Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft CTO on Competing with GNU/Linux (Comes vs. Microsoft - exhibit PX06482)

Hash: SHA1

____/ Homer on Wednesday 23 Sep 2009 19:44 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>> This group has to deal with statements made by Microsoft's top
>> executives, which aren't significantly different from those made by
>> people like Moshe.  The statements are factually accurate, and
>> misleading at the same time.
> Yes because they state the current de facto conditions, but conveniently
> forget to explain those conditions are actually a result of Microsoft's
> racketeering. This started with things like Microsoft inserting fake
> error messages into Windows 3.1 to discourage people from using DR-DOS:
> [quote]
> Microsoft had several methods of detecting and sabotaging the use of
> DR-DOS with Windows, one incorporated into "Bambi", the code name that
> Microsoft used for its disk cache utility (SMARTDRV) that detected
> DR-DOS and refused to load it for Windows 3.1. The AARD code trickery is
> well-known, but Caldera is now pursuing four other deliberate
> incompatibilities. One of them was a version check in XMS in the Windows
> 3.1 setup program which produced the message: "The XMS driver you have
> installed is not compatible with Windows. You must remove it before
> setup can successfully install Windows." Of course there was no reason
> for this.
> [/quote]
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility
> ... and culminated with the current catch-22 situation, where the
> Windows platform's illicitly-acquired domination (via the aforementioned
> sabotage, and other criminal behaviour) forces OEM's to capitulate with
> Microsoft's thuggish demands to largely ignore competing platforms - or
> face dire financial consequences through a sort of private embargo system.
> IOW Microsoft's illicitly-acquired position of dominance is now
> self-sustaining (although that doesn't prevent them from "boosting" it
> with yet more sabotage, threats or FUD, whenever some new "threat" to
> that dominance appears).
> [quote]
> Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement,
> which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped,
> even if it didn't include Windows. To top it off, to qualify for market
> development funds, PC makers have to put a Microsoft OS on every PC. As
> a result, trying to sell non-Windows PCs, or even PCs without software,
> is a financial loser for computer makers.
> [/quote]
> http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-868413.html
> Even if we ignore Microsoft's current anticompetitive behaviour (for
> which they are in a constant state of investigation and prosecution),
> should the fact that an illicitly-acquired position of dominance no
> longer absolutely /requires/ bolstering with criminal methods (because
> it's become self-sustaining through sheer ubiquity), mean that position
> is now somehow ethical, justifiable, and acceptable?
> Isn't there a law which prohibits criminals from benefiting from the
> spoils of their crimes, regardless of how long ago those crimes were
> committed?
> If this were applied to Microsoft, they would be compelled to surrender
> their current 231.59 billion USD (market cap) to the US government, for
> redistribution to Microsoft's many victims, as compensation.
> But this /isn't/ applied to Microsoft, because US law and policy makers
> are far too enamoured by the "success" of gangsterism, and are too busy
> fawning over gangsters to ever take action against them, as demonstrated
> in sickening detail here:
> http://slated.org/microsoft_sells_out_america
>> Millions of netbooks were sold with Linux preinstalled, and most
>> people didn't even see the Linux trademark or the Tux logo.  They
>> knew it wasn't windows, but they also knew it was about 30-40%
>> cheaper and included a fully functional Office Suite (instead of a
>> crippled "works" version), and included a number of other
>> applications which allowed them to browse the web (FireFox), get
>> e-mail, chat, and even make telephone calls for about 2 cents/minute.
> Until Microsoft intervened with their usual gangster tactics:
> [quote]
> If you have been having trouble finding Linux on a netbook, you can stop
> wondering why. I suspected it was being monopoly-crushed. Here's the
> smoking gun, at last, thanks to Dana Blankenhorn of ZDNet, who attended
> a press conference at Computex and asked the right question:
>     Later, at a press conference sponsored by TAITRA, the Taiwan trade
> authority, I asked executive director Walter Yeh (third from left in
> this picture) about where the Linux went.
>     He passed the question to Li Chang (to the right in the picture),
> vice president of the Taipei Computer Association.
>     Chang mentioned a press conference yesterday where Google announced
> an Android phone to be made by Acer. But then he put it to me straight.
>     âIn our association we operate as a consortium, like the open source
> consortium. They want to promote open source and Linux. But if you begin
> from the PC you are afraid of Microsoft. They try to go to the smart
> phone or PDA to start again.â
>     Taiwanese OEMs would love an alternative to Windows, but the sale
> comes first, before production. The chicken comes first. And since the
> chicken belongs to Microsoft, the penguin is helpless here.
> Mystery solved. Totally blatant. Does this not give legs to Charlie
> Demerjian's report, MS steps on a Snapdragon? It appears Snapdragon on
> Asus is just the most recent horse to fall down shot in the starting
> gate and then get dragged off the track.
> So next time you hear Microsoft bragging that people *prefer* their
> software to Linux on netbooks, you'll know better. If they really
> believed that, they'd let the market speak, on a level playing field.
> If I say my horse is faster than yours, and you says yours is faster,
> and we let our horses race around the track, that establishes the point.
> But if you shoot my horse, that leaves questions in the air. Is your
> horse *really* faster? If so, why shoot my horse?
> [/quote]
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529
>> Hundreds of Millions of Linux users don't know they are using Linux.
>> Google doesn't display the trademark or logo either.  Neither do the
>> WiFi hubs, routers, switches, SAN storage controllers, or remote USB
>> hubs.
> [...]
>> Microsoft has continued to block every attempt by OEMs to market
>> machines preconfigured with Linux.  In some cases, they have even
>> threatened to revoke all Windows OEM licenses for the product line
>> supporting Linux - usually the top-of-tthe-line machines.
> These days, all Microsoft need do is abuse their illicitly acquired
> dominance to coerce vendors to drop Linux, by threatening to withdraw
> "marketing funds" (a term they've now made synonymous with "bribery").
> If antitrust bodies could legislate that no company may require
> exclusion of competition by contract, then one half of this problem
> would be solved. While they're at it, they should also legislate that
> corporations do not have the same right to privacy as /people/, and thus
> their contacts should not be allowed to be kept secret (NDA), so we can
> all /confirm/ that these contract do not in fact require the exclusion
> of competition, as a matter of public record, without requiring a
> criminal investigation to produce court evidence, before the truth is
> finally revealed.
> The /other/ half, requires years of work to undo the damage done by the
> first, before the market finally attains its proper balance.
> But given the fawning witnessed above, the question is will legislators
> ever take sufficient action against Microsoft, necessary to facilitate
> this balance?
> In countries like America, where their politicians revere gangsters,
> simply because "I note you are a billionaire, and I'm not" ... the
> answer is probably "no".

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."

	--Honor de Balzac

That's why so many of the world's elites fancy secrecy.

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes

Fachbegriffe der Informatik, Putzfrau: Nicht absichtlich bÃsartig
handelnde Person ohne Entscheidungsgewalt -- Bodo Eggert
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy      pts/0        :0               Thu Sep 24 08:24   still logged in   
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index