| 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 Sues Microsoft for 'Destruction' of Business | |
|
||
| Time: 01:00 EST/06:00 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Be Inc. , the failed maker of a computer operating system hailed by some as an elegant rival to Microsoft Corp.'s dominant Windows platform, said on Tuesday it is suing the software giant for allegedly destroying its business through anti-competitive practices. Be, which sold most of its assets last year to handheld computer maker Palm Inc. , said in a filing in federal court in San Francisco that Microsoft struck deals with PC makers barring them from installing more than one operating system on computers they sold. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:24:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 2/20/2002 10:00:39 AM |
|
Although I despise some of Microsoft's Business practices (along with some other companies), I'm not particularly anti-MS except where it's appropriate.
However, from what I have been able to gather from news stories, reports of OEM's, etc... there certainly HAVE been agreements forced upon OEM's by Microsoft that could very well harm competing OS companies such as BE. One paragraph in this story I found particulary interesting: "This sort of litigation is not in the interests of consumers, nor is it good for the industry," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said, adding that Microsoft would "respond accordingly" in court once it had reviewed the suit. " I'm sorry, but as of late it has become apparant to me that Microsot isn't entirely interested in the what's good for Consumers OR the Industry. Microsoft has shown that it is all about what's in the best interests of Microsoft, and sometimes Consumers and the Industry get in the way. This is not an Anti-Microsoft post. It it is simply what I have been able to put together from the information available. TL |
| #2 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 2/20/2002 10:02:46 AM |
|
#2,
It is VERY apparant that you never used the BeOS in any meaningful way. The BeOS, at it's core, is probably the most technologically advanced OS in existance. The Interace, IMHO, needed a great deal of improvement, but the underpinnings were up-to-date and first-class in every way. Personally, I wouldn't use it because I didn't like the interface, but for critical work, especially on multi-processor machines, Only MacOS X could hold a candle to it. TL |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/20/2002 10:33:48 AM |
|
TechLarry - So tell me. Why isn't BeOS your primary desktop OS today?
Be's argument is that Microsoft prevented them from being able to reach the consumers with their OS. If only they had been able to show people how technologically advanced their OS was, the consumers would flock to it! But yet, you appear to claim that like myself you had purchased BeOS and tried it out at home. So Be's argument against Microsoft doesn't apply to you or I. So there must be a reason why you are not using this OS which was so technologically advanced that it made MS Windows look silly. What is that reason? Microsoft stormtroopers brook into your house at night and stole the CDs? What? I'll bet you a donut your reason was the same as mine. Hardware and software incompatibilities. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/20/2002 10:47:20 AM |
|
#15 - In addition to those comments, the one group of people who might have been interested in BeOS were those presently using Linux. Yet every time BeOS was brought up on Linux biased forums such as slashdot it was ridiculed. Instead of looking into it, the Linux users routinely wined about it costing money.
Be failed, there's no denying that. But Microsoft had nothing to do with it's failure. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/20/2002 2:23:24 PM |
|
Linux isn't popular because OEMs don't preinstall it, but when OEMs preinstall it nobody will buy it because it isn't popular.
The same was true of Be. And chuck101 is correct in that BeOS never got out of Beta stage. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/20/2002 3:13:14 PM |
| stu, have you read any of the decisions; monopolies have been defined with as little as 70% of marketshare. Apple didn't testify that they were harmed; there testimony was used to show that Netscape was harmed by MS's strongarming and exclusive contracting. Collusion? You mean between Ashcroft's DOJ and MS, right? |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/20/2002 5:04:38 PM |
| Let's see, I defer to decisions ruled unanimously by an Appeals Court that has supported MS 9 times out of 10 because I figure they know the law better than me and you; a decision that the Supreme Court chose to not hear before their court. I try to make arguments based on law and logic. If you don't believe in Antitrust law, then say that, say that we should have an entirely free capitalist market, don't say MS is innocent... hell, move to China--they've got the perfect economic system for you, where the large privatized companies can use all their power as they see fit, have huge political sway, and are largely the single providers of their product. If you want markets ruled by individuals, even though you live in a country which doesn't accept individual rule, well, learn to live with that paradox and try to rationalize it. Someone, in their Tunney comments, quoted Sherman himself who said, when the law passed, something like: as we choose to live in a country which will not accept princes and kings who rule them through government, so it is appropriate that we not allow a private company to be anointed a king and rule over products and markets which have become a necessity to our way of life. Sherman said it a bit more elegantly. Disagree if you like, but don't call my arguments crap when all you do is swear and bitch me out. I see you didn't refute the "argument" that Apple's testimony wasn't use to demonstrate harm to Apple, but was used to show MS's practices of eliminating Netscape from the marketplace. I also see you have no argument for the misconception that a monopoly has to be absolute; that some monopolies have been declared with less marketshare than MS would have had if they included Apple. So keep getting all huffy-n-puffy and calling a Judge, who hasn't been involved with the case for a year, names if it makes you happy. Enjoy. |
| #8 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 2/20/2002 9:24:43 PM |
|
Sodablue,
I was, as a matter of fact, a registered Be Developer, not just a user. Why don't I use Be? Well, that's a stupid question that doesn't even merit an answer, but I will anyway... Because Be could not get it into enough hands for there to be any real applications developed for it. What little distribution they did get, they had to GIVE away. OEM's wouldn't touch it because of thier agreements with Microsoft. And therin lies the point of the whole story. I'm not saying BeOS would have even survived if given even half a chance. I'm saying it never even really got that HALF a chance. TL |
| #9 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 2/20/2002 9:27:14 PM |
|
Stubear,
You are absolutely INCORRECT. The MacOS was using dual-processors LONG before MacOS X came into the picture. Yes, it was limited to applications written specifically to use it, but it DID support dual-processors. And the programs that did use it (Photoshop, for one), were fast as hell. TL |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/20/2002 9:40:59 PM |
|
Aww, no reply for me, stuey? Why are you harping on Larry when he specifically mentioned OS X as the only comparison to BeOS, anyway, not--remember a year or two ago when MacOS 9 was out and Apple began shipping dual-proc machines... that compared well with BeOS.
I'm wondering what you meant by, "Was this somehow Microsoft's fault? Yes, but not due to illegal practices." Are you saying that MS is responsible for the destruction of some of these companies but that destroying them isn't illegal? Just curious. |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/20/2002 9:47:44 PM |
|
If I remember correctly (from my Mac days) there were extensions that one could use to have any application take limited advantage of dual CPUs. Anyway...
Stu - I agree with many of your comments, but resorting to name calling doesn't help your arguments. Just a friendly suggestion. We could argue economics all day long. I've read everything from Nader to Friedman, and I can't say that I've made up my mind quite yet. I see a lot of merit in the argument for a free market system, but I also see a lot of problems that are seemingly compounded by that free market. I think, however, that if things like limited liability were completely removed from the equation (as in, everybody from the CEO to the stockholders could be held civilly responsible for the company's actions), we would have a system much less vulnerable to abuse. At any rate, Microsoft's case highlights exactly what's bad about regulating markets. Few if any consumers feel they were hurt by Microsoft, yet the case was pushed forward by blood thirsty competitors that were unable to compete directly in the markets. The battle cry was "what about the consumers?", when it should have been "what about my failing company?". Microsoft's exclusionary contracts no more killed Be than Microsoft's JVM killed Java on the desktop. Be had many great innovations (I used it on one machine or another for almost two years), but the software support was horrible. And as somebody else mentioned, the developer support waned considerably after Be left the OS market for the IA market. Consumers don't care that their OS has a journaling file system, they care that it has the programs they want to run. Be didn't. I agree that Microsoft made it hard for Be with exclusionary contracts, but Microsoft didn't *force* anybody to do anything. The OEM's chose to stick with Microsoft because it was the best financial choice. This happens CONSTANTLY in every area of the market. The competitor that can get the product out at the lowest price wins. Big surprise. By the way, simply because previous courts have found something illegal, legal, or what have you, doesn't make it correct. The Supreme Court both upheld slavery and segregation, which I think we can all agree is not exactly a good decision. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/20/2002 10:17:56 PM |
|
Hey, I agree with the assertion that the law isn't always right, but I also believe that we have some of the best laws. And that if you want to convince someone of something, it should be on legal and logical grounds.
Those bad decisions you mention were overturned using the law and logic, not assinine crap like, "Me loves my microsoft, I make an easy buck off their products, their stock does well, woohah, let's kick some ass and no one can or should stop us! Yeehaw!" Take for example, the fool who earlier stated, "why do people sue MS? Don't they know MS is going to come after them, punish them, and kill them." Exactly--in fact, that's the reason people stayed quiet for ten years, and now they are coming out of the woodwork--too bad for MS. People keep talking about the competitors whining, but at the same time, amongst the 47 published comments there is not a single one from someone in the industry or related that supports MS. Why isn't Intel, Dell, Compaq, HP, companies like Goldmine or others coming out to support MS? Instead support comes from 2 trade groups funded by MS, some Washington PAC, the Randists/Fascists (who actually argue that no company can ever be a monopoly, only the gov't--I'm sure the Court will appreciate the validity of that argument), and an individual, who like stu rails against matters of fact that had been established 4 years ago and haven't been overturned, and who also says that MS's monopoly is completely irrelevent. Out of 47, only 5 supporters, and not one of them from the industry. Basically, if you disagree with the legality and logic of the case, then you have to support an ideology quite like the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism, that a company cannot do anything wrong to another company, that they should in fact be encouraged and rewarded for it, which I personally view as ridiculous and dangerous--many may disagree, but I don't think there's much separating the Randist from the Scientologists when it comes to idiocy. |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/21/2002 5:26:31 AM |
|
Diaphanein, excellent analysis.
#35 (Sodajerk) - Ok, so now you're claiming that Microsoft has physically threatened people? Whose logic is impaired here? Ayn Rand's ideology isn't just a model for Libertarian's, it's also the ideology most widely adopted by Objectivists. In fact, Objectivism was defined and coined by Ayn Rand! Objectivism is centered on the idea that one should believe in nothing based on faith, but instead should use logic and reason to come to all conclusions. If new evidence contradicts accepted norms, the norms must be reconsidered. This is very similar to... brace yourself... science. How ironic that you should accuse a "Randist" of also being a "Fascist". They couldn't be more different. I encourage you to actually read Objectivist literature and learn about what it really is before you throw these idiotic statements out. You are free, of course, to disagree with their conclusions, but to suggest they are baseless or without merit is ignoring such a wealth of evidence and reason that it only makes you look foolish. I too have many questions about some of the consequences of an Objectivist society, but far fewer than I had before I read Rand and others who have published on this topic. I'm not going to bother to address specifically why Objectivists view the government as the only possibly monopoly (HINT: they don't. They say that the only legal entity in our society that can force anybody to do anything is the government, which is 100% true), since there are many books written on the subject. Read one, or more. I suggest starting with Atlas Shrugged. If anything, you will get a kick out of it. "...but I don't think there's much separating the Randist from the Scientologists when it comes to idiocy." What? An interesting analogy. So something that has a great deal of supporting evidence can be compared with something completely fictional in every possible way? Something that's based in logic and reason can be compared with something that's based in its polar opposite: blind faith? Give me a break. Oh, and speaking of logical fallacies, those "47" comments you love to cite are neither a random, nor statistically significant sample. Basing any kind of conclusions from that (aside from determining who likes to bash MS, and has the time to write a letter doing so), is simply silly. The purpose of those comments was not to gather information on the majority opinion, but to gather opinions in general. It serves as a valuable tool to see what people who care are thinking. This is just a guess, but I'm willing to bet that 95%+ of the American public didn't even know about the comment period. I'm also willing to bet that if they did, 90% of them wouldn't have cared. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2002 1:31:44 PM |
|
RMD, where did I ever say MS is physically threatening actual people. You are quick to judge what I have or have not read, but you don't seeem to understand the metaphor "kill them." Oh well.
I have read both of Rand's major novels--her personal philosphy is rather abhorrent; is it the basis for Objectivism (in fact it is objectivism, but that's a nice whitewashed term) and libertarianism, but it could also be called Social Darwinism--a philosophy that arose as soon as Darwin developed his theory to rationalize class structures, colonialism, and basically the poor condition of society at the time. Social Darwinism has properly been repudiated but lives on in such philosophies. Is Randism entirely Fascism, no, of course not, because individuality is raised above the state. But does Rand believe in the entitlement of the intellectuals and skilled to exploit and control their power over those who do not? Yes. Does she feel that individuals can harness the masses to achieve the goals of the individual? Yes, she does. It is, in fact, fascism without the state and duce--each of us are the duce in her fascism. As for my analogy to scientology, it is in respect to the insularity and defensiveness of a group who's views, if properly elucidated, would be repulsed by the vast majority of the people, and yet because of wealth and social status they continue to espouse a theory and lifestyle that is self-motivated and only perpetuated by the group's wealth and status. I know that in some circles people like to think of Rand as a brilliant philosopher and a great literary writer, but these circles are actually outside of philosphy and literary circles. In most philosophy circles, her logic is considered highly flawed and actually the espousal of a personal ideology as much as a philosophy--in literary circles, she is regarded even worse... basically she produced modern novels ripe for the hungry, greedy Americans that aren't that literarily interesting and which are not philosophy but ideology. But anyway... As for the 47 comments being random? Who would want random comments? I'm sure if they were random all 47 of the 40,000 would be ridiculously stupid. They were selected as representative, and I don't care about the people who didn't know about it--they obviously couldn't have contributed much. What I care about is the complete lack of a document from an independent MS developer, or a large OEM supporting MS, or a large software developer supporting MS, or a large anything (besides trade group funded by MS or a PAC) that does business with MS and supports this. Do you really think that if these were written, they wouldn't be included in the 47? No, I think it's safe to say that Dell, Intel, anyone like this did not write comments supporting the deal because they don't. Especially considering, now, that Dell and HP are joining Sony in saying that the contract changes occuring now to reflect the PFJ is already hurting them and beenfiting MS. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/21/2002 2:32:48 PM |
|
It's kind of bizarre watching sodajerk pretend to argue that Rand's philosophy is flawed and then follow it up with a paragraph which clearly indicates he doesn't understand even the most basic principles of statistics.
|
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2002 3:09:17 PM |
| What am I missing statistically--considering the court said that 30,000 comments were irrelevent or duplications, and that 40,000 were submitted--you think that if 47 of them were selected randomly, they would be of value and represent the people at large? Whatever! I prefer to have the documents of quality and unique ideas pulled out from the dross. |
| #17 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/21/2002 3:18:16 PM |
|
#41 - Social Darwinism!? Wow... considering she directly addresses that in several of her books, it seems clear you have not read her works.
In addition, Objectivism itself does to lead to any conclusions; it is only a process by which people can come to those conclusions. Just as science doesn't say gravity is an inherent part of it, Objectivism doesn't say Capitalism is an inherent part of it. At any rate: "RMD, where did I ever say MS is physically threatening actual people." Well, how about this: "Take for example, the fool who earlier stated, "why do people sue MS? Don't they know MS is going to come after them, punish them, and kill them." Exactly--in fact, that's the reason people stayed quiet for ten years, and now they are coming out of the woodwork--too bad for MS." Hmm... then what the hell were you saying? "that's the reason..." Um, ok. "...a group whose views, if properly elucidated, would be repulsed by the vast majority of the people" Really? Libertarians are the 3rd largest party in the United States. They are a larger party than the Greens. Notice that Nader was one of the principal contributors to those comments you love so much? "...but these circles are actually outside of philosophy and literary circles" Actually, Rand is discussed often in most philosophy and literary circles. She was an important author and philosopher. "...her logic is considered highly flawed and actually the espousal of a personal ideology as much as a philosophy." Friedman is considered one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, and his logic closely follows Rand's. In addition, would you care to explain why her logic is flawed, and exactly who considers it flawed? And peer reviewed journals to read? You act as if the verdict on Objectivism has already been passed; when in-fact you are the only one who has passed it. I think Objectivism is pretty hard to argue with. Libertarianism is easier to argue with, especially on environmental issues, but it's far from discounted. |
| #18 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/21/2002 3:20:35 PM |
|
No, Sodajerk, what we are saying is that you suggest that the comments show some sort of concensus among consumers, who are the only people anti-trust trials should be concerned with.
No such concensus could possibly be signaled by a non-random sample of 47. We already all know what Microsoft's competitors want done with them. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2002 4:13:42 PM |
|
I'm not, nor did I, suggest that the comments show consensus; I said that the 47 selected were representative of the views which are not duplicated or are not irrelevent. When I said representative, I mean that of the 1 out of 4 that supported MS only 1 out of 9 are relevent. If there were significant supporters of MS with significant arguments, they would be available. So where are they? (A point I've made about 10 times now without a reply) I also mean that this is of those submitted, not the public at large. Why you would think that I meant that these comments represent a public consensus beats me.
Our antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers not competitors but this does not mean that public, non-commercial citizens with an opinion are the only relevent commentators. It does mean that the standards for addressing whether actions are monopolistic are if they are anticompetitive w/o jusification, which is considered a harm to a consumer. It doesn't mean competition has no say in it; in fact, they have a large say in the matter--a substantial criteria for evaluating the proposal is if it restores competition or if it causes further harm to competitors. Who can asnwer this question then the competitors? You'll have to wait for my comments on Rand, I'm a bit busy at work today. Bye. |
| #20 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/21/2002 10:25:42 PM |
|
#46 - According to anti-trust law, the only reason for a government forcefully "restore competition" is to protect consumers from the harm the monopolist has been doing.
If consumers don't feel they are being hurt, what possible reason would you have to ask competitors to contribute in the government's remedy? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:24:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
