Quote - Mutal1ty:

"And as for the "stealing open source code" they haven't stolen s***, because they don't pattent it, they just find a way to implement its features by reworking the code or using another language to get the same thing done, its called innovation, ;) its what keeps companies alive these days, microsoft isn't barred from this just because they are they top dog, they have a job to do, let em do it."

You really do need to learn more about how it all works. You can ONLY get a patent if the idea is new and innovative. See, there's this little thing called 'prior art'. That means you just can't go and patent something if someone else did it before you. Of course, Microsoft being Microsoft, and the USPTO being absolutely idiotically useless, some patents have been granted to Microsoft that shouldn't have been. Pubpat is taking care of those patents.

As to "reworking the code" or "using another language", it's not that easy. There's this thing called "clean room design" - you might want to read this wiki node to get an idea of what it means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Microsoft lifted the BSD kernel's tcp/ip stack. It didn't ask, didn't say thank you, didn't acknowledge the hard work of others. Straight lifted it. Of course, the BSD license does allow this (one reason why I do not like the BSD license). I'm a firm believer that if you take code that the community has done, then you help return improvements to that very community from which you derived those works from. I think that's quite fair. It's called learning to share, something which Microsoft has a very bad issue with.

If you're referring to things like FAT and Samba, both were clean room designs. Mono (an open source version of .net) I'm not sure of, but I don't particularly care about Mono anyways. Why bas****ise a Microsoft programming language when you have so many good open source ones :-)

Oh, and do you remember a funky operating system called OS2 Warp 4? Made by good 'ole IBM. Fine operating system. Much more stable than Windows 95, better memory management control, a true multi-user operating system. For sure, IBM didn't push it as good as it should have, but Microsoft certainly did illegally undermine IBM. There's plenty of information on this on the word wide web, go and google it. dr-dos anyone? Yup. Guess what Microsoft did to that. And yes, deliberately. And yes, Caldera did sue Microsoft, and do so successfully in the US court system.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist in the US, twice now. They're also being investigated in Japan, Israel, Norway and I believe South Korea for the very same infringements. I don't have a problem with Microsoft having 95% of the market, but I do have a problem with the underhanded and illegal tactics that they have used, and continue to use illegally.

The US government didn't punish Microsoft as it would hurt the US economy, which is already delicate as is. Think about that.

Dave

Funny the Microsoft fanboys still supporting them even when COURTS rule they have violdated the law. And its not just one court, there have been quite a few.

Apparently its ok to the fanboys if Microsoft steals from us.

Microsoft stole from us?

Wow...when did that happen?

...I better go check my balance.

All of microsofts "Competitors" have pretty much owned themselves one way or the other with no microsoft helping hand at all, Apple? don't get me started, prioritized POS good for one thing, graphics. then they realized how retarded they were, they "allowed intel, and other 3rd party hardware vendors to start using the opensource kernel in OSX, they started out WRONG, trying to monopolize the industry from the start by forcing the end user tyo use their hardware and software.... microsoft on the other hand saw the big picture and said "Hey, you know what, there are WAY too many hardware manufacturers for us to be close ended, lets take IBM's lead and be EVERYWHERE" these two fundemental decisions are why apple is still a little b1tch and why microsoft rules all of our lives. In the early 90's there was an operating system called GEOWORKS which was actually a lot more stable and user friendly than windows 3.11, but due to failed marketing a less than shining sales staff, and lack of openmindedness for largescale hardware support at launch.... it went under before it could become a real competitor, and Linux?... its free, Unix?, not made for end users, FreeBSD? LOL, ke heres the bottom line, there were many opportunities to be competative with microsux in the beginning, now not so much, the only real threat is a more widely compatible Linux distribution that can do all windows can and more, until then Microsoft has a "default monopoly" not by "force" but by DEFAULT, everyone failed, Microass succeeded.

And as for the "stealing open source code" they haven't stolen s***, because they don't pattent it, they just find a way to implement its features by reworking the code or using another language to get the same thing done, its called innovation, ;) its what keeps companies alive these days, microsoft isn't barred from this just because they are they top dog, they have a job to do, let em do it.

iamtux - those 'other' companies don't have 97% of the market share do they?

foxfyre - nice idea, but many PC hardware vendors do NOT let you buy a system without an installed operating system, and they all default on Microsoft Windows (surprise surprise eh?).

jay_christiansen - totally agree. Microsoft won in two ways - they supported the gaming market, and they produced Microsoft Office. They also locked out competitor DOS operating systems, and competitor Office suites with deliberate changes to the underlying code to ensure that 3rd party office suites would have many difficulties either running, or running stably on the Microsoft Windows platform. Once it killed its competitors, it was able to very quickly gather up a market share, and monopoly to boot.

KingMotley - You might want to re-read your history books. For starters, the entire tcp/ip stack for Microsoft Windows was lifted from the BSD kernel. Yup. And it's pretty much unchanged. Remember Xenix? That was Microsoft's failed UNIX attempt. That's right, they couldn't get it right. Tried for many years, but dang, that UNIX is soooo hard to understand. Then they had a bright idea, let's develop NT, which is based on many of the principles of UNIX - multi-user, memory protection etc. They haven't done too bad a job of NT, the kernel itself is pretty stable. The APIs are dodgy, badly undocumented though.

Remember the Win 9x series of operating systems? Poor memory management, not a true multi-user operating system, poor security (basically non-existant), very poor reliability, and so on. That's what 95% of the world was using up until 2000. Remember BSOD? You don't see that on a UNIX system.

If we want to be really pedantic, how does Microsoft get away with being able to patent the 'sudo' command, 25 odd years ago? This page might be interesting:

http://www.courtesan.com/sudo/history.html

Yes. Amazing eh? How much other software and patents has been ripped off from others, without any acknowledgement etc? The average person is stupid enough not to be able to do any research, or to even care. That's the type of customer Microsoft wants - mindless robots.

For all of Windows XP's so called robustness, after six months of usage I'm left with a system that's sluggish, has several trojans on it that I am simply unable to trace and remove. This is despite having corporate level anti virus software running on my system, and myself in the habit of not opening email attachments etc. I'm also in the habit of scanning anything I download from the net before opening it. I'm behind a CISCO router firewall as well. So, in six months, Windows XP has screwed up more than Debian GNU/Linux did in like 4 years. And that's with Debian having something like 15,000 applications installed, and being constantly updated over the period.

I personally detest Microsoft, and I personally cannot stand Microsoft Windows XP, for want of a better word, it's a very poor operating system. Don't even get me started on DOS. No, let's get me started on DOS. I spent several hours yesterday cleaning out my c:\documents & settings\username\local settings\temp and \temporary internet files. rmdir is no longer a valid DOS command with the garbage that Windows XP offers as DOS. Want to list everything? Well, dir doesn't. How do you list a file that you don't know the name of? Well, you have to play with the DOS commands. Doing dir /a:h will show all hidden files, as well /a:s show all system files, /a:r all read-only files, etc. Now, let's look at the Unix command - simply ls -la. That easy. Done. Want to remove the directory? No worries, rm -rf. Do that in DOS? Not on you life. You have to manually remove every single sub directory and it's file contents first. Very painful, very slow. I couldn't find a DOS command that would delete both the directory and sub files/directories in one foul swoop. Furthermore, a straight dir might show nothing. Try deleting it and you'll get a cryptic error message saying that there's still files there. Great eh?

Microsoft does not innovate. It steals. It monopolises. It makes deals with hardware and software vendors to support its own operating system and software. Novell anyone? Corel anyone? SCO anyone? Sun-Microsystems anyone? Since Microsoft is the biggest boy on the block, it's also the biggest bully, and many of the other players simply roll over.

Dave

Another blatant attempt to suck money out of Microsoft. How can they sit there and say there was no competition. That's flat out, bs. What about Apple? What about Red Hat? What about Novell? There is plenty of competition out there. Just because they might not be as well known, documented, etc, doesn't mean they aren't there. Take some time to look around and explore the options before you b*tch about no competition, morons.

The irony is that, like the first anti-trust suit brought by the Feds, it wasn't launched by the alternative platform supporters. It was a result of the poor 'we are victims' Windows supporters who failed to think and assume responsibility for their own choices and who then ran to the government to protect them from themselves.

But people should have the option to buy a PC without an installed OS so that they CAN independently make up their own mind - should they discover that they have one.

So the question is really How do you not become a monopoly and incent your competition to drive your own profits down? Is that what I'm reading? If Microsoft got as big as they are it was because of the consumer; when they started they couldn't force anyone to buy their software. They partnered with IBM in the beginning and IBM helped them gain market share. Is that their fault they became the dominant player? How do they not become a monopoly when the consumer is buying their software over the competition. They did a better job of marketing than Apple did and they grew. I'm not dismissing the fact they are a monopoly and are certainly exploiting it now, but their competition failed and they grew to this point. Blame it on whoever you want, but we created the monopoly by feeding the machine.

I think antitrust suits fines should be based on the companies revenue. Not a standard set fee. I mean 450 million is nothing to microsoft they make 5 times that amount in profit in three months. It should be like 40 percent profit the company makes in a year. That would hurt most companies but not destroy anyone. Now take a average company that makes 40million a year. give them a 450 million dollar suit and it will bury them in a heartbeat. So what does this do to make microsoft shape up? Not a thing, just like the huge antitrust suit in the late 90's it took years and by the time the ruling came around and punishment was enforced. IE was king, media player dominated and any other integrated apps in xp made everything else comparable practically worthless to buy. Now here comes vista, integrated spyware, backup software, picture management, pdf competitor and whatever else i failed to mention.

Point is microsoft is a monopoly, they have the money, influence with oem's and majority of profit of the industry backing them. All hardware manufacturer's program developers and game studios are based on microsoft's os. Microsoft knows this and has no reason to fear anything not even antitrust lawsuits. I can assure you that microsoft is not sweating anything the government can throw at them. They are laughing to the bank everyday.

The only real world solution is to break microsoft up. That is the ONLY solution. Make two os's and put them at a starting line. Have them compete. Then see what happends. i bet we see lower prices, innovation will be incredible and the money will be spread throughout the industry instead of intel and microsoft being the most profitable and everyone else fighting over crumbs. Linux is free and hence why development is slow most manufactuerers don't bother developing drivers or software.

right now other then a breakup of microsoft that would help the industry would be linux developers and distro's combining forces. merge, ibm, novell and redhat and put out a linux distro that has complete backing from several game studios and all major software and game studio companies like roxio, adobe, nero, id, ea etc. Now add in all major hardware company support like logitech, nvidia and AMD.

Now add in oem support like Dell, hp, lenovo, toshiba and gateway. Now with those companies on board and developing support for linux you will find click through easy install drivers, broad software support along with games.

That would have microsoft crapping in their pants and I can guarntee you would see the next version of windows out with more features and a lower price with no activation crap or anything else.

Competition keeps companies honest, efficient and innovative. All these things microsoft is not.

your f*cking retarded, I'm not even gonna explain why, you just ARE, now go cut your whiney emo wrists and STFU.

Microsoft is a monopoly, that's a no brainer.
The question is wether Microsoft used that monopoly in illegal ways.
I think yes is the answer to that.

I'm also wondering about possible future lawsuits with Vista's pricing scheme ?
And I hope something is done with Microsoft's "PC tax" as well.

To to mention a few changes I'd like to see :)

Microsoft is no more a monoply then Ford was in the 1900's

Just because your first to the table with a product that works, nobody even trys to sell a product like it, doesn't mean your a dang monoply.

'than', 'you're', and your comma usage is appalling.

Oh, a wannabe English teacher!!! Is all my punctuation, capitalization, etc., etc., etc. correct???

Microsoft wasn't first to the table, study your history!

Microsoft was founded on Software Piracy.
Everything from the NT kernel (since it's based on a Unix kernel) to the code for the Mouse, to modern technology like Vista, Microsoft continues to steal code, specifically Open Source Code, and implement the code in a proprietary format.

There is competition, but the competiton has never had a chance! Whether it's Apple, Sco, IBM, and even Novell (incidently they are working together now), Microsoft's competiton is Open Source Code, which is available for free.

You do the math. If a company has billions of dollars to promote and market it's products, compared to companies who maybe have millions to do the same thing, who's going to have more success?

I wish I was the Plaintiffs' attorney on this case, I'd love to get Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer on the stand and see how honest they will be.

You had your chance and you lost it!
TOO BAD.

However, you are always welcome to come back to the table and fight again, if you dare.

Uh yeah, maybe you need to go back and study your history. The NT kernel is not based on a Unix kernel.

And mouse code? Heh.

Thank you, I agree whole heartedly.

i seriously doubt that in 80 years there will be dozens of os makers all competing with fractions of market share each. Not only that but ford in the 1900's were one of the only car makers then. Very few people knew what a car was or could afford one. That is not the case here. imagine if ford was the only car manufature now with 90 percent market share on the world cars sales. i can guarentee cars would cost 50k fixing it would be a royal b**** and very expensive and ford would be raking it in by the billions or trillions but luckily we have dozens of car makers that all compete with features, innovation and price.

Put that into the os market and i can't even imagine what kind of os we would have now days or what features we would have or what pricing would be. I can assure you we would be on windows version 25 not 5.1 with 6.1 coming out and a 5 year hold up would of cost you 80 percent market share not 0.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to use correct capitalization and punctuation when correcting someone else's grammar?

again... another retard who has NO idea wtf he is speaking about and you silly people agree because it sounds like an icecream sundae....

here's the roblem with your logic... YOU HAVE NONE.

nor do you have the facts about the history of winsux, if your gonna talk sh1t, do your f*cking research. Mr fake history boy, there needs to be a god d@mned budlight real men of genius commercial for you. This Buds For you Mr. Doesn't know wtf he's talking about but has to whine anyway man