|
Author
|
Topic: MS, no breakup - justice dept. folds
|
marcel
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-06-2001 09:10
  
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/09/06/technology/microsoft/ Read it and weep. IP: Logged |
InThrees
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-06-2001 11:27
Weep? What the fuck?As far as I am concerned, Microsoft can embed almost anything they want in THEIR OS. If you don't like it, don't buy it. This isn't a hard concept. The issue of whether or not Microsoft broke some retarded law by including a browser in their OS is just stupid. Some of their business practices may have been a bit heavy handed, but as far as the technical specifications of their products go, I think Gubmint should stay the fuck out of the picture. Do you know how many fucking 'dealer only' parts my car has? Why isn't DOJ suing Ford over that shit? -3 IP: Logged |
marcel
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-06-2001 11:42
quote:
Originally posted by InThrees:
And I contend that you are missing the real issue here, which is the gradual erosion of the 'freedoms' that we take for granted.
Yea, what u sed.
IP: Logged |
InThrees
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-06-2001 16:48
I don't get it. How does that apply here?I am free to buy or not buy Microsoft's products, as I choose. I shouldn't be free, through my elected officials, and my justice system, to dictate to Microsoft how they should build their products. Let me clarify here: Muscling out 'the little guy' by firebombing his business = bad. Muscling out 'the little guy' by continually maintaining higher market share, winning over his potential customers, and generally running a healthier business = American Economics. Walmart opens up a store, 3 mom-n-pop stores fold 8 weeks later. Does DOJ sue Walmart? Nope. Marcel, how does the news that Microsoft won't be broken up adversely affect you? Other people are still free to (try to) code a better OS, just like they always have been. Other people are still free to code browsers, IM clients, mail clients, etc. "But... If Microsoft includes a browser in every OS, people won't NEED to buy a standalone browser!" Gasp. Last I checked, most cars came factory with stereos. Is this going to put Pioneer, Clarion, Kenwood, etc out of business? No, because their aftermarket stereos and speakers are (gasp again) ACTUALLY BETTER. You know what this whole thing boils down to? Microsoft being punished because it's competitors couldn't toe the line, and offer products or services that performed better than the stock things that came with the OS. I used to use netscape, now I hate it. IE owns Netscape, hands down. I used to use Eudora, and Pegasus Mail. Now I use Outlook Express. Why? Same reason. So I say again. You, John Q. Consumer, can either buy or not buy Microsoft products. As you choose. Don't lament the fact that Microsoft hasn't been forbidden to improve their products. -3 [This message has been edited by InThrees (edited 09-06-2001).] IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-06-2001 19:31
Yeah! Judge Penfield was wrong. He only heard months of testimony, he can't form an opinion on the subject like I can. The DOJ is just accusing Msoft of being too rich; they never presented mountains of evidence that m$ repeatedly and knowingly broke long-standing laws in order to stifle competition and ensure an environment without competition.
Anyway, what's up with those monopoly laws, anyway? If some other company can build a better browser they'll win. That's just economics. After all, a 90% global market share, exclusive contracts with plugin partners, and exclusive OEM installation rights, coupled with a zero pricetag funded by an overpriced monopoly OS is no match for good-old fashioned ingenuity.
I have a bizarre prediction to make.. inthrees is a Librtarian.
amiright???IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-06-2001 19:45
Penfield also spent more time mugging for the camera and telling the press how awful Microsoft was DURING THE CASE than he did actually trying the damn thing.Microsoft is still getting penalized, they're just not getting split up. And the fact remains that the real reason Netscape's market share dwindled is because it continued to fucking suck. Incidentally, I'm the libertarian - PeeT's a conservative. IP: Logged |
BaldGhoti
Member with a member
|
posted 09-07-2001 05:11
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbo:
Incidentally, I'm the libertarian - PeeT's a conservative.
Hey, has he found Jesus yet?
------------------
Reverend Rob IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-07-2001 06:01
Funny you should mention that - he is fucking constantly telling me I need to find Jesus, let the Lord in my life, etc.Of course, he's about as Christian as Nietzsche, so it's all a put-on. Still gets damn annoying though.  IP: Logged |
marcel
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-07-2001 06:04
quote:
Originally posted by InThrees:
The issue of whether or not Microsoft broke some retarded law by including a browser in their OS is just stupid.-3
Over the past 10 years Microsoft has bullied,
intimidated and down right stolen from fledging software companies. MS was found GUILTY of illegal business practices. It is irrelevant whether you perceive the laws as "STUPID" and "RETARDED". Whatever that justice department can do to level the playing field will benefit future market players. IP: Logged |
InThrees
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-07-2001 10:00
quote:
Originally posted by InThrees:
Some of their business practices may have been a bit heavy handed, but as far as the technical specifications of their products go, I think Gubmint should stay the fuck out of the picture.
I already mentioned the fact that I agree that some of Microsoft's more underhanded business practices could be done away with. However, I will state AGAIN that including or not including components of an OS should never have been an issue. And no, I don't consider myself a conserative, Jim - fen is right, for the most part. -3 IP: Logged |
nuentoter
Hey look at me I got arrested for selling warez......... SIKE!! I'm a sneaky fuck
|
posted 09-07-2001 13:31
the only thing that really bugs me about microsoft is that it has such a strong hold on the pc makers, it is hard to find a place that will give you the option of having a linux os pre-installed instead of windows os. it just doesnt happen that often.true linux can be real confusin for alot of people but give mandrake its pretty easy.
but i do understand that windows has the simplest user interface (xp beta) than almost any other os i can think of. another thing is that i am glad that ie comes with windows, what the hell are you guys complaining about? because it sure as hell beats netscape and based on the price of all ms products if they did sell it it wouldn't be cheap..
so im ok with them packaging whatever they want with it, i mean christ it just gives you more products and less purchasing/downloading in the end anyways. IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-07-2001 18:14
"It's unfair that IE is bundled with windows! Users should have to just download it for free like they did back in the days of Windows 3.1!"It's a free product, yo. If the courts are going to hammer Microsoft for "bundling", then they need to hammer them over making it almost fucking impossible to buy a PC without a copy of Windows. Now THAT does suck. IP: Logged |
BaldGhoti
Member with a member
|
posted 09-08-2001 06:50
quote:
Originally posted by InThrees:
I already mentioned the fact that I agree that some of Microsoft's more underhanded business practices could be done away with. However, I will state AGAIN that including or not including components of an OS should never have been an issue.
Bundling ceased to be the legal issue quite some time ago. It's not a matter of what they bundled, but what they told PC manufacturers NOT to bundle (or they'd risk losing the right to resell Windows).
------------------
Reverend Rob IP: Logged |
InThrees
Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-08-2001 10:20
Right, and that I don't agree with.Frankly, Microsoft just didn't NEED to do that. -3 IP: Logged |
BaldGhoti
Member with a member
|
posted 09-08-2001 21:03
Actually, at the time, MS was turning out a browser that was significantly worse than Netscape. If it weren't for MS's illegal levering, perhaps NS would have been able to get more people on Navigator, which would have meant more money from them, which would have meant more improvements to Navigator, etc, etc. Would this have necessarily happened? Perhaps, perhaps not. But we won't know, because MS used its marketing power to shove NS out of the browser war.At least, that's what my Linux-head professor kept drumming into me all summer long.
------------------
Reverend Rob IP: Logged |
Bill
Uber PenIs
|
posted 09-08-2001 22:30
Jerry Pournelle posted the link to this again on his Web site. He wrote it after the original court decision. I think he makes some interesting points.IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
PenIs Forum
