The findings of fact explain what you need to know.
formatting link
It's good reading.
You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us knew long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds monopoly power, you might endanger your business status with Microsoft. If you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then you lump yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend Microsoft. Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other?
newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com! newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu! newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!sn- xit-11!sn-xit-05!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for- mail
I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently don't have a single independent thought about it there's nothing to 'discuss'.
And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?"
But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity I'll tell you why I've declined in the past; because you are an irrational ideologue about it who, regardless of the context, topic, time period, or anything else, does little more than repeat over and over 'the court said so' and paste links to it as if the court is omniscient and infallible in every word and jot
Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that no guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person ever convicted nor any injustice ever done, and that's where the court works best. It's even more absurd to think the court is infallible in business law suits and just plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features of an O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general. You can't even get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the court ain't no 'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue.
And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds monopoly power" and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use them interchangeably, and they're not.
That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final findings but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text of it.
And since that is the entirety of your 'argument', for everything, there is nothing to 'discuss'.
Me neither. Yes Microsoft does develop personal computer software. But so does thousands of other companies as well. So this rules out Microsoft as a monopoly.
Your proof is from known liars who hides the truth under the umbrella of nation security and many other things.
I have no strange views about Microsoft's dominance. I freely admit they have a huge following using their software. Although what the
*facts* don't show is how this dominance means that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC market.
That is ridiculous! How can that be? As they would had to have complete control over the PC. This isn't the case at all. As Microsoft's largest threat is probably Linux. So get that silly idea out of your head, because it just isn't so. As there are probably millions of PCs not running any MS product at all. And you are totally ignoring this *fact*. Why is that?
Is it because the lying system told you so? Thus are you trying us to believe known liars? Why? I easily shown you how ridiculous calling Microsoft a monopoly sounds by using the known *facts*. Don't follow others in their ignorance, think for yourself.
__________________________________________________ Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
As hard as it may be to believe, the declaration of a court is not any kind of final or universal authority, except in legal terms.
Exactly.
Microsoft has a near-monopoly on PC operating systems. That's about it.
I don't understand this statement.
Legal "corrections" are notorious for their ineffectiveness. Market forces are much more balanced and reliable, even if they don't move as quickly as some might like.
I don't see a connection between the two.
Or I simply disagree with you, which is not the same thing.
In some respects. Why don't you clamor for the break-up of public utilities, then?
I understand it, but I also know that it's not always desirable.
I wasn't joking. Why do you think there is no competition for the military?
Microsoft has had a lot of legal trouble because it has made a lot of well-funded enemies by virtue of its exceptional performance.
I've been doing it for most of my life.
Then why do you seem to object to Windows as a single platform?
You'd prefer to let that mass murderer with the machine gun continue to shoot at innocent bystanders?
There isn't any part that I don't understand. I understand it only too well. Do you know why the personification of justice is blindfolded?
Maybe you should buy a Mac.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft.
Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves.
Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them.
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
You're attempting to base your position on personal attacks and personality conflicts. Others base their positions on arguments relevant to the topic under discussion, with personalities being ignored and personal attacks being nonexistent. What might this imply?
-- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Logically, no, but not having one doesn't preclude the fool hardly from trying anyway ;) That's the reverse of my scenario and back to yours: incompetent new management.
I'm not arguing there's a 'universal' scenario but that it varies, depending on a host of circumstances.
Yes, same point I made below.
You seem 'surprised'. Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals?
We agree.
Well, I was developing proprietary microcomputers for specific industry applications, not 'general purpose' computers, so I am not sure how 'obvious' it would have been.
Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing. IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie, pocket protector army?
Most do, even if the first thought comes from the internal 'genius'.
You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than expecting one person to be omniscient.
And the process itself comes from 'smarts'.
I don't expect it but I don't discount the possibility either.
I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features' but not terribly different to the primary mission.
It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if it's functionally significant enough.
And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit transitions to
64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the long touted 3D Desktop.
Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models.
I didn't say it *had* to, I was just pointing out that it could and put you out of business without one needing to make 'too many mistakes'.
This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's transportable to any industry ;)
We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot.
Oh, lordy. Now that you've said it they're probably doomed ;)
Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea?
I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek interest in some pet project.
Only you could refer to the entire contents of that ruling in the singular.
I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on P/L responsibility.
You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical sentences. That's interchangeably in my book.
The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't discuss it with you.
I don't know a thing about him but even a genius would be foolish to not read up even if for no other reason to see what your competition is doing.
I'd sure worry about the one's who don't.
Oh come on. You know that's a straw man.
Yep. That's what I mean about transporting 'visions'.
Yeah, I know, but it seems to be a common problem. But then that's also what spawns industry mantras like "don't stray from your core business" and why in risk management anything you haven't done before it automatically flagged a risk no matter how trivial it seems. It ain't 'trivial' because you don't know enough to know whether it's 'trivial' or not.
In that case they have the wrong development process because the first thing they should do is acquire the knowledge, one way or the other.
Well, they *think* they are.
Maybe the problem is that deadwood floats ;)
Of course, and that's why I said it takes something significant to the primary mission.
No, but if it were 1930 and I had a hand crank unit I might be willing to 'upgrade' to one of them new fangled electric 'automatic' ones even though its still just a washing machine.
It's true there's more inertia but I've heard the "all you likely need" argument since DOS came out.
There are simply things you can do with the 32bit architecture that you can't with the 16.
Well, that people need a reason *first* simply isn't true and if anything proves it its the computer itself as you couldn't find more than a handful of people who could think of a dern thing to use one for when 'home computers' first came out, and there's still some who can't ;)
Computers are one of, if not the, most synergistic products ever devised with more powerful computers enabling applications previously unheard of and developers dreaming of applications current machines can't handle spurring them on to ever more power. And people who thought a typewriter was perfectly fine now can't live without publisher quality full graphics.
You know, I can remember when a telephone was for speaking to someone, not taking pictures, PDA, WAP, and text messaging. You think anyone really 'needed' those 'first'?
I just think they're different errors ;)
That's because its where their 'great idea' and experience/insight lives and saying the buggy whip CEO should steer the company to a new domain is easier said than done. It just isn't obvious what else that magic 'crack' his whips make applies to and even if he finds an alternative it's not nearly as likely to be another 'great idea' but more of a settling for 'something'.
I agree and you're coming close to the 'process' approach. Just needs a tad bit larger 'team', and the process.
Yeah. But that was the thing we were musing about: where the man with the 'great idea' got the next 'great idea' and whether it was as easy as it sounds. And whether the lack of new 'great ideas' was due to him being gone and new management.
Same here. Plus I like mulling over business practices. Who knows, maybe I'll come up with a 'great idea' and be faced with the same problem some day ;)
It should have been enough that I said I didn't intend to discuss it with you but, upon your insistence, I've given enough of the reasons why I don't intend to discuss it with you that even you should be able to grasp that I don't intend to discuss it with you.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.