty is warranted for the software giant. They pressed ahead with plans for their new Windows XP operating system and Internet services with a promise to pursue settlement talks. But the government and states might still appeal to the Supreme Court, try to negotiate a settlement or go back to the lower court to seek new penalties. Political pressure mounted for the Bush administration to seek a settlement. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said it was time for the government to "get off the back" of companies like Microsoft. But it threw out the allegation that Microsoft illegally gained a Web browser monopoly, and sent back to the lower court the question of whether Microsoft improperly bundled its Windows operating system with its Web browser. The appellate judges saved their wrath for Jackson, citing his comments as the reason they vacated his order breaking up Microsoft. Before he ruled, Jackson gave interviews in which he likened Gates to Napoleon and Microsoft to a murderous street gang. The judge's remarks "would give a reasonable, informed observer cause to question his impartiality in ordering the company split in two," the appeals court said. Former federal prosecutor Lawrence Barcella said the removal of Jackson from the case was extraordinary. Jackson did not return telephone messages to his office seeking comment Thursday. The appellate court said the new judge must reconsider whether a breakup is warranted given the narrowing of the findings. Microsoft's stock started the day down, but rose sharply after word of the ruling. In asking the lower court to reconsider the issue of whether Microsoft's decision to bundle Windows and its Web browser was illegal, the appeals judges said they were concerned about stifling innovation. Gates said the ruling sets a high bar for the government when it seeks in the future to block features from being included in software products. The case "has not had a significant effect on Microsoft's business strategy," McDonald said. The White House said it was too early to decide the next course of action but reiterated Bush prefers settlements over lawsuits. Charles James, the Justice Department's new antitrust chief, said the key to the ruling was that the judges agreed that Microsoft has monopoly power and acted unlawfully to preserve it. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he didn't know whether the Justice Department and the states would stick together as the case proceeds. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer opposed making concessions to Microsoft. Jackson ruled that Microsoft illegally thwarted competitors and violated antitrust laws. In June 2000, he ordered that Microsoft be split into two separate companies as punishment to ensure the company couldn't continue its anticompetitive practices. Microsoft appealed, honing in on the comments Jackson made to reporters in interviews before he ordered the breakup. |