Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?
|
In separate court filings on Aug. 30, two sides of the Microsoft U.S. antitrust settlement argued its merits. The Justice Department, Microsoft and handful of states say the settlement was effective. Seven other states claim the settlement was ineffective, and they want court oversight to continue. Who's right? |
The answer is complex, but in a nutshell: The settlement had some effect, but not in the way identified by the settling parties. There has been increased competition in some so-called middleware categories, but largely in spite of the settlement. Meanwhile, Windows market share remains about the same today as Nov. 2001, when the settlement was reached.
This essay is divided into two parts. The first explains the dramatic and unexpected events leading to the settlement. The larger, second section, deals with the competitive marketplace afterwards. Please skip to the second subhead, for analysis of the settlement's merits.
How They Got There
The Justice Department and 20 states filed their landmark antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in May 1998. The case came after a dispute over the interpretation of an earlier consent decree and whether or not Internet Explorer could be bundled with Windows. Nearly two years later, in April 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft had grossly abused its desktop operating system monopoly. Two months later, he ordered the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies, for operating systems and desktop applications. Yet, in Nov. 2001, the Justice Department, Microsoft and seven of the suing states settled for much less. What happened?
Three factors largely led to the settlement. If not for any of them, but particularly the first two, Microsoft's antitrust remedy likely would have been more severe. (Explanation: U.S. antitrust law typically doesn't seek to punish monopoly abusers, but more put in place mechanisms—the remedy—that restore competition.) The definitive moments shaping the case were:
- Jackson made a gross procedural error during the last stages of the antitrust trial. Typically, after a ruling is given, there is another process for debating and deciding on a remedy. Jackson held no remedy hearing. At the time, most every antitrust expert I consulted said the appeals court would reject the remedy and send the case back to the lower court for another proceeding to determine the remedy. The appeals court did just that: It upheld most of Jackson's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law against Microsoft, but remanded the case back to the lower court for a remedy proceeding.
- Jackson spoke to the news media behind closed doors about the case, while the trial was ongoing. The appeals court found no wrongdoing by Jackson, but removed him from the case for appearances of impartiality. Jackson's removal meant the crucial remedy proceeding would be heard by a different judge, who would decide what to do with Microsoft. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had no experience with antitrust cases, was randomly assigned to take over the case.
- Shifting political winds favored Microsoft. The Bush Administration's ascension to power took away some of the drive to pursue Microsoft. The new administration inherited the case, for which most of the protagonists had moved on. By early Sept. 2001, the new Justice Department had decided not to pursue a breakup of Microsoft.
- Kollar-Kotelly demanded that the parties reach settlement, following the devastating September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the U.S. Pentagon and World Trade Center. Suddenly, the Justice Department had bigger fish to fry than Microsoft. Two months later, the Justice Department, Microsoft and seven states would settle the case. Another seven states would go to court for the aforementioned remedy hearing and pursuit of a harsher remedy.
The settlement wasn't a done deal until approved by Kollar-Kotelly. She conducted the remedy hearing for about two months in early 2002. I was there for testimony, including Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' nearly three days on the witness stand. In Nov. 2002, Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement and entered the settlement terms as her final judgment, rejecting demands by the litigating states—what parties in the case sometimes refer to as the "California group"—for a stiffer remedy.
If Jackson had held the earlier remedy hearing, the appeals court would have been more likely to rule on the merits of the remedy, which would have been more decisive, whether or not it supported breakup. More importantly, if Jackson hadn't been removed, he would likely have put in place a much stiffer final judgment than Kollar-Kotelly.
Jackson's views on Microsoft are on record; he saw the company to be an abusive monopoly. If not for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department and all states likely would have participated in the remedy hearing, rather than there being any kind of settlement. I won't guess what the final judgment might have been.
What Happened After
The settlement, or consent decree, largely expires on Nov. 12. Some government oversight will continue for an additional two years, because of ongoing problems with Microsoft meeting its disclosure obligations for protocol licensing. Yesterday's court filings were routine, ahead of a Sept. 11 status hearing. The Justice Department, Microsoft and settling states offered a very different perspective than the California group.
What did the consent decree require of Microsoft:
- Hide access to four so-called middleware categories—e-mail, instant messaging, media playback and Web browsing—and to provide a Windows utility for setting the default application in each category.
- License protocols that would facilitate interoperability between third-party products and Microsoft desktop and server operating systems.
- Apply the same Windows licensing terms to all top OEMs; no more individual contracts.
- Accept court oversight, including a mechanism for processing and reviewing complaints about Microsoft business and technology practices.
The settlement did not really seek to resolve something sought by Jackson's remedy: Removal of the "applications barrier to entry." Jackson found that Microsoft's operating system created a barrier to third-party applications entering and successfully competing in the desktop software market; he sought to remedy this market situation by separating Windows and Office into two companies. Jackson found that Microsoft's integration strategy also discouraged developers from supporting third-party products.
The settling parties contend that there is increased competition in the four middleware categories. I agree that there is some increased competition, but more in spite of the settlement rather than because of it. My take, by category—and including desktop operating systems:
Web browsers. Microsoft fought and won the browser wars, successfully marginalizing Netscape. But after winning the wars, Microsoft abandoned the territory by largely stopping Internet Explorer development with Windows XP's October 2001 release.
The Web progressed, but the major browser for accessing it didn't, creating a vacuum that Firefox surprisingly filled three years later. Meanwhile, Google found a way to make money on search, with revenue that could be shared with browser developers like Mozilla.
Browser competition reignited following Firefox's release, and Microsoft restarted Internet Explorer development. New competition started because of factors largely independent of the antitrust settlement—and that competition remains limited. Internet Explorer commands huge market share over second place Firefox. For example, OneStat put Internet Explorer's worldwide market share in June at about 85 percent, compared to 13 percent for Firefox.
Media players. RealNetworks bore the brunt of Microsoft's bundling of Windows Media technologies into Windows client and server software. Real was largely marginalized on Windows by 2003, or less than two years following the antitrust settlement.
But competition occurred elsewhere, unexpectedly. Apple released the iPod in Oct. 2001, which required the iTunes media player. Later, iPod's overwhelming success would lead millions of consumers to use iTunes and its bundled QuickTime. But the pull came from outside the Windows ecosystem.
Meanwhile, the increasing relevance of the Web, increasing popularity of portable devices and commercial Web sites' needed to create more dynamic content helped spur mass developer adoption of Flash and, later, Flash Video. Eventually, Flash Video would greatly push aside Windows Media on the Web and further RealVideo's marginalization. Again, factors independent of Windows largely led to Flash Video's surge in popularity.
As for Real, the company got a huge boost from Microsoft, but not because of the antitrust settlement. Microsoft's decision to release Zune and Zune Marketplace led to new manufacturer alignments, with SanDisk supporting Real and, more recently, MTV and Real forming Rhapsody America. Real is resurgent, in part thanks to the company's tenacity and also Microsoft mistakes.
Instant Messaging and E-Mail. IM already was a competitive market before the antitrust settlement. Little has changed since, with AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo messengers remaining the dominant products. However, Microsoft is putting into place with Windows CardSpace and Windows Live ID mechanisms it tried with Passport but had to abandon, in part because of a Federal Trade Commission settlement and the broader antitrust case. While Microsoft no longer bundles IM with Windows, bundling related to CardSpace and Office Communicator are resurgent, which is essential to IM and related communications technologies.
Before the antitrust settlement, Outlook and Outlook Express already had largely displaced competing desktop e-mail products. Little has changed on the desktop since the settlement, even considering Mozilla's development of Thunderbird. The real action is in the browser and Web-based e-mail offered by ISPs or developers like AOL, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. This shift to Web-based e-mail occurred in spite of the antitrust settlement.
Desktop Operating Systems. Windows' dominance is unchanged by the antitrust settlement. Despite talk of increased Linux and Mac OS competition, Windows market share has changed little since Nov. 2001 or 2002. Windows desktop market share in July was 97 percent, about the same as Sept. 2002, according to OneStat.
That doesn't mean the settlement was wholly ineffective, and continued competition could be reason to question the need for any antitrust enforcement. If competition continued despite the consent decree, why was it even necessary?
Microsoft remains a highly competitive company, with a strong desktop monopoly off which to leverage other products. The company continues to do just that, particularly as integration increases among development tools, Windows, desktop applications and server software. If the settlement's goal was to break Microsoft's monopoly power, antitrust enforcement failed. The oversight extension demanded by the California group won't make happen what hasn't yet come about.
If the goal was to change Microsoft, antitrust enforcement succeeded. Microsoft is more a corporate culture of lawyers than it was in 2001. As I've repeatedly heard from Microsoft managers and executives, the legal department often has the last say, even over product development. That's the wrong outcome for the consent decree to have achieved.
Comments (66)
LOL. That's right, Joe. Do an exhaustive recap but don't even comment on the supposed logic - now thoroughly discredited - by which MSFT was defined as having a monopoly to abuse in the first place. Linux wasn't a viable alternative? How did that turn out? The Wintel duopoly? Apple was only a niche player? And you fail to state the the higher court *severely* admonished Jackson for his behavior and judgment during the trial. When he wasn't falling asleep during procedures at least. Why don't you ask the question: Was any consumer harmed in the first place? While MSFT clearly was overly aggressive, this case was primarily about competitors whining to the courts because they couldn't win in the market. And I guess it's just coincidence that the States still whining the loudest happen to be ones with large IT competitors.
Posted by Paul | August 31, 2007 3:58 PM
Paul wrote: "Do an exhaustive recap but don't even comment on the supposed logic - now thoroughly discredited - by which MSFT was defined as having a monopoly to abuse in the first place."
Hi, Paul,
The appeals court upheld 12 of 20 abuses found by Judge Jackson. I wouldn't call that "thoroughly discredited." Whether or not there should have been a case is immaterial, because of the appeals court decision. Guilty or innocent, Microsoft was found to have abused its monopoly power.
But I agree that it's right to question what benefit the case delivered consumers, or Microsoft competitors, for that matter. Competition drove most of the change in the affected middleware categories.
Joe
Posted by Joe | August 31, 2007 4:42 PM
By: yo-eleven
31 Aug 2007, 04:40 PM EDT
Msg. 158448 of 158448
(This msg. is a reply to 158446 by bugmuncher.)
Not a monopoly? Sure. And your butt doesn't look fat in those pants.
"Jackson's views on Microsoft are on record; he saw the company to be an abusive monopoly. If not for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department and all states likely would have participated in the remedy hearing, rather than there being any kind of settlement."
You clowns had some accidental breaks that saved your corporate butts. What a shame you think you "won". It simply added to your arrogance and ultimate degradation.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/did_microsofts_consent_decree_benefit_you.html
How They Got There
The Justice Department and 20 states filed their landmark antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in May 1998. The case came after a dispute over the interpretation of an earlier consent decree and whether or not Internet Explorer could be bundled with Windows. Nearly two years later, in April 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft had grossly abused its desktop operating system monopoly. Two months later, he ordered the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies, for operating systems and desktop applications. Yet, in Nov. 2001, the Justice Department, Microsoft and seven of the suing states settled for much less. What happened?
Three factors largely led to the settlement. If not for any of them, but particularly the first two, Microsoft's antitrust remedy likely would have been more severe. (Explanation: U.S. antitrust law typically doesn't seek to punish monopoly abusers, but more put in place mechanisms?the remedy?that restore competition.) The definitive moments shaping the case were:
* Jackson made a gross procedural error during the last stages of the antitrust trial. Typically, after a ruling is given, there is another process for debating and deciding on a remedy. Jackson held no remedy hearing. At the time, most every antitrust expert I consulted said the appeals court would reject the remedy and send the case back to the lower court for another proceeding to determine the remedy. The appeals court did just that: It upheld most of Jackson's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law against Microsoft, but remanded the case back to the lower court for a remedy proceeding.
* Jackson spoke to the news media behind closed doors about the case, while the trial was ongoing. The appeals court found no wrongdoing by Jackson, but removed him from the case for appearances of impartiality. Jackson's removal meant the crucial remedy proceeding would be heard by a different judge, who would decide what to do with Microsoft. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had no experience with antitrust cases, was randomly assigned to take over the case.
* Shifting political winds favored Microsoft. The Bush Administration's ascension to power took away some of the drive to pursue Microsoft. The new administration inherited the case, for which most of the protagonists had moved on. By early Sept. 2001, the new Justice Department had decided not to pursue a breakup of Microsoft.
* Kollar-Kotelly demanded that the parties reach settlement, following the devastating September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the U.S. Pentagon and World Trade Center. Suddenly, the Justice Department had bigger fish to fry than Microsoft. Two months later, the Justice Department, Microsoft and seven states would settle the case. Another seven states would go to court for the aforementioned remedy hearing and pursuit of a harsher remedy.
The settlement wasn't a done deal until approved by Kollar-Kotelly. She conducted the remedy hearing for about two months in early 2002. I was there for testimony, including Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' nearly three days on the witness stand. In Nov. 2002, Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement and entered the settlement terms as her final judgment, rejecting demands by the litigating states?what parties in the case sometimes refer to as the "California group"?for a stiffer remedy.
If Jackson had held the earlier remedy hearing, the appeals court would have been more likely to rule on the merits of the remedy, which would have been more decisive, whether or not it supported breakup. More importantly, if Jackson hadn't been removed, he would likely have put in place a much stiffer final judgment than Kollar-Kotelly.
Jackson's views on Microsoft are on record; he saw the company to be an abusive monopoly. If not for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department and all states likely would have participated in the remedy hearing, rather than there being any kind of settlement. I won't guess what the final judgment might have been.
Posted by I-Man | August 31, 2007 4:55 PM
"Hi, Paul,
The appeals court upheld 12 of 20 abuses found by Judge Jackson. I wouldn't call that "thoroughly discredited."
I'm not talking about what the Appeals court did. I'm talking about the original logic for slicing and dicing the market to come up with MSFT having a "monopoly". Specifically, the decision to ignore both Linux and Apple as viable competitors. With no "monopoly", there would have been nothing to abuse. Even Boies now concedes that MSFT's argument - that there were viable competitors - proved to be correct. This is why courts shouldn't try to manage markets. But by the by, your stat of 12/20 puts your earlier "majority of the decision" in better context. And I see you still avoided your omission that Jackson was severely admonished for his conduct by the higher court.
Posted by Paul | August 31, 2007 7:35 PM
"Not a monopoly?"
Here's the definition. Hope it helps:
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently … arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
Posted by Paul | August 31, 2007 7:37 PM
Paul wrote: "I see you still avoided your omission that Jackson was severely admonished for his conduct by the higher court."
Hi, Paul,
I didn't avoid it. The post clearly says that Jackson was removed. His removal was the appeals court's ultimate admonishment.
Your monopoly definition does apply to Microsoft--or did in 1998. When I covered the case, lawyers supporting and opposing Microsoft generally agreed on one point: Microsoft's exclusive agreements with ISPs and other parties ultimately precipitated the case. Had Microsoft not engaged in exclusive agreements, the Justice Department would not have had a strong enough case to go to court. Microsoft is very careful not to engage in any exclusive agreements, today.
Joe
Posted by Joe | August 31, 2007 8:10 PM
Could Microsoft's market share possibly be overstated? I'm thinking of common situations like that where customers buy machines with Vista preinstalled, then wipe that with a separately-purchased copy of Windows XP. Presumably that would count as 2 copies of Windows, even though it's only on one PC.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | August 31, 2007 9:13 PM
Living in Australia I wouldn't know, but... don't you guys trust your "Justice Department" ??
They are the "REAL" watch dogs in all this, or do you guys know better ??
They are the ones that brought this case to court, and they are the ones that did all the fact finding !!
You make up your mind, but think carefully, and oh yeah, put your bias (either which way) aside.
Posted by Neil | September 1, 2007 12:01 AM
The following paragraph about the goal of the settlement is the essence.
DOJ layers wrote:
"The litigation, however, did not afford a basis for extinguishing Microsoft's Windows monopoly position or for reducing it by a particular amount... Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully."
Posted by evan | September 1, 2007 3:46 AM
Something is true, if you have a dog which likes to bite people and you prevent it of biting by using a muzzle, when you remove the muzzle the dog will start to bite again. You have to educate it.
I think that MS is not "educated" (you only have to read notices and you will be agreeing with me) and MS will "be biting" a lot, when MS is set free. (when consent decree expires)
"Microsoft Still a Monopoly, 7 State Attorneys Say"
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2177956,00.asp
Posted by Marco | September 1, 2007 11:48 AM
The entire MS as a monopoly law suit was rather lame in my opinion. Instead of McNealy, Barksdale, and Shmidt being able to compete, they had a rich man's fight. Overall, I thought this was one of the dumbest things in US history to have occurred.
Before the lawsuit we had Real, QuickTime, Flash, Linux and after the lawsuit we have Real, QuickTime, Flash, Linux. Competition in this space is insane and alive. What happened was that Microsoft had to spend 5 years focused on legal issues so the rest of the competitors did not really have to build great products to compete. They got to compete because Microsoft was distracted. Linux is still a Win95 clone with little to no innovation, Firefox is as boring as ever and still resting on the "we aren't IE" mantra.
The consumer is better off today than ever before. It is better because a standard arises (not through open standards or the false religion that the FSF or OSS guys want you to believe; but thru consumer usage). We can search the web better because Google is the standard (it isn't the best search engine, but it is now the standard and we all know how to use it and we live with it). Windows is the desktop standard and H.264 is the new video standard (sorry Flash).
The world is worse off because rich people couldn't figure out how to compete and we pissed away 5 years. And as the computer market gets fragmented among vendors, that is bad. Having a single standard is so much better.
Sad really.
Posted by John | September 1, 2007 11:57 AM
Marco said
"Microsoft Still a Monopoly, 7 State Attorneys Say".
Yes it is.
So what? Is Microsoft the only monopoly in world or the U.S? NO.
Is monopoly illegal in the U.S. or the rest of world? NO.
Was the DOJ settlement put to together to eliminate or decrease Microsoft's Monopoly?
According to the DOJ attorneys. NO. That was not the purpose of the settlement.
Was Microsoft's monopoly increased or acquired illegally? NO, according to the DOJ attorneys...
Posted by evan | September 1, 2007 1:12 PM
link below is titled: "Apparently That Xbox 360 Red Light of Doom Problem Hasn’t Been Fixed"
http://games.gearlive.com/playfeed/article/q307xbox-360-red-light-of-doom-problem/
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 1:57 PM
There are of course the larger issues to the Microsoft U.S. antitrust settlement that really have not been discussed well here, but have been briefly alluded to.
It is perhaps almost a sad fact that MS has bought the Bush administration. MS is not opposed to this type of behavior, one only has to look at the most recent case of what happened in Sweden with the standards vote. MS only "corrects" this type of behavior, when it get caught, as again in the case in Sweden, as example.
The fact that the DOJ and the US Government was ineffective, in any real remedies, or break up of Microsoft, shows how corrupt the system has become that Microsoft can buy our government in a mostly wholesale fashion. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and money is power.
Corporations like Microsoft and the Hollywood media companies, have now become to rich and powerful for any Government to control. They have become a corrupting influence on Governments all over the world.
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 2:11 PM
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
According to the above link, Linux has now passed, Windows 98, and is also ahead of Windows ME, Windows NT4, and Windows 2003. Linux has been steadly gaining ground.
Also notice the figures for Vi$ta; Only 3.46% with all the new sales of computers out there. Must be a whole lot of folks wiping Vista off their hard drives and putting XP or something else back on it.
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 2:26 PM
Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?
Let me answer this question directly.
NO it did not benefit me for 2 reasons.
First, it restrained Micrsoft from producing better, more value for the money software with all the restrictions they imposed on MS and
second, it did benefit the other Venodors, which focused on litigating in order to win software market share, instead of producing better software to compete with Microsoft.
Posted by evan | September 1, 2007 2:27 PM
Title of link: Lobbying Could Cause Legal Trouble for Microsoft
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/08/31/2039226.shtml
Quote from the link:
"In the wake of the exposure of Microsoft's attempt to buy Sweden's vote on OOXML and Sweden's annulment of that vote due to irregularities, IBM's Rob Weir points out that the fiasco could cause anti-trust worries for Microsoft."
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 4:13 PM
link below titled: DoJ Finds Microsoft Antitrust Compliance 'On Track'
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/09/01/0622248.shtml
bought, and paid for?
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 4:15 PM
This article by Joe Wilcox asks the question: “Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?”
NO, it did not go anywhere far enough in the remedy. It was basically a slap of the hand for MS at the most, and perhaps a license to steal as a fully recognized monopoly at least.
The so called over sight of MS has been dismal at best. Examples of the current Patent FUD and SCO pawns by Micro$oft should not have been allowed by any court that was really trying to re-establish competition in the Operating System marketplace. At best the DOJ has become almost a rubber stamp for Microsoft during the current administration.
Now for the remedies that should be imposed in the future.
1.All pc computer hardware by law should open the spec's so that other systems can write their own device drivers.
2.All Office types protocols, will conform to open standards so that anyone can and will support their saved file formats.
3.All multimedia files and protocols, patents, copyrights, are now to become public domain. Further, anything like flash, mp3, wma, wmv, directX, will also become public domain, and by law have the source code opened to be used by the public.
4.Windows API code, will be opened up and also be made public domain. Which will basically mean that a whole lot of windows programs and games will now work on any other OS.
This will be a start to restore competition.
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 4:47 PM
One more remedy that should be imposed on MS by the courts:
5. MS Windows should not be allowed to be pre-intalled on any computer.
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 5:03 PM
Good job chips let me add a few more to that list.
1.Microsoft should close. All employees should be fired and never allowed to work again.
2. Bill Gates and Steve Baller should be imprisoned and never be let to use a computer again.
3. All Windows CDs, DVDs should be destroyed publicly.
4. Anybody arrested to use Windows should be imprisoned immediately.
Posted by evan | September 1, 2007 5:26 PM
More on the illegal activies of one of the World's biggest MONOPOLIES;
Titled: Microsoft accused of ballot stuffing in standards vote
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/08/29/microsoft_ooxml_sweeden_rigged_vote/
Posted by chips | September 1, 2007 5:54 PM
Chips
There are some links that you should never point to mate !
And your link http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
is one such link
Lets have a look at those stats your so proud of Chips.
Windows XP 83.48
Windows 2000 3.94
Mac OS X 3.73
Windows Vista 3.46
Windows 98 1.34
Linux 1.34
You said and I quote "According to the above link, Linux has now passed, Windows 98"
Now tell me something how in hell can Linux "pass" Windows 98 when they are the "SAME PERCENTAGE" ??
And even if it did whoppee do, Linux is going to rule the world ! Yeah sure on 1.34% sure it is.
Oh! and by the way unless it sipped your vision Chips Windows vista is on 3.46% almost three times more than Linux.
But the best till (I always say) Windows XP 83.48% compared to Linux of 1.34% oh yeah sure Linux it sure the top rating OS in the world.
Bullshit it is !!
All the mudslinging you guys do, and all the fake people writing in saying that they have switched to Linux.
A whopping 1.34%, let me know when you get to 5% I might (just might) worry a tiny little bit. So tiny it might be 1.34%.
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 1:24 AM
"Statistics don't lie ... but liars can figure".
Chips there is one important thing that you forgot to say in all of your postings regarding the Sedish vote on OOXML and that is that Microsoft has been accused of something, and that is all it is "accused" !
You of course being judge, jury and excutioner have passed your judgement and found them guilty as have charged.
So by the laws of of Chips ... lets lynch microsoft, you Americans really ...you love to convict people rightly or wrongly.
And all this because one man (Patrik Falstrom) has "accused" microsoft.
And that is all the headline says ..."acussed" !
Chips you really live up to my first quote don't you !
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 1:41 AM
http://www.controlscaddy.com/A55A69/bccaddyblog.nsf/plinks/CBYE-76JGCQ
The above link titled;
ODF vs. OOXML: Microsoft Has Mastered the Art of Unfair Play
Quote; "They (meaning MS) are very simply using their deep cash reserves to buy the votes needed to get their way."
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 2:08 AM
Chips,
Microsoft played unfairly? Typically, no rules have been broken. You pay your fee and you are allowed to vote. Let's not talk about fairness though in this IBM led -including their VAM coallition (Vendors Against Microsoft)- "standards" initiative.
Posted by evan | September 2, 2007 3:04 AM
Chips
I scoured over that article and never found the quote that you are quoting !
Although the blogger does say that IBM and Microsoft have invested a lot of money in the respective formats.
And the blogger also says that there was nothing wrong with what microsoft had, it was just that Microsoft did it more quickly than IBM had expected. Normal business manouvering !!
Chips again another story ... another beat up by you !
If the opposition (IBM)had of done the same thing you wouldn't have said a word !!
By the way chips nice big percentages for Linux (cough, cough) distribution.... Not !!!
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 7:48 AM
/www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9033701
"Microsoft admits Swedish employee promised incentives for Open XML support"
"Computer Sweden reported that the monetary compensation Microsoft was offering would have been in the form of "market subsidies" and other resources to make up for the SIS membership fee."
------------
Posted by Marco | September 2, 2007 10:18 AM
It's clear that Ms has not ethical or moral doubts about as how to get its objectives, it is really dangerous when is added other "ingredients" as a Monopoly (similar to totalitarianism) and incommensurable riches. Never in human history this mixture gave a good result.
Posted by Marco | September 2, 2007 10:57 AM
chip, did you know that Microsoft is being sued by VCSY for patent infringement of VCSY's SiteFlash patent.
Microsoft hit with patent suit from Vertical Computer
at MarketWatch (Fri, Apr 20)
But it is also believed that Microsoft has been infringing on VCSY's XML Enabler patent.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Receives a Notice of Allowance From The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office For a Patent Application Covering Various Aspects Of The XML Enabler Agent
Fort Worth, Texas, March 29, 2006--Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY) announced today that it has received a notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a patent application serial number 09/882,494 for a "Web-based collaborative data collection system." The notice of allowance states that all 41 patent claims of the patent application are deemed to be allowable to issue in a patent. VCSY intends to file with the USPTO to issue the patent shortly thereafter with all 41 claims being valid and enforceable.
This patent application covers various aspects of the XML Enabler Agent. The XML Enabler Agent, which was featured in the "XML Handbook" by Charles Goldfarb, 4th edition was created to XML-enable any database and developed with the Emily XML Scripting Language.
This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. With the exception of historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release involve risk and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement.
About VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY) is a provider of administrative software, Internet core technologies, and derivative software application products through its distribution network. VCSY's main administrative software product is emPath(r), which is developed and distributed by NOW Solutions, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. VCSY's primary Internet core technologies include SiteFlash, ResponseFlash, NewsFlash, and the Emily XML Scripting Language, which can be used to build web services. Information on Vertical and its products can be obtained on the World Wide Web at www.vcsy.com.
SOURCE: Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.
Vertical Computer Systems
(817) 348-8717
PRinfo@vcsy.com
Posted by I-Man | September 2, 2007 11:34 AM
I usually don't respond to Neils constant comments, as they are mostly worthless support attacks in favor of Micro$oft.
Quote;
" Neil :
Chips
I scoured over that article and never found the quote that you are quoting !
Although the blogger does say that IBM and Microsoft have invested a lot of money in the respective formats.
And the blogger also says that there was nothing wrong with what microsoft had, it was just that Microsoft did it more quickly than IBM had expected. Normal business manouvering !!
Chips again another story ... another beat up by you !
If the opposition (IBM)had of done the same thing you wouldn't have said a word !!
By the way chips nice big percentages for Linux (cough, cough) distribution.... Not !!!"
--------------------------------------------------
You must be half blind as well. Look for the quote at the last sentance of the first paragraph.
"They are very simply using their deep cash reserves to buy the votes needed to get their way."
--------------------------------------------------
Also I noticed that you could just not help yourself and had to switch 5 and 6 (linux and 98) around from how the hit site ranked them. True both Linux and 98 got the same percentage 1.34% according to that site, but Linux actually got a few more hits, and that is why it was ranked higher. Not to mention the trend here, that 98 is going down in hits, and linux is increasing hits.
-------------------------------------------------
If you don't like that survey, try this one;
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Linux at 3.4%, Vi$ta at 3.6%
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 12:37 PM
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=18543
Link above is titled; HP Releases Its First Mass-Market Linux PC
Quote from the link: "Specifically, the company will soon be selling RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) Desktop 5 on its HP dx2250 PC to Australian customers."
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 1:01 PM
I-Man,
Microsoft lawyers are used to lying:
"This post reveals that contract workers had been assigned to gather all the relevant tapes and did so quite easily at the very time when Microsoft lawyers were claiming that to do so would be impossible."
Microsoft dirty tricks that were never revealed
Robert X. Cringely
February 14, 2007 11:06 PM
Microsoft settled today its anti-trust case with the people of Iowa, which may well be the last anti-trust case against the world?s largest software company, at least in this cycle. Iowa was all that remained of the original 18 states and the District of Columbia that sued Redmond several years ago.
Now that the case is settled I?d like to write a little bit about something that happened in an earlier case ? Burst v. Microsoft ? but was never revealed. I kept expecting it to be revealed in this case, but apparently it was not.
(more at URL)
Also, PartII
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_tric_4.html
Microsoft dirty tricks, part two
Robert X. Cringely
February 16, 2007 6:56 AM
In my last post here I revealed that a former Microsoft contract worker had come to me some time ago to reveal details about the possible destruction of evidence in the Burst.com v. Microsoft case -- destruction of evidence that I expected to be a factor in the recently settled Comes (People of Iowa) v. Microsoft case. I thought for sure this information would come out but apparently it didn't. Maybe that was among the many reasons why the case was suddenly settled after nearly seven years. We'll probably never know. But I think it is important that the information be made public, anyway.
To recap part one, lawyers for Burst.com found in the discovery phase of their case what appeared to be a pattern of message destruction, with Microsoft unable to reproduce ANY e-mail concerning Burst.com over periods of time surrounding specific meetings between the two companies. Burst had ITS copies of the messages where it had been part of the conversation as the two companies worked together under NDA, but Microsoft presented none of these. It seemed logical to Burst that Microsoft, as a company that fairly lives by e-mail, would have atg least a few messages concerning the meetings, either before or after. Eventually Burst lawyers uncovered a mechanism -- a sort of procedural algorithm if you will -- under which Microsoft had consistently and in MANY cases managed to keep all the messages it didn't need to keep and to destroy all the ones it DID need to keep. The survival of ANY incriminating messages, in fact, came only from the breakdown of discipline in implementing this procedural algorithm. Burst revealed this information and the judge in that case, Judge Motz, ordered Microsoft to take heroic measures to search backup tapes for messages that were supposedly lost.
The last post revealed that contract workers had been assigned to gather all the relevant tapes and did so quite easily at the very time when Microsoft lawyers were claiming that to do so would be impossible. This leads to logical questions like; Did the Microsoft lawyer know that the tapes had been found or were they deliberately kept in the dark so they could continue to argue against the whole idea? And why, if the tapes were found, did they sit for months in a special tape vault in Building 11 rather than having been examined for the missing messages? And then there is the big question about what happened to the messages at all -- messages that were in a locked vault and labeled "Do not touch" -- how did they get thrown away and by whom?
The former Microsoft contract employee who contacted me on this issue did not do so anonymously, by the way. I know his name and how to reach him. We have talked on the phone more than once. He did not hesitate to name names.
Also, PartII
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007...
Microsoft dirty tricks, part two
Robert X. Cringely
February 16, 2007 6:56 AM
In my last post here I revealed that a former Microsoft contract worker had come to me some time ago to reveal details about the possible destruction of evidence in the Burst.com v. Microsoft case -- destruction of evidence that I expected to be a factor in the recently settled Comes (People of Iowa) v. Microsoft case. I thought for sure this information would come out but apparently it didn't. Maybe that was among the many reasons why the case was suddenly settled after nearly seven years. We'll probably never know. But I think it is important that the information be made public, anyway.
To recap part one, lawyers for Burst.com found in the discovery phase of their case what appeared to be a pattern of message destruction, with Microsoft unable to reproduce ANY e-mail concerning Burst.com over periods of time surrounding specific meetings between the two companies. Burst had ITS copies of the messages where it had been part of the conversation as the two companies worked together under NDA, but Microsoft presented none of these. It seemed logical to Burst that Microsoft, as a company that fairly lives by e-mail, would have atg least a few messages concerning the meetings, either before or after. Eventually Burst lawyers uncovered a mechanism -- a sort of procedural algorithm if you will -- under which Microsoft had consistently and in MANY cases managed to keep all the messages it didn't need to keep and to destroy all the ones it DID need to keep. The survival of ANY incriminating messages, in fact, came only from the breakdown of discipline in implementing this procedural algorithm. Burst revealed this information and the judge in that case, Judge Motz, ordered Microsoft to take heroic measures to search backup tapes for messages that were supposedly lost.
The last post revealed that contract workers had been assigned to gather all the relevant tapes and did so quite easily at the very time when Microsoft lawyers were claiming that to do so would be impossible. This leads to logical questions like; Did the Microsoft lawyer know that the tapes had been found or were they deliberately kept in the dark so they could continue to argue against the whole idea? And why, if the tapes were found, did they sit for months in a special tape vault in Building 11 rather than having been examined for the missing messages? And then there is the big question about what happened to the messages at all -- messages that were in a locked vault and labeled "Do not touch" -- how did they get thrown away and by whom?
The former Microsoft contract employee who contacted me on this issue did not do so anonymously, by the way. I know his name and how to reach him. We have talked on the phone more than once. He did not hesitate to name names.
Posted by micro-dud | September 2, 2007 1:11 PM
Link is titled; Entire city of Vista users can't access the internet
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/7081/
Is it not amazing how Micro$oft just has to break some kind of interoperability with every new release? This time Vi$ta.
Quote from the link; "The city of Lund, Sweden has been in the digital dark as Vista OS users cannot gain Internet access through the city's Linux based communications infrastructure. The company in charge if that city wide system, Lundis Energi, had said that the problem persists because of a bug in some Vista code. Lundis Energi also said that they are in no way willing to change the configuration of their server to cope with the flaw."
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 1:14 PM
Chips
You should read your surveys more thoroughly actuallyhttp://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Shows that in January Linux had 3.6% and that the latest figure was down to 3.4% in July.
Over the same time period Vista went from 0.6% to 3.6%.
That means Vista has grown and Linux has actually REDUCED by 0.2%
Yeah great figures Chips they prove that Linux has gone up ... no they don't !!!
Well they prove that Vista has gone down .... no they don't !!!
Two lots of figures each time you are happy that Windows is going down Linux up and both times wrong.
All the mudslinging that you guys are doing is very little effect, because some people are being folled but not all. All this is doing no good to Linux you realise that don't you, Mr. Linus did that's why he called for this sort of thing to stop, but zealots like "Chips" can't help themselves, you are actually "harming Linux" will all this bullshit.
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 7:26 PM
That link was
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 7:28 PM
Chips
This story
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/7081/
is quite obviously biased with comments like this one. "Imagine, an entire city running its digital infrastructure on Linux. Beautiful, right?"
Posted by Neil | September 2, 2007 7:46 PM
link below titled; New Google Apps For Linux Coming
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/09/02/1956230.shtml
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 9:45 PM
link below titled; NZ rejects Microsoft OOXML, Sweden confused
http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/NZ-rejects-Microsoft-OOXML-Sweden-confused/0,339028227,339281682,00.htm
Quotes from the link; "Microsoft has admitted encouraging partners to join the national bodies deciding whether to recommend OOXML for fast-track ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification.
If OOXML receives ISO certification, it could pave the way for OOXML to be accepted by governments as a document standard. The Free Software Foundation has argued that OOXML contains proprietary components."
Posted by chips | September 2, 2007 9:57 PM
Monopoly is a bad word to describe the current state of affair.
It seems that others software vendors are not as aggresive as Microsoft. When business falls apart , they bring in anti-trust laws
Linux will be our choice of OS if Microsoft cease to produce Windows
Posted by John | September 2, 2007 11:11 PM
See
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1991905,00.asp
I have to agree with Jupiter Research analyst Joe Wilcox: There is next to nothing new in these "new" tenets.
The majority are restatements of promises and commitments that Microsoft has been required to make under terms of previous antitrust settlements.
Posted by Brian | September 2, 2007 11:27 PM
John
I totally agree with your comment.
"Linux will be our choice of OS if Microsoft cease to produce Windows"
And that will happen when hell freezes over !~!
Posted by Neil | September 3, 2007 12:44 AM
Yeah Neil, you would jsut love everyone to stick with that joke of an OS called Windows. And if they want to switch, I'm sure you would be so happy to see Micro$oft leverage its monopoly power so people ae fooled or forced to stick with them. Wow. You shills really have no honor whatsoever.
Posted by Maddog | September 3, 2007 7:39 AM
The consent decree essentially stopped Microsoft from doing stuff that competitors like Google, Novell, Apple et al went in and did without any oversight or complaint. As I've pointed out in another post, it's essentially the same people moving between companies doing the same thing.
Chips wrote "Is it not amazing how Micro$oft just has to break some kind of interoperability with every new release? This time Vi$ta." As is well known, Microsoft hates breaking interoperability with a new release. Apple does it as a matter of course. Half my Firefox add-ons break with each new release. I'm also getting called by my Mac user friends to help them completely reinstall software or drivers that was rendered broken by a simple point release upgrade. I still have software applications and drivers that ran on Windows over a decade ago that work fine.
Why is it that Linux keyboards have a broken 's' and type '$' all the time?
Posted by Mike | September 3, 2007 11:27 AM
Yes to the question.
I gotten back $212 from my claim to the Microsoft settlement.
It paid for my new computer, that is now 3 years old.
I felt the consent decree was bogus. It protected customers from Microsoft software in the worst way. It didn't do anything about the shoddy software, but it kept customers from getting more free software, which every other company is free to do.
Posted by Timmy | September 3, 2007 3:15 PM
Mike
The "$" is used so that people who are against microsoft can show that it makes too much money from normal computer users, or they at least don't like the fact that a company can make money from computer users, as Linux doesn't.
In other words it is meant to be a "dollar sign" out of protest.
Posted by Neil | September 3, 2007 7:33 PM
The Title of Joe Wilcox's article asks the question; "Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?"
Perhaps for some of the MS users in Iowa it does;
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070902-judge-approves-microsoft-iowa-settlement-fees.html
above link is titled; Microsoft to pay $179 million in Iowa antitrust settlement
Posted by chips | September 3, 2007 8:10 PM
Neil: I think it is simply a sign of immaturity (and a complete lack of a sense of irony on your side). A vast proportion of the information economy makes money from computers. Singling out Microsoft is absolutely foolish. You're obviously too young to remember how much software and computers cost BEFORE Microsoft came along and helped transform the market.
Linux still takes money and resources from the economy. It doesn't come from nothing.
Posted by Mike | September 3, 2007 8:11 PM
Mike
Whoa there fella.
1. I am not against Microsoft at all, in fact I am one of the ones that stick up for microsoft here !
2. I am 52 years of age, and I do remember the high cost of software only too well mate !
3. I am NOT a LINUX SUPPORTER, never have been, never will be, even if there was no microsoft.
I simply informing why people like "Chips" uses it, in fact he uses it so much I am surprised that he hasn't worn the character off the keyboard, like my son did with his last keyboard (a gamer).
Posted by Neil | September 3, 2007 11:22 PM
Do you know what a Microsoft Drone is ?
It is someone paid by Microsoft to roam the forums like this and spread Microsoft FUD, while trying to look like the average joe...
They have been proved to exist before, and I'm seeing one here.
Posted by Christian Rioux | September 4, 2007 8:33 AM
Does this help resolve the first two?
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/default.mspx
* Hide access to four so-called middleware categories�e-mail, instant messaging, media playback and Web browsing�and to provide a Windows utility for setting the default application in each category.
* License protocols that would facilitate interoperability between third-party products and Microsoft desktop and server operating systems.
Posted by Anonymous | September 4, 2007 12:05 PM
To Christian Rioux :
I agree with you on the "Drone" issue here, and furthermore, the "Drone" (without mentioning names here) employs the use of many sock puppets.
Posted by chips | September 4, 2007 12:54 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136711-c,techindustrytrends/article.html
The above link titled; ISO Rejects Microsoft's OOXML as Standard
Quote from the link:
"Microsoft has failed in its attempt to have its Office Open XML document format fast-tracked straight to the status of an international standard by the International Organization for Standardization.
The proposal must now be revised to take into account the negative comments made during the voting process.
Microsoft expects that a second vote early next year will result in approval, it said Tuesday. That is by no means certain, however, given the objections raised by some national standards bodies."
Posted by chips | September 4, 2007 1:33 PM
I am a 55 year old who remembers people trying to do things in DOS, and older systems. It took a lot of time and effort to accomplish almost nothing.
The reason that Bill Gates is rich is because the Windows OS appeals to people who just want to get their work and home projects done.
If Linux was so great, whoever sold that product would be filthy, stinking rich. I tire of all the Linux hype and MS-bashing.
I remember when people pushed Mac, because no one hacked it. But now they hack it. I also remember people recently pushing Firefox, because it is never hacked and never breaks. But now that is not true, either.
So, just stop, already! Let the market decide. We don't need socialism in computer science, we just need competition and innovation!
Posted by whozis | September 4, 2007 2:08 PM
By the way, I am not a paid shill for MS.
I am just an old guy with an associate computer science degree, who likes getting work done on my computer. I like efficiency. I like using the MS products.
Is it possible that someone can actually like MS, and say so, without being paid to say it?
Darn right!
Posted by whozis | September 4, 2007 2:11 PM
Really?
Posted by By just a Drone, shill, fanboy, or sock puppet | September 4, 2007 4:02 PM
The reason that Bill Gates is rich is because the Windows OS appeals to people who just want to get their work and home projects done.
No, the reason is that he is very, very, VERY astute in economics and business and had the remarkable vision to see his way to a market MONOPOLY long before anyone else knew what was happening. And, IBM being stupid enough to hand him the PC sofware market on a silver platter did not hurt one little bit.
If Linux was so great, whoever sold that product would be filthy, stinking rich. I tire of all the Linux hype and MS-bashing.
And rotting garbage must be good to eat because billions of flies cannot be wrong.
Now I'm not saying that Windows is rotting garbage. I'm only saying that the wealth of the perpetrators and the widespread nature of their acts does not determine if anything is good or not. Otherwise, the profitable Nazi death camps would be more highly valued than a healthcare business that failed due to a tornado strike. For example.
Let the market decide. We don't need socialism in computer science, we just need competition and innovation!
Yes, let the market decide. And let's break the MONOPOLY apart so that the market can do its job properly. Because a free market isn't a natural happening, and socialisme and monopolies tend to destroy it.
Posted by Brian | September 4, 2007 6:14 PM
Brian
I think that you have gone too far in bringing into this "Nazi Death Camps".
I you don't agree with whozis fine... you put your case, but I feel that your arguement ran out of "puff", and that you should apologise for bringing that sort of stuff here, or anywhere else for that matter.
Posted by Neil | September 4, 2007 7:56 PM
Cristian Rioux
I went to your site, and was confronted by a message to use firefox, I clicked to continue and use firefox and came back to your page, I then noticed "Startrek" again I clicked and again I noticed a windows insignia I clicked on it ... anyway what a partisan site you run there even down to startrek (not the real startrek site either...thank god).
Whether I want to use IE7 is up to me, mot to told that if I want to look at a particular site no IE7, well all I can say is ...you musn't get much traffic to your site, after theyare confronted by all of your bias.
Normal websites can be seen by ANY internet browser (Including Firefox)and that is how it should be.
You are like how the americans used to be ....you see a microsoft shill all over the place, the americans used to see communists all over the place, that is why the Vietnam War happened to stop the spread of communism, Look at what happened in the USA when people were acussed of being or having socialist or communist beliefs, they called it Macarthyism.
The favourite was having a communist under your bed, seen any microsoft shills under your bed lately ?
Posted by Neil | September 4, 2007 8:11 PM
Later, iPod's overwhelming success would lead millions of consumers to use iTunes and its bundled QuickTime.
Posted by wow gold | September 9, 2007 11:43 PM
stop the spread of communism, Look at what happened in the USA when people were acussed of being or having socialist or communist beliefs, they called it Macarthyism.
The favourite was having a communist under your bed, seen any microsoft shills under your bed lately ?
Posted by wow | November 23, 2007 2:11 AM
wow power leveling
cheap wow power levelingwow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow items
feelingame.com
wow tips
Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
wow power leveling faq
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl
Posted by wow power leveling | November 23, 2007 2:14 AM
Cristian Rioux
I went to your site, and was confronted by a message to use firefox, I clicked to continue and use firefox and came back to your page, I then noticed "Startrek" again I clicked and again I noticed a windows insignia I clicked on it ... anyway what a partisan http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html site you run there even down to startrek (not the real startrek site either...thank god).
Posted by runescape money | November 24, 2007 9:41 PM
Cristian Rioux
I went to your site, and was confronted by a message to use firefox, I clicked to continue and use firefox and came back to your page, I then noticed "Startrek" again I clicked and again I noticed a windows insignia I clicked on it ... anyway what a partisan http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html site you run there even down to startrek (not the real startrek site either...thank god).
Posted by runescape money | November 24, 2007 9:43 PM
stop the spread of communism, Look at what happened in the USA when people were acussed of being or having socialist or communist beliefs, they called it Macarthyism.
The favourite was having a communist
Posted by runescape money | November 24, 2007 10:33 PM
www.vghp.com
play free game
runescape Gold
runescape Gold
runescape Gold
runescape forums
cdkey ,game time card
wow gold
runescape Gold
cabalonline gold
anarchyonline gold
dark age of camelot gold
dungeons dragons online Gold
eveonline isk
everquest credits
everquest2 Gold
final fantasy xi Gil
hellgate Gold
guild wars Gold
lineage2 Goldl
lotro gold
lotro gold
maplestory mesos
maplestory mesos
rfonline Gold
star war sgalaxies Gold
tabularasa Gold
tibia gold
vanguard saga of heroes Gold
WOW Gold
2moons gold
Second life lindens
Runescape gold
Sell to us
RS gold
wow gold
Runescape gold
Igeebay.com
Igeebay Blog
sell to us
Guild wars Gold
Runescape gold
maple story Mesos
dofus kamas
WoW Gold
WoW Gold
gaia Gold
second life linden
silkroad Gold
lotro Gold
lotro Gold
vanguard saga of heroes Gold
lineage2 adena
everquest 2 Gold
2moons Gold
www.runescape.ac/
WOW powerleveling
world of warcraft
world of warcraft
dofus kamas
guild wars gold
runescape gold
everquest2 gold
eveonline isk
final fantasy xii gil
lineage ii gold
maplestory mesos
rfonline gold
dungeons dragons online gold
star wars galaxies credits
age of conan(us)
age of conan(eu)
sgw.mobi
wow powerleveling
sell to us
ao gold
aa gold
cov gold
ddo gold
dofus kamas
eveonline isk
eq credit
eq2 gold
ffxi gil
Gaia Gold
gw gold
l2 gold
lotro gold
ms mesos
2moons gold
ro gold
sl gold
rs gold
rose online gold
scions of fate gold
silk road gold
swg credits
vanguard saga of heroes
wow gold
wow gold
rfonline gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
powerleveling runescape
Posted by rs3server | August 1, 2008 3:03 AM