Good morning lovers of the Web.
Will things return to normal here? I hope not!
DaveNet: A good decision for ISVs.
NY Times: "Microsoft has a 93 to 94 percent monopoly over the operating system market, a 96 percent share of the office applications suite business and an 88 percent share of the browser market," said Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and an opponent of Microsoft. "Hailstorm and Passport blueprint a huge strategy, which uses the same monopoly practices which have now be found to be illegal."
OJR: Content Management for the Masses.
A new Bryan Bell theme, perfect for school weblogs.
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal is excerpting the decision, showing text that affirms the lower court rulings. Thanks Thomas.
Heads-up: Motto Change. (Explained.)
NY Times: "The court did uphold parts of Judge Jackson's findings that the company violated antitrust laws in its efforts to protect its monopoly position, but it ordered that a new judge rule on the penalties for the company."
Other reports: BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Motley Fool, Standard.
NY Times: Jack Lemmon dies. "Through most of his 60 movies, Mr. Lemmon was the least glamorous and most approachable of movie stars ó the good-natured, ordinary guy next door with a slightly skewed moral compass. He was a master of sardonic comedy and could convey urban frustrations so deftly that audiences identified with him and thus were able to laugh at themselves."
Microsoft PR: "Dave, I think we need to cancel the 9AM call. Looks like there is some other news that trumps smart tags."
News.Com: "Handing Microsoft a major victory in its antitrust case, a federal appeals court has vacated a lower court's ruling calling for the break-up of the software titan."
Reading the decision now. There's a lot of cause for hope. The Appeals Court invalidates many of Microsoft's claims about its monopoly power in operating systems. I haven't gotten to the part about the browser yet. Update, it gets better. They seem to agree with Jackson's Findings of Fact re Microsoft's use of a monopoly in one market to attain a monopoly in another. Update, got to the part on Java. Every developer should read that section. The software industry is changing (for the better) before our eyes. Bravo to the judges!
Dan Gillmor is reading the decision too.
Today's song: "Turn the clock to zero buddy, donít wanna be no fuddy duddy. We're starting up a brand new day."
Motley Fool: "Graphics and animation software developer Macromedia says it will take 'aggressive steps' as it looks to cut costs in the face of slowing demand for its products."
Evan Williams on Exodus: "Every time I've gone in there in the last few months, it's more and more barren. Computers are disappearing. Racks are emptying. Whole cages are clearing out. Scary. Especially since Exodus is in the confidence business. People pay them the big bucks to rest easy that their servers are protected."
Something to believe in
I want to share a little story. I know Connie Guglielmo through her husband John Leddy, who like Brad Pettit and Steve Zellers, worked at Symantec after I left, for the part of Symantec that I founded. When I first read her wonderful Smart Tags story I was fooled and thought I was reading an accident that revealed that her publisher had less than perfect integrity. I sent her an email. She responded, and we went back and forth a few times. At the end of the exchange, glowing from finding a kindred spirit from my past, getting help from a reporter of high integrity, I said "Maybe we've found something to believe in."
Even during the dotcom boom, while cynical carpetbaggers swooped in and turned the Web into a no-integrity tangle of "business models," we had something to believe in -- ourselves and each other. Now we got a chance to find out who "each other" are, this issue bonded people at all kinds of publications, from the Wall Street Journal and San Jose Mercury News, to ZDNet and News.Com, and Manila and Blogger; and probably included some people at Microsoft, although it's unlikely we'll ever know who they are.
Yet, as with the CDA nightmare, which was overturned almost exactly four years ago, one editorial voice, conspicuously, did not speak -- The NY Times. We waited, both times, for them to stand for the value of free expression, and both times were disappointed. I can forgive Microsoft, and do; but I can't overlook such an obvious omission. Why didn't they stand up for the integrity of the Web?
O'Reilly's XML-RPC book
O'Reilly's XML-RPC book is now shipping. "XML-RPC, a simple yet powerful system built on XML and HTTP, lets developers connect programs running on different computers with a minimum of fuss. Java programs can talk to Perl scripts, which can talk to ASP applications, and so on. With XML-RPC, developers can provide access to functionality without having to worry about the system on the other end, so it's easy to create web services."
Gotta complaint though. Looking in the index, I didn't find UserLand, Frontier, or me. The only mention of Frontier is the confusing name given to the first Perl XML-RPC module. For the record, UserLand was the first to implement XML-RPC, in Frontier. (Radio also has full support.)
When I reviewed the first draft of the book, I found that the authors had completely left us out of the story. When I saw this I rushed to write the foreword to the book. At least the publishing people at O'Reilly had the foresight to make the offer.
So I know I'm helping them sell their book, and I hope it's a big success, and maybe they'll help us get the next one off the ground. I don't think we should have to do anything to keep from being written out of technologies we create. We're running a business here too, as O'Reilly is -- and we help them sell books, it seems fair they would help the pioneering product that made XML-RPC possible. That's reciprocation, and it's a key part of the Web. To O'Reilly it's time for a "brand new day." What do you say?
BTW, they have someone else talking about XML-RPC at their Open Source Convention. I offered to do it. Never got a response.
© Copyright 1997-2005 Dave Winer. The picture at the top of the page may change from time to time. Previous graphics are archived.