Microsoft has to hand over its code

Now this makes me mad. > The US courts do not have the right to force a company to give up its life blood, which for microsoft is its code. No state and not even the supreme court has the right to tell a company to publicize its intellectual property, and I hope Microsoft fights this to the very end with everything they have.

Microsoft is a baby in terms of companies. They are an aggressive company. They have damn good stuff! And THAT is why they have market dominance, because Windows is just far better than Linux, Unix, or BeOS. Not simply because they used their dominance to promote Internet Explorer. They also arn't a monopoly because they have a damn lot of competition, from MacOS X, and Linux itself, from IBM and HP, from Sun, who doesn't have a windows box within 20 miles.

The US government does not have the right to force any software company to give up its only true property, their code. The courts are trying to do this now, and it makes me wonder how much power the courts will have in the future, and how they will use it.

Disgraceful. "Only in America" can you build a billion-dollar company only to have Big Brother tell you how you can run it.

*note to self: DO NOT base software company in America. Look into Canada*

Start getting other codes ready.....
Or start shtredding?

It is ridiculous, its like telling stardock to give out the code for windowblinds to all the skinner sites.. theyll just use all the ideas and innovations that stardock have taken months and years to develop...

The non-settling states have asked for Microsoft to make available a stripped down version of Windows. I.e. A version of Windows without IE, Media Player, etc. Microsoft says "No, It is impossible to remove them from the OS." The states are saying "If you want to say it's impossible, prove it."

WinXP is what... about 35 million lines of code? Let's see how long it takes them to find something.

I think you should all look into the history of Microsoft's deceptive and ILLEGAL business dealings. You should really understand the WHOLE picture before jumping the gun to Microsofts defense.

A few examples... ok
Who invented the GUI?
Which company invented the mouse?
Which company said that they would support their JAVA then didn't?
Which company was to by Microsoft--Use our code to build MM viewers or we will make your life difficult, not support you and specifically target market against you?
and so on


If you don't know the answers to these, your comments are TOTALLY invalid because as usual, you, like most people, are shooting you mouth off when you really don't have a clue.

What is the justification for handing over the code? That would settle much of the debate or at least shed a light on it.

Said Frogboy:

"What is the justification for handing over the code?"

The answer is pretty much in the article. MS contends that Internet Explorer (and I think a few other goodies) cannot be cleanly excised from Windows XP because it is an integral part of Windows. The states contend that Internet Explorer is enmeshed into Windows not because of real design integration, but because MS commingled the source codes of IE and the rest of Windows in a way that was not technically necessary. By giving the states the source code, consultants for the states' lawyers can verify if MS is telling the truth or blowing smoke.

Note that the judge is *not* calling for the source code to be made available to the public at large. Whoever the states have viewing the code will likely be under an NDA.

Microsoft is a huge part of the world economy, so what do we try to do? Destroy it. Isn't that just like most of us Americans, if we're not smart enough to succeed ourselves, make someone else do the work and say it’s unfair for them to reap the benefits.

You worked hard to get where you are today and had good luck in your favor. Because of this, you succeeded, while these people over here didn’t. We’re gonna give them some of your hard work just to even things out. Doesn’t this sound Outrageous? Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way in favor nor do I support Microsoft or it’s overpriced products, but I find it ridiculous for anyone to say that because MS is doing so well they need to hand out free beer, when the beer they are being forced to hand out is a goldmine that took forever to create.

Wow... I'm amazed by the support that corporate mafia gets in here. Firestorm, fine, with the 50% taxes we have here, at least we'd see some of those billions. But I doubt Billie boy would appreciate seeing half his money go to the country.
It's so amazingly indecent to have so much money. And to think so many people starve in the world...

IMO, WINXP is jUnK!
I also agree with 'paxx' MS with all that ungodly
$$$ they have.
I kinda (in a way) see MS being simaler to what Entron(typo) did, but on the software buseness(typo) level of it. (ie read 'kidconte' post above.

Doesn't Microsoft already release its code for review to certain companies, calling it shared source? I don't feel it's that bad since what they're releasing is only going to be used to verify their claim, which if Microsoft is being honest when saying IE is necessary for Windows, will help their argument. If not, then perhaps they shouldn't have lied in the first place.
As for Microsoft having so much money, most of it is in stocks or something and can't be all given away without repercussions.

Okay, which of you dummies has dropped out of school before learning how to read?

"A US judge has told the software giant that its legal opponents should have the right to verify Microsoft's claims about the innards of the flagship software."


texas explained things well up there ^^^

"The non-settling states have asked for Microsoft to make available a stripped down version of Windows. I.e. A version of Windows without IE, Media Player, etc. Microsoft says "No, It is impossible to remove them from the OS." The states are saying "If you want to say it's impossible, prove it.""


...as did Ramsey:

"MS contends that Internet Explorer (and I think a few other goodies) cannot be cleanly excised from Windows XP because it is an integral part of Windows. The states contend that Internet Explorer is enmeshed into Windows not because of real design integration, but because MS commingled the source codes of IE and the rest of Windows in a way that was not technically necessary. By giving the states the source code, consultants for the states' lawyers can verify if MS is telling the truth or blowing smoke."

I'm not getting this.. who gives a rat's ass whether or not Explorer etc can be stripped out of XP? Microsoft made their operating system how they wanted to, if we don't like it or like what's included with it we can buy a different OS. It's that simple.

And about Microsoft/Bill's money.. he made the money, he earned it, it's legally his, how the hell do you justify complaining about it? He has a lot of money.. your point?

paxx: "It's so amazingly indecent to have so much money. And to think so many people starve in the world..."

Gates does contribute a hell of a lot of money to various charities. And he does it without Big Brother telling him to.

I thought America was a capitali st nation, pseudo-communist airheads nothwithstanding.

Capitalism can be cruel. Money one person has is money somebody else doesn't. Gates doesn't have his own money printing shop in his basement. For every dollar Gates make, it's a dollar another person just lost.
So when you think about it, When Gates earns 4 million dollars per day (and he does), that means that probably because of that money he just gained a great number of people just died of hunger or other causes of poverty BECAUSE he earned that money. Capitalism left alone without restriction is barbaric and cruel.
Capitalism needs to be managed and decisions taken when it's taken too far.

Hmm. Paxx, you know that I respect your work and your opinions, but there is a certain lack of logic here.
Isn't the name for managed capitalism socialism?
"When Gates earns 4 million dollars per day (and he does), that means that probably because of that money he just gained a great number of people just died of hunger or other causes of poverty BECAUSE he earned that money." Extending that principle, would you say that Windows causes famine?
On the basis of history, I would offer to you that capitalism has fed more of the world's hungry masses than any alternative economy. The Soviet Union tried Lysenkoism in the 1950's, turning their farms into collectives. It was a disaster. Stalin of all people had to restore free market farms to increase production.
Turning Microsoft's code over to the states will not feed one hungry person. It may, however, greatly enrich the folks at AOL/Time Warner, who are involved in this litigation. I fear that this is a struggle between billionaires, unconcerned with any greater good.
(Don't think that I have abandoned my radical principles. I am in favor of lynching the folks that were in charge of Enron.)

"Money one person has is money somebody else doesn't... For every dollar Gates make, it's a dollar another person just lost," paxx
You're looking at this in a twisted, untruthful way. Every dollar that bill gets is a dollar someone CHOSES TO GIVE TO BILL.


“…When Gates earns 4 million dollars per day (and he does), that means that probably because of that money he just gained a great number of people just died of hunger or other causes of poverty BECAUSE he earned that money,” paxx
You make it sound like Bill is robbing poor people living on the street. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Bill is HELPING those poor people on the streets by boosting our economy and making more jobs available for the poor people. Not to mention what firestorm said, gates gives millions of dollars away each year to charities. Remember, bill is taking NO money away from who do not choose to give it to him.

“Capitalism needs to be managed and decisions taken when it's taken too far,” paxx
With all due respect, paxx, this is ridiculous. Who do you, then, recommend to manage these situations that have gone “too far”? You can’t just put someone in charge and say, “okay, if you are getting jealous because someone is rightfully richer than you, we’re giving you the power to help destroy the economy and steal some of his money.” The world just won’t work that way. In an ideal world, yea, people would all be rich and all be equal, but our world is not nor will it ever be anywhere near perfect.

I will never win this argument. I know that barbaric capitalism is greatly valued in the US, that the US people doesn't like governement intervention. That's what makes Canada and the US so different. We have laws to restrict abuse and to protect the people.

And about the logic of my previous statement, it's not so far fetched. There are a number of factor that makes a company and its stock holders rich. Sure one is overpriced product sales. Others are a monopolistic position where competing companies go bankrupt, stock values, etc. Economy is a complex process, it's like trying to explain the food chain. But although it's not a direct process (Bill Gates doesn't dig into people's pockets to take their money), in the end, that's the result: the richer the rich gets, the more poor people you get. Why is it so hard to understand, it's actually quite logical: if we all have 1000$ together and I take 950$, that only leave 50$ for all the rest of you.
It's actually quite logical, and statistics are there to prove it, just look it up: the rich are getting always richer and more people are getting poorer every day since the last 20 years. As it stands now, 4% of the american people owns 95% of the american money. That means the remaining 5% of the money for you and all the other 96% of the american population.
Now, if you're OK with the above figure and you are not shocked by its meaning, then I guess we might as well stop the conversation here.
Under the argument that the grotesquely rich people got there because they worked hard, does that mean that 96% of the american public is lazy? Is there only 4% of good americans?

We are forgetting of another monopoly that barbarically earns money that could be going to the poor: Stardock. By me giving them forty dollars for a product I enjoy, it is forty dollars that those in poverty will never see (not that they were going to see it anyway). Sure, one can say that the money goes to good use and in the end, the consumer and the producer both benefit, but does that make it all right? I say that all of us that are struggling to survive on a measly six figure income stop spending money that are making others richer, for only when the money is out of circulation and all stashed in our matresses, shall America be prosperous.

Paxx:

You have an interesting philosophy. Let present mine in brief:

I look at government as a service provider. They're like the power company or the cable TV provider. I pay a free in exchange for a range of services such as roads, schools, police, national defense, etc.

In other matters, I expect the government to stay out of my way as much as possible. Let me work hard and abide by the laws in place that function as the "rules" of competing.

Sometimes, people end up becoming extremely wealthy. They come up with a product, good or service that is of massive demand and become hyper wealthy as a result. Sometimes they get there through a combination of breaking the rules and making good products/services.

The latter is the case with Microsoft. And while I blame Microsoft for their bad behavior and anti-competitive practices. I blame the government more. They are supposed to be the referrees. In hockey, if team A is cheating, it is up to the referees to stop it. But the government failed in its duty to stop Microsoft from cheating which is a shame because it is we consumers that are hurt.

But getting back to the distribution of wealth, it is not the government that creates that distribution of wealth. The government didn't make Bill Gates rich and it didn't make some homeless guy poor.

Continued...

Part II:

While I am not in favor of a flat tax necessarily, I do not see why the top 5% of the income earners should pay half the taxes when they are not getting half of the services that the government renders.

In the United States, the rich are getting richer and so are the poorer. If the poor are not getting becoming wealthier at the same speed as the richest, that is certainly not the government's fault.

If you have two speed skaters where skater A is much faster than skater B, they are both moving forward but skater A is increasing his lead over skater B over time because skater A is a better skater. Whether you like it or not, not everyone is equal when it comes to contributing to society and/or creating material wealth. And the results are akin to the speed skater analogy.

Some would argue that skater A should have lead weights tied to his skates. Others say skater B should have rockets attached to his. And in reality, we do that to a certain extent already. But do it too much and you take away the incentive to try to skate your best in the first place.