Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Monday 17 December 2007 18:09 : \____
>
>> On Dec 16, 4:53 pm, "Martha Adams" <mh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> <ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f11fbd60-81ec-462b-b641-00ba224a0587@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Just another limp lamer with a tortured interpretation of events and
>>> >> a
>>> >> thesis that Microsoft stole the cheese out of the community rat trap
>>> >> and
>>> >> owes it success to nothing more than being a poor sport. One wonders
>>> >> why
>>> >> others have had such limited success, though.
>>>
>>> > <Quote>
>>> > By the end of the 90s, reality reigned in on Microsoft and it began
>>> > racking up a series of settlement obligations it was forced to pay to
>>> > other victims of its copy-killing efforts and related anti-trust
>>> > actions:
>>>
>>> > * Microsoft paid Caldera $275 million for its antitrust actions
>>> > against DR-DOS.
>>> > * Microsoft recently settled with IBM in an antitrust suit
>>> > involving OS/2 and IBM's Lotus SmartSuite applications to the tune of
>>> > $775 million.
>>> > * Microsoft paid Novell $539 million to settle its antitrust suit
>>> > over the NetWare operating system, and Microsoft is still being sued
>>> > by Novell over claims related to WordPerfect.
>>> > * Microsoft paid Palm over $23 million to settle an antitrust suit
>>> > over the unfinished BeOS.
>>> > * Microsoft settled with Sun in an agreement that included $700
>>> > million in antitrust and $900 million in patent infringements, both
>>> > related to Java.
>>> > * Microsoft paid AOL $750 million to settle the antitrust suit
>>> > over Netscape.
>>> > </Quote>
>>>
>>> > Just which part of this is a "tortured interpretation of events?"
>>>
>>> These numbers are very interesting, especially when you add them up
>>> and ask, "Is this *really* a cost of doing business?" They say it in
>>> Washington and it seems to apply here, too: "A few billion here, a
>>> few billion there, after a while it begins to add up to real money."
>>>
>>> I wonder if Microsoft is fated to crash when the new Administration
>>> comes in?
>>>
>>> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Dec 16]
>>
>> It certainly looks like Gates-Microsoft just regard this as the cost
>> of doing business. I think the EU fines and other threats are
>> crossing the pain threshold, however.
>>
>> You can't detach antimonopoly action by government from political
>> considerations, and certainly the Bush administration has been
>> extremely friendly to all types of business (most of whom are big
>> contributors). So a change in Washington could mean a change for
>> Microsoft. Whether it would be enough of a change to bring a return
>> of the Jackson-style proceedings, personally I doubt. Big money
>> counts for too much in Washington, and I don't see much change in that
>> unless we have a new Depression.
>
> That's just why change is the States is likely to come (almost) last. What
> happens in Holland at the moment--if you look closely enough--is akin to a
> revolt.
>
Hence why Microsoft's business position is extremely perilous, but few
folk have recognised this. Yet. Microsoft no longer have the income to
build up huge cash reserves in order to pay off these kinds of lawsuits.
Their whole model is broken. They desperately need a new model, but
they don't have one which works.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
