Micro$oft or should i say…Micropoly dirty secrets

Or what micro$oft doesn’t want you to know!!!

Hoje com pouco para fazer resolvi estudar um pouco o percurso nada lisonjeiro da micro$oft, também por alguns e legitimamente chamada de micropoly.

A micropoly desde a sua concepção que usou todos os truques baixos para chegar onde está, e apesar de deter alguns 90% do mercado continua a usar os mesmo truques para dar uma única escolha aos consumidores, ou microsoft ou micropoly….

Os truques baixos que actualmente a micropoly está a executar com todo o seu poder económico visam tentar passar o seu formato fechado e não standard de ficheiros para office, o m$-ooxml, e para isso até no nosso país se tem servido desses truques.

A seguir coloco uma lista de sites onde os consumidores poderão obter mais informação de como a micro$oft desde sempre abusou do mercado e dos seus próprios clientes, passando por cima de tudo e de todos, incluindo leis, para chegar onde está, e para lá se manter.
Infelizmente na comunicação social nada disto é dito, apenas aparecem os habituais fait divers sobre a imensa fortuna acumulada por Bill Gates e Steve Ballmer entre outros.

m$-ooxml dirty tricks

OOXML em Portugal – CT 173 – Linguagem de descrição de documentos

Corrupt countries were more likely to support the OOXML document format


Reclamação, desagrado e repúdio pelo artigo “Office Open XML”, publicado na BIT

Diz NÃO ao OOXML: Comité presidido por Microsoft decide em seu favor

Notes from Portugal on the July 16th Meeting on Ecma-376

Diz NÃO ao OOXML: governo regional Andaluzo denuncia “falsificação” da Microsoft

Assalto planetário ou micro$oft dirty history

Dirty Tricks history

Este é sem sombra de dúvida um dos melhores sites sobre os truques baixos que a micro$oft desde a sua concepção sempre usou e abusou.

“MS does know how to advocate and implement standards (see Microsoft Discusses Open Standards (versus Open Source Software)).
It has rightly criticized AOL for blocking interoperatbility between different Instant Messaging systems and worked to set a global, unencumbered standard for all (see here, here and here).

On the other hand, MS has been paying out large amounts of money (9B$ I read somewhere in 2004) in court settlements for really dirty, and illegal tricks. A prime example is the way MS killed DR-DOS, but this is, stricktly speaking, not really an International Standards question, neither are the dirty Windows vs. OS2 and MS versus BeOS fights (which included standards as “weapons”). Also, MS is rather fond of trademarking common words like Windows, Office, SQL server, Word, and Office Open XML which seems to be targeted at confusing potential users of X-Windows, Office software, SQL, Word processing, and Open Office. A more recent illustration of how MS approaches standards was seen after MS acquired Virtual Earth with Seadragon in 2006. Note the consistent lying about standards by MS marketting (quote from Roblimo of Linux.com)”


Dissecting Microsoft

“There’s nobody getting rich (by) writing software”Bill Gates

Microsoft®’s goal, aside from making profit, is simple: to be the exclusive computing platform of all electronic devices, including home appliances and PCs, business workstations and servers (with Microsoft Windows), and mobile devices (with Microsoft Windows CE). To date Microsoft’s only successful method has been to implement the factory model of software development, maintaining high profits and limiting customer rights through restrictive licensing. Below the
financial success and shrewd business tactics lies a huge pile of mistaken foresight and missed opportunities.”

What’s So Bad About Microsoft?

“Why is it that Microsoft’s products keep mushrooming in size with each new release always requiring significantly more disk space and more processing power than the last time? They might claim it’s because of all the new features they add each time, but that’s only half the story.
The new features and the increased processing requirements are designed to fuel the process of perpetual upgrades.
This is Microsoft’s way of rubbing Intel’s back so that Intel will give Microsoft preferential treatment when it comes out with new chip specs.
It’s also Microsoft’s way of convincing consumers that their newer product versions are better because they are so much bigger.
Their new features are often superfluous but users must still deal with the overhead required
by the features even though most will never use the features.”


Why I hate Microsoft

“A personal, lengthy, but highly articulate outburst”

Apesar do título pesado é sem dúvida um excelente documento, factual.

From the title of this paper you may have guessed that I am not very impressed with the guys in Redmond. One might even say that my dislike for Microsoft is a pet hate gone out of control in an almost quixotic fashion. Why is this?

Of course I have been accused of personal antipathy, of being jealous of Bill Gates and his billions, and of being prejudiced against all things Microsoft without any reason whatsoever. None of this is true. I have nothing personal against Bill Gates. Why should I? I don’t know the man, I’ve never met him. I agree with those who say he might be the most successful
salesman in history. And I’ve always thought that even one billion in almost any currency is more than I could reasonably spend.”

Criticism of Microsoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Criticism of Microsoft has followed various aspects of its products and business practices. Issues with ease of use, stability, and security of the company’s software are common targets for critics. More recently, Trojan horses and other exploits have plagued numerous users due to faults in the security of Microsoft Windows and other programs. Microsoft

is also accused of locking vendors and consumers into their products,
and of not following and complying with existing standards in its
software.[1] Total cost of ownership comparisons of Linux as well as Mac OS X to Windows are a continuous point of debate.


The company has been in numerous lawsuits by several governments and other companies for unlawful monopolistic practices. In 2004, the European Union found Microsoft guilty in a highly publicized anti-trust case. Additionally, Microsoft’s EULA for some of its programs is often criticized as being too restrictive as well as being against open source software.”

Dirty Tricks

A GRAB BAG OF DECEPTION, DISHONESTY &
HIGH-HANDED TACTICS

Am I Blue?

On November 18, 1998 the digital greeting card company Blue Mountain Arts discovered that beta versions of Microsoft’s Outlook Express (which comes free with Internet Explorer)
were automatically filing Blue Mountain’s e-mail greeting cards into the “junk” folder rather than the “inbox.”
Shortly afterwards, Blue Mountain Arts discovered that Microsoft’s WebTV service was blocking their e-mail greeting cards as well.

Why would Microsoft want to prevent electronic greetingcards from being delivered? It turns out that after an unsuccessful attempt to purchase Blue Mountain Arts,Microsoft started its own electronic greeting card service.
The “bug” in Outlook Express appeared at about the same timethat Microsoft’s greeting card service began.
Coincidence? The Honorable Robert A. Baines didn’t thinkso, and granted a preliminary injunction against Microsoft to protect the delivery of Blue Mountain Arts greetingcards. Microsoft reacted to this injunction by removing the e-mail filter from Outlook Express.

Microsoft claims to have attempted to assist Blue Mountain with this problem, but according to Blue Mountain Arts, that assistance consisted mostly of telling them to wait for the next release of Internet Explorer at “an unspecified date in the future.”

References from Blue Mountain, IDG, and Microsoft.[27 March 1999]”

Assalto Planetário – A face oculta da micro$oft

Hijacking the World: the dark side of Microsoft

“Hijacking the World
The dark side of Microsoft.
Roberto Di Cosmo and Dominique Nora (French version published by Calmann-Levy 1998, ISBN 2-7021-2923-4)”

“People in Europe tend to be a bit shy about saying these things. Microsoft is criticized because people here are afraid of American cultural imperialism, or because they’re afraid of globalization, and Bill Gates is an emblem for this, or simply because they’re scared to death by technology…”

“My reasons for criticizing Microsoft are much more basic, and, I think, less subjective than that. I have a deep love for technology, and it is exactly for this reason that I cannot accept seeing it corrupted by a company that designs bad products, which are sold too expensively to consumers who are subjugated by them, a company that –we will see how later– has contempt for its customers, does not play fairly with its competitors, and stifles innovation. Like many others, I cherish a dream of technological progress leading to a better world, a world that is freer and has more solidarity. But I can ensure you that such a world looks nothing like the world that Bill Gates dreams of.”

A brief history of how Microsoft became a monopoly


“There is a very interesting article over on the ITpro site. It is called ‘Wrestling with the
monopoly’ and is about reasons for Linux adoption in the face of Microsoft’s quasi-monopoly, and about the decision of the European Commission to demand from Microsoft the publication of their APIs and protocols. If you have the time to read the full article, please do.
Even though it is a bit longer, it’s very informative and actually covers a number of issues.”

Wrestling with the monopoly

“Trade secrets

Jeremy Allison, co-creator of Samba, records that “In the days when Novell Netware dominated the file serving world Microsoft was a great supporter of standards. They published the specifications of their own protocols (then called Server Message Block, or SMB) and supported implementations on other platforms than Windows,” but once Netware was defeated by Windows NT “their attitudes changed, and the flow of information stopped. Proprietary modifications to core protocols like the Kerberos authentication protocol followed,
and these changes were treated as trade secrets, patented if possible, and only released under restrictive non-disclosure agreements, if released at all.””

Stupid Microsoft Tricks: Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat

“”Why would a company like Microsoft do this?” asked Richard Lang, who is Burst’s CEO and half the company workforce. “We were a little company. Microsoft could have had our technology for almost nothing, but instead they stole it. We called them on it, and they could have settled at any time, but they didn’t. They stuck their heels in and won’t give an inch even now. The only way I can make sense of this behavior is that they need to win no matter what the cost.””


Charles Darwin Would Be Proud: On Microsoft’s Supposed Plan To ‘Embrace, Extend & Extinguish’ TCP/IP

“With that in mind, we have no problem believing that Microsoft has some sort of cockamamie plan to try and replace TCP/IP with its own proprietary system. That fits with every single other strategy that the company has ever pursued. Smart Tags, Hailstorm and Passport are merely the most recent schemes by the company to try to control (and therefore, derive a revenue stream from) every aspect of the Internet, and TCP/MS will not be the last. It won’t even be the worst of them, either. We are thoroughly convinced that Hailstorm/Passport are clearly the most evil of Microsoft’s near-term offerings, but that’s the subject of another column.”

MS to eradicate GPL, hence Linux

If you can’t beat ‘em, criminalize ‘em

By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC

“Yesterday, as we all know, Microsoft fed an ‘exclusive’ story about its new ‘Palladium’ DRM/PKI Trust Machine to Newsweek hack Steven Levy (a guy who writes without irony of “high-level encryption”), presumably because they trusted him not to grasp the technology well enough to question it seriously. His un-critical announcementimmediately sparked a flurry of articles considering what this means to the Windows user base. And that’s as it should be. But my question is, what does it mean to the Linux user base?”

On the Remedy Phase of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial

site sobre o julgamento da micro$oft nos USA.

Continuing Press



“Here are some things that MicrosoftCorporation have done to frustrate competitors. Remember – DOS ain’t done ’til Lotus won’t run.”

The Halloween Documents

Where will Microsoft try to drag you today?
Do you really want to go there?


In the last week of October 1998, a confidential Microsoft memorandum on Redmond’s strategy against Linux and Open Source software was leaked to me by a source who shall remain nameless. I annotated this memorandum with explanation and commentary over Halloween Weekend and released it to the national press. Microsoft was forced to acknowledge its authenticity. The press rightly treated it as a major story and covered it (with varying degrees of cluefulness).

The now-infamous “Halloween Document” contained references to a second memorandum specifically on Linux. Within days, copies of the second memo had been forwarded to me from two separate sources. I renamed the first annotated version “Halloween I” and set about annotating the second. While not as dramatic or sinister in its implications as its predecessor, Halloween II includes a lot of material at variance with Microsoft’s public party line on Linux.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Seguir

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Junte-se a 68 outros seguidores