Original Sender : DasaMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------- Gak sempet ngedit. Capek. Forwarded by DasaMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------- Original message follows ---------------- From: "Fred Langa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The LangaList" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:56:48 -0500 Subject: [langalist] 8-Nov-99 SPECIAL ISSUE -- Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Address Change info is at the end of this note. Mailing List Trouble? See http://www.langa.com/help.txt Questions about the advertisers? See the end of this note. Please also see the legal info at the end of this note. An easier-to read, formatted, HTML version is available for online reading at http://www.langa.com/whats_new.htm (The HTML version of each issue normally is available by 9AM EST [GMT-5] on the issue date.) LangaList advertising rates and info available at http://www.langa.com/rate_card.html Please email the LangaList to a friend! (Use the super-fast form at http://www.langa.com/recommend.htm !) The LangaList SPECIAL EDITION! 8-Nov-99 A Free Email Newsletter from Fred Langa About BrowserTune, HotSpots, Columns, Tips & Tricks, and Other Activities In This Issue: Why The Special Edition? Getting On The Same Page Analysis and Opinion: Microsoft's Loss Is Not Your Gain And For The "Enterprise" View... More! Why The Special Edition? You've no doubt heard that the initial "findings of fact" in the DOJ/Microsoft antitrust case were announced last Friday (Nov 5). This is a case that will have an enormous impact on the type, quality, and cost of the software (and hardware!) available to you for years to come, and so I've pushed back (by one day) the normal Monday edition of the LangaList to bring you this special coverage. You'll receive your regular early-week edition of the LangaList tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov 9. --------------( Please Visit This LangaList Sponsor!) ------------ BORED WITH YOUR JOB? READY FOR A CHANGE? Update your resume and post it online! It's fast, easy & FREE! Create an online resume - YOU control who sees it! Get in front of progressive companies and check out thousands of great jobs -- available NOW. More than 200,000 have ALREADY posted their resume on JobOptions! Visit: http://www.joboptions.com/postresume/ <a href="http://www.joboptions.com/postresume/">AOL Users: Click Here</a> --------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- Getting On The Same Page You've probably heard quick takes and instant analyses of the DOJ findings against Microsoft, and may have seen some of the more thoughtful pieces just starting to emerge. To help you get closer to the sources and so you can make up your own mind about what's going on, I've set up a full-text copy of the Findings of Fact for you here (see http://www.browsertune.com/dojvms.htm ). I urge you to take a look: Again, this is a case that will have an *enormous* impact on the type, quality, and cost of the software (and hardware!) available to you for years to come. When the Findings of Fact were released, I was asked to be a commentator on a live, streaming-audio Internet news broadcast of the event. I was one of several panelists who listened to the full findings-of-fact announcement and the full Microsoft response; we then tried to dig out the important nuggets of information for the listeners. Although the live show ran many hours, you can hear a highly-edited, much-shortened (just 18 minute) RealAudio replay (including commentary by myself, Jerry Pournelle, and others) at http://media.cmpnet.com/twtoday/techwebtoday.ram . More info: Evidence Is Overwhelming, But Microsoft Fights: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19991105S0023 Gates Response: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991105S0022 Judge: Microsoft Has Monopoly Power: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19991105S0020 DOJ Celebrates Sweep In Court: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19991105S0026 Microsoft Rivals Cheer For Judge: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19991105S0025 Judge Blasts Microsoft On Most Antitrust Charges: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19991105S0024 Analysis and Opinion: Microsoft's Loss Is Not Your Gain Last week, I told you I thought Judge would issue a sweep of findings against Microsoft. (see http://www.langa.com/newsletters/nov-4-99.htm#iweek ). That turned out to be true, but the Findings were even harsher than I expected. For example, the concluding paragraph in the 200+ page document states (in part): "Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products." The findings were based on several key points, and some of them clearly are true. For example, for antitrust law to apply, there must first be a monopoly. Microsoft does hold a de facto (and now legally defined) monopoly power over desktop operating systems. Note that there's nothing inherently wrong or illegal in holding a monopoly; and with a 90% desktop market share, Microsoft surely qualifies. Second, for antitrust law to apply, the monopolist must have abused its monopoly position. For example, it's illegal for a company to use a monopoly in one area to leverage itself into dominance in another, and the Court says that's what Microsoft did with its browser. But that's where I begin to have trouble with the Court's findings. Most objective analyses show that Microsoft's IE is a much better and more standards-compliant browser than is Netscape Navigator (or Communicator). Claiming that Netscape's demise was due simply to Microsoft's unfair competition ignores Netscape's once supreme market arrogance and its demonstrably inferior "spaghetti code" product design. (If you think I'm exaggerating ask yourself this: Why, although AOL owns Netscape outright, does AOL continue to use Microsoft IE as its default browser? I believe the simple answer is that the current Netscape browser isn't up to par.) Likewise, the Court makes no allowances for the missteps of other Microsoft competitors: For example, IBM couldn't package or market OS/2 to save its life: It shipped the OS with a butt-ugly UI, and hobbled it with high prices and extremely poor---almost hostile--- developer support practices. And yet the Court cites the demise of OS/2 as an example of Microsoft's power. In fact, I believe it was due mostly to IBM's bumbling. To me, it seems that the Court has ignored numerous instances where Microsoft competitors have shot off their own toes. Microsoft may have taken advantage of their failures, but Microsoft isn't responsible for (say) the IBM marketing choices for OS/2, or Netscape's architectural decisions for its browser. This just scratches the surface of the problems I found in the Court's reasoning. Perhaps most disturbing (to me) was what I found-- -or, rather, failed to find---when I went looking for evidence of what the prosecutors stressed in their press conference and in their conclusion: That consumers were harmed. There are amazingly few concrete instances of consumer harm cited in the long document. The Court seems to focus on the unprovable assertion that we all would have been showered with wondrous new technologies, had Microsoft's grip been looser. But the Court cites no examples--- these high tech marvels remain unnamed, unknown, and unidentified. To me, that makes for an empty and emotional argument: You can't prove what isn't there or what might have happened. I spent most of Sunday wading through the document. There are several cases cited where Microsoft can be shown to have harmed consumers, but many others where I think the Court missed, or misconstrued, the facts. I'll show you what I found---pro and con---in this week's column on WinMag.com. (It's way too much to squeeze into an email.) Has Microsoft behaved badly? Yes; surely. But it seems to me that the main targets of Microsoft's bad practices were its competitors, not consumers. (Check out the quote, above!) While Microsoft may well have gone too far in some areas, I believe a balanced view---a view I naively thought the Courts were supposed to provide--- would weigh the excesses against the benefits, and arrive at a just perspective that seeks to remedy the bad practices while preserving the good. Instead, this Court seems to have focused almost entirely on the negatives and ignored the positives. To me, it looks as if the Court is moving toward a harsh and punitive judgment---such as breaking up Microsoft---that I believe will do far more harm to consumers than good. Why do I feel that way? Because, on balance, consumers have benefited far more than that have been harmed by Microsoft---and I believe I can prove this in my WinMag column this week. While that does not excuse Microsoft's excesses, in my mind it surely does mitigate them. In overreacting to Microsoft's excesses, I fear the Court just may toss out the baby with the bathwater. But what's your take? Is Microsoft as totally evil as the Court contends? Do you feel Microsoft has harmed you, as a consumer? Should Microsoft be broken up? Will Microsoft be able to avert a harsh judgment through a negotiated settlement? Please read the full column and then join in the discussion via the link on the home page at http://www.winmag.com ; the column and discussion should be live by midafternoon today (Nov 8, EST; GMT-5). Please join in! And For The "Enterprise" View... The Findings of Fact supposedly focus on consumerism, but clearly, there are huge implications for businesses that use Microsoft products. InformationWeek has a venue to discuss that: it's the BBS area attached to my column at http://www.informationweek.com/langaletter. There, you can cast your vote to agree or disagree with the judge, and then join a discussion on the business implications of the court findings. Join in! See you in the regular issue, tomorrow! Best, Fred ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- You are currently subscribed to the langalist as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNSUBSCRIBE: send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I.E. create a new email, and copy the address above into the To: field.) SUBSCRIBE (it's free!): Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why are you getting this newsletter? There are only two ways to get on the list (direct email request or via the WinMag mail list signup page) so if you're getting this newsletter, your name came to me through one of those channels. LIST TROUBLE? HAVE QUESTIONS? NEED HELP? See http://www.langa.com/help.txt About the advertisers: Langa Consulting will never knowingly accept advertising for a fraudulent product, company or service. However, Langa Consulting makes no implied or explicit warranty, recommendation or endorsement of or for the products, companies or services mentioned in the ads. Disclaimer: The tips and other information given in the newsletter are researched and are believed to be accurate, but we cannot and do not guarantee that all the information here will work on all systems, for all users, all the time. All information herein is offered as-is and without warranty of any kind. Neither Langa Consulting, nor its employees nor contributors are responsible for any loss, injury, or damage, direct or consequential, resulting from application of any information presented here. This newsletter is a free service of Langa Consulting and is Copyright � 1999 Langa Consulting. All rights reserved. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compu-Mania MailingList is provided by PT Centrin Utama Maintained by : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Post a msg : Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe : Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BODY : unsubscribe Compu-Mania For more information, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "HELP" in the BODY of your mail (without quote). ----------------------------------------------------------------
