decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Iowa Update - Allchin 2004 email: I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS
Saturday, December 09 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST

Here's the latest report from the Iowa antitrust litigation, Comes v. Microsoft, Inc., being held in Polk County District Court. (Here's an article from the Des Moines Register back in 2002 that explains what is unique about this case -- consumers are being allowed to sue Microsoft directly under Iowa's own state Competition Law, whereas in other states only OEMs had standing to sue, and the remedy sought is money, not vouchers.)

We have excerpts from transcripts of Thursday's and Friday's sessions, including a 2004 email from Jim Allchin to Steve Balmer and Bill Gates in which he says Microsoft had lost sight of what customers need and that he himself would buy a Mac, if he didn't work for Microsoft.

Lead Plaintiffs' attorney Roxanne Conlin also continued with her opening statement, providing the rest of the 9 examples of anticompetitive behavior, including information this time about Microsoft's EDGI program, used to compete against Linux, and she mentioned also Red Hat's difficulty getting OEM's to preinstall Linux. She also talked about Real Networks, who will be providing an executive to testify for the Plaintiffs, and told the jury that she will be showing that the same tactics used against Netscape are being used against Real. Next, she talked about the death of the BE Operating System. And finally, she discussed the subject of spoliation of evidence. Many of you will find it interesting to learn about Microsoft's email destruction policies. It seems Gates has a technical assistant whose duties include making sure that Gates' email is destroyed weekly.

UPDATE: Some media coverage, Dec. 11, 2006:

  • Eric Lai, ComputerWorld: Microsoft, through its public relations firm, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide Inc., was unable to comment on the Allchin e-mail immediately.

  • Iowa's WOI-TV: Conlin took six days to introduce her case to the seven men and five women on the jury. She claims Iowans are owed about 330 (m) million dollars. Microsoft lead attorney David Tulchin, of New York, says no one in Iowa has been harmed by anything Microsoft did. He said the company's high market share in software products is the result of good products and low prices and not anticompetitive conduct....Conlin is expected to begin presenting evidence ... with a 10-hour deposition of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates videotaped in 1998.

  • PC Pro: Microsoft confirmed on Friday that both Gates and Ballmer will give evidence in person. 'Unlike plaintiffs, we do not believe that jurors would be confused by permitting Mr Gates and Mr Ballmer to provide all of their testimony at one time and explain the birth and development of Microsoft and the PC and software industries,' associate general counsel Rich Wallis said in a statement.

  • Sioux City Journal: She [Conlin] raised allegations Friday that Microsoft executives intentionally destroyed documents, a charge the company denies.

    Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled Friday that Conlin must show some proof of the allegation before she can raise the issue before the jury again....The lawsuit was originally filed in 2000, after federal antitrust actions against Microsoft were settled. The Iowa case is one of two remaining state antitrust cases against the Redmond, Wash.-based software manufacturer to make it to court. The other is in Mississippi.

  • Jim Allchin's blog: "Taken out of context, this comment could be confusing. Let me set the record straight: This email is nearly 3 years old, and I was being purposefully dramatic in order to drive home a point. The point being that we needed to change and change quickly. We did."


*****************************

Thursday, December 7

There were two Microsoft motions decided: First, could Microsoft compare the value of its software to non-software items? Microsoft wanted to suggest to the jury that its operating system, word processing, spreadsheet, and office suite software are “good values” when compared to other non-software products or services. Microsoft attorney Rich Wallis had mentioned to the press that Microsoft’s products are good values when compared to a tank of gas or dinner at a restaurant because the software lasts a long time.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Richard Hagstrom, argued that the relevant issue is what the products at issue cost and non-software products are not “substitutes” for the software. Judge Rosenberg agreed and held evidence about comparisons with other non-software products is irrelevant and will not be allowed.

Next came an evidentiary motion, with Microsoft wanting to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence that was used in the US antitrust trial. The basis for its position was that it is collaterally estopped from attacking that evidence in this trial, so it would be unfair to let the other side introduce it, while Microsoft has to keep silent because of Judge Rosenberg's ruling that Microsoft can't relitigate those facts.

Plaintiffs' co-counsel, Richard Hagstrom, argued that they are not relitigating that evidence; rather they intend to use some of the underlying evidence to prove *other issues* in this case, such as in proving their damages claims. The judge, over Microsoft’s objections, ruled that the plaintiffs may use the underlying evidence for any other purpose but may not use the evidence to relitigate or support the established facts from the government case. He also made clear that Microsoft may not dispute the estopped findings.

Friday, December 8, 2006

On Friday, December 8, 2006 Court began with the jury at 8:45 am. Co-counsel Roxanne Conlin for the Plaintiffs continued her opening statement, this time telling the stories of Real Networks, BE, Linux, and spoliation.

The Real Networks story involved how Microsoft achieved near universal distribution of its media player by bundling it with Windows and then using contractual restrictions to make it even more difficult for PC makers to pre-install or promote competing digital media players such as Real Networks’ software. Mr. Richards, from Real Networks, is scheduled to testify for the plaintiffs. Ms. Conlin stated in the conclusion of her Real story:

The evidence will show that Microsoft is protecting the ABTE, applications barrier to entry, by engaging in the same conduct toward Real that it engaged in toward Netscape and with the same results.

The Be Operating System was fully multi-threaded and multi-tasking with memory protection built from the ground up to do advanced audio visual editing. Microsoft refused to allow the OEM’s to pre-load BeOS, Conlin recounted, or to put an icon on the desktop or load the boot manager to permit switching between OS's. Even with the strong support of its partner, Intel, just like what happened with DR-DOS and OS/2, BE OS failed to break the lock Microsoft has on OEMs. In 2001, Be dissolved. Conlin told the jury:

So again, the evidence will be that a product that some consumers would have chosen is gone from the marketplace. A product that offered unique capabilities still not present, still not present on Windows, never really had a chance. And the evidence will be that consumers are deprived of choice and innovation because Microsoft breaks Iowa's Competition Law.

The story of Linux: One of the biggest vendors is Red Hat, Inc., Conlin related. Red Hat is increasingly popular on servers. But Red Hat also wants OEM’s to offer Red Hat Linux preinstalled on PC’s. Ms. Conlin brought the story up to the present by discussing Linux in the developing world and Microsoft strategies against it:

This brings us to the present. We will prove Microsoft still has monopoly power in the operating system market. Microsoft is still charging monopoly prices, and class members do not have the benefit that competitive markets bring, including greater variety, better quality.

Linux begins emerging as competition to Microsoft in developing countries where governments and schools have decided to make technology purchases, Conlin continued, representing a direct threat to Microsoft:

In December 2001, the PM, prime minister, made a suggestion at the cabinet meeting that the Malaysian government should evaluate Linux and open source as an alternative platform. It seemed that PM had been influenced by very strong Linux supporters that Microsoft has too much technology monopoly in the government IT....

Government and school projects started considering Linux as a viable option to Windows on the desktop. Government saw a savings of around 10 million from Windows by going to Linux.

Microsoft learns of these plans:

The government in Malaysia is looking at Linux and an Office Suite because Windows and Microsoft Office are too expensive. When it learns that the government is considering -- what the government is considering, Microsoft Malaysia escalates the issue all the way to Bill Gates.

Conlin recounted how Microsoft developed a program called EDGI (Education Government Incentive) to respond to Linux and fight low cost or no cost competitors in these developing areas, to keep Windows pre-installed and stop the shipping of naked machines (machines without an OS). Microsoft, Conlin related, has represented that this a charitable program but internal Microsoft documents reveal it was exclusively a way to prevent these developing countries from using Linux instead of Microsoft products.

Ms. Conlin read from an internal Microsoft document on when EDGI was to be used:

“It is essential, therefore, that we use this only in deals we would lose otherwise. Bottom line, do our best to show the great value of our software to these customers and ensure we get paid for it. Under no circumstances lose against Linux before ensuring we have used this program actively and in a smart way.”

Conlin continued:

So EDGI has the added benefit to the outside world as appearing to be based on Microsoft generosity, but in fact the program is intended only for use where Linux is a threat.

What is EDGI? EDGI... is both a process for responding to large competitive threats and a source of funding to level the playing field between Windows and Linux when a deal involves the purchase of new PCs.

What is EDGI? There is no mention of any charitable purchase. This is about beating Linux. And it is not even limited to developing countries, and squarely, directly, and only for defeating competitors in the guise of benevolence.

Conlin's last story was titled spoliation. It was about how Microsoft has destroyed many e-mails that could have been incriminating. She showed several pieces of evidence to the jury, regarding the company's email practices:

This is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7361. This is the job description for Bill Gates' technical assistant, and it says, it is a corporate policy not to make a permanent record of Bill's works.

This task of making sure there is no permanent record of Mr. Gates' work is left to this technical assistant. The job duties of the technical assistant require him to delete E-mail files from Mr. Gates' computer weekly.

Conlin also presented additional evidence from internal memos between executives:

Top Microsoft executives Brian Valentine and Jim Allchin in January of 2000 issue the following order to employees to delete all E-mail from their computers after 30 days.

This is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6704, January 22, 2000, from Brian Valentine, senior vice president Windows division. “But we should really be using wise E-mail retention practices of keeping nothing older than 30 days of old E-mail. I mean this. Purge every 30 days.”

He says, “I personally only keep 15 days.” And then he sends them out a property page so they know that. “Get rid of it. Don't store it in PSTs. Don't keep it around. Just get rid of it.” And he tells them how to do that automatically.

This directive is issued weeks after the finding of fact in the government case which refer to so many E-mails in support of anticompetitive acts by Microsoft.

Valentine's order requires employees to get rid of all E-mail after 30 days no matter where it is. And it is unequivocal. Mr. Allchin, who is group Vice President, Platforms Product Group, approves of Mr. Valentine's order and sends another follow-up E-mail on January 23, 2000. This is Plaintiffs' Exhibit also 6704. He says, “being even more hard core, this is not something you get to decide. This is company policy. Do not think this is something that only applies to a few people. Do not think it will be okay if I do this, it hasn't caused any problems so far. Do not archive your mail. Do not be foolish. 30 days.”

Just days after this, Iowa class members filed this lawsuit, February 18, 2000.

Conlin completed her opening statement at 12:50. Co-counsel Hagstrom began his part of the Plaintiffs' opening statement. Hagstrom first began with a quote from Nathan Myrhvold, “There is a huge value to a monopoly, and we have the position and skills that it makes sense for us to shoot for it.” Hagstrom continued, “'Huge value to a monopoly', think about what that means.” Hagstrom reviewed the specific ways Plaintiffs believe that Microsoft harmed Iowans. He emphasized that “competition is good, monopoly is bad”. A good example:

Exhibit 7264. Almost three years ago, on January 7, 2004, Jim Allchin, the senior executive at Microsoft, sent an E-mail to Microsoft's top two executives, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, and the subject was losing our way.

Mr. Allchin says, I'm not sure how the company lost sight of what matters to our customers, both business and home, the most, but in my view we lost our way. I think our teams lost sight of what bug-free means, what resilience means, what full scenarios mean, what security means, what performance means, how important current applications are, and really understanding what the most important problems our customers face are. I see lots of random features and some great vision, but that does not translate into great products. He goes on to say, I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft.

Hagstrom explained that they have several economic experts that will testify that Microsoft caused willful harm to Iowa consumers. The jury was dismissed at 2:25 pm and Hagstrom will continue his opening statement for the Plaintiffs on Monday, December 11, 2006 at 8:30 am.


  


Iowa Update - Allchin 2004 email: I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS | 239 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: IRJustman on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 06:16 PM EST
Post 'em if ya got em~!

--Ian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic discussion
Authored by: IRJustman on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 06:18 PM EST
Make sure to make links clickable.

--Ian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

re: destroyed weekly
Authored by: rp$eeley on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 06:28 PM EST
Will the new regulations be ignored by Mr Gates?

New E-Discovery Rules (Yahoo)

[ Reply to This | # ]

stranglehold on OEMs and partners
Authored by: Carla Schroder on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 06:52 PM EST
I sure hope this case succeeds. It seems like everyone on
the planet can rattle off a list of Microsoft's dirty
deeds and illegal antics without even thinking hard.
Except the regulators who actually have the power to do
something about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

EDGI hurt Apple, too.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 06:53 PM EST
Some years ago, in the Windows 3.1/95 days, MS gave my hometown public libraries
a number of PCs. They replaced Macs.

I said then that it wasn't MS generosity, but rather getting kids "hooked
on Windows" so that when they got older, they'd buy Wintel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Email Policy
Authored by: MrCharon on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST
Microsoft Email Policy is interesting considering, Microsoft of course uses
Exchange Server, which can be configured to delete emails automatically based on
their age and other factors. Outlook also does not use PST files by default
when connecting to Exchange Server.

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disgusting Stuff
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 07:21 PM EST


You know this is really disgusting stuff, and you have to wonder why Microsoft
wasn't hit harder after the anti-trust trial.

Now I know a lot of people think that Microsoft bought off the Bush White House,
however I can't see that even Microsoft has that much money.

And I'll bet that a lot of these people go to church every Sunday (or mosque
every Friday) too.



---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allchin - I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 08:22 PM EST
I periodically attend various working group and committee meetings that bring
together people from all over the country. Most people bring a laptop. Five
years ago it was unusual to see a Macintosh. Times have changed. At my last
two meetings, Macs were in the majority. Macs are "in". Iowa, it
would appear, is targetting the wrong company!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I bot laptop - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 10:43 PM EST
Iowa Update - Allchin 2004 email: I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 09:36 PM EST
Of all the things that Microsoft does and has done, it is the lock that they
have on the OEMs that is most damaging. Even today it is all but impossible to
buy a computer with a boot manager and multiple operating systems preimstalled.
This is the root of the problem. When people go after microsoft in court, it
annoyts me that all too often they choose to go after the predatory practices in
other areas but they leave the root of the problem untouched. Why is this? Is it
because going after these predatory OEM agreements is too difficult and other
behavior is more blatent? Yert until someone challeneges these agreements we
won't see progress.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's "good values" - Keyboard alert
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 11:03 PM EST
"Microsoft’s products are good values when compared to a tank of gas or
dinner at a restaurant because the software lasts a long time."

A fair comparison is this:

Open Source Dinner: You get the food cooked the way you want, with only what you
ordered, when you want it. You also get the printed recipe, a full list of
ingredients and utensils, and where you can obtain them. Also you get a contact
list of people who contributed to the recipe and an open invitation to make
changes and contribute back.

M$ Dinner: You can have only the food that is available, whether you can digest
it or not. You don't get the recipe and if you don't like the food, the chef
will come out and throw chairs at you. You actually ordered a steak meal without
fries, but they can't be separated from the meal for some reason (apparently the
cows all come with built-in potatoes these days, except in Europe). In any case,
you are supplied with a spoon, but you are offered an "upgrade" to a
knife for a nominal fee, and you are not allowed to bring your own.

Part way through the meal, the table collapses. The waiter says you will have to
start again. He scoops up the mess onto a new plate and places another table
over the top of the broken one. The garbage is not cleaned away. Meanwhile,
there is no offer of compensation, but another entry goes in the restaurant
registry.

You sneak out a fork you were carrying with you. The waiter notices this but
shows no outward sign. After a minute of using this, the waiter whisks away the
steak and replaces it with an empty soup bowl. However, he also took the spoon
away with him. So now you have an empty soup bowl and a fork. The waiter says
there is soup available but it comes only in a quantity much greater than the
bowl on your table. You can't order a smaller amount. You now need a larger
bowl, which will cost you more.

Having supplied the larger quantity of soup at an extra cost, in a larger bowl,
you discover the table can't take the weight and needs to be upgraded to a
larger one with more surface area. However, the only ones visible are near the
windows, and you also notice lots of broken chairs lying around. You also find
lots of unnecessary junk in the soup, which takes forever to consume with your
fork.

This pattern continues all through your meal, with the food constantly being
reconfigured and unable to work with whatever utensils you actually need. And it
keeps costing you money.

Open source GAS: You have purchased a vehicle that is exactly right for the
needs of your journey, with no extra bells and whistles. Also, the vehicle runs
on the gas available and has very low emissions. You get a road map, a vehicle
construction, service and upgrade manual, and the steering wheel is where it is
supposed to be.

M$ GAS: The vehicle is loaded up with junk you couldn't get uninstalled despite
repeatedly removing it with a grinder, chainsaw, sledgehammer, concrete breaker
and dynamite. Therefore the only place left to place the tank is directly in
front of the windscreen. No matter, the workaround for this is a large computer
screen attached to a camera.

Unfortunately, the screen has a blue background with some unintelligible white
text, chiding you for not shutting the vehicle down properly the last time. You
notice that the seats come with a fast release lever. You assume this is to
allow emergency services personnel to quickly remove you from the vehicle in the
event of as crash. Nope. This is to allow the manufacturer to rip them out and
throw them around.

Anyway, you wanted a fuel efficient vehicle, but they only supplied a gas
guzzler running on poor quality diesel. Because of all the junk and the
unexplained fully-deployed rear parachute, you need to run a real fast engine,
and big too.

Well, these engines burn out and need frequent restarting when they seize. They
also need constant upgrades because the vehicle collects so much junk as you
drive along the superhighway. You suspect that the brakes are secretly applied
whenever you get gas from somebody other than the manufacturer, and that someone
is spying on your activities. Also, it seems everytime you upgrade, you have to
agree to do less and less with your vehicle and give the manufacturer more
control over where you may drive it.

You are somewhat confused about talk of new "trusted commuting"
technology, but the manufacturer tells you to keep on consuming, paying for
upgrades and don't try to replace the windows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't Microsoft suppose to be in compliance with the DOJ rulling?
Authored by: clark_kent on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 11:32 PM EST
Because if any of this can be proven, it will show that Microsoft has bought out
American justice to overlook it's misdeeds. This isn't just about mispricing.
This lady is getting into some seroius details of how Microsoft IS NOT following
the Spirit of the DOJ ruling and Anti-Trust law and has illegally placed it's
dominant presence in the marketplace.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spoliation?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, December 10 2006 @ 11:51 PM EST
This reverberates SCO v IBM. I wonder where the first note was struck.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

sabanes-oxley?
Authored by: kh on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 01:09 AM EST
I would have thought that deleting emails after 15 or even 30 days would have
breached compliance with sabanes-oxley but IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

clarify please
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 06:21 AM EST
Appreciate if you can clarify why the OEM makers have to install windows. They
had a choice to install Be0S or linux. So when they had a choice, why argue
against microsoft. Any company would try to keep and grow business and so they
gave attractive margins to OEM's. so what is the problem with that? The OEM's
could have gone the other route . The market was not also ready to accept
systems. Everybody was clamoring for windows systems. Don't know abt the rest of
the world, but the IT market place in my town, when I went there about 2000,
customers were asking only for Windows + intel combination 99% of the time.

>>>The Be Operating System was fully multi-threaded and multi-tasking
with memory protection built from the ground up to do advanced audio visual
editing. Microsoft refused to allow the OEM’s to pre-load BeOS, Conlin
recounted, or to put an icon on the desktop or load the boot manager to permit
switching between OS's. Even with the strong support of its partner, Intel, just
like what happened with DR-DOS and OS/2, BE OS failed to break the lock
Microsoft has on OEMs. In 2001, Be dissolved. Conlin told the jury:

I did some business courses and few principles are Company is looking to
leverage its core competence and disregarding other things. Microsoft need not
promote a product which is competitive to it. It is similar to asking Ford to
promote other manufacturer cars.

The same thing with the other arguments. Yes, there main goal is leveraging
their product for maximum penetration. So you can one way say that if you hook
people to the OS at a young age, they would be willing to use in the later ages
also. Folks, these all look very similar to the Selling strategies that I find
in my business books.

I am not a microsoft supporter or anything, but curious why these are wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

great advertising line
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 07:53 AM EST
I can see an Apple commercial quoting about him buying a Mac if he was not
working for Microsoft and then ending the ad by asking the public "Who do
you work for"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remedy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 08:47 AM EST
Assuming that Iowa wins, what is a realitic rememdy that might be imposed?

It seems like whenever Microsoft loses they agree to give out a bunch of
vouchers that are then used to buy more of their products or they give away more
of their products (which sometime later on need to be upgraded), which doesn't
change anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Remedy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 11:53 AM EST
  • Remedy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 10:17 PM EST
  • Remedy? - Authored by: moosie on Tuesday, December 12 2006 @ 02:07 AM EST
    • Remedy? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 12 2006 @ 04:36 AM EST
  • Remedy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 12 2006 @ 11:27 AM EST
    • Remedy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 12 2006 @ 12:14 PM EST
Dirty Laundry
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 09:50 AM EST
There's a lot of dirty laundry going to come out of this, email policy or no.

Too bad Groklaw wasn't around for the US anti-trust trial, but this makes a
good substitute. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the guys in
the certified black hats haven't changed. This is already quite an eye-opener.
Compared to this, SCO don't look so ugly.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Iowa Update - Allchin 2004 email: I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM EST
It would be nice if the EULA would be brought into this lawsuit to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would buy a bare desktop machine
Authored by: rweiler on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 05:52 PM EST
with the price of Windows deducted. But you can't, of course, not from any of
Microsoft's US OEM 'partners' in the US. Failing that, Id like to be able to buy
a machine in the US with Vista 'Starter Edition', the cheapest version, so I can
throw it away and install Linux. But you can't do that in a developed country
either. hat option is reserved for 3rd world countries where Linux is a
competitor. It amazing that the USDOJ endorsed blatantly illegal conduct as part
of it's settlement with Microsoft. Hopefully, the state of Iowa will do a little
better., because that is really what it should be about; the right to buy a
computer without paying for *any* Microsoft software at all.


---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

Iowa Update - Allchin 2004 email: I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for MS
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 11 2006 @ 05:55 PM EST
This says it all!

"I think our teams lost sight of what bug-free means, what resilience
means, what full scenarios mean, what security means, what performance means,
how important current applications are, and really understanding what the most
important problems our customers face are. I see lots of random features and
some great vision, but that does not translate into great products. He goes on
to say, I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft."

"Random features" - oh, yeah, that describes Windows to a T.

What concerns me about current Linux distros is an apparent interest in copying
this "featuritis" of Windows at the expense of reliability. The recent
emphasis by some distros on including the 3D "eye candy" - while
allowing serious bugs in their installation and package updating products to
slip through - is an example.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )