Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

How is FUD NPOV?

Could someone explain to me how on earth the statement "Microsoft has been using FUD..." is supposed to be NPOV?

Because it is demonstrably true that Microsoft has been using fear, uncertainty, and doubt to fight the open source movement. As the article states, Microsoft has asserted that the GPL threatens intellectual property, and that open source software is less secure, more expensive, and more attractive to terrorists than proprietary software is. Microsoft itself uses the term in the Halloween documents. The marketing tactics are not so much to advertise Microsoft as they are to drive people away from open source software. What part of this do you disagree with? - Brian Kendig 18:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with no part of it whatsoever, but whether I agree with a statement or not is not the point when it comes to whether it is appropriate for an entry in an encyclopaedia. I just had a look at the FUD entry and it seems to me to be clearly perjorative - see this part especially: "By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well-known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its wares, regardless of the relative technical merits." It follows that by claiming Microsoft is using it we are casting them in a negative light and therefore we need to state clearly who believes that. As the authors of the entry we are not allowed to hold that position ourselves, regardless of how demonstrably true or not we might believe it to be. Much as the entry about Adolf Hitler isn't allowed to say "Hitler was an evil man". Instead we say what Hitler did and let the facts speak for themselves.
I agree that FUD is an inherently POV term. What constitutes FUD is subjective, so it can't be "demonstrably true" whether or not Microsoft has used it. I also believe that they've used FUD, but that's just my belief. You can't prove that someone is using "fear, uncertainty and doubt" - three very subjective emotions - to further an argument. I think the phrase should say "Microsoft's critics accuse..." or something like that, with a citation. Rhobite 21:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
"Microsoft has been using various channels on the Internet and in popular media [citation?] to fight the open source movement, claiming (with the help of think-tank organizations funded by Microsoft) that the GPL is a "viral license" which threatens intellectual property and that open source software is less secure, more expensive, and more attractive to terrorists than proprietary software is. However, critics say [citation goes here] that Microsoft's claims are merely FUD." Clearly an imperfect edit which is why I'm loath to make any changes to the article as is without more discussion, but that proposal conveys the gist of an entry I would not object to.
Be bold! Although it appears so at times, the philosophy here isn't "all talk and no action." I think that edit is good, go for it. But don't be surprised when someone else makes it even better. Rhobite 22:17, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't have any dog in this particular fight but if that's what FUD means (I'd never heard of it before) then I would say that it most certainly is NPOV -- how could anyone possibly deny that it isn't? I suppose that it could be qualified, as usual, in the article by writing: "Some people (or Many observers) believe that Microsoft has been using FUD etc....) In any case, I think that "FUD" is a slangy term that should not be used in this context. Hayford Peirce 19:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The term "FUD" has been in use for thirty years now; I'd say it's well-established and safe to use, especially in a technological context. And I don't think qualifying it is necessary here - it describes a specific kind of marketing tactic which is unarguably in use by the company in question; cushioning it would be like saying "Some people believe that Bill Clinton was impeached..." - Brian Kendig 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. Impeachment is a procedural matter, while fear, uncertainty and doubt are emotions. Rhobite 21:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Impeachment is also a strictly factual matter -- one can go back through the archives of the New York Times, for instance, and find articles and photographs of the ongoing process in the Congress. "Fear, doubt, and uncertainy" are subjective terms for the most part. Fear obviously exists as an emotion, but one man's fear is another man's non-fear, or scorn, or laughter, or disdain. I don't think an encyl. article should use such a subjective term, nor do I think it should use such a techie, slangie, term. FUD may have existed for 30 years in narrow confirms of certain tech circles, but it is certainly not in general use. Ask yourself, for instance, if your 70-year-old grannie with a degree in English from Radcliffe who has written travel articles for the Nat. Geo. would know what the hell you were talking about if she clicked on the Microsoft article. I sincerely doubt it.... Hayford Peirce 22:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still disagree. I believe that FUD is a proven and not uncommon marketing tactic (it refers not to the emotions themselves, but to the attempt to trigger these emotions), and I believe that it can easily be shown that Microsoft has created advertisements (and funded advertising and studies) which state or imply that Bad Things will happen to people who use open source software. However, I'm willing to go along with the majority opinion here. All I ask is that instead of saying "Microsoft claims that open source software is less secure, more expensive, and more attractive to terrorists; however, critics say that Microsoft's claims are merely FUD" that instead you say something like "... more attractive to terrorists; this kind of misinformation is known as FUD." If you want a better background on the history of Microsoft and FUD, do a Google search on it; it returns almost 95,000 hits (and another 30,000 in Google Groups). [1] - Brian Kendig 03:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now you suggest the article describe Microsoft's claims as "misinformation" - this is even more of a blatant opinion than calling it "FUD" without qualifiers is. With due respect Brian, you're obviously letting your personal opinion on this issue badly cloud your understanding of the principles of NPOV.
I apologize if it seems I'm letting any personal opinion bias this - in my perspective, I'm trying to make sure the article calls a spade a spade, and doesn't wander into POV by declining to call something what it is. Microsoft has been notorious over the past two decades for its use of FUD, and trying to trivialize this in the article would be misrepresenting reality. Specific to open source: when a Microsoft-funded thinktank claims that the spread of open source software will make it easier for terrorists to hack into US computer networks [2], or that using any GPL'ed code in a classified government software project would require the government to publish the entire source code of its project [3], I honestly don't see how this could be called anything other than misinformation. Is this not FUD? - Brian Kendig 05:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion this is NPOV because Microsoft decribe their campaign as "spreading FUD" in their own documents (which Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have personally confirmed to be accurate). IMO `FUD' is not slangy; but the alternative word, `terrorism', could be used (although unfortunately it has started to gain connotations with killing--as opposed to just FUD--in recent years).
-Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley (c)(t) 20:06, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Following the advice of user Rhobite above I have made my suggested edit. As a cite for the FUD claim I've provided a link to what I think is a good rebuttal of Microsoft anti-Linux FUD from Bruce Perens. I'm not sure that this is the ideal link for the purpose however, so would be interested to see if someone else has a better one that could be put there instead.

Editing of "misleading comments"

I would have expected this edit of the article 131.107.3.85 (Talk) (Removed misleading comments about mismatched dlls and lack of memory protection) to have been accompanied here by an explanation of why the comments are considered misleading. I do not think they were and the anonymous culling of them is annoying. I think they could have been improved - but cut? No. Paul Beardsell 23:08, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that there was no commentary here - remember that an anonymous edit is 99% surely a new user, who wouldn't know "better". As for whether the text should have been removed, let's start discussing - for posterity, here are the removed paragraphs:
Microsoft software makes heavy use of software re-use. Whereas this provides some advantages it also leads to complex interdependencies between software packages. Installing one package can break another where they use incompatible versions of the same DLL, for example. Similar problems exist in other operating systems also e.g. Linux.
Microsoft operating systems do not protect the data memory or even the program memory of one process from being overwritten by another process. This can mean, for example, that crashing the Microsoft web browser can also crash the operating system GUI.
Evidently, the person who wrote that parent comment has no idea what they are on about. Ta bu shi da yu
The first is completely redundant, since it is true of just about every (reasonably large) Operating System under the sun, whether made by Microsoft or not; I completely agree with its deletion. The second may have some merit, I suppose, if it could be reworded to be more technically correct - which Microsoft OSes have this problem? To what extent is this different from other OSes? For that matter, to what extent is it true? - IMSoP 23:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I came here to comment on the same subject. I put a note at Talk:131.107.3.85. I think the DLL issue should be mentioned, perhaps something along the lines of "Like other operating systems, Microsoft Windows supports software re-use. Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs) are sometimes replaced, which can result in compatibility issues. Recent versions of Microsoft Windows support methods for avoiding these problems". However, I think this would be more appropriate for the Microsoft Windows article.
As for protecting the memory, they do. The specific problem with Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer is that they share the same code, so crashing one often crashes the other.
Scott McNay 03:59, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Sharing the same code does not cause two processes to interfere on other operating systems. On Linux a serious memory management kernel bug would be required to have that effect. The reason the failure of one process can affect another on (certain versions of?) Windows is because of (a) a lack of inter-process memory protection and (b) a lack of protection of the "text segment" (i.e. the code in memory) from being overwritten by a process. I think also these comments should be removed to Microsoft Windows - I should have done that rather than try to improve the incorrect statements I replaced. All we need here is a mention of certain weaknesses and strengths in Windows and to provide a link. Paul Beardsell 07:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree that technical strengths and weaknesses of Windows a) should be discussed, b) in the article about Windows rather than Microsoft. I do feel that "DLL hell" (a phrase which, in typical Microsoft fashion, Microsoft itself has begun to use in its marketing--in order to praise their own resolution of a self-inflicted and avoidable problem), even if similar problems exist in other OSes (Apple classic OS extension conflicts, anyone?). "DLL hell" was a salient feature of the Microsoft Windows user experience during the 1990s and deserves a short, suitably NPOV discussion.
Microsoft software has a characteristic "flavor" to it, even if the flavor represents only a relatively small departure from general contemporary practice, and, to the extent this can be done while maintaining an NPOV, this should be discussed. Nobody would blink twice at a statement that Mahler tends to write long symphonies that include choral segments. Nobody would waste time saying "Well, everyone else does too, that's just normal for modern symphonies, look at Beethoven." "Yeah, but Beethoven's symphonies aren't THAT long. Even the Ninth fits on a single CD." "That's only because Sony designed the CD to fit the Ninth." "Bloat, that's what it is. These younger programmers think nothing of wasting score real estate. The old-timers like Haydn could write a fully functional symphony with less than a 15-minute runtime. Now it takes seven times as long to get the job done. All the advances in high-speed metronomes are being negated by utterly inefficient composers..." Dpbsmith 13:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The problem with this analogy is that you're likening the creation of an operating system to art. While to some extent I believe that engineering is an art, in this case the analogy is a little stretched. Most people would agree on what an operating system is, and what duties it should perform. That being the case, the number of possible engineering solutions is limited, and however it is tackled, the end result will be, by and large, a similar feature set, executed in a similar amount of space with similar performance. For example, most OS's of the Linux/Unix/BSD/Mac OS X type turn in similar performances on the same hardware, and offer similar features, while retaining their individual "flavours". If an OS turns up that is well outside these expected parameters, one has to ask whether that's simply because it was executed differently - in other words, a consequence of its artists' quirks, or whether in fact, the engineering is flawed. Graham 22:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I was saying about Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, go open My Computer, and type a URL into the address bar. Or open IE and type "C:\" into the address bar. The point is that it's a single process with multiple threads; if one thread causes a problem for the main module, all the windows opened by the process are gone, whether they're Windows Explorer windows or Internet Explorer windows. (This seems to be dependent upon the settings in Windows Explorer).

I agree that Windows discussions shouldn't be in Microsoft aricle, except for business issues.

Scott McNay 03:44, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

You've properly identified another reason I was ignoring why a screw up (to use a technical term) in one window affects other windows: They are being managed by different threads of the same process. There is no inter-thread memory protection and so one thread can overwrite the data of another. (This is a Linux problem with threads also.) Also the in-memory text segment shared by the threads can be corrupted by one thread because (some versions of?) MS Windows does not protect the text segment. (Linux does not have that problem.) "Threads are an abomination" is a worthy title for another article. File under "Religion". MS Windows is not good at starting new processes - it's very expensive - out of necessity threads are used. Linux/Unix rightly (righteously!) mostly uses different processes for different tasks rather than using threads. Amen. Paul Beardsell 06:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MS backwards compatability

I don't get how Microsoft is better at backwards-compatibility than other software companies. Don't they intentionally break MSWord's file format to force people to upgrade? Apparently, even their webpage doesn't render properly in older versions of IE... Paullusmagnus 22:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right, many purely software companies are better than MS at the task of some backwards compatibility.
Yet MS is better at backwards compatibility than those combined hardware-OS producers which have come up with new hardware and OS systems which break totally or in an irregular fashion with their previous offerings. I come from a field (librarianship) where the biggest computer maker in the world has been cursed mightily by systems librarians over more than 30 years (this goes back to before the birth of MS and stretches on today) because of incompatibility over time, and other aggravations. Somebody has put in a date of 1986 as a break-off point. I am not sure of that but I will not contest it. The partial incompatibility aspect makes any discussion diffcult and gives a convoluted encyclopedia article. AlainV 04:14, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Why is the February 2004 link not working?

"Microsoft is about on par with other large technology companies for acquisitions"

"(Microsoft is about on par with other large technology companies for acquisitions)" Is this true? I wonder what exactly this means. If it's something like acquisitions/profit, then that's not much evidence that Microsoft innovates at all. It's such a vague statement that I have removed it.

More bias issues

I have the feeling that this article is not entirely un-biased :). Ofcourse there should be information about the 'bad' side of Microsoft - I simply loved the 'public perception' part, it was like reading a history book 100 years from now (unless M$ will get world domination :)). However, sometimes I think it is a bit overdone, even though I'm no particular Microsoft-lover myself. The 'the future' section for example starts out with putting up quite a case for open source software, and I do not think that is what this topic is about. It is difficult, I understand, to find a good balance between pro-Microsoft and anti-Microsoft, but I think it's balancing a bit towards the latter. Not nessecarily bad, on the other hand I'm not sure if that's good either. Grauw 16:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Microsoft and SCO

That "Microsoft and SCO v. IBM" text I removed... If someone wants it back desperately, I think it's best to just put an external link to the story on the Halloween documents page. Grauw 00:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the SCO thing could be mentioned in a sentence or two rather than completely eliminated, eh? Krupo 01:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The details of SCO's financing through Baystar/Microsoft is not a significant part of Microsoft's business history to warrant a separate heading. Perhaps a link under see also. Zsweden
Should get a mention in a section. The para I put in on think tank funding should probably go in the same section - David Gerard 13:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me Zsweden... Any reader would rather be interested in a global story about the Microsoft cases than an elaboration on one such specific case. After all, if you put one in, why not the others too. I guess that maybe I was a bit too rash (but hey, it's a Wiki :)), but this is good. If someone wants specific details, he/she can now look it up in its dedicated Wikipedia entry. Grauw 00:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
I am thinking about creating a "legal challenges" heading and including the monopoly/antitrust and an index to other lawsuits? I agree with previous comments that the legal aspects are an important part of Microsoft and could be very interesting if we could have an informed debate about some of Microsoft's practices and maybe relate these to specific cases. Zsweden 02:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I want to get some feedback on these ideas to improve the structure of the article before I make any edits:

  • Merging the security discussion and security problems area
  • Re-organizing the products part according to the 7 divisions of Microsoft. There is for example no mention of the Business Solutions part of Microsoft.
  • Re-writing the future of Microsoft based on the business plans of the company. See for example [4]
  • Moving the current future which focuses on Linux to "Major Competitors" Zsweden

I have started making some edits to improve the structure of the page as noted above. Zsweden 19:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Structure is good. How consistently have they kept things to the seven divisions? - David Gerard 13:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if this answers your question, but my impression is that since it is both a financial and an organizational structure that is imposed by the 7 divisions:
  • Each product needs to be clearly identified to a division at any given time. However, things move around from time to time to reflect the strategy of the company, for example the embedded group was just moved into the mobile group to bring the initiatives closer.
  • Also, part of MSFT strategy has always been to get groups to work closely (a.k.a integrated innovation) so there is co-operation both on marketing and development aspects. Zsweden 00:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Under "Eating our own dog food": Within Microsoft the expression "eating our own dog food" is used to describe the policy of using Microsoft products inside the company. It can be very difficult for management, support staff, and even software developers to get permission to use software from Microsoft competitors. This policy is explained by the desire to make sure Microsoft employees are familiar with Microsoft products. One of the effects of this policy is to push the development of products which software developers find useful for their immediate needs, regardless of the perceived needs of the general market. I'm removing "this policy is explained by the desire..." because I don't know what Microsoft's actual explanation of the policy is. And about the policy pushing development of products for the developers' immediate needs instead of the needs of the general market, does anyone know of any specific examples where this has happened? If not, then that sentence should also be removed. Brian Kendig 12:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the microsith.com link is dead - I'll remove it but I'm leaving this comment here in case it was a temporary server 'outage' --Krupo 01:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

In cases like that, commenting out the HTML with <!-- --> is useful - David Gerard 13:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Ease of use"

I dispute the section of the article which touts Microsoft's ease of use as a revolutionary concept or as one which continues to this day. Yes, I think the common interface, backwards compatibility, and interconnectedness helped Microsoft in its early years, but these days such things are common. In this day and age, Microsoft is being widely criticized for having a user interface which is inconsistent and overly complicated, requiring an additional layer of "wizards" to handle it. Countless books (such as "Windows for Dummies") and web sites (such as Annoyances.org) are dedicated to helping people make sense of Microsoft interface confusion. I think it's silly and POV to say that Microsoft's position ... can be completely traced to better serving the customer needs because it's well known that its position has MUCH to do with predatory practices and FUD. I also dispute the section which begins Critics claim that the apparent simplicity of the products... because I don't know anyone who's used Microsoft software for very long and would still say that it has "apparent simplicity." I think this section of the article is POV and needs some serious balancing. Brian Kendig 03:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the section reads more like a praise from an MS Web page, but I disagree about balancing. What it really needs is grounding. Just why is the MS Windows interface so easier and/or simple than the Amiga one or some of the implementations of Unix based ones like QNX Photon? And in what particular aspects. In a controversy filled article like this one all gneralisations should have some form of contact with real happenings on a screen. AlainV 09:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Break up the article

At 37KB, I think this article is way too long. What would y'all say to breaking it into "Microsoft" (focusing only on the company and its products) and "Microsoft controversy" (focusing on the legal battles and the public perception)? Brian Kendig 05:47, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could do with a better title. (No, nothing springs to mind ...) The main article would need a few-paragraph summary of the larger article, of course. - David Gerard 11:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I support breaking up the article. Regarding what to move out. I vote:
* Move out "Advantages and Disadvantages": which collect a lot of the opinions in the article under one main heading.
* Move out Monopoly: United States v. Microsoft is a good article which overlaps a lot with the Monopoly section.
* Re-write/Move "The future": It is less about Microsoft's roadmap than various opinions on Linux vs. Windows which be moved out.
* Move out Public Perception: It will be a great intro to the new article. Microsoft Controversy" sounds good to me as a new title.
I agree with David about having a short summary of the new articles in the main Microsoft article and linking to the longer pieces. Zsweden 13:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I created Microsoft controversy and moved a bunch of stuff from this article over there. Please have a look at it, and edit both articles as necessary. I know there should be more references from Microsoft to Microsoft controversy, and perhaps some of the information in the latter should be moved or copied back to the former. Brian Kendig 17:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do Microsoft programmers really "eat their own dog food?"

Although this statement is frequently made, I wonder how much truth there is in it.

I was puzzled by some problems and limitations with Microsoft Visual SourceSafe, and with its apparently lack of continuing development, with few recent updates. I've given up on ever getting branches and the merge feature to work in a reasonable way. On asking around and doing some Web searches, a frequent "explanation" is that ClearCase is the predominant source management tool used within Microsoft and that Visual SourceSafe is not, in fact, used much. I don't work for Microsoft so I can't say whether or not this is true and, if true, I don't know whether it's an anomaly. Dpbsmith 01:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe Sourcesafe is one of only a few exceptions to the "dog food" policy. I've heard that most products do get used internally, such as Office betas, Windows, and even Visual Studio. I read an excellent blog entry by an employee explaining the issue with using SourceSafe (it's completely inadequate). I couldn't find the blog but it confirmed that most products do get used internally, with betas spreading out to less technical users as testing progresses. Rhobite 01:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sourcesafe is the primary exception - mainly because we all know it's worthless. The source control tools used by Microsoft are proprietary (and unfortunately rather antiquated). Dogfooding is a big deal though; we're strongly encouraged to dogfood just about every office application and service pack we could reasonably use on a daily basis, and to upgrade to cutting edge versions constantly, mainly as a method for improving quality. Deco 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Schofield keeps a list of MS employees with blogs. He calls it the blogroll. It is on the right hand column on his blog site here : http://radio.weblogs.com/0133184/ . Up to now all the MS blogs I have read confirm this canine nourishment method. Personally though I find most blogs repetitive and boring and much prefer reading the best of the books that come out now and then on the topic of MS and the best of the many business periodical articles that deal with its internal workings. And all these paper sources also confirm the continuation of their dog food practice, most of the time. AlainV 04:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Financial information

I'm looking for financial info about the company, and more specifically:

  • How much of the company's income comes from sales of Windows and Office?
  • What is the profit rate for Windows and Office?

Gu@k@ 00:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Following along on that, does anyone know what the percentages of stockholders are roughly? How much does Gates own, how much Allen, etc... --Hullbr3ach 20:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Linux swipe

"Microsoft's future in the world marketplace is closely tied to the future of the open source software development model in the long term, and to the future of several products of that open source model in the short term. Two of those products, the GNU/Linux operating system and the OpenOffice.org office suite, directly compete with two of Microsoft's most popular products, the Windows operating system and the Office application suite. These products threaten Microsoft's current dominance of the operating system and office suite mark"

I think that this statement sways from the truth, and if anyone else comes along in accordance they should delete the paragraph. Linux has already had at least one other swipe at Microsoft in the article. I doubt any pragmatic statistics would back up the claims of "directly compete" and "threat Microsoft's current dominance".

Alterego 11:39 PM GMT+1 7/12/2004 Update: Deleted.

More on the above

I deleted much bias out of this article. If you need an example of how to write an unbiased article about a large business please see IBM. See also NPOV. See also Common criticisms of Microsoft For the compare view of the changes i've made see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Microsoft&diff=0&oldid=4600851

  • If you're gonna say flatly that a court found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust monopolies, then you also have to tell something about the outcome and whether this finding is relevant or not.

For instance, if you write about the old Standard Oil Company, it isn't enough to write: "Standard Oil was found guilty of illegal monopolies. Period. End of statement. New Paragraph."

You have to add something like: "As a result of this judgment, Standard Oil was broken up into 12 competing units, Standard Oil of New York, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of California. Etc. etc."

The same with an article about Philip Morris. You could write: "Philip Morris has been found guilty of many offenses involving the sale of cigarettes and has been ordered to pay hundreds of billions of dollars." That's true, of course. But what you have to add is that many of these judgments have been subsequently reduced, or completely thrown out, or are under appeal, and that up to this point Philip Morris has not paid any of these hundreds of billions.

The same is true with Microsoft. Sure, the court in Baltimore found them guilty -- but Microsoft then appealed and a lot of Motz's judgment was thrown out. Microsoft then negotiated settlements with the Justice Department and most of the states. To the satisfaction of Microsoft. Have you noticed today that because they have negotiated successful settlements that they now feel that they can pay out $35 billion dollars in a one-time dividend to its stockholders, the largest payout in corporate history?

I'm not saying that future judgments against Microsoft may not affect its operation -- I'm just saying that a bald statement about them being guilty of something isn't enough.

Many large companies, in fact most of them, are constantly in lawsuits with one person or another, or one government agency or another. They pay fines from time to time. Or change their way of doing business. But it's not enough just to say about them that they were found guilty of something. You gotta tell the reader what the consequences of this were.Hayford Peirce 17:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Bush DOJ made it clear that they didn't want to continue aggressive litigation and most states went along with this. The antitrust settlements haven't really affected Microsoft's business although they have placed restrictions on Microsoft's software, mostly the ability to use other software than what's bundled with Windows. Rhobite 17:26, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • The lead article on page 1 of today's New York Times was the Microsoft dividend. Later in the article they go on to say, paraphrasing Microsoft's general counsel, I believe: "On June 30, a federal appeals court handed Microsoft a convincing victory in ending its domestic antitrust problems, upholding the settlement the company reached with the government two years ago."
  • New para in the story: "The company has also resolved three-quarters of the state class-actions file, Mr. Smith said. The company's appeal of a $603 million fine the European Commission imposed in March is still pending, 'but at least we have a better sense of the known risk,' Mr. Connors said."Hayford Peirce 18:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning persuaded me that some mention of the legal outcome is needed in this article's first paragraph, if we're going to be mentioning the legal issues at all. I reworded it slightly - I don't feel we need a detailed explanation of the legal outcomes right there in the first paragraph; I hope my edit suffices. - Brian Kendig 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the paragraph concerning MicroSoft products -- I think it contains important information and should be maintained but rewritten. It *is* important info to say that Word replaced WordPerfect as the dominant wordprocessor, etc. (I myself have used WordPerfect for 19 years now and hate Word, not to mention Windows, but facts are facts). The paragraph could easily be rewritten with no trace of POV.Hayford Peirce 19:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made an attempt to do so; I removed the first sentence (Some of these products were successful, and some were not.) and moved the last (about Microsoft Bob) to "Other offerings." - Brian Kendig 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft/Archive_2&oldid=512722518"