Slashdot Mirror

This case is not about Microsoft giving price breaks for bulk purchases. The District Court's Findings of Fact speak better than I could about Microsoft's Windows 98 pricing behavior...

as it relates to OEMs: "In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. It is unlikely that Microsoft would have imposed this price increase if it were genuinely concerned that OEMs might shift their business to another vendor of operating systems or hasten the development of viable alternatives to Windows."

as it directly relates to consumers: "A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."

This behavior has nothing to do with bulk purchase discounts, but it has everything to do with misuse of monopoly power. That is why the court demonstrated that both resellers and consumer purchasers were harmed by Microsoft's behavior.

Sure, it's not a clean, 100%-of-the-market textbook economic monopoly, liked you learned about in 7th Grade. Nobody ever said it was.

Fortunately, economists typically have more than a 7th Grade education. So, "monopoly" isn't usually that pure even in economics texts. Lookup up "Four Firm Concentration Ratio" or "Herfindahl-Hirschman Index". By either of those measures, MSFT enjoys unprecedented monopoly power (which doesn't require 100% market share).

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (368078) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

You want something more authoritative?

How about this where AT&T says:

The suit began in 1974 and was settled in January 1982 when AT&T agreed to divest itself of the wholly owned Bell operating companies that provided local exchange service. This would, the government believed, separate those parts of AT&T (the local exchanges) where the natural monopoly argument was still seen as valid from those parts (long distance, manufacturing, research and development), where competition was appropriate.

Clearly the suit in 1974 precipitated the breakup.

Or, you can read here where Joel Klein, head of Antitrust litigation for the DOJ talks about the 1974 suit:

• • "While the Justice Department can't promise any consumer benefits that might result from its suit to break up [the company], it is sure of one thing: This is the largest antitrust action ever filed. So much for the mentality of modern-day trustbusters. As long as they can tackle the biggest of all 'big businesses,' what is the difference whether the massive expenditure of federal money and effort is likely to cut anyone's . . . bills?"

    "Where is the problem that justifies risking possible damage to the efficiency of a vital part of the U.S. infrastructure; damage to the investments of innumerable small investors and pension fund beneficiaries; possible damage to an important research and development enterprise? If there is a problem that justifies all this we can't find it. Maybe it is because we prefer to deal in economics, rather than politics in such matters."

  By now, you may have guessed that this is an editorial about the Department's monopoly maintenance case against AT&T, a 1974 editorial as a matter of fact; ...

So, clearly the 1974 suit was aimed at a breakup of the AT&T monopoly.

Which is the whole point. The Government, through the anti-trust suit, intiated the breakup of AT&T. Not some libertarian fantasy where monopolies voluntarily disperse under the control of the unseen hand.

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (3665499) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (3665282) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

SUBJECT: 560160
POST: 3664966

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (3664966) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (3664644) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (3664514) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

This man says "you certainly can".

Microsoft has, indeed admitted in open court that:

1) There are hidden API's

2) They refuse to disclose them as they feel it will negate a competitive advantage such nondisclosures afford them.

As for URL's, for starters, /. had an article on this recently, though salon seems to have broken the referenced link and it has been tough tracking it down. I believe it is cached here.

The fact MS API's are not documented is better documented than that, however. One should probably peruse the findings of fact. There was also an article on ZDnet (surprisingly) on this as well.

I found a Microsoft KB Article on undocumented API's as well as a perl tool pertaining to them with just a cursory google.

For the paranoid, I am sure a little more diligence would indeed turn up the very court documents in which the quotes were made, but really, the fact Microsoft hides code from developers has been discussed ad nauseum in the press ever since DOS, and has not only never been contested by Microsoft, rather the reverse, Microsoft has always said this is a necessary part of its business strategy.

If Bill Gates wants to be charitable, why doesn't he fix the bugs in Windows XP, and in Internet Explorer (17 and counting)?

The bugs and deliberate shortcomings in Windows XP are causing me lots of grief now, so I'm particularly aware of them. (I have to support my customers.) I haven't been able to find anyone associated with Microsoft who seems interested in fixing them.

Quite likely the bugs are not fixed because some secret agency of the U.S. government like the CIA or the FBI or the NSA wants the bugs. That may be the reason that the government is giving Microsoft such a sweet deal after the company was found guilty of breaking federal law.

The people who own computers are usually the leaders of any society. The huge number of bugs and deliberate insufficiencies slow us in our work. Making a good product would be the best charity for the whole world.

Giving free copies of Windows to people who would not otherwise buy them is cheap charity. (It's just one CD, and their group is allowed to make copies. The cost is in supervising the program.) Also, remember that they are expected to pay normally for upgrades.

Maybe the free software is donated to groups whom the U.S. government wants to watch. It's possible that the U.S. taxpayer supports what the Gates Foundations are doing, not Bill Gates or his father or wife. That is definitely the kind of sneaky behavior in which the U.S. government has engaged in the past. For evidence of this see What should be the response to violence? .

Anyhow, often rich people give money because they want to feel superior, and like to tinker with other people's lives. Don't look only at how much money is spent; look at the effect of the money. Many times a charitable project is, effectively, merely a method of advancing a rich person's hidden agenda.

Do you think that, in some other area of his life, Bill Gates is a nice guy? I don't think it ever works that way. I'm sympathetic to the troubles he has had in his life, but not accepting of his abuse.

These claims are circumstantial, arising primarily from the slew of pro-MS memos among their publications, and the testimony ADTI submitted on Microsoft's behalf at the Dept. of Justice trial. To quote another source:

I have not found a specific link between Microsoft and ADTI... but Microsoft is known to be funding similar conservative organizations. See:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti306.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth989.htm
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/16/marshall-j.ht ml http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/public/29 / tc-00028697.htm

These claims are circumstantial, arising primarily from the slew of pro-MS memos among their publications, and the testimony ADTI submitted on Microsoft's behalf at the Dept. of Justice trial. To quote another source:

I have not found a specific link between Microsoft and ADTI... but Microsoft is known to be funding similar conservative organizations. See:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti306.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth989.htm
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/16/marshall-j.ht ml http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/public/29 / tc-00028697.htm

Overall, very good questions, but just to nitpick ;)

In these times of rising violent crime isn't it about time the US government got back to the needs of the people not the needs of large corporations.

Violent crime seems to be on the decline.

While I have no idea why the texas police chose to preface those stats with *that* definition, it appears that that was not the definition used in finding those stats.

The page doesn't reference the study, but some searching strongly suggests that the study is the one referenced here. Two other potentially useful studies are here and here

• Microsoft, States Debate Remedies (eWeek, March 18)
• Microsoft Back in Court (internet.com, March 18)
• States ask for broad sanctions on Microsoft (USA Today, March 18)
• Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' - States (Register, March 19)
• Microsoft pressured Dell to drop Linux (The Inquirer, March 19)
• Microsoft caught in the anti-Linux act (vnunet.com, March 19)

• Case Filings
• District Court Opinions

"The nature of the oppression seems not be be precisely the same, depending on which side of the pond you're on. In the UK you just count up the total number of eligible (i.e. compulsory, according to the redefinition of the word) machines, pay your dues then you get the following: "Microsoft Office Standard and Professional Editions (for Windows and Macintosh) Works Standard Windows Upgrade Core Client Access Licence Encarta Reference Suite and Encarta Online Visual Studio Professional Microsoft Press Office Starts Here Step by Step Interactive" So instead of paying for Windows itself, you're paying for the right to have a computer according to microsoft...what utter BS. I still don't see how they can get away with this. Anyhoo, click here for some good laughs.

• None adding power to the copyright holders

  Read the viant report and how they monitored IRC. The copyright holders have both the legal and manpower tools to punish "evil-doers". Read The No Electronic Theft Act, which provides for lengthy prison sentences, forfeiture of all equipment used in making or distributing the equipment, and pretty heavy fines.

  You are not seeing these cases prosecuted because the copyright holders do not want the bad publicity, not because they have inadequate tools.

• What laws do need to be changed

  Copyright needs to be a "use it or lose it" system. I.e., if the copyright holder does not make a work widely available for a 14 year period; the copyright should be then placed in a mandatory auction clearinghouse. There should be some minimum reserve, and if there is no bid exceeding it, the work returns to the public domain.

  Copyright must return to a registration system. One of the greatest problems with the current system is that it is virtually impossible to find the copyright holder of many works. If the holder is deceased, and the work is not extremely well known, there is often no way of determining who to contact or pay. Registration should be required every 21 years.

Microsoft is a convicted Monopoly. That means that the rule of Supply and Demand don't apply to them. Until this is alleviated or remedied they can't be considered capitalists. I suppose that the reason I've gotten some negative responses to my posting stem from having used them as an example. Perhaps they are a great example because even their power has a tough time enforcing their price points.

What should happen, especially since software is so easy to manufacture once it has been completed is there should be normal rules of supply and demand in Eastern Europe. For example. If they won't pay 1,000 grivnas for XYZ Software then the price should be lowered. There is a business process called "Price Discovery" that is supposed to occur. Businesses try to find the optimal price to sell their wares at. People try to find the price they are comfortable paying. This gets interesting when there are choices among products in a line or across lines. Look at Flat-Panel monitors. You have tons of choices (DVI vs. RGB, 15" vs. 17", etc.) You also have tons of lines to chose from (Samsung vs. Sony vs. NEC, etc.) I've seen prices vary between products and lines tremendously in the past two weeks I've been looking for a new monitor. Having control means that I can buy what I want at a price I am happy with. I may have to alter what my expectations are depending on what I want to spend, but the process is there.

This doesn't exist in Eastern Europe presently, however they are working towards it. A software company here that doesn't give it's software away would be irrational to attempt to sell via legitimate channels in Eastern Europe. They could never recover their costs. Since the pirates have none of the costs associtated with writing the software they simply have the variable production costs to overcome. You can't compete with that. Piracy and Monopoly are at opposite ends of Capitalism and are equally bad.

Capitalism as expressed in the United States, Europe, South America and Australia (perhaps other places too, I haven't seen the whole world yet) has many rules. Intelectual Property is one of them. A stance against monopoly is another. Fair business practices, better business associations, consumer advocacy groups... the list goes on in ways that modern capitalism works to provide fairness between buyer and seller.

The purest and most fair capitalism I have ever seen exists in the bazarrs of Kiev. You are one on one with the seller. You see his wares and the wares of the other sellers and you can negotiate right there. They sell just about anything there too. Unless there is theft or piracy involved the system is universally fair.

If you don't respect the rights of Intellectual Property, then why respect the rights of physical property? You state that because the pirates don't have R&D costs they can pass on additional savings. Well, I can steal TV's and sell them on Ebay too. I just have to cover my capital costs (crowbar & dolly + truck rental) and my variable costs (gas, set up of ebay account, rental of storage bin) and I can pass incredible savings on to my customers. In fact it happens every day that way.

Do you think forcing the GPL onto other's software is fair? Are you advocating that piracy is a common good? I'd like to hear more of your opinion.

There is no requirement that those rules be uniform across all people.

Well actually there is such a requirement and in the USA, its called the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Once a "consortium", corporation or even an individual gains a dominant position in the marketplace, they are required not to abuse their dominant position to control or eliminate the competition.

They own the copyright to their products, so they make the rules.

Microsoft has marketed DOS,Win1/2/3.11,Win9X,WinME,Win2k and XP as general purpose operating systems for the use of not only Microsoft's own applications but also third party vendor's applications.

By restricting the class or terms that other vendors can develop competing products under, Microsoft is in serious breach of the entire intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

As for it being immoral, just look at number of clauses in the act which include the phrase "imprisonment not exceeding three years". Those clauses are at the discretion of the court for good reason.

"Citizen #31842785 purchased one gallon of milk, one bottle of aspirin, and.. oh wait, a pornographic magazine! Let's get the warrant quickly so we can protect this citizen's neighbors from his deviant activities. While we're waiting for the warrant, let's bug his phones, interogate his lawyer, and have his house searched so he can't expose anyone else to his sick mind while we're waiting for the warrant so we can bring him to the Thought Purification Center. You know, we really shouldn't need a warrant for this, it's for the good of the nation."

-This has been a John Ashcroft production.

All events in the preceeding story are fictional, until we can get around this ridiculous Bill of Rights with a new law entitled, "The Patriotic, Being Nice, Love, Protection, Good Feelings Act." (or any other name that sounds too warm and fuzzy to vote against.)

(mod me down if you like, but this is exactly what some people would like to happen. 1984 isn't just a book any more.)

Observers were a bit flummoxed by the timing of CertCo's suit. It would seem that the company could get substantially more cash out of PayPal once PayPal had substanially more cash -- that is, after the company's IPO. But the suit has definitely put the kibosh on PayPal's stock offering, at least for the moment.

As senior vice president e-commerce at Chase Manhattan Bank, June headed up wholesale e-commerce initiatives for one of Chase's largest business sectors and led investment activities on a number of strategic e-commerce investments. June played an instrumental role in creating Spectrum, a for-profit joint venture between Wells Fargo, First Union and Chase focused on electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP).

PayPal began depositing customer balances into FDIC-insured bank accounts. The company had asked for an opinion from the FDIC on whether it could pass the insurance protection on to its customers. In its advisory letter, the FDIC said the insurance protections--up to $100,000 per customer per bank--would extend to PayPal customers, even when PayPal deposited the funds for them, PayPal said.

Observers were a bit flummoxed by the timing of CertCo's suit. It would seem that the company could get substantially more cash out of PayPal once PayPal had substanially more cash -- that is, after the company's IPO. But the suit has definitely put the kibosh on PayPal's stock offering, at least for the moment.

As senior vice president e-commerce at Chase Manhattan Bank, June headed up wholesale e-commerce initiatives for one of Chase's largest business sectors and led investment activities on a number of strategic e-commerce investments. June played an instrumental role in creating Spectrum, a for-profit joint venture between Wells Fargo, First Union and Chase focused on electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP).

PayPal began depositing customer balances into FDIC-insured bank accounts. The company had asked for an opinion from the FDIC on whether it could pass the insurance protection on to its customers. In its advisory letter, the FDIC said the insurance protections--up to $100,000 per customer per bank--would extend to PayPal customers, even when PayPal deposited the funds for them, PayPal said.

Observers were a bit flummoxed by the timing of CertCo's suit. It would seem that the company could get substantially more cash out of PayPal once PayPal had substanially more cash -- that is, after the company's IPO. But the suit has definitely put the kibosh on PayPal's stock offering, at least for the moment.

As senior vice president e-commerce at Chase Manhattan Bank, June headed up wholesale e-commerce initiatives for one of Chase's largest business sectors and led investment activities on a number of strategic e-commerce investments. June played an instrumental role in creating Spectrum, a for-profit joint venture between Wells Fargo, First Union and Chase focused on electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP).

PayPal began depositing customer balances into FDIC-insured bank accounts. The company had asked for an opinion from the FDIC on whether it could pass the insurance protection on to its customers. In its advisory letter, the FDIC said the insurance protections--up to $100,000 per customer per bank--would extend to PayPal customers, even when PayPal deposited the funds for them, PayPal said.

In the case of the terrorists, I admit my statement was a little inaccurate. I believe they were all either here on visas, or visas pending approval. However, if the INS did it's job and properly screened them before letting them into the country, 9/11 could have been avoided. Remember that recent fiasco involving the approval of the visas of two of the hijackers post-9/11? That very incident proves the INS has alot of holes to plug. If the procedures in place had been observed, the backgrounds of these people would have been discovered, they would have been denied entry, and none of this would have happened.

Or an in-browser app that automatically Google-linked everything in a page? Like M$'s proposed auto-linking, but populist. True hypertext.

Good luck! Don't count on feeling lucky d;-)

The fact that konqueror is not integrated. You don't have to have konqueror to use KDE. Also you don't have to have KDE to run Linux. You don't pay anything for either of them, and finally, KDE is not a monopoly.

The whole issue is the "tying" of IE (at the time not a monopoly product) to Windows (a monopoloy) for the sole purpose of harming a competitot (Netscape). If this isn't clear to you, then I suggest you are not up on the issues.

Read the Findings of Fact in the case. The present debate is only over the remedy. No one has successfully challenged the findings of fact. Read. Learn. Enjoy. Then come back and tell me there is no difference between the two.

Ignorance is bliss and we are a happy country.

Other areas (England) that chose to ban guns almost completely have seen a horrific increase in the rate of violent crime and murder.

And then you claim: "Look at the facts and you will see the light".

Since you didn't actually cite any actual statistics, were you hoping we'd just take your word for it? I'll show you mine, what have you got to show?

Well, it took about two minutes to find data via Google, and here are the facts: according to the US Department of Justice/FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the U.S. in 1997 there were an estimated 18,210 homicides. Or, a rate of 6.8 per 100,000 population.

In the U.K. in 1997, there were 640 homicides. Or, a rate of 1.24 per 100,000 population.

Next time, heed your own advice and look at the facts before spouting your useless drivel.

References:

• USDOJ Homicide Trends In U.S.
• UK Homicide Statistics
• Violent Deaths and Firearms, The International Context

But that's doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda actually did it.

I don't think we know that. We do know that many people who had been involved with Al Qaeda where invovled. So far not enough to the top people in the group have been located to question them. There is the posability that it is another group that got some training from Al Qaeda in Afganastan. Keep in mind that the CIA trained lots of people in guerilla warfare there over the past 15 years so it seems like it would be a good place to get traning in exchange for money and no one would ask any questions.

if you read this you will see in the training manaul that one of the things to do if you get caught is blame someone blameable including someone that may have been in jail or dead.

For those who have not read it, I would suggest reading Sony's comments regarding Microsoft's licencing of Windows. This is from Sony's submitted commments to the Microsoft Antitrust case. If you think being an OEM and having to include Windows on every PC is bad, imagine being an OEM and knowing that it is possible that "Microsoft [could] use its monopoly power to force its OEM licensees to give up intellectual property rights."

1. "The goal of the settlement in this case should not be to penalize Microsoft for past behavior, nor should it be to benefit Microsoft's competitors by forcing Microsoft to license its source code against its will. The settlement should insure that Microsoft does not engage in the actions found unlawful by the Court of Appeals. This consent judgment does just that and therefore it should be approved."

If you ever had a CompTIA certification, they said this promoting the idea that they speak for you . Angry? Me too. Now, what to do about it? Hmmmm...

The full "push the limits" quote can be found on this page.

Advocates of an expanded freedom of expression are purveyors of information with yet another agenda. These individuals and groups publish information on the Internet to push the boundaries of self-expression and the First Amendment. The information they provide may induce minors and young adults to break drug laws or to become a danger to themselves or to others by abusing illegal drugs.

I find this infuriating... that the our government considers people who "push the boundries" of the amendment that gives the freedom to do just that criminal, and that they feel that it is within thier purview to control the content of the Internet. *grumble*

Actually, a monopoly is defined as:

a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.

This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.

In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.

Thalia

the herfindahl index.

[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2

So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their index would be upwards of .9^2, or .81, which is very high indeed.

Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.

The DOJ, at least here, uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the same thing, only without the decimals. So, while the Herfindahl index goes from 1 (total domination of market) to 0 (atomistic competition), the HHI goes from 10000 to 0. According to the site, anything above 1800 (or, by the other scale, .18) is considered highly concentrated. They're applying it to M&A here, but you get the idea.

here you'll find someone who knows what is going on.

I wouldn't consider IExplorer a monopoly. Users are free to switch to a whole host of alternatives. On the other hand, MSWord and Windows are, and the monopoly was created, in part, because there are no compatible alternatives. As discussed here such incompatibilities lead to a natural winner-take-all market.

If WordPerfect could read and write MSWord documents, there would be a whole lot more competition in the Office suite market. If BeOS could run Windows software, there would be a whole lot more competition in the OS market. I agree that other factors played a role in Microsoft's monopoly, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the role of copyright.

If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code

Actually they do. That's the whole philosophical purpose of copyright, to disclose the work to the public. But it doesn't cover unpublished works.

Could you cite a reference for that?

However one may debate the merits or evils of copyright, they didn't serve to create the Microsoft monopoly, because copyright was available and used by all of Microsoft's competitors, including IBM, Be Inc, Apple and GNU.

Once again, I refer to Mr. Economide's comment in the MS-DOJ antitrust settlement. Microsoft won the market, and thus became the monopolist. If Apple had won the market, Apple would be the monopolist. Just because the competition used copyrights doesn't nullify their role. I'm sure Microsoft's competitors also used exclusivity contracts and political lobbying.

If copyright law were changed, the natural outcome would be a competitive market rather than a winner-take-all market.

I wouldn't consider IExplorer a monopoly. Users are free to switch to a whole host of alternatives. On the other hand, MSWord and Windows are, and the monopoly was created, in part, because there are no compatible alternatives. As discussed here such incompatibilities lead to a natural winner-take-all market.

If WordPerfect could read and write MSWord documents, there would be a whole lot more competition in the Office suite market. If BeOS could run Windows software, there would be a whole lot more competition in the OS market. I agree that other factors played a role in Microsoft's monopoly, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the role of copyright.

If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code

Actually they do. That's the whole philosophical purpose of copyright, to disclose the work to the public. But it doesn't cover unpublished works.

Could you cite a reference for that?

However one may debate the merits or evils of copyright, they didn't serve to create the Microsoft monopoly, because copyright was available and used by all of Microsoft's competitors, including IBM, Be Inc, Apple and GNU.

Once again, I refer to Mr. Economide's comment in the MS-DOJ antitrust settlement. Microsoft won the market, and thus became the monopolist. If Apple had won the market, Apple would be the monopolist. Just because the competition used copyrights doesn't nullify their role. I'm sure Microsoft's competitors also used exclusivity contracts and political lobbying.

If copyright law were changed, the natural outcome would be a competitive market rather than a winner-take-all market.

I mailed my comment to the DOJ on Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:12:11 -0800. They have not acknowledged it, according to their alphabetical list of commenters.

Wrong url - try this

You're not the only one :)

RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

This sucker is BIG. With one exception (the first item), I worked from the bottom of the document and therefore only cover the FOOTNOTES.

(236) IE or the IEAK [Internet Explorer Administration Kit] free of charge or even at a negative price

DOJ specificly permits Mocrosoft to charge MORE for buying a version without InternetExplorer.

Every item below here is a DOJ FOOTNOTE:

(50) The United States does not believe that there are determinative documents in this case

Legally, we have to show the public the evidence that proved Microsoft is guilty. There isn't anything that proves Microsoft is guilty. Therefore we don't have to show any evidence to the public.

(68) Nor may relief in a civil antitrust case be punitive.

Our job is only to restore competition. Microsoft gets a free pass on anything they've already done.

(70) "terminat[ing] the illegal monopoly" and "deny[ing] to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation" ... &LT only if &GT its unlawful conduct increased or extended Microsoft's monopoly ... neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found this direct causal connection between the conduct and the continuance of the monopoly.

Microsoft did illegal stuff, but uhhh... none of those illegal things 'increased or extended Microsoft's monopoly'. So we can't end the monopoly or remove the 'fruits' of illegal behavior.

(256) &LT would Section III.G.2 have protectd Netscape while IE was under developement? &GT if Navigator did not compete with IE because IE did not exist, then Microsoft would have no reason to give an IAP benefits on the condition that the IAP not use Navigator. ... Microsoft did not impose the unlawful IAP contracts in the early, pre-IE days of Navigator, but rather started to impose them in late 1996 at a time when Microsoft was trying to build IE's usage share.

This one basicly says it's OK for microsoft to play dirty while they are developing a product. Competition does not exist yet. We only protect competition.

(292) Maddux 13 (Microsoft should be required to publish on Slashdot (slashdot.org) and Freshmeat (www.freshmeat.org).

LOL! Had to include this one!

(338) &LT re: Subsection III.I.1 &GT United States does not believe that the circumstances support royalty-free licensing. Compulsory licensing, but with a reasonable royalty, will be sufficient to achieve the remedial goal of ensuring access to necessary information for interoperability.

Our only goal is to restore competition, no matter how restricted it may be. And Microsoft may earn profits on it. We don't give a damn about that free software nonsense.

(383)the suggestion of an open-ended decree, subject to review after five years (see Gifford 9; Litan 73), or contingent upon Microsoft's market share decreasing (see Thomas 6), would create undesirable uncertainty in the market

And uncertainty in the market is a BadThing. We are at war, remember?
The source for this footnote is "Antitrust Division Manual's general guidance that 'staff should not negotiate any decree of less than 10 years' duration although decrees of longer than 10 years may be appropriate in certain circumstances."

(384) Contrary to these commentors' assertions, the possibility of the two-year extension of the RPFJ's requirements and prohibitions will help dissuade Microsoft from violating its terms and conditions. The United States believes that this potential sanction, which is supplemented by its traditional enforcement and contempt authority, will provide a significant incentive for Microsoft to comply.

Our plan is good enough. We're tired of reading letters from idiots that keep saying they don't trust Microsoft. We've been eating lunch with their lawyers every day for months. They say it's long enough. We believe them.

(404) originally alleged that Microsoft engaged in unlawful monopolization, in violation of Section 2, with respect to Microsoft Office. However, the States dropped this claim prior to the trial.

Any "bad behavior" that was dropped before trial, not proven at trial, or in any way hampered by the appeal ruling is off-limits for remedy.

This minimalist view of what they can/will do seems to a recurring theme.

-

I'm letter number 588. Cool.

-

Mine made it. Joy of joys. I addressed exactly the things mentioned in the original posting. IMO, the government has totally lost its mandate.

they should have set up a filter.

any comment which has a body exactly like another comment should be thrown out.

why wasn't this done?

then again... it's not like my comment ultimately matters in this case.

:(

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint