Preserved Topic: Microsoft being dragged to court :sigh: again (Page 1 of 1)

March 18, 2002

States Open Microsoft Penalty Fight
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:55 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nine states asked a judge Monday to impose tougher penalties against Microsoft (news/quote), citing internal memos as evidence the software giant had persisted in thwarting competitors even as it was being found guilty of antitrust violations.

The states asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to force Microsoft to create a stripped-down version of its flagship Windows software that could incorporate competitors' features and to divulge the blueprints for its Internet Explorer browser.

The latter software dominates the Web browser market and is a centerpiece of Microsoft's Internet-based business strategy.

Microsoft lawyers countered that the proposed penalties would force the company to pull Windows off the market. ``At the end of the day, the product would have very little value,'' lawyer Dan Webb argued.

Both sides made opening statements in a court proceeding to determine whether Microsoft should face additional penalties beyond those in its antitrust settlement with the federal government last fall.

The states opened their case by airing Microsoft executives' words in e-mails and internal memos detailing how the company responded to threats from competitors.

Dell Computer (news/quote) had plans to put Linux, a free operating system that competes with Windows, on some of its computers in 2000, the states' lawyers said. But Dell abandoned the plans under pressure from Microsoft, they said.

Steven Kuney, a lawyer for the states, cited an internal document that laid out talking points for a meeting between Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer and Dell executives.

Microsoft would give ``a reminder of the meat behind why it's smart to be partnered with,'' the document stated. ``It's untenable for our 'Premier Partner' on Windows 2000 to be doing aggressive market development for another operating system,'' the talking points said.

In an e-mail to Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, Joachim Kempin, then in charge of computer maker relations for Microsoft, said he was ``thinking of hitting the (computer makers) harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions.''

By June 2001, Dell laid off its head Linux employee and reassigned the rest of his team. Lawyers for the states said Microsoft pursued a similar course with Compaq when that company flirted with Linux in 1999.

Kuney said the events showed a ``pattern of conduct'' that can only be addressed by imposing tough new sanctions.

Webb, Microsoft's lawyer, argued against the additional penalties, saying they would let competitors confiscate billions of dollars worth of Microsoft's intellectual property.

``They're actually much worse'' that the penalty sought by the government earlier in the case that would have broken Microsoft into two separate companies, Webb said.

Microsoft argued the proposal to force it to release a ``modular'' version of Windows, in which Microsoft features can be removed in favor of alternatives from competitors, would be impossible to carry out.

Microsoft estimates the penalty would create over 4,000 ``mutant'' versions of Windows that the company would have to test to make sure they worked properly, Webb said.

The company put almost five million man-hours of testing into its latest Windows XP operating system, he said.

Microsoft lawyer Steven Holley questioned the first witness in the case, Sun executive Richard Green, about his company's assertion that Microsoft used unfair business practices to hinder Sun's Java programming language.

While touching lightly on many different and technically complex points, Holley accused Sun of ignoring the benefits Microsoft brought to Java and rebuffing Microsoft's offers to include Sun's product in Windows.

Holley also referred to Sun's recently filed private antitrust suit against Microsoft.

Holley produced an e-mail from Sun chief Scott McNealy to AOL Time Warner (news/quote), trying to create the image of the two companies partnering to hurt Microsoft.

``Does AOL have a plan to counter .NET?'', McNealy asked a top AOL executive. Microsoft.NET is Microsoft's coming suite of Web applications.

McNealy said Sun's Java would help AOL ``leapfrog'' Microsoft. ``AOL should have bought Sun first, (Time Warner (news/quote)) second,'' McNealy said.

Over the course of the hearing, which is expected to last two months, Microsoft plans to call top Microsoft executives, including Gates and Ballmer, as witnesses.

The state coalition that rejected the government's settlement with Microsoft and have continued to pursue the antitrust case are: Iowa, Utah, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Kansas, Florida, Minnesota and West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:shrug:

Why not let the company just do business?

--------------
cheers.jay

this may end up being good in a way. Imagine an AMD vs Intel situation with operating systems and software. Windows would no longer cost 200 bucks for a full version. MS, and the other company would have to make very concentrated efforts to have the best product possible. (I'm not saying microsoft doesn't do this already). Well, In my opinion, compitition is always good.

That's Capitalism.

It's a good thing.

If Microsoft would "just let other companies do business" then they'd be just fine.

We have laws to stop a company from establishing a monopoly.

They are there for a reason.

{edit - damn spelling}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-19-2002).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

The company put almost five million man-hours of testing into its latest Windows XP operating system, he said.

---

Bullshit they did.

if they done that hey would have spent approximatley the last 570 years testing it...

Even if you divide by a testing staff of 100 people, which microsoft DOES NOT employ, they still would have spent 5.7 years testing it, so they were testing it while they were releasing WInblows 98? Don't think so...

Yeah...just let them get on with business

If what they were doing was business, and followed the code of business ethics, then we would let them get on with it, but it isn't and they don't, so we won't.

They go in and 'buy out' smaller companies that threaten them, and if they can't buy them, they steal their software, and turn it into something of their own, with 12 times as many bugs and security holes, and force them out of the morket place, or worse yet, accuse the company of stealing ideas from Microsoft. If Microsoft can't write their own program, then the next service pack for windows will include an update that will prevent software with that company's Author Signature from operating on Windows. They lie, they cheat, they steal. They go to far, and so I really don't see why we should just 'let them get on with business'.

My 2 rubles

quote:

---

Bullshit they did.

if they done that hey would have spent approximatley the last 570 years testing it...

Even if you divide by a testing staff of 100 people, which microsoft DOES NOT employ, they still would have spent 5.7 years testing it, so they were testing it while they were releasing WInblows 98? Don't think so...

Yeah...just let them get on with business

If what they were doing was business, and followed the code of business ethics, then we would let them get on with it, but it isn't and they don't, so we won't.

They go in and 'buy out' smaller companies that threaten them, and if they can't buy them, they steal their software, and turn it into something of their own, with 12 times as many bugs and security holes, and force them out of the morket place, or worse yet, accuse the company of stealing ideas from Microsoft. If Microsoft can't write their own program, then the next service pack for windows will include an update that will prevent software with that company's Author Signature from operating on Windows. They lie, they cheat, they steal. They go to far, and so I really don't see why we should just 'let them get on with business'.

My 2 rubles

---

I completly agree. Bussiness ethics? Microsoft? (they have none).


ICQ # 132364102

You quoted the entire previous post to add 'I agree'?

You continue to amaze me, Dark.

Indeed...that is disturbing


In the beginning, there was the word...and the word was 'God', although by the time it reached the other end of the phone line... the word was 'Gznd'

The man hours come from outside testing. Just ask pugzly. I believe he gets beta copies to test. All of the beta testing done out of house also counts towards testing time.

Testing time also includes time on the market.

Once it is released public and people begin to use the product in their day to day activities is when the real testing begins. Average Joe will be able to break the system better than Joe Tester will be able to just because Joe Tester knows what he is doing.

Could the millions of people who own XP and count their time using it as test time. We can easily say that this is test time because obviously they are snooping around inside there recording all that you do.

----------

Onto the main topic.

I don't think that we can really just "...let the company just do business?". The case against this monopoly is strong. It is not a weak case. Microsoft did IMO use its powers as a monopoly to stifel competition.

Many companies were strong armed out of business because of microsoft.

Yes, microsoft does have a great business model. microsoft does have a product that appeases the masses. However, they are now using that business model, and product to further their aims in ways that violate laws.

You are 100% allowed to have a good product and to market it well. You are not allowed to stop your competition from being able to fairly market their product, that breaks the law.

Now, microsoft is being pulled into court because of this. The federal government fought a battle against microsoft and settled. These 9 states do not feel that this settlement would remidy microsofts unfair practicies and it is now within their rights to continue to seek damages as well as remidies.

Letting them do business lead them to this in the first place. If we keep letting them "do business" what will happen next?

Microsoft will probably put a virus on your computer that will cause hardware damage if anythinbg but their allies hardware or software is installed in it...

No, it won't work like that...

What they will do is force their hardware company allies to install a virus on the hardware that fucks the software if it is not microsoft.

i think Microsoft should have their own SWAT Team.