Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Oct 26, 2005 479 Replies
P
Peter
But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed, then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary component.
Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have applications as it's components, it was far more complicated than that at the time.
It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark. :)
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
G
Gary H
Bigot?? You never learned to read *and* understand at the same time, is that correct??
J
JAD
Actually they succeeded in laming the browser from working, but could not remove all the files associated and still have the OS work as advertised.
G
Gary H
Yeah, and as of next year you'll only be able to buy Ladas. :-) What a bunch of horse petunias.
That's one way of looking at it I suppose. Not very insightful, but a way.
I think he OEM licenses Windows from Microsoft. Maybe it's something in the contract, like he gets a discount with every brown nosing Microsoft defender reply.
D
David Maynard
Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state of the world's oil supply.
They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every technologically feasible source of new energy production.
Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local supplies have been pre stocked. That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.
Since you've got all that excess oil, why don't you lobby the legislature for a refinery permit? hmm?
G
Gary H
So there.
D
David Maynard
ROTFL
Within the last 24 hours I've been accused of being a Linux kook and now a Microsoft OEM.
That averages out to well balanced.
J
John Doe
Not by me. You always defend Microsoft.
I'm pretty sure I can find your quotes of the OEM license agreement spoken as if you took them to heart.
Are you saying you are just a troll?
J
John Doe
Microsoft uses the same contemptuous argument in every bundling case. That's what it said also in the European Union case about Windows Media Player. The EU didn't buy it either.
That's something most of us could only say "DUH" to.
Some of the things Microsoft lawyers said during the trial were so incredibly silly.
But you know, not long ago someone in here said that a computer without the Internet is not a computer. And they were serious. Gives me an eerie feeling, like it's Microsoft speak or something.
I think the idea of separating the operating system from the applications was the main part of the proposed remedy.
Consumers buy Windows because of so many available applications. Software developers write for Windows because so many people buy Windows. I think that's the positive feedback loop which the court called "the applications barrier to entry" and that's how Microsoft holds monopoly power.
Microsoft was concerned that the Java contained/distributed in navigator would allow too many applications to run on non-Microsoft operating systems and end Microsoft's monopoly power.
I think it was mainly about how Microsoft used its monopoly power to force Netscape Navigator out of the market.
Same here even though I did follow it closely at the time.
I didn't realize it was going to drag on for years, I learned about the slowness of major court proceedings too.
J
John Doe
Yes, I think the name is Felton. I e-mailed some of the court people including that professor/whatever. I mentioned Windows 98lite and he replied about it (but I've lost the reply). I think his was another such program.
Apparently it was a minor offense, but Microsoft got into some trouble trying to prove Windows could not function without Internet Explorer.
J
John Doe
You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the entity instead of the facts.
Besides being corrupt, that's false.
In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.
The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding. The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other program.
Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another market share is illegal.
The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their case that way.
You have a strange idea of justice. Netscape wasn't on trial. Some people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the entity instead of the facts.
Besides being corrupt, that's false.
In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell Windows without Internet Explorer. Original Equipment Manufacturers were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop. Original Equipment Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.
The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding. The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of Windows (any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other program.
Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly, but it was Microsoft's monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another market share is illegal.
The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their case that way.
That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been reading too much Steve Ballmer.
The rest of the world knows better.
Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.
Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.
There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a profit competing with Intel.
We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold monopoly power.
J
John Doe
That makes sense, coming from someone who plainly states that Microsoft Office is a single application. Methinks someone has been reading too much Steve Ballmer.
The rest of the world knows better.
Market share by itself does not indicate monopoly power.
Nothing prevents me from buying an AMD processor which will run all of the applications and Intel processor runs. And that's what I do.
There is no barrier to entry. Advanced Micro Devices is making a profit competing with Intel.
We've agreed that multiple operating system makers would be unacceptable (assuming they could not run the same programs). The fact that multiple CPU makers is perfectly acceptable to consumers should give you a clue about another reason why Intel does not hold monopoly power.
M
Mxsmanic
I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with words I do not understand. There is no connection between my mental capacity and the vocabularies of others.
No, I was not.
USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturally do, without deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
M
Mxsmanic
I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak with words I do not understand. There is no connection between my mental capacity and the vocabularies of others.
No, I was not.
USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturally do, without deliberately adjusting their levels for specific individuals.
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.