From: Chuck Murcko (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 11 2000 - 07:54:50 PDT
Y'know, this tweaks my basic unease about this whole sordid affair.
Maybe I look at the whole issue too simply, but to me it seems:
1) M$ evades first antitrust action
2) Second antitrust action ensues with more plaintiffs
3) M$ stonewalls; claims suppression of innovation will ensue
4) Antitrust action proceeds; M$ stuck in loop at 3)
5) Antitrust action culminates in decision; M$ still stuck in loop at 3)
6) Antitrust action headed for high court appeals; M$ apparently still
stuck in loop at 3)
Why does this remind me of Windows? 8^)
M$ has had plenty of opportunities to deal with the Fed and eviscerate
the whole antitrust process; instead they kept repeating the same old
line from 3). They have had a number of chances to avoid the (not so
clueful) actions of the Fed, and have chosen not to play.
I have little sympathy for M$, because they've taken the
all-too-familiar line of playing the victim, instead of taking
responsibility for their actions. This whole affair has gotten like an
amplified version of a "hot coffee spilled in lap" lawsuit. M$ is just
trying to scale it further than anyone else has tried to; further than
they ever managed to scale NT.
IMO, both M$ and the Fed should be broken up into smaller entities. I
don't like having either of them in my face.
"Stephen D. Williams" wrote:
> Dan Kohn wrote:
> > "When an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any
> > Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that
> > OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the
> > product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of
> > amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed
> > separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable
> > version of Windows." -- Judgment provision 3(g)ii, from the Department of
> > Justice proposal on how to use mass code weights of middleware to judge the
> > value of software.
> I noted this in my earlier post about the ruling... however I found it funny.
> I can just hear what they were thinking: "They can't give us a price so we'll
> just estimate worth by code size." Perfectly rational for a non-technical
> person. It challenges MS to provide a More rational basis, rather than saying
> they can't and assuming that the court couldn't come up with something.
> The only more rational method I can see is to do a full audit of all R&D,
> development, advertising, legal (!), and other expenditures for the OS and the
> middleware in question and using various methods impute product cost, profit,
> and retail components for each piece. Needless to say this would cost a
> fortune and appropriate records are probably not available.
-- Chuck Chuck Murcko Topsail Group email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 09:45:41 PDT