Slashdot Mirror

It was also reported that a federal judge overseeing the Microsoft antitrust case has dismissed a suit brought by a nonprofit antitrust group claiming that the parties didn't fully disclose communication related to the proposed settlement. See this link

And this...... Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case, as well as one that has not yet occurred. See this link

And this.... A great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!!

And finally.... A great place to get the latest press releases Click Here!!!

It was also reported that a federal judge overseeing the Microsoft antitrust case has dismissed a suit brought by a nonprofit antitrust group claiming that the parties didn't fully disclose communication related to the proposed settlement. See this link

And this...... Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case, as well as one that has not yet occurred. See this link

And finally, a great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!! Good luck!

I would just like to recommend one little change. I think that a precondition to a copyright on software should be that the publisher either distribute it with the source code, or publish the communication interfaces (network protocols, file formats) and place the source code in escrow. Such a system would combat the winner take most result described by Nicholas S. Economides.

Why would Palm Care ???
Read their response to the Antitrust findings at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00030613.htm.

In it you will find some interesting items, like a little quote directly from Bill Gates

Microsoft's "PDA will connect to Office in a better way than other PDAs even if that means changing how we do flexible schema in Outlook and how we tie some of our audio and video advanced work to only run on our PDAs." Granted this is kind of OffTopic, but you asked.

Of course IANAL but see the code itself if you're interested in details.

-Renard

Did you actually read the finds of fact from the antitrust case? In fact, it clearly spells out why OS/2, MacOS, and Be (listed under "Fringe Operating Systems") couldn't capture even a minimal share of the OS market. go read it yourself and see. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple, IBM, and other OS makers sue Microsoft as a result. Maybe this will start a chain reaction that may be able to slow the giant...

taco

12. Internet Browser Open-Source License. Beginning three months after the date of entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose and license all source code for all Browser products and Browser functionality. In addition, during the remaining term of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall be required to disclose and make available for license, both at the time of and subsequent to the first beta release (and in no event later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to its commercial distribution of any Browser product or Browser functionality embedded in another product), all source code for Browser products and Browser functionality. As part of this disclosure, Microsoft shall identify, provide reasonable explanation of, and disseminate publicly a complete specification of all APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information relating to the Interoperation of such Browser product(s) and/or functionality and each Microsoft Platform Software product. The aforementioned license shall grant a royalty-free, non-exclusive perpetual right on a non-discriminatory basis to make, use, modify and distribute without limitation products implementing or derived from Microsoft's source code, and a royalty-free, nonexclusive perpetual right on a non-discriminatory basis to use any Microsoft APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information used or called by Microsoft's Browser products or Browser functionality not otherwise covered by this paragraph.

Wow... everyone can produce and make money from IE, COM, COM+, Windows Script Host, MS XML Engine, etc - except Microsoft, of course. Nice...

Given the remaining language in the remedy, I would not trust the litigating states with any kind of MS source code. And all of you should be supporting the settlement as is yourselves... because next time, it might be your IP...

This guy not only has cred, but picks apart the RPFJ AND shows where and how the loopholes should be fixed.

Well worth the read.

Their first complaint about the settlement is "there is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too many opportunities to undermine the free software movement."

Exactly. Most of the other comments that oppose the settlement, including the nine litigating states, think that Microsoft should be forced to continue to develop Office for Mac, and some want to force Microsoft to develop Office for Linux and other unices. What they don't seem to understand is that that will simply move Microsoft's most important monopoly from operating systems to office suites (i.e. applications). In fact, this would do Microsoft a huge favor. It is becoming more and more clear that consumers will not be so dependent upon using the same operating system as everyone else. Instead, what most people care about is the ability to share Word files. If the centerpiece of the remedy is to force Microsoft to develop Office for all competing operating systems, no one will be freed from essentially forced use of Microsoft products; we will simply be freed from forced use of Microsoft operating systems.

What Microsoft needs to do is exactly what Nader proposes: open up their file formats so that competitors can produce software that can read and write Office files as well as Office itself.

Nader is also the only commenter that I saw (I've only looked at four or five of the comments, and haven't read all of any of them, given the length) who recognized the strength that the PFJ gives to Microsoft by allowing them to exclude developers whose "business viability" is not certified by Microsoft, i.e. open source and other not-for-profit developers.

May Nader continue to watch out for consumers' interests (but may he try to effect change in the Democratic party through the primaries and other methods rather than by throwing the presidential election).

Are the folks at RedHat really Slashdot trolls in their spare time? From their comment:

"Open source and free software is distinct from traditional (proprietary) software in that it is produced by a generally voluntary, collaborative process, and accompanied by a license that pants users the right to..."

A CTLR-F failed to find references to Natalie Portman or Grits, but maybe they were only on the cover sheet of the fax.

Before reading his brief, I was against the proposed settlement, but now I must reconsider my position. Professor Economides is one of the preeminent economists in the area of network externalities, and I have read several of his papers in my graduate economics courses.

I thought Nader's comments on how the settlement could affect Free Software were really interesting:

Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the "authenticity and viability of its business," while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights system and the future of research and development.

It seems odd that Microsoft would be allowed to choose to withold secrets based on how viable they thought the other business would be. In other words, they could say (and they have said) "Linux is not a viable/authentic business", and then they would no longer be required to share information with them.

It shouldn't be up to Microsoft to decide who their competitors are, anyway.

-Mike

Here is a letter written by a British citizen (Anti-microsoft).

And here is a excerpt from Ralph Nader's comment:

The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too much flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and to provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the importance of new software development models, including those "open source" or "free" software development models which are now widely recognized as providing an important safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the Internet depends.

The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of technical information to the broader public is an important and in our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should require that this information be as freely available as possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival to Microsoft in the server market. Consider, for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.htm l

"Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation," Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT

One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely distributed software code such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.

The result will be the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week.

Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing protection of intellectual property rights . . .

''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.'' . . .

In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/Linux business model, saying "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works,"(1) leading to a round of new stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6291224.htm l

"Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe Wilcox and Stephen Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.

There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the software giant in its quest to gain control of a server market that's crucial to its long-term goals

Recent public statements by Microsoft executives have cast Linux and the open-source philosophy that underlies it as, at the minimum, bad for competition, and, at worst, a "cancer" to everything it touches. Behind the war of words, analysts say, is evidence that Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing popularity. The Unix-like operating system "has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant position" in the worldwide server operating-system market, IDC analyst Al Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.

. . . While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious inroads. . . ]. . In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds itself competing "not against another company, but against a grassroots movement," said Paul Dain, director of application development at Emeryville, Calif.- based Wirestone, a technology services company.

. . . Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License (GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must publish the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to distribute the code externally. . .

Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on.

The action "will encourage--'force' may be a more accurate term--customers to upgrade much sooner than they had otherwise planned," Gillen noted in the IDC report. "Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only way to 'upgrade' from a product that is not considered to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full license.'"

This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. "Offering this form of 'upgrade protection' may motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft technology." . . .

What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the "authenticity and viability of its business," while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights system and the future of research and development.

The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon the free sharing of technical information with the general public, taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft can tightly control access to technical information under a court approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its prices for its monopoly products.

Here is a letter written by a British citizen (Anti-microsoft).

And here is a excerpt from Ralph Nader's comment:

The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too much flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and to provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the importance of new software development models, including those "open source" or "free" software development models which are now widely recognized as providing an important safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the Internet depends.

The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of technical information to the broader public is an important and in our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should require that this information be as freely available as possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival to Microsoft in the server market. Consider, for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.htm l

"Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation," Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT

One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely distributed software code such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.

The result will be the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week.

Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing protection of intellectual property rights . . .

''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.'' . . .

In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/Linux business model, saying "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works,"(1) leading to a round of new stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6291224.htm l

"Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe Wilcox and Stephen Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.

There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the software giant in its quest to gain control of a server market that's crucial to its long-term goals

Recent public statements by Microsoft executives have cast Linux and the open-source philosophy that underlies it as, at the minimum, bad for competition, and, at worst, a "cancer" to everything it touches. Behind the war of words, analysts say, is evidence that Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing popularity. The Unix-like operating system "has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant position" in the worldwide server operating-system market, IDC analyst Al Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.

. . . While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious inroads. . . ]. . In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds itself competing "not against another company, but against a grassroots movement," said Paul Dain, director of application development at Emeryville, Calif.- based Wirestone, a technology services company.

. . . Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License (GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must publish the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to distribute the code externally. . .

Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on.

The action "will encourage--'force' may be a more accurate term--customers to upgrade much sooner than they had otherwise planned," Gillen noted in the IDC report. "Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only way to 'upgrade' from a product that is not considered to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full license.'"

This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. "Offering this form of 'upgrade protection' may motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft technology." . . .

What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the "authenticity and viability of its business," while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights system and the future of research and development.

The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon the free sharing of technical information with the general public, taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft can tightly control access to technical information under a court approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its prices for its monopoly products.

Your list overlaps mine a bit.

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;

1. CompTIA: "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."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."

...this brief from the KDE League sparked a question. The relevant passage:

Moreover, since KDE is based on an outstanding graphical toolkit called Qt, and since Qt is also available for Windows, the new Mac OS X, as well as embedded devices (such as Sharp's new Zaurus), KDE has the potential to become a familiar environment deployed in a broad array of heterogeneous environments.

How difficult would it be to write a Windows Explorer-replacement that was a port of KDE? If it can be done, I think that it should be pursued. After all, if you could first get people into using KDE under Windows, then I think it would make moving them to Linux much easier, as the GUI is already down pat (and if you toss cygwin in there, the shell (or some portion of it) is known also).

Not sure of that... I found that RedHat's statement of:

"Despite its rapid growth, however, until last year Red Hat Linux was not considered an effective competitor with either Sun Microsystems or Microsoft in the server market. With increasing success, Red Hat has now penetrated that market, demonstrating that it can be an effective competitor where no illegal monopoly exists. The same cannot be said for the desktop operating system market, the subject of many of the claims and findings against Microsoft in this matter. Because of Microsoft's stranglehold on that market, with over a 94% marketshare -- a stranglehold unlawfully maintained -- Red Hat has elected not to attempt to compete until a level playing field can be established. Any efforts by Red Hat toward competing would be utterly fruitless and an unjustified use of corporate resources. "

on the DOJ Comments website in the 'Background' section of Redhat's comment was pretty much indicitive of the feelings of the company.

Furthermore, this statement explains why RedHat is not concentrating on the desktop market as SuSe and Mandrake are doing.

Just my 2cents! :)

Note: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.

This is not to say that I agree with him. I think he reveals a nasty side to his politics in this comment:

Changing technology has transformed the market in which Microsoft competes. Competitors who once complained of Microsoft's market power have now merged with other competitors and become behemoths themselves.

In his view, the fact that they (presumably AOL -> AOLTimeWarnerTron) became behemoths meant that everyone succeeded. The strong won out, and the weak were eliminated. That seems to be the essence of these "the market will fix everything" arguments. The market may well eliminate the sickness - by eliminating the sick. It's time for the DOJ to fix the market without eliminating the rest of it - put some teeth into its legislation. And I'll even use the bad word for it: REGULATE.

On the bright side, if Microsoft does prevail, the enterprising among us can probably making a killing publishing a sensationalist book about how MS bought the trial.

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.

Are there any more that I'm missing?

Does this mean that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will rely on only these 47 to make her decision?

One of the comments against the settlement is from the KDE League. It's nice to see that the KDE League is actually doing something.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00028788.htm

from: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00033650.htm

Too bad guys, you're gonna die. Not the first and not the last.

It appears that one of the five representative comments in favor of the settlement is from Ayn Rand whackos.

So it'll save $4m not to publish these in the Federal Register? It's good to see officials looking to save public money like that. But I wonder, if it's seen to be sufficient in this case to publish only the index in dead-tree form and to supply the full texts online and on CD-ROMs, whether a precedent will be set for the comments on all such cases to be published in this way. The consequent savings would presumably be non-trivial.

Please don't go writing ANYTHING to ANYONE about this.

No, it's 1 in 20 will spend some time in prison during their life at current rates of imprisonment.

According to the Department of Justice, there are only 1,381,892 prisoners in the Federal Prison system.

A Far cry from 5%.

I'll grant that the U.S. is turning into a police state at a rather disconcerting pace, but we're not yet a prison state, and we've certainly not reached 5% of incarceration.

That having been said, according to sentencingproject.org we do incarcerate more people than any other nation.

If you wanna look at interesting US Prison statistics, consider the disenfranchisement of African Americans and Hispanic Americans quoted in this Scientific American article.

As an Asian-American, the fact that the justice system is so racially skewed is truly frightening.

Last paragraph suggests the court intends to distill the essence of the public's 15,000 anti-settlement, 7,500 pro-settlement, and 7,000 insubstantiated rants in a one day hearing the week of March 4th:

In light of the extensive comments and briefing that the Court will have before it, the parties believe that a hearing of one day in length will be sufficient to address any issues or areas of concern identified by the Court as appropriate for oral argument, even if a limited number of third parties are included. The United States believes that there is a substantial public interest in prompt resolution of the Tunney Act issues and entry of the RPFJ. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court conduct any Tunney Act hearing as soon as possible following submission of the public comments, the United States' response, and additional written materials, which will be filed by February 27, 2002. Specifically, the parties respectfully request that the Court hold the hearing, its calendar permitting, during the week of March 4, 2002.

So, what we learned from this is, that if too many people comment, the court can't pick any representative voices, and invite them for the oral arguments.

Perhaps Slashdotters might be able to propose to the court a suitable automated comment moderation system wherein volunteers or AI can sort out the mess. Then we'd just need to add a distiller to summarize the highly scored comments.

• A small number of these submissions are simply advertisements or, in at least one case, pornography. The United States proposes not to publish such submissions or to provide them as part of its filing to the Court.

From the above link, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9900/9946.pdf (emphasis mine).

You would switch away from Windows for these reasons:

1) You don't want to be on the upgrade treadmill, in which you pay money to Microsoft every year, and continue to get software that needs more upgrades. One upgrade at $180 may be acceptable, but $180 per year amounts to $1,800 in ten years.

2) You don't want an operating system with a single point of failure: the registry. The registry is a primitive database that is, in practice, not maintainable. If something goes wrong, the suggested fix (from Microsoft) has been to re-load the operating system and all your programs and configurations and driver upgrades.

3) You are worried that some of the security risks of Windows were deliberately put there for surveillance, by order of the U.S. government. It puzzles you that the United States Department of Justice case is being settled with little or no penalty to Microsoft. Would the U.S. government do something this sneaky? Here are links to 600 pages of articles that say yes: What should be the Response to Violence?

4) You want the flexibility that comes from owning the source code. You may never use the source code, but if you have a big company, and you find some kind of problem, having the source code may be the answer. For example, if there is a bug in a driver for 1,000 pieces of equipment you own, and the manufacturer won't fix it soon enough for you, you can fix it yourself.

5) You want to avoid invasions of business privacy forced on you by Microsoft. Microsoft is requiring that the location and owner of each copy of its XP operating system be disclosed to Microsoft.

Let me try: Linux programmers like to make things work. They don't like to code user interfaces. This is unfortunate, but the result of programmer preferences not to code tedious interfaces, and not abuse.

(I myself am good at programming user interfaces, and it is easy work for me, but I still don't like it, so I can sympathize.)

Many people who choose to be programmers are not skilled at interacting with people. Although they are abusive sometimes, this is not conscious abuse, usually.

Just the very limited abuses in the U.S. Justice Department complaints against Microsoft, in which Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, were more than 200 pages. That is conscious, deliberate abuse.

Keeping known bugs in products so that there will be a reason for users to pay for upgrades is conscious abuse, also.
--

The U.S. government acts as a sales department for weapons manufacturers: What should be the Response to Violence?

Distribution

With multiple domestic and foreign sources of supply and an almost countless array of groups and independent dealers involved, no single group can be claimed to control marijuana distribution in the United States. However, Mexican drug trafficking organizations clearly dominate a greater portion of wholesale distribution than any other identifiable group. Most DEA Field Divisions identify marijuana from Mexico as the dominant type in their jurisdictions, and many report that Mexican organizations dominate wholesale distribution in their areas. All report that marijuana from Mexico is readily available. Because marijuana from Mexico is of substantially lower quality and less expensive than domestic marijuana, it is used frequently to "bulk up" domestic marijuana and increase profits--even in areas where it is not the preferred type.

DEA findings are consistent with information provided to NDIC by 412 state and local law enforcement agencies, almost 30 percent of which identify Mexican organizations as the dominant marijuana wholesale distributors in their area. Local independent dealers are the most frequently identified wholesale marijuana distributors after Mexican organizations. Law enforcement agencies note, however, that many independent dealers are Caucasians supplied by Mexican organizations. Agencies that note domination of the local market by Jamaican distributors report, too, that Mexican organizations are a primary source of supply. Agencies in the northern United States identify connections between local independent dealers and Canadian sources of supply; agencies elsewhere note that local dealers maintain connections with street gangs, OMGs, and Jamaican groups.

This was exactly what the FBI did in Operation Buccaneer. They set up their own warez sites, got their own people deeply into the scene, then struck.

By the way, it's not entrapment (AFAIK) because the FBI didn't trick them into anything - they'd still copy software without the 'encouragement' of the FBI.

OK. . .here we go finally!

I remeber doing a large report on the last idea a long time ago but I have since lost the paper and it took me a while to find some info.

Take a look at this .

It shows that roughly only 60% of the population was covered in 1960 inthe FBI crime reporting database while today it is closer to 100%. Furthermore before about 1975 a good portion of the states were not reporting crime directly to the FBI.

This does not directly prove what I was stating (I don't want to make a thesis about this -- I already did the research paper a long time ago), however from this pdf it is evident that before 1960 the numbers reported to the FBI hardly reflected the whole and the accuracy did not start to get very good until about 1980.

Incidentally 1980 was one of the years with the highest crime rates reported. Does this reflect the population or technology in crime tracking?

That is just the numbers. Mix in the socioligical aspects of 'when to report crime' and 'when it is a family / personal / manly thing that should / should not be taken care of at the lowest level without the police' and the numbers start swaying around like crazy.

Comparing crame statistics from one year to the next consecutive one can tell you a lot; comparing them over decades is worthless because accounting changes rapidly and reporting changes, too, with social ideology.

You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail. Pursuant to the Tunney Act, the period for public comment ends January 28, 2002.