November 1, 2002
2:43 PM Subscribe
I'm sure this isn't news to anybody, but Judge Colleen has decided that the Seattlement stands as originally crafted. Of course, the States can always appeal. Has Microsoft won? Has the consumer lost? Discuss.
I'm gonna say that Microsoft's Rally Monkeys had something to do with the decision.
posted by mathowie at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2002
posted by mathowie at 2:58 PM on November 1, 2002
Maybe now Microsoft's competitors can make product and stop whining (AOL, Real, Oracle, Sun).
Nah, that's crazy.
posted by owillis at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2002
Nah, that's crazy.
posted by owillis at 3:10 PM on November 1, 2002
Plus, I thought this was Microsoft's "Rally Monkey"?
posted by owillis at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2002
posted by owillis at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2002
Maybe now Microsoft's competitors can make product and stop whining
Er...ah...um...
Was *that* what this was all about? And here I thought that somewhere during this thing there was a trial court finding that The Software Giant had engaged in clearly illegal activity. I must have been dreaming.
posted by mediareport at 3:26 PM on November 1, 2002
Er...ah...um...
Was *that* what this was all about? And here I thought that somewhere during this thing there was a trial court finding that The Software Giant had engaged in clearly illegal activity. I must have been dreaming.
posted by mediareport at 3:26 PM on November 1, 2002
I know it's a typo, and no big deal, but the weird aptness of "Seattlement" (vs. settlement) - from both a location and pronunciation standpoint - makes me smile.
posted by kokogiak at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2002
posted by kokogiak at 3:28 PM on November 1, 2002
Doh! - On reading the linked article more closely - I see "Seattlement" is no typo and in fact someone's idea of being clever. Ugh. My smile is gone (and my quick-response-trigger finger is slapped).
posted by kokogiak at 3:30 PM on November 1, 2002
posted by kokogiak at 3:30 PM on November 1, 2002
Was *that* what this was all about? And here I thought that somewhere during this thing there was a trial court finding that The Software Giant had engaged in clearly illegal activity. I must have been dreaming.
Nope not dreaming. It certainly was "clearly" illegal to the judge, who was, of course, "clearly" unbiased (oops, forgot about all those interviews he gave before the trial was even over).
The trial, however, was priceless. A warm and deeply enriching collaborative effort between the Justice Department and (who?, oh yeah ...) Microsoft's chief competitors - but of course they were just naive, pure-as-snow innocents beaten up by that big bully Microsoft.
The most priceless moments were when Netscape execs actually had the kahunas to testify, with a straight face, that Microsoft was a monopolist because it - well, er - because it completely wiped out Netscape's monopoly (90% + market share before IE) ... and caused irreperable damage to the consumer by giving away for free a product Netscape was charging money for.
Whatever would we do without the government to protect us from such evil predators?
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:29 PM on November 1, 2002
Nope not dreaming. It certainly was "clearly" illegal to the judge, who was, of course, "clearly" unbiased (oops, forgot about all those interviews he gave before the trial was even over).
The trial, however, was priceless. A warm and deeply enriching collaborative effort between the Justice Department and (who?, oh yeah ...) Microsoft's chief competitors - but of course they were just naive, pure-as-snow innocents beaten up by that big bully Microsoft.
The most priceless moments were when Netscape execs actually had the kahunas to testify, with a straight face, that Microsoft was a monopolist because it - well, er - because it completely wiped out Netscape's monopoly (90% + market share before IE) ... and caused irreperable damage to the consumer by giving away for free a product Netscape was charging money for.
Whatever would we do without the government to protect us from such evil predators?
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:29 PM on November 1, 2002
Plus, I thought this was Microsoft's "Rally Monkey"?
Isn't that Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein?
posted by y2karl at 7:39 PM on November 1, 2002
Isn't that Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein?
posted by y2karl at 7:39 PM on November 1, 2002
What Microsoft is doing, and will continue to do wrong, is restrict access to the APIs and protocols such that it can have no competitors. You, Midas, of all people ought to be outraged over this slap in the face to capitalist principles. Furthermore, because of the provision for not having to disclose any security-related protocols, all Palladium protocols can safely be close-sourced or 'restricted' such that the former x86 platform will no longer be viable for any competitors of Microsoft. If anything, this verdict all but outright demands that the forthcoming platform not run Linux, xBSD, or any other of the some hundred-odd x86 OSes available besides Windows.
This is a mandate that Microsoft (unless they specifically exercise the option to allow Linux and other OSes) must have a monopoly for the next two decades, possibly three. I hope that scares someone besides me.
posted by Ryvar at 8:12 PM on November 1, 2002
This is a mandate that Microsoft (unless they specifically exercise the option to allow Linux and other OSes) must have a monopoly for the next two decades, possibly three. I hope that scares someone besides me.
posted by Ryvar at 8:12 PM on November 1, 2002
It certainly was "clearly" illegal to the judge, who was, of course, "clearly" unbiased (oops, forgot about all those interviews he gave before the trial was even over).
Note that his finding's weren't overturned, so he can't have been that biased.
Besides, the funniest thing about the trial, would have to be the Gates tapes.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:13 PM on November 1, 2002
Note that his finding's weren't overturned, so he can't have been that biased.
Besides, the funniest thing about the trial, would have to be the Gates tapes.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:13 PM on November 1, 2002
MidasMulligan, how delightful to engage you before going to bed. I have one word for you, and one word only:
LINKS.
posted by mediareport at 11:41 PM on November 1, 2002
LINKS.
posted by mediareport at 11:41 PM on November 1, 2002
Microsoft was a monopolist because it - well, er - because it completely wiped out Netscape's monopoly (90% + market share before IE) ... and caused irreperable damage to the consumer by giving away for free a product Netscape was charging money for.
Not free. Every copy of IE was paid for... in the rising price tag of the OS. In fact, if you're a MS customer, you're still paying for it.
And Microsoft did two things that were distinctly illegal -- they bullied OEMs into not including Netscape on their machines, and they bullied ISPs into doing the same thing. In the few cases where they couldn't do that, they made sure that the OEMs couldn't remove IE. They used their market power to block Netscape's distribution channels and revenue streams. In short, they illegally leveraged their desktop monopoly into the browser application monopoly. The fact they played svengali with the cost of IE was the least of complaints against them.
posted by namespan at 11:46 PM on November 1, 2002
Not free. Every copy of IE was paid for... in the rising price tag of the OS. In fact, if you're a MS customer, you're still paying for it.
And Microsoft did two things that were distinctly illegal -- they bullied OEMs into not including Netscape on their machines, and they bullied ISPs into doing the same thing. In the few cases where they couldn't do that, they made sure that the OEMs couldn't remove IE. They used their market power to block Netscape's distribution channels and revenue streams. In short, they illegally leveraged their desktop monopoly into the browser application monopoly. The fact they played svengali with the cost of IE was the least of complaints against them.
posted by namespan at 11:46 PM on November 1, 2002
pOstInG dRunK bad. Sorry 'bout that.
The point I was trying to make is that almost every time I've seen articles that make Midas' point, those articles manage to avoid mentioning key elements of Microsoft's illegal practices. I was hoping to see that here, but oh well. Yes, the judge was stupid to talk about the case publicly. Yes, Netscape was hypocritical. Yes, Microsoft broke the law and deserved to be punished for it. Yes, some of the suggested punishments seemed ridiculous. Why can't all four of those statements be true?
[Posting hungover bad, too.]
posted by mediareport at 7:07 AM on November 2, 2002
The point I was trying to make is that almost every time I've seen articles that make Midas' point, those articles manage to avoid mentioning key elements of Microsoft's illegal practices. I was hoping to see that here, but oh well. Yes, the judge was stupid to talk about the case publicly. Yes, Netscape was hypocritical. Yes, Microsoft broke the law and deserved to be punished for it. Yes, some of the suggested punishments seemed ridiculous. Why can't all four of those statements be true?
[Posting hungover bad, too.]
posted by mediareport at 7:07 AM on November 2, 2002
« Older This CNN article | The gamebutton arcade Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Nelson at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2002