there is only one _sane_ course of action against M$: divestiture --before Gates becomes the Hydra. to make it short: at 90% of the OS market, and 95% of the current office software (w/p, spreadsheet, database, etc) market worldwide, M$ _is_ in a position of total market dominance. the real issue is not the 90% of the OS market, it is the 95% (expected to grow to 98% before 2000) of the office s/w. the office software, available _only_ on M$ platforms creates a self-perpetuating juggernaut: no other OS can even begin to make market penetraton without the key product (office s/w) --and people are not willing to learn a new application-- that's just human nature. it will take two technical factors to make M$ subject to market pressures and responsive to further competitive innovation (and this involves extensive ongoing regulation and oversight which I consider anathema): 1. M$' base operating system must be fully defined; eg- the API interface must be made available to all. if the API is not a moving target, emulators can be written enabling native WinTel s/w to run correctly on other platforms (unix variants, OS/2, beos, apple, etc). the increasing CPU "horsepower" makes this approach at least feasible. 2. M$ must be required to port it's major products to other operating systems; it is worth noting that freeBSD, for instance, will run native binaries from Linux and SCO variants which simplifies on set. as a corollary, M$ must be required to support some of the non-Intel hardware ports such as freeBSD or Linux on Alpha (almost 5 years ago, Alpha was at the performance level of the current Intel 400 Mhz). M$ does support Word and Explorer on Apple, but major features were not ported in both instances --this is not acceptable. I am not in favour of the government meddling in the design or integration of M$ products... but: the Sherman Act, passed in 1890 is designed to level the playing field, not regulate/administrate. the real issue of the act is that it acts _in the interest of society_ to curtail monopolistic and anti-competitive actions and excesses --M$ certainly qualifies for the remedies far more than John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil did in 1908. Bill Gates, through his _total_ dominance of the desktop, (with exceptiom of a few of the hardheaded/stubborn who refuse to run _any_ M$ products (author included)) is using his cash cow, swollen by gouging the consumer, to acquire _significant_ interests in industries which use computers: cable networks, cellular networks, satellite networks, etc. and related industries dependent on communications: news (MSNBC), television, productions, etc. this horizontal and vertical spread of M$ is even more dangerous. Bill Gates is quickly approaching critical mass --Bill Gates could literally bring the world to its knees-- and Gates is a notorious control freak: there is Bill's way, there is Bill's way, there is... sorry, there is no other way. unless the DOJ shows some spine, particularly in light of the appeals court ruling dumping the injunction _and_ the special master (which is far more critical than the public perceives, which is why M$ went after Lessig), the DOJ is going to be in and out of court with M$ until M$ literally buys the government or intimidates the DOJ out of the deal. the scenario of forcing M$ to accommodate other OSs and hardware platforms might be workable, but Gates will not only fight it, but it will be a constant additional legal burden to force M$ to make the services available in a timely manner; in other words, the government will end up establishing an agency the size of the FCC just to regulate M$ the "controlled" monopoly (as Sen. Hatch threatened). nothing in American law says we can not have a regulated monopoly if it serves the public interest --AT&T provided superb and universal service for decades (many of us would love to have that service today), but AT&T did _not_ innovate in a timely manner at the market demand. and telephones are rather low tech compared to computers which have been subject to Grove's Law for two decades. M$ has not been a creative company --it is a marketing and control machine which acquires technology, often by less than socially acceptable means, and integrates it into M$' market offerings. credit must be given to M$ for making the PC ubiquitous, but that value starts to wear very thin with M$' current market domination. from the perspective of serving the future interests of our society, the only effective option for the DOJ is to litigate for the divestiture of M$ into several operating companies --and to prevent Bill Gates from owning or controlling more than one division --much on the line of the AT&T divestiture. anything less will mean continuing litigation and further dominance of Gates as he uses his enormous cash reserves to buy control in additional markets. likewise, the orders must prohibit Gates from further market horizontal and vertical "octopussing". the Sherman Act also permits market damages (M$' 50-80% gross profit margin certainly qualifies as gouging) --which are then trebled; that would put a cramp on Bill's $50 _billion_ net worth and probably force even further divestiture of his controlling stock interests. Gates' personality needs to be considered as a factor as he must control, totally control. it is not enough to be first in a market, he must be the only player in the market. Gates' tactics have been deplorable: his minions go forth to companies and say: "...we dont know whether to buy you out, or force you out..." and if the company is purchased, it is purchased for much less than potential or fair market value. Gates does not buy just the leader, he buys outright, or controls, _all_ of the players in an emerging technology so there will be no competition to the direction chosen for inclusion in the M$ product line --and the choice may not be the best choice... the market is stifled. unfortunately, Bill Gates is a cancer on society. it is the old story: deal with it today, or deal with it later when Gates has become an even more cash bloated and arrogant monster which has devoured more of societies' rights and destroyed even more of the worlds' technical infrastructure. Bill Gates is not going to mellow with age; if anything, he will get more difficult. the world will be in less of a shock knocking the pins out from under Gates now rather than later. attila out.... __________________________________________________________________________ go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say: yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off. _________________________________________________________________ attila__ On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Brian wrote:
...(Compared to Gates, Hannibal lacks vision...)
I read a statistic yesterday (I think) that 90% of all PCs have Win95 installed, and Gates wants 90% of them to 'upgrade' to Win98. He has 90% of the WORLD market. And the Zionist theory people worry about 6% controlling 90%? What about one guy controlling 90% of the PC in the world? And stopping him is a restriction of his rights as defined by the American Constitution? During a debate on this, people happened to mention that the constitution was partially about resisting tyranny. Gates could bury ANYTHING DEEP into a new OS (remember the windows bomb joke that made the rounds a while back?), and no one would know. even then, people in businesses don't speak up, cause those who dissent, get fired.
I think that Gates should be slowed down now, while the chance is still there, and (somehow) get some alternative, workable, opposition OS's up and running, yet are compatible with win95/98 as well. The only way forward is through both unity and diversity.