| 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: Sanctions could confuse users | |
|
||
| Time: 09:40 EST/14:40 GMT | News Source: USA Today | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft could still use its Windows monopoly to promote its software over rivals' under a proposed settlement of the company's antitrust case, a government prosecutor suggested in court Thursday. Microsoft's Chris Jones, overseer of the Windows operating system, had testified that restrictions his firm could continue to place on PC makers under the settlement are aimed at making computers ''simple and easy.'' Tougher sanctions sought by nine states in the current trial would confuse consumers, he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:29:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (208.175.219.6) at 4/26/2002 11:36:52 AM |
| Its all about money. Those F'ing lawyers see that pile of cash and see a new pool in the back yard. |
| #2 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/26/2002 12:24:47 PM |
|
#5 Its not that they wouldn't be able to do it. Its that if they had to do it... they would have to do it in 6 months or pull the product off the shelves as well as do it under the huge possiblity that they would be getting paid small fractions of what they do today to spend all the extra time coding and testing the new versions (hundreds if not more).
Read this release from MS that outlines Bill Gates' testimony: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/mswitness/2002/billgates/billgates.asp or at least read from paragraph 231 on. The issue is not whether or not they can do it... its whether or not it is economically feasible to do it for the company. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 2:17:46 PM |
|
Why couldn't they do it in 6 months? And Gates skips right over the part about next major release. Their next release, which was supposedly just an interim release, isn't scheduled for (at best) 9 months (MS denies InfoWorld's report and say beginning of 2003) and at worst 16+ months (InfoWorld's claim)...
This "interim" build is "supposedly" delivering technologies that have been a holy grail for OSes for the past 20 years... MS doesn't have to deliver this "vision" which may or may not work, which may or may not be what the consumers want... But they DO need to remedy what Gates concedes was found to be illegal and is not bar by the RPFJ. These changes should be incorporated into their next release and does not require the removal from market of existing products. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/26/2002 2:33:44 PM |
|
#11 - Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork... Know who they are? Who retained them as counsel for this trial? How many of the state AG's are republican? How many have Republican governors? Go look it up. This bloody mess is bi-partisan.
Furthermore, what Republicans say and what they do are entirely seperate things. They say what they say to get elected. They do what they do to stay in power. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/26/2002 2:35:56 PM |
|
sodajerk - Uhh, you have confused .Net Server with Longhorn. This isn't an interim build, this is the version of the server product to align with XP. Infoworld was claiming late 2003, and MS said it's still on track for early 2003.
Why do you keep doing crap like this? Facts aren't just something that you convenient make up to build an argument. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 2:47:33 PM |
|
Crap, soda--the reality is even worse:
"Before this most recent Win.NET Server delay, Microsoft said that the Longhorn products--desktop and server--would ship by late 2004." Okay, so I did confuse .Net Server a little bit with longhorn because both of these articles are talking about .Net Servers affect on Longhorn. Lorghorn was supposed to be an interim build, and if it's .Net server that comes out at best in Jan, 2003, my point still holds. Especially since .Net server doesn't have a consumer component (or as you say, it is already released--XP), then I don't think this even constitutes the next major release of Windows. SO MS is saying the next major release isn't until late 2004. That gives them , what?, 28-32 months to incorporate these changes even though they can't do them, but they can rebuild Windows to be an OO-data store and modify all their apps as well to use this new system, and make everyhting service-oriented! Right! I see how my slight bit of confusion means I don't have an argument. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/26/2002 3:45:22 PM |
|
sodajerk - The next release of Longhorn is now being discussed as end of 2003. Sure. But if they went down this route of incorporating modularity of XP Embedded that would probably push development off another 12-24 months so now we're talking probably 2005 for a release.
So Microsoft would have to take Windows XP off the market for the next 3 years. While I'm sure you don't care about the hit MS would take to it's revenue as a result, the consumers certainly wouldn't benefit because they wouldn't be able to purchase new computers with Windows. The DOJ/MS settlement makes far more sense, because it could be implemented tomorrow with little to no effort. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 4/26/2002 4:44:12 PM |
|
They delays are baloney:
"Microsoft and Others: Longhorn Isn't Delayed Several people in and close to Microsoft wrote to tell me that the Windows .NET Server release dates that InfoWorld recently reported are incorrect. According to my sources, Microsoft is on track to ship the first release candidate (RC) build of Win.NET Server by the end of June; the release to manufacturing (RTM) date is set for the end of October. Microsoft still plans to ship Win.NET Server to customers in early 2003, however." From: http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=24992 |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:03:05 PM |
|
RMD, exactly... The quote I include about Longhorn in 2004 is from the same article from PT.
So, soda, the same thing, we are 9-16 months from .Net server, and we are 28-32 months away from Longhorn. These are MS's schedules (allowing for more possible delays in .Net server)--which raises the question, is MS's own time frame for their next major releases enough time to impliment these changes? Yes. The idea that these changes then push the schedule even further is a non-starter in my mind. Why should MS get to plan for new features and technology and scope it out over two years before thinking about what changes will need to be made because of the trial? If a remedy decision is reached in the next several months and it says MS must make these changes for the next major release, then they should have to make these required changes before they make other substantial changes. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/26/2002 5:09:02 PM |
|
sodajerk - So basically your wish is to force MS to be non-competitive in the OS market. Furthermore, you do not care about the needs/wants/desires of the consumer.
Personally I don't need or want this modular version of Windows, what I want is new features. Furthermore you haven't addressed what is done in the iterim, i.e. the 1-3 years that we all sit around and wait for Microsoft to release this new version. I can only assume that you expect Microsoft to take their current version off the shelves. That was Ballmer's point, and I do not see anyway around that. If they continue to sell it, you will continue to whine. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:29:53 PM |
|
That's my point, soda, Ballmer is saying we don't get an OS for 1-2 years anyway... We will be waiting 1-2 years for Longhorn... So if that's their schedule, why not coopt that schedule to account for changes that are legally mandated. How is that barring them from competing? According to you, their curent product is the best and most exceptional OS there is today. Apple and Linux are not planning on doing the same changes as MS over the next 2 years so nothing changes that bars them from producing something competitive... They are just looking for something new to force you into...
If MS, or you, or anyone is surprised that MS might at some point be a bit deflected from THEIR attentions to address LEGALLY REQUIRED changes, then you are just plain silly. And this... "I can only assume that you expect Microsoft to take their current version off the shelves" Boy.. you are listening to Gates too much--this is more idiotic exagerration... Current products are already out, they do not need to be recalled and redesigned, Windows 3.1 doesn't need to be redesigned, XP doesn't need to be pulled in the interim if it is already on shelfs... Get a grip on reality! |
| #12 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/26/2002 5:43:32 PM |
| SodaJerk - You abviously have read the Nine States' Proposed Remedy, could you post a link to where I can download the whole thing. I found it once but didn't get to finish it and can't find it again. |
| #13 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/26/2002 5:52:11 PM |
| #25 Windows is an OS that is the property of a private company! Nobody should be allowed to dictate them what to do with something they created! All this accuses of monopoly are based on the Sherman Act, a law tailored at the beginning of the 20th century to disrupt the Standard Oil and its monopoly in the oil market. I am not going deeper debating why the Standard Oil monopoly was wrong and why other monopolies like the one of the elium gas was not. The point is that if I invent something tha product is mine and I can do with it whatever I want; I can put it on the market or keep it for myself . Windows belongs to MS, if people don' t like it they can buy Linux and have fun installing it. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:52:39 PM |
|
These are the two best places to go (the DOJ site and the MS site--both indexes leading to everything; MS is doing the best job of getting transcripts of the cross-exams up on the web quickly...)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.asp |
| #15 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/26/2002 5:55:07 PM |
|
piepas, it's NEVER EVER been a question of weather or not it could be done, but rather how many apps will this break, how much more difficult will it be to write software for Windows, etc.... all these apps, or "middleware" are API's for programmers to use to build his/her apps.
I don't know why it's such a hard concept for people to understand. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 5:55:26 PM |
| Fritzly, I've already explained that the DC and AC thought the IP argument was a ridiculous joke--equating it to the idea that someone wouldn't be responsible for smacking someone upside the head with a baseball bat because they owned the baseball bat. The fact of the matter is the way they designed and built their product is illegal--it is still subject to law, just because someone owns something doesn't protect it from the laws of our country. |
| #17 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 4/26/2002 6:03:10 PM |
|
SodaJerk - I've been using both of those sites rather often however either I am blind (90% chance) or the Nine States' Proposed Remedy isn't availabe on either of them.
Can' you give me a direct link to it because I can't seem to find it. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Friday, April 26, 2002 at 18:04. |
| #18 By 931 (63.169.175.28) at 4/26/2002 6:03:14 PM |
|
I really can't wait for the day that balmer and gates walk into court flip the prosacution the bird and annouce they have reached a deal with cuba and are moving there effective immediately..
lol.. be great (not that I like cuba at all.. but) to see them royally fuck the us government.. cause either us would have to lift the ban on some product trade with cuba.. or would have to go without windows...while most of the rest of the world would have it.. LOL that or move to canada.. I swear they should have done that as soon as all this shit started.. I mean they even own a huge plot of land up there... seriously.. with 20+ billion in reserves they actually could just go buy some small island in the pacific and start "The Repulic of Microsoft.. " man that would be a hoot. |
| #19 By 1896 (66.20.202.102) at 4/26/2002 6:17:39 PM |
| #30 You are a waste of talent here! Your ability to play with words would be perfect in the Department of State or in the Vatican. In order to define the way MS developped and built its products as illegal is based on the assumption that MS is a monopoly and I strongly disagree with this theory. IMO they should go all the way down to the Supreme Court and fight for their case. If the States are really concern about customers they should put all the money spent to pay the lawyers involved in this case in a new company which would hire qualified developpers, build an OS modular or not I don't care and than distribute the final product to the public. Note that I said distributed and not given away because the money used to build such a product would have been our money. I don' t want my money to be used to pay lawyers and serve specific interests. This is the reason why, here in FLorida, I will vote against the actual Governor and his party in the next election, to show my disagreement with their actions. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 6:25:17 PM |
|
Fritzly, we've been thru this before--my assertion that the code is designed illegally is based on an upheld Appeal's Court decision, it's based oN Bill Gates' concession the other day that this is in fact the case... Is this based on being a monopoly? Yes, again--confirmed by a District Court, an Appeals Court, and Bill Gates himself.
Besides that backwards, deny reality assertion, let's look at this new one: you do not want the Government to control how MS designs its own software, but you do want the government to form its own competitor company or at least fund it? What?! I would rather the gov't mandate a few changes to MS's code, and have MS make the changes than I would have the government become involved in commercial enterprise and attempting to compete with MS. You can't argue that the government shouldn't interfere with MS's business, but then argue they should go into business for themselves and compete with MS. |
| #21 By 4209 (64.78.96.11) at 4/26/2002 7:19:04 PM |
| SodaJerk, I would not call the code illegal, it is the practices that MS uses that are illegal. The monopoly charge just means they are that a monopoly. Just because of there size and market share. A monopoly is legal in the US, it is the way they used this monopoly that was illegal. So please stop acting like it is the monopoly that is illegal, it is the use of the power that was illegal. The fact that they forced OEM's through contracts to use there software and not allow third party software to be placed on the desktop. In my mind the OEM's are selling the PC's, without the PC's selling MS would be lost, so why did these OEM's just sit there and say ok we will not put any software on the PC's you do not like. If they would have collectively got together and told MS to screw off this would not be a problem today. I know what the hell are the chances of the OEM's getting together to help each other, but it could have happened. And one other thing, you know why I disagree with the way the states are doing things, the fact they are doing it for the competitors instead of the consumers as they should. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 7:26:44 PM |
|
Sorry, mctwin, just because I could never get soda to admit it--doesn't mean that Kuney didn't already get Gates to admit it the other day in open court. Gates himself conceded that commingling browser and shell code in the same dlls had been determined to be illegal by the Appeals Court but that the RPFJ does nothing to remedy that. Once Gates admits it--your opinion or soda's or whoever's doesn't really matter, does it? Code commingling was found illegal and Gates accepts it. Why can't you people?
You all have to catch up--stop lingering on Gates "PC Ecosystem" bullsh!t and get to the good stuff--the cross-examination... There are about 15 key concessions made by BillyG himself that are far more interesting then his doomsday baloney. And they read better then most of the lame-o reporting we've seen over the last week or so. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, April 26, 2002 at 19:28. |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 8:12:20 PM |
|
By the way, anyone else find it laugh out loud funny that Qwest prevented the states from seeing some internal documents relating to dealings with MS because they were afraid that it would in fact implicate them for their own monopolistic actions? Jesus Christ, that's a credible witness for ya!
And nevermind that, I thought it was great--the whole exchange where some documents were prevented from being submitted as evidence--probably for good reason, but it was hilarious: The MS lawyer actually stood up and said, "Your Honor, I object on the grounhds that this represents anticompetitive actions currently being pursued by my client and do not relate to the case at hand!" KK--"I agree--I am overruling your request to submit this evidence, but while your own attornies are mentioning it, MS--why don't we schedule the next trial for... hmmm... we should be done with this in a year or two... how 'bout 2005!" Just kidding--but if you read the transcripts the MS lawyer says (this isn't a direct quote but... ) exactly that: these are anticompetitive actions that Microsft is currently pursuing! Great! |
| #24 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/26/2002 8:38:08 PM |
| sodajerk, so... what's that got to do with anything.... Gate's admitted that the court said that commingling the code was illegal, doesn't mean that that's what HE believes, or that they did it for the purpose of destroying Netscape (adding IE to the shell added a great deal of funcationality). |
| #25 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/26/2002 8:44:57 PM |
|
CPUguy,...
Because, unlike you, Gates' knows that he has to comply with the law. Because idiots still claim that there was nothing found to be illegal about the way MS codes its system. Because the RPFJ doesn't address this and Gates' concedes that as well. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:29:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
