|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gee, I thought that all the Judge said was that:
a) Microsoft has a monopoly (which, BTW, is legal), and
b) Microsoft abused its monopoly position to the detriment of consumers.
The laws of the land forbid someone from using a monopoly position to prevent
the free market from functioning in other goods.
The judge said that when Microsoft did things like prevent computer
manufacturers from offering alternative browsers if they wanted the Windows OS
on their computers, it was abuse.
You may disagree with the judges decision, but most of what has been written
here has had little to do with what the judge said, besides being off topic
generally...
Regards
DanG
JW wrote:
> Excellent post Brent! Too few people really understand what is involved in
> operating systems and software development but somehow think that even with
> limited or no knowledge, should comment anyway.
>
> In a nutshell, Bill Gates vision & Microsoft's crime was the attempt to try
> and bring an element of standardization to the world of computing....
>
> For example, imagine what if stereo systems weren't standard? Right now,
> you can buy any CD/DVD player, cassette deck, whatever and plug them easily
> and directly into ANY receiver....
>
> I believe that this is the direction that Microsoft was trying to head in.
> The means they chose to do so (expediency?) may have been a bit high-handed
> in retrospect, but perhaps that is the price of such a vision?...
>
> IBM was prosecuted by the anti-trust police in the 1980's. But anyone who
> has experience with mainframe computer systems knows that IBM currently has
> at least 90% of the mainframe software OS market with a product called MVS
> (under various names such as OS/390, ESA, etc.), essentially the de facto
> industry standard. IBM does not even sell the software, it can only be
> leased on a monthly basis at very high $$ (typically hundreds of thousands
> of $$ rental fee per month for the average installation). Competition in
> the mainframe OS market has been virtually eliminated with hardware
> mainframe competitors like Amdahl and Hitachi Data Systems (know as
> plug-compatibles) forced to fully support MVS if they want a piece of the
> pie. These companies have tried to push their own UNIX variations but they
> have never been very successful at doing so. IBM owns about 75-80% of the
> mainframe hardware market and over 90% of the mainframe OS market.
> Additionally, IBM commonly makes/announces changes to the MVS OS that then
> give them some lead time on delivery over the plug-compatibles (which then
> take between 6 months - 1 year to deliver the same support). I've worked
> for both of the aforementioned plug-compatibles in the past, so I am well
> versed in these issues. Why doesn't the Justice Dept. do something about
> this situation? Sadly, both plug-compatible companies have had to do
> extensive lay-offs over the past few years because of IBM's monopoly control
> of the mainframe market (Amdahl went from 10k to 5k employees a by about
> 1996). What are all you bleeding hearts going to do about this situation?
>
> Finally, I saw a note that the new Mac OS, version 9 is now available. List
> price is $99, which is $10 more than Microsoft's list price for Windows.
> Judge Jackson seems to think that MS should have sold Windows releases for
> $49 instead of $89. Why isn't the price that Apple is selling the OS for an
> issue? Because Apple marketing has been so poor in the past that their
> market share is maybe 7% of the PC universe? Do they then get a special
> dispensation for ineptness? Sheese to this whole subject!
>
> JW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of kohath
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:11 PM
> To: Brent; Real Traders Forum
> Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
>
> Far easier to build a 747 jumbo jet than to design an OS that is completly
> compatable with all software/hardware on the market. Far easier. Far
> easier to build the Shuttle spacecraft. If the shuttle were built with the
> number of programmers that build software/hardware today, the thing would
> rarely, if ever, make it into outer space. Gates cannot watch over
> everyones shoulder that codes/builds software/hardware. The
> designers/builders of the shutlle can. You said it all when you said you
> are no expert on computers. You obviously don't have the foggiest as to
> what goes into making that computer you are using work. The majority of
> computer users fit this bill. And I am sure that you would not care to pay
> the price of a shuttle for an operating system that is bug free!
>
> Before someone goes off not understanding what is being said here, the space
> shuttle is also an extremly complex peice of machinery, the difference is,
> the controls are there to make sure everything is working properly, and,
> since the money being used is not theirs, and is limitless, money is of no
> concern, therefore designing and building a shuttle almost bug free is
> possible. "Yes, I did say Almost". Software design/coding/testing/releasing
> is a tradeoff between time, price, and demand, and capability! If MS were
> to work on the OS until all the bugs were out, we would never again see
> another release of windows, given the millions of programmers out there who
> build software to complement Windows.
>
> There will never be a completly bug free OS, it's impossible, unless that OS
> is so stripped down as to be practically useless. It is all a matter of
> mathematics. Ever hear of the traveling salesman algorythm, whereby a
> computer tries to determine all the different paths a salesman could take in
> his daily travel, then compute the result. Or how about the algorythm to
> determine which of the millions of different chess moves should be made.
> Given 2 lines of code you have 1 + 1 lines of code to check for
> compatability. Given 3 lines of code you have 3 + 2 + 1 lines of code to
> check for compatability. As we move up to 50+ million lines of code, you
> can begin to see the enormity of what you are asking for when you say you
> want/expect a bug free OS for $90.
>
> As, I hope, you can now see, it is not a big excuse, just a fact, that to
> build a completly bug free OS with the capabilities of Win 95, 98, NT, is,
> for all practical purposes, impossible.
>
> Kohath
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brent <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Real Traders Forum <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; kohath
> <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
>
> > Although I'm kind of neutral about the case against big M. I have had
> reason
> > not to be happy with Microsoft, but I use their products. I am no expert
> on
> > computers but this sounds like a big excuse. Good management is what makes
> > it possible to do all of this, it's just a matter of prioritizing. Was it
> > less complicated to build jet aircraft? This industry is still very young
> > but when things don't make sense it's time to ask questions.
> >
> > Brent
> >
> >
> >
> > > Computers, and computer software, are extremly complex. The reason
> there
> > > are so many incompatabilities between software programs and hardware.
> If
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
|