KLUG Meeting Minutes 26-MAY-1998

[CJGIDMAN@xxxxxxxxxx]

RE: Kalamazoo Linux Users Group
    Meeting Minutes
    26-MAY-1998

Attendees: Bruce Smith, Bob Brown, Mike List, Matt Crampton, Jim  Wallace
           Dave Ehnis, Chris Gidman

(Attendees listed in no particular order.)

Presenter: Bob Brown
Topic:     The Microsoft Antitrust Suits
Food:      Bob brought milk and doughnuts

As is our custom we gathered in the lobby of building 298 around 6:00 PM.
Discussion centered around a project Scott Yellig is working on for the
group.

In order to make the meeting reminders a little more interesting, Scott is
working on a program that will extract the description of the upcoming
meeting from our web page and insert it into the weekly meeting reminder.

We discussed various methods for tackling the problem, including storing
the description in a separate file and using a cgi program to insert it
into the web page, or hyperlinking directly to the non-html description
file, and for web enabled mail readers, pop the web page up directly just
like the smut sites do.  Although, I rather imagine much more research is
going to have to go into the last idea.  One idea, which may be implemented,
but doesn't help Scott at all, was to hyperlink the page contents at the
top of the page.  These links would take the reader further down the page
to descriptions of interest.

==============
PERSONAL GRIPE
==============

I realize these are the minutes and I shouldn't put personal comments in,
but when you write them, I won't complain if you do too.  This was the first
time I'd heard about this project.  I would like it if in the future, 
projects such as these were announced prior to their starting.  It wouldn't
take too long if in the first few minutes of the meeting, those of you who
are administrators would announce what you are working on and how it's
progressing.  This project which Scott is doing just kind of "came out in
the discussion".  That didn't seem right to me.

===================
BACK TO THE MINUTES
===================

We wrapped up our lobby discussion with a look at a problem Matt is having
with a Maxtor drive.  It seems that he couldn't get it working right and
sent it back to the mfg.  They repartitioned it and sent it back to him.
It still didn't work.  He downloaded Max Blast from the Maxtor sight and
still couldn't get it to work.  We weren't much help.  If you think you
might be able to offer assistance, contact Matt for details by posting on
this list.

At 6:45 we headed upstairs, leaving a note that we would check back at 7:00
for people who arrived late.  I forgot until 7:10, but did check and no one
was waiting.

The details of the presentation are difficult to represent in the minutes.
Bob will be posting meeting notes to our web site (klug.armintl.com).
The presentation started with Bob announcing the Justice Department's case
started as far back as 1992.  This is a long time in computer years.
The DOJ stands on the Sherman Antitrust Act.  This act covers monopolistic
practices, restraint of trade, and the duties of monopolies, among other
things.  Note, however, that not all these things are illegal.

The Act defines a monopoly as "80% market share in one organization".  Under
this, Microsoft is definitely a monopoly in the OS biz.  Given this, Microsoft
has certain responsibilities to uphold.  They are not allowed to use their
monopoly to create another monopoly in a different area.  This seems to be
the primary basis for the DOJ's suit against them.  The claim is that by
integrating MSExplorer into the operating system distribution, they are
creating a monopoly in the browser market.  

The other suit against Microsoft is being brought by the states.  The focus
of the states' suit is the inclusion of MSOffice products in the OS dist-
ribution.  Bob believes this is a stronger suit.

We had a lot of fun debating the justification of the governments suits, and
did a lot of speculation about what they can use as evidence.  Some time was
spent speculating about the contracts MS has made vendors sign.  What's in
them, whether or not the vendors MUST sign them, etc.  It was great discussion
and exciting too.  I can't hope to record it all here.

Bob summed up the meeting by saying that these cases will probably drag on for
many years with no clear winner.

That's all for this week.  See you on Tuesday!