[tlug] Re: [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

burlingk@example.com writes:

 > I have always wondered when people talk about Microsoft.
 > What have they actually done that was illegal?  I am a bit
 > confused. Maybe I missed something somewhere.

They've violated the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts.  The famous
"Microsoft tax" is an illegal tying arrangement, for example.  They've
engaged in various false or premature announcements, which they knew
were false or premature, with the intent of chilling demand for
competitors' products.  They attempted to enforce contracts requiring
that Exploder be installed as the default browser on Windows, and when
that wouldn't fly, they simply incorporated it in the OS.  AFAICR,
these were all civil violations, not criminal ones, but they were
illegal behavior.  In each case they were told to stop, they were
fined, and they paid damages, including punitive damages.

This is sort of like the deliberate fouls that occur in sports.
Honest citizens don't much like it, but the players all know it
happens and deal with it as part of the game.

 > When they first created DOS, it WAS Gates that did most of
 > the work on that project.  He programmed like a man possessed.

That's not the story I've heard....

 > That brings us to another issue.  When Windows 3.1, and 3.11
 > came out, the cost of a Unix license was insane.

The cost of DESQview and DESQview/X was not, and you didn't have to
double boot to do Japanese.  But QuarterDeck's products never had a
chance in the market, because everybody was watching for what IBM (and
Microsoft) would do next, and they were bound by their contracts to
pay for an installation of Windows on each PC they shipped, whether it
was installed or not.

This meant that something that was a small improvement was not worth
it to 90% of the market, and those of us who considered Windows
unusable had no choice but to move to 386BSD and/or Linux, because a
perfectly good product was killed dead by illegal restraints of trade,
and the damages awarded were not enough to resurrect it.

 > As much as we hate to admit it, Microsoft did not force the
 > world to use windows.  Their methods are a bit strong armed,
 > but in most cases are not unethical.  Their customer service
 > people may be inept (honestly, that borders unethical there),
 > but they do not force people to install windows either.

They did force the world to use Windows, though.  It took a court of
law to force them to stop insisting on those contracts, and there are
still plenty of PC makers (like Dell) who are happy to continue
playing that game.