Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Anti-Microsoft Stories (real)

back
The Java Virtual Machine offers programmers the ability to write programs that will work on any computer, running any operating system but Microsoft seems to be trying to prevent that. Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 uses the JavaTM logo but it isn't fully compatible with Java.

Sun Microsystems, the creator of Java, is suing Microsoft for violating the Java license agreement that Microsoft signed with Sun which does not allow Microsoft to ship a product using the Java logo unless the product passes Sun's Java validation tests.

We believe that the cross-platform compatibility offered by Java is some of the best news for computer software in a long time and that Microsoft should not be allowed to subvert it.

Why did Microsoft make Internet Explorer incompatible ?

Microsoft aims to maximise its profits by destroying its competitors and forcing everybody to use Microsoft WindowsTM.

If your favorite software ran under any operating system, not just Windows, you'd have less reason to run Windows. Thus it's not in Microsoft's interests for Windows to be compatible with other operating systems and Microsoft seems to be trying their hardest to make it incompatible.

Why is Microsoft suing Sun ?

Soon after Sun announced it was suing Microsoft, Microsoft announced it was suing Sun. Why ?

It's good publicity. Even if Microsoft's suit is thrown out of court in a few months as completely without merit, it will have served its purpose in the meantime by suggesting to uninformed individuals that perhaps Sun is in the wrong and not Microsoft, or at least not just Microsoft.

What you can do ?

Until Microsoft makes Internet Explorer truly Java compatible (possibly never), we recommend the following:
In July of 1994, the United States Department of Justice files a complaint reading, in part:

"For violations of Sections 1 & 2 of the Sherman Act" regarding Microsoft's OEM licensing practices. Those practices include:

Foreclosing (via licenses) access to the OEM channel by competitors

Imposing (via licenses) a penalty on OEM's use of non-Microsoft OSs

Anticompetitive non-disclosure agreements (prevented independent software vendors from developing Windows applications)

Anticompetitive licensing practices

Use of 'vaporware' as a deterrent for competition

That same month, the DOJ received a final judgement, effectively prohibiting Microsoft from engaging in the above activities. Some label this as the start of the browser war.

In April of 1995, the DOJ filed a complaint that prevented Microsoft's acquisition of Intuit.

"Unless restrained, the proposed acquisition will violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act," stated the complaint. The basis was that Microsoft Money could not capture enough market share from Intuit, so Microsoft wanted to buy them, removing them as a competitor.

Microsoft has long "integrated" its products onto the Windows Desktop. By doing this it has eliminated competition from several companies, and is now trying to do the same to Netscape. However, the USDOJ has been keeping an eye on these actions, and is now prepared to fight back.

Microsoft uses the argument that it is better for consumers, since they apparently get a "superior" product for less cost, since they don't have to buy seperate titles. However, this does not promote competition. It, in fact, eliminates competition, which is the goal of Microsoft in the first place.

More reason that explains MSIE's suckiness

 Why IE Sucks:

You want to see MS lying about its browser? Here, an MS rep responds to Gateway removing IE from their desktops: "The browser cannot be removed or sold separately." Whatever... I have successfully uninstalled IE3 and IE4 twice on my PCs (while setting Navigator as my default browser twice), and MS is selling "Internet Explorer Plus" (basicly IE4 with some freeware add-ons) in retail stores for $40.

Microsoft Lawsuits - Internal Memos Speak Volumes!

You can find a bunch of interesting information coming from both sides of these lawsuits against Microsoft. The important thing is to drown out the chatter between the all parties involved (Sun, Microsoft, the government), and instead look at the facts that are presented. Because of the nature of the case, Microsoft cannot really present too much "evidence" to disprove the gov't/Sun, so it up to gov't/Sun to provide evidence against MS. Easy enough to understand.

The vast majority of evidence comes from memos/email that originate within Microsoft, from employees and, often, high-ranking executives. You should read through the complaint submitted by the DOJ. It has a lot of interesting information within, as well as notes pointing to evidence within the case (presumably copies or originals of the memos that contain the information). I will extract some of the points the DOJ makes that pertain to Java, MSIE, or how Microsoft would use it's OS monopoly to spread MSIE and their broken Java implementation. (Note that I only mention the points that deal with direct quotes and/or have evidential footnotes.)

In I.8 of the complaint, the DOJ states:

Non-Microsoft browsers are perhaps the most significant vehicle for distribution of Java technology to end users. Microsoft has recognized that the widespread use of browsers other than its own threatens to increase the distribution and use of Java, and in so doing threatens Microsofts operating system monopoly. For this reason, a presentation to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates on January 5, 1997, on how to respond to the Java threat emphasized "Increase IE share" as a key strategy. (MS7 005529-44).
In I.12 of the complaint, the DOJ states:
Microsoft, however, has not been willing simply to compete on the [MSIE browser] merits. For example, as Microsofts Christian Wildfeuer wrote in February 1997, Microsoft concluded that it would "be very hard to increase browser share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator." (MS7 004346).
In I.16 of the complaint, the DOJ states:
First, Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, test, and promote Internet Explorer, a product which it distributes without separate charge. As Paul Maritz, Microsofts Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in the New York Times as telling industry executives: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything theyre selling, were going to give away for free." As reported in the Financial Times, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates likewise warned Netscape (and other potential Microsoft challengers) in June 1996: "Our business model works even if all Internet software is free. . . . We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscapes business model look like? Not very good."
In I.17 of the complaint, the DOJ states:
But Mr. Gates did not stop at free distribution. Rather, Microsoft purposefully set out to do whatever it took to make sure significant market participants distributed and used Internet Explorer instead of Netscapes browser -- including paying some customers to take IE and using its unique control over Windows to induce others to do so. For example, in seeking the support of Intuit, a significant application software developer, Mr. Gates was blunt, as he reported in a July 1996 internal e-mail:
 
"I was quite frank with him [Scott Cook, CEO of Intuit] that if he had a favor we could do for him that would cost us something like $1M to do that in return for switching browsers in the next few months I would be open to doing that." (MS6 6007642).
In I.23 of the complaint, the DOJ states:
Microsoft executives have repeatedly recognized the significant advantage that Microsoft (and only Microsoft) receives by tying its Internet browser to its operating system, rather than having to compete on the merits. As Microsoft Senior Vice President James Allchin wrote to Microsoft Group Vice-President Paul Maritz on January 2, 1997:
"You see browser share as job 1 . . . . I do not feel we are going to win on our current path. We are not leveraging Windows from a marketing perspective. . . . We do not use our strength -- which is that we have an installed base of Windows and we have a strong OEM shipment channel for Windows. Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have < 20% . . . . I am convinced we have to use Windows this is the one thing they dont have . . . ." (emphasis added) (MS7 005526).
I could go on and on from the complaint... there were many, many points made. I suggest you download and read the complaint for yourself. Now on to the first Brief (Memorandum) available here. The brief isn't numbered the same way as the complaint, so I'll just quote parts from it that are pertinent:

From page 20 of the brief:

Paul Maritz, Group Vice President for Platforms and Applications [at Microsoft], in a presentation on "Internet Browsers" and "How We Win," emphasized that "Netscape/Java is using the browser to create a virtual operating system," and asked whether Windows will become "devalued, eventually replaceable?" Exhibit 35 (MS6 6008247-8282);


Brad Chase [of Microsoft] recognized that there was a potential danger that a competing Internet browser could eventually "obsolete Windows." Exhibit 15 (MS7 004127-47).

From page 58 and 59 of the brief:
Earlier, Maritz [Group Vice President for Platforms and Applications at Microsoft] had set forth why "job #1 is browser share": "We have to stop the Nav-Web site reinforcement cycle with IE3 and shift it in the direction of Active X. . . . No matter what happens, we have to slow Netscapes ability to drive new protocols/stds down." Mr. Maritz went on to explain that it was "necessary to fundamentally blunt JAVA/AWT momentum and to reestablish ActiveX and non-Java approaches . . . [to] protect our core asset Windows - the thing we get paid $s for." Exhibit 92 (MS6 6010346-49), 6/20/96 P. Maritz e-mail (emphasis in original).
And probably the most disgusting revelation of all comes from page 59 of the brief:
Another internal Microsoft document indicates that the plan was not simply to blunt Java/browser cross-platform momentum, but to destroy the cross-platform threat entirely, with the "Strategic Objective" described as to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Exhibit 101 (MS7 033448). (Emphasis added.)
Even more from page 59 of the brief:
Microsoft documents relating to the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows 98 tell the same story: Microsoft tied the products together to foreclose competition. For example, Microsoft executive Jonathan Roberts directed his subordinates to "to really look at why people who get IE with a new machine switch to Navigator and what is being addressed in IE4.0 to make that difficult." Exhibit 37 (MS7 006062), J. Roberts 3/28/97 e-mail (Emphasis added.)
A footnote on page 59 of the brief is also very interesting:
As used in Microsoft documents, the term "polluted" appears to refer to Java implementations that only work with Windows. See, e.g., Exhibit 100 (MSS 0083345), (requesting list of Java developers, so Microsoft can "start polluting them with Windows specific stuff"). Other documents confirm the same point: "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Lets move on and steal the Java language. That said, have we ever taken a look at how long it would take Microsoft to build a cross-platform Java that did work? Naturally, we would never do it, but it would give us some idea of how much time we have to work with in killing Suns Java." Exhibit 97 (MS7 026935), P. Sridharan 9/17/97 e-mail. (Emphasis added)
From page 60 of the brief:
[I]n an internal e-mail entitled "concerns for our future" to his boss, Group Vice President Paul Maritz, Jim Allchin, explained the reasons for tying Internet Explorer to Windows: "... If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together.... Memphis [Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance on these systems." Exhibit 19 (MS7 005526). (emphasis added)
It goes on and on... please read the full brief.

back