In article <0bdc6969-cf5b-481c-a045-05bdf5f21c58
@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx says...
> On Jan 9, 10:12 pm, Greg Cox <gregc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In article <e7e64024-b33c-4467-86b3-
> > 34b42df1d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx says...
> > > On Jan 9, 2:28 pm, "Roger Wilco" <wi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Precisely the point of my post. People have been predicting "The Year
> > > of Linux on the Desktop" for almost a decade, and I had even expected
> > > it since 1994. Yet, for almost 15 years, Microsoft has been able to
> > > maintain it's monopoly, even in the face of it's on incompetence and
> > > technical inferiority.
> >
> > > Microsoft is the perfect study in Economics for a Monopoly.
> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/36guok
> >
> > > <quote>
> > > # Ways for policy makers to correct the inefficiency.
> >
> > > 1. antitrust laws
> > > 2. regulations (AC regulation and MC regulation)
> > > 3. public ownership
> > > </quote>
> >
> > > Antitrust proved to be completely ineffective.
> >
> > It seems to be working since the settlement some 5 years ago. Microsoft
> > has been forced to treat all OEMs equally, charge a uniform amount for
> > Windows licenses, and not interfere if any OEM wants to ship boxes with
> > Linux installed. You call that ineffective regulation?
>
> I guess you missed the loopholes that you can drive a freight train
> trhough.
>
> Microsoft has to charge the same BASE PRICE, but can give discounts in
> the form of kickbacks to OEMS who use "Linux Hostile" hardware, such
> as DirectX-9 and DirectX-10 video cards.
Do you have any cite that Microsoft gives discounts based on which video
card is installed in the box? And since when are DX9 and DX10
compatable video cards "Linux Hostile"? I thought Nvidia and ATI
released video drivers for Linux some time ago.
> They can also charge
> different rates for UPGRADES, for example the upgrade from Windows XP
> home edition to Windows XP Professional, or from Vista Home Basic to
> Vista Home Premium, or from Vista Home Premium to Vista Business
> Edition or upgrades to Vista Ultimate or 64 bit Vista.
All pricing is uniform across OEMs. Microsoft is required to charge the
same price for the same volume regardless of which OEM is buying.
Whether it is an upgrade from one version of Windows to another is
immaterial.
>
> > > Although Microsoft is a public corporation, Bill and Steve own so many
> > > shares that they can't be fired, effectively making Microsoft a
> > > privately controlled corporation.
>
> > So Rex, how many shares do Steve and Bill own that makes it so that they
> > can't be fired? Let's take a look. As of September 7, 2007, Bill Gates
> > owned 9.33% of Microsoft's stock and Steve Ballmer owned 4.34%.
> > Combined gives them 13.67%.
>
> Then look at the major institutional holders. The point is that if
> either Bill or Steve decided to "dump" their shares in a really public
> way, the stock price would crash, and 3 institutional investors, also
> holding about 25% of Microsoft stock would feel the pain.
Bill and Steve can't "dump" their shares. They're insiders. They are
required to publically register any sales or purchases with the SEC
before the transaction can occur. Any investor can sell their shares
before Bill or Steve can sell theirs.
>
> > <http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/ar07/Proxy_2007.doc>
> > So tell us again how 13.67% gives them controlling interest in the
> > corporation.
>
> Remember that Bill and Steve and Paul Allen jointly held 51% of
> Microsoft's stock.
So what? We're talking today, not 1982.
> Bill and Steve have been selling stock back to Microsoft, which means
> that the stock is no longer outstanding.
AFAIK they have been selling stock to the open market. But it really
doesn't matter either way. Microsoft buys back stock at the market
price. You're acting as if Bill and Steve get a higher price if they
sell their stock directly to Microsoft. This can't happen.
>
> According to key statistics
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
>
> There are 9.36 billion share outstanding (in public circulation)
>
> Bill holds 857 Million Shares
> Steve holds 408 million shares
> Both are selling shares, sometimes as fast as 1 million shares per
> day.
I'm with you so far.
> The next major individual investor is Jeffrey Raikes - with 5 million
> shares.
Yes, and?
>
> Unless Raikes or Jon Shirly could get the proxy support of the
> institutional investors, it would be hard to wrestle control of the
> company way from 1.2 billion shares worth of individually controlled
> holdings.
Yes, so? Your claim was that Bill and Steve held so many shares that
they can't be fired, not that it would be difficult to wage a proxy war.
>
> Capital Research & Management company holds 500 million shares.
> (Pacific Life Insurance)
OK, that accounts for about 5% of Microsoft stock.
> Barcleys owns 378 million shares
OK, that accounts for another 4%. Bill + Steve + those proxies accounts
for 24% of Microsoft stock. You're still a long way from the required
51%.
> State Street Corporation holds 250 million shares.
OK, that's another 2.6%. Bill + Steve + those proxies accounts for 27%
of Microsoft stock. You're still a long way from the required 51%.
>
> These are insurance funds, and most of them assign their proxy to Bill
> or Steve.
Even is that was true, those insurance funds can withdraw their proxies
at any time. So again, Bill and Steve don't have the 51% between them
to prevent them being fired like you claimed.
>
> > > Microsoft as also avoided all attempts at regulation.
>
> > So all that stuff with the EU was just a sham?
> It brought the issues to light, and it did trigger some changes, but
> even today Microsoft has been very uncooperative in complying with the
> judgements of the EU.
So Microsoft dropping all appeals of the EU judgments last October was
just my imagination?
>
> > Microsoft didn't transfer all those millions of dollars to the EU?
>
> Did they actually pay those $2 million/day fines? What is that, $600
> million? And during those two years, Microsoft made $120 billion in
> revenue, and $40 billion in profit. It would be like fining you $20
> for armed robbery where you got $200,000 in the robbery.
Red herring alert! Comparing Microsoft's worldwide sales to the EU
fines. Shame on you.
>
> > Microsoft wasn't forced to create a version of Windows that didn't include Media Player?
>
> They made the "Basic" version, but then put so many restrictions
> around it, that the OEMs didn't want it.
What restrictions? The only difference between the versions was that
one had Media Player installed.
> XP Professional and Vista
> Business put the Media player back.
Nothing was put back. There was the normal version with the media
player and the EU mandated version without the player.
> The OEMs have to pay extra for
> the "downgrade".
>
> > Microsoft wasn't forced to document and license those internal APIs in
> > Windows Server that the Samba project now has access to?
>
> Microsoft was allowed to license them under terms that prevented their
> use in any client operating system other than Windows. You could
> create a server using Linux, but you couldn't use the code in Desktop
> Linux.
Bullshit. Please show me where clients are excluded from using the
Microsoft APIs
<http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/protocols/wsp
p/wspp.mspx>
>
> Microsoft was also ordered not to interfere with OEM attempts to
> distribute Linux, yet the record shows that they have interefered.
Cite?
>
> Microsoft must give prior written approval before an OEM can alter the
> boot sequence.
Only in your imagination. From the DOJ settlement:
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from
exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
...
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems
from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or
similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows
Operating System Product.
> Getting drivers approved takes about a day. Dual-boot
> Linux, or Desktop Virtualization - seems to take forever to get
> approved.
There is no need to get Microsoft's approval to create a dual boot
config.
>
> Microsoft must give prior written approval to any ad using the
> Microsoft logo, including it's content and placement. Most ads using
> the Microsoft logo exclusively are approved within a day or two. Most
> ads involving Microsoft Logo and Tradmarks in combination with Linux
> or OSS trademarks seem to take months or even years to be reviewed.
So don't mix Microsoft and non-Microsoft products in the same ad.
>
> Microsoft uses the same tactic for all other promotional materials,
> including packaging, advertizing, even the product descriptions used
> on retail displays, and even the retailer display arrangement.
And you can back up this claim with an independent cite, right?
>
> If a Retailer wanted to put Linux or Mac computers on the same shelf
> as Windows PCs, it could take months, or even years to get the prior
> written approval from Microsoft.
Again, you're making this up.
>
> ANY violation of ANY term of the copyright license voids the
> copyright. In theory, if even one ad featuring both the Linux logos
> and trademarks, and the Microsoft logos and trademarks were published
> without Microsoft's prior written permission, every License purchased
> by the OEM would be null and void. This interpretation is confirmed
> in the Contempt of Court case where Microsoft revoked ALL of Compaq's
> licenses to Windows 95 for the ProLinea Line of computers (one of
> their best selling brands).
No, Microsoft threatened to revoke Compaq's license if they removed the
Internet Explorer icon from the desktop. This had nothing to do with
trademarks and logos in ads.
>
> Microsoft has an extraordinary legal team, who seems to be more than
> willing to stretch the boundries of copyright and trademark law, by
> putting ever more onerous terms into licenses.
Their extraordinary legal team seems to be rather lacking when they get
to a courtroom. How can they be so extraordinary writing contracts and
so bad in front of a judge?
>
> Today, Microsoft Vista Licensees agree to accept spyware, they also
> agree to let Microsoft deactivate their computer, until the end-user
> can prove that he has not violated the terms of the license. If you
> use anti-spyware software, Microsoft could deactivate your computer
> for violating the license, and you would have to purchase a NEW
> license because you DID violate the terms of the license.
Please point to the EULA clauses that do all that you claim:
<http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%
20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf>
>
> There are lots of other clauses that would make most corporate lawyers
> absolutely rabid about telling the corporation NOT to accept the Vista
> licenses. The XP licenses were barely tolerable, but the Vista
> licenses are simply granting Microsoft immunity from extortion,
> sabotage, and fraud. I'm surprised that many states haven't rule
> these clauses to be null and void.
Which clauses? Please be specific.
>
> Unfortunately, in this age of advance directives, you can sign a
> contract that grants another person permission to kill you by "pulling
> the plug" or witholding treatment or food. Granting Microsoft
> permission to disable your PC seems trivial in comparison.
>
> I'm just curious as to how long before Microsoft licenses force the
> End User to grant Microsoft permission to execute them if Microsoft
> suspects that their license has been violated? I'm not serious of
> course, however, the current Vista license would have almost the
> equivalent impact on a corporation. If a corporation with 100,000 or
> more PCs were suddenly "shut down" because Microsoft suspected the
> corporation of violating their Volume Licensing agreement, it would
> effectively disable the company's ability to do business, and
> ultimately lead to bankruptcy.
So tell us how exactly Microsoft can "shut down" all Windows licenced
PCs in a corporation whenever they want?
>
>
> Rex Ballard
> http://www.open4success.org
>
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown
|
|
