What would you define an OS to include. If it includes utilities such as a defragmenter that is also sold separately by another vendor, is that really so bad? In essence, how much of Windows, the OS itself and packaging would you remove to make it not violate antitrust laws?
Packaging it is not the problem. It is the system integration that is the problem... Think about your favorite distro of Linux. It includes tons of software to do just about anything you _can_ do with a computer. But, they don't tie say... Netscape into the kernel core so that you can't get rid of it if it sucks to no end(no comments please, it's just an example). Windows has this sort of thing in it, which is what the punishment should include: the separation of products into a set of packages that work together or separately.
This solution is unworkable. The average/. reader would happily remove IE from Windows and replace it with Mozilla, but the average user will use what's given to them in the distribution. Net effect on MS? Zero: after all, the/. folks pirated Windows anyway:^)
The whole idea of unbundling stinks IMHO. Where do you draw the line? At various times in the lifecycle of Windows you've been able to buy web browsers, drive compression+defragment utilities, replacement GUIs and even replacement virtual memory systems. Should we force MS to unbundle everything but the kernel?
hmm, maybe this is a bad idea, but what if the courts had mandated that MS unbundle their OS and forced them to open it up (as in a nice cold open can of speech)?
Im speculating here, but - imagine if the OS was free, but they were still able to sell everything else - IE, Defrag, notepad (yeach) etc.
This would have a two fold effect of still allowing MS to make money off of some of their other bigger products (Office, SQL Server) and would also allow people the choice.
I think that people who say that everything should be opened up are unrealistic, it's one thing to make it look like you are trying to kill a giant, it's another to let the giant kill itself.
At the very least all APIs should have been opened up. This post isn't really going anywhere, I just had a thought that I wanted to throw out there and see if anyone had any expansion on it (good and bad please).
I don't think IE is part of the kernel... It's part of explorer.exe, the Windows shell. You can still run Windows (quite easily, I might add) without explorer.exe, there's just no start bar.
IANAL, but I think the line may be whether another party's code or design concept has been violated. It's usually easy to prove whether code has been stolen, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allows for protection of "design patents".
Anyone remember a number of years ago (about 1992-3) when Stac Electronics sued M$ for stealing their Stacker code (Stacker was a drive compression TSR for MS-DOS that M$ repackaged as Drivespace)?
Stac proved that their code was stolen, and was awarded something like $10M. M$ countersued, basically admitting that they stole the code, but said Stac shouldn't have been reverse engineering their code. M$ won that countersuit and got something like $100M, plus they could keep packaging Drivespace with MS-DOS.
It's like if I break into your house and steal your TV. You come home, notice your TV is gone, take the law into your own hands, break into my house and take my TV back. I have to admit, I stole your TV, but, hey, you shouldn't have broken into my house. Not only do I get you thrown in jail, but I get to keep your TV...
Everyone should understand by now that there is no way you're going to be able to solve the Microsoft problem by forcing them to include this or exclude that from the OS. It just can't work. What this guy should be focusing on is Microsoft's business arrangements, contracts, and tactics. They should not be allowed to make exclusive deals with OEMs or anyone else. They should not be allowed to pressure OEMs into favoring their software with threats of revoking licenses or increasing costs and the like. They should not be allowed to charge per-processor, per-machine, or per-model fees for Windows, or use any other similar criteria for that purpose. OEMs should be allowed to ship PCs with no OS at all if that's what the customer wants. It should be entirely up to the seller, not Microsoft.
Then, if the DOJ isn't completely incompetent, the agreement should be modified to remove all the loopholes that allow Microsoft to get out of revealing their APIs and protocols and whatnot when they deem it to be a security risk. That's utter nonsense and needs to be fixed. If it isn't, then just watch them begin to consider everything a security risk. They blatantly violated the intent of the first consent decree in the same way, don't think they won't do it again if there is even a tiny loophole in the agreement. This guy needs to make sure they comply and that they actually reveal this information. If they don't, he should be able to give us a damn good reason why not.
I read the Cringely article [pbs.org], and I don't have any problem with this guy from what I know of him so far (which is admittedly still very little), so I'm hopefull that he could be a good person for the job. Now, I hear that Microsoft wants to be able to name 3 of the people on the overwatch committee. I don't see why they should get to name anyone for the job. Does this make sense to anyone else? That's like getting to pick one of your friends to be your parole officer.
Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated
computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...
My Question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My Question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
Re:My Question is... (Score:2)
The whole idea of unbundling stinks IMHO. Where do you draw the line? At various times in the lifecycle of Windows you've been able to buy web browsers, drive compression+defragment utilities, replacement GUIs and even replacement virtual memory systems. Should we force MS to unbundle everything but the kernel?
Eric
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
Im speculating here, but - imagine if the OS was free, but they were still able to sell everything else - IE, Defrag, notepad (yeach) etc.
This would have a two fold effect of still allowing MS to make money off of some of their other bigger products (Office, SQL Server) and would also allow people the choice.
I think that people who say that everything should be opened up are unrealistic, it's one thing to make it look like you are trying to kill a giant, it's another to let the giant kill itself.
At the very least all APIs should have been opened up. This post isn't really going anywhere, I just had a thought that I wanted to throw out there and see if anyone had any expansion on it (good and bad please).
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
IANAL, but I think the line may be whether another party's code or design concept has been violated. It's usually easy to prove whether code has been stolen, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allows for protection of "design patents".
Anyone remember a number of years ago (about 1992-3) when Stac Electronics sued M$ for stealing their Stacker code (Stacker was a drive compression TSR for MS-DOS that M$ repackaged as Drivespace)?
Stac proved that their code was stolen, and was awarded something like $10M. M$ countersued, basically admitting that they stole the code, but said Stac shouldn't have been reverse engineering their code. M$ won that countersuit and got something like $100M, plus they could keep packaging Drivespace with MS-DOS.
It's like if I break into your house and steal your TV. You come home, notice your TV is gone, take the law into your own hands, break into my house and take my TV back. I have to admit, I stole your TV, but, hey, you shouldn't have broken into my house. Not only do I get you thrown in jail, but I get to keep your TV...
Re:My Question is... (Score:1)
aaargh!! (Score:2)
Everyone should understand by now that there is no way you're going to be able to solve the Microsoft problem by forcing them to include this or exclude that from the OS. It just can't work. What this guy should be focusing on is Microsoft's business arrangements, contracts, and tactics. They should not be allowed to make exclusive deals with OEMs or anyone else. They should not be allowed to pressure OEMs into favoring their software with threats of revoking licenses or increasing costs and the like. They should not be allowed to charge per-processor, per-machine, or per-model fees for Windows, or use any other similar criteria for that purpose. OEMs should be allowed to ship PCs with no OS at all if that's what the customer wants. It should be entirely up to the seller, not Microsoft.
Then, if the DOJ isn't completely incompetent, the agreement should be modified to remove all the loopholes that allow Microsoft to get out of revealing their APIs and protocols and whatnot when they deem it to be a security risk. That's utter nonsense and needs to be fixed. If it isn't, then just watch them begin to consider everything a security risk. They blatantly violated the intent of the first consent decree in the same way, don't think they won't do it again if there is even a tiny loophole in the agreement. This guy needs to make sure they comply and that they actually reveal this information. If they don't, he should be able to give us a damn good reason why not.
I read the Cringely article [pbs.org], and I don't have any problem with this guy from what I know of him so far (which is admittedly still very little), so I'm hopefull that he could be a good person for the job. Now, I hear that Microsoft wants to be able to name 3 of the people on the overwatch committee. I don't see why they should get to name anyone for the job. Does this make sense to anyone else? That's like getting to pick one of your friends to be your parole officer.