BE Inc. Sues Microsoft

What kind of question is that?

If you are trying to imply that corporate america breaks the law and doesn't get caught, you are right. Just like people commit crimes against each other and avoid getting caught. Doing what Microsoft did isn't against the law...just not moral and low. They did what they needed to do to get to the top. Does that mean that the companies they stepped on during their climb and the ones they put out of business have a right to sue? I don't think so. If you do, I think you should look at other successful companies and how they got to the top. Not everyone comes out looking pretty in a corporate war.

said by CFeicht:

---

Format the drive and install the OS of your choice.

---

That is fine for you and I... Those of us that know how to do installs and so forth... but what about the n00b user? They are going to use whatever the manufacturer of the PC installed on it... and that is all. They do not know (much, if at all) about *nix or any other Alternative OS out there...

Who knows what the incentive was, all I know is what I was told by companies and what has come out in the various lawsuits.

No judgment on BeOS's lawsuit, just what happened.

said by Nightfall:

---

... You call what Microsoft did bullying. I call it corporate life. ...

---

And the Court system calls it a monopoly using illegal tactics. Which the "justice" system (I have to put quotes around that now with Asscroft running the show) can now ignore.

tom-ay-to .... tom-ah-to

said by Nightfall:

---

What kind of question is that?

... Doing what Microsoft did isn't against the law......

---

No, actually it WAS against the law. And, no, they will not get punished for it.

said by Nightfall:

---

.... It is like me producing Refridgerated Dill Pickles, my company name is Clausson, and suing Vlassic for driving me out of business. ...

---

A better analogy would be if Best Buy is selling Sony CD burners with the choice of a 10 pack of Sony Media or TDK media. Sony tells Best Buy they can only sell Sony media with the burners otherwise they will pull out all of the Sony products out of the store. That's more or less what Microsoft did and deprived the consumers of a choice. This is also why the major PC manufacturers don't sell preloaded Linux boxes to the consumer.

Do you think new users who purchase dells compaqs and gateways know how to tell a good OS from a bad one? These are the people who put up with lockups, errors and blue screens and still try to be first in line whenever a new version of windows comes out! Through anti-competitive practices and playing on the public's ignorance, Microsoft has them whipped into buying and using only MS products. Linux...whats Linux? Who the hell is BeOS? What do they know about the difference between BeOS and Windows? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Ask Bill Gates why...

said by Nightfall:

---

Doing what Microsoft did isn't against the law...just not moral and low.

---

Actually what Microsoft did WAS against the law. Two courts of law confirmed that. I am not big business, bit I think there is a fine line between just being aggressive or anti-competitive and being downright malicious. It seems Microsoft crossed that line when intimidating the OEM's and PC manufacturers. In order to make sure competition is protected lawmaker created anti-trust policy. If we didn't then companies like Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel would likely control their markets even today.

Capitalism works best when there is competition. That's what it's all about. If we allow companies to abuse the freedoms of commerce that made them successful then we as a country would be no better than the countries we criticize.

said by Nightfall:

---

What kind of question is that?

---

It's the next logical one.

Now suddenly there ARE rules that pertain to conduct when it's your stuff we're talking about. Perhaps the folks at BE are equally as concerned with their stuff. Ya think?

You state that MS did what it did to get to the top, ethical or unethical. OK. Fine. What if they break the law? Not specifically, hypothetically. What if Bill Gates shoots Scott McNealy to gain control of Sun and he flies off to Grand Cayman to escape prosecution? Is that acceptable, since as you said yourself "Its ok until you get caught"?

You lump all of MS's behavior into a big pile and say "oh well, just business. Dog-eat-dog, people get hurt" and COMPLETELY ignore the fact that there are actual laws that pertain to business conduct. Really. Codified and everything. State and Federal.

You've already decided that what MS did or didn't do to BE "isn't against the law" without any actual knowledge of the facts. And even if it was against the law it doesn't matter since MS didn't get caught.

Until Microsoft is proven in a court of law to be a monopoly and using illegal tactics, what they didn't isn't illegal...in the scope of the law.

Look at other companies as well and you will see the same kind of actions. No one comes out innocent in corporte war. Money is the motivating factor. BEoS lost and wants a piece of the pie. If you think that is right, then swing the doors open for all the other small companies and businesses that have gone under due to competition.

Of course it isn't ok that companies break the law. I am just saying it happens all the time. I am not saying Microsoft should not be prosecuted...what I am saying is that all companies are not innocent. If you think that BEoS came out totally innocent and the big bad microsoft was to blame for all their problems, you are mistaken.

In a corporate war, there are casualties. BEoS was one of them. Tough luck. If Microsoft did something shady to drive them out of business, then let someone take them to court over it. This court case with BEoS whining about Microsoft driving them out of business and saying they want money is BS.

Companies tailor most products for the masses or mainstream. Of course there will be exceptions who use "niche" alternatives. The average user gets whatever they have in their computer and uses. They use Windows whatever, sign on to AOL, send email, send a greeting card, and chat. They probably have no idea what Linux is or the technology behind broadband. Yet those are the people who gobble up anything that is new and thus make those companies $$$. You can't blame them for that.

said by beeman65:

---

They probably have no idea what Linux is or the technology behind broadband. Yet those are the people who gobble up anything that is new and thus make those companies $$$. You can't blame them for that.

---

Exactly my point. BeOS was new and some even say superior to Windows at the time. Why wasn't it gobbled up? Because Microsoft used its market dominance and leverage to pressure PC makers to not offer it.

In response to your statements...

You go yourself, and bend down and prepare to have Mr. Gates long ream of theft, diception and treachery shoved where the sun don't shine..>!!!!

You people don't get it... Probably never will either because thats all you know and probably all you ever will know...

Too bad... that kind of thinking is why the Challenger disaster happened and much more..

You Go for it...

I'm tired of the tactics Redmond uses. I had a friend who went out of business because of Microcraps tactics..

Go for JLG!!!!!!!!!!!!

PC Makers were under no obligation to do it though. They had a choice and went with Microsoft. I hear a lot of people saying, "Microsoft leverged them and forced them to do it!". However, PC makers could have told Microsoft to shove it and they didn't. If BEoS was superior, as a PC maker, I would have went with them. Obviously, the PC makers didn't think that much of BEoS at the time. It also comes down to how good the product is. If Microsoft was selling a crappy product, how many PC makers would keep including it on their systems? There wouldn't be many. There is only so much leverage you can apply before common sense sets in.

HEHEHE

BEos, Microsoft, AOL, Netscape... who's not suing who these days?

So what if BE, AOL, Netscape et.al. actually all win a civil judgement against Microsoft? Assume they all get a small slice of Microsoft's multi-billion dollar pie... so what!? Microsoft will still dominate most of the software industry! Sure, a few more billion might keep BEos et.al. alive or allow them to pay down some of their debt, but they'll likely never develop anything profitable and will go broke again anyhow.

I dont run BEos because BEos sucks and is not compatible with a lot of hardware... I don't use Netscape cuz Netscape sucks... I don't use AOL because AOL sucks... not because I was *FORCED* to choose Microsoft over all these companies, Microsoft's product was just better! With Microsoft, you can go to one source for support and integration. For a large corporation or even an end user, it simply makes more sense.

Who wants to listen to tech support at "company x" say their software isn't working right because of flaws in Microsoft's operating system while Microsoft says that it's "company x"'s software that's actually the problem; meanwhile nothing gets done about it. Whereas when a Microsoft product fails, for example, they can't just pass the buck, it's a microsoft problem all the way and you actually do get solutions-- that's why Microsoft is so profitable and is the logical choice for any corporate IT manager.

Those who argue that Microsoft's "monopoly" hurts the consumer are full of SH*T IMHO. Try explaining to grandma that she now has to call 8 different companies when something goes wrong on her computer with none of them accepting responsibility. This is not a monopoly case like AT&T where they owned all the phone lines and could do whatever they want. YOU own your computer NOT microsoft, therefore YOU can do with it whatever you please.

BOTTOM LINE: Anybody can run any OS they want. It's not microsoft's obligation to inform the consumer of alternatives, nor is it the responsibility of the PC manufacturers! If consumers are ignorant about alternatives other than those which come on their computer from the factory, it's not MSs' fault. It's BE's failure to market their "superior" product to consumers, or the consumers failure to research the alternatives. That's the nature of capitalism! Buyer beware or should it be buyer be aware!

I'm just smiling all the way though since I'll be in law school next year (evil snicker)

said by Nightfall:

---

PC Makers were under no obligation to do it though. They had a choice and went with Microsoft. I hear a lot of people saying, "Microsoft leverged them and forced them to do it!". However, PC makers could have told Microsoft to shove it and they didn't.

---

Yeah you have a very valid point. PC makers can just say no and face the consequences, in Hitachi's case, they would have to face higher costs for installing MS software. Now Hitachi could either eat the extra cost of selling the software, or they could pass it on to consumers. This is monopolistic behavior! Now if I were making decisions at hitachi, I would have also bowed to MS as well. I have a position to hold, deadlines and sales projections to meet and a market share to hold on to. Tough for Be Inc. but thats how business is.

said by Nightfall:

---

If BEoS was superior, as a PC maker, I would have went with them. Obviously, the PC makers didn't think that much of BEoS at the time. It also comes down to how good the product is. If Microsoft was selling a crappy product, how many PC makers would keep including it on their systems? There wouldn't be many. There is only so much leverage you can apply before common sense sets in.

---

Common sense is rarely common in this world. Money talks and if people want an inferior product and want to pay for it...so be it. If the world worked exactly as common sense dictates it should, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt after the release of Windows 95. People flocked to stores and tried to be the first to buy Windows 95 at midnight upon release only to discover how full of bugs it was. When you think about it, PC makers cater mainly to new PC users who want the biggest and best and newest for their systems. Its like the VHS vs Betamax wars of years ago. Betamax was superior and common sense dictated it should prevail over VHS, but you know the story...

Look, Nightfall. If we let BeOS fall by the wayside in your "corporate war" and then let's say Apple closes shop and maybe many *nix companies/users go by the wayside... what will we be left with then? We'll be left with less choices.

Choices, you see, are what keep other companies in check. It's what keeps companies like Microsoft from charging exorbitant fees for their OSes. If we let Mac OS, Linux, BSD, QNX, etc. go the way of OS/2 and BeOS then who knows how much MS will charge us then?

We *need* competition. I'll repeat that again for you: We need competition

Competition makes businesses (theoretically) fair in their prices and also forces companies to make better products. If you can't see that then you're going to be paying a crapload for Windows in a few years when MS has no other competitors (if this monopoly suit fails, that is).

As I've pointed out before, Microsoft charges $299 for Windows XP Pro. You can get Mac OS X for $129 and you get Mac OS 9 for free. Why then does MS charge so much? Because they can. Because they have a monopoly in the PC world and as more and more competitors fall, the price of Windows increases. It's been steadily going up and up as more and more competitors go out of business. And, as I said before, if they're the only one in business be prepared to pay a lot more for it.

quote:

---

Common sense is rarely common in this world. Money talks and if people want an inferior product and want to pay for it...so be it. If the world worked exactly as common sense dictates it should, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt after the release of Windows 95. People flocked to stores and tried to be the first to buy Windows 95 at midnight upon release only to discover how full of bugs it was. When you think about it, PC makers cater mainly to new PC users who want the biggest and best and newest for their systems. Its like the VHS vs Betamax wars of years ago. Betamax was superior and common sense dictated it should prevail over VHS, but you know the story...

---

You also have a very valid point. I do wish that users had a choice of operating systems upon purchase of a new system. Windows 95 was probably the biggest piece of crap I have seen. If the PC makers didn't put it on every system that was released, and instead offered BEoS as a alternative, things may be different now.

said by Nightfall:

---

What is going to stop mom and pop computer stores from suing Best Buy when they are driven out of business? What is going to stop local grocery stores from suing Meijer or Walmart when they are forced to close their doors?

---

The problem with your analogy is that Best Buy doesn't pay each customer money not to go to the Mom and Pop store. It's been well documented that Microsoft (Best Buy) pays it's OEM manufacturers (HP, Compaq, etc.) money (actually, MS threatens to "fine" them) not to go with other OS'es (Mom and Pop stores). So your analogy is null and void.

It's not that Microsoft is the dominant platform that people like me are upset. It's the techniques (read: illegal) MS used/uses to get there that upset us.

said by CFeicht:

---

People do have a choice. Format the drive and install the OS of your choice.

---

It's not as easy as that. First off you have to know how to install the operating system and all of its components. Most computer users have trouble setting up email. Then you have to make sure the hardware is compatible, and that can be a real issue if you don't have the proper drivers. Then you have software compatibility as well as final configuration.

All in all it's not really a choice for most users because they do not have the expertise the really follow through with that change. Unless alternative operating systems come preloaded into the hardware along with a suite of compatible software preloaded then there really isn't much of a comparison. Put Windows on an even playing field with the rest of the PC compatible OS's out there. As soon as I see a fair number of PC manufacturers make systems preloaded with non-Windows operating systems and programs I will believe Microsoft is starting to play by the rules.

What are you talking about? Please explain yourself.

Here's a simple solution to all of you that think that MS is an evil empire and/or that their software is crap.

You live in a free country with a free market economy, so:

1.) Delete all MS software from your hard drive (if it exists).
2.) Don't buy products from or do business with a company that uses MS technology in its operations.
3.) Refuse to work for a company that uses MS products.
4.) Don't go to any website or server that relies on MS technology.
5.) Cancel your hotmail/MSN account (if it exists) and never send e-mail to any MSN/Hotmail member again.
6.) Don't let your child (or you) go to a school that teaches Microsoft products as part of its curriculum or uses it in its computer labs.

It's simple, if you don't like MS, boycott them... don't sit there at your home computer running XP and Internet explorer and rant about how Microsoft sucks! If you really believe in what you say, then live by it!
If you're not willing to fully boycott MS on all its fronts, then perhaps you should reconsider the vigor with which you condemn it!

quote:

---

Look, Nightfall. If we let BeOS fall by the wayside in your "corporate war" and then let's say Apple closes shop and maybe many *nix companies/users go by the wayside... what will we be left with then? We'll be left with less choices.

---

Its not my corporate war. This is the way things have been for ages.

There are a lot of "lets say" in there, but you are right we will be left with less choices. However, are they choices people would go with in the first place? I don't know many computer illerate users that would go with Linux over Windows XP when buying a new PC. 75% of the users out there want something easy to use and work with.

quote:

---

Competition makes businesses (theoretically) fair in their prices and also forces companies to make better products. If you can't see that then you're going to be paying a crapload for Windows in a few years when MS has no other competitors (if this monopoly suit fails, that is).

As I've pointed out before, Microsoft charges $299 for Windows XP Pro. You can get Mac OS X for $129 and you get Mac OS 9 for free. Why then does MS charge so much? Because they can. Because they have a monopoly in the PC world and as more and more competitors fall, the price of Windows increases. It's been steadily going up and up as more and more competitors go out of business. And, as I said before, if they're the only one in business be prepared to pay a lot more for it.

---

This BEoS lawsuit isn't a valid suit. All they are doing is complaining that they got outworked by Microsoft and now they want a piece of the pie.

But lets look at what you just brought up.

They already have a foothold on the PC industry. You think they are going to be charging a huge amount. The fact of the matter is no one knows. I really don't see their prices as excessive. Lets say you build a new PC and don't have a upgrade. $300 isn't that much to pay for software. Break it down. You use it for 3 years, that is less than $8 a month. If you buy a new PC from a dealer, then you get the OS as part of the system. It takes money to make a quality operating system. You think a billion lines of code is free to make and support?

This argument could go on and on. I do agree that competition is a good thing. However, I have yet to see a company come out and challenge Microsoft in the PC market. Linux just isn't going to cut it in its current form right now.

We could carry on this discussion in another forum, but I believe that this lawsuit is stupid and totally irrevelant.

Fact: BEoS is dying/dead.
Fact: Microsoft has a foothold on the industry.
Fact: BEoS believes it can make a quick buck by suing Microsoft and claiming they never had a chance.

I am just saying this opens the door for all those small town grocery stores that were driven out of business because of a big Walmart. How about the mom and pop computer stores that close their doors cause Best Buy undercuts em? Where do these lawsuits stop?

quote:

---

The problem with your analogy is that Best Buy doesn't pay each customer money not to go to the Mom and Pop store. It's been well documented that Microsoft (Best Buy) pays it's OEM manufacturers (HP, Compaq, etc.) money (actually, MS threatens to "fine" them) not to go with other OS'es (Mom and Pop stores). So your analogy is null and void.

It's not that Microsoft is the dominant platform that people like me are upset. It's the techniques (read: illegal) MS used/uses to get there that upset us.

---

PC Makers can tell Microsoft to shove it at any time. However, is there something better out there? Nope. They are under no obligation to go with Microsoft, but they make the best right now. Why would PC makers want to shoot themselves in the foot and go with a substandard OS?

Threatning to fine them? Please. Sorry, but that didn't happen. I bet they did say, "If you cease to put our OS on your computers we will charge you $$$$$ to get your corporate licensing back." Shady yes, but not illegal.

As I said, we should move this to another forum. It is getting out of hand and WAY off topic.

I see now. Your original post was a troll. You got me. Apologies to all who had to read this thread.

said by Nightfall:

---

Until Microsoft is proven in a court of law to be a monopoly and using illegal tactics, what they didn't isn't illegal...in the scope of the law.

---

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court of law.

That's why they are facing sanctions right now...

said by JYoung:

---

said by Nightfall:

---

Until Microsoft is proven in a court of law to be a monopoly and using illegal tactics, what they didn't isn't illegal...in the scope of the law.

---

If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court of law.

That's why they are facing sanctions right now...

---

True, but the lawsuit was thrown out I believe and a new judge was assigned to the case. Who knows what will happen or when for that matter.

said by Nightfall:

---

Until Microsoft is proven in a court of law to be a monopoly and using illegal tactics, what they didn't isn't illegal...in the scope of the law.

---

They HAVE been proven in a court of law to be abusing their monopoly. Do you remember the anti-trust case that's been going on over the past few years. The verdict is already in. Microsoft was found guilty. Then Microsoft wanted an appeals court to review the court decision. The appeals court did so and supported the verdict 100%. The only thing left is passing sentence. Judge Jackson screwed that up when he pushed for an extreme punishment with the breakup decree. The whole issue now is what to do with Microsoft now that they are found guilty.

As far as Be Inc is concerned they now have a legal precedent regarding MS's illegal activity and apparently they have evidence to back it up. So the question isn't whether or not MS is guilty, because it's a fact they are. The question is does Be Inc have a legitimate case.