 |
| Tuesday, April 21 2009 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
You have to read this paper! Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm [PDF], and it's from the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, or ECIS. ECIS has written it in support of the EU Commission's recent preliminary findings, on January 15, 2009, that Microsoft violated antitrust law by tying IE to Windows. It is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that the issue of Microsoft's patent threats against Linux have been framed in a context of anticompetitive conduct. It presents a history, albeit not totally comprehensive, of some of the notable anticompetitive conduct from the past, like against DR-DOS and Netscape and WordPerfect, but it also presents current issues, including the saga of how ISO/IEC DIS 29500, formerly known as OOXML, got approved as a standard: The EC is also investigating Microsoft's actions to manipulate the vote of the International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission on the recent standardization of Office "Open" XML ("OOXML"). As reported widely in the press and on the Internet, Microsoft's manipulation of the standards setting process in favor of OOXML included financial inducements, threats, misleading information, and committee-stuffing. These investigations are compelling examples of Microsoft's continued misconduct related to its monopolies in operating systems and other products. |
Showing posts with label M$. Show all posts
Showing posts with label M$. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
ECIS Provides A History of Microsoft's AntiCompetitive Behavior
Saturday, May 9, 2009
How M$ hinders development of a Open Document Standard
The bad guys act like this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009050712493241
As for calls by Microsoft to change the leadership of the ODF Technical Committee, may I remind you of Microsoft's Windows Evangelism memo that surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation? Here's the exhibit as PDF( http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf). It outlines how to find and put into place a "pliable" moderator. And here's what it said:
Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select [the] panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?
See also:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html
As for calls by Microsoft to change the leadership of the ODF Technical Committee, may I remind you of Microsoft's Windows Evangelism memo that surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation? Here's the exhibit as PDF( http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf). It outlines how to find and put into place a "pliable" moderator. And here's what it said:
Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select [the] panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?
See also:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Why moving??
Why do I want out of M$_land?
For a million reasons that we gathered in a twelve years of using MS operation systems: Win 95, (a bit Win 311 for the sake of some older software). Win 2000 and Xp.
The most essential reason is that M$ has been consequently manipulating their customers with only one aim in sight : control and profit ( hey, that's two; no just two flip sides of the same coin). Next to that they are so damn hypocritical : masters in robbing others ideas and marketing them as their own, they are the first to claim digital rights and making lots of money out of it.
In 1995 I bought my first pc because my daughter is severely disabled and could use the possibilities of adapted software. I saw a demonstration of a Acorn RISC OS computer, a wonderful machine with great software on it that was much used in schools. Still the local pc guru strongly advised buying a pc with Windows 95 and I listened to him and he was right in a way. But still I am also responsible for the loss of quality we faced with the victory of M$.
Recently I bought a new quad processor pc for some friends and prepared it for them.
My first meeting with Vista was typical: the control panel got lost without any explainable reason and only after very much searching I found a patch.
The visual sweetness is suffocating, no, it's really time to have a change.
===========================
And after some fiddling around with live cd's/dvd's of Ubuntu. Mandrake, Knoppix etc, I know the hardware recognition problems are nearly solved and ... and..
The question is, I think not so much anymore:is Linux ready for me but am I capable of adjusting to the save and different way of doings things in Linux.
Postscriptum: using Puppy Linux I found Rox filer as a file manager; it's a descendant of the Acorn riscOS way of moving files etc. I was sincerely touched!
For a million reasons that we gathered in a twelve years of using MS operation systems: Win 95, (a bit Win 311 for the sake of some older software). Win 2000 and Xp.
The most essential reason is that M$ has been consequently manipulating their customers with only one aim in sight : control and profit ( hey, that's two; no just two flip sides of the same coin). Next to that they are so damn hypocritical : masters in robbing others ideas and marketing them as their own, they are the first to claim digital rights and making lots of money out of it.
In 1995 I bought my first pc because my daughter is severely disabled and could use the possibilities of adapted software. I saw a demonstration of a Acorn RISC OS computer, a wonderful machine with great software on it that was much used in schools. Still the local pc guru strongly advised buying a pc with Windows 95 and I listened to him and he was right in a way. But still I am also responsible for the loss of quality we faced with the victory of M$.
Recently I bought a new quad processor pc for some friends and prepared it for them.
My first meeting with Vista was typical: the control panel got lost without any explainable reason and only after very much searching I found a patch.
The visual sweetness is suffocating, no, it's really time to have a change.
===========================
Linux vs. Windows: Why Linux will win
And after some fiddling around with live cd's/dvd's of Ubuntu. Mandrake, Knoppix etc, I know the hardware recognition problems are nearly solved and ... and..
The question is, I think not so much anymore:is Linux ready for me but am I capable of adjusting to the save and different way of doings things in Linux.
Postscriptum: using Puppy Linux I found Rox filer as a file manager; it's a descendant of the Acorn riscOS way of moving files etc. I was sincerely touched!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)