Slashdot Mirror

So you actually think Judge Jackson is ridiculous in his findings of fact? Read it all and then respond.

The Applications Barrier to Entry
The Netscape Web browser
Sun's Implementation of the Java Technologies
...

Among alot more misbehaviours. I wish some well-informed pro-microsoft guy would actually respond. Seeing posts like the above repeated on every microsoft story, is ridiculous and sad.

Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).

Penfield's remedies are here. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.

More on this and other MS litigation over here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/domestic_spying;_ylt=Al

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Thu May 11, 6:59 AM ET

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.

"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.

Hinchey is one of many House Democrats who have been highly critical of the domestic eavesdropping program first revealed in December. He said lawmakers would push to find out who at the NSA denied the Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

"This administration thinks they can just violate any law they want, and they've created a culture of fear to try to get away with that. It's up to us to stand up to them," said Hinchey.

In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of its own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.

Bush's decision to authorize the largest U.S. spy agency to monitor people inside the United States, without warrants, generated a host of questions about the program's legal justification.

The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA's activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terror network.

Separately, the Justice Department sought last month to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the telephone company AT&T of colluding with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

The lawsuit, brought by an Internet privacy group, does not name the government as a defendant, but the Department of Justice has sought to quash the lawsuit, saying it threatens to expose government and military secrets.

___

On the Net:

Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/index.html [usdoj.gov]

National Security Agency: http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm [nsa.gov]

HAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHAHAHA*Gasp for air*HAHAHAhahahahahhaha

You're new to this world aren't you?

Or would you like to explain why Zacarias Moussaoui will be spending his life in prison, if not for "guilt by association"? These days it called "conspiring" and you can and will be persecuted (s.i.c.) for it, at will, any time you 1) make the wrong person mad at you, 2) get in the way, 3) happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 4) happen to fit a profile when a scapegoat is needed, 5) happen to fit a profile when a media distraction is needed.

Don't get me wrong, Moussaoui is a complete asshat and, if stupidity were a crime, should have gotten the death penalty. But let's not kid ourselves that he actually had anything more to do with 9/11 than being "associated" with those who we know carried out the attacks. Throughout BOTH of his trials, the prosecution never even accused him of commiting ANY crime, other than "conspiracy." In fact, the entirety of both cases consisted of the government saying that Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plans, and that if he had told the FBI, the attack could have been stopped. Even though it was proven that the FBI already had ALL of the information Moussaoui might have been able to provide, prior to the attacks. Somehow the were able to convince a jury that just one more middle-eastern confirming it would have caused them to connect all the links and swing into action to stop the planes from taking off.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/domestic_spying;_ylt=Al tzCvZmCXzQ.QsFg5wYT2Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBH NlYwN0bQ--

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Thu May 11, 6:59 AM ET

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.

"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.

Hinchey is one of many House Democrats who have been highly critical of the domestic eavesdropping program first revealed in December. He said lawmakers would push to find out who at the NSA denied the Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

"This administration thinks they can just violate any law they want, and they've created a culture of fear to try to get away with that. It's up to us to stand up to them," said Hinchey.

In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of its own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.

Bush's decision to authorize the largest U.S. spy agency to monitor people inside the United States, without warrants, generated a host of questions about the program's legal justification.

The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA's activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terror network.

Separately, the Justice Department sought last month to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the telephone company AT&T of colluding with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

The lawsuit, brought by an Internet privacy group, does not name the government as a defendant, but the Department of Justice has sought to quash the lawsuit, saying it threatens to expose government and military secrets.

___

On the Net:

Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/index.html

National Security Agency: http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm

...is at 30 year lows.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm

Hope I'm not getting in the way of Jack's truthiness.

Then I got these fake-ass niggaz I first drew with
Claimin that they non-violent, talkin like they *He's not how he used to be*
Spit venom in interviews, speakin on reunions
Move units, then talk shit and we can do this
Until then - I ain't even speakin your name
Just keep my name outta yo' mouth and we can keep it the same
Nigga, it ain't that I'm too big to listen to the rumors
It's just that I'm too damn big to pay attention to 'em
That's the difference

*sigh* This is a myth. It is illegal for the government to use SS for other things. Private entities can do what ever they want with it. Much in the same way a private group doesn't have to obey the first amendment.

Here's more information.

http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm

Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

Microsoft is only your deemed 'monopoly' because the general public have taken to them so well and a few people cant deal with it.

Wrong. Microsoft may have achieved its monopoly on the operating system because of the general public making a free choice (even that is doubtful) - but it achieved its monopoly of most of the closely related areas, browsers in particular, by abuse of that operating system monopoly. Have a read of the antitrust case findings of fact about Microsoft. (Particularly sections IV and V.)

The general public have not taken to them out of their own free will. They have 'taken' to them through shady, duplicitous, illegal and morally bankrupt actions. Wake up and smell the coffee!

I haven't really followed the issue (I have only used rather mainstream parts that have decent support for linux), but isn't the basic reason for this linux's GPL licence? Now that Linux has gained some market share and companies might think about devoting a few resources to Linux support, can they ship proprietary drivers to be included in the kernel? Somebody who knows this issue, please enlighten me.

Sure they can, while proprietary drivers are a grey area in the GPL. They are considered a viability for future support, but furthermore, most companies don't even provide binary drivers.

I really don't think MS is at fault here. WMV is proprietary, but I don't like it and it is generally not that used anyway. However the basic problem is that DRM and content encryption is demanded by the studios and can only be implemented in a non GPL OS. While it should be obvious that I don't have issues with MS, I do have big issues with MPAA, RIAA etc and everyone that tries to take away all of my fair use rights.

WMV is heavily used. It's not the default standard yet, but most big sites use it. Also, look at common DVD players and wmv support. Why do you suppose they support wmv and not, say, quicktime which IMHO is a better format? You are right about DRM though...

It should be obvious that you cannot bash MS for being a monopoly by conquering the market. Therefore, Linux not being lucrative to software houses is not a monopoly abuse by MS. Unless you complain because MS does not make Linux games? :)

Well, you surely cannot blame MS for not developing linux games, but what about using patents against OpenGL?

I have never bought a system with a preinstalled anything. If say "decent computer" and in fact mean "Dell", what are you doing on Slashdot? And my company has bought Linux laptops from smaller boutiques.

People on slashdot are not the problem. Most know and have chosen over if they will use linux or not. Preinstalled linux would make the differance for people not so tech savvy. Unfortunately, linux faces a chicken and egg problem.

So, the incompetence of web designers is MS's fault too? I have always cross-browser tested my pages and I am not a professional web designer. Instead of flooding bad designer's mail boxes, it is easier to post on slashdot and complain about MS?

Obviously you are not a pro web designer. If you were, patriotaki, you would know exactly how much a PITA IE actually is. All other browsers are more or less standards compliant. To get the same functionality out of IE, more often than not, you have to resort to IE hacks. This is frustrating. the only reason Web Devs put up with such bullshit is because they are sure 90% of people on earth have IE and they can't risk not supporting it.

Again, it is not illegal to hold the largest market share (and there has never been doubted that the OS market was gained fairly). You might be "pretty sure", but I do have doubts that MS used the same stronghold tactics that Intel used, for the obvious reason that the gains for a company by getting a rebate on the volume licensing of an OS would not be substantial enough for denying options that would benifit the consumer. Unless the vendor is ruthless and does not care about the client. But why are you then STILL bashing MS and letting DELL go its merry way?

You might want to read up on Judge Jackson's findings of fact. I wouldn't say microsoft wasn't exactly a boyscout when gaining market share, neither is it one in keeping it. The history linked shows the court's findings of microsoft's misbehaviour. Funny you mentioned Intel:

102. Microsoft was not content to merely quash Intel's NSP software. At a second meeting at Intel's headquarters on August 2, 1995, Gates told Grove that he had a fundamental pro

Does Microsoft have a monopoly?

Yup.

• Felony 2,656
• Argument 4,752
• Gang 1,119
• Other 2,371
• Unknown 5,305

• Handgun 8,286
• Other gun 2,538
• Knife 2,018
• Blunt object 773
• Other weapon 2,588

But I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm glad you follow the sentiment, but don't be afraid to accept the reality. Some people may not have their facts straight, but what I speak is truth.

Regarding Iraq: They are Americans dying as a result of our government policy, which was the point. That they were aware of the risk they were taking does not make their deaths any less tragic, or "count less" as you seem to imply.

You can't honestly compare marijuana prohibition with alcohol regulation With alcohol, you are penalized for how you behave under the influence, not the fact that you have a receipt in your wallet. And you don't get arrested for being drunk in a bar, unless you start a fight or cause a great disturbance. The liquor store can't sell you liquor if you already look trashed, but that's to stop you from hurting yourself, and you don't get in trouble for it. We learned the hard way that people can't drive when drunk, but we didn't turn around and ban alcohol, did we?

>Likewise I imagine if you are getting busted for drugs you are being busted in a public location, are cultivating it outside, or selling significant amounts.

Cops go after the most visible targets, sure, and as a result most arrests are for mere posession. (see bottom) Because of the demand, economics dictates that a black market will exist. As the legal deterrants increase (jail time, property seizure, mandatory minimums), dealers will become increasingly dangerous, as their freedom is on the line. Meanwhile, the steady stream of arrests, especially in certain minority communities, erodes public trust in the police, and crime increases. The only reason this hasn't exploded already is because a lot of the people affected are still locked up.

"There have been more than 3.7 million marijuana arrests this decade [1990-2000]. Eighty-three percent of these arrests were for possession only.
Marijuana arrests rose every year since 1991, reaching an all time high of 695,200 in 1997. Marijuana arrests increased 59 percent during this period. Conversely, use of marijuana by adults remained unchanged."
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4015

Look at the graphs supplied by the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm

The arrests just go up and up. And yet we underfund drug rehabilitation programs. Good policy. Can't stop now, there's a war going on.

I was inspired to write my congresscritters and other elected officials about a news report yesterday about Mr. Gonzales and his latest push against kiddie pr0n. I sent the following:

---
CNN has posted an article on their web site this evening (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/gonzales.porn/i ndex.html) stating that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is "sending to Congress a legislative package that includes greater penalties and improved cooperation from Internet service providers".

The United States Department of Justice has already clearly spelled out that trafficking in child pornography on the Internet is a Federal offense (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide_ porn.html). Shouldn't Attorney General Gonzales be making his best effort to ensure that the laws that are already on the books are being enforced, as opposed to attempting to enact new laws that will - as has been seen and documented with the PATRIOT Act, and the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) - surely be twisted beyond their originally declared scope to further weaken our civil liberties and rights as free citizens?

In light of recent news reports that AT&T has willingly supported the NSA in efforts to *illegally* monitor telephone and Internet traffic of it's customer base (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#0045 38), in addition to the uproar over the President's use of illegal wiretaps (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/i ndex.html) the last thing that is needed is further opportunities to allow excessive monitoring of our civilian activities by government officials, especially under the transparent disguise of "thinking of the children".

I'm no fan of kiddie porn or it's consumers, but there's no need for this new legislation. There are already laws on the books, laws that have been tested and proven to be effective against criminals, as well as secure from abuse by those who would seek to limit our freedoms. Use THOSE laws. Keep the LAW-BREAKERS in fear, not the honest citizens.
---

Over the years, Microsoft has acted to thwart Quicktime and has employed both punitive and exclusionary tactics. It has gone as far as introducing technical problems and misleading error messages (DR-DOS anyone?) which impair Quicktime's performance and impede Apple's ability to develop for MS platforms.

Don't take my word for it. See that and very many other examples in the court's records (warning for PDF).

Furthermore, Microsoft has repeatedly pressured apple to give up Quicktime and cede the multimedia playback market to Microsoft. When MS saw how much better Quicktime was that its own crap, MS tried to steal Quicktime. When that didn't work, MS then tried to block Quicktime for Windows.

MS' antics hurt the market, hurt the end users, and run up tax-funded court costs.

Because those details are a strongly guarded secret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin#Prepara tion
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Nitroglycerin
And of course the government tries to keep this information
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/04wtc97.htm
a secret so nobody can figure out how to make it.

Sorry to give you a hard time there. Its just that your comment was funny.

And why did they care about beating Netscape? Because they were scared shitless of web apps. All this came out in the trial, there are some very candid memos about the importance of Win32. For instance, from a DoJ report:

In an April 4, 1996 internal Microsoft memorandum, entitled "FY97 Planning Memo 'Winning the Internet platform battle'," Brad Chase wrote, "Go for maximum browser share. Why should you care? This is a no revenue product, but you should worry about your browser share, as much as BillG because: we will loose [sic] the Internet platform battle if we do not have a significant user installed base. The industry would simply ignore our standards. Few would write Windows apps without the Windows user base. -- at your level, if you let your customers deploy Netscape Navigator, you loose [sic] the leadership on the desktop." GX 39, at MS6 5005720 (emphasis in original)

That was from here. And another one:

"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead..."

"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move."

"In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."

Section headings from the downloadable PDF include:

# Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its Monopoly Power

# Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat Quicktime

# Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia Playback Market to Microsoft

# to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions

# The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete

# Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes

There are far too many examples of monopoly-abusing business practices to quote them all, but here are a few from the main PDF:

From paragraph 77: "As recounted in the sworn deposition of Phil Schiller and Tim Schaaf, Microsoft repeatedly pressured Apple to abandon its business of providing software that enables users to view multimedia content on their computers. In return, Microsoft offered Apple the much smaller portion of the market for software tools used to create multimedia content. Microsoft made it clear that if Apple refused to relinquish the playback market, Microsoft would use its monopoly power to drive Apple out of the entire multimedia market." See subsequent paragraphs for how they went about this.

From paragraph 97: "... Microsoft took several steps to sabotage QuickTime. These included creating misleading error messages and introducing technical bypasses that deprived QuickTime of the opportunity to process certain types of multimedia files. In some instances users were left with the false impression that QuickTime was not functioning properly"

From paragraph 104: "Microsoft has used undocumented changes to the Windows registry to impair the ability of QuickTime to play numerous multimedia file types. In some cases, Internet Explorer 4.0 bypasses QuickTime and uses Microsoft software to play a multimedia file from a Web server. For many formats the Microsoft software is not able to process the file at all. In other cases, the Microsoft multimedia software will play the file with a severly degraded quality."

From paragraphs 108,109: "Microsoft has caused misleading error messages to appear for consumers who used QuickTime for various file formats. For example, ... Under certain conditions, an error dialog message would pop up when the user tried to gain access to types of media files, such as a QuickTime movie file, which were not associated with [Microsoft's] ActiveMovie. The Windows operating system would then ask the usser if he wished to reconfigure his system, suggesting that there was a problem that the consumer should fix although no actual error had occurred. If the user selected 'yes', Windows would reconfigure the system to select Microsoft's ActiveMovie instead of QuickTime -- even though QuickTime was capable of running the movie file. From the point forward, Internet Explorer would launch the ActiveMovie player whenever the consumer clicked on a file containing a QuickTime movie. This would cause problems for certain multimedi files because the ActiveMovie plater could only process a subset of the file formats that QuickTime could process. If a file could not be processed by ActiveMovie, an error message would appear telling the user that the player is not available -- even though QuickTime was capable of operating with the file. This could mislead consumers into believing that QuickTime was not operating properly.

From paragraphs 125,126: "At the conclusion of the meeting [between Apple and Compaq, to discuss Compaq bundling Apple's

Section headings from the downloadable PDF include:

# Microsoft has Designed its Multimedia Product to Exclude Competitors and Extend its Monopoly Power

# Microsoft has Used its Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Tactics to Try to Defeat Quicktime

# Microsoft Repeatedly Pressured Apple to Give Up Quicktime and Cede the Multimedia Playback Market to Microsoft

# to Thwart Quicktime, Microsoft Employed Punitive and Exclusionary Actions

# The Technical Problems and Misleading Error Messages Introduced by Microsoft Impair Quicktime's Performance and Impede Apple's Ability to Compete

# Original Equipment Manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors Fear Reprisal from Microsoft if their Business Conduct does not Conform to Microsoft's Wishes

There are far too many examples of monopoly-abusing business practices to quote them all, but here are a few from the main PDF:

From paragraph 77: "As recounted in the sworn deposition of Phil Schiller and Tim Schaaf, Microsoft repeatedly pressured Apple to abandon its business of providing software that enables users to view multimedia content on their computers. In return, Microsoft offered Apple the much smaller portion of the market for software tools used to create multimedia content. Microsoft made it clear that if Apple refused to relinquish the playback market, Microsoft would use its monopoly power to drive Apple out of the entire multimedia market." See subsequent paragraphs for how they went about this.

From paragraph 97: "... Microsoft took several steps to sabotage QuickTime. These included creating misleading error messages and introducing technical bypasses that deprived QuickTime of the opportunity to process certain types of multimedia files. In some instances users were left with the false impression that QuickTime was not functioning properly"

From paragraph 104: "Microsoft has used undocumented changes to the Windows registry to impair the ability of QuickTime to play numerous multimedia file types. In some cases, Internet Explorer 4.0 bypasses QuickTime and uses Microsoft software to play a multimedia file from a Web server. For many formats the Microsoft software is not able to process the file at all. In other cases, the Microsoft multimedia software will play the file with a severly degraded quality."

From paragraphs 108,109: "Microsoft has caused misleading error messages to appear for consumers who used QuickTime for various file formats. For example, ... Under certain conditions, an error dialog message would pop up when the user tried to gain access to types of media files, such as a QuickTime movie file, which were not associated with [Microsoft's] ActiveMovie. The Windows operating system would then ask the usser if he wished to reconfigure his system, suggesting that there was a problem that the consumer should fix although no actual error had occurred. If the user selected 'yes', Windows would reconfigure the system to select Microsoft's ActiveMovie instead of QuickTime -- even though QuickTime was capable of running the movie file. From the point forward, Internet Explorer would launch the ActiveMovie player whenever the consumer clicked on a file containing a QuickTime movie. This would cause problems for certain multimedi files because the ActiveMovie plater could only process a subset of the file formats that QuickTime could process. If a file could not be processed by ActiveMovie, an error message would appear telling the user that the player is not available -- even though QuickTime was capable of operating with the file. This could mislead consumers into believing that QuickTime was not operating properly.

From paragraphs 125,126: "At the conclusion of the meeting [between Apple and Compaq, to discuss Compaq bundling Apple's

Actually... No. The findings in that document are alot broader than just bundling a browser. Even more persuasive:

THE FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)

Alot of the settlement includes:

...

D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. For purposes of this Section III.D, the term APIs means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.

...

EU anyone?

...

1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because of that ISV's or IHV's:

a developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or

b exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.

...

Looks they address ALOT more than just bundling the browser here. While it was the one point played out more in the media at that time, it's hardly the only thing said and judged in the whole procedure. It's an interesting read if you have the time.

Jesus, I can't believe I have to keep saying this.

Apparently you operate under the maxim "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth."

Here are the conclusions of law. They state that MS violated the Sherman Act, they explain what exactly MS did to violate the Sherman act, and no, it was not "they bundled a browser with the OS".

Quote from the section "Microsoft's Conduct Taken As a Whole":

"But only when the separate categories of conduct are viewed, as they should be, as a single, well-coordinated course of action does the full extent of the violence that Microsoft has done to the competitive process reveal itself. [...] In essence, Microsoft mounted a deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems."

But at the time Microsoft did them, they weren't yet declared a monopoly.
I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about. Monopolies are not "declared" monopolies, they are or they aren't. How can a corporation not realise that it has monopoly power in the market, if its actions would not have worked if they had viable competition (i.e. if they weren't a monopoly)? Here are the findings of law which also spell out the laws broken, and what actions broke them.

According to testimony at the guilty plea hearing on February 20, 2003 , Tolleson and several employees of JT Technology LLC manufactured and sold various devices designed or intended to assist others in the unauthorized decryption of satellite television programming without payment of subscription fees or pay-per-view fees to DirecTV.

According to testimony at the guilty plea hearing on February 20, 2008 , Joe Hacker manufactured various devices designed or intended to assist others in the unauthorized decryption of music without payment of subscription fees.

From the article and abstract, the study takes a few things like
1. Being exposed to images of violence *temporarily* increases blood pressure, competitiveness, and paranoia, i.e. things they knew would happen *before* the study was conducted.
2. Concludes that violent video games cause violence in real life, fosters drug use, and brings general anarchy.

2 clearly does not follow from 1. 1 is a natural and healthy response to danger... 1 is adrenaline and is something they should take pains to *factor our* of their study to make it anything more than pseudo science. I would like to know, for one, how long *after* playing video games they waited before gathering behavioral data, but I didn't see that anywhere in the article and abstract.

The only meaningful conclusions about video game's effect on violence would have to be discovered by paying some people (who would not otherwise) play violent video games over a long period of several years, then seeing if they had increased criminal activity over a control group. This would be a more expensive study... but frankly, people like this who aren't willing to do real science, shouldn't be doing science at all.

Furthermore, it is a widely held belief among the elderly in our culture is the belief that drug use and violence is up in the current generation. This is a belief which is, of course, patently false, and has more grounding in pre-enlightenment religious that the world is in a constant state of rot and decay than actual fact.

In actuality, violent crime is down *quite a lot* over the part few decades. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
People will sometimes quote you "crime is up 1 million percent from 1960 to 1991" or whatever, but you have to ask yourself, why did they pick those particular years, and are they talking about *violent crime* or are they talking about things like *speeding tickets*, and violations of various nanny laws that have been passed recently... It is quite easy to distort the figures, but murder is most definitely *way down*.

Drug arrests do appear to be up... since we started the war on drugs and started arresting people in large numbers. A better question about drugs is, are they actually in wider use now then before? It was pretty hard for me to actually dig up that information... there's a lot of shock numbers out there about drug *arrents* (a number that raises and lowers with *enforcement* more than *use*) but info about how drug *use* is something that people don't always put out there.

http://oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/BabyBoom/chapter2.htm

This data seems do indicate that marijuana use peaked in 1978 and never got as high again (haha, little pun). The survey data doesn't seem to have all of the 90s in it though, and I think I've seen some other data that said that drug use may have gone up some during that time frame... alhough I'm not sure how much. Anecdotal experience suggests that programs like DARE were pretty effective. Actually and honestly telling people what kind of health side effects various drugs have, has been shown to be pretty effective. Most people are not self destructive. Policies of making claims about the connection between drug use and crime (essentially telling people they will become felons if they start smoking pot) have not been so effective, as people generally consider themselves in control of their own actions.

Also, I suspect the large numbers of arrests have been mostly a public relations maneuver by the government, and has done little to decrease drug use. I suppose it may have increased the street price of various drugs (would anyone with knowledge care to comment?), but I wonder if it's really worked as a deterrent to users?

Anyway, when people make claims about crime, drug use, and terrorism, always consider the source and look at the data for *yourself*. There are a lot of people in this country who imagine

Has no one heard of the Privacy Act of 1974? Things such as SSN, birth dates, telephone numbers, addresses, etc are all protected. Somehow, it only makes sense to blank that out, even when it comes to freedom of information actions. I'm ashamed to call Florida my state of residence now.

Including this one? It would make sense.

Samsung execs plead guilty, receive prison terms

I think a couple of nice little prison sentences for Gates, Ballmer, and company, to be served in some vintage Polish penitentiary would help the problem immensely. I bet Samsung isn't going to flaunt U.S. law again anytime soon. 2M EUR to the likes of Ballmer is just the cost of doing business, not a deterrent.

Dude, Apple is now officially a x86 platform. It runs any x86 OS without restrictions... Even at that time, Apple was selling a whole solution (Hardware and software), whereas microsoft was selling an OS on "generic x86 hardware". Even if Apple could be ruled as a monopoly, it wasn't abusing its power, or at least there were not complaints to back such a position.

Also, to clear it up more:

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs MICROSOFT CORPORATION complaint

Some interesting points:

35. Microsoft's exclusionary contracting practices have had the effect of excluding competitors on a basis other than competition on the merits and have thereby allowed Microsoft illegally to perpetuate its monopoly in the PC operating system market. 36. Through the unlawful acts and practices described above Microsoft has harmed competition, consumers and innovation: a. Microsoft has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the PC operating system market. b. Microsoft's exclusionary conduct has significantly impeded the ability of rival operating systems to compete in the PC operating system market. Competitors find it more difficult to convince OEMs to offer and/or promote their product and must incur greater marketing expenses to penetrate the market. Microsoft raised hurdles to fair competition even higher through unreasonably restrictive non-disclosure agreements. c. Microsoft's exclusionary licenses deprive rival PC operating systems of a significant number of sales that they might otherwise secure. These lost sales impede the ability of PC operating systems to develop an installed base sufficient to convince OEMs to bundle the new system with their hardware, to convince ISVs to write applications that run on the new system, and to convince users that the system is, and will remain, a viable alternative to the existing MS-DOS and Windows standard. d. Microsoft's conduct also substantially lengthens the period of time required for competitors to recover their development costs and earn a profit, and increases the risk that an entry attempt will fail. In combination, all of these factors deter entry by competitors and thus harm competition. 37. The harm to competition caused by Microsoft's unlawful conduct harms consumers. OEMs that do offer customers a choice of operating systems may charge customers a higher price for PCs with non-Microsoft operating systems in order to be able to pay the double royalty necessitated by the Microsoft per processor agreements. Thus, users who do not receive a Microsoft operating system are still, indirectly, paying Microsoft. 38. In addition, Microsoft's unlawful conduct has deterred the development of competing operating systems, depriving consumers of a choice of systems with possibly superior features. Similarly, the slower growth of competing operating systems has slowed the development and diffusion of applications designed to work on non-Microsoft operating systems and has limited choices of consumers and users of PCs.

And:

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs MICROSOFT CORPORATION ruling

Some interesting points:

b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable - i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating system

And a crucial reason Microsoft holds more than 90 percent of the PC operating system market is that the company strains to make sure software and hardware that ran on previous versions of Windows will also work on the new one — compatibility, in computing terms.

I did some quick research (read:Google search) and found this quote from a DoJ letter, circa 1996:

Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well.

More recently, the DoJ filed this brief which asserts the ADA covers even buisinesses that soley exist online. Websites, particuliarly websites offering goods and services, should offer accessibility options, and it's not unreasonable to ask for them. It's not like there aren't websites out there to help you out.

So, even though videogames are not covered (an assertion I agree with), websites most certainly are.

I did some quick research (read:Google search) and found this quote from a DoJ letter, circa 1996:

Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well.

More recently, the DoJ filed this brief which asserts the ADA covers even buisinesses that soley exist online. Websites, particuliarly websites offering goods and services, should offer accessibility options, and it's not unreasonable to ask for them. It's not like there aren't websites out there to help you out.

So, even though videogames are not covered (an assertion I agree with), websites most certainly are.

>Can a blind person install and configure windows, iis, SQL server, exchange, and active directory?

Except for the OS install, the answer is yes. All of the text and other elements in an ordinary window are automatically hooked into the standard OS-wide accessibility API. Screen readers like JAWS can then pull out the text without any problem.

>It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace. If somebody wants to put forth the effort then great but honestly why don't we concentrate on getting the documentation so that a reasonably intelligent non disabled person can use it first.

There are a couple of little things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 that you might want to consider. Similar requirements exist for state goverments as well as other national and provincial governments across the world.

Without support for accessibility at least as good as other commercial OSes and software, OSS is going to have a harder time getting a foothold in goverment and industry. Not supporting accessibility is not an option.

>Then we can worry about the blind.

Given the rise in age-related diseases that cause vision degeneration, I sincerely hope those words never come back to haunt you.

Researchers can obtain a license from the DEA to acquire (from a company possessing a DEA license to manufacture/distribute, which every major chemical company like Mallinkrodt or Sigma Aldrich has) and possess controlled substances. It's not easy to get, they obsessively track what you purchase and you have to file paperwork accouting for every last bit of it, but many such licenses exist. For more information on obtaining such licenses, see: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/index.ht ml

If I were to say, "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002." Would that be hateSpeak?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

I can think of about 90 million reasons to not want the study done. The results will be so much horse shit. Violent crime has been declining steadily since 1993 according to the U.S. Govt.'s own statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm The entire issue is nothing more than a fabrication and a transparent attempt to garner votes. Fuck you Hillary Cunt. Foot your own campaign bills.

From your DOJ article: "The higher volume of crime in the United States is due, at least in part,to the greater population size of the United States. A more meaningful comparison is between the crime rates of the two countries."

The UK is has a far higher density of population than the USA. There are ~65 million people in the UK, and ~320 million in the USA. 4x the people, 50x the area. A "more meaningful" comparison would take that into account.

An additional reason for the UK to have higher violent crime is that the victim often survives in the UK. Even if attacked with a knife. You are far more likely to end up dead in the USA, so the figures are artifically low when comparing the two.

The USA has just sustained a huge drop [warning: PDF] in murder rates/year (in 2002, the latest figures I could find, it was ~5 murders per 10,000 people per year). During the time period you linked to in the "higher violent crime rate", it was ~8 murders per 10,000 people per year. Or, put another way ~260,000 murders. In the UK in 2003/2004 there were 853. In the period you linked to, it was ~700.

853 x4 is nowhere near 160,000 (both recent figures). The UK is no panacea, but to paint it as more-violent than the USA is just plain wrong.

Simon

Nope. Just a much higher violent crime rate. Most people seem to think this is because of the lack of protection that a person in the UK definitely doesn't have, but a person in the US may or may not have. Additional links:

US DOJ
NewsMax
The Weekly Standard

Get off your "Britain is better" high horse, because it's completely wrong.

Being a monopoly is not a crime. And having a monopoly and continuing to act as if you weren't is a violation of commerce rules, not a "crime" in the way that "criminal" implies.

You're full of it. Monopoly abuse is a felony.

On the first offense, lock up *every* drug user over the age of 12 for 5 years with no parole and *every* drug dealer for 10 years without parole instead of groaning on and on about their "bad upbringing" and "disease of addiction."

Good plan. Oh wait, did you realize that 45.7 Percent of High School seniors have reported using Marijuana? Locking up half of the Senior class (not to mention a substantial portion of the adult population) for the next five years might have a few drawbacks, I think. It would appear that your plan is infeasible on it's face.

Besides, expanding the prison system enough to the point that it could house a large percentage of the population of the United States would probably cut into our glorious leader's all important tax cuts.

What happened to the days when MS, along with Apple, was the hero because they were against the big bad IBM monopoly.

Oh I don't know. Maybe those days ended when Microsoft was forced to settle with the US Dept. Of Justice or risk being guilty of antitrust violations?

That a correlation between America's increasingly violent entertainment options and increasingly violent culture exists is beyond question.

Interesting argument. Too bad that it is completely unconnected to reality.

Wait, that must have been a type. You must have meant our decreasingly violent culture. If there's no question of a correlation between violent entertainment options and violent culture, what exactly do you suppose accounts for this negative correlation? Are we, perhaps, expending stress or energy on games that were formerly expended against other living human beings? Do you think this correlation will continue? If we continue to increase the violence of our entertainment options, will we at eventually reach a point where we have no violence what-so-ever in our culture?

The problem with the entire thesis that correlates violence with rap and video games and movies is that the violent crime rate per capita in the US has been steady for many years, and then began trending down radically after 1993, until 2004 represented the lowest recorded level.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Check it out. If, in fact, violence in media is trending up, or steady since 1993, then there is a *negative* correlation society-wide.

Yes, there are fewer violent crimes. That doesn't mean that there are fewer violent people. It just means that more of them are in prison.

The fact, nonetheless, remains. Violent crime is at a 30-year low. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Many people (who are dumb) feel that America is more dangerous now than ever, and that emerging social factors such as video games must be the cause. They are looking for a cause for a result that DOESN'T EXIST.

Here's the memo: it's okay to stop being afraid. America is a freakishly safe country to live in.

Sadly, the legislators who propose such idiotic laws are not students of history. Regardless of the increase in violent video games, increase in sexual material, etc etc... the statistics will show otherwise.

Violence, in the last 50 years, has been on a downward decline per capita. Don't believe me? Go look it up -- the Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/) has detailed information on this. Sexual crime is up a bit over the last 50 years, but this is due to the internet making it easier for people to be preyed on, and improved tracking due to investigative techniques to catch these guys.

I will not argue the fact that violent video games give children a tendency to be more violent. This is where PARENTING comes in. I have an aunt who instead of really raising her children, plops them in front of TV or Playstation, lets them do whatever and buys them all the video games where people are beating the living shit out of each other -- all in high graphic detail.

I know I couldn't fix her lack of parenting skills, so I spilled water on their Playstation (quite purposely) and it died. I bought them a Gamecube with some Mario games -- what a difference it makes. At least they are playing the games I grew up on, in some form at least. They may not be as graphically appealing, but they are fun and meant for kids. Even big kids, like me. Mario Party kicks some serious ass :)

I still don't see much point in legislating against this -- essentially you are legislating so that people like my aunt don't have to do their jobs as parents. As the old saying goes, "It takes a village." And it's true... and will become more prevalent as kids get more unruly, and the typical diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is prescribed by overeager doctors. I think drugging up your kids won't work forever... at some point you have to let them free in the real world, and that takes you to raise them well, your family to help and support, and the ability to see ALL choices (good and bad) and make rationale decisions on their own.

Nobody's going to learn anything if you just suppress what is available anyway. At 10 years old, I had Playboys in my hands -- I don't think that was legal either, but it still wasn't very difficult to get my hands on. The same applies here.

If you check actual statistics you will see that violent crime has been steadily declining since about 1993. I can argue that this is due to Internet and the cathartic effect of video games.

Few times I mentioned this topic to my kids, they said "Dad! We can tell the difference between reality and a game. Duh!"

According the the Bureau of Justice Statistics, with the exception of drug-related incidents, crime rates have been on a steady decline for the last decade or more.

Games (and other forms of entertainment) depicting violence have been on the rise. So how can anyone claim there is some correllation?

But does this indicate that Clinton "spied" on anti-abortion citizens without a warrant?

Here is the DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/tfreppub.htm. While you may disagree with the goal of VAAPCON, the fact is, it appears they were using perfectly legal means (obtaining judicial warrants) to gain the information in order to prosecute people that were breaking the law.

But the Bush administration says the president as commander in chief of the armed forces has the authority to carry out the intercepts and that Congress also gave him the authority upon approving the use of force in response to the September 11 attacks