Login:
Password:

DOJ: No Microsoft Break-up

By Nate Mook and David Worthington, BetaNews

September 6, 2001, 5:16 PM

Following a Federal Appeals Court ruling that upheld Microsoft's alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the Department of Justice has postured itself to enforce a structural remedy on Microsoft rather than settle the case behind closed doors. Today, in a surprise announcement, the government reversed course and informed Microsoft that a break-up of the company was out of the question. Instead, the Justice Department is focusing on providing quick and effective relief through conduct-related provisions intended to rein in the software giant.

Efforts to seek a rehearing regarding the alleged illegal bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows 95 and 98 will also be dropped, according to government officials.

In a written statement, the DOJ explained the reasoning behind its actions by saying, "Pursuing a liability determination on the tying claim would only prolong proceedings and delay the imposition of relief that would benefit consumers."

The report went on to say, "Instead, the Department will seek an order that is modeled after the interim conduct-related provisions of the Final Judgment previously ordered in the case."

Nine Appeals Court justices and more recently, officials of the European Union, have maintained that the company has engaged in anti-competitive practices by illegally using the leverage of its Windows operating systems to its advantage.

Microsoft is no stranger to behavior oriented court orders, and critics claim that such remedies are easily evaded. Immediately following the DOJ's announcement, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) President and CEO Ed black stated, "Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that through their sheer power and immense wealth, they can easily evade behavioral remedies designed to constrain their unlawful activity." Black maintains that structural remedies are the most efficient solution to antitrust violations.

Responding to today's announcement, Microsoft's Jim Desler issued BetaNews a short statement, simply stating, "We remain committed to resolving the outstanding issues in this case."

Many analysts still feel that no resolution will be reached, and Redmond will be back to business as usual.

Add a Comment (76 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jamwheat

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 12:24 AM

Let's go after the damn gas stations! The evening of the terrorist attack here in the USA, after Pres Bush said something about "this will bring Americans together", the damn gas stations starting RAISING THE GAS PRICES!!! Reported increases of up to $6.00 a gallon are common in some states! Come on DOJ, go after some businesses DESERVING of getting taken to court!!!!
Makes me ashamed and pissed at those "fellow americans"!!!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 5:19 AM

I think that there are more important things to take care of first....don't you

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 8:21 AM

Yeah, I know. Just pisses me off the way the gas stations/companies are taking advantage of this.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 3:21 PM

Call your local authorities, and ask them to probe the price increases, according to the API (American Petrolium Institute) the attacks on the WTF should in no way affect fuel prices. They are recommending that local authorities deal with these price gougers.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 4:10 PM

I have been told there have been a few gas stations *CLOSED* because of price gouging...without much hope of reopening under the same management (the ones that raised the prices).

James

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 4:14 PM

Glad to hear that, I was told by an old co-worker back in Indiana that gas was up this morning around $5.00 a gallon at some stations! It was only $1.40 last night.

Score: 0

By g-foster

posted Sep 12, 2001 - 8:28 PM

As a Canadain my heart goes out to anybody affected by the tragic events yesterday in the US. I know all Canadains feel the same way. Personally, I would like to see President Bush and the US military turn Afghanistan into a self-lighting, glass floored parking lot!

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 3:36 PM

For those of you pulling for sanctions, breakup, etc against Microsoft, what would you do when the DOJ goes after *OTHER* software/hardware makers?
Such as Apple, which has proprietary hardware and software? Any Linux distro that gets to "popular"?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By mrastudent

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 10:51 PM

Yeah its a known fact that Apple designed some of the earlier PPC macs NOT to work with 3rd party upgrade cards

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 5:34 PM

If they abused their power then they should meet the same fate. I'm not suggesting that Microsoft is punished because they are Microsoft. I think that they should open every path that they have blocked and create competition in the marketplace. The Cellphone arguement is crap, so I can't use any phone on any network, I can call any number on any network, that's what really matters. ;-)

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 8:16 PM

'The Cellphone arguement is crap, so I can't use any phone on any network'

That's a fairly strange comment coming from someone advocating an open standard that everyone can use. Although I think saying 'I personally dont think encouraging competition will do consumers any good' might be a bit extreme, in the example given this is very true. However I think the word competition was used incorrectly there, it should have been a comment regarding standards. Too many different standards don't do a single good thing for the consumer. Now, wether you like it or not, Windows is fairly much the 'standard' when it comes to desktop PC's - which is what most of us are using at home and more than likely at work/school/whatever. So I wouldn't be so quick to disregard the cellphone argument - just because it doesn't suit your argument towards why we should all be running super stable servers at home even though most users will turn their computer off after they're done.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 9:26 PM

You must be confusing my arguement with someone elses, when did I say "run super stable servers at home" Are OS/X, BeOS, Linux (Desktop), etc. servers? Sure they can be, but they make great desktops too. (I'm not certain, but I'm thinking BeOS is desktop only since it's a multimedia o/s right?) I am saying however that people should not purchase new microsoft products until they realize that it is bad to kill all of your competition with lies, etc. (Virus comments come to mind..)

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 11:58 PM

I meant the comment regarding your rack of servers and god knows what else you felt like typing at the time. OS/X isn't a server, but it is in no way the 'standard' for desktop computers. BeOS is DEAD! Unless Palm gives it to the Open Source community or works on it itself, BeOS is DEAD! Why are you even mentioning BeOS? Linux (Desktop)....is Linux a Desktop OS? or a Server OS? neither? both? Depends how you use it. In either case it too is in no way a 'standard' for desktop computers.

You didn't like the cellphone argument because it shows that too many 'standards' is a bad end result for the consumer. I was simply replying to that.

As for people not buying MS products for whatever reason. How about we agree to let everyone buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want - even if they don't have a reason. That's real choice isn't it? If you would like to advise people on their possible choices for a particular product, then advise them with facts on that particular product rather than FUD about the company that made the product. Who cares is product XYZ is made by Microsoft, Numega, Sun, IBM or a group of open-source programmers - it doesn't mean that one is automatically better than another.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 11, 2001 - 8:31 AM

"I meant the comment regarding your rack of servers and god knows what else you felt like typing at the time."

Oh, I don't recall saying that everyone needed a rack of servers at home. What are you trying to say? :-P

" OS/X isn't a server, but it is in no way the 'standard' for desktop computers."

No, but if these OEM "If it's not windows you don't install it or we charge you more for windows" agreements didn't exist, and alternates were allowed to compete don't you think that it could be (yes it is possible to port OS/X to x86)

" BeOS is DEAD! Unless Palm gives it to the Open Source community or works on it itself, BeOS is DEAD!"

Really? Who says it's dead? Until Palm declares it dead, it's not dead.

" Why are you even mentioning BeOS?"

See above.

" Linux (Desktop)....is Linux a Desktop OS? or a Server OS? neither? both? Depends how you use it. In either case it too is in no way a 'standard' for desktop computers. "

Again, if the OEM agreements that were forced by Microsoft Linux could compete in desktop space. You do not see many vendors selling desktop PC's with linux preinstalled do you? It's not that there isn't demand for it, it's all about the contracts.

"You didn't like the cellphone argument because it shows that too many 'standards' is a bad end result for the consumer. I was simply replying to that. "

Really, did I say that? I don't remember saying that, don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with all of the various cell phones requiring their own network, there are standards, or I would not be ablt to call anyone I wanted.

"As for people not buying MS products for whatever reason. How about we agree to let everyone buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want - even if they don't have a reason. That's real choice isn't it?"

Sure, I guess if you think that Microsoft should get off scott free then fine, I don't think that they should, they are guilty, now it's time to pay. Once they are no longer a threat to computing competition world wide, then all will be well.

" If you would like to advise people on their possible choices for a particular product, then advise them with facts on that particular product rather than FUD about the company that made the product."

What FUD? Where did you come up with that? They are liers (virus), thieves (stacker), bullies (netscape, aol, ICQ), insecure (code red), errogent (videotaped testimony), and they could care less about the consumer (EULA). There is much more TRUTH that I can pass on to you if you want to claim that I am spreading FUD.

" Who cares is product XYZ is made by Microsoft, Numega, Sun, IBM or a group of open-source programmers - it doesn't mean that one is automatically better than another. "

I agree with you, but if the product is made by a criminal that used funds that were gained illegally then it's a whole different ball game.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 10:59 PM

Fewt, you may not mean to, but you *really* come across as someone with a beef against Microsoft. Like the "virus" comment- if you are insinuating that Microsoft is to blame for viruses, then you need to just give up. That kind of "arguement" will prove to everyone you are just here to cause trouble, so will you PLEASE clarify what you meant?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 11, 2001 - 7:29 AM

I don't recall making a virus comment? OOH, I was referring to Bill Gates, and Steve Balmer calling Linux a Cancer and a Virus. If you can't beat them with a better product, lie. That appears to be the new Microsoft slogan.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 11, 2001 - 12:44 PM

Also, if Gates and Balmer (thus Microsoft) are *BAD* for that, what about the general *Nix community, that has been blasting and lying about Microsoft for years? I can't remember how many arguements I have been in with *nix users that have claimed "Bill Gates STOLE DOS!" when he in fact *bought* DOS. All Legal, yet he "stole" DOS. Strange, yes?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 11, 2001 - 12:40 PM

Thank you for clearing that up. You might should have completed that comment/thought in the original post. Would have cleared up confusion. :-)

http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By soular

posted Sep 8, 2001 - 1:10 PM

I wonder if in the end this attack on Microsoft will backfire and instead end up with consumers paying more and getting less. I think if anything this will end up costing the consumer more. I wonder if Microsoft will be forced to start removing parts of the OS, and then have the consumer purchase them separately instead of giving them away for free by including them as part of the OS. I think the DOJ has realized that it is a very valid possibility that their case against Microsft might have the unintended result of increased costs for consumers because they have dropped the part of the case against Microsoft which concerned the inclusion of Internet Explorer as part of the OS. I also feel it is ridiculous and unfair for the court to keep any findings of fact from a judge who has been deemed so biased that he had to be removed from the case. To be fair the case should start over again with an unbiased judge and be put on the fast track. I really feel if they did something to specific companies that was illegal... something beyond agressive business, something trully illegal. then those companies should be compensated. But being a monopoly in itself is not against the law. I have not personally seen how things they have done resulted in higher prices for the consumer if anything lower prices! Also many things have done just resulted in a more homogenous user interface environment for computer users. I agree with the comparison of the U.S. and European cell phone networks in that companies can compete... and that because of no standard the consumer can suffer and have to put up with sub par technology and performance. In the end this really seems to me like a chance for Microsoft's competetitors to get a hand up rather than to benefit consumers. I just wish the DOJ would get as pro active for real for consumers considering all of the bad experiences consumers have with various companies on a daily basis!

Score: 0

By g-foster

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 10:04 PM

good call!

Score: 0

By Compdoc

posted Sep 8, 2001 - 7:38 PM

Well said

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 6:41 AM

So is it really true that there are only 4 users in this forum? Come on guys, I don't want to argue with the same brick walls all day long.

LOL

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 7:39 AM

are you here 24 hours a day?! certainly seems like it.

Score: 0

By rayoumand

posted Sep 8, 2001 - 3:00 PM

good point dude...
But I was actuall for the microsoft Break-up....
Please someone argue with me.. I need it for a class assignment!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 7:31 AM

I'm game! :-)

Score: 0

By stlbluesfan

posted Sep 9, 2001 - 8:18 PM

Ok, state your position and I'll have at ya!

Score: 0

By H8TEIRIS

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 5:04 AM

Score: 0

By hummy

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 3:08 AM

“The States are joining with the Department of Justice in the decision not to seek a breakup of Microsoft,” said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Since the Court of Appeals decision, the States and DOJ have directed their efforts to one objective — the quickest and most effective remedy possible. This decision is consistent with that objective.”

With the economy rolling downhill as fast as it is, it is no wonder that the nation's governments would rather not rattle consumer confidence any more than it already is.

"Microsoft (MSFT: down $1.72 to $56.02, Research, Estimates) fell, even after the Justice Department said it would not seek to break the software maker in two in the antitrust case that has been sent back to a federal judge."

See? People are just plain scared.... This has become more of an economical issue than a market dominance issue.

[IMHO ;-)]

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 4:30 AM

I think it is both an economic issue plus the new government seems to support big businesses more.

There are many reasons why the case has changed over time, some of which are:

1: the economy
2: bush
3: changing situations with microsofts competitors
4: microsoft has already made some consessions (remove ie icons etc)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 8:57 PM

Score: 0

By Compdoc

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 6:45 PM

Microsoft is winning more and more ground the longer this case goes on. Anyone remember the Cheech and Chong movie "Up in Smoke" when the cop pulls them over and says, "What do you want? Hey, can I have a bite of your hot dog?" when he walks up to their door after their pot van caught fire and he was inhaling the smoke while following them? Well, I expect the DOJ to do something similar..... LOL !!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 11:39 PM

They haven't won anything yet, guilty and won just don't go together LOL wait until after the penalty phase, and see. If you think the supreme court will dish a panel of judges a black eye you are in for a big surprise. A single judge maybe, a single judge + a panel of judges which all voted unanimously, I doubt it.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 3:12 AM

lol now who is speaking before thinking about the issue properly????

The interesting part is that they were found guilty by one corrupt judge while one government was in power. Now there is a new government in power, the situation has obviously changed and to top it off there will be a new hopefully respectable judge on the case.

Micrsoft could very well win this even though they are still supposedly guilty.

Dont ya just love america and americans????!

Score: 0

By mattsvr4

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 6:31 PM

I think in some ways MS has already won. Sure they are guilty but I am very curious to see just how harsh these penalties will be. With the economy the way it is right now and bush being "pro ms" I don't think the penalties will be anything significant.

Score: 0

By H8TEIRIS

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 5:04 AM

what's your 20, the UK, your in a much better way than us, dont you just think

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 7:40 AM

never said we were. I just hate america and americans passionately

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:29 AM

More of the truth comes out, you ARE A BIGGOT!!!

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:55 AM

ok maybe that should say "hate SOME americans". especially the overly vocal ones who claim to know everything.

Score: 0

By g-foster

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 10:08 PM

try living in Canada and listening to it 24/7!... you think you have it bad? lol

Score: 0

By mikekol

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 10:15 AM

But... we do... :) j/k

Trust me, most of us know nothing, and there is a growing population that know less than that.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 6:13 PM

Just make them open all of their API's, and port/support all their apps (including latest revs for the next 10 years) to EVERY O/S ON THE MARKET (BE, APPLE, SunOS, AIX, HP/UX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, etc..) That will put some of our money where it belongs, and create the competition needed in the market. After that, just keep an eye on them to make sure that all of the features of every app are flawless across each port (with a microsoft funded government team) and lower all of their prices. They have enough padding to endure a punishment of that magnitude, and still turn a profit. Anyone disagree?

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 1:12 PM

fewt, WHY should ONLY Microsoft be *forced* to release everything? As a software company, wouldn't that be putting them out of business?
I can NOT understand this "force Microsoft to give everything to everyone else" mentality- it will do NOTHING for competition, except put Microsoft OUT of business. Unless I read your statement wrong, please explain why you think they should be forced to give all software away.

James
http://belprecomputerwizard.com
(yes, it is done with FrontPage. Deal with it!)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 2:38 PM

You read it wrong, I did not state that they should give anything away except their monopoly status. ;-) They should port ALL of their applications (IE, Office, and Media Player are there already for several O/S's), and sell it at a single lower retail rate on all platforms. Single being the same rate per products across the board so $150.00 for Office (IMHO a fair price) XP for Windows XP would be the same as Office XP for BeOS.

Score: 0

By jamwheat

posted Sep 8, 2001 - 11:12 PM

I figured with you saying they should "release all API's" you were meaning they had to release everything to their competition, so the competition can have the same thing to compete with (which looking at it that way, it is very stupid!).
I firmly believe Microsoft should not HAVE TO or be FORCED TO make anything available to anyone. That's like saying that since 'Brand A' drink is way more popular than brands 'B through F', 'Brand A' should be forced to turn over all of their recipes to everyone else, in the name of "competition". Just doesn't work.
Anyone tells me I have to sell my competitors computers, or I have to give them my suppliers so they can build at lower cost like I do, and I will close my shop, because it isn't going to happen!

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 6:31 PM

he didnt read it wrong at all. he is saying what I have also asked, WHY should microsoft be the only software company in the world to be forced to spend huge amounts of time and money to port all their products to other platforms? putting this restriction on microsoft would be a huge drain on finances (I dont believe the products on other platforms would be profitable, they would cost microsoft with each release). This would allow other developers to produce new technologies, and implement new standards far quicker than microsoft could and eventually kill microsoft completely. you know this. thats why you think its a good idea.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 1:57 PM

because he hates microsoft. simple.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 2:41 PM

I don't HATE anyone, that's your job remember? I agree with the US court system which has decided that they have broken the law, and should be restructured in a way that spurs competition in the marketplace. I don't "HATE" them. I don't even think they should be broken up. I think that the government should hook them enough to ensure the market grows beyond just one o/s, and then let them be after 10 years.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 6:26 PM

I personally dont think encouraging competition will do consumers any good. I believe it would make computers less standardised and therefore more difficult to learn for new users.

Competition isnt always in the best interest of consumers, although I dont believe american law covers for this.

Off the top of my head, mobile phones seems like a good example. America apparently has several different standards in use with networks which are quite incompatible - this has resulted in america being seriously left behind the rest of the world in all areas of mobile communications. All because of all that wonderful competition and many companies pushing their own systems on a level playing field so no standard network has emerged. (could be quite wrong on that one, just going by what I have read from various sources).

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 8:10 PM

Every single person that isn't totally anti-MS will disagree with that =) I thought this case was apparently supposed to be about what will benefit the consumer. MS spending time and resources focusing on every OS under the sun isn't going to benefit me in the least bit! I will get my technology 2 years late because time was wasted supporting an OS that's in use by a total of 0.00000000000001% of the population. (rough estimate of *some* os).

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 8:57 PM

Yeah, but *that's the point* "to create competition in a market where there is none" IE: The operating system market. And where do you get .0000001%? Last I checked the Linux desktop market was 4% Sure it's next to nothing, but that is still millions of users. The SunOS market is about the same. The apple market is about that too right? well now its over 10% combined right? what would be so bad if it were 50%? how would you not benefit? Microsoft would be forced to provide a competitive product, so they would actually put effort into it. Explain exactly how you wouldn't benefit, I'm very curious.

(not trying to egg this into a holy war, I'm serious :-)

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 4:20 AM

So what if linux has a 4% share etc etc. I very much doubt that 99% of that 4% share would be interested in BUYING a copy of office if it was available for linux anyway. Likewise, linux users probably wouldnt want to run IE even if it was available for linux, same with WMP etc etc.

Making microsoft products available on all OSs would achieve nothing.

Besides, the obvious response from microsoft would be "Ok, we will make all of our products available on all OSs the day that there is a law to make EVERY software developer port all their programs to all OSs." - The point of this whole thing should be to pull microsoft back inline, not to cripple them compared to all other companies. Plus the government needs to remember that crippling microsoft will only cause more trouble with the american economy.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:32 AM

Yes it would, it would create competition in the operating system market, and better products would result. You need to learn the basics of how it works (competition) if you ever want to enter any market where it exists. While you are at it, you will probably need to lose the "I hate america and americans" attitude. I feel really sorry for you.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:58 AM

I fail to see how making microsoft alone take considerably more years between each release of a product while they port it to all OSs would improve competition. It certainly wouldnt help consumers get their work done better.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 9:12 AM

I fail to see how it would take years, maybe initially. As they ramp up new teams (they would have to put some effort into it) it would be no different than it is today, and everyone would benefit.

Score: 0

By CPUGuy

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 9:11 PM

I don't think you understand this at all...

If MS were forced to port to all platforms, HOW would that create a "level" playing field? MS would be putting out products that are sub-par with what they do now, because they have to a) fire some of the software developers in order to fit in b) all the software developers it would take to write for every OS out there, in order to still be able to turn a proffit. This does not create any competition, it just lowers the level of quality of MS software, which is just outright ubsurd.

In short, it would be impossible for ANYONE to benifit from such a thing, I'm glad that the people who come up with the remedies have a little more common sense than you, sir.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 9:22 AM

or more likely no one would benefit.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 9:43 PM

There's competition in the OS market.
The RTOS market has a few players.
The Server market has most of the players you mentioned.
The Desktop market has MS, Apple and Linux (to some extent - note that Linux is also trying to be in the server market, basically a solution for any problem and that is partly the reason why it isn't particularly strong in either market).

Some of those markets have more competition than others, but there is still some competition.

Well, since you asked me specifically, I'll tell you my why I wouldn't benefit rather than trying to be a bit more broad about it (Keep in mind I'm discussing the desktop market - since we're talking about your average consumer). I don't use a Mac, I have no need for one, and I cannot see myself needing one in the foreseeable future. So Microsoft spending more time developing products for Apple doesn't benefit me in any way. Now it just so happens that MS have an 'Apple Team' which works as part of Microsoft but separate to the other teams. This I have no problem with and actually encourage because it means that I as a consumer am not effected as a result. The encouragement comes because it means that those users on a Macintosh can still use their 'PC' and run Office, IE etc.

If this wasn't the case, i.e. we had an I.E. team which was responsible for creating I.E. for every os under the sun (as you mentioned) then I as a consumer would not benefit as the time between versions would be greatly increased as a result of them having to support several completely different builds of IE over several completely different architectures.

If what you are suggesting is for MS to create a "Linux Team", then I'm all for it as long as it doesn't negatively effect me. I don't have a single problem with MS creating products for Linux or any OS for that matter. But the question here is what are the chances of Microsoft doing this? The attitude towards anything Microsoft from the Linux community is anything but positive - no matter what the issue may be! And although the attitude towards Free software is Free as in Speech not as in Beer, I can't see a lot of people willing to spend money on software as they are all under the impression (right or wrong) that an Open-Source version MUST be better because it is 'Free'. How do you go about selling a product to a consumer group like that? Maybe MS Marketing can think of a way - who knows. After all they are here to make money, please step into the real world, and so far all we're seeing is more and more Open-Source companies failing because they didn't make enough money to stay in business from support.

And finally (on the flip side of things), why is it that you want MS to produce products for other Operating Systems? Who's to say that the consumers of those other OS even want Microsoft products? Like I mentioned, the Linux community isn't too fond of anything Microsoft, althought a large proportion of that same community use many Microsoft products, a bit of hypocrisy, but let's not let it get in our way. How about we just let each business decide on it's own what markets it wants to get into? As oppose to forcing some companies to create products for all markets or even making every company create products for every market.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 11:15 PM

I would like them, I could use them, it would make it easier to manage systems as I wouldn't need to put both a sun workstation, and a windows workstation, and a switchbox on a users desktop so he can have office, and outlook.

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 4:24 AM

There are much better (and FAR cheaper) solutions than to put a windows and a sun box on each desk.

Score: 0

By jr

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 2:42 AM

I *sincerely* hope you are kidding, because there are mail clients and office suites available for Solaris.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:33 AM

yeah, but I said that I wanted to give them WORD and OUTLOOK didn't I?

Score: 0

By jr

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 12:27 PM

It's one thing to *want* to give them Word and Outlook, but if you actually go through with putting a dedicated Windows box on their desk just for that purpose, then that's just ridiculous.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 2:53 PM

It was used as a point. There are other Windows applications that there are no other solutions for unix (yet). Office would be the last to go. Can you recommend a good replacement that imports and exports Office documents retaining 100% formatting? (I doubt it ;-)

Score: 0

By Compdoc

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 6:36 PM

Yeah, I disagree and that will NEVER happen. The DOJ never had a leg to stand on with it's rediculous request to break up Microsoft and the entire case is based on the sniveling of Sun, Oracle and AOHELL/Nutscrape stating "It's not fair". Let me tell you this, business is BRUTAL and if you don't have the stomach for it then get the F out. Fairness has no place in business and the government has no place putting the brakes on one company so others can succeed (or try to). The only place where fairness is enforced in business is China. Wanna go there?

Score: 0

By chrismarts

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 6:55 PM

Then what the f*** are antitrust laws? You *must* realize that if you disagree with what is happening, then you are disagreeing with antitrust laws, not the DOJ, etc... the laws exist. If you don't like what is happening, stop b****ing and call your congress people to get them changed. The problem with this is that our country is based on competition and the laws were created to ensure it. It's not that Microsoft did anything particularly wrong or illegal, it's that there is a barrier to entry in the market and an anti-competitive situation. This has the *potential* to harm consumers. Whether you agree that something should be done by the government comes down to whether or not you agree with antitrust laws.

Score: 0

By jr

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 10:55 PM

You are assuming that Microsoft actually has violated antitrust laws...

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 11:07 PM

they lost the appeal right? it was unanimous right? soo they are innocent right? ok.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Sep 6, 2001 - 11:29 PM

You make it all seem so black or white =) There's plenty of shades of gray. As an example, the last guy to be hung in South Australia was found guilty, unanimously - and guess what, 10 years later they found the proof which showed he was in fact innocent. Whoops!

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 4:26 AM

That happens all the time in america. Its so common most of the time its not even news worthy.

Thats the american justice system for ya!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 7:52 AM

That's right, the AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM. If you want to complain then become an American citizen and lobby the government to change, otherwise tough. American law is black and white, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

Score: 0

By cuso

posted Sep 9, 2001 - 4:54 PM

That's right, the AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM. If you want to complain then become an American citizen and lobby the government to change, otherwise tough. American law is black and white, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

I am an American citizen an think the justice system sucks, as dose the rest of the world. you are right about one thing, the law is black and white, and that is nothing to be proud of.

Score: 0

By mhinck

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 8:52 AM

You just said American law is black and white? Wow. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was actually reading your comments until you made that stupid statement. Which American law is black and white? The original constitution with its 27 Amendments? Or how about the 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws? I know, you mean the intellectual property laws that have been tying up the courts these last couple of years.

Do me a favor - pick up Judge Harold J Rothwax's book - Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice and then come back and tell me about black and white law.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 9:15 AM

Ok, I made a very poor comment LOL I was just trying to stress that it's pretty black and white that the law in this case against microsoft is black and white. There have been a total of 8 judges now that have found them guilty. I should have put more thought into it, I appologise. I'll check that book out, it sounds like it may be a good read :-)

Score: 0

By FunkyFred

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 9:27 AM

law is never black and white. even in this case. The whole case is backup up with evidence that may not be 100% accurate to start with. Judges can only judge on the information given to them, if there are enough people (the combination of sun, oracle, aol, combined with a couple of OEMS who arent too happy because they think they should be getting a better deal from microsoft) providing massively biased information then what can a judge do? especially if microsoft doesnt put together a good argument against the evidence (which they didnt. thats for sure!).

Score: 0

By scratch311

posted Sep 7, 2001 - 5:41 PM

There is no good argument against it, because it's all true. All they could do is lie, so that's what they did.

Score: 0

By CheckThisOut

posted Sep 10, 2001 - 3:21 PM

well.... talking about laws and DOJ... to me, it all sounds not worthy, at all. This is a major drama. there is no law here. if you see money, get it. no one cares how you do it. probably thats what the Govt is doing now!

is there one who can show me a car dealer who sold two perfectly identical cars on the same day for a same price? there is no law!

is there a single flight that has two passengers in it who paid the same price for the journey? there is no law!

i can put a hot coffee cup between my legs, burn myself up, and get millions!! i can!! there is no law!

a better driver can pay lot more auto insurance on the same policy than a not-so-safe neighbour driver!!

i tell you what... you can be cheated.. its the law here!! if you are aware, go search a better deal, or be cheated!!!! thats how this system works. (well, all we get to hear is "marketing tactic" for a "cheating")

money money money... "easy" money.. thats what it is underneath!

sure, i dont want any of these things to get in our way here in this discussion. what i wanted to say is, its all around money. if MS is not so rich, no body would see it! leave alone its monopoly. for all we know, this case could be settled out of court, for some big amount of $$$$ (as "fines"). until then, you will hear things like "monopoly"... "antitrust".. "laws".. etc.

why do someone have to restrict one's products if they want a better competition? others can always build products! if they are good, they will sustain. well, this competitor needs "marketing tactics" too, to win!!

its not going to benefit consumer at all at any phase. If IE dies, AOL (AOHELL, rather! as someone said in this chain) will monopolize the browser. its that simple. its not the point of having or not having competition. there IS competition. believe me, every small & big company is scared out there! "struggling" to get some part of the market!

whats going to happen in the end? nothing for us!! nothing will be cheaper! if any one in the market is restricted in anyway, or if any product is stopped to be in the market, i'll have to pay more that day onwards! its that simple.

bottom line: you cant repair this system by restricting one particular company in a particular way.

dont i love this land!

Score: 0