[Am-info] Re: Nader and Love letter to Judge Motz
Mike Stephen
Mike Stephen" <mikestp@telus.net
Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:24:07 +0800
Hear Hear!!! this is what I have proposed to this group since its inception.
Its the only solution that solves all the problems.
I did fax such a sentiment, but since few (even on this list) seemed to
understand or support it, I fear that any such suggestion will fall on deaf ears.
The current problems with Microsoft and the DOJ and others is a simple one to solve.
I still feel the best solution is to do nothing to Microsoft (other than financial damages
for past illegal activities).
Make everyone able to compete with anything they have. I say bundle everything!! Let IBM
make a new revision of OS/2, and bundle it with Lotus Smart Suite, and DB/2, and all the
middleware they might want to give with a package that is designed for a one stop solution.
Let Corel make a Linux with all its Wordperfect stuff, and MySQL and perhaps some other
stuff thrown in. Voice type dictation or something like what OS/2 had in 1994. Let there
be a BE operating system that bundles with everything BE can muster.
To make the playing field level make all hardware computer sales should be separate from the
software. That way those three competitors can fight to be the software choice to install
on your new machine.
It also forces Microsoft into letting everyone know what the actual cost of Windows really is.
It more importantly lets better solutions from other vendors compete. This would require no
government watch-dog and let Microsoft do whatever they want to do with the stuff (crap)
they have. It lets the other competitors show us that they can do better. Surely this makes
much more sense than any of the alternatives.
I say if a lot of people suggest that Microsoft makes crappy software based on a crappy
foundation, then "let the games begin!!!!"
To answer most of the problems with an easy all encompassing edict, it will be rather
simple for the court to make hardware and software separately available options. All hardware
must be quoted for a sale price that excludes all software (other than the bios type software).
This will force a level playing field.
If you actually look at the problems in the market, the PC Makers are almost as much the
cause of the problem as Microsoft. Look at how Dell brown noses to Bill G!!! Look at what
Compaq has done.... The only company that has shown even the slightest disdain for
Bill G, is Gateway, and that is so slight that.... well you get the drift....
This idea solves three fundamental problems. It solves the issues of Microsoft arm twisting
OEMs for a different price on the software, as all the software would have to be sold by the
store that sold the hardware at the time of purchase for a specific price that would be
publicly listed.
It would force competitive prices on the software bundles so Microsoft would have to
discount the software from its current price .
Most importantly it allows outside vendors to sell a software bundle more easily to hardware
vendors, and it forces a general cleanup and improvement to the installation process.
Since some of the complaints come from the OEMs regarding Microsofts practice of arm
twisting PC manufacturers, this remedy does fall into the solution the courts could decide.
The PC Makers do have a role in this court case.
Suppose for example I wished to sell a software bundle. I could license an operating
system, cleanup the installation process, include software that would be appealing to my
targeted market, and hire support staff to help with end users. This is what Red Hat does
in a small way with Linux, I would anticipate that if they actually did it much better,
(actually they need to do it a LOT BETTER), that they indeed might actually displace a few
Windows machines. Linux (and FreeBSD organisers) could re-write the horrendous
installation routines, include star office, throw in a few games, include a word processor
(Wordperfect comes to mind), a spreadsheet etc, and rather than sell an operating system,
they are selling an enterprise solution.
This is the way system software should be sold. The same could be done for OS/2, and
Beos could also do that. Apple could offer an Intel CDROM(s) to install their version of
the perfect software system. This idea would also solve the problems with Microsoft and
the office suites. It is simple, has a precedent, and lets the market decide. It also allows
for some new entrepreneurs to evolve.
The courts could force Microsoft to sell OEM Makers all from the same source, the same
prices are paid, and the same contracts apply to all PC makers. This solves the issue of
Microsoft playing favorites. Since Microsoft would have no control over the PCmakers,
they would be free to offer none or any operating system. Competition might arise and
the costs would go down.
Also this would apply to what I like to call enterprise solutions that would include an
operating system and a number of productivity applications geared towards a certain
type of market ie: home market would include small home economics type apps such
as quicken, money, small database, and lots of entertainment apps, whereas a
business mix would favour the more indepth business requirements. This levels out the
playing field so that the best mix of the best apps would possibly prevail rather than the
current arm twisting done by Microsoft.
Easy solution that requires littte or no technical oversite.
From the Desk Of Mike Stephen
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:13:20 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:23:40PM -0600, Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. wrote:
>> >From: James Love <love@cptech.org> Subject: [Am-info] Nader and CPTech
>> >to Judge Motz on MS private antitrust settlement
>> >This is the letter that Ralph Nader and CPTech filed today. Jamie
>> >........... We are writing to ask that you reject the proposed
>> > settlement to the private antitrust actions against Microsoft,
>> > Ralph Nader James Love Consumer Project on Technology
>>
>> Now THIS is the right response from the right source.
>> Thank you Ralph Nader and James Love.
>
>Whilst the sentiment is in the right direction it fall far short in its
>proposals.
>
>
>Microsoft has been found guilty of being an illegal monopoly for God's sake!
>
>In what way has anyone come up with a solution to remedy this situation?
>
>
>What has anyone proposed to prevent the tying of Windows to brand new
>computers?
>
>
>I would suggest that the least that should be done would be to force every
>reseller to offer computers for sale with the option of buying a computer,
>every computer, whether it's from DELL, Compaq, IBM or some company no one
>has ever heard of *without* Windows pre-installed. The price of every
>computer should also clearly state the level of Microsoft Tax being
>charged on the computer in the same way that Sales Tax is shown.
>
>People have got this crazy idea that they get Windows for free because
>they don't even have to ask for it, yet it's there when they power on.
>
>
>The concept of the Microsoft Tax has never really sunk in as far as most
>people are concerned, and they generally don't even understand how the
>monopoly which Microsoft operates, forces prices up and is bad for the
>consumer.
>
>
>> Glenn
>> --
>> Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
>>
>> University of Minnesota
>> Neuroscience Department
>> Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
>> 321 Church St. S.E.
>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
>>
>> (612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009
>> glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
>> livezey@bigfoot.com
>
>
>--
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Am-info mailing list
>Am-info@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
>From the Desk of Mike Stephen