Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

From this news item: We would be remiss if we didn't at least mention the ruling in the Microsoft antitrust trial. Judge Jackson has ruled that the company will be broken in two, a Windows company and an application company.

What do you think about the trial and its outcome? Is Microsoft being punished for winning? How will consumers be affected? Will increased competition force Microsoft to finally fix some of the issues in their products?

------------------
James Hromadka
VisorCentral.com
Personal Website: http://www.Hromadka.com

[This message has been edited by JHromadka (edited 06-08-2000).]

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Baltimore MD, USA
Posts: 717

I am of the opinion that Microsoft is guilty, and has had this coming for a long time.

Here's an example of how unrepentant they are:
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/06/08/0647212.shtml

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 151

Not guilty. An editorial from Slashdot that rags on MS is not exactly a rarity.

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: I'm not sure, but I see lots of lights everywhere.
Posts: 1287

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHromadka:
Will increased competition force Microsoft to finally fix some of the issues in their products?

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

Increased competition in the sense that as it stands now, MS would never develop Office or IE for Linux. If the apps was a separate company, they may do so, giving Linux key applications that it sorely needs.

I agree that Linux has a long way to go before it can win more in the desktop market. The day after any breakup will be the same as the day before. In the long run, if Linux can use a desktop (be it Gnome, KDE, or whatever) that is easy to use and keeps users away from a command prompt, it will have a chance.

------------------
James Hromadka
VisorCentral.com
Personal Website: http://www.Hromadka.com

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Provo, UT
Posts: 64

I agree with foo that the breakup won't have a huge effect on the OS market, at least in the near term. I think the real impact will be in the applications division, where for years Microsoft has been able to unfairly (IMHO) leverage their OS stronghold to dominate or kill other applications.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan USA
Posts: 790

For real enlightenment on the subject, go to:
http://www.peanutpress.com/free.cgi/03661317-58791-7140

and download:

"United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation: Findings of Fact"

to your Visor. The description says: "This document contains Judge Thomas Jackson's Findings of Fact regarding the United States' anti-trust proceedings against Microsoft. Contributed by Mark Eichin."

It's *extremely* interesting.

You'll need the new peanutreader 3.0 (it's free, and awesome - it now reads doc files too!)

I'm not finished reading it yet, but I'll give you my thoughts.

The judge has really done his homework. He does *not* believe Linux will jump in popularity after the breakup (as implied above, anyone who thinks that really doesn't understand Linux). He understands the non-idiot orientation of that OS.

The competition will not come from OSes, as there are no viable ones that can compete for at least several years. Instead, competition will come from middleware (see doc for a definition), companies like Real and Netscape, Apple's Quicktime and even Intel's direct-to-microprocessor APIs. MS has pressured these companies not to release APIs that compete with Microsoft's exclusivity. MS also pressured OEMs not to distribute software with APIs that do compete. For a description of what competing APIs really means, see the doc. The doc also goes into detail about how these pressures were applied, and how they worked.

I really recommend this reading.

From what I've read, I agree with the breakup.

[This message has been edited by PDAENVY (edited 06-08-2000).]

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

I'm not a libertarian and I'm not a conservative. I don't believe that corporations have any rights under the Constitution (despite subsequent federal statutes and court rulings to the contrary) that allow them to enjoy the same protection under the law as individual citizens.

But while I have absolutely no problem with the government's authority to regulate Microsoft, I have to agree with foo: I don't see how splitting MS into create more competition. Judge Jackson even told the DOJ as much: making two companies out of MS just creates two separate monopolies.

Some people find the word "monopoly" extreme. After all, Microsoft's power is vast but not absolute. There are alternative operating systems and office suites. What they are is anticompetitive, and have sufficient leverage to block competition. What remains untouched after Jackson's remedy, what hasn't even been discuss, is MS' OEM licensing agreements that make it impossible for any OEM that preinstalls Windows include a second OS. That to me is much more important that whether the browser's considered part of the OS.

Whatever happens, don't expect a kinder, gentler Microsoft. If anything, they'll only become more consumer-hostile.

[This message has been edited by Gameboy70 (edited 06-08-2000).]

Registered: May 2000
Location: Great City of Chicago.
Posts: 36

OK, I am posting this at the expense of feeling really stupid, but that is ok right? Now lets call the two Microsofts A and B. A Makes the OS, and B makes everything else. So couldn't Microsoft A just license Windows, or a similar version to Microsoft B. Then Microsoft A goes out of business and they are right back where they started from.

I hope you guys understood what I said, am I just missing somehting really obvious, because this seems like what I would do in that situation.

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

DTD:

I think I know what you are getting. It seems to me that Microsoft(ware) and Microsoft(OS) can work exclusively with each other. So The software part can still decide to make software only for the Windows OS. because I haven't read any of the legal stuff, I don't know if there are anything in the remedies to see that this does not happen.

personally I don't really see a need for Microsoft to be broken in two. Restrictions by the government and an open Windows OS should have been good enough IMO.

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

Didn't the punishment stipulate that they couldn't rejoin for 10 years?

------------------
James Hromadka
VisorCentral.com
Personal Website: http://www.Hromadka.com

Registered: May 2000
Location: Great City of Chicago.
Posts: 36

It wouldnt really be rejoining, just one would go out of business. And the other would hire all their employess.

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie:
DTD:

I think I know what you are getting. It seems to me that Microsoft(ware) and Microsoft(OS) can work exclusively with each other. So The software part can still decide to make software only for the Windows OS. because I haven't read any of the legal stuff, I don't know if there are anything in the remedies to see that this does not happen

---

Registered: May 2000
Location: Great City of Chicago.
Posts: 36

Ok, another thing I think Microsoft should do is move just north of the border. Being as I used to live in enumclaw, i know the two countries are exactly the same. So why not just do this?

[This message has been edited by DTD (edited 06-09-2000).]

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

DTDL

I think it would be very difficult for MS to move to Canada. the taxes are a lot higher, and MS would seize to be an American company. As a result, they would lose some fo the advantages they now enjoy. Futhermore there would be a big public backlash if they cross into Canada. Moving their employees, numbering in the tens of thousandsof to Canada would also be a problem.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

To be honest, I think a lot of the discussion makes the issue sound much more complex than it really is.

If the CEO of MicroPlumbing sent a out a memo saying "I want our field engineers to drill holes in any pipes installed by PlumbScape so it looks like they leak," he would at best be sued and would at worst be put in jail. Bill Gates is getting off comparitively easy.

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 151

From too complex to over-simplification.

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Baltimore MD, USA
Posts: 717

quote:

---

Originally posted by na2rboy:
Not guilty. An editorial from Slashdot that rags on MS is not exactly a rarity.

---

OK, how about some non-slashdot ones?
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/o...501opfoster.xml
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/o...605opfoster.xml

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 151

Pardon me, I mis-spoke (or mis-wrote as the case may be). I meant:

An editorial that rags on MS is not exactly a rarity.

You could probably fill this page with links to editorials that do the same. It is hip to be anti-MS.

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

quote:

---

Originally posted by na2rboy:
From too complex to over-simplification.

---