Billwatch Snippets Database – Part I
|Snippet:||At several place the news popped up
that the DOJ is not only in court to hear it said that they are right,
but that the idea behind the whole thing is to eradicate domination
from the structure of the computer and software industry and that
something will have to follow up the court sessions.
|Snippet:||Several consumer groups have bundled
their efforts and handed over to the Senate Judiciary Committee a
115-page report that harshly criticizes Microsoft’s impact on
innovation and user choice in the computer industry.
|Snippet:||Microsoft would gladly be liked in
academia, but their efforts to force loose information from two
academic writers seems to have an adverse effect.
In a statement of the American Association of University Professors we find:
You can find the full statement here:
|Snippet:||The New York Times is running an
accessible article in which several allegiations in the antitrust case
against Microsoft treated with some care: the attempted collusion with
Netscape followed by the well-known leverage of a monopoly market to
increase share in another market, breaking Spyglass’ business (82
licensees) by giving away its own license of the browser for free,
threathening Compaq with denial of access to their essential facility,
the Windows OS, and keeping Intel out of the software market.
(You’ll need to register to gain access.)
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s arguments for getting
access to the notes and tapes of interviews that two academicians held
with Netscape executives were considered insufficient for Judge Richard
Actually, Microsoft’s claims were rather ridiculous,
|Snippet:||Allegedly CNET reporter used
confidential internal e-mail from Microsoft in his article “Microsoft’s
holy war against java”. Sufficient reason to receive a subpoena to hand
over the material. According to Microsoft Tom Pilla Microsoft
competitors are responsible for leaking confidential information in a
selective manner. Of course, Microsoft could have avoided the evils of
selection by not prohibiting the public from gaining knowledge of the
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s high principles against
government regulation stop where the government uses its exclusive
position to prevent people from chosing and offers them only Microsoft
This is what we see in several states at this moment,
NetAction’s Nathan Newman (read his papers!) wrote an article about the matter: http://www.netaction.org/monitor/mon35.html
|Snippet:||With the trial coming up, the intensity
of speculation increases. Right now, there seems to be a wave of
“something must be done, but there are better alternatives to breaking
up Microsoft” articles.
Jesse Berst refers to several alternatives in his “Why breaking up Microsoft is hard to do — and stupid too”:
One of his references is a reprint of the SPA proposal (now where did I have the original):
|Snippet:||A few days ago several consumer
organisations handed a 115-page report to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that was highly critical of the combination of Microsoft’s
market position with their behavior. Although the link is very much
never made, Microsoft seems to have felt to urge to respond. I
annotated the result
You can find Microsoft’s article here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/10-7pricing.htm
My annotation is here: http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/price_critics.html
|Snippet:||The DOJ had to go to court again to ask
it to compel Microsoft to hand over the requested databases with
information on OEM’s. Jackson had seen what the DOJ had actually
received from Microsoft and called it “gibberish”.
“We have cooperated 100 percent in the government
You can find the article at:
|Snippet:||As it reason for not complying with the
order to make their OEM databases accessible to the DOJ Microsoft gave
that “four GigaBytes is a lot of documents”.
First of all, four
|Snippet:||Microsoft graciously allowed the New York Times to publish a rephrasing of a memo by Mr. William H. Gates III himself.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gates’
And do we find the slightest indication
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s presspass contains an interesting piece concerning their filing of three motions to the Federal District Court.
To me “walking away” seems like
From the fact
|Snippet:||In an excellent ZDNet article Microsoft’s offensive to conquer the database market is laid out.
|Snippet:||A Microsoft spokesperson declared that
the US trial doesn’t negatively influence its European business. Hardly
news, as nobody expected that it would. If you are still interested,
Don’t waste your time on these articles, expect if you are European and starved for news.
|Snippet:||San Jose Mercury News’ Dan Gilmor has
created a nice page with pictures of personalities that you can click
on to read what they have to say on the antitrust case.
Well, I haven’t read the rest of the comments so far.
See for yourself: http://www.sjmercury.com/columnists/gillmor/docs/dg101198.htm
|Snippet:||Microsoft presently chastises the DOJ
for even thinking about the effects of breaking up Microsoft or other
alternatives such as having another company sell Windows too.
|Snippet:||We have been bothered much with
opinions, wild speculations and life histories of lawyers. I am quite
happy to see someone investing in some very sane advice for the public
on how to go through the trial: get your data firsthand and think for
|Snippet:||After the New York Times played
messenger boy for Microsoft and after the grand “principle of
innovation” rhetorics, one would expect Microsoft’s new “chief
technologist” to be engaged fully in, well, technology, right?
|Snippet:||During his tour to raise political support for Microsoft, Gates spawned the usual “right to innovate” slogans.
When Gartner analyst Scott Winkler
Results? No, but they pour money into R&D like mad.
|Snippet:||There is nothing specifically new about
the information John Dvorak gives when criticising Microsoft’s claim
that the plans for inclusion of “web browsing technology” into Windows
were made many years ago.
The reason why I mention this article
|Snippet:||The Bristol case has opened. The verdict is to be expected on Friday. See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27577,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh
Microsoft’s request for yet another delay of the trial has been denied. See: http://www.sjmercury.com/business/microsoft/docs/008672.htm
|Snippet:||The Gartner Group expects an all Wintel
world in a few years. Perhaps there can be a niche market of java
systems but otherwise we’ll see Windows on Intel on the desktop and the
server and Windows CE on Intel’s StrongARM.
I think that these
|Snippet:||Microsoft invested in, and commissioned
Softways Systems Inc. to put a POSIX level on top of NT. Now this has
been branded “UNIX”(tm).
Microsoft also has developed an add-on to NT, NT Services for Unix, (SFU) that makes NT systems look more like Unix ones.
I say, if Microsoft is in the UNIX/NT integration business, are they not a direct competitor to Bristol?
|Snippet:||This weekend the analysis of
Microsoft’s 43-page public defense will start. The falsity of many of
Microsoft’s claims is easy to show, but it takes an awful lot of work.
Take for example Microsoft’s claim that Linux was developed by a single
person. “grep N: /usr/src/linux/CREDITS |wc -l” says 252. I have
quickly browsed the document and have found many more instances of
misrepresentations that can thus be uncovered and answered. This
weekend the results of a cursory going through the document will be
released at billwatch, with an invitation to the public to participate
in the further “debugging” of the document.
|Snippet:||Microsoft has often claimed that the
government cannot judge their actions as it doesn’t understand how
business in the computer and software industry works.
The catalog gives us some
Mitch Stone wrote in his introduction to the catalog:
You can find the page of “MS investments” under the
Updates and rectifications are invited.
|Snippet:||Quoting from the DOJ’s “FURTHER EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT” of 16 October:
The media has been very low-key on the important
If you want to track what was requested in the first place, see: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1900/1979.htm
|Snippet:||The DOJ seems to have learned an
important lesson from the Appeals Court: it should obtain the right
credentials for talking about technology.
And so it went out to
See Mary Jo Foley’s: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2150958,00.html
(Perhaps I should make a menu-button that leads to a “Mary Jo Foley” search at ZDNET.)
|Snippet:||Friday Bristol was granted access to
all of the depositions and exhibits that have been entered in the
lawsuits of the DOJ, Sun, Caldera and AT&T versus Microsoft.
I find access to the
Bristol’s lawyers will have to hurry as the trial is scheduled to end next Monday.
See yet another Mary Jo Foley article:
|Snippet:||I have little to say about Dan Gilmor’s
“Intuit battle started what this trial should finish: justice”, except
that it pleases me. Here is a fragment:
“I’d argue that the
Despite the torrent of
When the press resumes its critical function like this,
For the full editorial, see: http://www.mercurycenter.com/columnists/gillmor/docs/dg101898.htm
|Snippet:||Seeing if anything worth knowing had happened I turned to Mercury News, news.com, zdnet and cnnfn.com.
Cnnfn is the
|Snippet:||The reason Microsoft gives for the
non-decreasing price of their OS in an industry of falling prices is
that they have added new components to it.
The most salient new
Will the ladies and gentlemen of the press
|Snippet:||The point of an antitrust case is not
to break a company, but to keep the option of competition open. Nothing
bad will happen to Microsoft’s market share if java were allowed to
exist: so what if consumers can freely swap the OS’s underneat the JVM,
they’ll first have to find a better or cheaper one than Windows.
Similarly, nothing much will happen if Microsoft can no longer force OEM’s and ISP’s to ship their software exclusively.
The following Salon Magazine article touches this topic:
|Snippet:||Bizarre arithmetic forms the foundation
of Microsoft’s argumentation in court. “These [exclusive] contracts
[with OEM's and ISP's] were pro-competitive because they reduced
Netscape’s dominance. They gave consumers a choice.”
Microsoft’s less-is-more arithmetic saying that consumers are given more choice is choice is limited is outrageous.
Well, go find yourself some context to put the above in perspective. I got this information from: http://www.sjmercury.com/business/microsoft/trial/breaking/docs/mstrial102098.htm
|Snippet:||After their earlier temporary ruling in
favor of Microsoft’s request to keep the depositions sealed, a
three-judge federal appeals court panel considered the public release
of pretrial depositions conform to the law.
After a stimulating discussion, the panel adjourned without specifying when they would make a decision.
|Snippet:||It seems that an Italian software tradegroup has filed an antitrust case against Microsoft.
In English I found only a very short Computerworld announcement:
|Snippet:||Airlines are alleged to be unfairly
discriminating in giving online bookings through e.g. Microsoft’s
“Expedia” a lower commission than those through travel agencies.
Richard Barton, the general manager of Expedia, says: “It’s very disconcerting. How can we compete?”
The Air Transport Association
|Snippet:||One reason for the EU’s not pursuing an
antitrust case against Microsoft is that they have not received a
complaint. This seems like a very good reason to me. Also it seem to me
that something can be done about that.
I was clueless on how to
These guys are supposed to work for the public. File a complaint and ask that they work for you.”
|Snippet:||Having a monopoly to escape the
necessity to lower prices in an industry where falling prices are the
rule has paid off handsomely.
MS announced record profits of $1.52 billion for the most recently ended quarter, and predicts stronger 2Q earnings.
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s claims that they intended
to integrate browser functionality even before Netscape was founded
throws a whole new light on the value of integration in the OS. But,
as I argue, not the kind that they anticipated.
See the article in the “features” menu with the title “Intentions without incentive”.
|Snippet:||If Microsoft was so innovative for 23
years, has so many extremely intelligent and hardworking employees and
started on web browsers before Netscape did, then why did they lag
behind so much?
|Snippet:||Microsoft is doing its best to make
Netscape’s actions resemble their own. For one thing, Netscape sought
to gain a large market share – or why not, a monopoly – in web browsers
to be able to sell their servers.
Of course, the comparison is
Netscape’s market share has
|Snippet:||I just entered a snippet in the dark
and quiet corner of this site titled “open forum”, requesting quotes of
Microsoft executives or consults hired by Microsoft that include
name-calling of parties that they dislike.
Even in court, Microsoft’s strategy to victory seems to be to give rude names to anybody who disagrees with them.
|Snippet:||Enterprises can now “buy into the
Microsoft vision” by signing the “Microsoft Enterprise Agreement”. This
will give them large discounts on Microsoft front- and backoffice
products for a three- or four year period. Aside from the long term – a
standard strategy of a monopolist, you can look it up in the books -
the catch of these agreements is that they are not volume-accounts by
numbers, but volume accounts by exclusion: by signing one agrees to not
buy software with similar functionality from other parties.
Incidentally, two American states have already “bought into the
Microsoft vision”. Expect these states to set up regulations that any
dealings with them will have to use proprietary Microsoft data formats.
See Mary Jo Foley’s: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_rc_display/0,3443,2153066,00.html
|Snippet:||An antitrust case is about actions of
companies described in an economical vocabulary. “Monopoly” is
primarily an economical term, not a legal term and most certainly not a
term that is related to computer or software technology.
As I was earlier presently surprised by
|Snippet:||Claim 1: The government acts as a proxy for Microsoft’s competitors, especially Netscape.
2: Microsoft must innovate to keep ahead of the fiery throng of
competitors that will overtake it technologically and therefore in the
market if they stand still for a moment.
Claim 3: By turning itself
against the integration of the browser and the OS the government’s
actions represent a “return of the Luddites”, that is, the people who
smashed machinery as they wanted to continue their manual trades.
|Snippet:||A hardly readable version of the notes
that Marc Andreessen claims to have made during a Netscape-Microsoft
meeting on future cooperation is now available from the DOJ’s site.
You can download it in PDF format from: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/033.pdf
|Snippet:||For one thing, Microsoft now has $17 billion in the bank, that is, about the entire worth of Sun and half the worth of Oracle.
|Snippet:||Reasoning that the video-tape with the
deposit of William H. Gates is equal to having the real-thing in court,
Microsoft lawyers now claim that showing this tape would effectively
come down to the government’s adding another witness to the list. Well,
I have often had the impression that Mr. Gates’ answering questions is
just “running the tape again”.
Apparently, when the government
Given that Microsoft has often claimed that
I wonder when someone in
For more on these topics, see: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27918,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh
|Snippet:||After claiming that the notes of Marc
Andreessen were faked and also that the meeting didn’t even take place,
the latest Microsoft position is that the meeting in which they were
alleged to seek to collude with Netscape was an attempt by Netscape to
spur DOJ action against Microsoft.
Believing that everybody is
|Snippet:||You can follow the following link for a
rather lame article containing an excerpt of an interview with
antitrust theoretician Robert Bork, who is presently employed by
|Snippet:||Rather late, I encountered a techweb
interview with Wendy Rohm, author of “The Microsoft file: the secret
case against Bill Gates”.
The interview is mostly about the
|Snippet:||Microsoft relegated Ms Rohm’s book to the category of “fiction”.
|Snippet:||Salon Magazine created the hypothesis
that Microsoft’s consistently making good money despite economical
turbulance and changing technology might be due to their monopoly
position. Not altogether deep, but something that received notoriously
little mention in the media.
Also they ridicule John Warden’s
|Snippet:||Following their regular schema of
conference EU and US antitrust investigators will meet tomorrow. Given
that specific items will be discussed, Microsoft’s position will form
part of the discussions.
EU Competition Commissioner Karel van
|Snippet:||After arguing that the meeting never
took place, Microsoft has started to claim that the June 21, 1995
meeting with Netscape was the result of a devious plan by Netscape to
“set-up” Microsoft and sent the DOJ after them.
The problem with
Strangely, Mr. Warden seems to grab
My source is: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27935,00.html
|Snippet:||Ever out to simplify matters, Microsoft
will rename the NT family to Windows 2000. Thus it will “make it easier
for customers to choose among products”. So, Windows 2000 is closely
tied to NT 4 and has nothing to do with Windows 98. And don’t think
this “2000″ stands for some year, as it will come out in early 1999.
Could it be simpler?
|Snippet:||Just for exercising our knowledge of
the basics of antitrust law I want to point to a rather “journalistic”
primer by Businessweek: http://www.courttv.com/trials/microsoft/primer.html
|Snippet:||To be placed on the Windows desktop AOL had to drop any reference to Netscape on its site and couldn’t advertise with Netscape.
For the article and some interesting
|Snippet:||Microsoft senior vice president for
Consumer Systems Paul Maritz wrote the above 20 days before the alleged
proposal for market division to Chairman Bill Gates.
Ah, all this “throwing mud” by showing email messages from “junior staffers”.
Mr. Warden’s defense consisted of changing the meaning of win32.
|Snippet:||For months I have been frustrated about
Microsoft’s success in enforcing secrecy on the evidence regarding the
antitrust case. With the trial proceeding, exhibits now become
available. If you haven’t checked it yet, you might do yourself a favor
by taking a look at what is hidden in the PDF files at the DOJ: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
|Snippet:||The Business Software Association
released a report on the detrimental effects of software piracy. It is
a textbook example of bad “ceteris paribus” economics – let’s assume
that everything else remains the same.
Assumptions of the report are:
1. Those who pirate copies would alternatively pay the full price of that same copy.
2. When twice as much money flows to the software
4. An extra $10
Well, see for yourself: http://www.bsa.org/statistics/index.html?/statistics/global_pwc98_c.html
(I am not defending software piracy, I am fighting misleading information about it.)
|Snippet:||Apple’s engineers managed to
significantly speed up video under Windows by by-passing Microsoft’s
graphics code and speaking directly to the video hardware. Microsoft
liked the result and requested Apple for a free license of the
technology. Obviously this didn’t fit in Apple’s business model and
Key parts of the code were developed for Apple by
Anyone remember Stack? There is a pattern to Microsoft’s “innovation”.
|Snippet:||WebTV’s original enthouasiasm about an
open standard java – the java-compatible logo was printed on the boxes
- has disappeared with its being acquired by Microsoft.
WebTV will not support java until its boxes will run WinCE with Microsoft’s proprietary non-standard java version.
|Snippet:||Aside from John Warden’s dragging on in
the hopeless attempt to show that having an icon on every Windows95
desktop was irrelevant for AOL when making its decision to support MSIE
and not Netscape, nothing much seems to happen.
The exhibits – PDF files
If you are happy enough to have GNU software installed on your system the script might do you some good too:
|Snippet:||Threats to Apple, cowardly Compaq
executives having their actions ruled by fear of Microsoft retaliation,
Windows breaking Apple’s software, copyright infringement, and
strongarming yet other companies.
These topics are all touched in the testimony. You can read Dan Goodin’s account of it: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28164,00.html
or get the real thing:
Incidentally, Microsoft shot back that:
|Snippet:||Accessing the DOJ’s list of exhibits is
complicated by the fact that no description is given of the contents of
the files. Kenneth Engel made a first stab at making the contents
accessible. I dumped his comma-separated file in a HTML table – no
fancy database stuff and searches. The result is at: http://main.billwatch.net/trial/exhibits.phtml
Speaking of the exhibits, I made a minor change to the “fetchdoj” script (http://main.billwatch.net/background/fetchdoj
|Snippet:||On October 19th, Marc Chardon, general manager of Microsoft France warned his customers against using Linux. (http://www.mmedium.com/misc/courrier/00057.html#linux )
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s present deep involvement in
the cable industry doesn’t seem to have arrived painlessly. It seems
like Mr. Gates wasn’t happy with @Home before it came to be a Microsoft
partner as it is today. The following article tells a little more: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28065,00.html
|Snippet:||Eric S. Raymond of “The Cathedral and
the Bazar” fame posted an annotated version of what he alleges is an
internal Microsoft memo. Raymond’s own analysis of Open Source Software
is used to both describe it and make a first effort to list how it can
Even if the memo is not real (but I made a copy of it
|Snippet:||Reading Mr. Maritz quote one doesn’t
exactly get the impression that Microsoft planned its inclusion of MSIE
in Windows in 1994, completely independent of the existence of
Netscape. Apparently, they still haven’t catched on to the fact that
the attempt to win this lawsuit by misrepresentation will irremediably
damage their credibility.
What news could the Gates’ video have
|Snippet:||Contrary to Microsoft’s message to
their “millions of customers” on the Mac platform last weekend,
Microsoft’s decision to support Office on the Mac platform was a
condition of Apple satisfying certain Microsoft demands.
|Snippet:||Eric Bennett made a transcript of parts
of what has become available of Gates’ deposit. At the top you can find
some RealVideo links.
Mr. Bennett introduces the excerpts with:
The overall testimony seems to reveal two things:
|Snippet:||Well, it doesn’t come easy, but I can
read French and I was pleased to find an article by Lib�ration on Linux
that mentions the attention Microsoft is giving it now.
Given the number of articles mentioned on http://www.linuxtoday.com/
You can find “Linux cogne aux fen�tres de Microsoft” at: http://www.liberation.fr/multi/actu/semaine981102/art981102.html
|Snippet:||A significant number of the DOJ’s
exhibits consists of Netscape internal e-mail to report “questionable
Microsoft practices”. Reference to this is made in an article by Mary
Jo Foley on Microsoft’s “interest” in reseller’s relations with
Microsoft seems to have gone pretty far down the
Most laudably, Ms Foley provides the numbers of the exhibits she is basing her article on.
|Snippet:||Oops, Microsoft’s decision to
“simplify” the naming of “Windows NT” to “Windows 2000″ was born of
such a sudden inspiration that they forgot to check whether the new
name is trademarked or not. Well, it is. The story of the “Internet
Explorer” name repeats itself. Let’s see if they throw $5 million to
this trademark holder too.
|Snippet:||The Chicago Tribune has a nice article
about the dangers of using proprietary technology instead of software
that adheres to standards. The end up asking:
1.Are you willing
|Snippet:||The following article tells about the
limited access of the press and the public to the court proceedings of
United States v. Microsoft. The conclusion is that the trial is as
low-tech as that against Standard Oil once was.
Some blame is
|Snippet:||I had my CD with the OS ready when my
new computer arrived at where I work. The installed disk was quickly
reformatted, Windows95 and Office CD’s disappeared in the drawer, and
not much later I was the proud user of my *personal* Linux computer.
This regulation has cost my company unnecessary money and is therefore to be considered harmful.
(I once wrote a little piece about this matter called “Regulation through taxation” – http://main.billwatch.net/features/tax.html )
Dan Peterson has his own story about being harmed by Microsoft’s company policies. You can find it at Boycott Micrososft, see:
|Snippet:||According to Microsoft lawyer Joe
diGenova Gates’ recollection problems during the deposit can easily be
explained by his being tired by being interrogated by lawyers (you know
like his parents and the folks he met at school) for twenty hours.
So, when are we going to get the answers on the questions that Gates’ couldn’t answer because his memory failed him?
|Snippet:||Microsoft has again used their old
tactic of trying to change the subject by accusing their competitors of
behaving in the same way. It may score them public relations points
with those who are gullible or easily confused, but it is hard to see
how this will help them with the judge. When was the last time you
heard someone get out of a speeding ticket by telling the judge “Your
honor, others were speeding too.”?
It is also amusing to see, at
|Snippet:||Already by far the biggest political
spender in the computer/software industry, Microsoft is stepping up its
hiring efforts even more. Will they manage to buy themselves free from
|Snippet:||Tim O’Reilly wrote an open letter to
Microsoft following up on the “Halloween Document” in which a Microsoft
engineer gives advice to his organization on how to do battle with free
Here are some excerpts from his letter:
|Snippet:||Yesterday I read an article in Forbes magazine declaring the lawsuit of US v. Microsoft the “laughingstock” of the world.
No link to the Forbes article here. I just wanted to say that I often like articles on Microsoft’s adventures in http://www.salonmagazine.com/ and that I was very pleasantly surprised by the special of the French paper Liberation:
I welcome links to other European newspapers having specials on Microsoft.
|Snippet:||You may have heard about the so-called
“Halloween” document which is an internal Microsoft memo describing
open source and what their responce to it might be. There is now a
second document along the same lines which focuses on Linux.
They can both be found at http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html .
|Snippet:||Never the kind to bring home grown
initiatives to fruition Microsoft bought LinkExchange, an advertising
service that has facilities for its hundreds of thousands of member
sites to exchange links and for advertisers to aim at the visitors of
the member sites selectively.
Not really important for Microsoft
|Snippet:||Subtitled “A Strategic Guide to the
Network Economy” this book goes into the economics of information. I
haven’t read it yet, but I am mighty interested in the discussion of
brand name value, commoditizing standards, and de-commoditizing
You can get a taste of the book at “Information Rules – the website”: http://www.inforules.com/
|Snippet:||The DOJ made the transcript of Chairman Gates’ testimony available. You can find it at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2051.htm|
|Snippet:||Yes, it’s Halloween again. A Microsoft
reperesentative in the Netherlands has made a responce to the release
of the Halloween documents. A version with annotations by Eric S.
Raymond can be found at http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html
. This seems to be a trial balloon since it does not come from
headquarters, but it does have the typical Redmondian touches of Fear,
Uncertainty, Doubt and emphasis on Intellectual Property rights.
|Snippet:||An account of more trial shenanigans can be found at
. Apparently, the Microsoft lawyer has so much arrogance and disregard
that he continues along a line of questioning even after the judge has
clearly told him to move on.
|Snippet:||Remember that Microsoft sold SoftImage
to Avid Technologies after converting it from an SGI company to an NT
company? Part of the deal was that Microsoft had the right to take a
9+% share in Avid. Well, there is no lack of money and now Redmond owns
9.4% of Avid. Guess what, Avid is now releasing NT software.
|Snippet:||This week Microsoft showed part of the
deposit of Compaq’s Steven Decker. According to Mr. Tevanian’s
testimony – referring again to the deposit of Apple’s Mr. Schiller -
Mr. Decker took Mr. Schiller apart at a meeting between Apple and
Compaq and remarked that Compaq was very careful about licensing any
The part of the Mr. Decker’s deposit
You can read the annotated deposit at: http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/quicktime_compaq.html
|Snippet:||Billwatch went off-line yesterday as
the result of an error that also occurred some 40 days ago, and that I
haven’t yet understood.
I hope it will remain up for at least another 40 days now.
|Snippet:||Jean-Louis Gass�e, CEO of Be, wrote an
article in Lib�ration that Microsoft’s relationship with Apple might
well turn up a lot of information in support of the DOJ. Well, perhaps
Tevanian’s already explosive testimony is only the top of the ice-berg.
Furthermore, Gass�e ponders the question of what to do with Microsoft
if it loses the lawsuit.
If you read French, you can find the article at:
A lengthy discussion of the article can be found at: http://slashdot.org/features/98/11/08/006219.shtml
|Snippet:||Microsoft has given their reaction to the Halloween documents at “http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/highlights/editorletter.asp”.
One of the claims they make is “Microsoft recognizes that customers are
not served by implementations that are different without adding value;
we therefore support standards as the foundation on which further
innovation can be based.” That would seem to be a denial of the
accusation that they deliberately create incompatibilities with
standards in an effort to gain market share and hence control of the
relevant specification. But be careful! In the course of Sun’s suit
claiming breach of contract where Microsoft is accused of deliberately
breaking compatibility with the standard
Java, a quote from none
other than Bill Gates saying “Supporting JDK 1.1 is fine, but I am very
hard core about not supporting JDK 1.2. I really need to understand
where we’re going to draw the line because it’s a slippery slope. If
you think we should support the JDK 1.2 that’s fine, but you will
really have to explain why and where it stops.” comes out. The full
story is at “http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2160952,00.html”.
Even if this quote does not outright say that Microsoft intends to
break the Java standard in their implementation, where is the added
value in their implementation? It seems that it consists
tighter integration into Windows. Since this breaks Java’s
cross-platform promise, this is a very questionable “added value”
|Snippet:||The article doesn’t contain anything
new, but it is still nice that an article published in the paper
edition of a major newspaper understands the relevance of Microsoft’s
strategy to replace open standards with proprietary technology.
(Unfortunately, an article in the Boston Globe on the Halloween papers didn’t get it.)
|Snippet:||WebCMO, “a site dedicated to web
marketing research”, has published a “Linux survey report”. It seems to
be a kind of counterpart of the propaganda technology that Microsoft
The report is titled “People who challenge Bill Gates”.
|Snippet:||Mark Hall has lost his trust in the
words of Microsoft product managers. Right now they claim to seek
co-existence with Unix, but once they made the same claim about the
Mac. The recent DOJ exhibits show how Microsoft’s in-house strategy
conflicted with its official statements. Hall fell for it once and
doesn’t like the experience of having been fooled.
|Snippet:||Over the months I have noted a very
clear relationship between the introductions given to press releases at
the main page of Microsoft’s “Press pass” and the articles themselves:
In the introduction claims are made that do not return in the article.
Why do they say
In its article Microsoft does not relate Mr. Tevanian’s
Well, fight your way throught the “connection reset by peer” messages (as I did) and read for yourself:
|Snippet:||James Love wrote an excellent article
in which he gives a historical perspective on the history of some of
the items that Microsoft and its defenders often claim show that the
present case is without merit.
First, antitrust laws were always
Second, Microsoft and
|Snippet:||Eric Lee Green explained “Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt” in the Microsoft vs Linux context. The article
contains some FUD attacks on Microsoft even outside the examples, but
is otherwise a good and up to date introduction to the topic.
|Snippet:||If someone criticizes Microsoft, this
person described as either (1) a (whining) competitor, (2) tied to a
(whining) competitor – (CPT’s James Love is a full cousin of Caldera’s
CEO Ransom Love, Orrin Hatch represents a state in which a Microsoft
competitor resides), (3) disgruntled, or (4) and pundit.
|Snippet:||The title “Why Microsoft must be
stopped” indicates the perspective of Mr. Nader and Mr. Love when they
discuss antitrust laws. Mr. Love commented in retrospect that “space
was short and they cut out some remedies [from the article]“.
|Snippet:||Microsoft says the the government is
not qualified to regulate the software industry, but in the story of
Steven McGeady of Intel’s testimony (story at “http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/ws/item/0,1267,8297-8298-18384,00.html”),
it becomes clear that Microsoft is taking it upon itself to be a
regulator of the software industry. McGeady says that Intel shelved its
Native Signal Processing multimedia project due to pressure from
Microsoft. Gates’ deposition does not contradict this, but merely gives
his reasons for opposing Intel’s software. But who is Gates to judge
what is “low quality” software? That should be a decision for the
marketplace, not a self-appointed regulator in Redmond.
|Snippet:||Although the Halloween papers merely
represent the ideas of an “individual engineer” it seems clear that
Microsoft is steering towards using the combination of patentable
technology, their monopolistic market position to bring this to market,
and the law to keep free software at bay. (Where was this vague claim
that NT5 was held up because the technology was not yet both
proprietary *and* protected by patents?)
The issue is highly
Anyway, open source protagonists sense the danger. You can read Bruce Perens’ idea on countering the danger in:
|Snippet:||Once an ISV that is competing with a
product of Microsoft gets attention in the news, Microsoft seems to be
more motivated to fix the bugs than through normal support channels.
A most excellent start is given by Robert di Cosmo. You can find his detailed account of Microsoft’s reply to Apple’s claims (http://msdn.microsoft.com/developer/news/quicktime.htm )
According to this post “http://lists.essential.org/am-info/msg06616.html”
Read here “http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/10/cracked-ms.idg/”
|Snippet:||At one time in history knowledge was
guarded by a single institution that had the monopoly on distributing
and interpreting it. Hypotheses like Galileo’s were suppressed as it
would undermine faith by showing new possibilities contradiction
ancient dogma. No wonder that stagnation ruled the era.
But now a
|Snippet:||Salon Magazine explains about
Microsoft’s non-monopoly claims. One is: the marginal cost of software
is nearly zero and therefore giving away MSIE is no predatory pricing.
Interesting theory: it abstracts from support and continuous
innovation. Microsoft’s theory to evade claims of monopoly can be
applied in traditional industries too: buy all material, transport and
labor in advance so the cost is paid up, and then you can dump the
Another item that is abstracted from is marketing. To a
Clearly, Microsoft must jump through hoops to show that
For an article, see: http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1998/11/11feature.html
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s main strategy in court
against Intel’s McGeady seems to be to show that he has an ax to grind.
This isn’t evidence, so what could be their intention? If the general
idea is to defuse testimony’s by those having specific ties, this might
well backfire when their own executives take the stand to give
Well, aside from getting to know that it was McGeady
|Snippet:||The DOJ hasn’t yet posted the testimony
of Glenn Weadock (I forgot who that is), but Microsoft’s partial
response is already on the Net. The testimony seems to be about the
negative sides of browser integration. After the introduction
“Consultant’s testimony reflects personal opinions, not statement of
facts.” we find the customary “setting the record straight” phrase
followed mostly by a marketing monologue. To quote the end of the
“Windows 98 offers users great new features such as
Microsoft is not taking the trouble to state
Update: You can find Glenn Weadock’s testimony at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2056.htm.
|Snippet:||Secrecy has long been the cornerstone
of Microsoft’s public appeal. For a very long time they worked very
hard to keep the public uninformed about their actions. Business
agreements are secret – with clients forced to talk to Microsoft before
talking to the government; agreements are secret, such as the one on
infringement of Apple patents and the one with AT&T that was no
longer granted access to the Windows sources when Microsoft decided to
go into the UNIX/NT interfacing business itself; the public was denied
its lawful right to witness the deposits (Hmm, some weeks ago judges
from a Court of Appeals came together on the matter, talked a little
and didn’t decide on a date to convene again. Are they really trying to
stall opening the deposits or have I missed something?)
Those who were once dismissive have good reason to become more cautious.
As I said, I have no further information, but I
I quoted the line from: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28792,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh
(Please let me know if you find out more about this letter.)
Besides the DOJ, Sun and Caldera
What is also interesting is
|Snippet:||The fragments of the deposit of Gates
that related to Intel have been made available. Perhaps the continuous
repetition that Microsoft told Intel not to make “low quality” software
is considered a nice way out of the allegation that they told Intel to
stop making competing software, but the testimony begs the question
what basis Mr. Gates has to say that Intel’s products were of “low
quality” (We can turn Microsoft’s own court questioning on the
Chairman: did he experience this “low quality” himself or was this
Another question that pops up is what right
Furthermore, the Chairman insisted that Intel should have consulted Microsoft before and while making software.
You can find the hardly readable photostats of the DOJ at:
HTML with extracts (in English with a French translation in the margin) can be found at: http://www.liberation.fr/multi/actu/semaine981109/art981110.html
|Snippet:||James Love wrote an article proposing
three possible remedies for Microsoft’s abuse of its monopoly power.
Microsoft’s attitude in the past and right now makes plain that
non-drastic remedies will not work. The proposals are:
3. Make Microsoft
|Snippet:||An article with the above title was written by Tom Nadeau and published at Boycott Microsoft.
The article ends with a claim that I wholeheartedly support:
|Snippet:||Using some inscrutable naming scheme,
the DOJ made the fragment of Gates’ deposit that was shown in court on
Monday available as: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/gates3.pdf
Gates is following a very exasperating mode of non-communication.
Come to think of it, it might be nice to create a compilation of Gates’ philosophical exercises in the courtroom.
|Snippet:||The media reported little on the testimony of Glenn Weadock. It seems that Microsoft’s basic defense consisted of:
I have no access to court transcripts so I
|Snippet:||As with Glenn Weadock’s testimony,
Microsoft’s answer reached the Net before the DOJ managed to release
the testimony on their site. As usual it is a bit difficult to wrestle
through the marketeese adjectives in what is supposed to be the answer
to a legal testimony, but you are encouraged to give it a try anyway.
It seems that the testimony touches the following issues:
The “Catholic Church”
As for java, we
Well, I guess that Mr. Soyrings testimony will appear within 24 hours at the DOJ.
Microsoft’s answer is here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov98/11-17soyring.htm
Update: The testimony of John Soyring is now available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2054.htm.
|Snippet:||As we must all know by rote,
“integrating Windows with Internet Explorer benefits consumers and has
stood a legal test in a July 1998 US Appeals court decision.” But Glenn
Weadock started chipping away at that facade by outlining some of the
drawbacks of the integration: increased support costs and increased
hardware requirements for those who want to use a different browser.
These drawbacks discourage people from using an alternative browser. In
any case, there no choice for the Windows user – Internet Explorer must
be dealt with at some level whether it is a desired component or not.
The bottom line is that IBM supported
|Snippet:||Microsoft is either to comply with the java specifications or abandon it altogether.
|Snippet:||The court order gives a nice overview of the java lawsuit. Reading it I couldn’t help observing Microsoft’s double standards:
Anyway, you can find the order re: Sun’s preliminary injunction at: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html
|Snippet:||The written testimony of the DOJ’s economic witness, Frederick R. Warren-Boulton, is posted at
|Snippet:||Glenn Weadock’s testiomony refers to
the deposits of John Kies, Scott Vesey (Boeing), and Jim von Holle.
Excerpts of these deposits are now available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_excerpt.htm
I wish the DOJ had also released the relevant excerpts of the depositions mentioned in Avadis Tevanian’s testimony.
|Snippet:||Some time ago I read Mr. Rick Rule’s
article about “The Case Against Microsoft” by former federal judge
Robert Bork. Unfortunately, the article didn’t refer to location where
I could find what it agitated against. (I noticed that it is customary
for Microsoft publications to go light on references.)
By accident, I found the real ProComp site this evening:
|Snippet:||Although the “Motley Fool” thinks that
“MS Access” is the product that Microsoft positions to compete with
Oracle, and is guilty of several other “inaccuracies”, it made some
observations that are to the point, e.g.
“In Microsoft’s case,
|Snippet:||I haven’t posted much on the court
sessions lately, mostly because nothing much is happening there. I
noted some things that I want to comment on, but not enough to justify
creating a link for.
1. Microsoft now accuses several other
In today’s cross-examination of the
Update: This account at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29058,00.html
|Snippet:||After a lengthy investigation, Japan’s
FTC concluded that Microsoft has engaged in unfair business practices
through certain sales tactics and had violated the nation’s
anti-monopoly laws. For this the company was issued a warning.
While on the one hand waiving the verdict of
Microsoft used Linux in court (see http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,2615,00.html?home.ff)
|Snippet:||While Microsoft’s lawyers and PR
machine tell us that Microsoft’s 95% marketshare is continuously
threatened by throngs of fierce competitors, we find nothing of this in
a memo from senior vice president Joachim Kempin to Chairman Bill
Gates. This memo was written in December 1997 and concerns the thoughts
on OEM pricing of the person within Microsoft who is ultimately
responsible for OEM relations. The memo was CC’ed to Steve Ballmer, now
president of Microsoft, and Paul Maritz, the senior vice president
responsible for Windows. If the contents of this memo is disregarded as
the “individual ideas” of someone within Microsoft, I doubt that any
information within the company can ever be deemed strategical.
Mr. Kempin, responsible
Whatever Microsoft tells in court and to the press today
The memo is available as an exhibit at the DOJ’s site and you are very much encouraged to read it. See:
|Snippet:||Being the biggest political spender in
the computer industry seems to pay off as congressmen are literally
re-iterating Microsoft’s party-line when accusing the Justice
Department of unjustifiably intruding in an unregulated market. While
we have seen nothing of government regulation aside from the attempt to
have Microsoft ship Netscape’s browser with Windows – something that
shouldn’t harm Microsoft or benefit Netscape if we are to believe
Microsoft’s own claims on ease of downloading, the technological
superiority of MSIE’s integration, and their own total commitment to
customer choice – congressmen parrot Microsoft in equating the present
investigation with “heavy-handed regulation”.
|Snippet:||On the orders of present Microsoft
president Steve Ballmer, Microsoft employees have charted Netscape’s
revenues to be able to systematically “pencil” them “out” by contracts
on the basis of predatory pricing.
See the following memo in the government exhibits: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/343.pdf
|Snippet:||I greatly appreciate having access to
the testimonies and exhibits at the DOJ’s site. Purely by accident I
found that the court transcripts are also available, although at a
rather unlikely place, namely ProComp:
|Snippet:||The following account and responses
concern the way Microsoft’s FrontPage HTML editor mangles the incoming
HTML to a Microsoft proprietary format: “Microsoft FrontPage
I am not deeply impressed with the value of the
Furthermore, it fits in the companies strategy of locking customers into proprietary formats.
|Snippet:||Last week the libertarian Cato
Institute organized a conference on Technology and Society. Speakers
were Milton Friedman (whom I greatly admire for his early work), Larry
Ellison (Oracle), Eric Schmidt (Novell), Greg Maffei (Chief financial
officer Microsoft), and Stan Liebowitz (Microsoft consultant).
You can find the full schedule here: http://www.cato.org/events/technol2.html
|Snippet:||By giving away its browser at negative
price and announcing that the browser would be wired into its operating
system, Microsoft managed to annihilite the market for web browsers.
Effectively, Netscape abandoned the web
With rumors going around that AOL – that
Second, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is not even
You can read the statement of Microsoft’s senior vice president William Neukom at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/11-23neukom.htm
A C|Net article is at:http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29149,00.html
On Steve Case’s announcement that AOL will renew its MSIE contract to keep their place on the Windows desktop, you can read: http://www.crn.com/dailies/weekending112798/nov24dig08.asp
|Snippet:||“In software we don’t live in the world
of yesterday or the day before, we live in the world of today.” -
Michael Lacovara, Microsoft attorney.
What Microsoft fights in
Like any other radical political organization,
For a less philosophical/political description of Microsoft’s wild claims in court (reflection on rant here see:
Here is part of a Scott McNealy speech on how open standards and intellectual property rights can co-exist:
Words of the wise indeed!
|Snippet:||The article from which I plucked this
quote doesn’t say anything new, but I wanted to refer to it as its
aggressive wording surprised me given that it doesn’t come from a
corner where Microsoft criticism is the rule.
|Snippet:||With all the coverage of the past few
days focussed on the Netscape takeover, the cross-examination process
has fallen into the background. And no wonder too with Microsoft
dragging it out like they are; so far, it has taken 6 weeks for
Microsoft to cross-examine half of the government’s witnesses. Here is
an article with a report on how the cross-examination has been going
|Snippet:||To find a little basis for my
annotation exercise of Microsoft’s ridiculous (and universally
acclaimed) press release concerning the AOL-Sun-Netscape deal, I went
after the press releases of the individual companies.
|Snippet:||Not being a regular – or even irregular
- visitor of web portals (my “home” page is “blank”), I never worried
much about sizes. Now that landmark slides are being claimed I was glad
that James Coates provided some numbers:
“The latest survey by
It seems to me that these shares are less out of balance than many markets within the software industry.
For the decent article from which I picked the data (it was written before the buyout became official), see:
|Snippet:||According to an article in “The
Recorder”, Rick Rule, Microsoft’s chief antitrust specialist, the
government may well prod AOL to accept their option to renew the MSIE
contract IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT’S CASE.
Microsoft claimed in
|Snippet:||After the barrage of single-source
articles on the merger (that is, being written exclusively on the basis
Microsoft’s press release), I am most happy to find an article for
which the opinion of third parties on the value of the merger for the
case at hand has been checked. “Press” at last.
|Snippet:||After re-reading a flashback of “The
Atlantic Monthly” on a 1881 article by Henry Demarest Loyd on Standard
Oil’s monopoly, it seemed like a good idea to pay a little attention to
The article is not altogether accurate, but it sure
|Snippet:||The media widely distributed excerpts from Microsoft’s press release “Microsoft says government should end antitrust lawsuit”.
The press release is at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/ (I found no permanent location.)
You can find the annotation here: http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/ms_onaolns.html
|Snippet:||It was a revelation to find out why a
complicated three-party deal was made in which AOL buys Netscape
including the server software that Sun will subsequently license: for
tax reasons this division couldn’t be sold to Sun outright.
The following article provides some urgently needed background information on the deal: http://www5.mercurycenter.com/business/top/060057.htm
|Snippet:||More and more colleges force students
to use Microsoft software exclusively. At one time – perhaps they still
do – Microsoft rewarded professors $200 dollars if they advertised
Microsoft tools in class. Given the content of computer courses,
textbook writers seem to cash in as well.
Where the soviet-union
Anyway, read the comments from agitated student Josh: http://www.nls.net/mp/josh/Ms-At-Schl.html
Update: For the occasion I dug up some old references.
|Snippet:||The “big” news is supposed to be that
an unnamed source within Microsoft tells that Microsoft is internally
fully prepared to continue to the next court. Come now Charles, that’s
what you folks at ZDNet said even *before* the trial started.
|Snippet:||James Grimaldi wrote an overview of the trial so far, pretty much as I see it.
|Snippet:||ProComp compiled a list with excerpts
from headlines from articles and editorials from publications like The
New York Times and BusinessWeek on the AOL-Netscape merger and the
relevance for the present antitrust case.
Perhaps ProComp made a
|Snippet:||Microsoft accuses the government of
“lying with statistics”. The point is that the government claims,
partly on the basis of information provided in a memo by Microsoft’s
senior vice president of OEM sales Joachim Kempin, that the prices of
Microsoft’s operating system have risen as a percentage of the cost of
the hardware of computer systems.
Microsoft spokesperson Mark
Read the C|Net article for the quote: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29374,00.html
The creator of the Java programming language, James Gosling, is the next witness and the story is here:
Update: Gosling’s written testimony is posted at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2049.htm.
|Snippet:||I was very pleased to see (eh, only now) that Microsoft’s website offers some well-presented trial information.
You can find the trial transcripts (that can also be found at http://transcripts.procompetition.org/) at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/ They are available in HTML and – indeed – Word formats.
The list of defense exhibits is at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/exhibits/
You can find a feature article (right now on the
|Snippet:||With internal emails being made public as exhibits and being read in court, the have gained a new status.
Microsoft’s press release on the AOL/Netscape merger (annotated here at http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/ms_onaolns.html)
Unfortunately, I didn’t find the email itself, only a report on it: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29415,00.html?st.ne.lh..ni
|Snippet:||In a multi-page article, C|Net pays
attention to Microsoft’s control and therefore exclusive knowledge of
the win32 API. The matter is explained by referring to Netscape being
blocked from access. Additional pages concern the influence of java and
Linux on this basis of Microsoft’s power.
|Snippet:||As is known to all school-children educated with Microsoft Encarta, Chairman Gates is well-known for his donations to charity.
|Snippet:||You can find James Gosling’s testimony at:
Microsoft’s reply is at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/dec98/12-1gosling.htm
|Snippet:||As you might have read in an earlier
posting, Microsoft spokesperson Mark Murray accused the government of
having been “lying with statistics”.
Microsoft now supports Murray’s accusation with a press release: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/ (wish they used full paths), thereby making it official.
On the basis of the reasons given in http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/price_critics.html we can now say that by Microsoft’s own standards they have been “lying with statistics”.
|Snippet:||Perhaps I should visit them more regularly as BusinessWeek has some decent articles on the Microsoft matter lined up.
You can find that list of article “updates” at: http://www.businessweek.com/microsoft/updates.htm
Their general coverage is at: http://www.businessweek.com/microsoft/cotv.htm
|Snippet:||How mean can people be? Mary Jo writes in “Lessons to be learned from Linux” (http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2171286,00.html)
And in “Microsoft as David? AOL as Goliath? Not exactly” (http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2168404,00.html) she writes:
When AOL attempts to renegotiate its license for
And in “How the mighty have fallen” (http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2166811,00.html) we read:
Perhaps Ms Foley belongs to the latter category.
|Snippet:||In this account of Thursday’s court session:
|Snippet:||It’s fair enough to drop out, but its
pretty bad to do so without consideration for the reasons why the state
of South Carolina entered it in the first place.
Instead, State Attorney General Charles Condon merely re-iterated Microsoft’s press releases on the matter:
“Recent events have proven that the Internet is a segment of our economy where innovation is thriving.”
“Further government intervention or regulation is unnecessary and, in my judgment, unwise.”
Further? Please, tell me what “interventor or regulation” has been taken place so far?
Could someone explain to Mr. Condon that the point
|Snippet:||After accusing the government last week
of “lying with statistics”, this weeks’ slogan from Redmond is that the
government is “really out to destroy Microsoft”.
Note first of
Another issue in propaganda is simplicity. As a well-known but little respected German statesman put it:
Another advice to the propagandist, this time by Walter Lippmann in 1921, is:
Following these different advices,
For less angry words, see: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,29621,00.html
|Snippet:||ProComp compiled a table with
Microsoft’s revenues per PC from 1990 to 1996 on the basis of internal
Microsoft material that has now become public. It looks like they
managed to drive up prices well.
David Farber’s testimony is posted at the DOJ’s Web site here (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2059.htm) and ZDNN’s Mary Jo Foley writes up a piece on it here (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2173052,00.html).
I quote the following paragraph from Farber’s testimony since it really cuts to the heart of the bundling/integration issue:
|Snippet:||Here are some excerpts from Will Rodger’s: “Gates: Boies out to destroy Microsoft” (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2172885,00.html)
Here is the complaint:
And here Will Rodger’s observation that shows that Microsoft is doing more PR work than the government:
|Snippet:||Looking over the news items I found
that Microsoft claims by mouth of its lead attorney John Warden that
the government’s “real focus seems to be an attempt to influence public
opinion against Microsoft”, while Mr. Gates claims that the government,
or at least Mr. Boies, is “really out to destroy Microsoft”.
Interestingly, “regulation” is suddenly orphaned.
|Snippet:||South Carolina dropping the lawsuit of
the 20 states against Microsoft with a justification that could have
been cut and pasted from Microsoft press releases has renewed the
interest in Microsoft’s political spending.
ProComp published “Who got the Microsoft money?” (http://www.procompetition.org/xp/p-headlines/i-current/a-913161376/p_article.view)
|Snippet:||Microsoft has stated that: Mr Farber’s
suggestion that OEMs should decide which components of Windows they
deliver to customers would be a disaster for consumers and software
Wouldn’t it be a disaster too, to have OEMs buy
See Microsoft’s reaction on David Farber’s testimony:
|Snippet:||It is slightly troubling for Microsoft
that in their 1997 “Computer Dictionary” they defined a web browser as
a “client application” and that MSIE is an example of such a web
browser. Apparently, all this talk of the browser really being part of
Windows since 1994 didn’t quite make it outside a very select group in
Another painful item is that Microsoft’s
If you have an FM
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s “reasoning” in court and
before the public has long rested in an important degree on analogies.
Instead of giving structural arguments, they bring up another subject
matter and tell us that we really should be discussing that and
subsequently match the conclusion on the Windows/MSIE bundling.
When confronted with Mr.
Mr. Farber has reasoned against the value of integration
Similarly, Mr. Farber is attacked because he
Microsoft is at war with reason. They seek to substitute it with authority, that is, their authority.
|Snippet:||In the “independent” media we
frequently encounter quotes from Microsoft spokespersons and once in a
while from someone from the DOJ, and very seldom from a third party
independent specialist. The reason for this distribution of quotes is
simple: quantity. Microsoft’s spokespersons hold press conferences on
the stairs of the court building twice a day on every day the court
convenes. Regulary, someone, mostly David Boies, from the DOJ appears
at the same location, but certainly not twice a day.
Aside from this, Microsoft’s advertisements in national newspapers have become a regular feature.
I wrote this on the basis of my own regular visits at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ and http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial and the following article:
|Snippet:||From where I am, campaign contributions
by *companies* look pretty much like bribes to me. Perhaps I simply
lack understanding. For your information “Microsoft cash flows into
campaign chests”: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/dona_121098.html
|Snippet:||There is a difference between a
Microsoft executive mentioning to the Chairman that they should “piss
on” the graphical component of Sun’s java, and having Marc Andreessen
write to Sun “Let’s nail the bastards”, referring to Microsoft, or
having one Sun executive writes to another: “No agreement with Netscape
is worth the ink it’s printed with. Go sign a deal with Saddam Hussein.
It has a better chance of being honored.”
Words are worth
For sources see: http://www.businessweek.com/microsoft/updates/up81209a.htm
|Snippet:||Following the link below you can read
Microsoft’s letter to Compaq in which they elaborated on their earlier
“Notice of Intent to Terminate” the Windows license. Microsoft
threatened to revoke the license to Compaq if the latter company didn’t
obey Microsoft’s demand that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, the link to
Micro-Soft Network, and the Internet Setup Wizard must be placed on the
desktop and even given preferential treatment. The latter consists of
not merely making them Windows95 “shortcuts” that customers can easily
remove, but really grafting them on the desktop.
|Snippet:||You can find the 49 page testimony of Princeton computer scientist Dr. Edward Felten here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2060.htm
It is noteworthy that – contrary to the previous responses – this one does not contain derigatory remarks on the witness.
The Government appears to envision a world in which any
Compare Microsoft’s present statements on
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s exhibits consist for a
large degree of articles in trade rags, e.g. to – given java’s speedy
development – ancient reviews of JVM’s, and marketing material, such as
pages from Apple’s website.
The DOJ’s evidence, on the other
It seems to me that the DOJ is on the
Only with respect to java, did
To return to the title of this item,
|Snippet:||The information on Microsoft’s lawsuits
against C|Net writer Dan Goodin, Caldera for allegedly leaking sealed
documents, and two professors for having tapes with testimonies of
Netscape executives that Microsoft wants to have, was all featured here
at the time. Note that Microsoft sues Caldera for leaking documents
that were used in Wendy Rohm’s “The secret Microsoft file” while at the
same time claiming that this is a work of “fiction”.
Wendy Goldman Rohm presented the big picture in a most readable article published at Mercury News and Boycott Microsoft: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/rohm.shtml
|Snippet:||Once more, Microsoft has grabbed the
release of a beta product as an opportunity to discredit their
competition. Earlier they generated an error message in Windows 3.1
when DR-DOS was used as underlying operating system.
You can find the full complaint here: http://www.bluemountain.com/home/bluemountain_vs_Microsoft.html
|Snippet:||For once, Microsoft had to find in
court that the construction of analogies can be done in various ways,
not necessarily positive to them. Mr. Felten compared MSIE with a
“screwdriver”. It might well be useful, but that is insufficient reason
to glue it to one’s hand.
Felten wrote a program to disentangle
The MSIE-less version of Windows98 that Felten created
See Will Rodger’s: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2175958,00.html
|Snippet:||After their long fight to obtain the
original interview tapes and transcripts from academic authors David
Yoffee and Michael Cusumano, an Appeals Court denied Microsoft access
to these resources.
This is quite relevant as it supports the
|Snippet:||Goldtouch alleges that it to have
Microsoft license its ergonomic mouse design. A year later Microsoft
brought out its “own” ergonomic mouse, closely resembling that of
Goldtouch, thereby allegedly infringing Goldtouch’s (pending) patent.
You can read GoldTouch’s press release – including pictures of the respective mice – here: http://www.goldtouch.com/media/rel121598.htm
The original complaint is here: http://www.goldtouch.com/media/complaint.htm
Here is a brief article on the upcoming Microsoft anti-trust trial testimony of an Intuit executive:
Update: A more complete account of the Intuit testimony with references to DOJ exhibits can be found here.
|Snippet:||Not be be confused with Mitch Stone’s
“Boycott Micro$oft” site, Matt Welsh recently set up a “Boycott
Microsoft” site in his home directory at UCB.
Emphasis of the
|Snippet:||Microsoft held out pretty long in not
accepting the tcp/ip networking protocol of the Internet. When the
Internet took off without them, they were simply forced to follow.
For this reason, to use their
The destruction of any form of
|Snippet:||Apparently, Microsoft got a break from
Judge Jackson when he allowed their attorneys access to confidential
information the DOJ has on the AOL-Netscape deal. In reality, the judge
is only being fair. I am somewhat curious about what may come of this,
but I am also certain that if we hear no more about it, then there is
no substance to Microsoft’s assertion that this deal “proves there is
vigorous competition in the software industry.” Otherwise, Microsoft
will surely trumpet its findings loudly.
Apart from fairness and
Story of the judge’s ruling is here: http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/ws/item/0,1267,8297-8298-20272,00.html
|Snippet:||I found it an interesting idea that
Intuit might have agreed to sell out to Microsoft in 1994 because it
feared that Microsoft might bundle an alternative product with Windows.
This was expected to do to Intuit what we have now seen happening to
|Snippet:||While all bugs would be harmful for
those producing them in a market situation with many competing vendors,
they can serve as a powerful deterrent to market entry in the hands of
Microsoft’s knowledge monopoly over Windows makes
Due to Microsoft’s monopoly,
For this reason it is appropriate to call selective
|Snippet:||Who can better speak on the topic of
browser integration than the person responsible for Internet technology
at Microsoft at the time? Philip Barrett testified that no work got
underway on the integration of the browser in the period between april
1994 and september 1994, after which he left.
The excerpts of
A media packaged account of the testimony can be found at: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/micr_121798.html
|Snippet:||Did you believe Microsoft when it told
you that they are going to comply within the demanded 90 days with the
injunction resulting from the java lawsuit? Foolish.
It is to
|Snippet:||You thought it could help to write
letters to the DOJ and to Microsoft? So far 2,286 messages have been
received by the DOJ and ten times as many by Microsoft. The letters to
the DOJ are in support of its action almost 3 to 1, while those to
Microsoft are 75% positive for the company (hey, that’s also a rate of
3 to 1).
Note that the DOJ had to make the emails it received
Thus the DOJ is in no position to diminish the value of negative letters they receive.
Not only does Microsoft
|Snippet:||What political interest has
Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Perhaps its editors have personal preferences
and most likely they also want to prevent too much divergence with
prevalent opinion. But otherwise, the answer to the question is “None”.
It strikes me as
Well, perhaps you’ll enjoy Karlin Lillington’s article published in Salon Magazine better than my hasty editorial. See: http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/
|Snippet:||Visitors of ZDNet and MSNBC “talk-back”
sections of articles on Microsoft’s monopoly might well have come
across one or more comments of Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.
You can find his website on the Microsoft matter at: http://www.lamlaw.com/ It seems to me that his editorials much resemble those that you find at Billwatch.
|Snippet:||Just some thoughts on reading an article here.
Another item of thought is that Microsoft
You can get a belly-full at: http://spyglass1.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/000384.htm
|Snippet:||Although Mr. Oliver doesn’t tell us
anything new, I appreciate hearing the arguments coming from a person
with a certain stature.
Microsoft does not possess monopoly
Details are here:
|Snippet:||“Judge Robert Baines of Santa Clara
County Superior Court ordered the software giant to work with Blue
Mountain Arts so its electronic greeting cards pass through spam
filters found in Microsoft’s new Internet Explorer browser. The
filters, which must be switched on, are intended to block junk email.”
|Snippet:||Microsoft’s statistical mis-representation of prices of operating systems was discussed here earlier in http://main.billwatch.net/annotated/price_critics.html
Be Product Marketing Manager Michael Alderete finds fault and responds: http://lists.essential.org/am-info/msg07416.html
Is this how Microsoft “sets the record straight”? Another dent in their credibility.
|Snippet:||This article pretty much sums up what Microsoft is all about nowadays: http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/1998/rulemaker981221.htm|