Slashdot Mirror

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.

And thus you demonstrate that you have not even read the proposed settlement, which includes interesting paragraphs like III-J-1 and 2.

Click Here and Copy + Paste the Text Below

I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.

You Name

Your Address

• "During the 60-day period as specified in subsection (b) of this section, and such additional time as the United States may request and the court may grant, the United States shall receive and consider any written comments relating to the proposal for the consent judgment submitted under subsection (b) of this section."

Article here.

Microsoft says that it does not have lobbyists pushing its interests in the pending antitrust case, but that stance probably glosses over the indirect influence its lobbyists have had on the current administration.

Link to US DOJ.

Article by Cringely

Dont forget to send in comments to the US DOJ

Article here.

Microsoft says that it does not have lobbyists pushing its interests in the pending antitrust case, but that stance probably glosses over the indirect influence its lobbyists have had on the current administration.

Link to US DOJ.

Article by Cringely

Dont forget to send in comments to the US DOJ

The Conclusions of Law was filed in the Microsoft case, opening them up for civil suits almost two years ago. What took them so long?

If you read the terriorist handbook you will see where they are quite clear that if you get cuaght, you will name as your leader someone that has a reputation for doing these sorts of things. They even mention that someone that has been in jail is acceptable. If you take what happened and you look at the US populations reaction, I suspect the Sept 11 attack wasn't planed by Laden but someone else and that person may still be running around. bin Laden knows that things for him will not change if he provides evidence that he was in charge of the operation with the exception that who ever did plan it might be overlooked. Laden was too far away and too concerned with other things to not have delegated the planning operation to someone else. Remember that while he hates the US more than anything but Jews, he was given protection by the Talaban in order for him to train their people for an upcomming holy war between Pakistan and India. There are still the questions about the balance of power between the Talaban and al Qaeda.

Sure, I think Flash can even be OK, too, if there's also an alternative means of accessing the information. Macromedia has a Flash Accessibility Extension Kit that will help Flash creators to produce an accessible version, too. I don't think Flash should be used just to produce something flashy. It's not the tool itself but how it's used, in my humble opinion.

Regarding the two levels of WCAG, I agree. It seems that the Olympics sites ought to be required by law to conform to those standards, actually. FYI, not only does the U.S. have the Section 508 Guidelines for government sites, increasingly more countries are also working on or have already established guidelines to help ensure that anyone can access their sites.

Also coming soon from BitterIrony press:
GNU's guide to user-frendly UI.
The U.S. D.O.J.'s guide to speedy legal precedings.
And:
Larry Wall's guide to maintainable code.

If you really think (as I do) that this is an indication that MS intends to extend its monopoly by squeezing out competing standards and technology, then make your voice heard!

According to the US law you still have until Jan 28th to comment on the court's final judgement.

I recommend you take a minute and make sure the US justice department hears your concern.

-Derek

If you really think (as I do) that this is an indication that MS intends to extend its monopoly by squeezing out competing standards and technology, then make your voice heard!

According to the US law you still have until Jan 28th to comment on the court's final judgement.

I recommend you take a minute and make sure the US justice department hears your concern.

-Derek

If companies faced lawsuits and financial penalties when vulnerabilities were found and exploited, they would strongly discourage white-hat hacking, independant vulnerability testing, etc. It would be in Microsoft's best interests to immediately sue anyone who reports a flaw. (White hat hacking violates US law just as black hat does.)

Lawyers would start to be accused of Bugtraq chasing.

While you could potentially get the source to a "small, insignificant program," it won't necessarily work. There are a variety of exclusions that an agency could use to keep the source code private, and just about any of the ones below could be bended to prevent release.

From the DOJ: The exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) certain types of information compiled for law enforcement purposes; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells. The three exclusions, which are rarely used, pertain to especially sensitive law enforcement and national security matters.

So, as you can see, the FOIA does *not* mean you have access to everything.

Here is more information:
FOIA Reference Guide

Hoo-ray for small miracles, an actual judge with sense not to be bamboozled by 300 lawyers (and a complicit prosecution) in a case involving MS. I think Apple, Red Hat, et al. deserve credit where credit is due in this by effectively presenting to the court why this would've been a bad deal. C|net also has an updated story on this, sugesting the possibility of a greater-than $1B penalty for MS now from Judge Motz' comments.

But this case, like the antitrust case, is not yet over. While we can't do anything to influence the next flimsy settlement for price-gouging MS will probably try to come out with here, maybe we can make a difference in the antitrust case by writing the DoJ. Public comment period ends January 28, 2002. Do write, but polite & reasoned letters only, please.

This will probably be modded down to 1, but here goes:

For political reasons, it's obvious why MS would never port Office to Linux; we might as well be arguing for cars that run on water from an oil company. It would be much more likely that they would make a port to a UNIX instead. Decidedly, even this possibility is remote since even the largest *NIXes (FreeBSD, Solaris, etc) neither are in the habit of being used in environments where Office is needed nor do they have enough market share to financially justify porting.

The only way Office (and therefore desktop viability) will ever come to Linux is if MS is broken up - a virtual impossibility now - or somehow forced by the courts to release their code: and only the latter by enough of us writing in and expressing our concerns on the case. If you ever want to have the option to use Office on Linux, don't just complain, write.

Maybe I am putting words in your mouth that you never meant but it seems to me that going back to the "Source" is not quite valid.

Statements and press releases aren't legally binding. But the "Pretrial Diversion Agreement" (to give it the formal name) is a formal court document, binding on both parties.

The issue at hand is the perception that he had admitted "wrongdoing" that is perpetrated by the DOJ / Press release.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Maybe I am putting words in your mouth that you never meant but it seems to me that going back to the "Source" is not quite valid.

Statements and press releases aren't legally binding. But the "Pretrial Diversion Agreement" (to give it the formal name) is a formal court document, binding on both parties.

The issue at hand is the perception that he had admitted "wrongdoing" that is perpetrated by the DOJ / Press release.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The FULL TEXT of the document regarding Skylarov

Further, deponent sayeth not (at least in this message ...)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm

Regret the humor of my spelling of XBox was lost on you.
Additionally, please follow included link to a place where your apparent regard for MS practices can do Mr. Softy the most good.
A groovy day to ya. 8^)

There is nothing wrong with having market share or perhaps even being a monopoly. But when you abuse your position to foreclose competition, not only does that hurt competition (which hurts consumers) but is illegal.

That is great that you had that option to choose your OS. However, most people buy their computers through major OEMs and don't have the luxery of building a system and compiling their own OS on the system. They have a system with Windows pre-installed, whether they know they have another option or not. An average user is not going to dl an iso and re-partition their drive to put another OS on it. They are not going to purchase another OS (even for super cheap) at CompUSA when their is an OS right there. And OEMs are not going to offer another OS pre-installed because of MS retalitory conduct (and that part is illegal).

So, the user brings their computer home and it has windows preinstalled. Included is a web browser so the user is not going to dl netscape/opera or whatever else. Also included is a media player (hard bolted into the browser) so they are not neccesarily going to dl another player. Not included is Java, so develepers will stop java development (don't believe me, why do so many web builders, aside from laziness, code pages for IE that look wierd on different browsers).

Another key consideration is office. In a business, files are transferred in MS formats. Why would a company put on an OS that can't handle applications that they need? MS will not port office to linux for this specific reason (and as good as Star Office is, it can't handle conversions flawlessly).

I would suggest that anyone who questions what MS did is illegal read Judge Penfield's findings of facts. Or read this article for a basic summary This details all the ways that MS broke the law. Contrary to what MS says, a conservative 7 Judge Court of Appeals upheld the majority of this decision and found MS behaved illegaly.

What MS does is limit users choice. They do this by taking one monopoly and leaveraging that into another monopoly. I could care less what OS people use, what browser people use, and what software people use. But I do like to have a choice as to what to use, and I like venture capitalists to not fear investing in technologies that MS already is competing in , intends to compete in, or may just so happen to decide later to compete in. As Barksdale, now a VC, said in his letter, a VC will not invest in a technology if MS ever has an intention to use their monopoly to "compete" (read destroy) that technology. And while the open source community is great, VC is also neccesary otherwise these technologies will wither on the vine.

It's the Herfindahl index. The DOJ, at this site, 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.

From the DOJ press release,
DOJ press release:

Mr. Sklyarov will be prohibited from violating any laws during the year
...

Jeroen

Operation bandwidth sounds a lot like entrapment to me.

As far as I can tell, the "No Electronic Theft" or NET act, making it illegal "to reproduce or distribute, including by electronic means, one or more copyrighted works having a total retail value of more than $1,000." (description from this page) is now law. It seems that you can read it here.

Now, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that 99% of the people who warez down software either can't afford to buy it, and so never would have bought it, or are just trying it out and will probably either buy it or decide it's crap and never run it again. Software "piracy" might not be a victimless crime, but it comes awfully close.

So why are the feds so concerned about it? Could be just that the adbusters people are right, and the corporations' interests override common sense and the public interest (like, having the FBI spend its time on actual threats to public safety rather than warez mavens, most of whom would probably never hurt a fly.)

But there's a subtler, more chilling trend going on, too. It's already illegal to buy or sell a radio scanner that tunes the cellular frequencies; you can't buy a wideband receiver unless you're the government (or live overseas; so much for the "land of the free"), and I believe you're not allowed to tune into alphanumeric pagers, though I can't find a reference for this. And the electromagnetic spectrum belongs to all of us, not the government, damnit; why can't I do what I want with the electrons running through my antenna on my property?

With these raids, they're telling us what we can and can't do with the bits that come down our cable modem; and with the truly chilling SSSCA and prohibitions on digital VCRs, they're going to prevent the computer and home electronics manufacturers from selling boxes that will even permit us from doing things they don't like with the bits.

It's still a pretty long way before Big Brother and the two-way, spying TV-- but that is the direction we are moving, and as annoying as it is that I'm not gonna be able to get warez as easily now, the broader implications are what really bug me.

And Slashdot is the only place that doesn't have it.

Over the course of the trial, and especially having read the findings of fact (everyone should), it seems that by attacking the bits and bytes of whether IE was 'integrated' or not was pointless and got into technical points where anyone can rationalize any point of view. What matters is what the user is presented when she gets a computer. She is not likely to replace or install any software without very substantial motivation.

This is Microsoft's advantage. With their power over the market they can dictate to the OEMs exactly how Windows and thusly every bit of software (even other OS's, if they are installed on the same model of machine or even moreso if they are installed dual boot) is presented. In their licensing contracts to OEMs they have power to specify almost anything, even down to forcing them to use keyboards with ridiculous ergonomy-lessening extra keys. This is how they have made IE the de facto standard to the extent that it is. No customer ever wanted IE to the exclusion of Netscape, and yet that is exactly what customers got.

This represents a huge area that OEMs could innovate in: the interface and software presented to consumers. On the road toward viable other core OSs, allowing the OEMs to alter the veneer of the software on their machines is only the beginning.

Do you agree OEMs are the direct agent of technically un-savvy consumers (read, 99.99% of them)? How does the proposal give them more freedom from dictatorial licenses and how would you help guarantee adherence to it?

Sincerely, Bryan Seigneur

From the US attorneys office of North California and their press release.

"For its part, the United States agreed to defer prosecution of Mr. Sklyarov until the conclusion of the case against Elcomsoft or for one year, whichever is longer."

Er, so that means the case is not dropped just deferred, but they aren't going to prosecute him until the case against Elcomsoft is resolved.

Mr. Sklyarov will be prohibited from violating any laws during the year, including copyright laws.

Er, so he doesn't get special permission to break laws ? :-?

"Elcomsoft, remains charged in the case, and the Court in that matter has set hearings for various motions on March 4, 2002, and April 1, 2002."

I don't think this case will get resolved for _years_. There's not that much of a dispute about what actually happened, it's just the interpretation of whether it's illegal or not....and it seems that the US government don't want to see this case resolved quickly, and so it isn't going to be sped through the courts or through the appeals.

Hey, does that mean that my Free Sklyarov T-shirt is now a collectors item ?

Regards

Mikael

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 13, 2001

The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California announced that Dmitry Sklyarov entered into an agreement this morning with the United States and admitted his conduct in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Whyte in San Jose Federal Court.

Under the agreement, Mr. Sklyarov agreed to cooperate with the United States in its ongoing prosecution of Mr. Sklyarov's former employer, Elcomsoft Co., Ltd. Mr. Skylarov will be required to appear at trial and testify truthfully, and he will be deposed in the matter. For its part, the United States agreed to defer prosecution of Mr. Sklyarov until the conclusion of the case against Elcomsoft or for one year, whichever is longer. Mr. Sklyarov will be permitted to return to Russia in the meantime, but will be subject to the Court's supervision, including regularly reporting by telephone to the Pretrial Services Department. Mr. Sklyarov will be prohibited from violating any laws during the year, including copyright laws. The United States agreed that, if Mr. Sklyarov successfully completes the obligations in the agreement, it will dismiss the charges pending against him at the end of the year or when the case against Elcomsoft is complete.

Mr. Sklyarov, 27, of Moscow, Russia, was indicted by a federal Grand Jury on August 28, 2001. He was charged with one count of conspiracy in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and two counts of trafficking for gain in technology primarily designed to circumvent technology that protects a right of a copyright owner in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b)(1)(A), and two counts of trafficking for gain in technology marketed for use in circumventing technology that protects a right of a copyright owner in violation of Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b)(1)(A).

In entering into the agreement with the government, Mr. Sklyarov was required to acknowledge his conduct in the offense. In the agreement, Mr. Sklyarov made the following admissions, which he also confirmed in federal court today:

"Beginning on a date prior to June 20, 2001, and continuing through July 15, 2001, I was employed by the Russian software company, Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. (also known as Elcom Ltd.) (hereinafter "Elcomsoft") as a computer programmer and cryptanalyst.

"Prior to June 20, 2001, I was aware Adobe Systems, Inc. ("Adobe") was a software company in the United States. I was also aware Adobe was the creator of the Adobe Portable Document Format ("PDF"), a computer file format for the publication and distribution of electronic documents. Prior to June 20, 2001, I knew Adobe distributed a program titled the Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader that provided technology for the reading of documents in an electronic format on personal computers. Prior to June 20, 2001, I was aware that documents distributed in the Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader format are PDF files and that specifications of PDF allow for limiting of certain operations, such as opening, editing, printing, or annotating.

"Prior to June 20, 2001, as a part of my dissertation work and as part of my employment with Elcomsoft, I wrote a part of computer program titled the Advanced eBook Processor ("AEBPR"). I developed AEBPR as a practical application of my research for my dissertation and in order to demonstrate weaknesses in protection methods of PDF files. The only use of the AEBPR is to create an unprotected copy of an electronic document. Once a PDF file is decrypted with the AEBPR, a copy is no longer protected by encryption. This is all the AEBPR program does.

"Prior to June 20, 2001, I believed that ElcomSoft planned to post the AEBPR program on the Internet on the company's website www.elcomsoft.com. I believed that the company would charge a fee for a license for the full version of the AEBPR that would allow access to all capabilities of the program.

"After Adobe released a new version of the Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader that prevented the initial version of the AEBPR program from removing the limitations or restrictions on an e-book, I wrote software revisions for a new version of the AEBPR program. The new version again decrypted the e-document to which it was applied. The version of this new AEBPR program offered on the Elcomsoft website only decrypted a portion of an e-document to which it was applied, unless the user had already purchased a fully functional version of the earlier version and had both versions installed on the same machine. The new version was developed after June 29, 2001. At that time, Elcomsoft had already stopped selling the program. The version of this new program offered on the Elcomsoft website did not provide a user with an opportunity to purchase it or convert it to a fully functional one, and was developed as a matter of competition.

"On July 15, 2001, as part of my employment with Elcomsoft, I attended the DEF CON Nine conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the conference I made a presentation originally intended for the BlackHat conference that immediately preceded the DefCon Nine in July 2001 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The same group of people organizes both BlackHat and DefCon Nine. Since there was no available slot for a presentation at BlackHat at the time when the paper was sent for the committee consideration, the organizers of both conferences suggested that the paper be presented at the DefCon rather than at BlackHat. The paper that I read at DefCon is attached as Exhibit A. A principal part of my presentation is comprised of my research for the dissertation. In my presentation when I said "we", I meant Elcomsoft."

Mr. Sklyarov's employer, Elcomsoft, remains charged in the case, and the Court in that matter has set hearings for various motions on March 4, 2002, and April 1, 2002.

The prosecution of Elcomsoft is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Scott Frewing and Joseph Sullivan of the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property ("CHIP") Unit are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case with the assistance of legal technician Lauri Gomez.

So do you picture the committee as overseeing a large group of people who are busy reading code, checking API documentation, analyzing network traffic, etc, or do you see it more as just the three committee members sitting around playing Ages of Empires, waiting for someone to call and complain about something?

- adam

Some people haven't read the job description for the Technical Committee -- obviously. For those who haven't done their homework, here are some clues.

The full text of the proposed Final Judgment is here. Additional information is in the Competitive Impact Statement.

The portion of the text about the TC is reproduced from the revised Final Judgement is duplicated here for your consideration. Point 10 (in bold) at the end is particularly telling: the TC is effectively gagged.

8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:

a. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with its obligations under this final judgment.

b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:

(i) interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without restraint or interference by Microsoft;

(ii) inspect and copy any document in the possession, custody or control of Microsoft personnel;

(iii) obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access;

(iv) obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; and

(v) require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably direct.

c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement, as approved by the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the TC members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or consultants who may have access to the source code. The TC may study, interrogate and interact with the source code in order to perform its functions and duties, including the handling of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.

d. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified in Section IV.D below.

e. The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, including the identification of each business practice reviewed and any recommendations made by the TC.

f. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs in writing setting forth the relevant details.

g. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is maintained.

h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individual's experience and responsibilities.

i. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, including agreed upon fees for the TC members' services, subject to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), regardless of the Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was without substantial justification.

10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements relating to the TC's activities.

----

From the Competitive Impact Statement, this paragraph:

b. TC Duties: The TC will report to Plaintiffs, and will not be under the control or authority of Microsoft in any way. The TC will receive and investigate complaints or inquiries about Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment from third parties, Plaintiffs, or Microsoft's Compliance Officer. The TC has the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment, and will consult with Plaintiffs regarding its investigations. The TC will meet with Microsoft's Compliance Officer at least once during each investigation to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of any complaints and to attempt to resolve them informally. This "dispute resolution" function reflects the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid, consensual resolution of issues, where possible. [Emphasis added] It complements, but does not supplant, Plaintiffs' other methods of enforcement. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, the TC will so advise Plaintiffs and Microsoft and propose a remedy. The TC may also communicate with third parties who have made complaints or inquiries about how they or Microsoft might resolve such complaints or inquiries, provided that the TC complies with its confidentiality obligations as explained below. Thus, for example, the TC may explain to a third party various ways of implementing a right granted by the Proposed Final Judgment.

Some people haven't read the job description for the Technical Committee -- obviously. For those who haven't done their homework, here are some clues.

The full text of the proposed Final Judgment is here. Additional information is in the Competitive Impact Statement.

The portion of the text about the TC is reproduced from the revised Final Judgement is duplicated here for your consideration. Point 10 (in bold) at the end is particularly telling: the TC is effectively gagged.

8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:

a. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with its obligations under this final judgment.

b. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:

(i) interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without restraint or interference by Microsoft;

(ii) inspect and copy any document in the possession, custody or control of Microsoft personnel;

(iii) obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access;

(iv) obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; and

(v) require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably direct.

c. The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement, as approved by the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the TC members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or consultants who may have access to the source code. The TC may study, interrogate and interact with the source code in order to perform its functions and duties, including the handling of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.

d. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified in Section IV.D below.

e. The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, including the identification of each business practice reviewed and any recommendations made by the TC.

f. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs in writing setting forth the relevant details.

g. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is maintained.

h. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individual's experience and responsibilities.

i. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, including agreed upon fees for the TC members' services, subject to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), regardless of the Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was without substantial justification.

10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements relating to the TC's activities.

----

From the Competitive Impact Statement, this paragraph:

b. TC Duties: The TC will report to Plaintiffs, and will not be under the control or authority of Microsoft in any way. The TC will receive and investigate complaints or inquiries about Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment from third parties, Plaintiffs, or Microsoft's Compliance Officer. The TC has the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Proposed Final Judgment, and will consult with Plaintiffs regarding its investigations. The TC will meet with Microsoft's Compliance Officer at least once during each investigation to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of any complaints and to attempt to resolve them informally. This "dispute resolution" function reflects the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid, consensual resolution of issues, where possible. [Emphasis added] It complements, but does not supplant, Plaintiffs' other methods of enforcement. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, the TC will so advise Plaintiffs and Microsoft and propose a remedy. The TC may also communicate with third parties who have made complaints or inquiries about how they or Microsoft might resolve such complaints or inquiries, provided that the TC complies with its confidentiality obligations as explained below. Thus, for example, the TC may explain to a third party various ways of implementing a right granted by the Proposed Final Judgment.

If John Ashcroft wants to read everyone's email, let him. I propose that, from now on, everyone put AskDOJ@usdoj.gov in the cc: field of all your personal emails. (That's John Ashcroft's "official" email address, as posted on the DOJ web site. Pretty lame, eh?)

Now, why is this a terrorist act, and why am I thus posting as AC? Because it could be construed as a denial of service attack on the DOJ mail server. DOS attacks "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion...or to retaliate against government conduct." are among those "hacks" now considered terrorist acts.

If you live in the U.S.A. be afraid. Be very afraid.

Also check out Yahoo, the DOJ and Quote.com for more articles that don't need a registration

Operation Bandwidth: ... On December 11, 2001, the longest-running of the undercover operations culminated ... This undercover operation, code-named 'Bandwidth,' was a two-year covert investigation established as a joint investigative effort to gather evidence to support identification and prosecution of entities and individuals involved with illegal access to computer systems and the piracy of proprietary software utilizing 'warez' storage sites on the Internet. ... Bandwidth, through the joint efforts of the ... Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General (EPA-OIG)

I just want to know why the EPA's money and time is being misused.

The news from DOJ itself. DrinkOrDie is according to Yahoo famous for "claiming it released a copy of Microsoft Windows 95 two weeks before Microsoft began selling it."

I am very pro-Microsoft. I am more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates. In my opinion, correcting the problems below would be very healthy for Microsoft.

The registry is a single point of failure. If I install a program, and something goes wrong, the registry may become corrupted. There are many kinds of registry corruption that cannot be fixed for a practical price.

Microsoft operating systems cannot be trusted. Microsoft often builds attempts at making money and crushing competitors into its operating systems. For example, if I make a mistake in typing an address into the Internet Explorer address bar, I am connected instead to MSN.com, a commercial activity of Microsoft.

A recent service pack upgrade to Microsoft operating system software disabled a competitor's software (Apple's QuickTime). There was no notice. The fact that there was no notice means that users may spend time troubleshooting why QuickTime would not start.

Microsoft cannot be trusted to try to make a good operating system. The registry problems are, apparently, caused by trying to mix all programs together so that the mixture will act as copy protection. This is putting interest in making money before interest in trying to make a good operating system.

Microsoft Windows 95, 98, and ME contain deliberate limitations. They crash even when there is plenty of memory, because of deliberate limitations in operating sytem resources. This was done apparently because of the desire to sell everyone a better operating system later.


I estimate that this message could go on for 1,000 more pages. Just the very limited U.S. Justice Department complaints against Microsoft, in which Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law, were more than 200 pages.

Part of the complete definition of an operating system is that it is software you can trust completely. By that definition, in my opinion it cannot be said that Microsoft has ever made an operating system.

Once the other firms are gone, however, the monopolist firm can not re-price at the monopoly price because they'd simply be inviting new firms into their market.

I have to disagree here. Once a monopoly is established it becomes fairly simple to leverage that monopoly to prevent new competition, through licensing and distribution contracts (for example, the MS OEM license).

what most people conveniently forget is that our current welfare state was only meant to last for a duration of 5-10 years or so

I'm not sure what relevance this has to a discussion of anti-trust and why we need it. If you're able to find a sunset clause in any anti-trust law, please point it out to me, as I couldn't find any. Since the Sherman Act was passed in 1890, your attempt to connect it with FDR's New Deal is dubious at best.

The old policy of Laissez Faire was the best policy, in regards to government involvement in the marketplace.If this were true, there would be no anti-trust law. The idea of a self-regulating free market is nothing more than naive fantasy, as is the notion that the socialist programs of the New Deal have outlived their necessity (I agree that they need some heavy reform, but the reasons for their existance are just as valid today as they were in the Great Depression).

Welcome to monopoly economics 101, wherein we will detail why you are wrong and I am right. Err, I mean why you're misguided about capitalism/monopolies vs the Free Market.

So aside from some purely theoretical economics, which I think we can agree are just as valid as the simplified models used in introductory Physics classes, how exactly have you proven me wrong? I restate my points:

1. The goal of the true Capitalist is the destruction of the Free Market.

2. A regulated Free Market is more beneficial to the general populace than unregulated Capitalism.

bullshit. Name 5 executives who were sentenced to jail time for violating antitrust laws.

How about 50? Though that's only from 1999-2000. Here's it broken down over the past decade by number of convictions and time spent in jail.

A little hasty, weren't we.

Well, for one thing because I've certainly thought of being more cautious in my postings since realizing that Ashcroft likely has the NSA scanning this stuff like never before - and that under new laws and regulations some of my posts can probably be construed as giving aid and comfort to the "enemy."

If John Ashcroft wants to read everyone's email, let him. I propose that, from now on, everyone put AskDOJ@usdoj.gov in the cc: field of all your personal emails. (That's John Ashcroft's "official" email address, as posted on the DOJ web site. Pretty lame, eh?)

Now, why is this a terrorist act, and why am I thus posting as AC? Because it could be construed as a denial of service attack on the DOJ mail server. DOS attacks "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion...or to retaliate against government conduct." are among those "hacks" now considered terrorist acts.

If you live in the U.S.A. be afraid. Be very afraid.

Instead of the normal round of complaints, sometimes insightful comments, and mostly junivile comments, why not get involved and subimt something.
Information on the United States v. Microsoft Setlement

The Tunney Act sets forth procedures that must be followed whenever the United States proposes to settle a civil antitrust suit through entry of a consent decree. Pursuant to the Tunney Act, members of the public have an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement before it is accepted by the court.

There, all the linkage you need.

Read the settlement: Settlement

And then Email your thoughts to the DOJ (Subject "Microsoft Settlement")

If EVERY single person who reading Slashdot tonight actually did this, we might have a chance to sway this settlement. (Well, probably not, but it's worth a shot.)

-Russ

------------
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Micosoft Settlement

The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to Microsoft's main competitor: Free and Open Source Software ("Free" defined as "without restriction" not "free of cost").

This software is created largely by individuals in informal and generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant movement, and provides great potential benefits for American consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software *the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they speficially discriminated against by the settlement.

Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release information: namely, "viable businesses", with Microsoft being able to interpret that as they wish.

I am personally involved in many projects that have the potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.

Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a commercial organization.

It is essential that the API information be made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers.

It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so many times in the past.

It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private period to resolve security issues before making them public, all aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of their system. However, they should not need to be private about their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has existed.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm

Submitting Comments

Before you submit comments about the settlement, the Department of Justice recommends that you review the documents related to the settlement.

You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail.

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.

E-mail
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Fax
1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

Mail
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm

Submitting Comments

Before you submit comments about the settlement, the Department of Justice recommends that you review the documents related to the settlement.

You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail.

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.

E-mail
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Fax
1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

Mail
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm

Submitting Comments

Before you submit comments about the settlement, the Department of Justice recommends that you review the documents related to the settlement.

You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail.

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.

E-mail
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Fax
1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

Mail
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Nevermind... the addresses can be found here:

E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

Mail:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Fax or e-mail are suggested...

Nevermind... the addresses can be found here:

E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

Mail:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Fax or e-mail are suggested...