Microsoft Urged Linux Retaliation 560
Rossalina W Sanchez writes: "Yahoo is reporting that an internal Microsoft memo from August of 2000 urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies, like Intel, who support Linux. When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."
So what (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but they are GPL'ed and everyone can use/modify them
This must be the reason why MS bashing post on Slashdot are so redundant, they are just different distros.
Re:So what (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux offers a stable, powerful, secure, and heavily developed alternative OS.
Linux offers an alternative to Windows, which is currently being bombarded by a.) the legal system b.) crackers, and c.) viruses.
Linux offers a way out of the
Yes, Linux is in a position to do some pretty damaging things to the other OSes out there if things continue on the path they're currently on. (Microsoft going out of its way to be arrogant and kick itself in the butt by writing memos like this, and opensource developers pushing the envelope and coming out with increasingly feature-filled, stable, and secure software.)
I doubt that Linux developers have the time to write "Let's get Microsoft!", though. They seem too busy developing the OS to participate in the "We have an inferior product, let's squash the competition" insanity that goes on behind the doors of some other developers. =]
-Sara
Re:Internal Slashdot Memo Urges Microsoft Retaliat (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot posters.
Linux kernel developers.
The overlap between these two sets: none.
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
Alan Cox must have proclaimed on the lkml that important technical information must be witholden from such companies, and they must face the consequences of committing such a dastardly sin as not using Linux.
They must be threatening such companies with high prices and severance of OEM contracts.
They must be spending 50% of their time focusing on how to write viruses and works to make Windows systems break and puke. They must be working really hard on developing algorithms by which Linux can be used to crack and break Windows systems. Linux is seriously crippling Microsoft's revenue stream right now.
Yeah, I know there is some hypocrisy on Slashdot, but please.
Linux is a virus (Score:3, Offtopic)
Linux is a woman who gives you the sex for free but then wants you to maintain her forever; Windows is the (sometimes diseased) whore who takes cash up front but then insists you cannot touch her in certain ways.
Linux is a vehicle suited for the smart and poor; Windows is a better ride for the stupid and rich. So if Linux wins, the world ends up with more smart poor; if Windows, more stupid rich.
___
Opeating systems as women. (Score:3, Funny)
Just too bad they left out BeOS and OS X.
Re:So what (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd imagine the internal letters between linux developers on crippling microsoft are 100x worse.
Of course, but the reason that monopoly law exists is that there's a huge difference between a bunch of - excuse me - small powerless people and a large corporation with domineering market segment. The large corporation might actually be in a position where they CAN cripple their opposition unfairly.
Note that Microsoft's defense is essentially, "Well, yeah, but that was just wishful thinking, no one actually DID anything about it." It only matters when it is done by someone large enough to have an unfair advantage.
Re:So what (Score:3, Insightful)
mod above: troll
Business is about making a profit.
But anti-trust law is about enforcing some limits on business to preserve some fairness. And that is what this is about.
Re:So what (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfairly? Says who? I didn't know that business was about being "fair". Silly me. I thought it was about maknig a profit.
Sigh... I know American History is passe, but don't people understand "monopoly" anymore?
The idea of a monopoly is that when a company gains too much power, then those same practices which are perfectly legal for smaller companies become illegal because they are anti-competitive.
The U.S. is a free market system with certain controls. One of those controls is the anti-monopoly legislation. A free market, which you espouse above, involves everyone doing everything they can to make a buck and to stimulate the economy.
However, controls were put into place because someone noticed - suprise - that when a company grows to have too much power, then all the benefits of free trade go out the window. Once a company can use those same "unfair" tactics to thoroughly suppress any competition, then you no longer have any of the benefits - lower prices, greater quality, higher employment, and greater innovation - of a competitive free trade system. The next thing you know, you're a third-world country with huge debt and instable politics.
The difference between a business and a monopoly is the difference between competitive dirty tricks and anti-competitive dirty tricks. The former are legal; the latter are not. While both are about a company making money, the anti-monopoly legislation is about making sure that the system continues to allow other companies to make money as well.
I realize it's a tricky distinction, but it is a valid one.
Windows is communistic, not Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
A market controlled by a monopoly or a cartel is essentially the same as a government regulated market. If the government controls your market or if a monopoly controls your market its going to have the same effect: high prices and crappy service -- because new businesses are not free to innovate and compete.
If you think about it, there's little difference between the Microsoft controlled software market and the state controlled markets in a communist country.
Re:So what (Score:2)
Developers think code. And MS has already proven that they can dominate the market with unfair business practices even with bad code. That is kinda what the case is about.
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless they happen to hold monoply power in the market. Microsoft holds a monopoly in the OS market. That is a fact of law. It also means that their business practices are under restrictions that others are not.
Re:So what (Score:3, Insightful)
Micrsoft has infact been declared a monopoly by a US Federal court. They have been in the process of being "sentenced" for some time now. These facts have been painfully obvious to anyone that even rarely pays attention to corporate news.
Please read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of introducing the memo would be to demonstrate that Microsoft, after being convicted of the abuses previously, continued to consider illegal abusive action a legitimate business tactic. That adds a very significant weight to the argument that they should have their future behaviour heavily curtailed, because they can't be trusted to respect any penalty that is based only on fixing what they've done in the past. Winning that argument would be game, set and match to the states.
Re:It's not what they said, it's who is saying it (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Kempin's actions are why he's no longer dealing with Microsoft's relationship with Intel.
Microsoft has got to realize that their no holds barred method of competition isn't legal as a monopoly. They could get away with it many years ago, but not any more.
Ugh (Score:4, Funny)
Well, a mine is a terrible thing to waste...
Learn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right around the same time they learn to secure their software I reckon...
Of course, right now, with $43billion in cash, it's not quite a priority...
---
"I drak what?!?!?" -Socrates
Too little too late. (Score:2, Funny)
I wanna write the screenplay! (Score:5, Funny)
Switch to the terminator "eye view".
Little graphs and probability charts flash into is awareness as he chases his target. Whether or not a lunge is a good strategy, or chase her until she is exhausted. Determinations whether she has any remaining weaponry that can stop him. Then, a big blue box clouds the metal asassin's vision.
"Windows 2010 Combat Edition. A fatal exception OE has occured at 0028:C001539A. The current application will be terminated.
* Press any key to terminate the current application
* Press CTRL+ALT+DEL again to restart your computer. You will lose any unsaved information in all applications"
Fate has stepped in, and prevented a timeline where no choice was possible. Fade to black.
Re:Too little too late. (Score:3, Funny)
Haunt? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this memo will haunt them.
I think it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is, in part, so arrogant precisely because this stuff never really does haunt them.
Let them eat cake!
Re:Haunt? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Haunt... (Score:2)
Re:Haunt... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Then how exactly do you explain their billions of dollars in sales, versus, say, Redhat's few million?
Anticompetitive business practices.
Most people don't care. They just want the best product at the best value.
Which implies a choice and the ability to choose. A concept that a monopolist cannot stand.
Get a clue. Every company is run the same way.
But every company does not have monopoly control of the market.
I really hope that you do that much research into the internal workings of Colgate-Palmolive before you buy your toothpaste.
This is not a valid comparison because they have competitors.
What if Colgate could work some kind of scheme such that anyone buying toothpaste had to pay Colgate, regardless of which toothpaste they wanted to buy? This would drive all competitors out of the market. If I bought Crest, I would have to pay for Crest, and for Colgate. If I bought Colgate, I would only have to pay for Colgate. This is how MS got to where they are. Not through providing superior products.
Today, they have superior products. But only because they can pour buckets of money into development. Money they can extort at artificially high prices due to lack of any competition.
Re:Haunt? (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawsiuts may be pointless idealism (you know, trying to force compliance with the law), but the White House got sold in 2000 and the UN couldn't agree on how many of each animal to load into an ark if it had been raining for a month. No danger of them siding with MS.
Re:Haunt? (Score:2)
The DoJ's suit does not try to redress previous wrongs. It is supposed to keep the behavior from occurring in the future. It is up to individual companies to file suit against MS for the damages from the previous transgressions. Of course, that ol' triple damages 'cause they're a monopoly clause is probably making a few lawyers salivate.
NEW MS MEMO (Score:2, Funny)
Why won't the states (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite a while ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds to me like they haven't been terribly successful thus far.
Re:Quite a while ago (Score:2)
Also worth reading (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-912906
Now we know... (Score:4, Interesting)
they did a very good job (Score:3, Funny)
they did a good job, they built WINDOWS XP!!!
And in a related note... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And in a related note... (Score:2, Funny)
Memo (Score:5, Funny)
To: All M$ Employees and Shills
Re: Anti-M$ Publicity
Kill Slashdot.
Fat bonus to whomever Slashdots those bastards.
xoxox
Bill
Business as usual. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Business as usual. (Score:2)
Microsoft is only doing their "job" if you will in bashing other competitors. Granted it would be better if they secured their stuff and got it working right! But hey, you can't blame Acme for having mold all over the floor and BiLo doesn't.. I'll just go to BiLo, and let those other people go to Acme
Re:Business as usual. (Score:3, Insightful)
They have been found to be a monopoly. Monopolies are not supposed to do that.
This whole case is about Microsoft forcing its will on other companies in the Computer industry because they have no choice.
Re:Business as usual. (Score:3, Informative)
This is something that people constantly point out here on Slashdot, so here it goes again. The courts have found the Microsoft is a monopoly. This places them under extra obligations that other businesses are not under. Amongst other things, it limits how they are allowed to compete. Trying to crush a competitor by throwing around their monopoly power is totally different than claiming that your product is better than the product of one of your competitors.
One of the things they talk about here is dragging their feet with hardware companies that support Linux, and giving more favorable deals to those who don't. I'd say that's an abuse of monopoly power.
They won't learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Look out there in the business world. See any companies saying "Hey, Microsoft is unfair? We should shift our stuff over and stop using them!"
No, what you see is "Well, we have to change our licensing and pay more money. We don't have any choice."
Of all the things that I don't like Microsoft for, that's the #1 thing. I see people saying "But...I can't get a Mac - it won't work with my stuff", where stuff == Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat. I see IT Staffs scrambling to count licenses for fear that the SBA will knock on the door and find that one computer without a piece of paper stating that Windows 2000 was paid for.
I see hopelessness, and I see just a resigned acceptance.
Learn? Why should they learn. Microsoft gets paid because people are either too lazy, or unwilling to see the alternatives. So they won't learn from their "mistakes" - until the day it hits them in the pocketbook. And that's not happening yet.
If ever.
Re:They won't learn (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know... Apple gets some bad press because of their stringent defense of the "Aqua" and general mac look, but in general I have less trouble spending $4k on a mac than $2k on a notebook and seeing MS BS every time I turn around...
That and well, macs are just so pretty!
Take solace in the fact that there are some people out there who are turning away from Windows, either to *nix or OSX. It's slow, but it's happening...
*heads off to dream of shiny new titanium powerbook...*
Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is a valid argument from the manufacturers. If Dell or Gateway or Compaq started preloading Linux on their machines, what is microsoft going to do? Say, "OK, we aren't selling windows licenses to Dell anymore." I don't think so. Especially since that is where they get their huge user base. Because most PCs COME WITH WINDOWS ON THEM! Now they might be so arrgant as to think if they stop selling copies of Windows to Gateway, Gateway will cease to be. But I don't think this is the case. First of all, geeks would flock to order PCs where they didn't have to pay the "Microsoft Tax" (i.e. buying an OS license they will never use.) Second, most of the non-geeks that I know think their operating system is Office 2000, so they aren't going to know what Linux means when they order it. Sure this will generate some returns, but most people will either figure it out, or be too proud to admit they don't know what they are talking about. Third, if one does it, the others will, too. And MS can't stop selling licenses to EVERY PC retailer. It would be suicide. One of the big PC companies just needs to step up to the plate and tell MS to sod off, and offer Linux certified systems. With hardware that has available drivers, already set up and configured, with the latest kernel, KDE, etc. I'm telling you it would work.
As for interoperability, most of the software we write these days is CGI or Java, and runs on any modern web browser. Also with StarOffice, I've almost got 100% MS Office compatibility. I can do almost anything on my Linux box that I can with my MS box. (I still can't write Visual Basic programs in Linux, but I'm sure someone is working on that!)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Dell, either you knock it the fuck off with this BeOS thing, or we'll charge you double for Windows".
Dell needs Microsoft. Microsoft can do business with Gateway, Dell, HPQ, Micron (do they still make PC's), and a host of others.
Margins are razor thin, and if MS decided to play hardball with Dell, Dell would lose.
That's why Red Hat's complaining - and they're right. That's what the trial is suppose to fix.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
At the time Compaq was either #1 or #2, so I don't think that's so far fetched a scenario.
Remember, if they cancelled Dell's license that doesn't mean that MS would suddenly lose all of Dell's customers as Windows buyers. It means that Dell would lose all of its customers to companies that still had an OEM license.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Me: Hi, I'd like to ask about your Linux laptops.
Salesperson: We don't have those.
Me: Yes you do. I read the press releases. I can't find them on the web page. How do I buy them from you?
Salesperson: I'm sorry, sir - I don't have that in my database.
Think I'm kidding? That was pretty much the experience between Dell and IBM when I called. I would up just ordering a machine and doing it myself (this being before my Powerbook days, of course).
Just saying "Hey, they had them and nobody bought them" doesn't mean *anyone could find them*. I'm not sure if that was just on purpose, or they assumed that nobody would buy them anyway so they didn't even try.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
That was their only Linux laptop offering, and when I called by phone none of the sales reps knew about it.
I suspect an Inspiron 3800 or one of their other lower-cost laptops loaded with Linux would have sold just fine. I would have bought one. I've bought three laptops (wife's, mine, backup) since then, none of them from Dell.
- Robin
- Robin
When? (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Re:They won't learn (Score:3, Interesting)
when was the last time you used Linux? Check out KDE 3 [kde.org] or GNOME [gnome.org] they are sweeeet! [kde-look.org]
noone writes software that works for linux
It's not purely about how much, it's also about how good, and most Linux software is (imho) good. Before I'm going to write down a list of people that makes software for Linux, just check out sourceforge, download.com, tucows etc... you'll find a lot.
noone writes software that works for linux
Out of the box they mostly have far more beter support, and for most hardware you can get the drivers, only for those products-nobody-have-ever-heard-of-produced-on-an
And please if you reply, don't write down experiences of distros like RedHat 4.x, use a new one.
The AMD smoking gun? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, and then AMD testified in favor of Microsoft out of the goodness of their hearts.
And this just speaks for itself: "I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
Re:The AMD smoking gun? (Score:2)
This has already been reported [yahoo.com]
disallowed?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:3, Informative)
It could be because it is irrelevant. This case is specifically about browsers. Really, it is about Microsoft using its OS monopoly to leverage into the browser market. More generally, the case MAY also be about Microsoft using similar tactics to leverage its monopoly into other markets, such as email clients, media players, ISPs, etc.
But the case is NOT about Microsoft using its monopoly to prevent entry into the OS market. And this memo speaks directly to that issue, but not to any issue relevant to leveraging the OS monopoly into new markets. From an antitrust perspective, those are not the same issue.
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
...which is exactly why the case itself is irrelevant. The browser wars are over now that mozilla 1 is out, people are starting to get decent email clients, and everyone has a fast enough net connection to download netscape as one of the first things they do after installing Windows.
So why are people still arguing about the browser "monopoly"? For goodness' sake, lets allow businesses to LEGALLY SELL OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS, let's have a publication of the MS-Office formats, and let's have a marketplace where people selling computers without Windows are not routinely accused of piracy!
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.
I have notices that Judge Kollar-Kotelly appears to be clearly giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on most evidentiary matters. Two possible reasons come to mind:
I'm actually leaning toward the latter. Nobody wants to pull an Ito, and (I'd like to believe) judges are a lot harder to buy or exert pressure on than politicians - there are plenty of examples of Judges quite happily making horrendously unpopular and, if one could be objective, perhaps unjust judgements without any real censure.
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:2)
Because they aren't alleged accusations. Microsoft has already been found guilty of monopolistic practices. It is the settlement that is the issue. I think everyone is tired of hearing about what a big bad company MS is, I know I am. It is accepted fact.
Now I just hope they punish them into the stone-age for it.
Microsoft + Monopoly = Micropoly [cafepress.com]
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:2, Informative)
The game has certain rules, granted they don't make much sense, but they have rules nonetheless.
<#include std.IANAL>
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because presenting a random email from one employee is not the same thing as demonstrating the intent or the actual practices of the company.
Or do you think that you speak for Slashdot?
One opinion is just that: one opinion.
Surely you don't think that if a Microsoft employee had written a "memo" (let's face it, these are just captured emails) advocating that their $40B be used to purchase NASA, that Bill Gates was intending to go into the commercial launch business, do you?
Re:disallowed?!? (Score:2)
It makes sense, otherwise, what is the 4th amendment for? If the cops can walk into my house without a warrant, and find a crop of marijuana, they can arrest me, and I'll be convicted, because the evidence would be allowed; even though they didn't follow proper procedure.
It can suck sometimes, but it does protect our freedoms.
If Microsoft is afraid of Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
How this will hurt them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever Microsoft gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, they try hard to make up for it. If Intel and IBM got together and said, we're going to put a Linux desktop out there that the average joe wants and can use as easily as windows, Microsoft will have something to fear. I suspect that they will make a lot of conciliatory gestures towards Intel. Kind of an Ike Turner thing -- take me back, baby, I never meant to hurt you!
what else is new (Score:2, Interesting)
What gets M$ into trouble is that they have a monopoly and a one-sided advantage because of it, so their "relationship building" always looks like Hitler invading Poland. You can draw out that comparison to it's logical conclusion if you care to.
Re:what else is new (Score:2)
once you are a monopoly, the rules change. MS has been declared a monopoly, and is continually breaking the rules.
tip of iceberg (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you believe in death after life?
Poppycock! (Score:4, Funny)
Yahoo is reporting that an internal Microsoft memo from August of 2000 urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies, like Intel, who support Linux.
Well, that's simply preposterous!
I mean, <boost target="microsoft">how could one the worlds foremost respected software manufacturers, a company that literally spends billions on research and development specifically addressing customers needs for an integrated business experience based upon Microsoft Innovation® possibly stoop to such tactics?
I mean, give me a break, you <create_mud target="Linux"> DeCSS-hacking, copyright-infringing, intellectual property destroying, Linux zealots have some good points now and then but on this you're way off the mark!
Copyright © 2002 Microsoft Slashdot Posting Engine, All Rights Reserved. Not to be reprinted without permission.
Don't Worry! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.
I knew this was another one of
-Sean
Not terribly irrelavent... (Score:2)
Um, yeah it is definitely irrelevant.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm his job as an executive is to come up with ideas on how to stay in business. Contraversial? Oh yeah! But no proof has been provided showing that any crime has been committed. Frankly, the only reason its interesting to
They really should provide evidence instead of trying to propaganda MS to death.
'MS told Gateway not to sell computers without Windows' -- that is evidence.
'Somebody at MS said they shouldnt allow Gateway to sell computers without Windows' -- not a crime. Free speech. Expression of ideas. No proven illegal action.
I know Ill probably get modded down for this. So just to be clear, Im not saying MS isnt doing anything wrong, IM saying that *this particular piece of 'evidence'* is not very interesting. Its sad that they're using stuff like this to prove intentions instead of using facts to prove guilt.
And... (Score:3, Interesting)
the sky is blue
people lie
This is news???? I am sure that the yet-to-be-disclosed memos from Microsoft (or any other company) are just as bad or worse. Better yet, somebody type up a memo, with [insert company name here]'s letterhead on it, making sure that it says a lot of ugly things about the competition, then leak it to the media so it will get distributed as news.Come on people -- this is not news!
Microsoft PR (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why every time I read one of these "leaked" emails I just shrug picturing somebody at Microsoft's HQ smiling that everybody here and on various other sites all go into hoots over "leaked" email.
"When will they learn ...." (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully never.
Of course! (Score:5, Interesting)
"I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements -- again without being obvious about it," Kempin wrote.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas.
Nope, if Microsoft would have acted on those ideas, they would have done something like promise to provide support in Windows for AMD's 64-bit architecture instead of a comparable Intel architecture. [theregister.co.uk]
Aren't you glad we have Microsoft Spokesmen to set the record straight?
Re:Of course! (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft already have an IA64 version of Windows available. So... what exactly AREN'T Microsoft doing for Intel in your example?
Simon
Makes me wonder.. (Score:2)
These guys are committing SNAFUs all year round.
We complain about yahoo... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's link to the same story found on Reuters. That's where Yahoo got the story from: The Reuters article [reuters.com]
When indeed... (Score:2)
Hopefully never. These memos have been invaluable in showing the world (and the courts) how consistently underhanded and criminal MS has been all along.
/. M$ trolls .... (Score:2)
Of course, as always, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you
Gee, another memo. (Score:2, Interesting)
MS has the power to punish those who are against it (reistance is futile). To quote spider man-- "With great power, there must also come great responsibility". Lets hope one of these days Billg realizes that. Reagardless, the DOJ must be the ones to step in and try to level the playing field when a defacto monopoly such as MS abuses its power, but with caution.
Here's an interesting irony- America is all about capitalism, which encourages monopolies (a capitalistic market means you have to eliminate your competition to succeed, but also depends on competition). But when you get to the top, no one wants you there.
Re:Gee, another memo. (Score:2)
In what way are AMD in competition with MS?
TWW
A tidbit of content nazism, if you please (Score:2, Offtopic)
Reuters is reporting.
It's important.
How to spot a microsoft mole (Score:5, Funny)
If you see your friend, spouse, employer, LUG members, or poster to on-line forums such as Slashdot engaging in one or more of these counter-revolutionary activities, there is a very good chance that they are agents of microsoft committed to making sure that linux will not be installed on the machines of existing windows users.
Microsoft hurt Intel by helping AMD (Score:5, Insightful)
Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):
Source:X P.jspa [amd.com]
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/microsoftWindows
Here's what you should worry about ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If this memo, and the behaviour that it endorses, worries you, let me pile it on: neither of the two proposed remedies is likely to correct this kind of corporate culture at Microsoft, at least in the near term.
This is because, no matter how heinous their actions, Intel will never complain to the States or the DoJ about Microsoft. Intel needs Microsoft too much to risk it.
Once upon a time the OEMs feared Intel, because processor supplies were short and Intel was the monopoly. The crossover begain happening in the mid-90s, beginning with Windows95, as Microsoft consolidated their control over the market with well-known highly-restrictive licensing terms.
This is when Microsoft first got a taste for directly threatening Intel, and by manipulating Intel by threatening OEMs. Nothing has changed since then, except that Intel has lost even more market share to AMD, and Microsoft has become more powerful.
Intel continues to hedge its bets (on the server only!) by supporting Linux, but everything desktop-related at Intel is 100% pro-Microsoft, and most of the execs there don't see a problem with that, and wouldn't complain about retaliation even if they did.
Now, don't get me wrong, the States' proposal is much better, in that (theoretically) it would allow an anonymous or confidential complaint to the Special Master, but in practice it's hard to imagine Intel using even that venue.
Bottom line: Linux developers and supporters -- don't look to the anti-trust settlement to stop the dirty tricks. Learn to live with them. Learn to love them. Learn jujitsu.
gn
So fucking funny (Score:3, Troll)
The denizens of Slashdot declare that MS's monopoly is wrong. At the same time, MS is dead, and Linux has taken over.
Funny, I thought that the definition of a monopoly is NO competition.
So which is it kids? Is there a monopoly, in which case Linux is an abject failure, or is Linux a success, in which case there really is no monopoly?
Re:So fucking funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
My point is that it's impossible for Microsoft to be a monopoly at the same time that Linux is successful.
I'm asking the Slashdot populace: which is it, then? I'm really curious as to what most people think.
Re:Moving Target (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No other company in the industry has this power - You think any company would take Apple seriously if they tried to pull this? Sun? IBM? Cisco? Redhat? Get real. This is what Common Business Executives *wish* they could practice, but only Monopolists can pull off.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Both companies undermine Windows simply by offering a better product.
MS has memos like this because that's what MS Innovation is all about: PHB memos.
Ah, but you see... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is exactly the point. Microsoft is a monopoly, that means they are not a common business. It means that what other companies use as common business practice is unfair when used by them.
Your average business is competing on equal (or relatively similar) footing. Microsoft, on the other hand, is in an infinately better position than any other company. To the point that if any tech company wants to stay in business they need Microsofts good grace. That is not how business is supposed to work.
Always makes me think of the uncle Ben quote "With great power comes great responsibility." I know, it's kind of cheesy to apply it here, but it's true. No one in the industry has a fraction of the power Microsoft has, and only a small fraction of the industry has the lack of responsibility Microsoft displays.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Distributed Slashdot Echelon for reading microsoft email. Whoo-hoo!
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like messing up your neighbors' lawns makes yours look better.
Tends to spoil the whole industry and everything else connected to it.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
If a company that I champion now ever becomes a monopolist, then I'll be right there in front calling for them to be smacked down as well. For now though, Microsoft is monopolist that needs to be smacked down.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Joachim Kempin was head of all OEM contracts. He was considered to be one of the most powerful people at Microsoft (at least as far as the OEM's were concerned). This was not some junior level exec trying to flex his muscles.
Re:Stephen Byers... (Score:2)
"Secretary of State for Transport Stephen Byers"
Re:Why won't NY pursue microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has many tens of billions of investments, and i am sure they would have a way to make new york investment banks suffer.