__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Saturday 15 July 2006 10:20 \__
> __/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Saturday 15 July 2006 06:46 \__
>
>> The character assassination begins. Now Neelie Kroes is "obsessed."
>> Just like they did to Judge Jackson. I hope she avoids his mistakes,
>> because you can guarantee, any mistakes she makes will be used to
>> destroy her character.
>
>
> Yes, Jackson got his mouth a little dirty. While it was very well
> justified, one can put a spin to it...
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-06-01-microsoft-getting-stronger.htm
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | It also comes just 1 year after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
> | Penfield Jackson called Microsoft an "abusive monopolist" and ordered
> | it split in two. Jackson became a champion for those who believed the
> | historic antitrust case would hobble Microsoft. But with an appeals
> | court ruling expected any day that could largely rescind Jackson's
> | order, Microsoft has emerged stronger than ever by just about any
> | measure. Instead of being left behind as the digital universe shifts from
> | the PC to the Internet, it is positioning itself to dominate the
> | delivery of software and services streaming from the Internet.
> | And opponents fear it may well get there -- but only by redoubling
> | use of tactics that made it an antitrust target to begin
> | with.
> `----
>
> Vista was built very tightly with MSN and Live. Expect to see some
> Google-Microsoft court battles.
>
>
>> Quote:
>> ---------------
>> In Herman Melville's novel "Moby Dick," Captain Ahab's path to
>> destruction is set by his obsessive pursuit of the Great White Whale.
>> For Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, an obsessive pursuit
>> of Microsoft threatens the same result. This point was driven home by
>> Kroes's announcement this week of new fines against the software giant.
>> ------------
>> End quote
>>
>> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/opinion/edcass.NN
>>
>> Article written by Ronald A. Cass, chairman of the Center for the Rule
>> of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law and former
>> vice chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
>>
>> He is a long time Microsoft apologist, and as near as I can tell, has
>> been retained in the past by Microsoft to represent them legally, at
>> least in public relations. Here is a quote from a piece he wrote in
>> 1999, re the DOJ suit against MS:
>>
>> Quote:
>> ----------
>> Hard to believe that's all? Take a closer look at the Government's
>> case. Microsoft, it argues, has a monopoly because most personal
>> computers use Windows. Rivals are kept out of this market by what the
>> Government calls the ''applications barrier,'' which it says means that
>> nobody buys a computer unless it can run lots of software, and nobody
>> produces software unless there are plenty of computers out there to run
>> it.
>>
>> But then why are leading software developers rushing to write
>> applications for Linux, an upstart operating system with about 15
>> million users? And why hasn't Microsoft sought higher prices? It
>> charges computer makers about $65 for Windows 98. Ten years ago it cost
>> hundreds of dollars for MS-DOS and other software that handled only a
>> portion of the work Windows 98 does today.
>> ----------------
>>
>> http://www. microsoft .com/presspass/ofnote/06-28nyt.mspx
>
>
> And let me just add some of the information that Rex recently added.
> Citations included only because a Microsoft employee from this group
> demanded them.
>
> ,----
> | Microsoft has the additional advantage of maintaining a monopoly
> | control of the desktop market. Regardless of what happens after the
> | machine is sold, OEMs know that given the choice of purchasing more
> | than enough licenses regardless of whether they were actually needed by
> | end-users or not, and having too few licenses, with the inability to
> | purchase more, and at prices which price the end-product so much higher
> | that competitor products that demand would falter, the OEMs negotiate a
> | better deal by purchasing far more than they actually need. For
> | example, if an OEM expects to sell 10 million PCs, and Microsoft is
> | willing to sell him 10 million at $80 per copy, or 15 million at
> | $40/copy, purchasing the 15 million copies give a net price of roughly
> | $60/copy, which is still superior to the smaller order.
> |
> | Of course, this quantity discount also gives Microsoft the ability to
> | impose some unusual restrictions. For example, Windows must be
> | installed on every machine sold. Windows must be the ONLY operating
> | system installed on these machines. The OEM is not allowed to make ANY
> | alterations to the configuration, including partitions which would
> | allow users to install Linux in a separate partition, 3rd party
> | software that competes with Microsoft products including Lotus Smart
> | Suite, Netscape Communicator, or Open Office/Star Office. The OEM can
> | include this software "on the side", and even Linux, but cannot
> | preinstall the software.
> |
> | Failure to comply with any of these terms could result in automatic
> | revokation of licenses, which meant that the OEM was back into the
> | state of "All Or Nothing", with the option of renegotiating for
> | licenses (which may involve additional cash payments and nearly always
> | involved additianal restrictions).
> `----
>
> ---
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/25/inside_the_ms_trial_part_2/
>
> Senator Orrin Hatch's judiciary committee became interested in the
> case, and staffer Mike Hirshland soon discovered that Klein didn't like
> Reback. But Dan Rubinfeld, the new DoJ chief economist, agreed with the
> Reback-Creighton analysis and persuaded Klein to issue a broader CID
> (document demand) to Microsoft, which yielded email containing
> Allchin's gloom about how IE could succeed unless leveraged with
> Windows, and the evidence that Compaq' Windows licence would be revoked
> by Microsoft if Compaq used Netscape instead of IE.
>
> Microsoft would not allow IBM to preinstall Lotus Smart-Suite in their
> machines. There was a "quick install" and the installation media was
> included with the packaging, but the application had to be installed by
> the consumer after market.
>
> IBM was not allowed to install OS/2 with or in conjunction with Windows
> 95 or any subsequent version of Windows.
>
> ---
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f216100/216127.htm
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Criticisms_of_the_case
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3423941
>
> If you can get me a published copy of actual OEM license agreements
> with OEMs such as HP, Dell, Gateway, and Toshiba, you can correct the
> record.
>
> I have to settle for those references which have been made public, even
> if they are slightly out of date.
>
> Point of fact, Microsoft has, on at least one occaision, threatened to
> revoke the license of an OEM for an unexpected re-interpretation of a
> clause.
>
> And by the way, Compaq didn't actually remove IE, they just removed the
> IE Icon from the desktop and modified the registry to make sure that it
> could stay removed.
>
> Microsoft has also been challenged over several other OEM licensing
> issues which were claimed to have been designed to prevent the
> distribution of Linux (Violating both the settlement and the Appeals
> Court Ruling), but Microsoft has artfully dodged the issue by claiming
> that their actual intent was only to show that other versions of
> Windows were the target. And yet, no OEM currently publishes the Linux
> compatibility of their machines in the same ad cont
Oops. Text truncated due to an old (already resolved) Firefox bug. There is
the remainder:
BEGIN QUOTE
Microsoft has also been challenged over several other OEM licensing
issues which were claimed to have been designed to prevent the
distribution of Linux (Violating both the settlement and the Appeals
Court Ruling), but Microsoft has artfully dodged the issue by claiming
that their actual intent was only to show that other versions of
Windows were the target. And yet, no OEM currently publishes the Linux
compatibility of their machines in the same ad content that mentions
Microsoft Windows.
I point to a clear cut pattern, and point to actual language in actual
court cases to suggest that there may be a pattern of protecting the
monopoly through methods not currently addressed by the current court
settlement. The court said "you can't interfere with the distribution
of Linux on PCs". Microsoft has managed to dance under and around this
ruling.
This is a common legal tactic. Draft the settlement, then let the
other party assume that the settlement addresses the spirit and intent
of the ruling - to get the settlement language accepted. Then use the
letter of the settlement to circumvent the spirit and intent of the
law.
Microsoft's settlement and license language should be mandatory reading
for anyone considering working for companies like Enron, WorldCom, or
any Mafia Don.
END QUOTE
|
|
