| 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 |
 |
Be: Microsoft Violated Antitrust Law | |
|
||
| Time: 16:45 EST/21:45 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Software company Be Inc. BEOS.O said on Tuesday it has filed suit against Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O, alleging that Microsoft used anti-competitive business practices to harm's Be's business operations. Menlo Park, California-based Be, most of which was acquired last year by handheld personal digital assistant maker Palm Inc. PALM.O, said Microsoft used "a series of illegal exclusionary and anti-competitive acts" to keep Be's operating system off of personal computers. Elements of the Be OS are expected to be included in Palm's next operating system, Palm OS 5. The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:08:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 5:27:29 PM |
|
For those whiners, this is perfectly legitimate... probably even once again... a "slam dunk." For those keeping count:
1. DOJ vs. MS found guilty, upheld on appeal by unanimous decision of the Appeals Court en banc; settlement proposal likely to be overturned in coming weeks unless amended non-settling states are entering remedy phase with far stronger suggested penalties 2. EU vs. MS (still pending addressing 2 issues: server compatibility to thwart other products; tying media products to server & desktop products) potential penalty: 10% of annual revenue 3. many private consumer class actions mostly consolidated; recent settlement proposal rejected because it benefited MS estimated value of the cases: 2-12 billion dollars 4. Netscape vs. MS private antitrust claim asking for structural relief and treble damages 5. Be vs. MS private antitrust claim presumable similar to Netscape's requests Did I miss anything? I predicted Be would be next so does anyone have any guesses who'll be next? |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2002 5:34:35 PM |
|
Ah ha! Now we figured out why Palm bought Be.
I wondered, because they bought Be, then immediately sold the assets, laid off the staff, and buried the code they had created in the filing cabinet. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 5:53:31 PM |
|
soda, this was known all along; when Be sold its assets to Palm, the only thing they retained were the rights to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations. It was just a matter of time. As for selling off the Be assets, I think you're a little confused. The assets they sold were desks, filing cabinets, and old BeBoxes--nothing intellectual. Some of the code has already made it into the soon to be released PalmOS 5.0, and the bulk of the goodies will come after Palm has transitioned from Motochips to ARM procs.
#5, thanks, but I was looking for antitrust related stuff--if I included all past suits, including settlements, well, I'd still be on A, for that matter, I'd still be on Apple. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 6:02:29 PM |
| brilliant argument, #7! I take everything I said back; you should get on the phone to all these companies and gov'ts and tell them just that. I'm sure they'll see the light then too. |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/19/2002 6:06:24 PM |
|
Anybody notice that all the people suing Microsoft for hurting consumers are their competitors?
Gee... |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/19/2002 7:12:40 PM |
|
sodajerk - So out of curiousity, do you want to buy my copy of BeOS 3 and 4?
Ohwell, didn't think so. Doubt you have even looked at BeOS. For the record, Be was an interesting experiment but it was never really a serious competitor to anything. It lacked hardware support, software support and so on. The Linux zealots constantly berated it for not being free and open source, as well which certainly didn't help. What probably really hurt Be the most was that they came from the Mac arena, and at one point there was even talk of Be being the basis for the Mac next gen OS(eventually what became OS X), but Jobs came back to Apple and snubbed Be. To further aggravate Be, Apple refused to release information on the G4 processor based systems. This meant they couldn't target the lucrative "Be Different" market of users who might have been interested in a robust multitasking multimedia OS, and they had to instead take on Microsoft head to head in the PC market with it's thousands of hardware configurations. So while BeOS was cool, it never really stood a chance. Microsoft never did anything which actively hurt them except to exist and have a successful product, thus raising consumer expectations. And that's what will be the ultimate result of this me-too lawsuit. :( It's sad. Palm hasn't done any innovation since 1997 when they first released their PDA, but instead of coming to that realization you can see that they have already targetted their scapegoat. And to think at one point they had some 90+% of the PDA market. Now they're down to less than 50%, but most of their marketshare has been eaten by Handspring... a monster they created. Hmm, this is starting to sound like Netscape all over again. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2002 7:30:19 PM |
|
Soda, as I said, Be retained the rights to sue MS; it has nothing to do with Palm. Just like Netscape's suit having nothing substantive, and evidentiary to do with AOL.
No, I don't want your copy of BeOS 3, it doesn't run on the PowerPC. I did run it then, when it used to run on Apple's architecture. Good system, and I've stayed informed as to what it was about. You use a lot of old Be history and forget the last 4 years when they were exclusively an x86 system. You do know they had distribution deals with Hitachi and Compaq, but that these business deals were nixed--not because it was an inferior product or a poorly run business, but because MS forbid them from doing so? Yet another LAME attempt to revise history. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 19:39. |
| #8 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 2/19/2002 10:25:28 PM |
|
#15, as Sodajerk said, MS told Compaq that they were not allowed to ship PC's with BeOS on it (this was back in Compaq was the #1 computer manufacturer).
This is why MS has to have uniform licensing agreements with all OEM's. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/20/2002 12:48:21 AM |
|
"BeOS 3, it doesn't run on the PowerPC"
Actually yes it does. It says right on the front of the box 'Includes Intel and PowerPC versions'. "not because it was an inferior product or a poorly run business, but because MS forbid them from doing so? " Well actually BeOS was an inferior product, it had very limited hardware support, not much software and so on. I also highly doubt any claims that MS forbid Compaq from installing BeOS on a computer. Are you sure that what MS didn't say was that they couldn't install BeOS on a computer along with Windows? Then one has to wonder, did the consumer ask for BeOS? I rather doubt it, everybody I spoke with and described it to said "Yeah, so, why do I want this?" Were consumers harmed because Be was unable to force something on them? "Yet another LAME attempt to revise history." It's odd that you say this every time you get caught not knowing what you were talking about. |
| #10 By 3653 (68.53.80.99) at 2/20/2002 1:05:59 AM |
|
They should sue Apple instead. Isn't that the market Be was "targeted" on? The truth is that Be was a company with some cool technology but not a business bone in their whole body.
The best company (Microsoft) won in the marketplace... and the best company (Microsoft) will win in the courtroom. Am I the only one tired of seeing American companies whining to the courtroom instead of building a better product (and before you start with me... remember a "product" is MORE than just technology... it also includes an implementable business plan). |
| #11 By 3653 (68.53.80.99) at 2/20/2002 12:35:53 PM |
| Thats what happens when you have a communist dressed in capatalist clothing... in the US White House for 8 years. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:08:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
