Posted on 03/04/2002 11:14:46 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Mar 05, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Microsoft Corp.'s chief executive and the top executive involved with its Windows operating system are sticking with a position the company has held since the outset of the four-year antitrust case: They cannot pull the Internet Explorer Web browser out of Windows.
Nine states suing Microsoft for antitrust violations want to force the company to offer a version of Windows without the browser and other added features.
That would allow computer makers to install competitors' products, if they chose, without taking on the added cost of supporting both products. Currently, Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows has a leg up on competitors vying for the hearts of consumers and software designers.
In a videotaped deposition released Monday, Microsoft vice president and Windows chief Jim Allchin said Microsoft has "no way" to remove the browser from the company's flagship operating system.
"I couldn't do what you've got here," said Allchin, suffering from a severe cold. "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it."
Allchin said the company has done no studies to see if it could be done.
He referred to an especially embarrassing part of Microsoft's case, in which the company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged.
"Do you have any expectation as to whether or not you will be putting together a similar demonstration for this part of the case?" state lawyers asked.
"Not exactly like that one," Allchin said.
Steve Ballmer, a college friend of company founder Bill Gates and current chief executive officer, said Microsoft would be forced to offer an infinite number of Windows versions under the states' demands, all with or without extra features.
Ballmer said if the states should prevail with their demands, the decision would serve the interests of neither computer manufacturers nor users.
Instead, Ballmer said companies like Sun Microsystems, whose relationship with Microsoft is notoriously prickly, would dedicate themselves to frustrating Microsoft engineers.
"Sun Microsystems (can) go buy 10,000 copies, and they can have people just sit there and generate work requests to us every minute of every day," Ballmer said. "Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft."'
The nine states revised their proposed penalties Monday. The new version reflects many complaints leveled by Ballmer and other executives.
For example, Microsoft would have to offer only one stripped-down version of Windows instead of many different ones.
Ballmer complained that it would be too expensive to build a version of the Java programming language to package with Windows, as requested by the states. The states clarified that Microsoft wouldn't have to bear those costs.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the modifications "clarify and sharpen our proposed remedies, without weakening them."
"The modified measures should deflate Microsoft's overblown rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions about the proposed remedies," Blumenthal said.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, would not comment on the changes.
"It appears to be a number of changes made very late," Smith said. The company is still reviewing the document, he said.
Allchin admitted to lawyers for the states that Microsoft violated the law but refused to specify the violations.
"I don't think that I can summarize those," Allchin said. "I'm not an attorney."
The company faces several allegations of violations that involve infringing on consumer choice and unfairly hurting competitors.
The states' lawyers, Stephen Houck and Mark Breckler, asked if it would be important for the head Windows executive to know what the violations were, so they wouldn't be repeated.
"Well, it's a very complicated area," Allchin said. "Very complicated,"
---
On the Net: Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com
Connecticut Attorney General: http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/
By D. IAN HOPPER AP Technology Writer
Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved
The thread at the above URL has a report that indicates that Ballmer and Gates may be thinking of a "corbomite maneuver."
But that's the point!
If you allow Microsoft to sell people what they want, it's so bloody unfair to the competition!
On the other hand, if you find a way to claim that they don't "sell people what they want", you get to claim that they're being "so bloody unfair" to the consumer!
It's called "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and it's the way the "mind" of an MS-hater operates.
The goal isn't to exclude a browser, or to include some other feature. The goal is to attack Microsoft on any pretext, and to do so in an unrelenting manner.
To get a "big picture" look at the process, examine marxist theology, or, simply look at standard Soviet "negotiation" and agitprop tactics during the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Well, since Ford OWNS Jag - YES!
Well, your response is an oversimplification. Change his examples from tires, seatcovers, and paint to driveshafts, brakes, and fuel injectors and tell me whether or not the root function of the car is affected.
Another lame, brain-dead metaphor.
Again, if want the car metaphor, look at it this way: You tell Steve "I'd like to buy this car, but I don't want the engine."
Steve tells you "sorry, I can't do that, I'm under contractual obligation to sell the car with the engine."
You become irate, and accuse Steve and the manufacturer of ripping you off.
Steve tries to explain to you that most people want an engine with their car, and by buying the car with an engine installed, he's able to buy the engine for a fraction of what it would cost for him to buy them separately. The only "catch", he tells you, is that he's agreed to only sell cars with engines under the hood.
This only makes you angrier, because after all, you have a right to buy a car without an engine, dammit, you're an American!
Steve then tries to suggest that you go to one of his competitors (!!!) who doesn't have the same agreement, but, if you do that, you'll have to pay full price for an engine, because by avoiding the car-with-engine agreement, they don't qualify for the insanely inexpensive engine pricing.
Upon hearing this, you explode with rage, and scream "see you in court, a$$hoal" into his face, and storm out, slamming the door as you go.
Why are we discussing paint? Can a car run without paint? Yes. Can a computer run without an operating system? No.
Engines, on the other hand...
So, you want to buy a Ford, but demand that the dealer install a Jag engine. And, you demand that it work, without doing any damage to the power train.
Good luck, pal. You'll need it.
Since you're "asking" (ahem) about it, why don't you show us where they're proposing it? Show us where they say they're planning it?
Of course Jags ARE Fords now.
This is getting pahetic. They're beginning to sound like Muslims now.
A red herring.The only extra feature under discussion or litigation here and now is that damned web browser!
Spare us the histrionics.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are some people you don't know, and some of them do all sorts of outlandish things (i.e., murder their children, rob banks, pirate Microsoft products, and so forth). Further, it's been well-established that there has been massive ongoing theft of Microsoft intellectual property.
"Being such an offensively defensive spy-turkey as XP is it doesn’t stand a chance."
Well, if you MS-haters really believe that, you can stop the attacks, right? After all, it'll simply fold and die all of its own effort, without your continued niggling efforts to anklebite them to death.
Ah. I see. MS should buy Sun... :)
I can’t imagine they would actually just sell the file system and API, but maybe that is what they should do. I think legally it may get them out of the hot seat. Sell the stripped version for $25 and sell the full version for $100. The problem is then someone would sue them for offering too good of a bargain on the full package.
Not that it much matters, but my analogy of the Car to the paint was as the OS to the browser. :)
Translation:
"I've been a mechanic for more than 25 years, and I can assure you that this is BS. No way in hell can anyone tell me that you can't rip out all that fancy-schmancy wiring and boxes and "computers" from your car and still have it work, and work better than it did before!"
Friend, you're talking nonsense. I don't care how many years you've been spitting out spaghetti, there's NWIH you're qualified to make such sweeping ex cathedra statements about someone else's tightly integrated code.
Admit it. You hate MS, and you're lashing out in bitter frustration over your inability to stop them from continuing to succeed.
A web-browser is not the engine, Don. The web-broswer is an application program. The NT executive is the operating system. Application programs sit on top of the operating system. The operating system does not need an application to operate, but an application cannot operate without the operating system. The NT executive does not need Internet Explorer to read packets from the network and decode them, nor does it need it to manage memory or swap to virtual memory. Internet Explorer is an application program, because it relies on the operating system for those services in order for it to display websites.
I chose the metaphor of tires because without tires you really aren't going to get very far. The automobile will still run in one spot, but it doesn't go anywhere. Thus my comparison with a web browser. The computer operating system will run fine without it, but it is a stand-alone machine. If you want to "go somewhere" you're going to need a web-browser. But the web-browser is not needed for the computer to operate. The engine of this hypothetical car will run just fine without the tires. The automobile will go no where without tires, and the computer will not visit any webpages without the browser.
Those other applications you mentioned: Paint, Notepad, and Calculator are also bundled with Windows. The pertinent difference is that Microsoft does not maintain that the Paint program is necessary for the operating system to function. They do claim that their webbrowser is necessary for the operating system for function. This is not true.
Another lame, brain-dead metaphor.
This is why I like tech threads on FR. You never know when someone will accidentially blurt out with a complement. Don, why should I bother answering your posts when you're going to call me names? Screw you.
The Internet browser sits on top of all this and can be replaced or disabled, but the underlying UI objects cannot be removed or replaced.
I believe that what Microsoft is saying is that the browser is a trivial app sitting on top of stuff that can't be removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.