>> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
> 
> I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven.  In the 
> first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the 
> license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code 
> to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).

 From what I heard, Internet Explorer was stolen from a company called 
Spyglass.

Spyglass were selling a web browser, M$ licenced the code from them, 
developed IE, and then gave it away for free (in violation of the terms 
of the licence with Spyglass). Spyglass promptly went bankrupt before 
they could sue M$.

A similar story happened at the beginning of the Microsoft story, but 
since I don't recall the precise facts right now I'll leave that one.

>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
> 
> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS 
> extensions.

Sure, nobody forces web developers to use IE-specific extensions. Yet 
90% of all websites work properly only if you use IE. (And the others 
only work properly in other browsers because the makers have spent years 
reverse-engineering IE's incorrect behaviour rather than implementing 
the approved standards.)

>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
> 
> They didn't force anybody.  They signed agreements with manufacturers, 
> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.

The way I heard it, it was more like "you will agree to these terms or 
you can't have our product".

>> 4. Lobbying for a ban on selling PC hardware without an OS.
> 
> Name me a big business that doesn't lobby the Government for stuff that 
> will benefit them.  Not only is lobbying legal, but even encouraged by 
> our system.

Yeah, well, when car manufacturers lobby the government saying "people 
aren't buying as many cars as they used to; I think we should get 
government subsidies", people just laugh and say "no". When Microsoft 
lobbies for something, people seem to think they have a point.

>> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
> 
> Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of 
> business by giving Linux away for free?  And what's the difference 
> between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out 
> of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so 
> putting other companies out of business)?

Microsoft made their money from Windows. They can afford to give 
products away with it for free. People who's entire business is selling 
those other products can't do this. It's using sales from one product to 
pay for another product; last time I checked, that's not legal.

Like, if Tesco decided to start giving away a free bestselling book with 
every purchase, they'd have a problem because they'd be using grocery 
sales to put book sellers out of business.

>> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
> 
> Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought 
> they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they 
> would have made it.  The fact that it ended up being cancelled means 
> they didn't think it would be profitable.

Well, that's fair enough. But when a business announces something they 
have no intention of making just for the financial effect it will have 
on a potential competetor... that's not really fair.

> It sounds like your problem isn't with MS in particular, but with big 
> business in general.

I just dislike the way M$ wins by cheating all the time.

Oracle is a big corporation too, but I have nothing against them. Their 
product is extremely expensive, but it's also high-quality and resonably 
well documented. Oracle didn't get to be where they are now by stealing 
other people's stuff, lying to the government or trying to trick their 
users. They did it by producing a good product.

> Nobody's forcing you to use it.

I'm sure this one has been argued to death. While *technically* this is 
true, the reality is that M$ has carefully engineered a situation where 
little viable alternative actually exists. (Let's face it, if somebody 
else was producing decent software, M$ would go under fairly quickly.)

> Why don't you use Linux instead?

Sure. Except that the vast majority of the software I want to use won't 
work with Linux.

Besides, much as I'd *like* Linux to be the answer... it isn't. It's 
still too old and crufty and messy for my liking. But hey, who's going 
to produce anything better?

Post a reply to this message