I don't care...I'm on Bill Gates' side [Archive]

JoeyBlades

07-21-2000, 09:23 AM

Microsoft broke the law because they used their monopoly position in the OS market to displace the market leader in the browser market - plain and simple.

To fix the gasoline analogy that you guys have been trying to build. Imagine that Microsoft monopolized the gasoline industry. All cars need gasoline, so the automobile manufacturers automatically install Microsoft Gas98 in all their cars as they leave the factory. Now Netscape comes along and they don't sell gas, they have a gas additive that improves engine performance. The car manufacturers start shipping new cars with Netscape Addivator and customers are happy. Then Microsoft gets to thinking, "Car owners like gas additives. We should make our own gas additive and just put it in all of the gas we sell". This is bad enough, but Microsoft goes a step further, they design the additive such that if you try to use Netscape's additive, your car won't run and they coerce car manufacturers to stop installing Addivator. Suddenly Netscape suffers serious marketshare loss. Eventually, Microsoft "fixes" their gas additive so that Addivator will run in your car, but by that time it's too late, Netscape's marketshare has been compromised. Did Microsoft win the additive market because they had a better product? No, they won because they had the power to take away the consumer's choice in products and drive a competitor out of business.

dhanson wrote:

Sun gives away Java, not because it's a benevolent benefactor of Mankind, but because Sun believes that giving away Java will kill a bunch of other commercial languages and give them a large profit center if they can maintain control of the language.

That's not exactly true. Sun gives away java because they plan on making money from java based APIs. This is why their lawsuit with Microsoft is so important to them. If Microsoft is allowed to violate the java liscensing agreement and build a non compliant version of java, this threatens Sun's future application sales because Microsoft could prevent Sun applications from running on a large percentage of the world's computers.

Apple refused to license their OS so they could maintain hardware sales, and some claim Apple refused to release key specs to outside software vendors

How is protecting your intellectual property an "anti-competitive tactic"? The quantity and quality of the documentation released by Apple to developers is unparalleled in the history of human kind. Pick up a copy of "Inside Macintosh" sometime, plus all of the technical papers and a wealth of other documentation. While you're at it, get a copy of the MPW programming environment. It's all free from the Apple Developer's website. Having Apple's detailed documentation is infinitely more valuable to a software developer than having the source code to their OS... of course the robber barons would prefer the source code...

Microsoft does not have a monopoly. If it did, the PC software industry has no technical barriers to competition, meaning that their monopoly is not assured in the future.

A monopoly doesn't mean that there's NO competition, only that the competition is insignificant. Sure, there are other, non Microsoft, OSs out there for the PC, but Microsoft owns more than 95% of the market - that's clearly a monopoly.

mipsman

07-21-2000, 09:37 AM

What do you Microsoft defenders think about benevolent dictatorships? Do you like them too? It should be intuitive that competition is a requirement of free enterprise. Without competition, the economy will spiral down into crony capitalism.

PeeQueue

07-21-2000, 09:59 AM

I don't get it though - I mean there is competition. Microsoft maintains a huge market share, but it is not 100%. And all signs point to a further eroding of their market share, especially with the evolution of computers into handheld devices and such. This should not be possible if they had a true monopoly.

I don't mind penalizing companies for unfair business practices, but to break them up for it? It seems very harsh - especially since they don't know that what they are doing is illegal until someone takes them to court for it. I mean there is no rule book that states explicitly that the practices they maintained were illegal - it all hangs on the decision of a judge.

PeeQueue

tradesilicon

07-21-2000, 10:08 AM

mipsman,
What do you Microsoft defenders think about benevolent dictatorships? Do you like them too? It should be intuitive that competition is a requirement of free enterprise. Without competition, the economy will spiral down into crony capitalism.
Agreed. Competition is essencial. Remember that Microsoft had to compete with Market Leaders in every market they entered. There was no 'gimmy' when they got into the OS business, or the office productivity suite, or the browser.

Another interesting thing - they have consistantly brought the consumer less expensive software, (good for consumer, yes?) and they have allowed less expensive hardware to be more useful (PC was garbage with DOS, but Windows helps, Mac was always better, but much more expensive than clones...)

As for their innovation, they may not have created a single new thing (I think they did, but anyway) but if they are able to put together a package people want, more power to 'em.

This whole things reeps, the consumer was benefitting and the Government steps in to help the whining competitors. Better the Government should look at the damn gas price, and think about what's happening there.

cmkeller

07-21-2000, 10:31 AM

First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Feely for encouraging me to read the "Conclusions of Law" that he provided me a link to. Having read that, and I must admit I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding of the document may not be entirely correct, I have to come down on Microsoft's side.

The biggest thing that disturbs me about the judge's ruling is that the findings are self-contradictory. In one part of the ruling, he says that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices to stop a Netscape/Java platform from acting as a competing operating system. Hence, it would seem to me that the Netscape browser, enabled with Java, provides essential operating system services. However, in the latter part of his ruling, he makes the point that the operating system and internet browser are two seperate things, and therefore including one with the other constitutes illegal bundling. Excuse me?

A minor point that disturbs me is the Judge's description of the "applications barrier" to the introduction of a new operating system. I remember when Microsoft produced its earliest versions of Windows. It didn't go over well, in large part because no one was willing to write applications for an operating system no one was using...and no one was willing to use an operating system that no one had written applications for. So what did Microsoft do? They wrote their own Windows applications! (granted, whining to the government wouldn't have done much good, since they were up against their own product, MS-DOS) Anyone who wants to compete with Microsoft by writing their own operating system can do that, and good-bye "applications barrier."

Hunsecker

07-21-2000, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Feely
Hunsecker: What do you find unusual about the definition of the market in which Microsoft was found to have a monopoly?

Actually, I hadn't read the conclusions of law till you posted the link. I heard on another newsgroup that the market was something like Intel-based server operating systems.

But still, it strikes me that "Intel-based PC OS" is a pretty narrow definition.

Oh yeah, and in my gas analogy, I wanted to show that MS was using anticompetitive practices is the car (IE) market, because they felt their core market (Windows) was being threatened. I have no problem with MS competing on the merits of their software, they often do have the better product and it deserves to win out. Its when they try to drive the competitors out buisness by using their OS dominance that I have a problem.

MamaGeph

07-21-2000, 02:50 PM

But boil it all down, and it's still the same. If IE wasn't a better product, it would have gone down in flames. I used Netscape before I tried IE, and it was a royal pain. It's a free economy, right? The government should get the hell out of the way and let inovation drive the competition.

Even if MS owned every oil well on earth, and bundled the additive into the gas, a brilliant, hardworking person could develop an alternative energy vehicle and fight their way to the top if it was more efficient.

MamaGeph

07-21-2000, 03:19 PM

JoeyBlades said

How is protecting your intellectual property an "anti-competitive tactic"?

Didn't I read almost this exact same reaction from MS? Someone, please help me out: Wasn't one of the proposed penalties to be that MS would have to release its code to the general public?

I may be confused...:confused:

Hunsecker

07-21-2000, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by MamaGeph
If IE wasn't a better product, it would have gone down in flames.

In a competitive marketplace, yes. But what happened was, MS used their advantages in the OS market to attempt to force NS out of the browser market, rather than having their browser compete solely on its merits.

Even if MS owned every oil well on earth, and bundled the additive into the gas, a brilliant, hardworking person could develop an alternative energy vehicle and fight their way to the top if it was more efficient.

(OK, this metaphor is getting too streched but...)
Thats the theory, but if MS tries to stop people from being able to get the A.E.Vs by jacking up the price of gas for truckers who want to haul A.E.Vs around the country, then thats anti-competitive.

This is essentially what they did to OEMs. If the OEMs changed the Windows desktop to put netscape on there (or even a shortcut to http://www.netscape.com) then they'd be charged a lot more for Windows. (Sec. I.A.2.a.i in the findings of law)

sailor

07-21-2000, 06:49 PM

This has already been discussed in several threads. MS is not accused of being a monopoly. They are accused of certain anticompetitive business practices and I have no doubt they are indeed guilty of that and should probably be fined but a breakup seems way excessive. I am talking strictly of business practices like using their power to bully computer manufacturers into doing what they were told. OTOH I believe the government should not get into telling MS how to develop their products. If they want to integrate the browser or whatever else, that is their business. But if they tell Compaq "you do as I tell you , or else..." that should not be allowed. I believe they *are* guilty of that. But I also think they have the best products around (the least bad I should say) for my needs.

Oops, the two cents ran out

tracer

07-21-2000, 07:01 PM

JoeyBlades wrote:

How is protecting your intellectual property an "anti-competitive tactic"?

Patenting an invention creates a temporary monopoly over its use. No one is allowed to use your patent without your permission. This allows you to be the sole provider of your invention for as long as the patent lasts, during which time you are free to price-gouge and sue any "competitors" who try to sell copies of your invention into oblivion. Patents are, by their very nature, an anti-competitive tactic. But they are an anti-competitive tactic that is explicitly allowed by the law, and is exempt from the standard omnibus of so-called antitrust legislation.

JoeyBlades

07-21-2000, 08:00 PM

tradesilicon:

Mac was always better, but much more expensive than clones...

Apple only recently started charging for their OS. Originally it was free, and in fact, you can still get OS 7.somethingorother for free. Comparing Microsoft to Macintosh is making at least two errors (comparing a software company to a hardware product)

As for their innovation, they may not have created a single new thing (I think they did, but anyway)

Try to name one. I've seen some pretty sharp cookies come up empty handed on this challenge. It certainly appears that Microsoft has acquired every single new technology that they are responsible for delivering. They're not a technology company, they're just a remarketer...

MamaGeph:

If IE wasn't a better product, it would have gone down in flames.

No. If IE wasn't an adequate product, it might have gone down in flames...

I used Netscape before I tried IE, and it was a royal pain.

Ahh... but what made it a pain? It's entirely possible that the problems you had with Netscape were directly related to Microsoft 'sabotage'.

Didn't I read almost this exact same reaction from MS? Someone, please help me out: Wasn't one of the proposed penalties to be that MS would have to release its code to the general public?

I hadn't heard that one. If that is the case, I think that would be an unfair penalty. Microsoft should be allowed to protect their IP.

tracer:

Patenting an invention creates a temporary monopoly over its use.

Slight nitpick, but operating systems are copyrighted, not patented. Copyrights last much longer than patents. A copyright for a joint work, such as an OS, is valid for 70 years following the death of the last surviving author...

Hunsecker

07-21-2000, 11:05 PM

Just wanted to make a few nitpicks, otherwise JoeyBlades is right on track.

Originally posted by JoeyBlades
[Re: MS and innovations]
Try to name one. I've seen some pretty sharp cookies come up empty handed on this challenge. It certainly appears that Microsoft has acquired every single new technology that they are responsible for delivering.

Last time this was discussed on the board, I think we settles on the fact that Bob and that smug paperclip are both MS derived innovations. I think there was some argument about both, but MS was the first to deliver them to a wide audience. Damming with faint praise? maybe.

They are working to build up a first class research department, and already they've had some interesting work come out of there.

And according to Neal Stephenson, the whole concept of getting people to go to a store and buy an operating system was pretty innovative.

[Re: MS having to open their code]
I hadn't heard that one. If that is the case, I think that would be an unfair penalty. Microsoft should be allowed to protect their IP.

I remember this being discussed in the media, but I don't think this was ever a serious proposal. I'm borderline about the current order to split MS, but having them give away their code would be going WAY too far.

I do understand the reasoning about splitting the company though. So far, the conduct remedies that have previously applied to MS were pretty much ignored. I also think that the court was pissed about MSs arrogance, which isn't the best way to make a decision, and is why I'm mixed about the ruling.

Geek Mecha

07-21-2000, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon

Another interesting thing - they have consistantly brought the consumer less expensive software, (good for consumer, yes?) and they have allowed less expensive hardware to be more useful (PC was garbage with DOS, but Windows helps, Mac was always better, but much more expensive than clones...)

Less expensive software? Excuse me? I can't think of a major app that MS has that is under $200. The full (non-upgrade) version of Word cost over $350! For the average person who uses a word-processing program to type a letter, this is ridiculous. I have a Mac; I use Nisus Writer and AppleWorks. Both cost me less than $100 each. You can't tell me there aren't more WP options on the Windows end.

As for their innovation, they may not have created a single new thing (I think they did, but anyway) but if they are able to put together a package people want, more power to 'em.

There are people who "want" MS products for the sole reason that they are MS products. Every product MS releases gets attention for the same reason, even if that product is lacking or a non-innovation. Some people (I don't want to say all) buy MS products because MS is a company whose name they recognize and thus assume makes quality products. Quite the contrary- Microsoft Outlook, the popular e-mail program, for example, is widely used, yet is a HUGE security compromise. And the worst part is it's FREE. If Outlook belonged to any other company, it would have been left to die in the gutter a long time ago.

I disagree also that MS should be forced to release their code, but I heard an interesting rumor a couple years ago that many, many lines of code were found in MS's MediaPlayer (not sure about the name, but it was their QuickTime-comparable product) that were, line by line, the same as that found in QT. Said rumor claimed that this was one of the reasons for MS's $150M "investment" in Apple in 1997.

Mr. Feely

07-22-2000, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by cmkeller
The biggest thing that disturbs me about the judge's ruling is that the findings are self-contradictory. In one part of the ruling, he says that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices to stop a Netscape/Java platform from acting as a competing operating system. Hence, it would seem to me that the Netscape browser, enabled with Java, provides essential operating system services. However, in the latter part of his ruling, he makes the point that the operating system and internet browser are two seperate things, and therefore including one with the other constitutes illegal bundling. Excuse me?

This is not self-contradictory for two reasons. First, the Netscape/Java platform does not and cannot compete as an operating system. It quite simply lacks the low-level resource management capabilities that are the hallmarks of an operating system. The reason Microsoft tried to stop them is because they provided a platform that third parties could use to implement software without having any dependence on the underlying operating system. Had this been successful, it could have commoditized the underlying operating system, thereby eliminating Microsoft's monopoly advantage.

Second, bundling is only illegal when used by a monopolist for anti-competitive means. There is nothing wrong with the Netscape/Java combination because Netscape does not have a monopoly in browsers, and it is not anti-competitive.

I think you're severely minimizing the impact of the applications barrier to entry, cmkeller. Even if you could implement your own applications for your operating system as Microsoft has, you wouldn't still wouldn't be able to compete unless you supported the incredibly vast quantity of third party software that exists for Windows. There are essentially two ways to do that: (a) support the Windows APIs or (b) convince third parties to port their software. The is a project called Wine (http://www.winehq.com/) that has been trying to do (a) for seven years now and is still not even close to supporting the Windows APIs, some of which are hidden or undocumented. As a Linux user, I can say that (b) is also incredibly difficult. For example, many people have been trying for years to convince Quicken (a company that certainly has no love lost for Microsoft) to port their software to Linux, with no success. And that is just one piece of software among the tens or hundreds of thousands out there.

Mr. Feely

07-22-2000, 03:12 AM

[Re: opening Windows code]

This is one topic that the media did an incredibly poor job of reporting, no thanks to Microsoft's PR department. There is no provision in the final order requiring Microsoft to give away their code. Here is the actual passage from the order, section 3.b:

Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable -

Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or

a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or

any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.

To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the foregoing, Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii).

Microsoft must simply create a secure facility where hardware and software vendors as well as computer manufacturers can make sure their products work effectively with Windows. They are not required by the order to divulge their code outside of this facility. This provision is necessary because Microsoft has repeatedly used hidden APIs to give unfair advantage to their own software developers, and this is the only real way to keep them honest, IMHO.

[Re: splitting up Microsoft]

I'm a bit puzzled by the people who take the stand that Microsoft has broken the law, yet they should not be broken up. From what I've read, there are two possibilities for preventing anticompetitive behavior in the future: either conduct or structural remedies. Keep in mind that

Microsoft not only broke the law flagrantly and repeatedly, but to this day refuses to admit that they did anything wrong.
Microsoft violated the principles of their earlier consent decree with the US DOJ.
It is impossible for any conduct remedy to forsee and forbid every possible anticompetitive practice.

Given these facts, I have no confidence that Microsoft would not successfully evade any conduct remedies placed on it. Additionally, any changes to prevent this evasion would have to be mediated by the courts. This would involve a long and tedious process that would likely not reach a conclusion before the anticompetitive act had had its desired effect. Contrast this to the structural remedy, where market forces would act to prevent anticompetitive acts, with very little government intervention. There is no question in my mind that a structural remedy is the most effective way to prevent future monopolistic abuse.

SPOOFE

07-22-2000, 04:26 AM

Slight nitpick, but operating systems are copyrighted, not patented.

Even slighter nitpick :), but I thought the name of the product received the copyright, not the content of the product itself. Like, when the patent for Windows 95 (assuming there is one, this is just an example) runs out, anyone will be able to use the code, but they won't be able to call the product "Windows 95".

To wit:

Copyright- the name that consumers associate with the product.

Patent- the "meat" of the product.

Anyway... fun thread. Much back-and-forthness. Maybe I'll even participate a bit later on (although I've learned from other Microsoft threads... :D).

Geek Mecha

07-22-2000, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly

Even slighter nitpick :), but I thought the name of the product received the copyright, not the content of the product itself. Like, when the patent for Windows 95 (assuming there is one, this is just an example) runs out, anyone will be able to use the code, but they won't be able to call the product "Windows 95".

I believe the same applies to fragrances and typefaces (so I'm a type/font freak, sue me): the names of the products are what is copyrighted but the "meat", as SPOOFE calls it, is not. This explains why we can have cheap imitation fragrances (although I dunno how close they really are; I've never done side by side comparisons) and freeware fonts that closely resemble $100 ones.

dixiechiq

07-22-2000, 06:37 AM

microsoft forced pc makers to buy a windows license for every comuter they sold, regardless of whether they loaded or wanted to load windows on each machine. now how much time or money do you think the manufacturers would put into trying alternative o/ses if they'd already paid for an o/s for every pc they made??

MamaGeph

07-22-2000, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by dixiechiq
microsoft forced pc makers to buy a windows license for every comuter they sold, regardless of whether they loaded or wanted to load windows on each machine. now how much time or money do you think the manufacturers would put into trying alternative o/ses if they'd already paid for an o/s for every pc they made??

If they wanted to get out from under MS that badly, they'd develop it. Granted, MS mey have been a bit agressive, but that's business. It's their product.

Hunsecker

07-22-2000, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by AudreyK
Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly

Even slighter nitpick :), but I thought the name of the product received the copyright, not the content of the product itself. Like, when the patent for Windows 95 (assuming there is one, this is just an example) runs out, anyone will be able to use the code, but they won't be able to call the product "Windows 95".

I believe the same applies to fragrances and typefaces (so I'm a type/font freak, sue me): the names of the products are what is copyrighted but the "meat", as SPOOFE calls it, is not. This explains why we can have cheap imitation fragrances (although I dunno how close they really are; I've never done side by side comparisons) and freeware fonts that closely resemble $100 ones.

I think that not being able to copyright a typeface is something unique. I can't really understand the justifications for it either, except that since differences in typefaces are often very subtle, its hard to show when one has been stolen.

As for software:
The title of the software can be trademarked. This is for protecting brand identity. I'm not allowed to make an operating system called Windows 99, because it confuses the marketplace.

The content of the software (the actual binary files, help documents, copy on the box, etc) can and are all copyrighted.

The source code is also copyrighted.

The "look and feel" can not be. I can make an OS that looks just like Windows, and should be pretty safe. Note that there is a bunch of disagreement about this. Apple lost their look and feel suit with MS, but I think they settled with e-Machines (for making an iMac knockoff).

Reverse engineering is permissible, under certain circumstances. You have to be real careful how much access the engineers have had to the original product.

The ideas behind the algorithms can be patented. This not only protects the actual text that the algorithms were written in, but the concepts behind it. So translations and reverse engineering are not permissable. This can only be done if the invention is sufficently novel, and there are no prior examples of the invention.

Oh, and about MS forcing OEMs to buy a windows license: A few OEMs installed 2 operating systems on their machines. They weren't allowed to change the boot sequence, but they could, I believe, ship with instructions for how to get to the other OS, or a boot floppy that would get you there. And when you first booted into windows, but you could choose not to agree to the license agreement that you saw when Windows started for the first time, and ask for a refund from MS.

So MS made it a royal pain to put in other operating systems, but there are a few OEMs trying it out.

And I think that the big thing that OEMs don't want to deal with is support for those other OSs. Its enough of a pain for them to support Windows (this always seemed weird to me, MS makes the OEMs support windows).

dixiechiq

07-22-2000, 05:08 PM

mamgreph says:

If they wanted to get out from under MS that badly, they'd develop it. Granted, MS mey have been a bit agressive, but that's business. It's their product.
---------------

actually that is one of the reasons they are being split up. it is one example of how they abused a monopoly position, which is illegal. you seem to believe it shouldn't be illegal, but there it is.

capacitor

07-22-2000, 10:49 PM

The judge's ruling that IE and Windows bundling is illegal conflicts directly with a higher court decision, the same federal court that is listening to the appeal of the case. I am certain that they hate being ignored by lower courts and may throw out the judgment out of spite, reasoned spite.

JoeyBlades

07-24-2000, 09:45 AM

Hunsecker wrote:

Last time this was discussed on the board, I think we settles on the fact that Bob and that smug paperclip are both MS derived innovations. I think there was some argument about both, but MS was the first to deliver them to a wide audience.

First, there was nothing innovative about it. Integrated work packages had been around for a long time before 'Bob' (Including MS WOrks) and the "themed user interface" had been used in a number of programs, primarily for kids... (check out Broderbund's 'The Playroom', a sort of GUI for kids - 'Bob' looks frighteningly similar)... Second, I don't think it qualifies as innovation if it flops! Actually, I take it back. Microsoft did one innovative thing with 'Bob', they raised the bar for insulting the intelligence of their customers...

Both 'Bob' and the ubiquitous 'clip' are direct outcomes of research from Professor Byron Reeves and Associate Professor Clifford Nass, of Stanford's Communications Department. Therefore, once again, Microsoft isn't responsible for the innovation - just the marketing.

SPOOFE wrote:

Even slighter nitpick , but I thought the name of the product received the copyright, not the content of the product itself.

Nope. Don't believe me? Try this little experiment. Take a book like "2001: A Space Odyssey". Now retype it word-for-word and give it a new title; something like "When Good Computers Go Bad". Do you think you can sell it???

Copyright infringement refers to the entire work, including content.

tradesilicon

07-24-2000, 01:16 PM

AudreyK,
Less expensive software? Excuse me? I can't think of a major app that MS has that is under $200. The full (non-upgrade) version of Word cost over $350! For the average person who uses a word-processing program to type a letter, this is ridiculous. I have a Mac; I use Nisus Writer and AppleWorks. Both cost me less than $100 each. You can't tell me there aren't more WP options on the Windows end.
No, excuse me. I guess I was not following the market prices closely enough. You compare MS Word to AppleWorks? How about MS Works? You get the whole office suite (usually for free with a PC)? Why not compare apples to apples?
Also, the OS prices are extremely low compared to competition. IE is free like Netscape Nav. Anything else? Oh, by the way, they also enabled less expensive HW to be used by comsumers.

There are people who "want" MS products for the sole reason that they are MS products. Every product MS releases gets attention for the same reason, even if that product is lacking or a non-innovation. Some people (I don't want to say all) buy MS products because MS is a company whose name they recognize and thus assume makes quality products.
I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or making my point for me. They want MS products for a reason. No one forced anyone to buy MS in 1984, or '87, or '92. This is a company that started out fighting for a small piece of the market, and managed to get the lions share. More power to them.
(Buy the way, I own 'technically superior' software to MS in OS, Office, and other, but use mostly MS. Huh. So many people around me do the same.

Altair_8800

07-24-2000, 04:47 PM

I'm on Bill Gates' side 100%. The whole anti-trust thing came about as the result of Microsoft's [jealous] competitors complaining to the government--in other words, a bunch of little companies figured they weren't growing fast enough in the market, so they took their battle to the courtroom.

And Microsoft DID NOT get a fair trial. The judge was completely biased against the company. He didn't even begin to understand half of the technological aspects influencing the market. And he was actually asleep during many parts of the testimony!

Don't even get me started on the innovation part. Microsoft is one of the most innovative companies out there, especially in terms of the amount of money being put into R&D.

Their products aren't that bad. If you're having THAT much trouble with them, you might consider taking "Introduction to Computing Environments" or a similar course at your local community college. On that subject, their products are expensive for a reason. For example, with the Office Package Small Business Edition you are actually getting 6 programs designed to work together to enhance both your computing experience and the quality of your work.

Hey, if you don't like Microsoft's products, you don't have to use them--you have other choices. Or perhaps you have been so busy complaining that you haven't noticed.

Kimstu

07-24-2000, 05:02 PM

Microsoft is one of the most innovative companies out there, especially in terms of the amount of money being put into R&D.

Their products aren't that bad.

LOL!

JoeyBlades

07-24-2000, 06:00 PM

Altair writes (fanning the flames, no doubt):

I'm on Bill Gates' side 100%. The whole anti-trust thing came about as the result of Microsoft's [jealous] competitors complaining to the government--in other words, a bunch of little companies figured they weren't growing fast enough in the market, so they took their battle to the courtroom.

You've not been listening. The complaints don't arise due to Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. The complaints arise because Microsoft used it's dominance in that market to prevent the market leaders from competing with their new browser. They knew they couldn't win in a head-to-head.

And Microsoft DID NOT get a fair trial. The judge was completely biased against the company. He didn't even begin to understand half of the technological aspects influencing the market.

Gimme a break this stuff ain't rocket science. I'm sure the judge understood plenty well enough. If he didn't, then it's Microsoft's own fault for hiring incompetent lawyers. Technically, the nature of the technology and/or market is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We could just as easily be talking about widgets.

Don't even get me started on the innovation part. Microsoft is one of the most innovative companies out there, especially in terms of the amount of money being put into R&D.

Since when is burning money an indicator of innovation?

Their products aren't that bad. If you're having THAT much trouble with them, you might consider taking "Introduction to Computing Environments" or a similar course at your local community college. On that subject, their products are expensive for a reason. For example, with the Office Package Small Business Edition you are actually getting 6 programs designed to work together to enhance both your computing experience and the quality of your work.

Hey, I'm a computer engineer. I know, quite well, what goes into developing products like "Office". While I agree that "Office" has a lot of nice integrated features, I cannot say that Microsoft has demonstrated software excellence in the development of this package. It's much too fat and slow. It reflects exactly the process that Microsoft has used in it's development... if you develop with a bolt-on mentality, you end up with a bulky product with a lot of loose screws. If you look at StarOffice in the unix/linux world you can see how a product of comparable performance and complexity can be built much more efficiently... Hey, and StarOffice is free!!! I guess that shoots your 'you-get-what-you-pay-for' theory in the foot, as well.

Hey, if you don't like Microsoft's products, you don't have to use them--you have other choices. Or perhaps you have been so busy complaining that you haven't noticed.

You know, this brings up a point that's always bugged me about Windows. I keep hearing how much more software there is available for Windows than Mac, but where are the non-integrated, non-Microsoft word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation packages? If you go to tucows there's virtually none to be found. I never hear about any third party commercial competitors either. Go to the Mac section of tucows, though and you'll find lots of competitive products and there's a bunch of commercial competitors, too...

But returning to your point, I do use non-Microsoft products quite frequently - not because I have some sort of anti-Microsoft bent. I just prefer Netscape Communicator to Internet Explorer, and I prefer Communicator to Outlook Express, and I prefer Communicator to FrontPage. I prefer Deneba Canvas to PowerPoint and I prefer Canvas to Publisher, Picture It!, and PhotoDraw... When it comes to spreadsheets, I like Excel and Word is a really good word processor. I suspect that they dominate simply because they are the best (if not the only), though if I were paying for them out of my own pocket, I'd be looking for something a little less feature rich and more economical.

Altair_8800

07-24-2000, 09:26 PM

I HAVE BEEN LISTENING.

They aren't burning money. Don't you even pay any attention to that company?

And I would rather buy the software from a company I trust, thank you. Would you accept a free car from a little-known company?

Kimstu--I take it you've never picked up Visual Studio.

Geek Mecha

07-24-2000, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon

No, excuse me. I guess I was not following the market prices closely enough. You compare MS Word to AppleWorks? How about MS Works? You get the whole office suite (usually for free with a PC)? Why not compare apples to apples?
Also, the OS prices are extremely low compared to competition. IE is free like Netscape Nav. Anything else? Oh, by the way, they also enabled less expensive HW to be used by comsumers.
Fine. Let's compare apples and apples. MS Works is indeed more comparable to AppleWorks, but where is it? I don't use MS software, true, but I'm not totally oblivious to the software they release. There have not been any upgrades to MS Works for years. Besides, I was simply saying that for the features of Word that most people would use, there are alternatives out there that are less expensive. And I was talking about major apps, and not OSes. Or hardware, for that matter.

I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or making my point for me. They want MS products for a reason. No one forced anyone to buy MS in 1984, or '87, or '92. This is a company that started out fighting for a small piece of the market, and managed to get the lions share. More power to them.
(Buy the way, I own 'technically superior' software to MS in OS, Office, and other, but use mostly MS. Huh. So many people around me do the same.

You're missing my point. I am saying that people are buying MS software because MS makes it. I am questioning whether people take into consideration their software needs and the alternatives to MS products (which have been criticized for being excessively full of features and overpriced) before buying. I would say a lot people are buying MS products solely because of brand name recognition and the positive things they (perhaps mistakenly) associate with MS.

JoeyBlades

07-25-2000, 08:51 AM

Altair,

You wrote:

I HAVE BEEN LISTENING.

If that's true, then why did you write:

a bunch of little companies figured they weren't growing fast enough in the market, so they took their battle to the courtroom.

This is clearly not the point of the lawsuit or the companies that are involved. These companies were perfectly happy with their slice of their market, then Microsoft came in and squashed them using illegal tactics...

They aren't burning money. Don't you even pay any attention to that company?

Sure, I pay attention. I also note the quantity and quality of innovative products they turn out. They apparently have lots of research, but very little development (In the industry we call it big R, little D)

And I would rather buy the software from a company I trust, thank you. Would you accept a free car from a little-known company?

You really should do your homework. StarOffice is produced by Sun Microsystems... not your everyday "little-known company".

But to ponder your last question... Hmmm... it's free... it's a car... Why wouldn't I accept it? I'd check it out to make sure it was safe and I would consider other factors such as comfort, gas milage, image, hidden costs, etc. before I'd drive it, but if it passed all of my basic tests and it got me from point A to point B - absolutely I would accept it.

Relating this back to software, some of the best software products I have were either freeware or very inexpensive shareware. Some of the worst were expensive commercial packages (including some Microsoft products).

and to answer my own question:

but where are the non-integrated, non-Microsoft word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation packages?

I thought of a couple only a few minutes after posting and I couldn't resist answering my own question...

Nisus Writer is supposed to be a decent word processor for Windows (though I've never used it). Also, I think Corel now owns and sells Word Perfect... I guess Lotus 123 would be a direct competitor of Excel. There used to be a product called WingZ that was (in my opinion) better than Excel, but Microsoft drove the WingZ folks out of business and there were similar rumblings of Microsoft antitrust practices (I don't know what the outcome of that was)... When it comes to competition, Microsoft lives by the philosophy: "The only good injun is a dead injun..."

tradesilicon

07-25-2000, 11:13 AM

You're missing my point. I am saying that people are buying MS software because MS makes it. I am questioning whether people take into consideration their software needs and the alternatives to MS products (which have been criticized for being excessively full of features and overpriced) before buying. I would say a lot people are buying MS products solely because of brand name recognition and the positive things they (perhaps mistakenly) associate with MS.
Audrey, a few points.
You say that people buy the software 'just because it's MS', I say that MS must have done something to make people behave this way. And since I seriously doubt they hipnotized millions of consumers, they must have provided products people want, and use, and therefore buy again. Yes, it's brand name recognition, and it's for a reason.

Now, you also mention that MS products are 'excessively full of features', but I happen to remember when MS put out a product without as many features as the competition (Word Perfect and Ami were both more feature rich) but MS managed to get in those features most often used, and suitable for most users. The old 80/20 rule. This was a big part of their success.

You don't have to tell me about the quality of the stuff. I've been through all the headaches with the earlier software. I have had to use these tools as an end user, and support them as an engineer - I have learned various vulgar expressions aimed solely at this software, so please don't think that I will only praise the stuff. But we are discussing the success of MS and why they have been targeted. I say that the consumer has not suffered, but rather benefitted from MS in general, and their competitors did not have the same skill as MS in marketing. Plenty of better technology, but no one who has put it all together as well, and sold it as well.

I know many people dislike the company, but they did nothing other than compete, win, and then get punishe for it.

JoeyBlades

07-25-2000, 12:53 PM

tradesilicon:

I say that the consumer has not suffered, but rather benefitted from MS in general, and their competitors did not have the same skill as MS in marketing. Plenty of better technology, but no one who has put it all together as well, and sold it as well.

I know many people dislike the company, but they did nothing other than compete, win, and then get punishe for it.

Another analogy (I know, we've done these to death). Let's say that you invent a product that helps shoppers when they are at the mall. You set up a little store in the only mall in town. It's a product that people like, so it does well. Now the mall owners recognize the success of your product and they decide that they want a piece of the action. They start building a nearly identical product - just different enough not to violate any trademarks, copyrights, or patents. Then they terminate your lease at the mall. You're welcome to go sell your product out on the street, though your target audience won't be there, so realistically your business is doomed. This is bad news for you and bad news for your customers because if you go bankrupt, they will no longer be able to get your service or your product. (I'll try not to throw any more analogies into the mix)

You can call that competition if you like, but the US government has a different name for it.

I realize that there are some consumers who perhaps benefitted from Internet Explorer, but as a consumer who prefers Netscape, I feel that I have been hurt personally by Microsoft's actions. Microsoft intentionally derailed Netscape's browser and impacted their business and product development. If Microsoft had kept the playing field level, Netscape might be an even better product than it is today. If Internet Explorer had won the battle of the browsers by demonstrating superior technological prowess, then there would be no issue, but IE dominates **ONLY** because Windows dominates. The only reason Netscape still has as big as a marketshare as it does is because of (1) consumer loyalty and (2) it really is a better product.

I don't hate Microsoft and I don't hate Bill Gates. In fact, I admire them both. However, their actions were wrong; they knew they were wrong; and yet they continued to break the rules of fair trade. Sadly, if they only knew when to quit, I think they could have 'gotten away with it' the same way they have in the past. But, like some rude used car salesman, they kept pushing and pushing and pushing, until someone finally said "ENOUGH" and decided to push back. I have no sympathy for Microsoft, in this respect.

Altair_8800

07-25-2000, 12:54 PM

Very little development? Sounds like you've been blinded by the Sun. Have you even looked at any of Microsoft's products since Windows 3.1?

This brings us back to what tradesilicon just said--Microsoft is merely being punished for its tremendous success. Contracts with computer manufacturers etc. aside, if Microsoft makes such bad products then why are people still buying them if so many other things are available?

Could Microsoft just happen to have really good products, the quality of which is being ignored due to the size of the company???

tradesilicon

07-25-2000, 02:05 PM

I realize that there are some consumers who perhaps benefitted from Internet Explorer, but as a consumer who prefers Netscape, I feel that I have been hurt personally by Microsoft's actions. Microsoft intentionally derailed Netscape's browser and impacted their business and product development. If Microsoft had kept the playing field level, Netscape might be an even better product than it is today. If Internet Explorer had won the battle of the browsers by demonstrating superior technological prowess, then there would be no issue, but IE dominates **ONLY** because Windows dominates. The only reason Netscape still has as big as a marketshare as it does is because of (1) consumer loyalty and (2) it really is a better product.

Joey, I think you are completely wrong about the point of Law here. I understand the point you try to make, and your analogy. But for the sake of keeping this short I'll avoid analogies to counter yours. The fact that Microsoft can impact Netscape's business shows that they are competing. It does not mean that because Netscape lost marketshare that MS broke the law. They 'derailed' the browser? A free product? Also, the 'impacted their business developement? What does this mean? If Netscape wants to develop products they are free to do so. And please don't tell me that all the reasources of AOL are not enought to provide them the backbone they need. Please. Also, since you say Netscape has consumer loyalty, it must not be dead, hmmm?

I know that it is very easy to take the Big, Bad MS and say they were to much of a bully, but let's really stick to what happenned, OK. Not our 'feelings' about underdogs, and all that. Your statement that NS Nav is a better product is opinion. I bet I'll find just as many users who will claim the opposite (check this very MB for recent rants against Nav). So if IE was useless, it would be in the dumpster along with other bad products. But all this conversation is really away from the point. MS has won marketshare away from others. They are free to win it back. IF MS wants to make deals with PC manufacturers, and give discounts, there is NO PROBLEM with that - it is their business.

These PC manufacturers would not be making and selling 90% of the PCs if it were not for MS products to make them useable.

I can tell you from experience that the market was pushed along by MS every step of the way - not the MAC, nor DOS, nor IBM, would have done anythign to get PCs into so many homes, and corporate desktops.

Now, I happen to think that having more than one source for anything is a good idea. I don't like the fact that only MS can sell me a copy of the OS I use, but on the other hand, it is the one I choose to use. There are ten flavors of Unix to choose from, but I just don't want to use the damn thing. OK, I'll not make any friends with that statement, but that's the way it is.

How many posters here would not even be on this MB if they were not using MS products? Were thay forced?

Well, this is along enough post. Let me summerize the darn thing:
1) MS DID HAVE competition ever step of the way - they beat them.
2) Consumers benefit from the products - they are not hurt by them
3) Government stepped in on behalf of competition, not consumers.

The competition has been known for some pretty lousy tactics themselves. They are a bunch of cry babies, who would be better off fighting for marketshare with better strategies, and stop telling consumers that this is 'what you should use', and 'this is what cmputing should be'.

JoeyBlades

07-25-2000, 03:43 PM

Altair:

Very little development?

That's not exactly what I said. I'm saying that the ratio of software developers and budget to innovative new products is low. No doubt, Microsoft is putting a lot of BTUs into their software development efforts, but most of that is being spent in maintenance... keeping the relatively few software products that they do have running on the plethora of hardware implementations of the Wintel platform and re-hacking the dodgy, already-over-hacked applications that they currently sell. There are many other software companies who are much leaner and still manage to produce truely innovative, high quality software products.

Have you even looked at any of Microsoft's products...

Probably more than you and in greater detail, I dare say.

tradesilicon:

The fact that Microsoft can impact Netscape's business shows that they are competing.

No, you're still missing the point. Microsoft didn't impact Netscape's business by competing - they did it by coercion and sabotage. Since they are fundamentally in control of the Wintel OS market, they had that power and they used it... and now a judge has said that they misused it.

They 'derailed' the browser? A free product?

Netscape was not exactly free... then again, neither is Internet Explorer. Netscape licensed their product to businesses and organizations requiring technical support. It wasn't a huge money maker, but it was a business. Their only recourse, after Microsoft interfered, was to sell off to a company that could incorporate the product into their business and make money off of users.

Also, the 'impacted their business developement? What does this mean? If Netscape wants to develop products they are free to do so.

Surely you don't think Netscape was developing this application out of pure altruism??? What about Microsoft? Just another good deed for Bill and Company? There's a business there and surely you can see that if your product is removed from the shelves without your consent, that's going to have an impact. Surely you can see that if you're forced to defend your right to free trade, that has an impact. Selling the browser was not a part of Netscape's original business plan - it was an act of desparation from a seriously crippled company.

Also, since you say Netscape has consumer loyalty, it must not be dead, hmmm?

Clever argument... If I hit you over the head with a baseball bat, you might not be dead, but it's still against the law.

I know that it is very easy to take the Big, Bad MS and say they were to much of a bully, but let's really stick to what happenned, OK.

I'm trying to, but somebody keeps arguing that the issue is about small companies whining about being outpaced by large companies in a common market. That's not the issue. The issue is that Microsoft used their position in the OS market to control their potential competitors in the browser market. Since they've done it in the past, there's also the issue that they could do it again, only worse. Personally, I think the breakup is too harsh for Microsoft, but I'm not sure how you build in both control and punishment, otherwise.

Your statement that NS Nav is a better product is opinion.

Well, of course. It all depends on what we base our opinions on. The things that are important to me are (1) adherence to the HTML standards (2) adherence to the java standards and (3) stability. Netscape wins in all of these categories. Another important factor is security - Internet Explorer's security model is very bad... in fact, most of Microsoft's products have a weak security model, which is why there are so many viruses that attack Microsoft products.

But all this conversation is really away from the point. MS has won marketshare away from others.

You still don't get it. Microsoft didn't win anything - they marched up with a big stick and took it. I didn't use the term 'bully', you did, but it's not too far from the truth.

I can tell you from experience that the market was pushed along by MS every step of the way...

Actually, I think it's the other way around. The only time Microsoft seems to do anything is if they see someone else making money in an area they're not in. Then they simply copy it or buy it...

You guys seem to think the US government takes these anti-trust laws lightly. Do you really believe that the government who (1) benefits from Microsoft's tax dollars (2) relies heavily on Microsoft products for it's operation and (3) cares about how consumers are impacted by anti-trust actions are going to intervene if there's a way they can just look the other way? The US government rarely involves themselves in these matters unless there's a pretty clear indication that wrong-doing has occured. The judge in the case knows full well that this will be litigated and counter litigated and counter-counter litigated until the cows come home... and then some. He would not have rendered a frivolous decision that would jeopardize the position of the US government in future such law suits. Perhaps you think this is just another case of government conspiracy or incompetance... or perhaps you really don't have a clue.

tradesilicon

07-25-2000, 03:59 PM

Joey,

Once again, I emphasize the fact that the consumer is not hurt by the actions of MS - Netscape, and Sun, and Oracle,(not all small companies by the way) are the reasons for the case. Not the consumer. Period.

Now, if MS is found to have used illigal business practices, ie they broke our laws, they should be found guilty. But I believe the appeal will be in their favor - there is some very fuzzy logic on the points of law that I read from the links in this post. I think the government went after them for the wrong reasons, and the judge in the case will be overruled.

As for your statement that the government does not take these things lightly, I agree - it took big dollars (from lobbyists) to get this action going.

By the way, Microsoft did not march up with a big stick and take anything. They were a nothing when they started, with Word for DOS and Word for Mac, a couple of medeorce products, and they improved those products until they could hold their own. In the OS space, they had Mac OS ahead of them, and Unix. In the NOS space, Novell, Unix, SCO, and OS/2 soon after. Where is the big stick? I don't follow your arguement.

I know that you have said they used unfair tactics, but unfair is not illegal until proven so. Now that the court has said it was illegal (I will not claim any expertise here, just my thinking) we have the appeal to turn that over.

I still say the decision (based on what I know, including info in all these threads) was wrong.

Altair_8800

07-25-2000, 04:12 PM

Joey--
Just because you're a software engineer doesn't automatically mean you understand more about what's going on here. You don't seem to understand how wrong the government is in this case.

I've looked at software long enough to be able to tell a good product from a bad one.

Mr. Feely

07-25-2000, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon
Once again, I emphasize the fact that the consumer is not hurt by the actions of MS - Netscape, and Sun, and Oracle,(not all small companies by the way) are the reasons for the case. Not the consumer. Period.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Just because Microsoft has provided benefits to some consumers doesn't mean that they haven't hurt consumers at the same time. Allow me to rehash the examples of harm that I posted to the earlier thread on this topic:

Microsoft used it's monopoly power in the operating system market to kill Intel's Native Signal Processing software. This software would have allowed Intel processor owners to get the maximum multimedia performance out of their CPUs. Although Microsoft implemented some of the NSP software features in Windows, they left out key capabilities of the software. As a result, they hurt Intel processor users running Windows by preventing them from getting the maximum performance out of their computers. They especially hurt Intel processor users running non-Windows software by preventing them from getting any of the benefits of the NSP software.

Microsoft prevented IBM's SmartSuite from coming to market at the same time as the Windows 95 launch, because it competed with Office.

Microsoft artificially restricted users' choices in web browsers through various contractual and technical means. Also, the forced integration of Internet Explorer hurt those consumers who have no desire or need for a web browser (such as businesses who don't want their employees surfing the Internet).

Microsoft's desire to have an iron grip over the Windows bootup sequence prevented OEMs from customizing their machines to aid novices in setting up and using their computers, thereby harming consumers by making them harder to use. In a letter to Microsoft on this topic, Hewlett Packard stated "From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and our customers."

Microsoft's pollution of the Java standard hurt consumers by inhibiting the creation of cross platform applications.

Microsoft killed DR DOS, a competitor to MS DOS, by causing spurious error messages and program termination when Windows was run on it. This hurt consumers by artificially restricting choices in the DOS-compatible OS market.

By the way, Microsoft did not march up with a big stick and take anything.

No, they marched up with a big OS monopoly and said (at least to Intel), stop writing this software or we will remove support for Intel chips from Windows.

hansel

07-25-2000, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon
I still say the decision (based on what I know, including info in all these threads) was wrong.

And all the info in these threads has amounted to almost nothing, since no one is arguing the findings of fact or the findings of law, or the basis of antitrust law itself. The only argument I've heard against it is the above, which is mere opinion. Altair claimed that the judge was biased (and that he slept through the trial), but I've seen evidence of neither - legal opinions I've seen on the trial have stated that Jackson was overly fair, but that he was finally irritated by Microsoft's bumbling (and lying) in the courtroom.

In case anyone's wondering, Jackson was appointed by Reagan, and is widely regarded as one Reagan's most conservative appointees.

C'mon. If you think Microsoft should be left alone, deal with the facts of the case. Quit wasting space making vague claims about how Microsoft has been punished for being successful, or how this is about the revenge of Microsoft's bitter competitors. Intel was investigated for antitrust violations, and so was IBM. Microsoft isn't unique in this case, except for how badly they blew the trial.

In fairness to Microsoft, we had another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26848) about Microsoft innovations, and a very knowledgeable Windows programmer named PeterB demonstrated that OLE, and later COM, was a Microsoft innovation (if only for bringing these to market first).

JoeyBlades

07-26-2000, 01:56 PM

tradesilicon:

Once again, I emphasize the fact that the consumer is not hurt by the actions of MS

This is simply not true. Perhaps 'you', the consumer, have not been hurt (maybe you're just ignorant of the injury), but 'I', the consumer, have been.

By the way, Microsoft did not march up with a big stick and take anything. They were a nothing when they started...

We're not talking about when Microsoft started, we're talking about now. By nearly any definition you care to use, Microsoft monopolizes the OS business. Their monopoly on the Windows OS was their big stick and the thing they took away was Netscape's right to free trade on the hardware platform that Microsoft 'owned' the OS for.

In the OS space, they had Mac OS ahead of them, and Unix.

What bizarro universe are you living in? In my world DOS came before the Mac OS and unix - and DOS was the dominant OS in the world. Then one day Microsoft decided to reinvent the wheel (excuse me, perhaps I should say re-innovate the wheel) and they produced Windows... in various flavors. By that time, a large majority of users were trapped on that hardware platform - they had little choice: IF NOT DOS THEN WINDOWS...

Now that the court has said it was illegal (I will not claim any expertise here, just my thinking) we have the appeal to turn that over.

I doubt very seriously that the decision will be overturned.

Altair:

Just because you're a software engineer doesn't automatically mean you understand more about what's going on here.

Hang on a sec, partner. I only pointed out my expertise as a result of your statement:

you might consider taking "Introduction to Computing Environments" or a similar course at your local community college.

You seemed to be implying that one had to have a knowledge of computers before they could understand the reason why the judges decision was wrong. I was just pointing out that I did understand the technical implications.

You don't seem to understand how wrong the government is in this case.

That is one interpretation. An alternate interpretation is that you don't seem to understand how wrong Microsoft was in this case.

hansel:

...a very knowledgeable Windows programmer named PeterB demonstrated that OLE, and later COM, was a Microsoft innovation (if only for bringing these to market first).

What was innovative about OLE? Microsoft even admits in their documentation that OLE is an extension of SQL and DBMS before that. Let's not rewrite history.

I don't even know what COM is, so I don't know if that's innovative or not... It's really beside the point, though. I joke around about the lack of innovative products from Microsoft, but I don't really beleive that they are without some innovation. I'm merely saying that innovation is not really their strong point.

hansel

07-26-2000, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by JoeyBlades
What was innovative about OLE? Microsoft even admits in their documentation that OLE is an extension of SQL and DBMS before that. Let's not rewrite history.
[/B]

As I recall from the thread, OLE was substrate of the drag-and-drop tricks you could do with Microsoft products, and they were basically the first with a good commercial implementation. COM is the component object model for 'componentizing' Windows, and predates CORBA, it's nearest competitor, by a couple years (at least for white papers. COM basically grew out of OLE.

If you have issues with this, please read the thread I posted. PeterB makes a good case, and we both went out looking up dates.

Mr. Feely

07-26-2000, 03:13 PM

Here are the relevant documents, for those that actually want to debate the merits of the case:

Findings of Fact (http://usvms.gpo.gov/findings_index.html)
Conclusions of Law and Order (http://usvms.gpo.gov/conclusions_index.html)
Memorandum and Order, and Final Judgment (http://usvms.gpo.gov/)

I have yet to see a reasonable argument, either in this thread or the previous one, on why any part of these rulings is wrong.

JoeyBlades

07-26-2000, 04:34 PM

I have yet to see a reasonable argument, either in this thread or the previous one, on why any part of these rulings is wrong.

That's because if one actually reads and understands the findings it's difficult (if not impossible) to argue in favor of Microsoft. Instead, everyone wants to paint this as a case of "Microsoft bashing". Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. So far, I haven't seen anyone in this thread "bashing" Microsoft. As I said, I admire the company and their founder (Hey, I even like a few of their products). That does not blind me to the fact that the were knowingly in violation of the Sherman act, even after repeated citations from the justice department. Netscape and java were a real threat to their future OS market and Microsoft has been using their position in the current OS market to sabotage these products in hopes of preserving their position in future OS markets. It's a brilliant strategy... unfortunately for Microsoft... it's an illegal strategy.

tradesilicon

07-26-2000, 05:33 PM

hansel,
And all the info in these threads has amounted to almost nothing
Agreed. Mostly opinion. I did follow some links provided earlier in this thread by Hunsecker and Mr. Feely, and that was also what I meant by info in this thread.

C'mon. If you think Microsoft should be left alone, deal with the facts of the case. Quit wasting space making vague claims about how Microsoft has been punished for being successful, or how this is about the revenge of Microsoft's bitter competitors. Intel was investigated for antitrust violations, and so was IBM. Microsoft isn't unique in this case, except for how badly they blew the trial.
OK, I'm not an attorney, and cannot debate the points of law, but check the OP - "I don't care...I'm on Bill Gates' side." This thread is largely opinion, so I don't think I'm too far off. But you are right, the law and the court ruling have not been looked at.

JoeyBlades,
What bizarro universe are you living in? In my world DOS came before the Mac OS and unix - and DOS was the dominant OS in the world. Then one day Microsoft decided to reinvent the wheel (excuse me, perhaps I should say re-innovate the wheel) and they produced Windows... in various flavors. By that time, a large majority of users were trapped on that hardware platform - they had little choice: IF NOT DOS THEN WINDOWS...
OK, you would accuse me of Bizzaro existence? After crud like this? Just what makes you say that DOS was dominant anything? Was DOS running on Apple Computers? R U OK? Do you not consider the Mac a platform at all, an OS? Applications ran on Macs (with GUI) before DOS was done with diapers. Mac has been (in many peoples opinion) a superior product, H/W and S/W, up until the last few years. This history goes back for twenty years, not two.

So lessee now, big bad MS had this thing all sewn up before anyone could even get out of the gate huh? Sorry pal, you better do a little looking around before you come at me with that nonsense. I was using a Mac for Spreadsheets, Word processing, Graphics, and games, before I ever heard of DOS - yes, in '83 DOS was around, but give me a break - everyone had it and was stuck with it? Yeah. And what about TRS 80, Commodore? Hmmm.

In the business world, you could hardly find a DOS workstation, but Unix workstations were around for high-end work. So please, don't allow yourself to run off at the mouth (ooops, I know, I do this plenty). And since you state that DOS was the dominant OS in the world, I should just stop the discussion here - you've shown me the limits of your world. I do not claim to know much, but 'The World' includes much more that the few IBM PC and Compatibles sold at that time.

Windows, for what it's worth, was crap when first introduced (used it since first release), but had a few advantages over DOS, like drivers from many vendors, run one app without quitting another, and the GUI they copied from Apple (Xerox, whatever). But over time, really became a good OS (Alert - opinion only) because of the very comprehensive set of drivers, true multitasking, thousands of applications, and a good GUI. So, now this is all a Big Stick? What about the years of development and Marketing and Sales this took? And all the while entering new markets and beating out incumbents.

If this sounds like I'm an MS employee, I'm not and never have been. I am an end user of many products, and used to support them too. So I've had the pleasure of dealing with many blue screens. I'm not here to give blanket praise. I simply say their market share is earned, they have the right to compete, and you have the right to create a better/different/newer product and kick their ass in the market place. This right should be protected, but MS (OPINION) did nothing do prevent competitors - they have the right to discount their product and the right not to, selectively.

Hey, we could go round and round on this, and end up in the same place. I can agree to disagree on MS's use of their position on the market, but I don't think you need to tell me what Universe I live in.

Mr. Feely,

Microsoft used it's monopoly power in the operating system market to kill Intel's Native Signal Processing software. This software would have allowed Intel processor owners to get the maximum multimedia performance out of their CPUs. Although Microsoft implemented some of the NSP software features in Windows, they left out key capabilities of the software. As a result, they hurt Intel processor users running Windows by preventing them from getting the maximum performance out of their computers. They especially hurt Intel processor users running non-Windows software by preventing them from getting any of the benefits of the NSP software.
How did they prevent Intel from Implementing anything? Intel is quite a powerhouse in it's own right, and I can give you plenty of examples of Intel trying to bully H/W manufacturers, but that's not the point here. Intel can implement any thing they want, and often do, but MS has no obligation to put anything in their OS they don't deem necessary - if Intel wishes to sell chips in the MS OS market, they may choose to implement features or not, based on what benefits it will bring them (lose sales, gain sales, etc.). They can choose to sell chips to apple, and compete with Motorola, but they don't.(I don't think?) So what? Who said that Intel has to make CPUs at all? They can just stay in the NIC and Video business if they want too. Hey, the fact that Subaru had an anti-roll back clutch and other cars did not certainly didn't get their sales going through the roof, maybe Intel figured this feature (NSP)would not translate into real dollar benefits for them?

Microsoft prevented IBM's SmartSuite from coming to market at the same time as the Windows 95 launch, because it competed with Office.How? Did IBM turn over development of SmartSuite to MS?

Microsoft artificially restricted users' choices in web browsers through various contractual and technical means. Also, the forced integration of Internet Explorer hurt those consumers who have no desire or need for a web browser (such as businesses who don't want their employees surfing the Internet). Here's my rub with this - although I was not pleased at the forced install of IE with some of my NT 40 tools, I am not the maker of the software - how is this different from any other software maker saying if you want to run my program you must install these libraries, and this GUI, and the following 60 megs of graphic files? IE was their tool of choice for some installs - I still had Nav running the whole time, and kept it as my default browser. And please, if a business does not want an employee to surf the net, just don't configure the proxy settings. Let's not go down this road.

Microsoft's desire to have an iron grip over the Windows bootup sequence prevented OEMs from customizing their machines to aid novices in setting up and using their computers, thereby harming consumers by making them harder to use. In a letter to Microsoft on this topic, Hewlett Packard stated "From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and our customers."
Bull-ony! I have plenty of experience with this, and I have seen and worked on plenty of custom boot configs - the OEM who wants to can modify a simple text file and have a custom build, drivers and all, for any model they sell.

Microsoft's pollution of the Java standard hurt consumers by inhibiting the creation of cross platform applications. Oh, if it's MS it's pollution, if it's Sun, it's innovation. Please, there is no such thing as polluting the standard - they simply did not use the standard, but went off on their own path. I agree that it's great for developers to have one standard to use, but this industry is hardly an example of companies adhering to standards.

Microsoft killed DR DOS, a competitor to MS DOS, by causing spurious error messages and program termination when Windows was run on it. This hurt consumers by artificially restricting choices in the DOS-compatible OS market.
Was that right after DR DOS had a routine put in to delete NTFS partitions with their version of FDISK as a default? (IIRC, run DR DOS FDISK, prompt asks you if OK to delete on start).He,he just slight joke, but it was something very close to that. Excuse me, but Didn't Novell buy DR DOS? This was largely due to the fact the Netware used DOS to start the install, and create the first disk partition. Perhaps they were making modifications that prevented Windows from running on it? Maybe not - almost irrelevant since DR. DOS should be a product on it's own - if they depend solely on someone else's product to run, they are at the merci of that company. Did it offer no value, other than to be run below Windows? Why not come up with their own GUI then?

Sorry, this has been entirely too long. I'll stay outa here and let you fire away at me, and I apologize for the long post.

Altair_8800

07-26-2000, 07:18 PM

You have to have some understanding of the market and the manner in which technology affects this market in order to understand why the judge's decision was wrong. This is not the same market that was around when they broke up the Standard Oil Company; today's market is much more dynamic. Microsoft couldn't harm such a market. They haven't killed any competitors (side note--Netscape was going bankrupt way before Microsoft even thought of Internet Explorer); in fact, the nature of the market--in this instance, evolving more towards the Internet--is moving focus away from Microsoft's dominance and more towards the abilities of its competitors.

And just because something is written down as a "Legal Finding of Fact" or such doesn't make it true or right. In this case, nearly every item written in those documents (and yes I read the things) is THE JUDGE'S OPINION.

An opinion is not justice; finding the truth of the matter is. "The truth of reality, the reality of truth. What IS will set you free."

Mr. Feely

07-26-2000, 08:14 PM

How did they prevent Intel from Implementing anything? Intel is quite a powerhouse in it's own right, and I can give you plenty of examples of Intel trying to bully H/W manufacturers, but that's not the point here. Intel can implement any thing they want, and often do, but MS has no obligation to put anything in their OS they don't deem necessary - if Intel wishes to sell chips in the MS OS market, they may choose to implement features or not, based on what benefits it will bring them (lose sales, gain sales, etc.). They can choose to sell chips to apple, and compete with Motorola, but they don't.(I don't think?) So what? Who said that Intel has to make CPUs at all? They can just stay in the NIC and Video business if they want too. Hey, the fact that Subaru had an anti-roll back clutch and other cars did not certainly didn't get their sales going through the roof, maybe Intel figured this feature (NSP)would not translate into real dollar benefits for them?

You're missing the point. The debate here is about whether Microsoft's actions harmed consumers, not whether Intel can adequately compete given Microsoft's actions. Also, this is not a question of Intel trying to get Microsoft to include the NSP software in Windows; Intel was simply trying to release it as software running on top of Windows, just like any other application or library. And Microsoft effectively prevented them from doing this (or more specifically, from releasing any similar software) by threatening to remove support for Intel processors from Windows. This is what is known as abuse of a monopoly position. Given that the NSP software was of obvious benefit to their consumers, that it made their products more attractive, and the fact that Intel already had a beta release of the software available when they pulled it, I think it would be illogical to conclude that they did for any reason other than the Microsoft threat.

This is covered in sections 94-103 of the findings of fact, if you want more details.

Microsoft prevented IBM's SmartSuite from coming to market at the same time as the Windows 95 launch, because it competed with Office.How? Did IBM turn over development of SmartSuite to MS?

No, Microsoft refused to license Windows 95 to IBM until 15 minutes before the launch of Windows 95 (contrast this to the 5.5 weeks that other OEMs got). As IBM was introducing SmartSuite at that time, this effectively prevented them from doing so for several weeks after the launch.

See sections 115-132 of the FoF.

Here's my rub with this - although I was not pleased at the forced install of IE with some of my NT 40 tools, I am not the maker of the software - how is this different from any other software maker saying if you want to run my program you must install these libraries, and this GUI, and the following 60 megs of graphic files?

The difference is that by doing so, Microsoft was using it's existing monopoly in the operating systems market to acquire a monopoly in the browser market.

And please, if a business does not want an employee to surf the net, just don't configure the proxy settings. Let's not go down this road.

That was merely an example. There are a number of reasons why a business or consumer would want an operating system without a browser, and thus would be harmed by being forced to use one: it's likely to be more stable (less code == less bugs), have lower tech support costs (fewer applications == less things for users to be confused about), take up less hard disk space, and less memory.

Microsoft's desire to have an iron grip over the Windows bootup sequence prevented OEMs from customizing their machines to aid novices in setting up and using their computers, thereby harming consumers by making them harder to use. In a letter to Microsoft on this topic, Hewlett Packard stated "From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and our customers."
Bull-ony! I have plenty of experience with this, and I have seen and worked on plenty of custom boot configs - the OEM who wants to can modify a simple text file and have a custom build, drivers and all, for any model they sell.

The issue at hand is not whether it's technically possible to customize the bootup sequence; it is. The issue is that Microsoft used its monopoly power in the OS market to contractually prevent OEMs from doing so, and unquestionably harmed consumers in the process. See sections 202-238 of the FoF.

Microsoft's pollution of the Java standard hurt consumers by inhibiting the creation of cross platform applications. Oh, if it's MS it's pollution, if it's Sun, it's innovation. Please, there is no such thing as polluting the standard - they simply did not use the standard, but went off on their own path. I agree that it's great for developers to have one standard to use, but this industry is hardly an example of companies adhering to standards.

Pollution is a legitimate term because Microsoft's changes undermined one of the core principles of the language: portability. But regardless, you haven't presented any justification for how these changes didn't hurt consumers.

Was that right after DR DOS had a routine put in to delete NTFS partitions with their version of FDISK as a default? (IIRC, run DR DOS FDISK, prompt asks you if OK to delete on start).He,he just slight joke, but it was something very close to that. Excuse me, but Didn't Novell buy DR DOS? This was largely due to the fact the Netware used DOS to start the install, and create the first disk partition. Perhaps they were making modifications that prevented Windows from running on it? Maybe not - almost irrelevant since DR. DOS should be a product on it's own - if they depend solely on someone else's product to run, they are at the merci of that company. Did it offer no value, other than to be run below Windows? Why not come up with their own GUI then?

Please, do us all a favor and check your facts before you go spouting off these wild accusations. The DR DOS events occured two years before the first version of Windows NT (and thus NTFS) was released. Once again, the issue at hand here is whether Microsoft harmed consumers, not what Novell or anyone else did or did not do. Microsoft included obfuscated code in Windows 3.1 that checked an irrelevant difference between MS DOS and DR DOS, and displayed a spurious error message in the latter case. It's quite obvious that this was intentional and unnecessary, as DR DOS was reported to work fine with Windows 3.1 when this warning was disabled. Apparently Microsoft thought the same, as they just settled out of court with the current owners of DR DOS for an estimated $150-$300 million. See this article (http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm) for the gory technical details.

hansel

07-26-2000, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Altair_8800
And just because something is written down as a "Legal Finding of Fact" or such doesn't make it true or right. In this case, nearly every item written in those documents (and yes I read the things) is THE JUDGE'S OPINION.

An opinion is not justice; finding the truth of the matter is. "The truth of reality, the reality of truth. What IS will set you free." [/B]

How romantic to opine "to hell with the judge who presided over the trial at which evidence was presented and fought over according to long standing and widely accepted rules of adjudication - I believe in justice!"

Please. If you're going to argue that there were faults with the judge's opinion (which, had he agreed with you, I'm sure you would have considered sanctified as law), then present an argument with something to back it up. Until you do, you're blowing hot air.

Do you have any evidence that he was asleep during the trial, or is that FUD?

hansel

07-26-2000, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Altair_8800
This is not the same market that was around when they broke up the Standard Oil Company; today's market is much more dynamic.

This is irrelevant to Microsoft's guilt or innocence regarding antitrust violations. The court found Microsoft guilty of being an abusive monopoly (not of being a monopoly simpliciter). The dynamism of the market doesn't make any difference if Microsoft committed acts that were illegal under the Sherman Act.

On the other hand, you're close to presenting an argument that the Sherman Act itself is not relevant in the current technology market: please go ahead, but don't bother if you're only going to repeat your conclusion.

Altair_8800

07-26-2000, 10:06 PM

Any idiot could see that Microsoft did not get a fair trial here. They were denied the chance numerous times to present their full side during the trial. And when the judge wasn't asleep, he wasn't paying attention. He even admitted that the technology aspect was over his head.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act really can't be applied today without some major revisions. THAT LAW WAS WRITTEN OVER 100 YEARS AGO TO GOVERN A MARKET WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS.

hansel

07-26-2000, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Altair_8800
Any idiot could see that Microsoft did not get a fair trial here.

Microsoft had ample opportunity to present it's case: the trial continued for two years, and Jackson repeatedly set aside his rulings to give the two sides opportunities to settle.

Again, do you have a cite for Jackson falling asleep, or denying Microsoft a particular chance to present it's side? I followed the trial fairly closely, and never heard either charge.

Calling me and others "idiots" may seem like the truth, as you see it, but it's not an argument. If you're going to convince me or others, you need to offer something more than invective.

tradesilicon

07-27-2000, 10:52 AM

Please, do us all a favor and check your facts before you go spouting off these wild accusations.
Fair enough, I'll admit possession of fewer facts than you, and I'll chastise myself accordingly.

The DR DOS events occurred two years before the first version of Windows NT (and thus NTFS) was released.
OK, granted. You did notice I was making a little joke, yes? I was not implying that the NTFS delete prompt was the reason for the error messages, but just telling an interesting (to me) anecdote.

Once again, the issue at hand here is whether Microsoft harmed consumers, not what Novell or anyone else did or did not do.
Exactly right.

Microsoft included obfuscated code in Windows 3.1 that checked an irrelevant difference between MS DOS and DR DOS, and displayed a spurious error message in the latter case. It's quite obvious that this was intentional and unnecessary, as DR DOS was reported to work fine with Windows 3.1 when this warning was disabled. Apparently Microsoft thought the same, as they just settled out of court with the current owners of DR DOS for an estimated $150-$300 million. See this article for the gory technical details.[quote]
Thank you for the link - I really like the article. Now, read through it again, and you will find several interesting facts - DR DOS had very little presence in the market, how are consumers affected? BTW, I used DR DOS, ran Windows on it, as did all the S/W developers I worked with. No sweat - I had these types of error messages with Win 3.1 on over half the apps used at the time, from over 3 dozen vendors! I have checked the facts. It ran fine. Would you like to tell me about your experience with it and how you replaced DR DOS with MS DOS? What consumers are we talking about? My customers ran every DOS version on the market - they were all buggy, but we still used them all. (I had DR DOS running in '96, '97, still worked.)

I have no special place in my heart for this kind of nonsense (from MS, putting in the unneeded code), but if you check the article you link to, there are a few specifics about predation, if MS was guilty, they should have been punished and stopped from this practice. End of story. The fact that DR DOS was hardly used should be pointed out, however. Again, my point is that if DR DOS was at the mercy of Win 3.1, they are free to escape this grip by developing their own GUI.(Several companies attempted this, including a few powerhouses like IBM and HP. No luck -MS must have done something right.) Microsoft has no obligation to provide an environment for others to succeed. Windows is their product, they can do with it as they please. I'm not saying I like what they've done in this case - I find it offensive, but not something to legislate.

[quote]The issue at hand is not whether it's technically possible to customize the bootup sequence; it is. The issue is that Microsoft used its monopoly power in the OS market to contractually prevent OEMs from doing so, and unquestionably harmed consumers in the process. See sections 202-238 of the FoF.

Again, my point is they should be able to discount their product (or not) selectively. If I have a widget, and I want to favor those who will sell my widget but not my competitor's, I should be allowed to do so.

Pollution is a legitimate term because Microsoft's changes undermined one of the core principles of the language: portability. But regardless, you haven't presented any justification for how these changes didn't hurt consumers.
If a body agrees on a standard, one participant (by definition) cannot change the standard without consent of all other participants - what MS did was go off on their own development path - they cannot change JAVA per se. If they do, it is no longer JAVA - it is a different technology. I have no experience with JAVA, so I cannot comment on the details, but, I do not see how they can change 'the standard'.

That was merely an example. There are a number of reasons why a business or consumer would want an operating system without a browser, and thus would be harmed by being forced to use one: it's likely to be more stable (less code == less bugs), have lower tech support costs (fewer applications == less things for users to be confused about), take up less hard disk space, and less memory.
Agreed. Consumers may also want an OS without a SCSI port driver if they use only IDE - so what? This is what the developer chose to do - don't like? buy a Mac. Buy a PC and put a free version of Linux on it. Why will we tell a company how to present/install/support it's products? BTW, did anyone make a stink when Netscape had the browser monopoly? Was anyone wondering how other companies could jump in?
Again, I cam use IE, or not. It does not have to run, unless you're installing an application. And if MS says this is part of their GUI so be it. If people do not like it they will let them know. (Buy something else.)

I know there are some very strong points here, and I cannot dispute laws, and decisions of a Judge. I can tell you that it seems to be a very strong case of disgruntled competitors, and that MS just did not pay the right people at the right time. I sure as heck do not want to stifle new companies, and prevent competition in this industry - it's my daily bread. I just don't see that MS has done that, and gave you my perspective. Since I've been working with all these tools for the past ~20 years it may be interesting for some to hear it.

(Once again, sorry for the lengthy post.)

hansel

07-27-2000, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by tradesilicon
If a body agrees on a standard, one participant (by definition) cannot change the standard without consent of all other participants - what MS did was go off on their own development path - they cannot change JAVA per se. If they do, it is no longer JAVA - it is a different technology. I have no experience with JAVA, so I cannot comment on the details, but, I do not see how they can change 'the standard'.

The pollution of the java standard by MS came from MS licencing the java trademark, then including Windows specific libraries and enhancements to Java on Win32 that made the code non-portable. The whole time, they were calling it Java; that's why Sun sued them to stop them from using the Java trademark.

This is a case of using their desktop monopoly to extend their monopoly into another area. If you're a Java developer, but 95% of your market is Win32 based, then there's a practical reason to go with the polluted version, especially if it works better on the majority platform. The result is that the standard is tossed out the window, and Java itself becomes a Windows programming language. That's embrace and extend at work, and it's only commercially possible with a desktop monopoly.

At the very least, this attempt at polluting the Java standard has slowed, if not crippled, the development of a competitor's product. Remember, Java scared the hell out of Microsoft because it was platform independent.

Originally posted by tradesilicon
BTW, did anyone make a stink when Netscape had the browser monopoly? Was anyone wondering how other companies could jump in?

Netscape never had a monopoly on browsers (there was Mosaic, Lynx, and IE, at least), and was never in a position to use their wide market dominance to prevent competition. Even if they had a monopoly, that's not illegal: it's being an abusive monopoly that's illegal.

Mr. Feely

07-28-2000, 03:05 AM

To start, let me reemphasize that in this series of posts I'm responding to your assertion that Microsoft did not harm consumers, using concrete examples showing they did. I'm not sure if that was clear because, while my arguments have been along the lines of "Microsoft has harmed consumers by doing X," you've largely been responding by saying "Microsoft has the right to do X because of Y and Z," which is not a valid counterargument. While Microsoft's right to do many of these things is also at issue in the trial, it is not what this argument is about.

You didn't respond to the Intel NSP example; do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers in that case?

Thank you for the link - I really like the article. Now, read through it again, and you will find several interesting facts - DR DOS had very little presence in the market, how are consumers affected?

Consumers were hurt because Microsoft artificially manipulated the apparent compatibility of Windows 3.1 with DR DOS, causing consumers to judge the product based on false data. To put it bluntly, they sabotaged their competitor's product and harmed consumers by telling them that it didn't work when in fact it did. It was a crude (in the PR sense, not the tecnological sense) attempt at FUD.

I realize that the article I linked to doesn't discuss predation; that is not its purpose. But given the facts in the article, is there any other logical explanation for the presence of this highly obfuscated and damaging code? (Hint: the answer is no.:))

The issue at hand is not whether it's technically possible to customize the bootup sequence; it is. The issue is that Microsoft used its monopoly power in the OS market to contractually prevent OEMs from doing so, and unquestionably harmed consumers in the process. See sections 202-238 of the FoF.
Again, my point is they should be able to discount their product (or not) selectively. If I have a widget, and I want to favor those who will sell my widget but not my competitor's, I should be allowed to do so.

This is the "Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z" argument. Do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers by preventing OEMs from modifying the bootup sequence?

Pollution is a legitimate term because Microsoft's changes undermined one of the core principles of the language: portability. But regardless, you haven't presented any justification for how these changes didn't hurt consumers.
If a body agrees on a standard, one participant (by definition) cannot change the standard without consent of all other participants - what MS did was go off on their own development path - they cannot change JAVA per se. If they do, it is no longer JAVA - it is a different technology. I have no experience with JAVA, so I cannot comment on the details, but, I do not see how they can change 'the standard'.

Again, this is the "Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z" argument (which hansel responded to admirably, but which is not valid here). Do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers by inhibiting cross platform Java development?

That was merely an example. There are a number of reasons why a business or consumer would want an operating system without a browser, and thus would be harmed by being forced to use one: it's likely to be more stable (less code == less bugs), have lower tech support costs (fewer applications == less things for users to be confused about), take up less hard disk space, and less memory.
Agreed. Consumers may also want an OS without a SCSI port driver if they use only IDE - so what?

Let's run with your SCSI driver example. For all of the detrimental features I listed above, they are several orders of magnitude less harmful for a SCSI driver than for a browser, while the benefits are of roughly the same order of magnitude. Thus, the harm to any given user is miniscule, and it makes perfect sense it include it in the OS by default. But the harm caused by the browser is likely to be large for a significant class of users. And unlike the SCSI driver, it is not necessary for the operation of the OS for any user, so shouldn't users be given the option of (not) installing it? Moreover, the SCSI driver has a standard interface to the OS, so that it can be replaced by a different driver. Why doesn't the browser?

(I leave unanswered the "Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z" arguments.)

I can tell you that it seems to be a very strong case of disgruntled competitors, and that MS just did not pay the right people at the right time.

But "a very strong case of disgruntled competitors" != Microsoft innocent of all charges. And as hansel said earlier, claiming that Microsoft didn't pay off the right people at the right time is just so much hot air. Either they broke the law or they didn't. If you think that they didn't, please present the evidence to back it up.

I sure as heck do not want to stifle new companies, and prevent competition in this industry - it's my daily bread. I just don't see that MS has done that, and gave you my perspective. Since I've been working with all these tools for the past ~20 years it may be interesting for some to hear it.

No to be rude, but why would Microsoft expose its anticompetitive behavior to you (or anyone else in the industry for that matter)? Although I saw hints of this type of behavior in public sources in the years prior to the lawsuit, I didn't understand the full details of what went on until I read the documents from the trial.

mothra

07-28-2000, 06:37 AM

Regarding the Internet browser business, I really don't see what the fuss is about. So Micrsoft's operating systems come with an integrated browser - so what? RH Linux comes with Netscape Navigator, Solaris 8 comes with HotJava and has Netscape Navigator included on a separate CD-ROM (notice a pattern here?). It is irrelevant whether or not you can uninstall them, you still have a choice as to which one you prefer to use.

I use Sun Solaris, with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 and Outlook Express 5 (you read that correctly). I have found that on both Solaris 7 and Solaris 8, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express consistently outperform Netscape Navigator/Communicator in terms of speed, reliability and usability.

Even if you're arguing that on the Microsoft operating systems the odds are stacked in Internet Explorer's favor, you can't possibly claim the same on Sun Microsystem's OS.

Ergo: Internet Explorer must be a better piece of programming than Netscape, no? Therefore, the whole issue must be one of sour grapes.

JoeyBlades

07-28-2000, 08:46 AM

Altair:

Any idiot could see that Microsoft did not get a fair trial here.

True, but non-idiots can see that the trial actually **WAS** fair.

tradesilicon:

Just what makes you say that DOS was dominant anything? Was DOS running on Apple Computers?

Perhaps you're not clear on the concept of 'dominant'. It's not synonymous with 'only' or 'superior'. The IBM PC and clones were the 'dominant' computing platform from around 1982 or 1983. DOS was **THE** operating system for this platform. There were certainly a lot of other platforms out there and other OSes, but these were so fragmented that it didn't take much for the PC/DOS platform to become the dominant. This dominance has prevailed ever since. Prior to the IBM PC, Apple probably held the dominant position, but this predates the Mac. Of all of the computing platforms that were available in that era, only the PC/DOS platform has weathered the storm - driven primarily by the momentum of it's early dominance.

Lest you think I'm ignoring unix... I admit that unix was around in those early days, but until about 1979 unix was relegated to mainframes. In 1979 Apollo released a workstation that ran AEGIS which was one of many variants of the unix OS. Apollos were in short supply and fairly expensive, so for several years only big chip makers and heavily funded research projects were able to have them (I'm exaggerating a bit, but that characterization is not far off). They were much too expensive to use for financial applications. In 1981-82, two new players came on the market place Sun Microsystems with it's unix based workstation and the IBM PC with it's DOS based workstation. The Suns were still too expensive for most applications and were normally dedicated to high performance applications. The IBM PC, however was very affordable and had a numbe of applications that made it ideal for small and large businesses. IBM PCs began to quickly supplant the big mainframes in a lot of application areas. They caught on like wildfire - so much so that by 1983 they had established themselves as **THE** dominant computing platform. No other platform has been able to touch them since.

(Sorry for the history lesson, but it seemed apropos)

Mac has been (in many peoples opinion) a superior product, H/W and S/W, up until the last few years.

Just curious, are you trying to imply that the Mac has fallen by the way-side? Microsoft is still playing a game of "keeping up with the Joneses" when it comes to software and the new Mac dual G4 has been benchmarked at better than an equivalent 2GHz Pentium III (if such a critter existed). Also, look at the new G4 cube if your interested in true cutting edge hardware. Only 8" x 8" x 8", at > 1 GFLOP it's faster than any Pentium based machine, and it doesn't even need a fan!

So, now this is all a Big Stick? What about the years of development and Marketing and Sales this took?

If the public immediately perceived Windows as being a superior OS choice, why was it that Microsoft had to coerce the OEMs to install Windows rather than DOS? Why did they raise the cost of DOS sans Windows? The reason was simple. There were fewer Windows applications available. Microsoft had to force consumers to accept Windows so that it would start to be in common use so that application developers would build applications for the new OS. That's a pretty big stick...

I simply say their market share is earned, they have the right to compete, and you have the right to create a better/different/newer product and kick their ass in the market place. This right should be protected, but MS (OPINION) did nothing do prevent competitors - they have the right to discount their product and the right not to, selectively.

No one disagrees with this. All we're saying is that Microsoft is guilty of doing exactly what you're accusing the government of doing... Singling out successful businesses and preventing them from competing in the market. The only difference being that Microsoft used their OS to inforce their will, rather than the Sherman act.

Oh, if it's MS it's pollution, if it's Sun, it's innovation. Please, there is no such thing as polluting the standard - they simply did not use the standard, but went off on their own path.

Sorry, but Microsoft signed numerous agreements to license java. Most of these agreements were designed to prevent Microsoft (or any other company wanting to license java) from corrupting the standard. Microsoft blatently violated these contracts with the precise intent of sabotaging the universal portability of java. If Microsoft didn't want to play by the rules, they shouldn't have contracturally agreed to these rules... of course, then they would have never been able to use the java trademark and their product would have been a lame duck.

Altair:

And just because something is written down as a "Legal Finding of Fact" or such doesn't make it true or right. In this case, nearly every item written in those documents (and yes I read the things) is THE JUDGE'S OPINION.

Just two small points:

(1) That's the way the US legal system works. Does the judge's findings necessarily reflect TRUTH? No. Does the judge's findings necessarily reflect RIGHT? By definition, Yes.

(2) The Judge's 'opinion' is backed up by considerable facts.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act really can't be applied today without some major revisions. THAT LAW WAS WRITTEN OVER 100 YEARS AGO TO GOVERN A MARKET WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS.

This is an interesting opinion. On one hand, it's irrelevant since the Sherman Act is indeed the law-of-the-land. On the other hand, the Sheramn act has seen numerous supplements to insure that it is kept up-to-date (i.e. it has seen some "major revisions"). On still another hand (Hey! Where'd that third hand come from? Ummm. Creepy...), I can see nothing in the Sherman Act that should render it non applicable in this case. Maybe you'd care to point out the flaws you think affect it's applicability???

tradesilicon:

BTW, did anyone make a stink when Netscape had the browser monopoly? Was anyone wondering how other companies could jump in?

Actually, the mosaic source code that Navigator was based on was freely available and many potential browser builders did pop up briefly, springboarding off of the mosaic source... Netscape had one slight advantage - they were founded by the original author of mosaic. Marc Andreessen not only had a lot of insight into the mosaic code, he had a lot of foresight in where the WWW and the internet in general should be heading.

Mr. Feely wrote:

No to be rude, but why would Microsoft expose its anticompetitive behavior to you (or anyone else in the industry for that matter)?

Sadly, through their bumbling incompetence and downright arrogance, Microsoft did just that in a number of cases. If the judge had not caught them out in blatent lies, Microsoft probably would have skated.

mothra:

Regarding the Internet browser business, I really don't see what the fuss is about. So Micrsoft's operating systems come with an integrated browser - so what? RH Linux comes with Netscape Navigator, Solaris 8 comes with HotJava and has Netscape Navigator included on a separate CD-ROM (notice a pattern here?). It is irrelevant whether or not you can uninstall them, you still have a choice as to which one you prefer to use.

But there are two important differences (1) PCs used to ship with Netscape as a browser choice, then Microsoft coerced OEMs to cease bundling Netscape and (2) Because of the way IE is woven into the Windows OS, it makes it difficult to remove or disable or use another browser. This has caused me several problems, personally: (a) I was unable to remove IE from my NT box without causing severe system instability, (b) I run Netscape because of security reasons, but due to IE / Netscape incompatibilities and OS hooks, Netscape is not as stable as it should be, and (c) sometimes IE is erroneously launched exposing my system to the security risks that I'm trying to avoid. On top of that, the IE package wastes a huge amount of disk space. Disk space costs me money. Also, even though IE is bundled, that doesn't make it free. It's a hidden cost - when you buy the OS, a small portion of the cost is for the browser. Why should I pay for something I don't want? On any other platform I have control over what applications I have installed and run.

Altair_8800

07-28-2000, 02:45 PM

We're doing the exact thing the trial judge did: we are approaching this case with a bunch of [perhaps twisted] pre-conceived notions about the way things should be, and basing our opinions solely on that.

Nothing will ever be accomplished like this. Hopefully Microsoft's appeal will wind up in front of a group of judges who are willing to think and listen before they act. In the mean time, I wouldn't complain. The trial itself has done more than enough to allow increased participation in the market by Microsoft's competitors. That and the way Microsoft has been treated by the media is punishment enough.

JoeyBlades

07-28-2000, 03:39 PM

Altair:

Hopefully Microsoft's appeal will wind up in front of a group of judges who are willing to think and listen before they act.

I really don't see how you can read Jackson's FoF and come to the conclusion that he wasn't thinking, listening, or understanding. I frankly was plesantly surprised at his apparent comprehension of the technology matters at hand and the subtle strategies that were at play... While I may not fully agree with the requirement to break up Microsoft (which I believe actually came from the Justice Department), I have to applaud his handling of the case in every other way.

tradesilicon

08-01-2000, 11:44 AM

Man, I tried to stay out of this thread to prevent more of those lengthy posts, but there are a few points here that I must reply to.

hansel,
Netscape never had a monopoly on browsers (there was Mosaic, Lynx, and IE, at least), and was never in a position to use their wide market dominance to prevent competition. Even if they had a monopoly, that's not illegal: it's being an abusive monopoly that's illegal.
I disagree - long before IE, Netscape had the lions share of the browser market, and no one was complaining because we were glad to have the product. The complaining came from Netscape when IE came out, and actually captured market share. If Netscape came back with a stronger offering, we would not hear a peep out of them, they would have regained some market share, not seen the huge stock price drop that they did, and on we go merrily along. And I agree that abuse of monopoly status is the problem, I just claim that MS did not abuse it. Obviously, according to the court I am wrong here, but that's my opinion.

Perhaps you're not clear on the concept of 'dominant'. It's not synonymous with 'only' or 'superior'. The IBM PC and clones were the 'dominant' computing platform from around 1982 or 1983. DOS was **THE** operating system for this platform. There were certainly a lot of other platforms out there and other OSes, but these were so fragmented that it didn't take much for the PC/DOS platform to become the dominant. This dominance has prevailed ever since. Prior to the IBM PC, Apple probably held the dominant position, but this predates the Mac. Of all of the computing platforms that were available in that era, only the PC/DOS platform has weathered the storm - driven primarily by the momentum of it's early dominance.

Lest you think I'm ignoring unix... I admit that unix was around in those early days, but until about 1979 unix was relegated to mainframes. In 1979 Apollo released a workstation that ran AEGIS which was one of many variants of the unix OS. Apollos were in short supply and fairly expensive, so for several years only big chip makers and heavily funded research projects were able to have them (I'm exaggerating a bit, but that characterization is not far off). They were much too expensive to use for financial applications. In 1981-82, two new players came on the market place Sun Microsystems with it's unix based workstation and the IBM PC with it's DOS based workstation. The Suns were still too expensive for most applications and were normally dedicated to high performance applications. The IBM PC, however was very affordable and had a numbe of applications that made it ideal for small and large businesses. IBM PCs began to quickly supplant the big mainframes in a lot of application areas. They caught on like wildfire - so much so that by 1983 they had established themselves as **THE** dominant computing platform. No other platform has been able to touch them since.
Well, I love history, so thank you. A few points where we disagree:
IBM PCs were dominating nothing in 82,83,84. The market for the PC was miniscule, and any player in the market at that time had all the oppurtunity to take it in any direction. To say that IBM PCs were dominant and survive taday only because of their dominance back then is just plain false.

When the compatibles ran DOS, they were useful for some tasks, but hardllly close to the Mac GUI. The Mac dominated for Desktop Publishing, Word Processing, and Gaming. The PC started gaining ground with the use of Upper Memory, and when Windows provided the GUI. Novell Netware was also a force in getting PCs into corporations because it was a much superior networking technology to Appletalk. So if you look back into 82 - 84, there really was no case for DOS domination, if anything, it was inferious technology to the Mac OS, and never went anywhere - Windows did, and that's one reasoin the PC is so widely used. The availabiliy of (and compatibility with) less expensive H/W, and thousands of applicaitons.

Mr. Feely,
You didn't respond to the Intel NSP example; do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers in that case
I did respond once, but you simply countered and said it was illogical. I'm sorry I do not have time to research it more, and provide a logical arguement. I lose.

Consumers were hurt because Microsoft artificially manipulated the apparent compatibility of Windows 3.1 with DR DOS, causing consumers to judge the product based on false data. To put it bluntly, they sabotaged their competitor's product and harmed consumers by telling them that it didn't work when in fact it did. It was a crude (in the PR sense, not the tecnological sense) attempt at FUD.

I realize that the article I linked to doesn't discuss predation; that is not its purpose. But given the facts in the article, is there any other logical explanation for the presence of this highly obfuscated and damaging code? (Hint: the answer is no.)
Thank you for the hint man, I can use all the help I can get! ;)
I gave you an example from my own experience and that of many customers that people kept using DR DOS with Win 3.x, and above. You ignored it and came back to say comsumers were harmed. I still say no, they were not. Please prove me wrong, with some solid facts. (Hint, you may not have any).
The 'artificial manipulation of the apparent compatibility' was BS - no one who wanted to use the product gave a rats ass about it, like so many other meaningless messages from MS products at the time - errors on MSs own apps and dozens of other vendors' apps did not stop anyone from using those tools - we merely learned which erros meant real problems and which did not. Again, I am not here to evangelize MS - I had plenty of real problems with products they made, I simply say use it or replace it at your own convenience.

NO ONE OWES ANYONE A COMPUTER OS OR WP PROGRAM. THIS IS NOT A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BIBLE, NATURE, THE GODDESS, OR ANYONE ELSE.

Let's run with your SCSI driver example. For all of the detrimental features I listed above, they are several orders of magnitude less harmful for a SCSI driver than for a browser, while the benefits are of roughly the same order of magnitude. Thus, the harm to any given user is miniscule, and it makes perfect sense it include it in the OS by default. But the harm caused by the browser is likely to be large for a significant class of users. And unlike the SCSI driver, it is not necessary for the operation of the OS for any user, so shouldn't users be given the option of (not) installing it? Moreover, the SCSI driver has a standard interface to the OS, so that it can be replaced by a different driver. Why doesn't the browser?
I'm sorry, I cannot follow your arguement. The Browser is not required because, what? You say it should not be required? Neother is a GUI, if you ask Novell. Neither is stability, if you look at Win 3.11. Neither is compatibility with (various) hardware, if you look at a few other NOSs. So what is your point, IE should not be required? Why? If MS says 'this is now part of our interface' so be it. If I, as their customer, think they are nuts, I'll let them know. Along with a few million other customers. On the other hand, maybe that's the next big thing in OSs, browser built in. What is the difference between this, and any other feature? There are dozens of new technologies 'built in' to Win2K that were previously add ons from third parties (ie, I had to buy them for Win 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0, now they are free). Why are you bitching that they have included more in the OS? Don't want to use IE, don't use it. Want to use Netscape? Install it like always (like I do). What the heck is the problem here?

This is the "Microsoft has a right to do X because of Y and Z" argument. Do you concede that Microsoft harmed consumers by preventing OEMs from modifying the bootup sequence?
Absolutely not. Any OEM is free to do as they please with the boot up sequence, and comsumer is free to buy a Mac, any OS developer is free to add/remove/restrict features, and any argument in GD must end some time. Mine ends now.

(again, sorry for lengthy post)

MamaGeph

08-01-2000, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by tradesilicon

NO ONE OWES ANYONE A COMPUTER OS OR WP PROGRAM. THIS IS NOT A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BIBLE, NATURE, THE GODDESS, OR ANYONE ELSE.

Fantastic! :D

JoeyBlades

08-01-2000, 05:23 PM

tradesilicon:

The complaining came from Netscape when IE came out, and actually captured market share.

Well, Microsoft had a captive audience, didn't they. Netscape didn't complain (at least not publically) until a while later when they found themselves suddenly being excluded from competing in the Windows platform...

If Netscape came back with a stronger offering, we would not hear a peep out of them, they would have regained some market share, not seen the huge stock price drop that they did, and on we go merrily along.

Actually, Netscape did come out with a significant product improvement in order to compete with IE. Unfortunately, if you were on a Wintel machine, you were unable to appreciate it because Microsoft had booby-trapped their OS to prevent it from being loaded. We Mac folks **WERE** able to take advantage and appreciate the improved version. This is probably one reason why Netscape is still the dominant browser in the Mac world.

IBM PCs were dominating nothing in 82,83,84. The market for the PC was miniscule, and any player in the market at that time had all the oppurtunity to take it in any direction.

I can only assume that you were not around at that time (a young whipper snapper, no doubt). I **WAS** around in those days. I was an engineer and we had nearly a PC for every two people at my company and the finance folks all had PCs of their own. We were not alone, either. The US government was one of the biggest consumers of the IBM PC. I saw this trend repeated throughout many, many companies.

I did a little research and found a few facts:

Apple developed the Apple II PC in 1977. By the end of 1981, Apple Computer had managed to sell a total of around 600,000 Apple II PCs. They were considered the market leader, at the time. By the end of 1981, IBM had sold barely 100,000 PCs. By the end of 1984, Apple was just introducing the Macintosh and had just reached the landmark of 2 million Apple II PCs... However, according to Microsoft, by the end of 1984, MS-DOS was running on some 100 million PCs. In just 3 years, the IBM PC (and clones) had eclipsed the next most proliferate platform by nearly two orders of magnitude.

I hate to be rude, but if you continue to claim that the MS-DOS was not the dominant OS of that era, you simply don't know what you're talking about...

Mr. Feely

08-02-2000, 02:45 AM

I gave you an example from my own experience and that of many customers that people kept using DR DOS with Win 3.x, and above. You ignored it and came back to say comsumers were harmed. I still say no, they were not. Please prove me wrong, with some solid facts. (Hint, you may not have any).
I ignored the experience you posted because I believe this incident, standing alone, is sufficient to conclude that Microsoft harmed consumers. Specifically, I would say that intentionally making another company's product appear to be incompatible is inherently harmful to consumers because it causes them to make judgements about the product based on false data. Do you disagree? As to Microsoft's intention, I would say that adding an arbitrary check that only MS DOS would pass, then encrypting and obfuscating the code and attempting to disable a debugger stepping through it, argues strongly that the code was intentionally malicious. If you can give an even halfway reasonable explanation for why this code is legitimate, I'd love to hear it.

The 'artificial manipulation of the apparent compatibility' was BS - no one who wanted to use the product gave a rats ass about it, like so many other meaningless messages from MS products at the time - errors on MSs own apps and dozens of other vendors' apps did not stop anyone from using those tools - we merely learned which erros meant real problems and which did not.
I'm afraid Microsoft disagrees with you:

"We need to create the reputation for problems and incompatibilities to undermine confidence in DR DOS 6; so people will make judgments against it without knowing the details or facts."

"Any degree of incompatibility is enough to create fear, uncertainty & doubt among endusers when it comes time to buy new systems."

"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR DOS and then go out and buy MS-DOS. Or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office."

Brad Silverberg, Senior Microsoft Executive for MS-DOS and Windows

NO ONE OWES ANYONE A COMPUTER OS OR WP PROGRAM. THIS IS NOT A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BIBLE, NATURE, THE GODDESS, OR ANYONE ELSE.
Huh? Where did this come from? We're not arguing obligation here, we're arguing harm to consumers.

I'm sorry, I cannot follow your arguement.
OK, I'll restate it. Some consumers were hurt by the forced inclusion of the browser in the OS. The forced inclusion of the browser is not inherently necessary, unlike the forced inclusion of a SCSI driver. This is because the SCSI driver is absolutely necessary for managing the hardware of some users' computers, while a browser is not. Microsoft could have provided a defined interface between the browser and the OS so that users could swap in a different or null browser, but they didn't.

Any OEM is free to do as they please with the boot up sequence
They may be now, but they were contractually restricted from doing so in the past. There is unequivocal evidence of this in the findings of fact. If you dispute that Microsoft harmed consumers by preventing OEMs from modifying the bootup sequence, how do you explain Hewlett Packard's letter to Microsoft that explicitly states they hurt consumers?

tradesilicon

08-02-2000, 10:58 AM

JoeyBlades,

I can only assume that you were not around at that time (a young whipper snapper, no doubt). I **WAS** around in those days. I was an engineer and we had nearly a PC for every two people at my company and the finance folks all had PCs of their own. We were not alone, either. The US government was one of the biggest consumers of the IBM PC. I saw this trend repeated throughout many, many companies.
Me too. Engineer? Hmmm, not then, but 'Support Engineer' was my title, and I did use and support computers. Everything from a mainframe to a Mac, and PC. I used some of the apps available on PCs in the mid 80s - this was a joke. I have no doubt that there were useful apps, and the 100,000 figure you stated below seems to back that up. I am saying that the fact that DOS was around then means little in todays market place. It was not dominant then when you look at the whole picture (include please all the platforms available at that time) and that any of the players at the time could have dominated the market of today. Main frames where the majority of the computing power in business, and Macs were the dominant platform for tasks better done with a GUI. Today, the PC dominates all broad categories - Corporate, Small Business, Home, etc. This is not an arguement about exact numbers of PCs vs. Mac sold in 1984
(although I am surprised about the 100 million!), rather the importance of their positioning then to todays market place. DOS was a minor player at the time, even with 100 million sold.

I hate to be rude, but if you continue to claim that the MS-DOS was not the dominant OS of that era, you simply don't know what you're talking about...
Please don't worry about being rude. You know your facts, I know mine, and I'm glad to debate with an informed individual. I know the history of the PC, and Mac, and the computer industry. If not in so much detail, still plenty of info for the purposes of this discussion.

Mr Feely,

"We need to create the reputation for problems and incompatibilities to undermine confidence in DR DOS 6; so people will make judgments against it without knowing the details or facts."

"Any degree of incompatibility is enough to create fear, uncertainty & doubt among endusers when it comes time to buy new systems."

"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR DOS and then go out and buy MS-DOS. Or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office."

Brad Silverberg, Senior Microsoft Executive for MS-DOS and Windows
Agreed - this is the type of practice I despise, and would go after MS for, as a comsumer. I'm not sure what laws are in place for this sort of thing, and I guess the court has just ruled on that. I don't like the idea, I'm just not sure we shoul dprosecute for it. DR DOS, on the other hand, can come back with information of their own to consumers, and expose the practise. This would be a quick remedy for both their market share and an embarassment to MS - motivation no to do it again.

I said
NO ONE OWES ANYONE A COMPUTER OS OR WP PROGRAM. THIS IS NOT A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE BIBLE, NATURE, THE GODDESS, OR ANYONE ELSE.

and you replied
Huh? Where did this come from? We're not arguing obligation here, we're arguing harm to consumers.
Consumers are harmed if prices are made to go up, products become in scarce supply, or natural resources are kept away from production. The fact that an operating system includes any component that the developer chooses to add (add add cost for that component, hidden or otherwise) is not harming consumers. I gave other examples of OSs including things such as GUI - why is that a must? That certainly requires more resources, and we don't complain abou that. If MS believes they'll add value by adding IE to the interface, and you don't believe that then get Linux, Get Netware, get a Mac, get Unix, get anything other than MS products. They don't owe you anything. That's what I'm saying. Complain, but don't tell me they broke the law by doing this. (Sorry, I guess they did break the law. For the umpteenth time - I don't think I've seen harm to consumers.)

douglips

08-02-2000, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by tradesilicon

Well, I love history, so thank you. A few points where we disagree:
IBM PCs were dominating nothing in 82,83,84. The market for the PC was miniscule, and any player in the market at that time had all the oppurtunity to take it in any direction. To say that IBM PCs were dominant and survive taday only because of their dominance back then is just plain false.

When the compatibles ran DOS, they were useful for some tasks, but hardllly close to the Mac GUI. The Mac dominated for Desktop Publishing, Word Processing, and Gaming. The PC started gaining ground with the use of Upper Memory, and when Windows provided the GUI. Novell Netware was also a force in getting PCs into corporations because it was a much superior networking technology to Appletalk. So if you look back into 82 - 84, there really was no case for DOS domination, if anything, it was inferious technology to the Mac OS, and never went anywhere - Windows did, and that's one reasoin the PC is so widely used. The availabiliy of (and compatibility with) less expensive H/W, and thousands of applicaitons.

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you have retroactively modified your memory, or perhaps you weren't around back then, but statements like "Between 82-84 DOS was no match for the Mac" belie your expertise. Perhaps DOS sucked, but it was indeed dominant. In fact, the Mac did not exist before 1984.

Don't you remember the television ad for the Mac? The very first one? Before the Mac saw the light of day? On Superbowl Sunday, 1984?

Let me refresh your memory.

An endless sea of automatons. People mindlessly droning away in some totalitarian factory, walking down passageways to nowhere. Televisions with images of Big Brother keeping watch over them and spewing mottos to keep them happy and mindless. Cut to a large theater filled with mindless drone humans, and a movie-size theater screen with big brother. Cut to the back of the theater - a woman dressed in Nike(tm) sports gear bursts in through the doors, carrying a 16 pound sledgehammer. She is pursued by stormtrooper looking police. Cut back to the movie screen and mindless bliss of the masses. Cut back to the woman - she is now halfway to the screen and she stops - extends the hammer out and whirls several times. Just before the cops get her, she releases the hammer. Cut back to the screen and watch Big Brother's face explode into a burst of sparks as the hammer smashes the screen. The hypnotic spell is broken, freedom is returned to these hapless humans. Fade to black. Text and voice over: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you will see why 1984 won't be like "1984.""

Who do you think Big Brother was? Hint: The screen had a bluish tint. Big Blue. IBM. DOS.

Why do you think Macingirl had to hurl the hammer through the screen? To save the masses from the oppression of DOS.

At least now I know I don't have to read any more of your posts - thanks for clarifying your level of expertise for me.

tradesilicon

08-02-2000, 01:06 PM

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you have retroactively modified your memory, or perhaps you weren't around back then, but statements like "Between 82-84 DOS was no match for the Mac" belie your expertise. Perhaps DOS sucked, but it was indeed dominant. In fact, the Mac did not exist before 1984.
OK, you can now officially crown DOS as dominant. Go ahead.

Feel better? Read my posts again, I've already stated that the number of machines sold is not the major issue, after I admitted that I was surprised to see that number had been sold. I also explained that the Apple Computers, Especially the Mac, had much better GUI, and this superior technology could have just as easily dominated the market by now as MS-Windows-based PCs. DOS was not anywhere near the force Windows is today. Period.

Don't you remember the television ad for the Mac? The very first one? Before the Mac saw the light of day? On Superbowl Sunday, 1984?

Let me refresh your memory.

Thanks, I love history, including TV Commercials.

Who do you think Big Brother was? Hint: The screen had a bluish tint. Big Blue. IBM. DOS.
I'm always grateful for hints.

Why do you think Macingirl had to hurl the hammer through the screen? To save the masses from the oppression of DOS.
Yes, of course. DOS was oppressing everyone. You drama queen, you're telling me my posts are worthless, and you see life through TV commercials, and call it truth? Pathetic joke, you are. What do you make of the Taco Bell Doggie? Want to start the Chalupa revolution?

At least now I know I don't have to read any more of your posts - thanks for clarifying your level of expertise for me.
You never had to read the first one, it's a voluntary MB.

Mr. Feely

08-03-2000, 04:32 AM

Agreed - this is the type of practice I despise, and would go after MS for, as a comsumer.

So, you despise the practice, but still don't think it harmed consumers? Deliberately making consumers who don't know better falsely perceive that a competitor's product is incompatible is not harmful?

Consumers are harmed if prices are made to go up, products become in scarce supply, or natural resources are kept away from production.

Consumers are also harmed if a monopolist uses its power to prevent competition on the merits in a marketplace. But you're right, Microsoft isn't obligated to do anything for me, even abstaining from harming consumers... except for abiding by the laws of the federal and state governments.

The difference between the browser and your other OS feature examples is this: its forced inclusion is harmful to a significant portion of users, and by simply creating a standard interface between it and the OS its inclusion could have easily been left as a choice for users or OEMs without diminishing usability.

JoeyBlades

08-03-2000, 08:52 AM

tradesilicon:

I've already stated that the number of machines sold is not the major issue, after I admitted that I was surprised to see that number had been sold. I also explained that the Apple Computers, Especially the Mac, had much better GUI, and this superior technology could have just as easily dominated the market by now as MS-Windows-based PCs.

I think I see the problem here. You seem to be under the misguided notion that people will always choose the best product available. Unfortunately, that's not the way the world operates. In the real world, marketshare is everything. The leaders will tend to continue to lead. Very rarely does marketshare flip-flop from one leader to another. Even in the face of far, far more superior products, it's a lot more typical for marketshare to merely erode. The bigger the marketshare for one company, the slower it is to erode. Once you get above a certain level, the marketshare can be selfsustaining and it's nearly impossible to cause serious erosion. That's where Microsoft is today and they got there because of marketshare they gained in the eraly 80's.

While that might seem illogical to you, consider the case for computers. Let's say it's mid 1984 and two guys want to buy computers. Joe and Dave go down to their local computer store and there's two models to choose from. There's the IBM PC on one hand and the Mac on the other. Joe and Dave have been around the block a few times and they know that there are a lot of PCs already out there. The Mac is cute and obviously innovative, but it's a risk. This risk is amplified when Joe and Dave mosey over to the software section of the store. For the PC, there are hundreds of applications - for the Mac, only a few. Now Joe's not a risk taker - his decision is clear. He chooses the PC because he likes to play games and there's a lot of games for the PC. Also, all of his friends tell him how unreliable computers are, so he wants a platform that more people know how to fix so he can get lots of free advice. Joe goes with the flow. Dave, on the other hand, sees all of the applications he needs for the Mac and he likes the user interface. The fact that the Mac case is not as easy to open seems to suggest that it is more reliable than PCs, so Dave makes the radical choice. Two years later, both Joe and Dave are reasonably happy with their decisions. Perhaps Joe has seen that Dave's Mac is more reliable and is easier to use. Both guys have gotten more software and some hardware perpherals, so they've each increased their level of investment on their chosen platform. Now it's time to start thinking about upgrade. Do you think that Joe is going to simply throw away his investment in software and hardware to go with the superior Mac? Of course not, the tendancy is to further increase your investment in the platform you have.

Marketshare is just like money - those that 'have', generally get more...

DOS was not anywhere near the force Windows is today. Period.

I see two problems with this statement:

(1) Personal computers in the early days were no where near the force that they are today. There are a lot more televisions, cellular telephones, personal organizers, and all sorts of consumer products now than there were in those days. It's called progress.

(2) Do you think DOS is gone? Sorry, you've been deceived. 99.9% of all PCs sold today, still have MS-DOS installed. You're paying for it whether you use it or not. Since there are a handful of computers out there that actually don't have Windows installed, in terms of installations I'd say that DOS still outnumbers Windows. If, by 'force', you mean everyday use, then I tend to agree - Windows is used more than DOS. Fortunately for Microsoft, their measure of success is based on the number of dollars they make from selling DOS - not the number of times it's used...

tradesilicon

08-03-2000, 10:35 AM

Quick apology to you all:
My previous post was inappropriate for GD, I know better, and will refrain from any further nonsence like that. After re-reading douglips' post and my reply, I saw the problem, and therefore post this apology.

Mr. Feely,
So, you despise the practice, but still don't think it harmed consumers? Deliberately making consumers who don't know better falsely perceive that a competitor's product is incompatible is not harmful?
Deliberately fooling consumers with this kind of nonsence is harmful, you are correct, and this tyoe of nonsence should not be tolerated. I happen to think, from the many companies I've worked with, that it did not amount to any real damage in this case - as I've mentioned the DR DOS product continues to be used.

The difference between the browser and your other OS feature examples is this: its forced inclusion is harmful to a significant portion of users, and by simply creating a standard interface between it and the OS its inclusion could have easily been left as a choice for users or OEMs without diminishing usability
Again, I stadn by exactly what I've said before, the browser, like any other feature, should be included or excluded at the sole discretion of the products' creator.
Let me use another example. MS has included a service in the currect version of Win2k called Network Load Balancing (IIRC). In previous versions this was an add-on (well 4.0 had this at a late stage, but not quite the same) from third parties who sold it for a decent price, decent meaning the third parties made good money doing so. This is used by relatively few customers. But MS decided to include the service, and now makes it part of the NOS. This is still not used by many customers, is now part of the NOS, and any third party making money only from the sale of the add-on is eother out of business, or need a new twist on the product to make it worth buying. Where's the outcry? Where's the law suit? I don't see the difference. There are examples of this on almost every major upgrade og the NOS. Please tell me you can understand this point. Consumers can stop buying the product, but should not dictate in any other way how the product is made.

JoeyBlades,
I think I see the problem here. You seem to be under the misguided notion that people will always choose the best product available.
Absolutely not. I am not saying anything of the kind. I said that any of the vendors playing in '84 could have taken the lions share of todays market. I said nothing about consumers buying the best product. In fact, I have said that I thought Mac had a better technology, but MS gained market share anyway - why is another story.

That's where Microsoft is today and they got there because of marketshare they gained in the eraly 80's.
I disagree. In the early 80s the market for PCs in homes and corporations was no where near what it is today, and MS has created a huge pool of products, and did a tremendous marketing push to get where they are today. Certainly it helped them to have the base they did in the early 80s, but in no way did that base guarantee anything about their future. Just ask a few other companies with a base who have failed completely, because after they got the base, they just sat on it. Sorry, I disagree completely with your arguement, and also you made a complete misstatement about what I said previously.

Do you think DOS is gone?
No, I know it is not. I use it almost daily, but I except this to stop once Win2k is more predominant 9than Win NT 4.0, and Win 98). Many utilities still run on DOS. I mentioned earlier that I use MS DOS, and DR. DOS (not today, but in recent years).

JoeyBlades

08-03-2000, 06:01 PM

tradesilicon:

I have said that I thought Mac had a better technology, but MS gained market share anyway - why is another story.

No. Why is not another story. It's precisely the point. It's a classic case of time to market. Had the Macintosh been there first, I have no doubt that it would be the dominant platform... "But what of all those other platforms that were there before the PC?", you ask. Those personal computer platforms were delineated from the IBM PC based on perceived function. Prior to the IBM PC those platforms were largely considered hobbyists toys. The IBM PC legitimized the use of the personal computer for business and other 'serious' applications which caused it to be accepted into new markets. This is not to say that Apple II's were not used in business environments - they were, just not to the degree that IBM (who owned the big computer market at the time) was capable of attaining.

I disagree. In the early 80s the market for PCs in homes and corporations was no where near what it is today, and MS has created a huge pool of products, and did a tremendous marketing push to get where they are today.

We're in total agreement on the first case, but I didn't think that was what we were arguing. Most definitely, today's marketplace for computers is much bigger than it was in the early 80's. I like to use a snowball analogy. IBM, with their PC started a snowball rolling down a huge hill. As the ball rolled on it gathered more and more snow and rolled faster and faster, gathering even more momentum. Then Apple came along tried to start a new snowball (Macintosh) rolling down the same hill on the same path and guess what - there's not as much snow left, so it doesn't pick up momentum as dramatically as the PC platform. (But at least, it's high quality, high performance, snow with a superior user interface... [wink])

Where we differ in opinion is that I don't think Microsoft got where they are from a broad product portfolio or superior marketing. I think it was mostly a matter of luck - being in the right place (IBM just after delivering a version of BASIC) at the right time (at the onset of the IBM-PC) and knowing the right guy (Tim Paterson - the author of QDOS). The rest of the story is mostly a matter of **NOT** making stupid decisions.

Certainly it helped them to have the base they did in the early 80s, but in no way did that base guarantee anything about their future. Just ask a few other companies with a base who have failed completely, because after they got the base, they just sat on it.

Absolutely. Smart people do dumb things. Losing marketshare is easy, capturing it from the leader is almost impossible.

Sorry, I disagree completely with your arguement, and also you made a complete misstatement about what I said previously.

Your perogative. I don't think I misquoted you, but I may have misrepresented your assumptions...