Re: Re: How effective was Microsoft's FUD campaign, really?
I only touched on some of the highlights. There are many more items I could have brought up. And many of them go much deeper than the surface treatment I touched on.
Microsoft's Java trying to lock developers into Windows. But using techniques expressly forbidden by its contract. Which Sun sued for and won, IIRC, $1.2 Billion, and an injunction.
Then Microsoft copied Java and JVM to create C# and .NET. A close copy indeed. But with a few of Java's warts removed, and some genuine improvements. But the idea was the same. Take the best technology, add deliciously addictive sweeteners that lock developers in to the monopoly. The first hit is free, pay later. Yet Java and especially the JVM took off. One of the most sophisticated managed, GC enabled runtime engines on the planet. Used extensively for enterprise applications, major web applications, banking, and surprisingly: high speed trading where milliseconds count! JVM has had tons of third party research poured into it. Meanwhile .NET was a locked black box. Now many languages run on the JVM -- and all interoperate. You can pass data structures between languages. Once again, belatedly, Microsoft finally makes .NET open source, but mostly in a way that is a one way street leading back into the prison camp. Er, I should use a more positive spin like "walled garden".
Touching on IoT again, the world today is a bazaar abuzz with innovation unlike anything we have seen since the days when hobbyist magazines like Popular Electronics were popular before the IBM PC / Microsoft monopolies set in and locked everything up.
There is way, way more to Microsoft's history. Signing deals with cell phone manufacturers, and then setting about to put them out of business before the ink on the paper is even dry. And lest you think Nokia, I'm talking about back in the very early 2000's. And these kinds of deals had clauses that the company's IP went to Microsoft if they were to cease business.
The people running Atari do not understand intellectual property
These people seriously need to get some schooling about how intellectual property works.
The first and most obvious thing they did wrong makes their argument completely invalid. There are already other haunted house games. Atari needs to qualify their request by adding "... on a computer". The charm of that magical incantation would cure all defects in their patent application.
How effective was Microsoft's FUD campaign, really?
Let us consider just how effective Microsoft's FUD campaign really was.
Microsoft's entire history is one of creating and protecting a monopoly.
Microsoft prevented competing OSes by making contracts with OEMs that if the OEM ships a box with an alternative OS, that the OEM still must pay Microsoft as though it included Microsoft's product.
Microsoft prevented competing applications by manipulating APIs. Or moving certain important features into undocumented APIs that only its own applications could use.
When the web came along, Microsoft ignored it at first. Saying "it's just a fad". Yes, really!
Then they bought a browser (Spyglass) for $100,000 up front plus royalty percent of sales. Renamed it to Internet Explorer. Guess how many copies of IE have ever been "sold" ?
Microsoft worked to monopolize the web by both pushing developers towards major features only available in its browser, and working to frustrate standardization efforts.
Microsoft also tried to monopolize the server. IIS and FrontPage. FrontPage had a license that forbade you to ever disparage or write negatively about Microsoft or any of it's properties, Expedia, etc. Guess how much FrontPage got used once this news went viral? Meanwhile IIS was the most hacked web server on the planet. For years simple URL manipulation would allow remote command execution. Each fix was focused on the specific problem, so the broader problem continued.
At the start of the rise of Open Source, Microsoft started a huge FUD campaign. Meanwhile Microsoft continued protecting its monopoly as usual.
But the furry little mammals hidden in the holes in the rocks kept working, and working. FireFox materialized. It was radically superior. Within a few years, it had 50 % share of web users -- which was a major wake up call. After years and years of neglect and stagnation, we suddenly had IE 7, 8, 9, etc. Never quite achieving full compliance until it was way too late to matter.
Meanwhile, open source took over the servers. The data centers. Embedded devices. TiVos. Cameras. DVD players. TV sets. IoT. Anything that was not part of the desktop PC monopoly. Netbooks. Phones. Tablets.
Microsoft realized way too late it had to react. Windows Mobile never went anywhere. Android took over the world.
It became clearer and clearer that Microsoft was always playing catch up with open source. Even at the start of XP, the introduction of remote desktop access was a copy of what open source was already doing. Jump to today, Microsoft only got onto the Raspberry Pi 2, because it had enough power to run the core of Windows without any GUI.
Now Microsoft Loves Linux. (Like Sharks Love Fish, and Foxes Love Chickens.) Now it is clear Microsoft's best days are behind it. It plays catch up with everything. Developers use open source and Microsoft is trying to woo them back.
I have to admit that Ballmer's move to sell the Surface tablet was absolutely brilliant! In one single stroke, Microsoft pissed off: 1. Their developers, but forcing new APIs, and use of Microsoft's store, and terms of that store 2. Their OEMs, by directly competing with them, and undercutting them 3. Their customers who purchased the product . . . but the sales already reflect that. 4. Desktop PC users, the core of its business, by forcing them to use a UI that makes their work inefficient. Sacrifice the core business in a futile attempt to sell a sinking product that keeps refusing to take off. (WP 7, WP 8, Surface, Surface RT, etc)
We now live in an open source world. You have more Linux devices in your home already than you have Windows PCs or Macs combined. For all family members combined.
Microsoft is trying to embrace open source in ways that create a one-way street back to Microsoft. (A far worse approach than Apple has.)
So I'll ask: just how successful was Microsoft's FUD campaign? Maybe in the short term. But not in the long term.
Don't forget kids: open source is communist and a cancer. Don't be a freetard that uses open sores.
Whatever you might think of the EU's antitrust case against Google in other areas, this argument seems particularly ridiculous and just seems like Thomson and Rupert Murdoch's sour grapes over the fact that Google is a successful company.
There might be a point of misunderstanding here.
In the US, it is the job of the DOJ is to prosecute companies for breaking antitrust law. Hurting competition through unjust means.
It is the job of the EU to prosecute companies for being successful. Hurting competitors through innovative means.
Google needs to really, really use the nuclear option.
For an organization that has repeatedly made public anti-google rants, and now makes would could be taken as legal threats ("antitrust"), Google should just protect itself by permanently removing NewsCorp from all of Google's indexes.
That should make them happy. Google won't be scraping their content. Or 'stealing' anything from them.
And make it stick. No going back. Once they complain and want Google to re-list them in their indexes, Google should rightfully express legal concern, on advice of their counsel is even better, that NewsCorp and its CEO considers Google's indexing of their site to be an antitrust violation. Google, out of an abundance of caution has decided to take the safest course of action and permanently delist NewsCorp until the earlier of (1) all time, or (2) the universe has no remaining usable heat energy.
These idiots need to learn something. They obviously don't understand what they are talking about.
A Great Firewall of any nation really can be about national security
This applies to any nation. Not just China.
If position of those in power (which they may call "national security") is tied to keeping the populace ignorant of certain information, then a national firewall might really be a matter of "national security".
Witness how that term is used when a government goes after leaks or journalists who disclose information that does not harm the existential security of the country, but rather those in power. Or causes scandal.
A congress critter's love affair exposed. A secret off shore bank account disclosed. Tax evasion disclosed. Torture programs disclosed. Massive global and domestic surveillance exposed. Secret relationships with corporations exposed. War crimes exposed, but they support 'policy'.
And it's not a firewall. It's massive surveillance and censorship. That's not really the same thing as a firewall. We should call it what it is. Indiscriminate massive surveillance, and censorship.
I was about to suggest the same thing: that public defenders always cite this court case where the court believed these officers were lying and committing perjury.
This is not quite like a store clerk watching for a fraudulent check. There are not that many public defenders, and not that many cops. Certainly not compared to the number of store clerks and shoppers. It would be very possible for public defenders to maintain a list of lying officers and which previous court cases identify those officers as the liars they are.
And whose fault is it again that people no longer trust the police? That would be the police. It's their own fault. They either lie or help protect those who lie.
Re: "One charge of contempt of cop, sentence to be carried out immediately..."
Wow. Contempt of cop. Just by being in your own car before having any interaction at all with the police.
The cops can just see someone they don't like and decide to single them out. Make an example of them. Harass them. Invade their property and indeed their body cavities. And then still be convinced that they have not gone far enough to find what they were looking for.