the Microsoft saga

In My Humble Opinion
1

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/19/microsoft-usat.htm

Can anyone straighten me out as to what is going on here?
picking and choosing amongst the news account:

“Like Netscape’s browser and Java, he said, RealPlayer threatens Windows as a “platform” for applications. Similarly, he said, handheld devices and TV set-top boxes challenge Windows because they could substitute for PCs, so Microsoft should disclose Windows’ code so they can work well with the system.”

ummm…isn’t this like saying that “our systems can challenge yours, so you’d better give us your code so we don’t have to”?
If the Microsoft competitors (Mc for short) feel that their system IS competitive, why not just put their system out on the market and let the consumer decide? (rather than: “your system is so good that to compete, we need to piggyback on your efforts to succeed.”)

"Kuney also said Microsoft doesn’t let RealNetworks’ music and video player work as well on Windows as Microsoft’s rival Media Player. "

well, duhhh…“Hey, chief, we’ve got this great product. We’d better make sure that our competitor’s product works just as well.” (sound of slitting wrists)

*"Also, in written testimony released Monday, the government’s first witness, Sun Microsystems’ Richard Green, said Microsoft hobbled Sun’s Java software. Java can let applications run on different operating systems, potentially breaking Windows’ hold.

But Green said Microsoft illegally promoted a Windows-specific version of Java to prevent that."*

Lessee…Mc companies must be allowed to produce products that compete with Microsoft (and with Microsofts help, at that), while Microsoft is not allowed to produce products that compete against Mc companies. Isn’t that a little bit like saying, “The only products that you’re allowed to have/develop are those that WE can use to OUR benefit.”?

“But Microsoft lawyer Steve Holley said Sun recently rejected a Microsoft offer to carry Java. Green said Monday the offer was good for only three years, too short a time to allow Java to get established.”

This in an industry that can change literally overnight? Come on!!

“They want the titan to produce a “modular” Windows version from which its browser, multimedia software and other features can be removed.” “Microsoft also would have to offer a free, open-source license for its browser and auction its popular Office software so it can be customized for other operating systems, among other things.”

Isn’t this like having say, Ford, produce a “modular” car so that GM can put their insignia on it and sell it as theirs?

There is much more, and I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, but my impression of this whole thing is this:

  1. yes, Microsoft in a legal sense violated monopoly laws to protect its browser

  2. the plaintiff’s solution is like that of the old cartoon where there is an angry lady at a complaint counter, and the store’s representative is saying to her, “Well, how about if I refund your money, give you a new item free, close the store and have the owner shot? Would that be sufficient?”

  3. oh, and by the way, give us all your source code that you’ve spent years and millions of dollars developing so we can use your efforts to make money for ourselves.

Does that sound about right?

2

In what other sense does one violate laws? Are you arguing that monopoly laws ought to be changed, or just hedging?

I haven’t yet researched enough (and I don’t have the time at the moment) to comment on everything you brought up, but I’ll add a little bit.

From what I know about the Sun/Microsoft issues, Sun’s lawsuit is partly motivated by the verdict last year in which MS was found guilty of abusing its monopoly power. I believe they are also charging that MS violated the license agreement with Sun. Considering that the January settlement was over issues from the past and Microsoft was paying Sun for it, the case appears to be more than just a matter of preventing competition.
For more (from Sun’s side) check :

http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/

3

That will be fine if MS has been competiting fairly, but such is not the case here.

That says MS is doing crap to software from other companies to cripple their performance.

That’s because MS signed a contract with Sun to produce JVM (Java virtual machine) for Windows. Consider that what they produced is no longer Java because it differed from the specs. This is a breach of contract.

That’s when?

No it’s not. What it means is customers can pick and choose what components they want in their OS instead of having stuff they don’t want being forced down their throats.

No. The case originally was about MS violated anti-trust laws by leveraging its monopoly position in the OS market to achieve dominance in the browser market.

That may be your impression, but many MS critics say this is insufficient punishment for its wrongdoings.

Consider that MS has been stealing much code from other sources, and it hasn’t spent more money developing IE than other companies that it crushed illegally, what’s the problem?

Not even remotely close.

4

Microsoft is also suing Lindows to try to prevent them from using the name. The judge, in a preliminary ruling refused to stop Lindows from using the name and the ruling is threatening the Windows trademark.

5

Fair enough; but I’m not sure I’m stating my question clearly ( a common occurence for me) I thought the monopoly lawsuit was basically about Explorer vs Netscape. So what do the hand-helds and tv set-top boxes have to do with it? Aren’t they johnny-come-latelies (so to speak)? Is the disclosure of Microsoft’s code supposed to cover these as well?

:confused: I’m not sure what it is you’re referring to here; perhaps not enough coffee in me yet. Are you saying that Microsoft is altering other companies software so that it doesn’t work? Or perhaps you’re referring to this?:

Then that quote is followed by:

So as I see it, Microsoft didn’t do anything to Sun’s code, but just offered their own version of Java.

OK; new information to me. I’d love to see the contract for specifics, but I suppose that would not be possible.

Still, my argument remains. I can’t go into Ford and demand a new Taurus outfitted with a transmission made by GM. If I was so demanding of having a GM transmission, then I should go buy a GM car. Similarly, if I want a RealNetworks’ music and video player, then I should go buy a browser that supports it. Is it just that no such browser exists? If not, then why doesn’t someone develop one? As far as I can see, there is a tremendous amount of antagonism towards Microsoft, and any such product would almost be guaranteed a market. Yet there is none as far as I can see. It seems to me that rather than develop their own product/company, people want to tear Microsoft down. After Microsoft gives them the fruits of its labors, of course.

Cite, please? Nowhere in the lawsuit have I ever heard that Microsoft was accused of stealing someone else’s propriatory information.
whew enough for now…

6

The issue is Microsoft abusing their monopoly power. If we restrict the discussion to browsers, then it’s strictly a Netscape/IE matter. If we expand the discussion to future abuses of power, then we get into set-top boxes and all the other stuff.

In short, should Microsoft be punished only for the abuses they did in the past, or should they also be punished for the abuses they are doing now, and restricted from doing more abuse in the future?

Microsoft can (and has) put code in their products that detect a competitor’s software, then create artificial “errors.” This gives the user the illusion that the competitor’s product is inferior, and that Microsoft’s version is better. The earliest example of this practice AFAIK is when early version of Windows 3.1 detected that it was running on DR-DOS (a non-Microsoft DOS that was functionally identical to MS-DOS), and started generating error messages “suggesting” that the user use MS-DOS instead.

Not quite. To oversimplify slightly, Sun’s licensing requirements for Java require that any Microsoft-developed Java pass a set of compatability tests. Microsoft’s version of Java did not pass these tests, but Microsoft promoted it as Java anyway, which is a violation of Sun’s licensing terms. The Java code you write with Microsoft’s Java was “polluted,” and could only run on Microsoft’s computers (which is anathema to Java’s “run anywhere” philosophy).

Sure, but Ford does not own a monopoly on cars and trucks. And further, because Microsoft owns both the operating system and the applications, the auto analogy works in you presume that Ford owns the cars, the roads, and the cops who patrol the roads.

Suppose you decided to write a competing, non-Microsoft browser – how would you make money from it? You’re not going to have high sales because Microsoft gives theirs away for free; and even if you do sell it, Microsoft could slip in a “detect and destroy Toaster52’s browser” piece of code in their next service pack.

Microsoft gets a lot of antagonism thrown their way because they’ve earned it, by abusing their power and locking out competitors. No investment banker worth his portfolio would put money in a company that directly competes with Microsoft, because Bill Gates can out-spend them and drive them out of business.

7

Cite, please, but it sure wouldn’t surprise me much.

Bob

8

Here you go, urban:

The AARD code.
-Ben

9

The one I can find is here. It is a CERT alert about a double free flaw in the zlib utility produced by RedHat. The interesting thing here is if you look down the list you see the name Microsoft. Why is that? Clearly MS is using zlib code in some of its products. While zlib is not protected by GPL, this is a clear indication of MS using code produced by other sources with no acknowledgement.

Another source I can remember offhand is Robert Cringley’s book Acciental Empires. In it he alleged the QDOS (forerunner of MS-DOS) that MS bought from Tim Paterson of Seattle Engineering was a clear ripoff of CP/M.

10

AARD code? CERT alert? DR-DOS? Zlib utility/code?

Here’s where I (and probably many other people) get lost. I am functional enough to turn my silly PC on, but that’s about it. I have no idea what the hell it is that those things refer to (well, DR-DOS, yes; at least I know what DOS refers to. I just had never HEARD of DR-DOS).

Lots of information; I thank you folks much.

ponders in th’ corner

11

In a nutshell, here it is: Microsoft makes an operating system and applications that run on this operating system. This is a Cash Cow. So far, no problem.

The web browser and Java came along. This promised the capability to run applications in essentially the same way on any computer no matter what hardware or operating system that computer used. Microsoft perceived this as a very real threat to their Cash Cow and did a number of things to scuttle the “Write Once, Execute Everywhere” nature of the internet applications. Many of these things were ethically shady and some of them have been determined to be illegal. The “ethically shady” category is too long a list to cite here, but I’ll mention a couple – “enhancing” Java with Windows-only enhancements so some Java programs would only work on Windows systems, and promising Active-X support for Mac and Unix systems and then dropping those development plans, leaving many web-based applications Windows only.

Thus, the specific instance of Microsoft doing something illegal is using their operating system monopoly to crush Netscape. The more general problem is that any application that they perceive of threatening their OS/Application hegemony is likely to meet with the same fate. This has the effect of reducing healthy competition in the marketplace and has the potential to result in poorer quality applications and higher prices for consumers after all competition has been squelched. That is, without competition, there is no incentive for Microsoft (or any other company) to invest in improving their products and there is no incentive to keep the price down.

Net result: mediocre technology and non-competitive prices.

12

See? Bill Gates’ plans to crush the competition work. :slight_smile:

13

Don’t feel bad, a lot of this material is rather technical. At least you have a whole bunch of judges feeling (or used to feel) the same way you are. :smiley:

14

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the expression is lacking. The issue here isn’t of competing operating systems (GM versus Ford) but competing applications (say, brands of tires or spark plugs or something).

15

That’s because you don’t have a true Microsoft analog in the automobile industry – one company that makes the operating system (the cars themselves) and the components that go on that car (the tires, spark plugs, etc.). And if you want to mangle the analogy further, the auto makers don’t go out of their way to hide technical specifications the way Microsoft does with their Windows APIs.

It’s a flawed analogy, but that’s because there’s no direct equivalent.