Government says all new PCs must be Linux-friendly

> Why not require they also be GNU/Linux-compatible?

Yes, but probably not even necessary. Since all the computers are now made in China, it will probably be the default.

Point!

I wonder if we will now see a change of heart, just came across this

Lenovo To Shun Linux

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml...

Well, they better have a change of heart. They sure ain't gettin' my business without it.

Not really a surprise... I suppose that was the reason IBM spun off their PC division to them. To make themselves (relatively) un-blackmailable by Bill's thugs. Now it's Lenovo toeing the line... they can't be very happy right now ;-/

[edited] BTW this is about the Republic of China (Taiwan) not the PRC.

don, I would be satisfied with our government prosecuting Microshaft under RICO or something, for collusion with hardware and other vendors. I think that would settle the problem of a non-diverse market.

> don, I would be satisfied with our government prosecuting Microshaft under RICO or something, for collusion with hardware and other vendors.

The exclusivity deals with hardware vendors is not illegal, as I understand it. Apple does it, too. So we'll have to work pretty hard to get that one. Here's something I'm a little more interested in though. Microsoft fired their chief auditor a couple years back, when he brought to their attention some oddities in their accounting procedures. The guy sued on wrongful dismissal. In order to win his case, he had to prove that they were guilty of the wrongdoing that got him fired. All but one of his key points were dismissed. The one that wasn't won his case for him. The judge was convinced that Microsoft would have been found guilty of inappropriate accounting procedures in a trial.

So here's the interesting part. They fired the chief auditor and the problem went away. But did they correct their accounting procedures? Or did they simply eliminate the problem by dismissing the auditor? At that time, Microsoft was accused of pulling money from a reserve account when sales were down, making it appear that they had been steadily growing all along. So will Microsoft's employees face the same dilemma as Enron's employees at some point?

Monopolies are regulated differently- they have to play by stricter rules. Assuming the feds actually want to go after them for anti-competitive behavior, which obviously they don't.

Their accounting fiddles are legion. Another ticking bomb is they have been over-generous with granting stock options, to the point that they have issued more options than they can honor. It could get interesting.

> Their accounting fiddles are legion. Another ticking bomb is they have been over-generous with granting stock options, to the point that they have issued more options than they can honor. It could get interesting.

I was unaware of their accounting fiddling until recently. I always thought they were different from Enron in that regard. The auditor's story is the first inkling I've had. I never paid them much attention in the past (can't you tell?). I began to realize they were corrupt way after I got into GNU/Linux, and it was really only through articles by Tom and others that I have come to realize the extent to which Microsoft is corrupt. The more I live the more I learn.

Don

> I was unaware of their accounting fiddling until recently. I always thought they were different from Enron in that regard.

To be fair to Microsoft (ack, how I hate saying that), their accounting practices can't hold a candle to that of Enron or Worldcomm. The practice in question above is commonly known as "cookie jar" accounting. While against the rules, it's a well known and not uncommonly practiced technique for smoothing out what would otherwise be an irrgelular profit stream. Simply put, when you make more money than you expect you put some of it in the cookie jar, and when you make less you take some out. As long as that's all your doing, it doesn't cause any significant problems (there are even ways of doing so legally, as demonstrated on a regular basis by GE). Microsoft's business practices are reprehensible enough without us blaming them for something they don't do.

The excess stock options is actually a greater concern, and tuxchick may know of more accounting irregularities. The cookie jar accounting is the only one I know of.

What I've heard about their accounting practices, I think "aggressive and inventive" are good descriptions. Just typical Microsoft fiddling with the truth. They are given credit for pioneering the use of investment income and "cookie Jar" (thanks jdixon) tactics to paint a rosier financial picture. It wasn't that long ago that Intel generated a bit of controversy by adopting some of the same tactics. It is argued that investment income is real money, and the investment managers at microshaft are very good. Still, it's all a song and dance, a dog and pony show, because these are used to mask unhealthy product sales and profits. Most folks expect businesses to be about developing and selling products. (what a concept.)

Accounting rules are moving targets in any case, and as long as folks get their paychecks, bonuses, and options, they don't care. As I understand it, the business with over-vesting employees with stock options isn't a legal issue, but a business problem- their salaries are below-market, plus they've all heard the legends of the hundreds of Microsoft millionaires, so that puts the company under tremendous pressure to keep stock prices continually rising. Lotsa luck.

> Microsoft's business practices are reprehensible enough without us blaming them for something they don't do.

Actually, the judge agreed with their former chief auditor that Microsoft's accounting was in violation. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism by which the judge (or someone) could then turn around and hual MS to court over their practices. If it isn't a really big deal, fine. If it's a real violation that someone should be concerned about, it deserves more attention.

Tuxchick, I've been reading up on the stock options you mentioned. Apparently they ended that practice in 2003. I haven't found any further references in recent times via Google. However, they definitely had a pyramid scheme going there for a while.

> If it isn't a really big deal, fine. If it's a real violation that someone should be concerned about, it deserves more attention.

It's against SEC regulations, so it's a real violation. The question is if anyone should be concerned. Both Enron and Worldcomm lied about their earnings: In the case of Worldcomm by billions of dollars. No one has indicated Microsoft did anything like that. What Microsoft did was take some money off the books in good years and add it back in bad years. No one has indicated (so far) that they're actually lying about how much money they made overall. It's very much equivilant to a no harm no foul situation.

Oh, this should be prefaced by the "I am not a financial advisor" disclaimer.

> Oh, this should be prefaced by the "I am not a financial advisor" disclaimer.

Darn, there goes my lawsuit.

Ah yes, the stock options problem: http://www.nasd-law.com/news.html

Hmmm...

jdixon: >"What Microsoft did was take some money off the books in good years and add it back in bad years. No one has indicated (so far) that they're actually lying about how much money they made overall. It's very much equivilant to a no harm no foul situation."

There is harm, so there is a foul. Public trading is supposed to be based on accurate financial reports to the SEC. Part of the basis of trading is the stability of a company. Microsoft actions create the illusion of more stability than they actually enjoy. They are artificially smoothing out the spikes and valleys in their chart and thereby artificially influencing trades in their stock.

gee don, if you want to be sued I'm sure we'll all chip in and hire Boies, et al and come after you. They're expensive, and they're losers, so it should be entertaining for all.

didja notice that nasd-law.com is registered to LAWRENCE L. KLAYMAN? Plus there is a sekret message in the big blue box at the top- just highlight the text with your mouse. "Klayman and Toskes: Attorney's at Law" I guess they couldn't afford a proofreader. :)

> didja notice that nasd-law.com is registered to LAWRENCE L. KLAYMAN? Plus there is a sekret message in the big blue box at the top- just highlight the text with your mouse

I saw the "Klayman and Toskes, P.A." in huge giant letters across the top of the page. I am afraid I am not familiar with who LL Klayman is though. Apparently he's making quite a killing off of helping (former) Msft employees sue the pants off the investment advisors for advising them to invest too heavily in Bill's pyramid scheme.

"Apparently he's making quite a killing off of helping (former) Msft employees sue the pants off the investment advisors for advising them to invest too heavily in Bill's pyramid scheme."

See? Microsoft is a powerful engine that drives the economy, :)

I found a serious financial guru who helped break the news on Microsoft's financial escapades, but who is no longer interested in fighting. He apparently felt he stuck his neck out with little or no support from the community. Interestingly, he says he would still accept an invitation to speak at a major Linux event.