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. 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.
> > 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.
> <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.
Bill and Steve have been selling stock back to Microsoft, which means
that the stock is no longer outstanding.
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.
The next major individual investor is Jeffrey Raikes - with 5 million
shares.
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.
Capital Research & Management company holds 500 million shares.
(Pacific Life Insurance)
Barcleys owns 378 million shares
State Street Corporation holds 250 million shares.
These are insurance funds, and most of them assign their proxy to Bill
or Steve.
> > 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.
> 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.
> 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. XP Professional and Vista
Business put the Media player back. 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.
Microsoft was also ordered not to interfere with OEM attempts to
distribute Linux, yet the record shows that they have interefered.
Microsoft must give prior written approval before an OEM can alter the
boot sequence. Getting drivers approved takes about a day. Dual-boot
Linux, or Desktop Virtualization - seems to take forever to get
approved.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
|
|
