__/ [ Ramon F Herrera ] on Thursday 05 April 2007 23:30 \__
> On Apr 5, 4:32 pm, Geico Caveman <spammers-beg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In spite of their "party of the people" and "care for the poor" slogans,
>> why is it that Democrats (from Massachusetts, to Florida, to California,
>> to ...) are always in Microsoft's pocket ?
>>
>> I am not saying that Republicans aren't, but most serious efforts to free
>> state and federal agencies from the strangehold of Microsoft's products
>> and non-standards have come from Republicans / non-Democrats.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> I have a few datapoints for your curve.
>
> - Republicans are supposed to believe above all in marketplace
> competition (anti-Microsoft principle) but they also believe in
> minimum government interference (pro-Microsoft principle) against
> business.
>
> - The Clinton administration was the one that filed the antitrust
> case, Microsoft gave a lot of money to the Republican campaign, which
> proceeded to drop the lawsuit within nanoseconds after they won.
>
> - The site http://www.dnc.org runs on Linux
> - The site http://www.rnc.org runs on Windows Server 3000
Here's that 'the other guy' had to say:
Microsoft has performed an illegal function and should be shut down.
,----[ Quote ]
| Free PC manufacturers from Microsoft's grip. Microsoft has used its
| monopoly power to bully original equipment manufacturers into installing
| only Windows on computers. A court-ordered remedy of nondiscriminatory
| OEM licensing of Windows would go a long way toward solving this
| problem. Pricing and licensing should be "transparent," openly
| published, and evenhandedly applied.
|
| Don't let Microsoft use its other software monopolies to limit
| competition. Just as Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to
| threaten the competition, so it is using its Office franchise
| to scare off competitors and dominate new Internet markets.
| Its preferred strategy is the notorious "embrace, extend,
| and extinguish" gambit...
`----
http://web.archive.org/web/20041009195732/http%3A//www.sfbg.com/nader/100.html
The above might expire, so here's the full text:
=============================================================================
May 8, 2000
Error message
Microsoft has performed an illegal function and should be shut down.
By Ralph Nader
Listen to Ralph Nader's March 3 speech in San Francisco.
AS THE TITANIC antitrust case against Microsoft moves into its endgame, the
question of the hour is what remedies will be effective in taming this
wealthy and ruthless monopoly.
The goal of any set of remedies should be to ensure that there will, in fact,
be innovation, competition, and reasonable prices in some of the most
important sectors of our economy: software, computers, and
telecommunications.
Here are some suggestions:
Free PC manufacturers from Microsoft's grip. Microsoft has used its monopoly
power to bully original equipment manufacturers into installing only Windows
on computers. A court-ordered remedy of nondiscriminatory OEM licensing of
Windows would go a long way toward solving this problem. Pricing and
licensing should be "transparent," openly published, and evenhandedly
applied.
? Don't let Microsoft use its other software monopolies to limit competition.
Just as Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to threaten the competition, so
it is using its Office franchise to scare off competitors and dominate new
Internet markets. Its preferred strategy is the notorious "embrace, extend,
and extinguish" gambit: embrace the new Internet authoring tools as part of
the dominant Office software suite; extend control of the new market by
introducing proprietary standards that are incompatible with competitors';
extinguish competing software through manipulative licensing and bundling
deals with OEMs. The court should require Microsoft to separate Microsoft
Office from Windows, and the new owner of Office should be required to port
the entire platform to multiple non-Windows operating systems.
Ensure that "Internet navigation" options remain open. Microsoft has insisted
to OEMs that it retain control of the "first screen," or default choices for
Internet navigation menus. It has done so to retain control over the time
and attention of computer users, whose reliance on the default "first
screen" can be used to channel them to certain e-commerce sites. Here's the
danger: if any single firm exercises too much control over Internet
navigation, competition in e-commerce markets will suffer. Microsoft should
be prohibited from imposing such terms.
Protect interoperability of hardware, software, and network protocols. The
usefulness of software programs depends on their ability to work (and
coexist) with other software programs, with hardware systems, and with the
protocols of telecommunications networks. It should come as no surprise that
Microsoft frequently and deliberately introduces barriers to compatibility
and interoperability, preventing competitors from working with Microsoft's
monopolizing Windows or Office products. One remedy is to force Microsoft to
support open standards for software and to provide extensive technical
information in a timely manner and in usable formats and protocols to any
company that requests it.
Adopt structural remedies, because the past six years of antitrust problems
with Microsoft have demonstrated that the company cannot be trusted. Its
conduct during the trial itself offers the best evidence of this point. The
company subverted the intent if not the language of a 1995 consent order, by
integrating its browser into the Windows operating system. Effective
remedies should, as much as possible, avoid "conduct remedies" that require
continuing court oversight.
Ideally, a breakup of the company would go further than the Justice
Department proposal to divide the operating system line of business from the
application and other lines of business. The court could insist that
Microsoft separate the Internet Explorer browser from Microsoft Office. That
way, the browser market could become competitive again and the owner of
Microsoft Office would find a way to function with more than one browser.
This would be an important result in a world where the browser is key in
setting Web publishing standards and links to e-commerce sites and where
Microsoft is driving for dominance in Internet authoring tools.
The court should also consider forcing Microsoft to spin off, as a separate
company, all of its online services and minority interests in networking
companies. There is no legitimate tie between the software businesses and
online/network services ? only anticompetitive mischief.
The antitrust remedies that ultimately bring the marauding Microsoft to heel
will have far-reaching consequences ? on future software design and choices,
on consumer prices, on the competitiveness of e-commerce, on the very
structure of the Internet and hence our culture.
The factual case against Microsoft has been made devastatingly clear. If
Microsoft's long record of deception and untrustworthiness is to be ended,
the public remedies must be as bold, sweeping, and effective as the
company's private power.
____________________________
In the Public Interest publishes each Monday on sfbg.com.
=============================================================================
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: A dragonfly only lives for one day
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:05am up 25 days 8:08, 7 users, load average: 1.20, 1.20, 1.19
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
