Slashdot Mirror

Your opinion that drug dealers do not harm anyone is incorrect- people who could have been productive are ruined through exploitation of their weakness. They provide a temporary illusary benefit to the user, while destroying the users potential. If you create an addict and do not believe you are evil, you are a fool or a liar.

True, a person who uses nicotene or other drugs is aware of the health risk, but the nature of the substance prevents them from attempting to quit.

Using a persons desire for your own benefit, with no regard for their life, is evil and produces more evil. This is what a drug dealer does.

Drugs create an illusion of a perfect life

Reign in Hell.. Serve in heaven...

Just think before you write or speak, because thought is either a cure or a disease, and is spread by every single word you write or speak.

I recently talked to a friend of mine who grew up in north Philly. When he was a kid in the ghetto, the people he looked up to were the dealer's.

Table 1. Chances of going to State or Federal prison for the first time,
by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin

Total------5.1
White*-----2.5
Black*----16.2
Hispanic---9.4

*Excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

3.5 SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE The Carnivore software consists of four components 1. TapNDIS driver (written in C) derived from sample source code provided with Win32 Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS) Framework (WinDis 32), a product of Printing Communications Associates, Inc. (PCAUSA, http://www.pcausa.com) The license for WinDis 32 prevents the FBI from releasing the source code for this driver, and possibly for TapAPI.dll, to the public. The relevant portions of the WinDis 32 license are shown in Appendix D. 2. TapAPI.dll (written in C++) provides the API for accessing the NDIS driver functionality from other applications. 3. Carnivore.dll (written in C++) provides functionality for controlling the intercept of raw data. 4. Carnivore.exe (written in Visual Basic) is the GUI for Carnivore.

I have a hard time believing that Microsoft would want to inrease their liability like this. What happens if Microsoft refuses to sign software which, say includes reverse-engineered office formats because the formats were not licensed by Microsoft? Such a policy would be in clear violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman act and probably of the Clayton act as well. Microsoft has a history of sabotaging competition as documented in Jackson's Findings of Fact and the various pretrial documents in Caldera vs. Microsoft (which was settled out of court two days before it would have gone to trial). Of particular interest was an exhibit in the latter case concerning the AARD code, from Dr. Dobbs.

All that being said, I do not want to see Microsoft broken up by the government. I think that the current plan would create two monopolistic powers out of one, and increase their competitiveness because each of the two companies would be more nimble than they would be if they were together, faced both with legal and market restraints. I think, unfortunately, this move is a step in the wrong direction for them.

What is the leadership in Redmond thinking? They are probably looking at this approach as a means of increasing the stability of the platform as a means of increasing their competitiveness against such OSs as Linux. As far as this reasoning goes, it is solid, but it seriously increases their liability, and I hope that they realize that. Such concerns may even force them to sign sub-standard competing software just to avert lawsuits. This could turn into a joke.

-----------
All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.
--anon

The issue of violent crime always inflames people's passions because it deals with our perception of our fellow humans. Only problem is that a lot of people don't really look at the numbers. The truth is that violent crime is down compared to earlier this decade. However, we still have a high rate compared to the rest of the world. I read a study profiling offenders in prison and got some pretty weird data out of that. Of all the violent offenders in prison in 1991, less than half(slightly) used any kind of weapon in their crime. So, there goes a lot of arguements for gun control. Most violent offenders had very small incomes, I mean we're talking less than $10,000 per yr. That one figure alone seems to support that the reprieve we have in violent crime is due to the booming economy. Even though the study is about 9 or 10 years old, I suggest giving it a read. It provides a lot of insight into who we're talking about when we talk about violent criminals. Check it out here

b. getting busted happens quite frequently.

LOL! Let's see: 236,800 drug prisoners in the U.S. in 1999 divided by 14.8 million drug users in the U.S. in 1999 means that drug users had a 1.6% chance of getting busted or a 98.4% chance of NOT getting busted in 1999...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

This shows that you haven't read the findings of fact in the microsoft trial. Microsoft forced IBM not to ship OS/2 by cranking Windows licencing charges up to 5 times what everybody else was paying.
--

On most economic issues, yes, they'll end up in roughly the same place. But there are also things a President can affect unilaterally:

• Abortion Rights -- the President appoints new Supreme Court Justices. He also appoints the FDA, which has the authority to allow or withdraw RU-486.
• the environment -- the President appoints the the EPA, Interior, etc. They control mileage and emission standards for vehicles. They choose between spotted owls and logging companies. etc.
• Microsoft -- the President appoints the Attorney General and DOJ prosecutors. They decide whether or not to keep Bill Gates in court for the rest of his life. The President also appoints the federal judges who hear these cases.

If you care about these issues, then there is a difference between them.

Found via his web page, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~farber/

Written Testimony

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2059.htm

Cross and redirect transcript AM

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcrip ts/dec98/12-08-am.asp

and PM

http://www. microsoft.com/presspass/trial/transcripts/dec98/12 -08-pm.asp

In 1995, 56 men were executed in the United States:

33 were white - 58.9%

22 were black - 39.3%

1 was Asian. - 1.8%

(Source: US Dept. of Justice)

In 1995, 605,376 abortions were performed in 34 US states:

349,857 were white - 57.8%

205,442 were black - 33.9%

32,357 were "other" - 5.3%

17,720 were "unknown" - 2.9%

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)

Hmmm... 6% isn't MUCH more likely. Of course, this is overall US, but it also doesn't include all 50 states in the abortion statistic. Plus, there's no such thing as an "Unknown" in the death penalty. It's still showing though that the chances the baby is black are pretty high up there.

As for the It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however comment, I'm suprised to see such an extreme religous person talking this way about abortion! Since it's obvious you must believe in Original Sin, and the Sin's of the Father being passed down generations by this comment... The child is innocent, until it's surroundings corrupt it.

"Crime is always up when the economy sucks, and it is always down when life is good."

Other factors are very significant. See: Homicide Rates, 1900-1998

Killings fell throughout the Great Depression.

Jamie McCarthy

Microsoft is lucky this isn't a criminal antitrust case. The Department of Justice has a press release on one of those this week, titled ADM Executives Resntenced to Serve Additional Jail Time. That's the famous Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing case. Their top executives just got another year in federal prison.

Microsoft is lucky this isn't a criminal antitrust case. The Department of Justice has a press release on one of those this week, titled ADM Executives Resntenced to Serve Additional Jail Time. That's the famous Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing case. Their top executives just got another year in federal prison.

Microsoft is lucky this isn't a criminal antitrust case. The Department of Justice has a press release on one of those this week, titled ADM Executives Resntenced to Serve Additional Jail Time. That's the famous Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing case. Their top executives just got another year in federal prison.

Try reading this

Before everyone spouts their opinion, here are some background facts which may help you understand this better.

First, green cards. These are a Kafkaesque nightmare.

* An employer can sponsor a green card (permanent residency) which takes about 3-6 years. An employee may quit, but this stops his green card processing and he has to start from scratch at the next company. (In case you're wondering, most employers are eager to sponsor. Guess why...)

* If the H1B expires at the end of 6 years, the green card process can be continued overseas (Consular Processing). OTOH, if the process is at the final stage, the employee may file for an "Adjustment of Status" (AoS) and continue to work in the US (for the same employer) until he/she obtains the green card - generally 3 more years.

During this time, US law prohibits the person from leaving & re-entering the country unless he obtains INS permission after stating the cause, even for short trips. (Land of liberty!) They are literally treated as prisoners in some sense - the word the INS uses to describe a software engineer allowed to go visit his home country is advanced parole (this is a DOJ site) Violating this is extremely serious.

Some people forget this rule and visit canada for a holiday, which pretty much fucks up their weekend and much of their life.

* Green card processing time varies dramatically from state to state, sometimes by years. So a PhD in California might take longer to get it than an agricultural worker in Washington. In short, if you are planning to get one, spend some heavy research poring over tables of figures on avg. timelines.

H1Bs
-----

* H1B is a non-immigrant visa, so those who hold it are "non-immigrants" (if you can imagine that); green card folks are "applicants for immigrant status".

* An H1B takes about 3 months to obtain. You are not obliged to work for one employer, and can change.

* An employer can't "send them back". This is a HUGE misconception. Even if the company fires someone, he is legally present with a valid work permit, which normally doesn't expire until a yr or two. So long as the programmer has another company apply for a new work permit, he can continue to stay in the US (but cannot work until he gets the new visa.)

* You can start > 1 H1B visa applications. For instance, a programmer agrees to join companies X and Y, both of which apply for visas. X gets it first, and the programmers says bye to Y. This happens sometimes (see above scenario) - I know more than one person who's done it, it's a tough world - and companies can't do anything about it (can't have much sympathy for them, really).

* Big slashdot error - H1B people are NOT being deported. The article does not mention it. Deportation is a legal action taken by the INS against unlawful aliens, which is fought out in the courts. In this case, what they are describing is a case of programmers voluntarily leaving BEFORE their visa expires.

* H1B law allows an unlimited number of employers, but a max cap of 6 yrs in the US. After 6 years, the person must spend 1 yr outside the US, at which time the counter is ROLLED BACK. He can then come to the US for another 6 yrs.

* Inspite of the mass hysteria, employers can't pay anything they want - they have to legally state how much they pay and this has to be approved by the DoL (dept. of labor) BEFORE they grant it.

* H1B folks can apply for a green card at any time during their employment. From the frying pan into the fire.

* They can also apply for Canadian permanent residency while in the US. This takes about 6 months and you need not have to be in Canada for even a day. They have enough trouble keeping their own people.

* H1B law is equally ruthless to all nationalities - it takes several weeks for everyone. Equal opportunity rocks.

* One consequence of a 3 month processing time for H1B is that companies are unwilling to hire people to start so far into the future, instead of a 15 day period.

* When H1Bs took 15 days to process (they used to some yrs ago) there was little disparity between conditions for citizens and visa workers, since people had to give a 2 week notice anyway, during which the visa was processed. This whole fuckup began due to overloading of under-budgeted INS offices.

In short, immigrant programmers face enormous hurdles - inspite of having legal status, they are trapped between the govt., corporations, and a xenophobic population (read some /. posts).

I've noticed a regrettable trend. Many Americans tend to take out their anger against immigration policy on their H1B co-workers or anyone who looks like one (visa status isn't exactly stamped on people's foreheads), which creates an unpleasant, racially hostile situation in many offices. Oddly enough, they tend to discard this attitude when they themselves have to go thru a bureaucratic nightmare to work in Europe or australia or Asia.

Party on.

w/m

A few points here folks..

1: Slight misquote of the original, part 40.. Even if the contender attracted several thousand compatible applications, it would still look like a gamble from the consumer's perspective next to Windows, which supports over 70,000 applications.. Note use of the word OVER.. doesn't say how many more.
2: Do 70,000 Computer Programs Depend on Windows or Fewer Than 10,000? .. I'd argue its fewer than 10000 the DEPEND on Windows. I read that as 'applications that couldn't be ported to something else'. Dependancy implies that it'd be impossible to get these applications running on anything else.. Well, there are Windows emulators of Linux, Mac and SGI that I know of.. With a lot of work it'd be possible to get stuff like DirectX emulated.. (Does Wine have DirectX support yet? Don't know, I don't use it) then we'd not really need a Microsoft product to run multimedia apps.. (Just a lot of cash to deal with the court case..)
3: Not sure where msnomer got this from.. disputing the claim that there are 70,000 Microsoft applications.. I can believe there are less than 70000 MS applications.. written by MS.. I think its more of a misunderstanding there.

Fact is, there are more than 70000 Windows applications.. but most of them don't depend on Windows, they simply run on it. Going on and on about there being lots of programs is a waste of time. Read the article, and the court statement that the article refers to, first, rather than leaping high onto the 'lets-bash-MS' bandwagon.. Onion

Point taken, although I still believe that rate is a bit high. The USDoJ website states

If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 persons (5.1%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime. - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

But I'm going to have to agree with you that incarceration rates are ludicrous. I found this table (also from the USDoJ website) to be particularly chilling.

Point taken, although I still believe that rate is a bit high. The USDoJ website states

If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 persons (5.1%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime. - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

But I'm going to have to agree with you that incarceration rates are ludicrous. I found this table (also from the USDoJ website) to be particularly chilling.

In fact, I believe you are actually allowed to develop some type of CSS-DVD-player, but it's the actual distribution of such tools that is illegal.

Nope, fraid not. The DMCA "Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software."

That means you're not allowed to crack it, even on your own.
Ironically though, the No Electronic Theft Act, of 1997 amends copyright law to "Exempt from criminal prosecution reproduction or distribution that is not done "willfully" or that constitutes small-scale non-commercial copying (copyrighted works with a total retail value of less than $1,000)"

So as I read it, you're actually allowed to pirate copyrighted material, as long as it's cheap and you don't redistribute it. But you aren't allowed to crack any "anti-piracy measures" in the process.

He's right, it was well-written. It's also the first mainstream news I've seen in a while that correctly notes the distinction between "Napster distributes copyrighted songs" and "people can use Napster to search each one another's hard drives for music."

Another interesting note though, is that the article links to the No Electronic Theft Act, which says the following:
The criminal copyright and trademark provisions in titles 17 and 18 of the U.S. Code are amended to: ... Exempt from criminal prosecution reproduction or distribution that is not done "willfully" or that constitutes small-scale non-commercial copying (copyrighted works with a total retail value of less than $1,000)

Now wait a minute, doesn't that say that if I go out on Napster or Gnutella or what have you, and get copies of lots of copyrighted songs, that I am exempt from criminal prosecution? As long as I don't steal anything worth more than $1,000 (per work, right, not total value?) or willfully distributed these songs?

Is there a catch? Am I to be civilly prosecuted, instead of criminally? Or is there a new law (since 1997) that changes this?

Or can you really not be busted for piracy unless you willfully distribute or pirate more than $1,000 at a time? This is much like making it legal to own and smoke pot, merely illegal to be a pot dealer.

I don't see any clause in this law that exempts politicians, and enforcing it against them would focus their minds wonderfully upon their oaths to the Constitution.
/.

What we are seeing here is a move from the traditional client-server interaction to a user-to-user approach which infact encourages sharing because it gives the share-ees a rewarding feeling of accomplishment, having given a part of their 'collection' to a desiring peer.
So long live Freenet, it's definitly the future.

--
Kiro

Britain a nice, peaceful, gun free paradise?

Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 "U.S. crime rates -- whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics -- generally fell in the early 1980's, rose thereafter until around 1993, and then fell again (figures 1-10). For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. For half of the measured English crime categories, the latest crime rates (1995 for rates from victim surveys; 1996 for rates from police statistics) are the highest recorded since 1981 "

Crime Wave Sweeps Britain"Despite its reputation as a genteel and pleasant land, a new government report depicts Britain as one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world, a place where a person's chances of being assaulted, burgled or robbed are substantially greater than in the United States."

Here's an article. Decide for yourself whether it was written about you. When liberals lie about guns. It was written by the well known bunch of raving right-wing crazies at Salon Magazine.

Interesting points. David Brin has an interesting interview where he discusses the pro's and cons of this Openness (ala Transparent Society). Go read it if you haven't already. Privacy advocates should read the interview too. Both models 'ultra secrecy' and 'openness' could potentially support a free data concept of sorts but personally I think that the 'openness' model would be an incredible failure. The potential for abuse is just too great. People are having identity theft occur already at increasing rates. (btw here is a great link with a lot of info on it) Either perspective is troubling, so I won't say I have made up my mind 100% on the issue because the data is something we paradoxically want and don't want. I would hate for insurance companies to be able to get all sort of personal data and medical history on me and family members and tie it genetically linked homosapiens, but its more or less to late because they already have the beginings of that. On the flipside: I would really like it to be painless to find out more about a potential babysitter for my kids/nephews etc. and at present it is needlessly expensive to do so. I could see being a babysitter who wouldn't want to share private info or info about thier pr0n surfing habits for example too (but I don't think I would entrust that person with children if that were the case). Its all very circular... Here is my thought: The ideology of The Bill of Rights is that freedom is pretty much the right/desire of men/women to be left alone, especially by the government. Basically this means freedom=privacy. I wish the founding fathers of the US had gone into more detail about privacy though because the whole idea of interpretation imho is crap (insert jab at antigun folk...:politicians don't fear unarmed peasants) Where does all this lead? I am not sure , but it will be an interesting ride...

Just skimming the Freedom of Information Act, one particular exemption catches my eye --


...would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law


I'd think the FBI might make the case that if the design of the *vore systems shows WHAT it monitors -- how it selects such -- then this clause might apply. Certainly, this would seem to allow the FBI to refuse to describe *which* ISPs are being monitored... But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor a Fed.

Hey,

The DOJ *CANNOT* prosecute any non-monopoly US company for anticompetitive practices, barring a few very basic practices like price fixing.

If this isn't price-fixing, I'm not sure what is. For those of you who feel so inclined, you can e-mail the attorney-general: antitrust@usdoj.gov.

In any case, I won't be buying RDRAM from now on.

Michael Tandy

The URL's for the DoJ's antitrust dept are: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newca se.htm

- the first is general contact email addresses, the second is for new cases.

I am sending my first email to the newcases officeand I'm not even American - send yours now, too, or they will ignore it till it is too late.

The URL's for the DoJ's antitrust dept are: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newca se.htm

- the first is general contact email addresses, the second is for new cases.

I am sending my first email to the newcases officeand I'm not even American - send yours now, too, or they will ignore it till it is too late.

I'm definitely willing to go to jail to break intellectual property laws.

You may get your wish.

Defendant Sentenced for First Criminal
Copyright Conviction Under the
"No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act for Unlawful
Distribution of Software on the Internet

EUGENE, OREGON -- The Justice Department, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, Kristine Olson, and the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Portland, Oregon Division, David W. Szady, announced that Jeffrey Gerard Levy was sentenced today by United States District Judge Michael R. Hogan for his involvement in criminal infringement of copyrights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1) and 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2). Judge Hogan sentenced Levy to a two year period of probation with conditions. The probationary sentence was imposed because a sentence for criminal infringement of a copyright under the United States Sentencing Guidelines is based largely upon the retail value of pirated software which was distributed. Although the retail value of pirated software posted on Levy's web site was conservatively estimated at approximately $70,000, a determination of the value of software distributed was unable to be made. Levy agreed that the quantity of distributed software exceeded $5,000, but a determination beyond that was unable to be made.

Full story here

The "cheerleading" is not in the successful use, but in adding it to a discussion where it is not relevant. Your points point and questions are well taken, but not relevant.

I believe that Microsoft does indeed act as a Great Satan in the software world, but again, this is also not relevant. What is relevant is your comment about modifying their business practices, but I believe that has been tried (see previous consent decree). So honestly, I think they've had a chance to change their evil ways, and they blew it.

It seems we have a difference of opinion with regard to cheerleading. So be it. IANACL, but I think it is cheerleading, my friend.

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) pled guilty (and paid a fine) in 1996 to charges of conspiring to restrict trade in the lysine (an amino acid added to animal feed, among other things) market. You can read the court verdict. This was the same year two Korean companies and two Japanese ones pled guilty to similar charges. Read more over here.

Did the judge clearly define the difference between a public API and a private function, from a legal perspective?

IANAL, so I can't interpret this, but the relevant portion of the Memorandum and Order reads:

7.b. "Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)" means the interfaces, service provider interfaces, and protocols that enable a hardware device or an application, Middleware, or server Operating System to obtain services from (or provide services in response to requests from) Platform Software in a Personal Computer and to use, benefit from, and rely on the resources, facilities, and capabilities of such Platform Software.

Rather than reproduce the whole document here, you can find the legal definitions of all those capitalized terms at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4900/ 4909.htm.

Oh, Cringeley again. Remember his previous article, where he claimed Judge Jackson was a wimp afraid to order Microsoft around?

Microsoft lost this the good old-fashioned way - the prosecutors at the Justice Department showed in court that Microsoft broke the law. There really isn't any question about this. Go back and read the court's findings of fact for a detailed list of Microsoft's illegal acts if you have any doubts about this. All the testimony and documents are on-line, too. As an example, read this memo from Bill Gates calling for incompatible extensions to HTML.

Oh, Cringeley again. Remember his previous article, where he claimed Judge Jackson was a wimp afraid to order Microsoft around?

Microsoft lost this the good old-fashioned way - the prosecutors at the Justice Department showed in court that Microsoft broke the law. There really isn't any question about this. Go back and read the court's findings of fact for a detailed list of Microsoft's illegal acts if you have any doubts about this. All the testimony and documents are on-line, too. As an example, read this memo from Bill Gates calling for incompatible extensions to HTML.

Oh, Cringeley again. Remember his previous article, where he claimed Judge Jackson was a wimp afraid to order Microsoft around?

Microsoft lost this the good old-fashioned way - the prosecutors at the Justice Department showed in court that Microsoft broke the law. There really isn't any question about this. Go back and read the court's findings of fact for a detailed list of Microsoft's illegal acts if you have any doubts about this. All the testimony and documents are on-line, too. As an example, read this memo from Bill Gates calling for incompatible extensions to HTML.

Which just goes to show that Bob Cringely is not a lawyer, and does not read the law. Please look at the Sherman & Clayton acts on that site, and find the word consumer in those two acts. You won't. Why? Because those two acts protect competition. Hm. Did DoJ prove harm to competition via monopoly power?

This will be a big boost for the WINE effort, as I mentioned previously. More than that, we'll probably see every x86 OS that has a POSIX-compliant API module offer a Win32-compliant API module. In time, they'll all run Office just fine. Some of them will probably work better than Microsoft's OS offerings, too.

Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the APIs to break compatible software, either; the decision prohibits that. And of course none of this waits on appeal; only the breakup is delayed.

In the end, this might be good even for Microsoft. They've dumped much junk in their OS to maintain their monopoly. That strategy now stops working. So they may let the engineers determine what goes in the OS again, as they did when Dave Cutler designed NT, instead of the marketing people, as they did with Win98/98/NT4/NT2000. We'll see.

Microsoft will probably drag their feet on API disclosure. But it won't work. The only question is whether they give in before, or after, the judge sends some Microsoft executives to jail for contempt. That's a very real possibility. Federal judges have more than enough power to enforce their orders.

Microsoft probably won't win on appeal, either. Unlike Judge Sporkin, who made some mistakes in the first Microsoft antitrust case back in 1994 (yes, this is try #2), Judge Jackson has done a good job. Nobody has pointed out any serious errors on his part. The trial has been watched by so many people that any major reversable errors would have been widely publicized.

Read the actual final judgement; it's better than most of the commentary on it.

This will be a big boost for the WINE effort, as I mentioned previously. More than that, we'll probably see every x86 OS that has a POSIX-compliant API module offer a Win32-compliant API module. In time, they'll all run Office just fine. Some of them will probably work better than Microsoft's OS offerings, too.

Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the APIs to break compatible software, either; the decision prohibits that. And of course none of this waits on appeal; only the breakup is delayed.

In the end, this might be good even for Microsoft. They've dumped much junk in their OS to maintain their monopoly. That strategy now stops working. So they may let the engineers determine what goes in the OS again, as they did when Dave Cutler designed NT, instead of the marketing people, as they did with Win98/98/NT4/NT2000. We'll see.

Microsoft will probably drag their feet on API disclosure. But it won't work. The only question is whether they give in before, or after, the judge sends some Microsoft executives to jail for contempt. That's a very real possibility. Federal judges have more than enough power to enforce their orders.

Microsoft probably won't win on appeal, either. Unlike Judge Sporkin, who made some mistakes in the first Microsoft antitrust case back in 1994 (yes, this is try #2), Judge Jackson has done a good job. Nobody has pointed out any serious errors on his part. The trial has been watched by so many people that any major reversable errors would have been widely publicized.

Read the actual final judgement; it's better than most of the commentary on it.

It's probably too late in this case, since a subpoena has already been issued and post-subpoena attempts to conceal the data might be considered obstruction (perhaps someone with a legal background can comment), but people who have an expectation that their data may be subpoened ought to consider encrypting the hard drive. It appears to be a difficult thing (at least in the U.S.) to compel disclosure of the password. "As a practical matter, getting past the encryption may not be easy, but there are several approaches to try. First of all, the computer crime lab or the software manufacturer may be able to assist in decrypting the file. Investigators should not be discouraged by claims that the password "can't be broken," as this may simply be untrue. Some can be done easily with the right software. If that fails, there may be clues to the password in the other evidence seized--stray notes on hardware or desks; scribbles in the margins of manuals or on the jackets of disks. Agents should consider whether the suspect or someone else will provide the password if requested. In some cases, it might be appropriate to compel a third party who may know the password (or even the suspect) to disclose it by subpoena (with limited immunity, if appropriate)." And there's always the "I forgot it" claim. One word of warning, though: one well-known person (sorry, my memory fails me) encrypted his hard drive, and the government refuses to give it back to him until he gives them the key. They claim that he might have dangerous material on it (nuclear launch codes, perhaps?) and need to inspect it before returning it. Keep off-site backups.

Further info on how the government goes about conducting information searches can be found here. (I am not a lawyer).

But it's too late for this trial. Microsoft officially lost when the judge's Conclusions of Law came out. We're now in the remedy (i.e. sentencing) phase now. Microsoft is trying to confuse the issue enough that the Court of Appeals will stay the interim remedies pending appeal. That's the only way they can win. Whether the Court of Appeals will fall for it remains to be seen.

Judge Jackson did a good job on this case. For two years, he let Microsoft have their say, including showing their faked video (remember?), and making their bogus claims. He saw through it all and wrote those Findings of Fact. If you read those, and you're familiar with the industry, you'll see that he got it right.

In the previous Microsoft antitrust case (1995), the judge took a more activist role during the trial itself, for which he was reversed by the Court of Appeals. That was a wierd case; the judge refused to accept a consent decree agreed to by both parties because he thought it wasn't strong enough. He was probably right, but exceeded his authority. That's not the situation this time. The current case is a straight loss at trial by Microsoft.

As for the remedy being overkill, in previous antitrust cases, the courts have broken up AT&T, Standard Oil, and a number of lesser companies. Courts have imposed tougher interface disclosure requirements on IBM and AT&T than are proposed for Microsoft. There's precedent for everything in this judgement. Microsoft gripes in their brief that there's no one previous decision that contains everything that's in this one, but that doesn't mean anything.

But it's too late for this trial. Microsoft officially lost when the judge's Conclusions of Law came out. We're now in the remedy (i.e. sentencing) phase now. Microsoft is trying to confuse the issue enough that the Court of Appeals will stay the interim remedies pending appeal. That's the only way they can win. Whether the Court of Appeals will fall for it remains to be seen.

Judge Jackson did a good job on this case. For two years, he let Microsoft have their say, including showing their faked video (remember?), and making their bogus claims. He saw through it all and wrote those Findings of Fact. If you read those, and you're familiar with the industry, you'll see that he got it right.

In the previous Microsoft antitrust case (1995), the judge took a more activist role during the trial itself, for which he was reversed by the Court of Appeals. That was a wierd case; the judge refused to accept a consent decree agreed to by both parties because he thought it wasn't strong enough. He was probably right, but exceeded his authority. That's not the situation this time. The current case is a straight loss at trial by Microsoft.

As for the remedy being overkill, in previous antitrust cases, the courts have broken up AT&T, Standard Oil, and a number of lesser companies. Courts have imposed tougher interface disclosure requirements on IBM and AT&T than are proposed for Microsoft. There's precedent for everything in this judgement. Microsoft gripes in their brief that there's no one previous decision that contains everything that's in this one, but that doesn't mean anything.

More food for the DOJ cannons. Speak up! Contact them here: microsoft.atr.usdoj.gov

The Tick - "Spoon!"

As others mentioned, the Microsoft antitrust decree, scheduled to be signed by the judge tomorrow, has a big impact on this. 91 days from now, Microsoft will have to disclose their key APIs. Here's the relevant language from the latest version:

• Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information.
  Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable--
  • i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or
  • ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or
  • iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.
  To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the foregoing, Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii).

  c. Knowing Interference with Performance.
  Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.

When all the dust settles, operating systems that run Win32 apps will be a commodity anybody can build, like PCs and BIOS chips.

And remember, all this takes place before any appeals.

As others mentioned, the , scheduled to be signed by the judge tomorrow, has a big impact on this. 91 days from now, Microsoft will have to disclose all their APIs. Here's the relevant language from the latest version:

• Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable--
  • i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or
  • ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or
  • iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.
  To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the foregoing, Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii).

  c. Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.

Never mind. I found the link on my own.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4600/ 4639.htm

KWiL

--

--

But let's clarify the facts about who is doing the killing, shall we?

1. the "general populace" commits less than half of all murders in America
2. Murders of "the general populace" by "unpopular racial, religious or ethnic groups" are about two and a half times as frequent as the other way round.

Just to clear your fuzzy biased little mind, check out the US government stats in interracial murder

For one thing, there are already something like 50 million legally privately owned firearms in the US today, and heaven knows how many illegal ones.

Fifty million?

Try nearly Two Hundred Forty Million. There are between Sixty-Five and Eighty Million (as of 1994 in previous link) legal gun owners in the USA. Nearly four million firearms were sold in 1995 alone.

The math is left as an exercise for the reader.

The correct link is antitrust@usdoj.gov....

My copies are already sent out...:)

Just another computer geek....