07.17.09
Microsoft CEO Admits That Vista 7 is Just Vapourware, Opera Complaints About It
“In the face of strong competition, Evangelism’s focus may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Summary: More bad news for Vista 7, whose prospects as of late have come under heavy scrutiny
SJVN has just published this article about Vista 7. The headline says it all and it relates to Microsoft's very own definition of "vaporware" (leaked by antitrust action). As the quote at the top shows, it is no surprise that Microsoft never talks about Vista anymore; instead it talks about a product that cannot be properly judged because it does not exist yet. In the mean time, all that Vista 7 is gets monitored by “perception management” methods [1, 2]. Punishments and awards are being used to police coverage.
Ballmer says Windows 7 is vaporware
[...]
Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, shocked attendees at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner conference in New Orleans yesterday when he announced that while Windows 7 is certainly interesting since it won’t ship until late this year it’s little more than vaporware.
Ballmer continued, to the stunned audience of Microsoft programmers’ amazement, to say that “I don’t know if we can’t make up our mind or what our problem is over here, but the last time I checked, you don’t need two client operating systems. It’s good to have one.”
[...]
Wait. What’s this? Oh, I see! Ballmer was actually talking about Google’s just announced Linux-based Chrome operating system. and Android. Funny that. You see, everything he said about Google and its plans actually applies far more to Microsoft and its way of doing business than it does Google. Interesting isn’t it?
In other interesting news (which mostly repeats what was known), Opera is still dennouncing Vista 7 RC for being anti-competitive by design.
WEB BROWSER outfit Opera, which sparked an EU antitrust investigation into Microsoft’s business practices in Europe, remains dissatisfied with its rival’s move to unbundle Internet Exploder 8 from Windows 7.
Contrary to Microsoft spin from the BBC, it was neither the desire of Opera nor the European Commission to have IE8 stripped from Vista 7. It was Microsoft’s decision, which Opera immediately called “a game”. Here is another report.
Opera Software, the Norwegian browser maker that sparked an antitrust investigation into Microsoft business practices in Europe, remains dissatisfied with its rival’s move to dump IE8 from Windows 7.
It should be clear that Microsoft wants to give the illusion that people actually choose IE (even if OEMs make the choice), that Opera is nasty and whiny, and that the European Commission ruined Vista 7. Microsoft obeyed no demands from Opera or the European Commission. Microsoft used antitrust scrutiny to its advantage by pulling yet another stunt. Then, Microsoft used its front groups (e.g. CompTIA) to spin it in the press. Will Microsoft get away with it again? █
“Microsoft is, I think, fundamentally an evil company.”
–Former Netscape Chairman James H. Clark
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
David Gerard said,
July 17, 2009 at 10:52 am
Did Ballmer actually say those things, or is that SJVN being satirical with Ballmer’s comments on Chrome OS? I suspect it’s the latter. I didn’t realise it might be satire until the end, so SJVN needs to make it a bit clearer.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Of course Ballmer didn’t say anything of the sort.
Roy is just grasping at straws here.
Whatever can help him make a good headline, I suppose.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Please add a disclosure to say that you are employed by Microsoft to evangelise its products.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Do you not read any of my comments?
Here was the first comment I posted tonight (check the comment timestamps):
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I still can’t see your disclosures. AstroTurfing is against the law where I live.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Why should he have to do that, Roy. If you want to institute a policy that everyone on the site needs to say who they’re employed by, fine, but Jonathan’s already identified himself as working for Microsoft. Why single him out (other than your fanatical, irrational hatred of Microsoft)?
I’d compromise and agree that Jonathan would add a note saying he worked for Microsoft if you file a complete financial disclosure form so all of us know how you’re being supported.
You’re the “editor” here, you should be held to a higher standard.
And I feel as though you’re trying to stifle discussion, unfairly. You slam Microsoft all the time; should no one be allowed to fairly present their point of view? I mean, they’ve got one. I don’t agree with it, and I wouldn’t have Bill Hilf’s job for all the tea in the Solar System, but that’s not the point.
Journalism, Roy. Fair. Balanced. Try it for a change.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I do not, and have never, worked for Microsoft in any capacity whatsoever. I did get a Port 25 t-shirt once, but I gave it to Goodwill (sorry, Jonathan, it’s kind of a boring shirt…). I do not believe that Microsoft, Inc. is the Antichrist, I do not believe that Microsoft employees are demonically possessed, I do not believe that Steve Ballmer has horns and a tail. I believe that Microsoft is a very big company that’s made a lot of bad moves and bad calls, and I’d watch ‘em like a hawk, but I also believe that, in their quest to control the desktop, they’re putting themselves in the position of the guy who cornered the buggywhip market in 1908. I further believe that open will ultimately always win over closed. So there.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
AstroTurfing is against the law where I live.
Good thing being kneejerk stupid isn’t, you’d be in for life, Roy.
He identified himself at the outset. I don’t believe he’s required to continually identify himself under any “Astroturfing” law with which I’m familiar. This site doesn’t sell anything, and it doesn’t do product reviews, so it’s unclear to me what he’d do that would fall under the definition of “astroturfing”, anyway.
If you want to follow Jonathan around the site and shriek, “He’s from Microsoft! He’s from Microsoft!” have at it. After all, you’ve done as much for others.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 12:13 am
@David
Thanks for standing up for me. It’s alright. It’s Roy’s blog. So he gets to set the rules and stifle whatever he feels he needs to stifle.
Anyway, I find the whole experience engaging here rather… amusing.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Well, Roy’s rules also specify “no censorship”. If that the way it is, then that’s the way it is, and that’s a two-edged sword, too.
As Roy has discovered.
And after all this Microsoft and the real FLOSS community–I mean the one I hung out with at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit last week–have finally found a point on which we’re in complete agreement:
We all loathe Roy.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Don’t be ridiculous. I have already declared who I work for in my first comment on this post (check the comment timestamps).
If you don’t read my comments, that is too bad.
So do you admit you used deception in your subject title?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
It is not deceptive. See the court exhibit at the bottom.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
It is deceptive.
Neither Ballmer nor the source you quoted said that Windows 7 is vaporware.
You are now trying to play with word semantics, because you know very well that no one in this industry considers Windows 7 to be vaporware.
Heck, I know more people using pre-release Windows 7 as their desktop OS than Linux.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
That’s another lie.
No offence, Microsoft, but I have new posts to do and this whole payrolled gig of yours is slowing me down. I’ll leave it for others to play ping-pong with your endless spin.
eet Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Roy is a sweetie, isn’t he?
I think he likes you.
That boy has by now turned into a parody of himself, and that’s saying’ something!
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Roy never admits that he’s ever done anything wrong (at least not until you manage to convince him that you’re completely serious when you say you’re fixing to haul his sorry, lying ass into a courtroom and sue him for defamation; then, after a false start or two, he’ll post a full retraction and an apology that you have to dictate to him, as well as a promise to endeavor to be less irresponsible in the future, a promise which he’ll break within hours.
This is because Roy never tells a lie.
Believe that?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I didn’t put quotes around “vapourware” because although it was not said literally Ballmer made it clear that Vista 7 is not a real finished product yet.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
How did he make that clear?
Give me a source besides the Compute World article with a direct quote where he made it clear that Windows 7 is not a real finished product yet.
C’mon, your credibility is on the line.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
So are your payments from Microsoft. Please append disclosures to comments.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:08 am
@Roy
Do you not read any of my comments?
Here was the first comment I posted tonight (check the comment timestamps):
Stop being ridiculous and admit that you used deception in your article title.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
There is no deception, Microsoft. Look up “vaporware”. You wrote the book on it.
Jonathan Wong said,
July 17, 2009 at 10:58 am
Roy, you know that the title is pure deception don’t you?
You know that Ballmer said nothing of the sort at the WPC.
And it doesn’t take someone like me who works at MS to point that out; anyone who has a pulse of the tech industry knows that Windows 7 is far from vaporware, as much as you hoped otherwise.
Even the Computer World source you quoted admits that Ballmer was referring to Chrome OS instead.
I just thought I would point that out, since you accused me of deception and spin. Now I have all the evidence I need to show that it is actually you who uses deception, since you know you don’t have much to work with.
Thanks for giving me exactly what I need.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
See my reply to David.
Also: You forgot to add a disclosure to say that you are employed by Microsoft to evangelise its products. This may be illegal where you live.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Do you not read my comments?
Here was the first comment I posted tonight (check the comment timestamps):
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Look…
If you are going to do your Vista 7 marketing in this Web site, please append disclosures saying that you do this on Microsoft’s payroll.
I have no time to play with Microsoft TEs. It’s not a job to me.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Did you not read my disclosure?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
There is none in your comments here.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Don’t be ridiculous, Roy.
You know that I have already declared who I work for in my first comment on this post (check the comment timestamps).
If you don’t read my comments, that is too bad.
So do you admit you used deception in your subject title?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
It is not deceptive. See the court exhibit at the bottom.
Even to perpetually delay release dates (a la Vista/Longhorn) is vapourware, just like Duke Nukem Forever.
Microsoft said releases of Windows would come every two years. November 2008 was 8 months ago.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
@Roy – So when was Windows 7 perpetually delayed?
eet Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Actually, the early release-date surprised everyone!
Roy Schestowitz said,
July 17, 2009 at 11:13 am
There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to the definition of “vaporware”. Here is a court document on the subject (delay in release dates, for example, is vaporware too):
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN RESPONSE TO THE
COURT’S INQUIRIES CONCERNING “VAPORWARE”
This Memorandum responds to the Court’s inquiries concerning “vaporware.”(1)![]()
While “vaporware” is sometimes used as “slang for announced software that may never materialize,”(2)![]()
and other times as “a term used sarcastically for promised software that misses its announced release date, usually by a considerable length of time,”(3)![]()
it is susceptible of other definitions as well and, apparently, has no single precise meaning.(4)![]()
But, under any definition, the hallmark of “vaporware” is a “preannouncement,” e.g., a statement, before the product is available for purchase, regarding the features or expected release date of the product. This Memorandum discusses the standards under the antitrust laws for evaluating the legality of such preannouncements.(5)![]()
As we explain below, product preannouncements do not violate the antitrust laws unless those preannouncements are knowingly false and contribute to the acquisition, maintenance, or exercise of market power.
While we welcome this opportunity to address the Court’s questions regarding the legal standards applicable to vaporware, we respectfully submit that whatever the Court’s ultimate view on this subject, that view should not influence its judgment on the sole issue presented in this proceeding: whether the entry of the proposed Final Judgment is within the reaches of the “public interest.”
The Court’s public interest determination must focus on whether the proposed Final Judgment provides a reasonable and effective means of remedying the specific antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint.(6)![]()
The Complaint in this case did not allege any violations relating to vaporware.(7)![]()
With respect to the violations that were alleged in this case, the proposed Final Judgment will provide complete and effective relief. As Professor Kenneth J. Arrow(8)![]()
concluded in his Declaration, “the proposed settlement appropriately addresses and remedies the anticompetitive effects of the practices challenged in the complaint.”(9)![]()
Approval of the proposed Consent Decree will not in any way prevent the government from suing Microsoft in the future for antitrust violations other than those alleged in the Complaint. The government is entirely prepared to bring a case relating to vaporware if a violation of the antitrust laws can be established. Although we concluded at the time we filed the Complaint that we did not have the facts needed to support additional antitrust charges, we do not foreclose any future action if evidence comes to our attention or if market conditions change in ways that support such action. To avoid, inter alia, any possible prejudice to such potential cases, this memorandum discusses only the legal standards relating to vaporware, and does not address the government’s evaluation of the evidence in its possession that may relate to specific allegations concerning vaporware.(10)![]()
I. Product Preannouncements and the Antitrust Laws
Product preannouncements generally involve unilateral conduct by the announcing firm. Therefore, they are analyzed under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, the provision of the antitrust laws that applies to unilateral anticompetitive behavior. The relevant offenses under Section 2 are monopolization and attempted monopolization. Each violation requires proof of both “exclusionary” conduct and actual or likely market impact.
“The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historical accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). The second element of this test incorporates both a market effect (since acquisition or maintenance of market power must be shown) and what is commonly referred to as the requirement of “exclusionary” conduct.(11)![]()
Attempted monopolization requires (1) the “specific intent to monopolize” and (2) “dangerous probability” that the defendant’s exclusionary conduct “would monopolize a particular market.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 113 S. Ct. 884, 892 (1993).
In general, “`exclusionary’ behavior should be taken to mean conduct other than competition on the merits, or other than restraints reasonably `necessary’ to competition on the merits, that reasonably appear capable of making a significant contribution to creating or maintaining monopoly power.” 3 Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law § 626c, at 79 (1978). It should not include “non-exploitative pricing, higher output, innovations, improved product quality, energetic market penetration, successful research and development, cost-reducing innovations, and the like [which] are welcomed by the Sherman Act.” Id. § 626b, at 77.
In accord with this standard, courts have refused to find that product preannouncements violate the antitrust laws unless they are knowingly false. See, e.g., MCI Communications v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1129 (7th Cir.) (“These cases suggest that AT & T’s early announcement of Hi-Lo must be found to be knowingly false or misleading before it can amount to an exclusionary practice.”), modified, 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) § 65,520 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 (1983); ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F. Supp. 423, 442 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (declining to find antitrust liability on a product preannouncement theory because “there was nothing knowingly false about the . . . announcement”), aff’d sub nom.
Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 (1981);
see also Ronson Patents Corp. v. Sparklets Devices, 112 F. Supp. 676, 688 (E.D. Mo. 1953)
(declining to find antitrust liability where company preannounced a product, but never actually released that product).
These holdings reflect the general view that information about products that are not yet available but will be produced in the future will be helpful to consumers as they make purchasing decisions. “[R]easonable good faith statements about research, development, and forthcoming production serve the social interest in maximizing the relevant information available to buyers.” Areeda & Turner, supra, § 738i, at 284. Because of the value of such information, commentators have endorsed the principles espoused in the holdings discussed above: “[N]o liability should attach to statements that truly reflect the monopolist’s expectations about future quality or availability where that expectation is both actually held in good faith and objectively reasonable.” Id.
In discussing misleading advertising under Section 2, courts have emphasized that the practice would not violate the antitrust laws absent the requisite market impact. See Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 288 n.41 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980) (“[The] Sherman Act is not a panacea for all evils that may infect business life. Before we would allow misrepresentation to buyers to be the basis of a competitor’s treble damage action under § 2, we would at least require the plaintiff to overcome a presumption that the effect on competition was de minimis.”); National Ass’n of Pharmaceutical Mfrs. v. Ayerst Labs., 850 F.2d 904, 916 (2d Cir. 1988) (“[B]ecause the likelihood of a significant impact upon the opportunities of rivals is so small in most observed instances — and because the prevalence of arguably improper utterance is so great — the courts would be wise to regard misrepresentations as presumptively de minimis for § 2 purposes.” (quoting Areeda & Turner, supra, § 738a, at 279)). We are not aware of any case finding that a false product preannouncement had the required market impact.
Intent To Deny Sales To A Competitor
The Court also has asked whether an undisclosed intent to defeat a competitor might render an otherwise truthful product preannouncement misleading so as to alter its status under the antitrust laws. Tr. at 103, 106, 109-11. The case law provides little support for finding liability on the basis of intent in the absence of underlying conduct otherwise deemed exclusionary. The law has developed to avoid a mistaken imposition of antitrust liability for legitimate competition on the merits, because desirable competitive behavior (including, e.g., the development of better products and the offering of lower prices) usually has the purpose and effect of reducing competitors’ sales. “`[I]ntent to harm rivals’ is not a useful standard in antitrust. . . . Neither is `intent to do more business,’ which amounts to the same thing. Vigorous competitors intend to harm rivals, to do all the business if they can. To penalize this intent is to penalize competition.” Ball Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338-39 (7th Cir. 1986).(12)![]()
Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, “[e]ven an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws; those laws do not create a federal law of unfair competition or `purport to afford remedies for all torts committed by or against persons engaged in interstate commerce.’” Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2589 (1993) (quoting Hunt v. Crumboch, 325 U.S. 821, 826 (1945)).
II. Concerns Relating To Vaporware Do Not Justify Rejection of the Proposed Final Judgment
The Department, after thorough investigation, filed the Complaint herein alleging violations of law based on Microsoft’s licensing practices. It did not at that time find a legal basis upon which to include other claims, including vaporware, based on evidence then available to it, including documents presented to the Court in this proceeding. The government, as prosecutor, has the discretion to determine whether it believes a cognizable claim has been made out on the facts known to it. Its exercise of that discretion is not subject to this Court’s review in a Tunney Act proceeding. See In re International Bus. Machines Corp., 687 F.2d 59l (2d Cir. 1982). This Court’s role under the Tunney Act is to determine whether the proposed Final Judgment adequately remedies the “violations set forth in the complaint.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2). In light of that limitation, it would be legal error to reject the proposed Final Judgment because of concerns about vaporware, which has not been alleged as a violation in this case.(13)![]()
But it is equally important to note that a rejection of the proposed settlement, or the imposition of any conditions on its approval that are not accepted by both parties, would sacrifice the immediate and certain benefits to competition that the proposed Final Judgment will provide. As the Department’s economic expert, Nobel Laureate Kenneth J. Arrow, has observed:
Arrow Dec’l at 4-5.
The Court has conducted a searching inquiry, and will continue to have supervisory power under the Final Judgment, including the ability to sanction and remedy any violation of the Decree with contempt or other punishment it finds appropriate. The Department of Justice remains ready, willing and able to investigate all allegations of past, current or future conduct by Microsoft or any other company which may violate the antitrust laws, and to bring suit when sufficient evidence has been found to justify filing a complaint.
In the matter now before the Court, the government found such a violation, and obtained a proposed consent decree which offers immediate and needed relief to the market. Whatever else the Department may or may not be able to find and allege in the future, this proposed Final Judgment clearly is adequate to remedy the alleged violations, and should be entered.
All of the requirements of the Tunney Act have been satisfied. The Declaration of Nobel Laureate Kenneth J. Arrow and the government’s other filings in support of the proposed Consent Decree establish an ample basis for concluding that the proposed Final Judgment is in the reaches of the public interest. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1582 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993). We therefore urge the Court to find that the proposed settlement is in the public interest, and to enter the proposed Final Judgment forthwith.
[...]
January 27, 1995
FOOTNOTES
1. Transcript of Motions Hearing, Jan. 20, 1995 [hereinafter "Tr."] at 145.
2. Donald D. Spencer, Computer Dictionary (1992).
3. Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 359 (1991).
4. For other definitions, see Alan Freedman, The Computer Glossary 725 (1989) (“Vaporware is software that does not exist. It usually refers to products that are advertised, but that are not ready for delivery to customers.”); Robin Williams & Steve Cummings, Jargon: An Informal Dictionary of Computer Terms 576 (1993) (“Vaporware is a product that the vendor keeps promising is about to arrive any moment (real soon now) — but it goes so long past its shipment date that no one believes it will ever really ship. Sometimes it never does. System 7 was vaporware for a while, since it took two years longer to appear than we were told. Apple’s Newton was vaporware for a long while.”).
5. We do not address specific allegations that Microsoft has used such preannouncements, or has offered “vaporware.” The government has not expressed any view regarding the validity of those allegations.
6. See Memorandum of the United States of America In Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment and In Opposition To The Positions of I.D.E. Corporation and Amici, [hereinafter "Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment"] at 7-10.
7. The government’s decision not to allege particular violations is not subject to review under the Tunney Act. See Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 10-13. That decision, like the decision to dismiss an action filed under the antitrust laws, is committed to the discretion of the Department of Justice. See In re International Bus. Machs. Corp., 687 F.2d 591, 600-03 (2d Cir. 1982) (issuing writ of mandamus to prevent review of stipulated dismissal of an antitrust case).
8. The Court of Appeals recently reviewed an analysis by Professor Arrow in a Tunney Act proceeding, and concluded that it was “enough . . . to establish an ample factual foundation for the judgment call made by the Department of Justice and to make its conclusion reasonable. Insofar as the district court may be considered to have found the contrary, the finding was clearly erroneous.” United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1582 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993).
9. Declaration of Kenneth J. Arrow, attached to Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment [hereinafter "Arrow Dec'l"] at 13.
10. Such discussion would also be inconsistent with the respective roles assigned to prosecutors and the courts. See Memorandum In Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 10-13.
11. Common examples of exclusionary conduct include hoarding excess capacity, see, e.g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Inc., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (L. Hand, J.); United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass 1953), aff’d per curiam 347 U.S. 521 (1954); predatory pricing, see, e.g., Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 113 S. Ct. 2578, 2587 (1993); and certain refusals to deal without legitimate business reason, see, e.g., Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985); Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973).
12. Accord Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.E. Johnson Co., 917 F.2d 1413, 1422 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 274 (1991); Morgan v. Ponder, 892 F.2d 1355, 1359 (8th Cir. 1989); Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227, 232 (1st Cir. 1983) (Breyer, J.).
13. See Memorandum in Support of Motion To Enter Final Judgment at 4-16.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
So today is July 18. 4 days elapsed since the alleged RTM date of Windows 7.
What do you consider to be a considerable length of time?
eet said,
July 17, 2009 at 11:18 am
***ROY SCHESTOWITZ CAUGHT LYING +ONCE AGAIN+!!!***
Vapourware = product that doesn’t exist
Windows 7 = product that does exist
–> Roy Schestowitz = big, fat lyer
zooquack Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Is this guy Schestowitz for real or is this some kind of satire site?
It’s difficult to discern.
joo Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s a satire site. Roy pretends to be a journalist, a person who knows what he’s talking about, and important to the Linux world.
eet Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Yeah, through Roy and his ‘Linux website’ Microsoft wants to parody Linux users and portrays them as paranoid, aggressive jerks without contact to the real world and no sense of moral . I think it a bit unfair of Microsoft.
Also, they are overdoing it a little lately. I mean, this ‘Schestowitz’-character is not believable.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Unfortunately, Roy is for real.
He’s just a bit… strange in his obsession with Microsoft.
Normally he will just post stuff up there without reading through what he’s posting, and if he gets confronted with facts, he will first try to dig up dirt on you since he can’t respond to the facts, then he will start his series of ad hominem attacks. And when that doesn’t work, he will excuse himself from the thread with the excuse that he has “other posts to do”.
Fortunately, he seems to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to FOSS advocates.
Most FOSS people I speak to (including some commentators on this site like David Gerard) are very thoughtful and willing to debate on the points instead of dismissing your arguments just because you work for so and so.
eet Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Roy _is_ a real, living person??? I stand corrected.
And to think that all the while I thought… Owww.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Regarding Boycott Novell…
Not my quote, but I found this on the Ubunthu forums (!!).
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=825260
Go ahead and search for “Boycott Novell” on Google (or Bing) – see what interesting results you get on just the first page alone.
Roy Schestowitz said,
July 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm
From another good document that describes Microsoft’s history of vaporware (including delays as vaporware):
INTRODUCTION
Long before April 1990, Microsoft had grown complacent
and was resting on its MS-DOS monopoly. DRI’s announcement
of DR DOS 5.0 caught Microsoft by surprise. DR DOS 5.0 was
far superior to any product that Microsoft had on the
market, and had many compelling features
Microsoft did not even have under development. Moreover,
Microsoft’s current version, MS-DOS 4.01, was widely
regarded as a buggy, bloated product. Microsoft realized
that OEMs and end users had a compelling reason to switch
from MS-DOS to DR DOS and that if they switched,
they might never switch back. In order to preempt the
adoption of DR DOS 5.0, Microsoft engaged in a continuous
and systematic preannouncement plan designed specifically to
injure DRI. Because the truthful release date of MS-DOS 5.0
would not preempt DR DOS sales, Microsoft did not tell
the truth.
When DR DOS 6.0 later leapfrogged MS-DOS 5.0 shortly
after it shipped, Microsoft preannounced a version of MS-DOS
that never shipped until four years later, and only then as
the DOS component of Windows 95. And when Novell DOS 7.0
loomed on the near horizon, Microsoft preannounced both
MS-DOS 7.0 and Windows 95. MS-DOS 7.0 never shipped. As to
Windows 95, Microsoft again missed its announced
release-date by over a year. Worse, Microsoft falsely
informed the world Windows 95 would not need DOS to run. In
each instance, Microsoft’s modus operandi remained largely
the same: (1) preannounce a new release immediately after
DRI announced a new release; (2) falsely promise a
shorter-than-expected release date to curtail DOS users from
buying DR DOS; (3) study the new DR DOS version to ascertain
its features in order to add those features to its promised
version; and (4) deliberately slip the release date in small
increments to keep MS-DOS users within the fold. In some
instances, Microsoft went further by promising features on a
release that it knew would not be included in the next
release.
Caldera has overwhelming evidence that Microsoft made
preannouncements about their products that were not only in
bad faith and objectively unreasonable, but also were
knowingly false and misleading. This evidence is more than
sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the
legality of Microsoft’s vaporware practices. Summary
judgment should be denied.
Return to Table of Contents
RESPONSE TO MICROSOFT’S
“STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS”
Caldera disagrees in every material respect with
Microsoft’s purported “Statement of Undisputed Facts.”
Caldera incorporates by reference its Consolidated Statement
of Facts as if set forth here in its entirety.
Caldera responds to the numbered paragraphs in
Microsoft’s purported “Statement of Undisputed Facts.” as
follows:
1. Disagreed. The testimony and exhibits referred to
confirm only that, prior to November 1989, Mircosoft had
entirely abandoned architectural design and control of
future MS-DOS versions, but that at some point after
December 1989 took such control back from IBM. See
Consolidated Statement of Facts, 20-26,33-33.
2. See response to ¶ 1, supra. Microsoft also
ignores that its only plans by the end of 1989 were to
release MS-DOS 4.1 in 1990. See Consolidated Statement of
Facts, ¶ 87.
3. Disagreed. The cited testimony does not support
Microsoft’s assertion. To the extent that more developers
were assigned to the MS-DOS team, such assignment was made
only after DR DOS 5.0 was announced. Lennon Depo. at 42.
4. Agreed.
5. Lennon’s testimony speaks for itself. Caldera
disagrees that the cited testimony supports Microsoft’s
assertion. At best, by April 1990 Microsoft had been
thinking about a next version of MS-DOS for only four
months. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 87.
Microsoft also ignores all evidence that its witnesses’
self-serving testimony was not credible, and that testimony
about purported schedules was neither objectively reasonable
nor actually held in good faith. See id. at ¶¶
87-101, 307-318, 353-374. Moreover, Microsoft ignores that
its internal schedules are “fake.” See id. at ¶¶
85-86, 101, 309, 311, 315, 361-363, 368, 370.
6. Werner’s testimony speaks for itself. See response to
¶ 5, supra.
7. Chestnut’s testimony speaks for itself. See response
to ¶ 5, supra.
8. The status report is quoted accurately. See response
to ¶ 5, supra. The “MS-DOS 5.0 Postmortem Report”
confirmed this schedule was false and not realistic. See
Exhibit 195; Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 86.
9. See response to ¶ 8, supra.
10. See response to ¶ 5, supra. Microsoft also
ignores that it was adding significant features in response
to DR DOS 5.0, and that this would necessarily delay the
schedule. SeeConsolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
88-89, 95-96, 99.
11. Disagreed. MS-DOS 5.0 was nowhere near “code
complete” by May 1990.
Important features were still being added at least until
July 1990. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
95-97, 99.
12. The document is quoted accurately. But see response
to ¶¶ 5 and 8, supra. Microsoft was clearly
ignoring what impact features added in response to DR DOS
5.0 would have on its schedules. See Consolidated Statement
of Facts, ¶¶ 99-100.
13. Caldera agrees only that a bogus first beta shipped
on June 11, 1990. The beta was nowhere near a final product,
and Microsoft knew that. See Consolidated Statement of
Facts,
¶¶ 95-97, 99.
14. A beta version may generate “talk” within the
industry. Such fact has absolutely nothing to do with
Microsoft’s conduct in proactively contacting the media to
announce an imminent ship date, and to contact its OEMs
around the world to fully disclose its plans and purported
schedule. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
90-94, 102.
15. Disagreed. The exhibit cited is merely a public
relations memo, and itself suggests a release to manufacture
in 1991. Feedback from the first beta revealed numerous
bugs, and Microsoft already knew that its schedule was going
to be much-delayed. See Consolidated Statement of Facts,
¶¶ 95-97, 99.
16. Caldera’s First Amended Complaint speaks for itself.
17. Disagreed. The DR DOS 5.0 beta test cycle lasted five
months. Microsoft’s cited exhibits do not support a shorter
time estimate. Moreover, Microsoft ignores the fact that no
significant new features were added to DR DOS 5.0 after
the first beta.
18. Disagreed. Exhibit 25 refers only to a “retail”
product, which Microsoft at the time was planning to be
MS-DOS 4.1. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 87.
Exhibit 26 contains within it no reference to DRI’s
purported perception of availability of any MS-DOS product
in Summer 1990.
19. The document says what it says. Microsoft’s
interpretation is incorrect. By “announcement,” it is clear
DRI was at best asserting an understanding that Microsoft
planned to ship a beta version by May 22, 1990.
20. Agreed that DRI discussed DR DOS 5.0 publically on
April 23, 1990, and May 14, 1990.
21. Disagreed. DRI released DR DOS 5.0 in June 1990. See
Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 73. Indeed,
Microsoft states this elsewhere as an undisputed fact. See
Disparagement Memorandum, ¶ 13. Moreover, the delay was
not because of any known incompatibility problem, but was
simply to ensure the fact that DR DOS 5.0 was compatible
with Windows 3.0, which shipped in May 1990. See
Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 90 n.15.
22. The document says what it says. Microsoft wishes to
downplay the devastating testimony elicited in regard to
this document’s content. See Consolidated Statement of
Facts, ¶¶ 90-93, 108.
23. Disagreed. The industry’s perception of Microsoft’s
neglect and stagnation of MS-DOS 5.0 was accurate. See
Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 15-16, 20-26,
30-33, 71-73.
24. The magazine articles say what they say. Microsoft
ignores the fact that its employees initiated contact with
these magazines to “leak” plans. See Consolidated Statement
of Facts, ¶¶ 90, 91, 98, 107-108.
25. As to the truthfulness of Chestnut’s statements, see
response to ¶ 5, supra.
26. Microsoft did not just discuss its plans with
“various OEMs,” but with virtually all of its OEMs
worldwide. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
90-94, 100, 102. Microsoft ignores the nature of the
presentations given, and the fact that they were given
specifically to diffuse interest in DR DOS 5.0. See Id.,
¶¶ 91-93, 102, 104. Moreover, Microsoft ignores
that disclosure to an OEM under a non-disclosure agreement
is a fiction insofar as Caldera’s vaporware allegations are
concerned. See Id., ¶ 104.
27. Discussing plans with ISVs is not a “public
announcement” per se. But Microsoft ignores that its own
witnesses have stated such disclosure under NDA is a
complete fiction, and that Microsoft expects there to be
leaks. See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
104, 314.
28. Agreed.
29. The articles speak for themselves. Mark Chestnut
provided the information regarding estimated ship date,
which by that time was contradicted even by Microsoft’s
internal records. SeeConsolidated Statement of Facts,
¶¶ 98-100.
30. See response to ¶ 5, supra. The credibility of
these witnesses is clearly at issue.
31. The document speaks for itself. See response to
¶¶ 5 and 8, supra. This schedule is clearly of the
“fake” variety explained in the Consolidated Statement of
Facts, ¶¶ 85-86.
32. See response to ¶ 31, supra.
33. Agreed.
34. Disagreed. Microsoft has long attempted to use the
arrival of Brad Silverberg as an after-the-fact alibi for
its knowingly false and misleading preannouncement of MS-DOS
5.0.
Microsoft would have this Court believe that an outsider
from Borland came to Microsoft and knew more about getting
the Microsoft core product which accounted for over forty
percent of its yearly revenue to market than did the senior
Microsoft officials in charge of the product. It is utterly
a matter of credibility. Whether the jury wishes to believe
Microsoft’s self-serving explanations in this regard is up
to them. Brad Silverberg is clearly the least credible of
all of Microsoft’s many
veracity-challenged witnesses. See Consolidated Statement
of Facts, ¶¶ 106-107, 210, 214-215,
236, 238, 310 n. 29, 330-331.
35. See response to ¶¶ 5 and 34, supra.
36. See response to ¶¶ 5 and 34, supra.
37. See response to ¶¶ 5 and 34, supra.
38. See response to ¶¶ 5 and 34, supra. A full
explanation regarding the schedule for MS-DOS 5.0 appears in
Caldera’s Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶
83-109.
39. Agreed that MS-DOS 5.0 was commercially released on
June 6, 1991. Evidence in the case shows that Microsoft
announced the product would be available as early as August
1990.
See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 91.
Accordingly, counting the month of August 1990, there was
actually a delay of eleven months. Microsoft also attempts
to downplay that MS-DOS 5.0 did not ship until fifteen
months after being originally “leaked” to media and OEMs.
40. Some delay and slight schedule slips may be normal.
However, the delay attendant to MS-DOS 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 (which
still has not shipped) and Windows 95 are not at all normal
and common.
41. Only truthful product preannouncements are a common
industry practice.
42. The announcement of DR DOS 5.0 was entirely truthful.
To the extent its schedule was delayed for less than a month
it was to ensure compatibility with Windows 3.0, a major
product that happened to ship immediately prior to the
planned shipment of DR DOS 5.0. SeeConsolidated Statement of
Facts, ¶ 90.
43. DRI’s announcement of DR DOS 6.0 was truthful, and
the predicted dates were met.
See Consolidated Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 186,
307. Microsoft makes no assertion to the contrary.
44. Novell’s announcement of Novell DOS 7.0 was truthful.
The delay in its release arose when Novell decided to more
closely integrate the product with networking capabilities.
SeeConsolidated Statement of Facts, ¶ 349 n. 33.
45. Edwards’ testimony speaks for itself. He explicitly
confirmed that the Novell DOS 7.0 feature set was largely
complete, and had in fact entered early beta tests. Edwards
FTC Decl.
¶ 65. A larger question, however, was whether the
FTC could fashion relief to make its marketing worthwhile.
Id. ¶ 73.
46. The testimony is quoted accurately. But see response
to ¶ 44, supra.
47. Disagreed. Microsoft’s plans for Windows 95 never
changed after June 1992. SeeConsolidated Statement of Facts,
¶¶ 328-331. Microsoft’s plans for Windows 95 were
constantly and ceaselessly communicated to OEMs and the
entire world. See Consolidated Statement of Facts,
¶¶ 356-360, 364-367, 369, 371-373.
48. Only truthful product preannouncements serve
procompetitive functions.
49. See response to ¶ 48, supra.
[...]
IV. MICROSOFT’S ASSERTION OF AN IN
PARI DELICTO DEFENSE IS TO NO AVAIL
Microsoft appears to suggest that both DRI and Novell also
preannounced successive versions of DR DOS to preempt
Microsoft. Preannouncement Memo. at ¶¶ 18-20,
42-46. Yet this allegation, even if true, would present no
defense for Microsoft. First, Microsoft is a dominant
monopolist with 90% market share. See Consolidated Fact
Statement at 2 n.2. As one court recently observed in a case
involving a similarly dominant monopolist (Intel), the
antitrust law imposes “affirmative duties”on monopolists to
refrain from anticompetitive conduct. Intergraph Corp. v.
Intel Corp., 3 F. Supp. 1255, 1277 (N.D. Ala. 1998). As
noted there, even conduct by a monopolist that is otherwise
lawful may violate the antitrust laws where it has
anticompetitive effects. Image Technical Services, Inc. v.
Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195, 1207 (9th Cir. 1997)
(”Legal actions, when taken by a monopolist, may give rise
to liability, if anticompetitive.”); Greyhound Computer v.
IBM, 559 F.2d 488, 498 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434
U.S. 1040 (1978) (otherwise lawful conduct may be unlawfully
exclusionary when practiced by a monopolist); Bonjorno v.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 752 F.2d 802, 811 (3d
Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 908 (1986) (”When a
monopolist competes by denying a source of supply to his
competitors, raises his competitor’s price for raw materials
without affecting his own costs, lowers his price for
finished goods, and threatens his competitors with sustained
competition if they do not accede to his anticompetitive
designs, then his actions have crossed the shadowy barrier
of the Sherman Act”); Oahu Gas Service, Inc. v. Pacific
Resources, Inc., 838 F.2d 360, 368 (9th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 870 (1988) (”Because of a monopolist’s
special position the antitrust laws impose what may be
characterized as affirmative duties”).
Second, Microsoft’s argument is nothing more than the
assertion of the long-discredited “in pari delicto” defense:
“Although in pari delicto literally means of ‘equal fault,’
the doctrine has been applied, correctly or incorrectly, in
a wide variety of situations in which a plaintiff seeking
damages or equitable relief is himself involved in some of
the same sort of wrongdoing.” Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v.
International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138 (1968). The
Supreme Court has been emphatic: “[W]e held in
Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211
(1951), that a plaintiff in an antitrust suit could not be
barred from recovery by proof that he had engaged in an
unrelated conspiracy to commit some other antitrust
violation.” Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts
Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138 (1968). At best, Microsoft is
simply asserting that DRI and Novell also engaged in
vaporware practices similar to Microsoft. As Perma Life
points out, such assertion, even if true, provides
absolutely no defense against Caldera’s antitrust claims.
And clearly, DRI’s and Novell’s practices are in no way
similar. DR DOS 5.0 was delayed, at most, one month to
confirm compatibility with Windows 3.0, a major software
introduction that
occurred just prior to the intended release of DR DOS
5.0. See Consolidated Statement of Facts¶ 90 n. 15. Dr
DOS 6.0 shipped exactly as announced. Id. ¶ 186.
Although originally slated for release in late Summer 1993,
Novell briefly delayed release of Novell DOS 7 until
December 1993, see Exhibit 394, due primarily to Novell’s
decision to include Novell’s peer-to-peer networking
product, Personal NetWare, in the final version of Novell
DOS 7. Personal NetWare was also released as a standalone
product in January 1994. Tucker Depo. at 273; Corey Depo. at
231-232;
Exhibit 380. See Consolidated Statement of Facts ¶
349 n. 33.
Significantly, Microsoft makes absolutely no argument
that any announcement by DRI or Novell was anything but
completely truthful.
David Gerard Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I think it’s arguable that Windows 7 is not what people conventionally mean by the term “vaporware” – although it hasn’t been released yet, it’s pretty much certain that it’s going to be released in the very near future, and any scenarios in which it won’t be are outlandish.
“Vaporware” to me means something more like: something that is nowhere near release. The all-singing-all-dancing Database File System that Microsoft has been touting since 1991 and still can’t get to work would be a good example.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Parts or traits of Vista 7 are vapourware, such as the promise that it would be suitable for sub-notebooks. It was made heavier and slower as development progressed and according to a review from ComputerWorld (IDG), Vista 7 is currently too slow for standard sub-notebooks.
That’s vapourware — Vista 7 for netbooks (sub-notebooks).
Microsoft kills netbooks (sub-notebooks).
They’ll need to be “mini laptops” with beefy hardware.
Based on this false promise (vapourware) Microsoft attempted to convince OEMs to drop GNU/Linux from sub-notebooks.
eet Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
You’ve simply posted nonsense; that’s the short and long of it, and you might as well admit it when even your own fans will not deny it.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
That article is one guy’s opinion.
Shall we look at another guy’s opinion?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4249
Anyway, I don’t think anyone expects Windows 7 to run faster than XP. Just like no one expects Windows to run faster than MS-DOS.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The guy whom you cite is a known Microsoft lackey. Others have shown the very opposite.
Please add disclosures to your comment stating that you are employed by Microsoft to “evangelize”.
Sabayon User Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Roy, show Jonathan your “Credibility Index”, that should be good for a laugh.
Please visit every website on the internet where your friends push your POV anonymously and under various nyms, and post disclosures stating that they are associated with you, and that you organize these shilling sessions (including the subversion of social websites that use community-generated content and ranking systems) from your IRC channel.
That should keep you occupied for a few years. I hope.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Or Google Chrome OS, for that matter.
BTW, Windows 7 has a new feature called Libraries. While it’s no where near the same as the Database File System promised for Longhorn, it does implement some of the concepts and vision of that original file system design:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2341721,00.asp
satipera said,
July 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Jonathan Wong
You really should make it much clearer that you are paid by MS to come to sites like this and do what you do. Just saying that you work for MS in the first post of a thread does not tell the whole truth. It is quite a compliment to the work that Roy is doing that you are here at all.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The problem is though, despite what Roy wants people to think, I’m not paid to come to sites like this to engage with the community here.
This is not part of my job description, even if the word “evangelist” is in my job title. There are many ways to “evangelize” and engage our customers and partners, but coming to websites like this surely isn’t what I am asked to do by my employer.
I chanced upon this website and wanted to leave my opinions here, seeing that this is a blog that I thought encouraged open discussions. There were some untruths posted here that I want to try and make right. But this is on my own accord, not Microsoft’s.
Of course, it’s my word against Roy’s. You decide what you want to believe in.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
If you don’t append a disclosure to all your comments (that Microsoft employs you to “evangelise”), I will have to report you to the FTC.
zooquack Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Maybe someone should report you to your University for using their network to channel all your garbage out on to the net. Hiding behind your friend’s BT NNTP server doesn’t absolve you of the fact you use your school like an ISP to get free access.
You should also be reported for spamming as well because that’s what your Usenet activities consist of, mostly.
Reader said,
July 17, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hmm, this Wong guy spends half of a day on this site, and claims he’s not paid to do it? Yeah, right. Well, “evangelize” my ass with your tounge, Wong
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Very mature response. Just what I expected from Boycott Novell.
I hate to generalize everyone here, because I know there are members in this community who are thoughtful and mature in discussing issues.
However, when even the Ubunthu guys call Boycott Novell “whack jobs”, you know something is off with the folks who write articles here and the commentators that defend them.
Reader Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Niether do you fail on expectations, except maybe for your employer – mindshare you managed to grab and twist for now is NONE.
Yes, it’s natural that you have problems with generalizing because there’s no single goal of GNU/Linux, but FLOSS community has no such problem with Microsoft – Micorsoft’s goal is clearly spoken out in regard to Linux.
Wow, you have “support” from part of Ubuntu comminity. Just wow. Keep up the “good” work. And just a hint – maybe you spend too little money “rewarding” people, and too much shitting thru your mouth
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Please add disclosures. I don’t know how many other Microsoft employees like you are in this thread (and in this Web site in general), but I shall post a complaint to the FTC unless you change your ways.
joo Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Go ahead post it. You’re all talk.
jocaferro Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
UBUNTHU!?
zooquack Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It appears that Mr. Schestowitz’s output is a 24×7 operation when all is considered.
So who is paying him?
Mick said,
July 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Wow, the munchkins are out in force tonight.
The distro’s name is Ubuntu, get the spelling right ffs. What is the saying… know thy enemy?
Beyond that, it is one of the “for dummies” distros ramming Mono down everyone’s throats. Any surprises that the Ubuntu guys don’t want to see their Mono bad mouthed?
satipera Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I have concerns about mono Mick and I am an Ubuntu user. Do you think my opinion as an Ubuntu “dummy” counts? Your air of superiority does you no credit, but more importantly it stereotypes Linux users as techie elitists. This is not helpful.
Mick Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
http://www.amazon.com/Ubuntu-Linux-Dummies-Computer-Tech/dp/0470125055
Take it up with the publisher, amazingly people buy books that label them as dummies themselves. Was a reference to the book series, notice the quotation marks?
satipera Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I missed the quotation marks. “For dummies” has become shorthand for an introduction with a gentle learning curve, there is nothing wrong with this at all and often helps attracting new people. Although your post was not as bad as I first thought I would suggest avoiding anything that could be misinterpreted as being dismissive or elitist.
zooquack Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Ubuntu is a good distribution and has brought Linux to people who may never have even tried Linux before. It’s not perfect, nothing is, but it is very popular.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger said,
July 17, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Roy, that title really is out of hand; I don’t see that Ballmer admitted any such thing. I hope for your sake that Microsoft legal doesn’t hire an ambitious summer intern who takes an interest in you. They might beat me to thrashing the living legal daylights out of you, and that would make me sad.
zooquack Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
There is no question that Mr. Schestowitz is already on the radar screen for libel, slander, defamation of character, lost business amongst other things. His actions are being watched and documented in full and at some point, the big guns are going to unload in his direction. Hopefully he didn’t spend all his grant and student loan money because he is going to need it for his defense fund.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 1:38 am
I might get to him before the “big guns” do, at the rate we’re going.
They can have whatever’s left.
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Well, I guess when Roy starts to seriously focus on his ad hominem attacks instead of responding to your arguments, I know he has no answer because he knows he is trapped.
I’ve commented on three posts here this week. Every discussion resulted to something about Microsoft and disclosures and astroturfing and blah blah blah.
Hey, if you can’t beat them in debate, attack their character instead!
Jose_X said,
July 18, 2009 at 12:45 am
When I read that article the other day, I found it a bit confusing until the end, as others have said. There were complaints in the comments to SJVN that the title was misleading.
Roy, if you didn’t read the whole article carefully (plus perhaps some comments) and missed that that title was possibly deceptive, then add a fix (apology, whatever) and move on.
The poll from that other blog entry suggests Windows 7 is already out. Can you confirm this Jonathan Wong?
Does anyone else have other information about the SJVN article?
Jonathan Wong Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 12:52 am
The article that Roy used was a parody article. The author even admitted as much in the last paragraph.
Windows 7 has been announced to ship to the public on October 22nd, with OEM manufacturers getting it earlier so they can install it on their new machines.
Since July, many places in the world are already taking preorders for it.
I have been running Beta and RC (both pre-release) versions of Windows 7 since last year.
Considering everything above, I can’t see how any sane or objective person can consider Windows 7 vaporware or even claim that Ballmer “Admits that (Windows) 7 is Just Vaporware” (subject title).
Clearly, an effort by Roy to use deception to misguide readers, since it has to be brought to his attention earlier in this thread and he hasn’t admitted his mistake and posted a fix yet.
Jose_X Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 1:09 am
>> Clearly, an effort by Roy to use deception to misguide readers, since it has to be brought to his attention earlier in this thread and he hasn’t admitted his mistake and posted a fix yet.
I think Roy has decided on a set of priorities that leave him short of time for various things, and, if he hasn’t found time (state of mind, etc) to fully digest something, I don’t think he will add a fix until he finds the time. He trusts some authors and sources (like SJVN, I think) and probably didn’t read the article very well. I don’t think he gets paid to so this. The comments already serve as bug reports. It’s not my business how he chooses to allot his time (though people can certainly complain if they want).
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I think Roy has decided on a set of priorities that leave him short of time for various things, and, if he hasn’t found time (state of mind, etc) to fully digest something, I don’t think he will add a fix until he finds the time.
Come on, Jose, you can’t believe the nonsense you’re spouting. Roy’s decided to leave clearly erroneous and misleading information in a headline, in flagrant disregard for the truth, after he’s been advised multiple times that it’s an error. He uses a parody article to support a headline which is arguably directly damaging to Microsoft, because it’s…directly damaging to Microsoft!
It’s a lie, Jose.
He claims to be a journalist, Jose.
If Roy’s priorities don’t leave him enough time to make the truth his top priority (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry.) then he should not be calling himself a journalist.
This is what’s going to land him in big trouble, trust me.
And why do you spend all this time explaining him? Are you his press agency or something?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 1:25 am
@Jose_X:
No, I actually do consider Vista 7 (e.g. for netbooks) to be vapourware and I wrote this many times before (independent of SJVN). See my reply to David Gerard.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger Reply:
July 18th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Is this intended to explain the deceitfulness of the title of the article, Roy…? I give you an “F” on this one, unless you became the CEO of Microsoft and we all missed the memo, somehow.
According to this, it should read “Roy Schestowitz Claims The Vista 7 is Just Vaporware”.
Like I keep saying, Roy, if there was a law against impersonating a journalist, you’d be behind bars for life.
Jose suggests this is a matter of priorities and available time for you. I’d like to know just exactly where “telling the truth” sits on your list of priorities. I suspect it’s somewhere down around #3422, right after “eat your greens”.