| 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 to reveal Windows code | |
|
||
| Time: 12:21 EST/17:21 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft will reveal hundreds of pieces of proprietary computer code from its monopoly Windows operating system in the next several weeks to comply with an antitrust settlement it signed with the U.S. Justice Department last year, the company said on Monday. The software giant said the disclosures are part of its first steps to comply with the settlement that must still be approved by a federal judge and remains opposed by nine state attorneys general seeking stiffer sanctions. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 363 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 7:15:06 PM |
| soda, I know you are well aware of the fact that actions which are deemed monopolistic and factoring into monopoly maintenance can be perfectly legal if not under the circumstances of having a monopoly so please, please don't think you've trumped any argument with some piss poor constitutional twaddle. You haven't. |
| #27 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 7:37:24 PM |
|
MS has no monopoly in the server market, yet companies like Sun and Novell seek to punish MS in this market as well. You can't deny that many or the claims in this case made by the competition are simply self-serving. No offense taken, SJ, but this is hypocrisy. The claim of monopoly can only go so far. When MS continues to win on implementation and innovation even when using mostly open technologies, what excuse are these companies going to use then. Where MS recognizes its faults, many of their competitors simply go on thinking, "I know we're better than that MS crap,"and continue making the same product while MS surpasses them.
What's done in this case is done, except for the final ruling. What I want to know is if some of these same companies will be complaining in the years to come even if there is nothing worth complaining about. What will be the next explaination for their failings -- MS' licensing cost is too high, so they still couldn't use the tech to make better products which is why they're still behind. MS is just too easy a target. These other companies wouldn't be hurting as much if they took a page from MS and diversified more. It would also help if they didn't bash every other company out there (even their partners). Wake me when AOL buys Sun :-) |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 7:47:01 PM |
|
It's not hypocrisy, enforcer, you are just clinging to ideas, like RMD's objectivist baloney, that monopolies don't exist--or rather that consumer choice isn't affected by market domination, or that competitors aren't unduly disadvantaged when another company has acquired monopoly power. That's fine, but it's wrong--it's leaves a huge vacuum in American financial systems that even the hard left or right wouldn't propose. And you are getting too far ahead of yourself--sodablue wouldn't appreciate your conspiracy theories that AOL is going to be whining in ten years. Right, soda, that's unfair and wrong? We can't decry something that hasn't happened yet!? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 19:48. |
| #29 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 8:13:25 PM |
|
OK, but a lot of the complaints of the states, er competitors, were centered around sighting things that have yet to occur as fact.
Many of the companies involved in this case held monopoly positions in their respective markets until MS came in and took their marketshare. How can MS succeed when other companies hold a monopoly, yet it's so hard for the other companies to succeed en masse against MS, even when it doesn't envolve the desktop? I blame complacency and gross underestimation of their opponent (which has been documented). The stories for each company are highly similar. I may sound like, "Waaa, waaa, etc.," but, at the risk of sounding even more juvenile, Netscape started it (or was it Sun). :-) This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 20:17. |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 8:23:26 PM |
|
Besides Netscape (which didn't even have competitors to abuse) who else has held a monopoly?
For that matter which complaint was centered around something that hadn't occurred? Complaint, as in violations of the law. Remedies are supposed to be forward-looking and even MS's take on remedies was forward-looking. If you are thinking of forward looking statements in the remedy proposals, then it's not applicable. |
| #31 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/5/2002 9:04:00 PM |
|
soda, I had hoped that you would post a reply--I'm confident that you do understand that your #36 post is completely refuted by antitrust law alone, but it's important to point out something.
The Bill of Rights offer no protections for corporations. In fact, as far as I'm aware of, there is not a single article or footnote in the whole Constitution that grants rights to corporations. There are restrictions, there are areas in which certain bodies are granted legislative control over an area of commerce, but by no means, does our constitution imbue corporate entities with rights and privileges. Certainly, not the 14th Amendment. As I said, this isn't relevant to refuting your point, but I think that needs clarified. I don't like people disparaging or perverting the Constitution, and I would imagine you don't either. The idea that Microsoft has somehow been instilled with the right of equal protection is in fact disparaging to that right granted to American citizens, individuals. For your benefit: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, August 05, 2002 at 21:11. |
| #32 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/5/2002 9:21:35 PM |
|
Netscape didn't have competitors to abuse? That's news to me. There were plenty of other browsers around at that time which were free to use (IE wasn't the first free browser), but browsing the web without Netscape could be hard at times, especially when some people locked their sites to Netscape's browser (though many times there was no valid reason to do so unless the site used frames).
How about Palm? They basically had a monopoly on PDA OSes, and still share a majority of the market. Their share has been eroding for the past few years because they, like Netscape, underestimated MS. Even though WordPerfect (now Corel) hasn't been envolved heavily in the suit, WP used to have a virtual monopoly on PC wordprocessors, yet their failure to move to Windows helped MS overtake them, market gained fair and square. Now MS has been compelled to open its file formats even though other wordprocessors (and other software in general) have had proprietary formats for years. I'm not saying this wouldn't possibly benefit consumers, just that MS didn't have the same luxury when they were trying to compete. Some of the forward-looking statements involved stripping MS of its tech assets in markets where it hadn't used any methods to gain marketshare other than offer good competition. |
| #33 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/5/2002 10:33:30 PM |
|
jerky boy - Sorry, couldn't post a repy since I was out having dinner with a friend.
Microsoft is as protected under equal protection as any other person or entity in the US. The purpose of anti-trust law is quite clear in that it seeks to prohibit a company illegally maintaining or extending their monopoly. While some actions that may be used in that regard are otherwise legal, the point is that the punishment/remedy must seek to address those particular actions. Thus far many of your recommendations do not address the specific nature of the case brought against Microsoft, but rather over extend themselves into other areas which were not discussed during the trial. The point being, you cannot hide behind the excuse of "Microsoft no longer has any rights because they have a monopoly", because that is factually incorrect and easily disputed under our laws. I just grow very wearisome of your continued use of this whining response anytime and everytime someone points out how your proposals do not serve the overall purpose. |
| #34 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/5/2002 10:40:57 PM |
|
n4cer - "Some of the forward-looking statements involved stripping MS of its tech assets in markets where it hadn't used any methods to gain marketshare other than offer good competition. "
Exactly. Essentially the only reasonable response to the Microsoft trial is the DOJ settlement, along with some oversite especially with regards to partnerships, buyouts, exclusive agreements and so forth. I've found no precedent for stripping a company of it's property. There are cases of splitting the company into multiple parts(Standard), as well as cases of disallowing further purchases of major assets(ALCOA), and oversite(IBM). But that's it. One of the problems here is the anti-MS contingent is so full of hatred, angst, bitterness and jealousy that they think the most appropriate remedy is to bankrupt Microsoft. That was never the purpose of anti-trust law. Our govt has a goal of promoting success in corporate institutions, and the point of Anti-trust is not to punish success but rather place boundaries around a company that has gotten too large for the particular market. Always keep in mind that Standard Oil had a monopoly in kerosene, a market which is virtually non-existent today. |
| #35 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/6/2002 10:44:09 AM |
|
RANT - Your misinterpretation of the law is curious.
|
| #36 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/6/2002 1:18:12 PM |
|
RANT - Go look up the Santa Clara decision of 1886.
Oh, and the rights detailed in the Constitution were granted by men, not God. The only mention of the natural rights inherent from a Creator is in the Declaration. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 at 13:19. |
| #37 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/6/2002 1:34:29 PM |
|
Yeah, sorry, soda, and Rant, yes, the Supreme Court has extended all of the Bill of Rights and personal rights granted by other amendments to corporations. I'm still confused about how you think their equal protection rights have been violated though.
Also, there are in fact numerous antitrust cases where the penalty was exactly divestiture or disgorgement. http://www.vprada.com/antitrust/summaries/0201.004.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1998/199814/199814abs.html It is inaccurate to state that the only appropriate remedy is to right the actions that Microsoft is found to have committed, however. Whether under Article 1 or 2 (or 3 or 4 for that matter), the guidelines for a monopoly remedy point to ending the monopoly, returning competition to the market, divesting the monopoly of the fruits of their actions, and preventing further attempts to monopolize... It never suggests that even if the company became a monopoly organically that that monopoly should continue to exist as long as they don't do what they once did. The point being that companies won't be penalized for becoming a monopoly naturally, but that a monopoly is considered pernicious by our government and economic system--if they prove capable of exerting the powers of a monopoly, that monopoly should be broken. |
| #38 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 8/6/2002 5:12:30 PM |
| SodaJerk, yes MS should have been broken up, but I am thinking that some economists looked at what would happen if such an event were to occur. If they were split then there would most likely be two, the example being the Baby Bells, now they are all a Monopoly in there own markets, even though anyone else can enter, who has the money. Anyway as for MS, I still think giving out code is the wrong way to penalize. That will not only help Competetion but in the long run it will destroy MS, now the API's will most likely not, but any other code most likely will. I can think of no other Monopoly where the company lost was what theres. Even AT&T when broken up and formed the Baby Bells, those little bells still own all of the equipment and lines, no one else has them and if you want to use them you have to pay. |
| #39 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 8/6/2002 5:14:23 PM |
| SodaJerk, yes MS should have been broken up, but I am thinking that some economists looked at what would happen if such an event were to occur. If they were split then there would most likely be two, the example being the Baby Bells, now they are all a Monopoly in there own markets, even though anyone else can enter, who has the money. Anyway as for MS, I still think giving out code is the wrong way to penalize. That will not only help Competetion but in the long run it will destroy MS, now the API's will most likely not, but any other code most likely will. I can think of no other Monopoly where the company lost was what theres. Even AT&T when broken up and formed the Baby Bells, those little bells still own all of the equipment and lines, no one else has them and if you want to use them you have to pay. |
| #40 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 8/6/2002 6:44:59 PM |
|
mctwin, I have been an advocate for such a remedy--the idea being that those independent units would be restricted from some joint ventures and they would be incensed to develop for other systems. Imagine an internet unit that developed .Net for Windows, Linux, MacOS, for example. Or an apps division that ported Office, Access, and other apps to whatever system was viable, etc...
At the same time, my comments above weren't meant to suggest breaking up the company, based on the context of the case as it stands; I was referring to breaking up the monopoly position--i.e. moving to a ecosystem where the alternatives are more viable and Microsoft has less weight in the markets it does have dominance over. I still do not understand why people suggest that MS would not be able to continue being competitive or producing products if it forked its code--auctioning code to other systems developers... From that point on, they would have greater incentive to compete with the similar product. Not only that but they would be motivated to enhance compatibility between apps across systems. I don't think a single economist could say MS has greater motivation to enhance their products with little competition than if they had a couple of strong competitors. This excuse basically tells me Microsoft can't compete without owning the market. (I'm not saying that is the case, or rather always the case, but that's what that claims sounds like.) Follow the links I posted above: in recent years (80s and 90s) banks have been required to divest branch offices to competitors. In other cases, disgorgement has been used--selling off assets and our taking cash away from them. By the way, what other monopoly case do you know of where the monopolies assets were all IP? Not many, huh? Hence, the need for a unique remedy. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 at 18:47. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 363 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
