Posted on 02/17/2005 7:32:53 AM PST by N3WBI3
As some of you may know, Microsoft is planning to totally restrict access to the Microsoft download center to all non-genuine windows users. So you would expect some check for pirated copies of windows to be involved. If you visit the download center with IE you get an activex control, but if you try with Firefox, you'll have to download a little program, that returns a code you have to copy into the download page, to get access to the download you selected. By quickly looking at the program, I noticed it looks for a registry key, this key is...
SOFTWARE\Wine\Wine\Config
the wine configuration key. the Windows Genuine Advantage program press release says that in the second half of 2005, all users connecting to the Microsoft download center or to windows update will have to validate their copy of windows. Interestingly if you run the validation program on wine, and the version of windows you're emulating is prior to 2000 or is windows server 20003, you get a message saying a validation code couldn't be found, because of technical difficulties or because you're running an unsupported operating system. If you set winver to win2000, you'll get a validation code that doesn't work, this may be a bug in wine, or in the validation program. A valid and working code is returned if the version is set to xp. Still, even if this is only an initial attempt, they appear to want to discriminate wine users, while this may be acceptable for operating system components/updates, this is probably a violation of anti-trust law for all other downloads. It's also the first time Microsoft acknowledges the existence of Wine.
A good case in point is the Microsoft antitrust trial. In the early 80s, Lotus 1-2-3 was the overwhelming choice for DOS spreadsheet programs, and with good reason: It was a wonderful program years ahead of its time. Microsoft produced its own, very lame attempt at a spreadsheet program (being an attorney, "alleged" spreadsheet program might be a more accurate term) in an attempt to wrest the market from Lotus (they failed; Excel was still years away). Around the same time, Lotus 1-2-3 started developing bugs. Lotus suspected Microsoft was purposefully manipulating DOS to prevent 1-2-3 from running. Microsoft denied it and eventually prevailed. Email from that time period subpoenaed in the recent antitrust trial produced a startling discovery. Email messages sent by the DOS development team of the day carried the tag line, "DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run!" I wonder what the statute of limitations is there? Lotus is probably also wondering what the monetary damages from lost revenue would be on sales over a 17-year period if Excel had never existed.
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=36905
(March 11, 2002) -- Sun Microsystems, Inc. has filed a private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The suit, filed in the United States District Court in San Jose, seeks remedies for the harm inflicted by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with respect to the Java platform and for damages resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand its monopoly power. In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power with respect to Sun and the Java platform. Sun's suit seeks redress for the competitive and economic harm caused by Microsoft's illegal acts.
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=65
After the success of MS DOS, a competing product emerged called DR DOS, causing MS to lower their prices. Bill Gates wrote in an e-mail, "I believe people underestimate the impact DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing" (May 18, 1989). So Gates gave orders to executives at Microsoft to purposely sabotage DR DOS. "Make sure it [DR DOS] has problems running our software in the future." And where it didn't have problems, programmers were instructed to create bogus error messages saying that it did. The tactic worked and DR DOS was forced out of business, leaving the Microsoft monopoly. Years later, MS paid more than $100 million to settle this case -- long after DR DOS was no longer a threat
I realize it is much easier to toss out "Evil Empire" claims than to find out what's really going on.
As I have said if MS just up and said "if you're not using windows and your stuff breaks is on you" I would be fine, thrilled infact. But MS targeted a specific piece of software (and as you can see above this is not the first time) for no reason other than to break it..
how would that be different that saying no updates unless you by the extended warranty plan in addition to office? I understand how its different of course, but fundamentally how is it different? I don't see why they couldn't say no updates until you fit X requirement. where x could be a warranty plan or a monthly fee or requiring that you have a valid version of windows
While it would be pretty stupid of them to do that, Ford would be perfectly within their rights as a company if they did! That's the point.
If its not in the agreement I can assure you it would not hold up in court. We do have laws regarding fair competition you know..
my ford won't let me put natural gas in it.
And there is a technical reason for that, there is no technical reason why wine users should be denied the free updates for the software they purchased.
But the office manual certainly does.
Pssst. Manuals are not legally binding documents...
Wow, you caught two typos, way to go eagle eyes...
Lawsuit based on what, exactly? MS isn't required by law to make their software compatible with anyone else's. Especially back in the MS-DOS days, there would be no basis for a lawsuit whatsoever. Back then, the whole monopoly position thing just wasn't there.
No, they would get hammered in court for that...
Two things. The validation of OEM software is different, and there are a lot of people selling quasi-illegal copies of XP, basically CD keys that were licenced for big manufacturers, but being sold to consumers.
Why, exactly? Should we just take your word for it?
Well, granted. But let's say they took your money for the truck, you brought the truck home, it died in your driveway that day, and had to be towed back to the dealer. The dealer says "Oh, the truck's ignition control module was deactivated by the Chevy proximity sensor. Evidently you have a Chevy in your garage, and that's an unsupported configuration."
You'd want your money back, wouldn't you?
You honestly think if Ford refused to sell me a car because I own a dodge its legal? wow you have said enough...
you've yet to answer the question.
Gallows humor in response to media reports. Is this not obvious?
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with respect to the Java platform and for damages resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand its monopoly power.
Does it matter that Msft's java runtime was far superior to Sun's?
And where it didn't have problems, programmers were instructed to create bogus error messages saying that it did.
I believe those "error messages" said that beta version of Win3x was running on a potentially incompatible version of DOS, ie. DR-DOS, not the one shipped by msft. Did the released version of Win3x run on top of DR-DOS, yes or no?
Ill look it up tonight but let me ask you this? can they refuse to sell a car to me because Im white? Irish? Wearing Jeans? In need of Glasses? Because I use Linux? Because my parents own a chevy? so why do you think it would be legal because I own one?
Microslop doesn't owe anyone anything?
Really?
How about product value for money received . . . such as reasonably bug free; reasonably reliable software? How about tolerable support?
How about treating customers they carefully engineer repeat payment addictions with--how about treating such customers as valued customers instead of treating them as dingbats worthy only of dismissive, derisive torture?
How about being a generally more honorable company across the world instead of having a reputation as being the most greedy and ruthlessly corrupt player in the foreign field?
How about being more patriotic vs being traitorous globalist shills?
BTW, what position do you have with them?
That's an invalid analogy. A more appropriate one would be this:
Because Chevys are the most popular, Ford decides to make its transmissions compatible with Chevy's. They also make their vehicles available for free. Chevy has an excellent warranty on the transmissions for their vehicles. In fact, they'll give their customers a new one as they improve the design and discover errors. Ford customers start showing up at the Chevy dealer and getting free replacement transmissions at Chevy's cost. Chevy doesn't want to give Ford customers free transmissions any more, so they tell the dealer not to install them in Ford vehicles any more.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. F/OSS software is great. I love the idea, personally. However, you can't throw a tantrum when a for-profit company doesn't want to give their stuff away for free to people who aren't their customers.
That would be fine, if they had stated that in advance (such as in the EULA). However, there is no licensing requirement that purchasers of Office must run it on a Windows OS.
But you haven't said enough. Show me the law Ford would be breaking.
Explain to me how the law requires a company to sell something. ...or, more to the point in the article, how the law requires a company to give something away against its will? If someone wanted to buy your house, and you didn't want to sell it, for what ever reason you might have, would you be forced by law to sell it? The same principle applies. Microsoft is free to choose how, when and to whom they will or will not sell or give software. That's their right.
No, and that's debateable anyway. 1) The runtime could hardly be considered superior if it broke the standard. 2) Sun's free JVM was specifically a "reference implementation" of the Java standard, it was never portrayed as the be-all and end-all solution (in fact, Sun encouraged third parties to write their own JVMs that adhered to the standard).
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.