Disgraceful. "Only in America" can you build a billion-dollar company only to have Big Brother tell you how you can run it.

*note to self: DO NOT base software company in America. Look into Canada*

It is ridiculous, its like telling stardock to give out the code for windowblinds to all the skinner sites.. theyll just use all the ideas and innovations that stardock have taken months and years to develop...

WinXP is what... about 35 million lines of code? Let's see how long it takes them to find something.

What is the justification for handing over the code? That would settle much of the debate or at least shed a light on it.

Microsoft is a huge part of the world economy, so what do we try to do? Destroy it. Isn't that just like most of us Americans, if we're not smart enough to succeed ourselves, make someone else do the work and say it’s unfair for them to reap the benefits.

You worked hard to get where you are today and had good luck in your favor. Because of this, you succeeded, while these people over here didn’t. We’re gonna give them some of your hard work just to even things out. Doesn’t this sound Outrageous? Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way in favor nor do I support Microsoft or it’s overpriced products, but I find it ridiculous for anyone to say that because MS is doing so well they need to hand out free beer, when the beer they are being forced to hand out is a goldmine that took forever to create.

IMO, WINXP is jUnK!
I also agree with 'paxx' MS with all that ungodly
$$$ they have.
I kinda (in a way) see MS being simaler to what Entron(typo) did, but on the software buseness(typo) level of it. (ie read 'kidconte' post above.

Okay, which of you dummies has dropped out of school before learning how to read?

"A US judge has told the software giant that its legal opponents should have the right to verify Microsoft's claims about the innards of the flagship software."


texas explained things well up there ^^^

"The non-settling states have asked for Microsoft to make available a stripped down version of Windows. I.e. A version of Windows without IE, Media Player, etc. Microsoft says "No, It is impossible to remove them from the OS." The states are saying "If you want to say it's impossible, prove it.""


...as did Ramsey:

"MS contends that Internet Explorer (and I think a few other goodies) cannot be cleanly excised from Windows XP because it is an integral part of Windows. The states contend that Internet Explorer is enmeshed into Windows not because of real design integration, but because MS commingled the source codes of IE and the rest of Windows in a way that was not technically necessary. By giving the states the source code, consultants for the states' lawyers can verify if MS is telling the truth or blowing smoke."

paxx: "It's so amazingly indecent to have so much money. And to think so many people starve in the world..."

Gates does contribute a hell of a lot of money to various charities. And he does it without Big Brother telling him to.

I thought America was a capitali st nation, pseudo-communist airheads nothwithstanding.

Hmm. Paxx, you know that I respect your work and your opinions, but there is a certain lack of logic here.
Isn't the name for managed capitalism socialism?
"When Gates earns 4 million dollars per day (and he does), that means that probably because of that money he just gained a great number of people just died of hunger or other causes of poverty BECAUSE he earned that money." Extending that principle, would you say that Windows causes famine?
On the basis of history, I would offer to you that capitalism has fed more of the world's hungry masses than any alternative economy. The Soviet Union tried Lysenkoism in the 1950's, turning their farms into collectives. It was a disaster. Stalin of all people had to restore free market farms to increase production.
Turning Microsoft's code over to the states will not feed one hungry person. It may, however, greatly enrich the folks at AOL/Time Warner, who are involved in this litigation. I fear that this is a struggle between billionaires, unconcerned with any greater good.
(Don't think that I have abandoned my radical principles. I am in favor of lynching the folks that were in charge of Enron.)

I will never win this argument. I know that barbaric capitalism is greatly valued in the US, that the US people doesn't like governement intervention. That's what makes Canada and the US so different. We have laws to restrict abuse and to protect the people.

And about the logic of my previous statement, it's not so far fetched. There are a number of factor that makes a company and its stock holders rich. Sure one is overpriced product sales. Others are a monopolistic position where competing companies go bankrupt, stock values, etc. Economy is a complex process, it's like trying to explain the food chain. But although it's not a direct process (Bill Gates doesn't dig into people's pockets to take their money), in the end, that's the result: the richer the rich gets, the more poor people you get. Why is it so hard to understand, it's actually quite logical: if we all have 1000$ together and I take 950$, that only leave 50$ for all the rest of you.
It's actually quite logical, and statistics are there to prove it, just look it up: the rich are getting always richer and more people are getting poorer every day since the last 20 years. As it stands now, 4% of the american people owns 95% of the american money. That means the remaining 5% of the money for you and all the other 96% of the american population.
Now, if you're OK with the above figure and you are not shocked by its meaning, then I guess we might as well stop the conversation here.
Under the argument that the grotesquely rich people got there because they worked hard, does that mean that 96% of the american public is lazy? Is there only 4% of good americans?

Paxx:

You have an interesting philosophy. Let present mine in brief:

I look at government as a service provider. They're like the power company or the cable TV provider. I pay a free in exchange for a range of services such as roads, schools, police, national defense, etc.

In other matters, I expect the government to stay out of my way as much as possible. Let me work hard and abide by the laws in place that function as the "rules" of competing.

Sometimes, people end up becoming extremely wealthy. They come up with a product, good or service that is of massive demand and become hyper wealthy as a result. Sometimes they get there through a combination of breaking the rules and making good products/services.

The latter is the case with Microsoft. And while I blame Microsoft for their bad behavior and anti-competitive practices. I blame the government more. They are supposed to be the referrees. In hockey, if team A is cheating, it is up to the referees to stop it. But the government failed in its duty to stop Microsoft from cheating which is a shame because it is we consumers that are hurt.

But getting back to the distribution of wealth, it is not the government that creates that distribution of wealth. The government didn't make Bill Gates rich and it didn't make some homeless guy poor.

Continued...