| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Attacks 'Open Source' Browser Demand | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Wall Street Journal | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp.'s widely used Internet Explorer Web browser could become buggy and unpredictable under an antitrust remedy proposed by nine state attorneys general, an attorney for the company argued in federal court Monday. Microsoft attorney Michael Lacovara was questioning for the second day economist Carl Shapiro, hired by the states to explain the consumer benefits and market effects of their broad proposals to remedy Microsoft 's antitrust violations. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 175 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:25:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 12:40:56 AM |
| Anyone, please, please, please explain to me how if MS licenses IE to be an Open Source project and they get to maintain their own version, how the OS world mucking about (the way OS developers are bound to do) in THEIR version of the program affects the stability of the MICROSOFT version of IE? Can anyone explain that logic to me? |
| #2 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 1:10:55 AM |
| Right, but that open source project would no longer be a Microsoft product; it would no longer have the IE name. Microsoft would have every opportunity in the world to continue developing their IE from that point forward in their closed source fashion... make it better and prove that they make a better product than the OS version. MS doesn't have to use the OS version... So how does this hurt the "IE" that will still come with "Microsoft Windows": doesn't Microsoft enjoy competition sooo much that they'd welcome showing how they can still improve IE and make it the most successful browser... even against (rather, more importantly so, against) a "crappy Open Source" version of their own code? So what are they afraid of? They don't make any money off of IE? |
| #3 By 2062 (63.11.145.121) at 4/16/2002 1:51:35 AM |
|
There's really no debate on this, let me sum up microsoft's position in as few words as possible:
"MICROSOFT WILL NEVER RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE TO IE. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER." There, i hope i cleared things up. -gosh |
| #4 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 1:59:54 AM |
|
See... as far as I can tell... there is nothing in the settling states plan that say this open source browser would carry the IE name; if anything, I would imagine there are protections so that it doesn't reference IE. I do not see anything that says Microsoft would be responsible for committing to the code of this OS project. I see nothing that says Microsoft would have to maintain its version in conjunction with the OS version. I see nothing about Microsoft being held rsponsible for the quality of the code. In fact, if the quality of this OS version decreases and IE 7 gets better, isn't it obvious who is responsible? Isn't this fodder for MS that OS develops buggy software? Won't people flock to the Microsoft version if the OS version degrades in quality? Won't the Web Standards Project put more pressure on the OS version if it forked away from standards more than other browsers? Doesn't this put more pressure on OS than it does Microsoft particularly since they derive no profit from this product? Doesn't it increase MS's desire to innovate for their own product and participate in competition?
As far as I can tell this is FUD being thrown over the head of a ECONOMICS expert being asked questions about SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. I thought accrding to MS that there is no ECONOMIC incentive in IE. |
| #5 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/16/2002 2:01:25 AM |
|
Ok, so here's what'd happen:
MS is forced to release the source. MS releases the source. Many people grab it, very soon there are several versions floating around. Pretty soon, they begin to fork from the original engine and some features now work better or worse than the original source. Not long after, you have 17,000,000 different versions of IE, all with their own compatibility problems and the web developer nightmare has just resurfaced, only 1000x worse this time. How is this good for consumers? Pretty soon, they'll be saying, "Man, that IE sucks" even though it's not the Microsoft IE because some stupid OEM thought it would be nice to include their own modified version of IE. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 2:08:42 AM |
|
You people get so high on capitalism, but when you make up an analogy, you throw competition out the window. If these products suck, no one will use them. If the original MS version is the best, they will still continue to use it. OEMs will not ship a PC with a forked and fractured version of a browser if people do not want to buy it. You say MS is the only one who competes, but when something introduces competition, you pretend that people will either be "forced" into, or just won't stop themselves from, buying crap! Instead of buying one product because they want a standard, they will all of a sudden buy a million slightly different versions! What gives? I thought that Microsoft has the obviously superior products that customers will still want to buy! This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 03:21. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 2:09:36 AM |
| 17 Million, huh? That's more than Ballmers fantastically-, expontentially-multiplying Windows? Wow. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.175.42.153) at 4/16/2002 2:32:23 AM |
| It's amazing--there are frequently several Mozilla builds for a single platform, and there are still, tops, 50 versions of Mozilla for each build release of Mozilla. I just love Microsoft math. |
| #9 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/16/2002 5:56:21 AM |
|
So,
Sodajerk, Here we are again, Yet when people try to even use the IP of APPLE the scream bloody murder, Shutting down sites that even imitate the desktop. Now we have a a program, Admittily based on several Com componets. with a GUI on top of it for a browser. And the states (by direction of Sun, who isn't good enough to even try to roll thier own browser) are trying to force they to open the source. Personally I don't have an issue with it. On these grounds. That the dll and other programs generated MUST be named differently. (IOW it can't replace the com dll files on the system. Unless the User gives Express consent). That the companies that Use the code and do replace it, take the expense of the support calls that MS will in generally take. Including the cost at the customer end. And that these Companies Immediatly fess up to the bugs that they cause. That goes for the Open sourced versions also. This would also be an OEM decission also, if and OEM vendor agrees to put a IE Clone on the system they must agree to the costs incurred. If I personally was forced to Open the source to my Browser. That browser would almost immediatly stop development in my company, and a New browser would be developed on a new source tree. But that is just me;) El |
| #10 By 4209 (163.192.21.17) at 4/16/2002 11:21:44 AM |
| SodaJerk, so you are saying MS should release IE's code to give people a nice starting point by using MS's IP instead of creating there own Browser. MS had to start somewhere, so why not let everyone else just start from a working browser to make there own. It makes no sense, you and the states are saying that MS should let everyone see what they spent years to create and make work. |
| #11 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/16/2002 12:40:25 PM |
|
It's "funny" how all of these companies (composed of OEMs, software developer's, hardware developers, etc.) can get together and make a concerted effort to try to gain MS' technology so they can better "compete" (get a free ride). Yet they can't collectively use their monetary, developmental, marketing, and distribution resources to create an original OS, or improve an existing, non-Windows OS (Apple did this alone, why can't these guys as a team) so that they have a product that is easy for end-users and developers to use, and highly customizable for companies/OEMs. This would give them a platform that is well supported and Microsoft-free (Just don't let Sun make it).
Unless MS decides to start making software for that OS in addition to Windows and MacOS and kills off the inferior products on that platform, too. :-) Even if this didn't beat Windows, it could still be the #2 PC OS. And if it's easy to use and runs on standard hardware (maybe even with a virtual machine to run Windows within the OS), then it could at least succeed as a business OS (which is where a lot of the money is anyway). Again, just don't let Sun build it :-) |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 1:22:24 PM |
| mctwin, this is directly related to the fact that any remedy proposal in a monopoly case is supposed to have as its goals: to end the monopoly; and to deny the company access to the fruits of its monopoly behavior. These goals do not explicitly need to be achieved, but aimed towards... I think taking IE, which MS never made any profit off of and which they claim succeeded purely on technical merits, should be open sourced and forced to compete with itself--that seems a perfectly logical way of denying MS the fruits of its monopolization. It would still be open source and free--no ones making a profit off of it. Yes, MS spent years to creat it; they also spent years using their monopoly of OSes illegally to promote the product. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/16/2002 2:28:08 PM |
|
sodajerk - Here's a question.
Let's assume you get your way and you steal IE version 6.0 from Microsoft and release it into the public domain. How do you intend on keeping competition flowing? If Microsoft releases version 6.5, are you intent on stealing their modifications and releasing those to the public domain as well? What if AOL takes the code and releases AOL/IE 8.0, do they have to release their modifications back to the public domain, so that others like Sun can use them in their product? |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 2:31:01 PM |
| The answer is no; the code which originally gets open sourced is all that stays open source; keeping that competitive is dependent on the OS community keeping that code base competitive. The only one who is being accused of being a monopoly is Microsoft--I don't know why you'd think that AOL would get a hold of it and then be forced to OS their code too. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/16/2002 2:41:49 PM |
|
sodajerk - You know what... I say Microsoft should go along with this.
But there should also be a provision in here that states people have to stop whining. Why do I say that? Because I don't think this will have any impact on the competition in the industry, and will instead result in total chaos. So when it fails, I don't want sodajerk back here whining again and demanding to steal more of Microsoft's property. |
| #16 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/16/2002 2:42:45 PM |
| SodaJerk, So let me get this straight. Since MS is a Monopoly, they deserve to has there software IP given away for free? So if you designed something and it monopolized the market it was in, you would be ok with someone making you give you design out for free and build upon it, even though you hold the patent? That is uterly ridiculous, yes the basis of it could be given out but not the whole design, which people already know the basis of a web browser, since they are already out there and millions of people use them and also write HTML code to be displayed by them. A real remedy would be for the DOJ to force MS to sell the browser, thus allowing others to charge for the browser, thus making them money. It is never going to happen but it is just as likely to happen as them getting the code. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 2:49:25 PM |
|
Thanks, soda--I agree. As I said, this puts all the pressure on the OS community to deliver. There is zero pressure on MS, and they even have the chance to gain ammo by keeping their version better then the OS version. That's simple. I don't know why the softies don't relish that idea and aren't anticipating the opportunity to rub it in if the OS version fails.
Mctwin, yes, I would. Trying to make it something I would be personally involved in doesn't change the issue--I don't think I'd ever try to monopolize a market in the first place..., but certainly, making it personal doesn't change my views. The courts have already said that IP is not it's own argument--a company cannot do anything it wants to just because their is a patent involved. You are also creating this bizarre circle by involving cash--MS never charged for it so how would it work to release the same thing to another company but they have to charge for it--when MS gets to release the same thing for free? If MS doesn't have to make money on the product, why is it only fair to release the code if someone is making money on it? This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 14:52. |
| #18 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/16/2002 3:03:10 PM |
| SodaJerk, I was saying MS would have to charge for it. Then the consumer would decide which they wanted. For one, removing IE would be bad, since the Internet is so heavily used today, charging extra to have the browser stimulates a person to make a choice. Just as if the two browsers where on there desktop to begin with, the user has a choice in which one to use. Anyway, I think if you had IP and someone told you that you need to give it out for free, you would not go quietly and if you would then you are not as bright as we all thought. MS is a monopoly because there is no other viable OS for the masses, I would hardly say it is there fault that the competition sucks. They continue to abuse this yes, but it is not there fault they got there in the first place. They tried to please the consumer and give them more bang for there buck, I personally like this approach. But in the mean time they became a monopoly. I hope you understand that there is nothing illegal about a monopoly, but there is howeve legal issues on how you use that power. Just because MS is a monopoly is not the bad part of all of this, it is because they abuse it. Now if they could go and not abuse it thn this whole thing would be over and done with, but I think everyone see that they can not do this. So maybe Government regulators or independent regulators need to keep an eye on them, instead of making them give up there IP. I mean where does it stop, first you want IE, then what. And how many versions of IE, do they want just the core or the whole thing. If MS releases IE 7.0 and it is diferent from 6.0, do they need to Open Source that as well. I mean come on, they are the ones paying for the R&D, so why should some lowly little company come up and change the IE 6.0 browser, that they had no R&D money in, and make a huge dent in MS. The purpose of competition is to come up with your own ideas to beat the competition, not use theres to beat them. This whole thing is the lamest thing I have heard in this whole trial. MS makes a browser that %90 of the people use, so now they need to give the competition the code so they can compete better? Why can't the competition just make a better browser, one that I will use over IE? There are plenty out there that work just fine, and I have used several, but I go back to IE. Why? Because it just works better for me. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 3:10:54 PM |
|
"...if you would then you are not as bright as we all thought" Thank you... I think
"They continue to abuse this yes, but it is not there fault they got there in the first place." Exactly what I've been saying all along, but it is the first clause that is important --they CONTINUE to abuse... "I hope you understand that there is nothing illegal about a monopoly, but there is howeve legal issues on how you use that power." Again, exactly, nice to see you coming around. You aren't going to back off this now, are you? "Just because MS is a monopoly is not the bad part of all of this, it is because they abuse it." Exactly, exactly--wow, a whole bunch of honesty today from mctwin! "I mean where does it stop, first you want IE, then what." Office--that'll probably come up in a few days, and I'm sure it'll blow a few softy tops! "MS makes a browser that %90 of the people use, so now they need to give the competition the code so they can compete better?" Yes, you explained why at least 3 times, wwhy can't you accept it now--it didn't happen just naturally, they abused the OS monopoly to make it happen. "I have used several, but I go back to IE. Why? Because it just works better for me." And nothing is going to stop you from going on doing so to your heart's content. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 15:15. |
| #20 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/16/2002 3:24:19 PM |
|
SodaJerk, what about the questions at the end? You always avoid a few items in the post. I could care less what they do really. But it infuriates me to see MS's competition making up the remedies to the case. It should be done by an indepent group of people, not the competition. A group of peopel not related to MS or the competition, and of course the lawyers. Antitrust laws are supposed to protect the consumer not the competition. If done properly it will protect the competition as well. This whole case was brought on by the competition not the consumer.
Added: Also, when did the US business model turn into, having another company do all the work so you can be handed the work and go from there. That is why we have IP and Pattents and Copyrights. I did not know those all went out the window when you got to big. This post was edited by mctwin2kman on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 15:37. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 3:46:21 PM |
|
I ignore some of your arguments because your own previous points controvert them. You say MS only needs oversight, but you also say no one can stop them from abusing their monopoly. You say it is based on MS's R&D, but you concede that MS did illegal things to attain dominance of the browser--just because you spend money to build a monopoly, you are protected? This makes no sense. You say that competitors will use MS's own software to make a huge dent in IE and to beat them up but this ignores the fact that this would depend on the competitors maintaining an attractive product to the customer--if it proves more attractive than the MS version and does these things, fine--it would be a superior product chosen by the consumers which would be built on the very thing that MS tried to control--that sounds like a perfect remedy to me. It also ignores the fact that MS could maintain their own product and compete; they'd probably still attract you as a customer as you say.
Nothings changed about US law or business--same thing happened when Kodak had to open up poleroid film to allow other film producers to be able to make the film. |
| #22 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/16/2002 4:02:47 PM |
| Well, you mix the points together that is the problem. Plus I typed part of that one and went and did some work and came back to finish so the logic was a little off. I said an option would be Oversight, and that may stop them. And I never said they did illegal things to obtain the monopoly, they just used the monopoly to do illegal things. Although it is not really MS's fault that the OEM's are too whipped to deal with MS. They could have just collectively told MS where to go. Since MS can't be a monopoly on its own merits, it needs to OEM to sell the PC's with the OS on them. Then again when that was all brought up in the beginning then the Government should have gotten on them. It does not really matter I gues in the long run. Since our legal system allows you to appeal until you are blue in the face. It will only be a matter of how much money MS is willing to spend to defeat the Gov't. But all in all my lajor point, which you continue to inore, is that I still have never heard of a consumer hurt by MS. As a consumer I can download or buy and install any OS, Office App, Browser, Media Player, etc. that I want. As well as all the other consumers can do as well. I also have bought many PC's in my life as an IT administrator, to know that they come with other software on them besides Microsofts. Netscape used to come on them when they made a decent browser, diferent Media Players still come on most, including Dell's. Now you don't ussually see diferent Office Suites, but that is not MS's fault, the OEM's pick them and they cost extra anyway. So where is all this harm people are talking about? Do they want more, I mean what is the big deal if IE and Opera are on the same PC? Why can't the consumer decide what he wants to use or see, instead of the Government? I have yet to see consumers hurt by MS innovating and coming out with better software. I have yet to see the consumer hurt by MS's tactics either. About the only way we could be hurt is by there licensing and releasing of new OS's every other day. But that is not a bad thing, since the old software will still work and it is up to the consumer to buy it if they must. I don't know, maybe I am being too much of a realist and looking out for the consumer instead of the competition. Maybe I believe that the competition should advance based on there own merits instead of using someone elses work to get ahead. Maybe I don't believe the competition should have a say in what happens to MS. |
| #23 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/16/2002 4:20:16 PM |
| Couldn't agree more. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 4:21:30 PM |
| I didn't say you said they got the monopoly illegally either--I said they used the monopoly illegally to gain dominance in the browser market. Ms can be a monopoly on its own merits--that is the claim; you bring up OEMs, but I thought we mostly all agreed on that--they were routinely being forced to do things they didn't want to do. You are falling back on an appeals argument now too? It seems like you are slowly realizing that MS is caught, but are looking for a way out. If you go back through this post, you'll see that you never made the argument that no consuemrs were harmed here--although I will continue to avoid it--because I'm already going in circles with what you are saying--some of which supports my claim, some of which denies things I thought we had already accepted... You also revert back to this--we can pick and choose whatever we want, but doesn't that fly in the face of an anti-modular windows argument. Isn't Microsoft going to argue that they need to have tight control of the desktop because consuemrs can't make the decisions for themselves? The argument that harm was caused to consumers is based on the idea that fewer choices exist; that better products result from competition. There is no way to predict what could have been--maybe office file formats would be completely cross platform, and all major software packages could translate and create the major file formats. Maybe if Netscape had stayed dominant, there would be a larger number of web-based applications that ran on all platforms. I'm sure this is going to degrade into somethign silly... especially with something like this: "Why can't the consumer decide what he wants to use or see, instead of the Government?" Who says the gov't is deciding? All the gov't is doing is giving more choices besides MS. The OEMs can picka nd choose whatever is profitable to them and what their consumers want. Consumers can pick and choose their OEM or by an off the shelf version of Windows. The consumer can install/uninstall whatever software they want--do you know of any non-MS software you can't uninstall now? Have you heard anywhere that AOL is going to be on every desktop, but uninstallable? Hell, Microsoft can get in the hardware business if they want and sell a "pure" Microsoft version. I don't care--but you're a million miles away from showing that the government is determining what will be on your desktop. |
| #25 By 4209 (163.192.21.2) at 4/16/2002 4:36:40 PM |
| I was just stating that MS can appeal for as long as they have money to do so, meaning this will never end, or will not end for a while. Now as far as I know the only thing stopping this from ending is MS accepting the States settlement or the States accepting MS's. So instead of the States coming up with off the wall stuff that MS will never agree to, maybe an outside group may be able to do better. Even though it was not stated that is what I was talking about in the 28th post. I am not realizing that consumers were harmed, by MS innovating and adding more features to there OS. I do agree however that Windows should only install the basic components needed to run all software out there. The consumers then could choose what to install extra. If this included IE because the funstionality is needed to explore your files then it stays. If Media Player does not need to be installed then it goes. That I agree with, I think as a consumer I should be able to choose what is installed or removed, if that will end this, then I say go for it. But I do not see the State only wanting that provision. Although you believe that it is MS's fault that there is no competition for certain parts of the OS, I say it is not, since the competition could use the same tactics MS uses or create a better product to get more market share. Why is MS to blame for the lack of balls in the OEM's or in the competition. There was competition and MS surpased them, some say because of the bullying, but also you have to add that the products just weren't good enough or marketed properly to sell. Now if we are talking just browsers here, then Netscape fell behind or could not keep up. The others I really don't know about there hard times, as I do not really have the time to look into it all. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 175 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:25:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
