Where are the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuits? Would you be interested in taking part?

[Yfrwlf]

Bug #1 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) is just that, a very real problem that is an artificially-created fluke in our economy and with our technology, around the world but especially in the U.S., and should be corrected.

If you go to any of the larger PC seller's pages on the internet today, be it Dell, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo, and others, you'll find plenty of options for the kind of version of Windows Vista you want, recommendations for using Windows Vista, Windows Vista recommended to you, and did I mention you have the choice between Windows Vista, and Windows Vista?

As a former unfortunate victim of an assembly line worker job, I can tell you what the conditions are most likely similar to at their manufacturing plant. Several different kinds of hard drives are readied, and they give the order to make a bunch using these hard drives, which contain Vista Zomg, and later on they start with this other bunch of hard drives that have Vista Lollerskates. They are fully capable of installing a bunch of hard drives which have no operating system on them, and have not yet been touched by the imaging line, which takes an image and copies it to several hard drives at once. Saving money by having the option of installing no operating system would be in the interest of some of their consumers, so that they can install the one they had, or install something they bought, or whatever they want to do. It would also allow consumers to see the price they are paying for Windows, which would allow them to both have the ability to compare against, say, the store prices, as well as against other operating systems including the free ones.

The steps to take for them to offer Linux on their computers (which they'd love you to believe would be horrendous steps for them to do) would be to test it with the models they offer to make sure they would be working, which most all of them would, and at the very most some slight tweaking would be in order. Then, they add that image to their imaging line, and at some point run a batch of those, giving some consumers what they want.

But the Linux demand definitely wouldn't slow (except for the initial influx created by artificial lines at the door of Linux fans in anticipation). Getting a side-by-side comparison of the two operating systems would be hell for Microsoft. Visiting consumers would actually have a choice, for the first time in a long time, and they would be simultaneously educated and have that one question at the back of their mind answered: "Is there an alternative to Microsoft?" The manufacturer would be giving consumers more of what they want, saving money and offering choice, for those who wanted it.

You've gotta love the silly arguments for these poor, broke, helpless companies with no technical knowledge. Like that they couldn't provide support, like there aren't a bunch of Linux support companies that could do so for them no matter the number of computers they sold. Or how about the one where they wouldn't make as much money on them because they wouldn't have at least some of the crapware on them that the Windows machines would, never mind the fact that yes, the customer purchased a cheaper model, but in no reason does that mean they aren't making money off it. Then there's the one where they simply try to convince you how big of a deal it is for them to bow down to such a low level for their own consumers by offering something that some of them might possibly want (no OS, or some other OS), and how many billions of dollars would have to be spent and how much of a capital risk it is for them...

While some of the above arguments do have a tiny shred of truth to them, they would have to put forth that extra bit of effort to add that ratio button on their website allowing customers to choose the no-OS option, and they'd have to tell their workers not to image this stack of hard drives, for the most part these arguments are complete BS.

So what's the reason? They'd love for you to think that it's low Linux demand, or that customers aren't interested in saving money, and so there's no reason for them to properly let market forces choose, but those are lies. The truth is that companies sign agreements with one another, it happens all the time. Government bodies also do it with them, let me give you two examples:

1) When I was young, I remember Coca-Cola convincing the removal of the Pepsi machines in my high school. Coca-Cola signed an agreement with the school that if they'd only offer Coke, they would get a "discount" for having the machine there and maintained. These "win-win" agreements are extremely common today. But if you look at the money here, Coke would be losing some money, but they would be securing the market for themselves, they would be monopolizing the school. So, what's another way, from a financial perspective, to get the same thing to happen? Instead of "losing" (which in reality is not gaining) as much money as they could have lost, they could have paid the school roughly that same amount or less that they would have not gained and could have done it that way. The school wouldn't need any other incentives than they would get paid money from Coke to get rid of their Pepsi machines. My point is that whether the method used is giving discounts, or direct payments, it's still a bribe and still anti-competitive. Needless to say, there was an enormous uproar about it at the school, and Pepsi even came in a big truck to give us all Pepsi in rebellion of the Coca-Cola takeover.

2) An example much more on-topic. A government institution which I was a part of signed an agreement with Microsoft that they would give them heavy discounts on their various Microsoft products if they would in turn agree to never use any competing software in the entire organization. I was there, I know this to be a fact, and there are many out there who have experienced it as well. Microsoft's ability to pick and choose who they wish to sell to and for how much is one of the biggest cards in their hand in fact. Consider the $3 Vista copies in China in order for them to try to "secure" the Chinese market for themselves.

We live in a world in which these kinds of activities are common. Regardless of your beliefs for or against a true free-market economy, this kind of behavior is extremely profitable for these companies and removes your ability as a consumer to choose. By getting rid of competition, they can charge whatever they want to and force customers to do things the way they want, instead of the way they may choose had they been given the choice. It is not a pro-consumer world, it's a force as much money from them as you can and call it fair one. Consumers are rarely stood up for, and the pressure against them is so strong that many consumers give into it and sheepishly keep their head low and bite the bullet.

Microsoft has these agreements with these PC sellers to make sure that you are forced to pay Microsoft in part for your next computer. Even if you build your computers yourself, your cousins or kids or parents or friends will be under the same force: No other option but Microsoft. It's amazing that Linux has managed to come as far as it has with such complete control over the market as Microsoft has. The fact that the majority still use Windows, and most don't know any better, means that by default PC sellers have no other option but to sell Windows on their computers, and in order to do so comes the deals with Microsoft. It's a harsh catch-22.

The playing field isn't level folks, most of you know that, so where are the anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft and these companies for forcing Vista down your throats? Where are the repercussions facing these companies by signing these deals to not allow any choice for consumers whatsoever, when at least a no-OS option should be presented so that consumers have the option to not help fill Bill's piggy bank? I propose that consumers everywhere as well as any big corporations and organizations should immediately file the largest class-action lawsuit that they can against Microsoft and these companies for this kind of monopolistic behavior and their years of forcing Windows-only options on us consumers, and even denying us things like no operating system when we directly request it which there is no reason on earth not to do and it could be easily dealt with. The sad fact is all of this could be easily done, if it weren't for Microsoft and their ruling fists full of money. The EU shows us how things could be here in the U.S., if only someone stood up against them. I'm highly jealous of their "unlocked" cell phones, too...

If anyone else is interested in standing up for your rights and the rights of other consumers and telling these companies that we won't put up with this forceful monopoly any longer, please post your ideas of how to do so and where to sign up, because I'm certainly down for it. Any lawyers on this forum? ;)

P.S.: Yes, I know Dell is so-called "trying Linux", but this has nothing to do with this because it's so buried on their website. Rather, it is one case where consumers *can get*, after asking and searching for it, something other than Windows, but normal consumers are not offered this, can't see it, and so have no choice, nor are they even offered a no-OS option which should always be a minimal choice on every model.

[Vadi]

Your point is entirely valid, but try to involve Linux as little as possible in it - so it's just the case of Microsoft's monopoly, not Linux suing Microsoft because they want a market share.

[gn2]

Instead of wasting resources on pointless legal wrangling, I personally believe all our efforts should be put into developing, improving and promoting Linux and free open source software.

[Yfrwlf]

Your point is entirely valid, but try to involve Linux as little as possible in it - so it's just the case of Microsoft's monopoly, not Linux suing Microsoft because they want a market share.

IANAL, however I would think that Linux being involved would give the case more weight due to the fact that there are many companies who are behind Linux, and depend on Linux for their financial benefits. Their added support would help the case not only in financial backing but they could make the "you deprived us of market share because of your anti-competitive tactics" argument.


Instead of wasting resources on pointless legal wrangling, I personally believe all our efforts should be put into developing, improving and promoting Linux and free open source software.

I agree that that is most of the solution, full speed ahead Tux. However, having an unfair advantage is wrong, and even though through community support we can get the word out, I feel that attacking anti-competitive business tactics would be extremely helpful and it would be an added way for others to help out.

Like I've said, just think how much heat Microsoft would get, and how much benefit for you and others it would be to have the number of people using open source software suddenly skyrocket, and forces tipped vastly in your favor, as consumers are suddenly given a clear and real choice. It would be one of the most real, definite tipping points, and it's much wider adoption would mean much more development which would mean more Tux goodness for everyone.

[toupeiro]

I admire your ambition.

Personally, my beliefs on the matter have evolved into this:

There are no anti-trust lawsuit issues. Microsoft knows this, and so does Novell. What we are seeing is the beginnings of an epically long court room sequel of SCO's UNIX patents cases, or lack thereof, except now the players are Microsoft, and any other company pushing linux outside of the MS amnesty umbrella. The difference is, Microsoft has MUCH MORE MONEY than SCO to keep the scharade up for many years beyond what SCO did. The motive is to curb linux adoption.. Not stop, but dramatically slow the adoption of Linux implementation that is not hanging from MS puppetstrings in the business world. They will do this long enough to incorporate the core concepts and/or components of Linux/UNIX into the windows kernel, so it can operate in a more efficient manner (See Windows Server Core 2008, with fundamental functionality enabled by system V and BSD subsystems (http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/695ac415-d314-45df-b464-4c80ddc2b3bc1033.mspx?mfr=true)), without losing its hold on the consumer and business markets in the United States. They will then be able to say they have a product which will natively support all major computing subsystems, but they will conduct themselves until that point, in a manner to use their massive bloat and pocket book to defer people from using the already available better alternatives. In the end, Microsoft operating systems will be dramatically improved apon by following this logic, but they will have once again stepped on greatness, just so they can make money off of it and say they own it.

If the courts battle this traditionally, it will never end. They need to approach Microsoft with deadlines. If they do not, then there is no point to fight what you cannot afford to win. Let other companies with the $$$ enter the courts. You and I are better armed by being a part of the informed voice ungoverned by the court, but can be heard by all involved if we take the opportunity to make ourselves heard.

More info here (http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/library/47a23a74-e13c-46de-8d30-ad0afb1eaffc1033.mspx?mfr=true)

and here (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx)


"To accomplish this, the Server Core installation option installs only the subset of the binary files that are required by the supported server roles. For example, the Explorer shell is not installed as part of a Server Core installation. Instead, the default user interface for a server running a Server Core installation is the command prompt."

[KiwiNZ]

Law suits are not the way to go. I know its a US tradition but it is counter productive.

Its a case of consumer demand , and to date MS has been the best at meeting that demand.

Make the competing products attractive and meeting the users requirements and things will change. Like the old saying goes , Build it and they will come.

[toupeiro]

I agree they are not the way to go, and they are counter productive, but I don't think Microsoft is looking at this from a productivity standpoint. They are looking at money and time on a graph and making the best move for them.

[jinx099]

What we need is for a major Linux vendor, like Red Hat, Novell, or Canonical, to team up with a major PC vendor, like HP, and sell Linux PCs in actual stores. With a little bit of employee training in these stores I really do believe Linux could take off.

I don't understand why this isn't happening. Maybe Canonical can step in here!

Please don't tell me that the Canonical and Dell deal is the same as what I described, it is not for reasons that Yfrwlf mentioned.

Edit: Also, the gOS Wal-Mart PC is not an example of this either, because its an unknown brand and a very low-spec PC.

[akiratheoni]

Edit: Also, the gOS Wal-Mart PC is not an example of this either, because its an unknown brand and a very low-spec PC.

But it's a start, right?

Maybe Linux can start off by offering low-spec, low-price, good performing PCs while Mac OSX offers good-spec, high price, good performing computers and Windows is somewhere in between. Maybe showing off that Linux can do what Windows can't is the first step, by showing that it CAN run on a very cheap, new PC. Then afterwards it can creep into the normal price range where Windows lays.

[jinx099]

But it's a start, right?

Maybe Linux can start off by offering low-spec, low-price, good performing PCs while Mac OSX offers good-spec, high price, good performing computers and Windows is somewhere in between. Maybe showing off that Linux can do what Windows can't is the first step, by showing that it CAN run on a very cheap, new PC. Then afterwards it can creep into the normal price range where Windows lays.

Definitley it's a start, and I'm glad to see it. Same with Dell.

The problem I see with how it is right now is that it would be seen by the general public as some second rate OS, or maybe even a Windows knockoff or something like that. You have to hunt or know where to look on Dell's site to find Ubuntu. Why isn't there an option to take of $50 or something and use Ubuntu instead of Vista on all their models? I realize they have not tested every model with Ubuntu, but the average buyer wouldn't even see Ubuntu at all. So what's the point of it then?

I just wish a company would really get behind Linux and try to sell PCs with it... the same PC's that run Vista Ultimate.

Imagine going into a computer store and seeing a certain model PC with Vista, and right next to it is the same model running Ubuntu, SLED, Fedora, or RHEL. Imagine that there is a salesperson there showing you the pros and cons of BOTH Windows and Linux. I am not saying everybody would buy the Linux PC, but certainly some would. How many average users buy a Linux PC now? Probably almost none. Once you get serious Linux PCs in stores and selling, I believe companies like Adobe would FINALLY start giving linux users software like Photoshop and Flash (64-bit). THEN, the ball is rolling!!

So much pontential is there! ::sigh::

[defenestratos]

While it is possible in Germany for instance to buy a PC with Linux or no OS, if it has Linux it is usually a fairly low spec system. The high performance machines all have Vista. Guess this makes sense to run the new games.
In my home country it is actually illegal to sell a pc without an OS. That must be some kind of aggreement with microsoft or apple. The rhetoric would be that 'it protects the consumer and ensures a usable system out of the box.'

[ssam]

Instead of wasting resources on pointless legal wrangling, I personally believe all our efforts should be put into developing, improving and promoting Linux and free open source software.

i'll second that.

for some stuff linux is better than MacOS/Windows, for other stuff it not as good.

the more places that linux/free software is better, the easier will be to convince people to move. (and the hard they will find it to go back to windows after trying linux).

there are lots of ways to contribute
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributeToUbuntu
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/donations

and even more in upstream projects.

[markba]

Some things are in motion, at least in Europe:

"Unbundling Microsoft Windows"
http://www.globalisation.eu/publications/unbundlingmicrosoftwindows.pdf

In general, it reflects all the arguments posed by the TS.

From the article:
"Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition, has suggested that in a competitive market there should be “a significant drop in market share” for Microsoft Windows, highlighting her frustration that the operating system market does not seem to foster competitive
spirits."

Particularly this part is interesting:
"Microsoft might argue that the measure would increase piracy, but it is worth noting that Windows already has “software activation”, which prevents users installing the product on multiple computers. Companies like Adobe and Symantec are very successful without needing bundling to prevent piracy."

So, because Windows has indeed measures to fight piracy, there can not be an argument saying: a PC with no OS on it, will be pirated (which seems to be the reason in the past this that this was put into regulation: no PC is allowed to sell without on OS).

Furthermore, in The Netherlands (where I live), a member of parliament has asked questions to the administration about unbundling Windows. Unfornately, this member is not part of the administration, but is residing in the opposition.
See (only in Dutch, sorry):
http://www.webwereld.nl/ref/rss/48545

[Yfrwlf]

Microsoft operating systems will be dramatically improved apon by following this logic, but they will have once again stepped on greatness, just so they can make money off of it and say they own it.

That is most of what Microsoft does, and while we could sit back and let Microsoft take advantage of Linux, Linux has the same unfortunate or fortunate, depending on your opinion, tools/"protections" as they do and Linux should give MS a dose of what they've given everyone else for years. Instead of MS continuing to try to make stupid patents and being overbearing about the "defense" of "their code", so they can't just come in and patent/copy everything in Linux and then try to act like they did it all first and try to control it, Linux unfortunately needs to try to protect itself through organizations (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php) which have invested (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members) in it, among other ways.


Build it and they will come.

But if even when you build it, if everyone is still forced to pay Microsoft for their new computers, even IF they put Linux on it or something else afterward, that's still completely wrong and unfair and stupid. Eventually the pressure will overwhelm this situation and companies will give in to Linux, but in the meantime squeezing that money from consumers and competition failing like it is is wrong.

I don't like lawsuits anymore than anyone else here does, but the U.S. isn't a fair and balanced country. U.S. laws prevent competition. For example, Microsoft's ability to give special discounts for their software is a major card in their hand, and if it weren't for some stupid copyright laws among other things that give them the power to be exclusive instead of competing in an open market, Linux would quickly take over. If there is a way to ensure fair market competition by ensuring freedom for all then great, otherwise government intervention may be needed, but in any case the market right now is clearly broken.


But it's a start, right?

Maybe Linux can start off by offering low-spec, low-price, good performing PCs while Mac OSX offers good-spec, high price, good performing computers and Windows is somewhere in between. Maybe showing off that Linux can do what Windows can't is the first step, by showing that it CAN run on a very cheap, new PC. Then afterwards it can creep into the normal price range where Windows lays.

Yes it's a start, and yes those are all good things, and yes those are areas in which Linux is and has been especially good at. The problem is that if customers can't see these advantages and aren't free to select the OS they want with their new computer, or at least can't elect not to pay MS, these areas of strength are crippled greatly. While people still may want something other than Windows installed, it's still very inconvenient and they still had to pay for something they may not have wanted in comparison, which is totally unfair.


Definitley it's a start, and I'm glad to see it. Same with Dell.

The problem I see with how it is right now is that it would be seen by the general public as some second rate OS, or maybe even a Windows knockoff or something like that. You have to hunt or know where to look on Dell's site to find Ubuntu. Why isn't there an option to take of $50 or something and use Ubuntu instead of Vista on all their models? I realize they have not tested every model with Ubuntu, but the average buyer wouldn't even see Ubuntu at all. So what's the point of it then?

I just wish a company would really get behind Linux and try to sell PCs with it... the same PC's that run Vista Ultimate.

Imagine going into a computer store and seeing a certain model PC with Vista, and right next to it is the same model running Ubuntu, SLED, Fedora, or RHEL. Imagine that there is a salesperson there showing you the pros and cons of BOTH Windows and Linux. I am not saying everybody would buy the Linux PC, but certainly some would. How many average users buy a Linux PC now? Probably almost none. Once you get serious Linux PCs in stores and selling, I believe companies like Adobe would FINALLY start giving linux users software like Photoshop and Flash (64-bit). THEN, the ball is rolling!!

So much pontential is there! ::sigh::

Exactly, the tipping point for Linux WOULD COME everyone, if only MS had direct competition they'd be blown away very quickly. Many consumers don't like using Windows, they HAVE to use it. That's not true freedom, nor true competition. In fact, I could argue all this violates the spirit of the GPL, because it does. ;)


While it is possible in Germany for instance to buy a PC with Linux or no OS, if it has Linux it is usually a fairly low spec system. The high performance machines all have Vista. Guess this makes sense to run the new games.
In my home country it is actually illegal to sell a pc without an OS. That must be some kind of aggreement with microsoft or apple. The rhetoric would be that 'it protects the consumer and ensures a usable system out of the box.'

There must be some PCs that you can get that are very top of the line that have Linux though, but you're right, it's mostly not needed for the most part except if you'd like to play Q4, UT3, or ET: QW. Sorry to hear about that law in your country. I assure you, that law was placed there through lobbying and bribes from Microsoft. There is NO other reason for it. Too bad you can't petition against it, or file a lawsuit, anything to get the laws changed there.


i'll second that.

for some stuff linux is better than MacOS/Windows, for other stuff it not as good.

the more places that linux/free software is better, the easier will be to convince people to move. (and the hard they will find it to go back to windows after trying linux).

there are lots of ways to contribute
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributeToUbuntu
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/donations

and even more in upstream projects.

Thank you, and again I agree that those are very important, but I'm concerned with the unfair marketing practices. As Linux gets bigger, this will only become more visible and annoy everyone more, but I'm interested in pushing it along sooner. Every moment we wait is another moment a consumer doesn't get a fair choice and price for the computer they would have really liked to have had.


Some things are in motion, at least in Europe:

"Unbundling Microsoft Windows"
http://www.globalisation.eu/publications/unbundlingmicrosoftwindows.pdf

Particularly this part is interesting:
"Microsoft might argue that the measure would increase piracy, but it is worth noting that Windows already has “software activation”, which prevents users installing the product on multiple computers. Companies like Adobe and Symantec are very successful without needing bundling to prevent piracy."

So, because Windows has indeed measures to fight piracy, there can not be an argument saying: a PC with no OS on it, will be pirated (which seems to be the reason in the past this that this was put into regulation: no PC is allowed to sell without on OS).

Furthermore, in The Netherlands (where I live), a member of parliament has asked questions to the administration about unbundling Windows. Unfornately, this member is not part of the administration, but is residing in the opposition.
See (only in Dutch, sorry):
http://www.webwereld.nl/ref/rss/48545

That's very cool, and that would really help with competition. I really hope they are successful in unbundling Windows in Europe. I wish the same thing could be done here, and it should be done.

Just imagine a consumer going to a computer store and selecting the computer they want. Next, they look through the OSes available. Not only are the prices visible to the consumers, but they can compare and shop around. Microsoft could no longer give their special "discounts", because they would be available to the consumer no matter what company they went with, meaning that exclusivity would be thrown out the window. In other words, not only would consumers be free to choose a computer and then an OS, but Microsoft would have to actually compete with itself for the prices it sold Windows for, and would have to either keep them up at $100 for Vista, or they would have to drop them substantially and give all consumers the same discounts they've been giving companies like Dell and others. Then on top of that, they'd have to compete with Linux, and would have to drop their prices even more.

It would be the end of Microsoft as we know them. That's why a lawsuit forcing fair competition is so important for the adoption of Linux, and would really help, even if Linux adoption will slowly win over MS's anti-competitive powers eventually. It's still not right what these companies are doing.

Oh, and saying "shop somewhere else", if anyone was thinking about saying such a thing, isn't a valid argument for the most part, and completely belittles this problem. That'd be like saying leave the U.S. if you don't like the laws here. While it IS a solution, it's not the best one, the best one is to fix the problem.

[toupeiro]

That is most of what Microsoft does, and while we could sit back and let Microsoft take advantage of Linux, Linux has the same unfortunate or fortunate, depending on your opinion, tools/"protections" as they do and Linux should give MS a dose of what they've given everyone else for years. Instead of MS continuing to try to make stupid patents and being overbearing about the "defense" of "their code", so they can't just come in and patent/copy everything in Linux and then try to act like they did it all first and try to control it, Linux unfortunately needs to try to protect itself through organizations (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php) which have invested (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members) in it, among other ways.

Man, I agree with you 110% on everything you just said, but here is the thing: I never passed the bar! (I know, I am such a flunkie) .. and I never pass a bar :) j/k

When you ask if I'd like to participate, and I read the ways you are defining participation, I'm completely helpless to your cause. I work for a big international company, and a lot of the technical people know me there. If not from meeting me or working with me personally, then by conversation or project work. I can, and often do defend linux and open source solutions, in casual technical conversations, with many of these people. Many times I make a point that changes the application of their overall outlook a little bit. Many times, I'm given a real run for my money, no pun intended, in particular defences, and having worked professionally with Microsoft solutions, I can see the point for some of the responses I get and they are every bit as valid as my responses. This is the battleground most of us are equipped to fight in, and that should be promoted every bit as much as the legal fights because I promise you, if enough people are talking about it, it will carry into the courtroom.

Truth is, Microsoft has every right to purchase a piece of technology they didn't develop, and resell it as theirs and/or in their product. That is not an illegal or bad business/market practice. A good friend made the comparison of the combustion engine in vehicles. What is bad, however, and what microsoft has done historically is integrate this technology in such a manner that it curbs any competition who sells similar products because they will conflict with what Microsoft has integrated into their OS, which has the vast market share of consumer OSes. THAT is bad business, but they don't do that as often anymore, in Microsofts defense... Does it justify what they've done in the past? No. I believe that at some point, the monopolistic developments Microsoft has engaged in need to be quantified when looking at the case of Windows versus Linux, and while Microsoft shouldn't have to defend these actions in regards to linux, the courts should be able to see a trend that does not promote healthy competition, and promotes market dominance. I'll give you an example of what I mean pertaining to another industry:

In my town, there was a gasoline refinery which used to belong to Brand A (I'm not going to get sued over this post, lol). I worked there for 5 years as one of their IT support people. Throughout all the mergers and selloff's that took place in the late 90's - early 2000's between some other brands, this refinery ended up becoming a Brand C Oil Refinery. Within years, Brand C planned to shut down and dismantle this refinery, but they still planed to keep all of the land and pipelines open. Long Story short, Brand C was denied the ability to shut down this refinery because of: 1) what it would do to the local economy, and 2) what it would do to the price of gasoline across the nation. It wasn't hard to see that Brand C could have used all that land as tank storage, and stored potentially millions of gallons of gasoline in central california, with pipeline to run gasoline all the way up and down california, eliminating transportation costs, whether that was their goal or not... They also had plans to build more than 60 Brand C gasoline stations in the next two years in the state of California... The courts saw the impact this decision would make, and shut them down before it developed. Its this kind of mindset the courts need to take against microsoft. Whether it was their intent or not, Brand C was engaging in a practice that would give them market control. I don't see how that is any different, however, in what microsofts business practices are displaying.

So I guess what I am saying is, I think we all do participate, but there are limits which exclude us from participating in the manner you are suggesting.

[Yfrwlf]

Man, I agree with you 110% on everything you just said, but here is the thing: I never passed the bar! (I know, I am such a flunkie) .. and I never pass a bar :) j/k

When you ask if I'd like to participate, and I read the ways you are defining participation, I'm completely helpless to your cause. I work for a big international company, and a lot of the technical people know me there. If not from meeting me or working with me personally, then by conversation or project work. I can, and often do defend linux and open source solutions, in casual technical conversations, with many of these people. Many times I make a point that changes the application of their overall outlook a little bit. Many times, I'm given a real run for my money, no pun intended, in particular defences, and having worked professionally with Microsoft solutions, I can see the point for some of the responses I get and they are every bit as valid as my responses. This is the battleground most of us are equipped to fight in, and that should be promoted every bit as much as the legal fights because I promise you, if enough people are talking about it, it will carry into the courtroom.

Truth is, Microsoft has every right to purchase a piece of technology they didn't develop, and resell it as theirs and/or in their product. That is not an illegal or bad business/market practice. A good friend made the comparison of the combustion engine in vehicles. What is bad, however, and what microsoft has done historically is integrate this technology in such a manner that it curbs any competition who sells similar products because they will conflict with what Microsoft has integrated into their OS, which has the vast market share of consumer OSes. THAT is bad business, but they don't do that as often anymore, in Microsofts defense... Does it justify what they've done in the past? No. I believe that at some point, the monopolistic developments Microsoft has engaged in need to be quantified when looking at the case of Windows versus Linux, and while Microsoft shouldn't have to defend these actions in regards to linux, the courts should be able to see a trend that does not promote healthy competition, and promotes market dominance. I'll give you an example of what I mean pertaining to another industry:

In my town, there was a gasoline refinery which used to belong to Brand A (I'm not going to get sued over this post, lol). I worked there for 5 years as one of their IT support people. Throughout all the mergers and selloff's that took place in the late 90's - early 2000's between some other brands, this refinery ended up becoming a Brand C Oil Refinery. Within years, Brand C planned to shut down and dismantle this refinery, but they still planed to keep all of the land and pipelines open. Long Story short, Brand C was denied the ability to shut down this refinery because of: 1) what it would do to the local economy, and 2) what it would do to the price of gasoline across the nation. It wasn't hard to see that Brand C could have used all that land as tank storage, and stored potentially millions of gallons of gasoline in central california, with pipeline to run gasoline all the way up and down california, eliminating transportation costs, whether that was their goal or not... They also had plans to build more than 60 Brand C gasoline stations in the next two years in the state of California... The courts saw the impact this decision would make, and shut them down before it developed. Its this kind of mindset the courts need to take against microsoft. Whether it was their intent or not, Brand C was engaging in a practice that would give them market control. I don't see how that is any different, however, in what microsofts business practices are displaying.

So I guess what I am saying is, I think we all do participate, but there are limits which exclude us from participating in the manner you are suggesting.

Good example. One thing you can do, that I like to do, is look at something and simply ask where was the competition, and what prevented it. The courts should ask these questions. "It looks like competition doesn't really exist in this area. Why not? Is it laws that are preventing it? If the market was completely unregulated, would that help the situation? If not, what regulations would better help competition so that consumers get better products at lower prices?" I mean come on, if Capitalism is supposed to be a good, functional system, then prove it. Otherwise, admit that it sucks, and come up with cheap, fair ways to regulate it that enforce competition if that is indeed something that needs some help to be enforced. Is it all because of anal copyright, patent, and licensing laws? Those are the big questions that someone should be asking...

...but for now, what should be asked of the courts is does bundling Windows with computers give Microsoft anti-competitive powers? The answer is most definitely yes, but the challenge needs to be put into legal terms, and all the reasons why it's bad for competition and what they are doing exactly to prevent competition needs to be mentioned. A lawsuit should be filed against them on behalf of all consumers, vendors, and competing companies. The problem is, we need the support of many to make it work, and possibly the financial backing of a company to keep from being bled dry. Since I haven't seen much interest in these forums, I'll look elsewhere, and perhaps email some Linux-supporting companies and ask them if they think they can do anything about these anti-competitive practices, if I could only ever reach someone who knows something. ;) I know it may sound futile, but I may as well start somewhere and see what happens, I'll post any responses here..