Microsoft Antitrust Oversight Ends 289
dcblogs writes "The US Department of Justice remedies supervision in the Microsoft antitrust case ends Thursday, closing the landmark case, which began in 1998. But the questions posed by trial federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's attempted remedy remain: Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'"
When did it actually start? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This means Microsoft can finally start bundling useful things like Microsoft Security Essentials in Windows 8 without being hounded by the feds.
Hard to say that, but google really looks evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Re:When did it actually start? (Score:4, Insightful)
i dont buy any of this (Score:5, Insightful)
if it hadn't been for this anti-trust case, Microsoft would have crushed Apple like a bug, just like it did all it's other competitors before it. Anyone remember Wordperfect? Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet? Anyone remember the company who invented visual programming? Anyone remember the company that put out the first commercial web browser? Anyone remember GEOS? BeOS??
Instead, Microsoft had to actively support Apple, including the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem. Why? Because Microsoft didn't want to get sued again. That's the only reason it has allowed Linux to live; SCO was just a test fire to see if Linux would blink. Now comes the Patent Wars, which will crush Linux into the dirt.
No hedge fund shareholder of Microsoft is going to put up with this open source hippie bullshit. They are, instead, going to scream out and pound the podium: "Law and fucking order!". And that is who controls Microsoft and other public IT companies - shareholders, banks, hedge funds, funds of funds, etc. None of them understand open source, they barely understand copyright law. What they do understand is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. And all of this Linux shit is getting in the way of their profit margins.
Re:Hard to say that, but google really looks evil? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Would Open Source be as strong as it is today if there hadn't been a common enemy for people with that sort of ideology to rally against? I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.
Re:When did it actually start? (Score:5, Insightful)
If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.
In other news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Google staff evangelist speaks out against strict DOJ antitrust enforcement emphasis.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because marrying Internet Explorer to Windows was a real winner in the security arena.
There are many reasons why stopping MS from bundling their solutions to all things the last decade was actually good for consumers.
Not so fast Google guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Like how Linux became such a strong force in the desktop OS market. Um, wait, let me try that again.
Like how Google's open source search engine revolutionized the way we find things on the web. Nope, that one didn't happen either.
Like how Apple's open source iPhone reinvented mobile phones. Hmm, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Like how Adope's open source Flash platform brought video and interactive content to the internet. Damn, I know I'll get one.
Like how open source Mp3 technology revolutionized digital music. Fine, I give up.
Look there have obviously been open source projects over the last decade that have had an impact. Linux on the server side (especially coupled with Apache, MySQL, and PHP) for example. But commerical server offerings are still a major part of that landscape. And Android has had strong success in mobile, but before the iPhone changed the landscape it was just a Blackberry look alike. Windows (and too a lesser extent OS X) are still what most people use for their daily computing needs, and frankly it wasn't the open source that led the way on new tablets. Open source has contributed, and its a good thing to have around. WebKit and Mozilla/Firefox on the browser side are the biggest factors in re-igniting the web and HTML 5 looks to do away with the decrepit old Flash hopefully sooner rather than later. But Open Source was NOT the driving force behind inovation the past decade, sorry but it just wasn't.
Re:When did it actually start? (Score:0, Insightful)
Wow. Make up an impossibly high standard that the actual open source movement isn't asking for (and that you conveniently don't apply to anyone else), then insinuate google are hypocrites and/or evil for not meeting the impossible standard. Open source isn't about demanding the stuff that only runs on someone else's servers, or demanding the contents of their databases. It's about wanting the source of stuff that's going to run on *my* machine, and wanting the interoperability protocols it uses to talk to yours.
Bonus points for failing at statistics (a representative sample of usage data suffices) and recent history (google came out of nowhere with a good algorithm, proving that market share in search isn't a perpetual thing, and that it can just as well be done again by someone else). It's feeling kind of shilly in here today.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
What's illegal isn't the discount, it's what they ask in payment.
I.E. unless you agree to never sell one of our competitors products, we will charge you full retail pricing, which is about 5 times what your competitors are charging. In effect they remove the ability of a manufacturer to compete by denying them the special deals that their competitors receive. As a monopoly, this is quite easy to do.
It's those sort of proviso's are illegal and as the GP said, hurt both consumers and business alike.
Not true about Word Perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point about Word Perfect is false and misleading. Word Perfect died because Microsoft targeted it. MS viewed Word Perfect as a big threat and abused their monopoly position to end that threat. They purposefully changed specifications and withdrew APIs in Windows 95 a month before it was due to be released. Word Perfect/Novell had to recode much of the program, hence it was late and bug ridden. All this came out in the Comes vs MS trial and is about to resurface if Novell continues their case against MS. Before you say prove it, read for yourself:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018 [groklaw.net]
I note your plugging a Microsoft shop in your sig - aren't astroturfers normally less obvious?