Thomas Good wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Self wrote:
>
>> Speaking of chess, I wonder if perhaps the Halloween memos were not
>> "leaked" intentionally by Microsoft as a *gambit* in their legal defense
>> against the Department of Justice.
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>I am not familiar with this sort of opening...preferring the Sicilian
>to what appears to be the `Can of Worms' defence.
Gambit is not a chess opening. It is a type of move that feigns a serious
error, such as the giving away of a rook or even of one's queen, usually in
exchange for a decisive positional advantage. It may be a move of desperation
or simply a quick and dramatic way to win the game.
I am not saying they didn't make a serious error here, only that if you view
this like chess against a clever opponent you must look deeper and rule out
the possibility that it could work to their advantage in the larger field.
>It would seem either very ingenious or very dimwitted. Given
>the fact that Sun is claiming that Micro$oft has done *precisely* what
>the memo's author proposes - the `extension' of protocols.
I have no way of knowing whether this is an intentional move by Microsoft to
bolster its claim that it is not a monopoly or a complete surprise to them. If
it is a gambit their situation vs DOJ must be very desperate. They may also
have given away much more than they realized.
Here is something from CNET which echoes my suspicion - as a given.
http://www.cnet.com/Content/Reports/Trends/Linux/?st.cn.fd.gen.gp
<blockquote> Microsoft is taking the matter in stride. Recently, the company
proclaimed Linux a competitor to Windows NT in order to prove that Microsoft is
not a monopoly--and thus help its legal entanglements.
</blockquote>
>This faux pas has been picked up by the mainstream media (articles in
>the Washington Post and NY Times, amongst others.) In one article,
>some litigator mentioned examining the memos further - to see if any
>additional violations of antitrust statutes have ocurred...I found this
>information on the opensource page - there are some useful links.
>
>> Open Source operating systems, such as Linux and BSD, represent the only
>> credible *promise* of competition that can be raised against charges of
>> monoply. Although they have a dedicated following among hackers and
>> SysAdmins and ISP's they appear to have a long way to go before they become
>> serious competition to Microsoft on the desktop.
>
>The issue here is not the desktop. If you read the memos, they are concerned
>with thin server market share...not the client side of the house. As far
>as competing with M$ on desktops I'd be happy to debate this with you
>over a pint (or two ;-) ...I believe this is the agenda of one Donnie Barnes.
That, of course, would be the point of such a gambit, however, I think that
Microsoft is much more concerned, for the moment, with the desktop because that
is where the big dollars are and that is the source of their leverage into
other markets, including the server market. If their legal situation is indeed
threatening to break their desktop monopoly then they could well consider
giving ground and taking big losses on the server in order to maintain control
of the desktop. This retains the possibility of attacking the server at a later
date.
>> Consequently, it makes sense for Microsoft to exaggerate the threat of OSS
>> to deal with the immediate threat in the courts. If Microsoft is
>> dismembered by this legal action, as many people think it should be, it
>> will be much less effective in overcoming OSS than if it remains intact.
>It is possible that this gambit is rather clever and thus eludes me totally.
>God knows I find the brilliance of win98/NT equally elusive!
It may be that they have misinterpreted and underestimated the emerging forces
represented by Linux and Open Source, but with an entity like Microsoft, it is
only prudent to seriously consider the possibility that this error is
intentional and the result of careful analysis.
>Take care,
>Tom
>
> ---------- Sisters of Charity Medical Center ----------
> Department of Psychiatry
> ----
> Thomas Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Coordinator, North Richmond C.M.H.C. Information Systems
> 75 Vanderbilt Ave, Quarters 8 Phone: 718-354-5528
> Staten Island, NY 10304 Fax: 718-354-5056
>
>
--------------------------------------
Jim Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis
Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital
http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself
