Slashdot Mirror

For example, I saw this post yesterday lost in the more than thousand replies to the Microsoft threat:

1. Send an email to Mr Weston with the following text:

   Dear Mr. Weston:

   I certainly do not appreciate Microsoft's attempt to use existing laws to censor unfavorable comments made in a public forum. From all the postings that Microsoft asked to be removed, there is only one which might have infringed Microsoft's copyrights. I believe Microsoft took advantage of just one post to try to suppress lawful and valid critique, and I am very unhappy about that kind of disrespect to the Constitution and the laws of this country. I would also like to warn you that you made some claims under penalty of perjury that are unmistakenly deceiving and suggest a retraction by Microsoft of some of those false claims.

   Sincerely,
   ....... your name here ......

2. Email to the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice with the following text:

   Dear Mr Klein:

   I would like to inform you of a new antitrust practice of Microsoft Corporation regarding its new Windows 2000 operating system.

   Microsoft Corporation has purposefully broken interoperability with preexisting secure networking standards in an attempt to grab the portion of the server market currently held by Unix (TM) and Linux operating systems. To this goal, Microsoft has implemented an extension to the widely used Kerberos protocol that is incompatible with all existing implementations and keeps the specifications as a trade secret.

   Recently, Microsoft made a restricted release of the specifications of their proprietary extension that requires the licensee to agree to use the information only for security auditing and not for implementing interoperable Unix protocols. However, when this information was leaked to the public Web forum known as Slashdot, Microsoft began an attempt to not only suppress possibly copyrighted information but also criticism and explanations of how the protocol works.

   It may be of your interest to investigate this new demonstration of antitrust behavior by Microsoft Corporation.

3. Write your congressperson with the following text:

   Dear Mr/Ms ....

   I am writing you to inform you about some portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that are clearly being used for a purpose that I am sure is not what Congress intended when it enacted it. I would like you to consider an amendment to this Act to clarify some points.

   In particular, Microsoft Corporation is attempting to use the DMCA to suppress free speech in the public Web forum known as Slashdot. While there was a leak of copyrighted information posted to that forum, Microsoft Corporation is using the DMCA to try to also suppress criticism and technical advice offered by some posters. While that technical advice might be unwelcome to Microsoft because it concerns proprietary protocols that Microsoft is unwilling to publicly discuss, this by no means is a copyright infringement, just a possibly unqualified opinion.

   I am sure the intention of the DMCA was to prevent and punish illegal acts on the Internet, and not to be used as a vehicle to suppress criticism or dissenting opinions.

   Thank you,

4. Email the New York Times with the following text:

   The new attempt of Microsoft Corporation to suppress public criticism and dissenting viewpoints in the forum Slashdot shows that Microsoft is continuing its monopolistic practice without regard to the current antitrust trial in which it is involved.

   It seems that a breakup of Microsoft Corporation is fully justified, given that in the current situation Microsoft is big enough to just ignore the United States government and judiciary and disrespect the United States Constitution.

   The new embrace and extend tactic is using proprietary extensions to a widely used secure networking protocol in order to grab the Unix server market. When the protocol was made public, thus allowing Unix and Linux servers to interoperate with Windows 2000 machines, Microsoft claimed copyright infringement and is attempting to erase the information (and with it also some criticism and technical explanations) by threatening with lawsuits. The basis of its claims is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to fight pirates, not to suppress freedom of the press. This outrageous demonstration of contempt must be stopped now.

1. Send an email to Mr Weston with the following text:

   Dear Mr. Weston:

   I certainly do not appreciate Microsoft's attempt to use existing laws to censor unfavorable comments made in a public forum. From all the postings that Microsoft asked to be removed, there is only one which might have infringed Microsoft's copyrights. I believe Microsoft took advantage of just one post to try to supress lawful and valid critique, and I am very unhappy about that kind of disrespect to the Constitution and the laws of this country. I would also like to warn you that you made some claims under penalty of perjury that are unmistakenly deceiving and suggest a retraction by Microsoft of some of those false claims.

   Sincerely,
   ....... your name here ......

2. Email to the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice with the following text:

   Dear Mr Klein:

   I would like to inform you of a new antitrust practice of Microsoft Corporation regarding its new Windows 2000 operating system.

   Microsoft Corporation has purposedly broken interoperability with preexisting secure networking standards in an attempt to grab the portion of the server market currently held by Unix (TM) and Linux operating systems. To this goal, Microsoft has implemented an extension to the widely used Kerberos protocol that is incompatible with all existing implementations and keeps the specifications as a trade secret.

   Recently, Microsoft made a restricted release of the specifications of their proprietary extension that requires the licensee to agree to use the information only for security auditing and not for implementing interoperable Unix protocols. However, when this information was leaked to the public Web forum known as Slashdot, Microsoft began an attempt to not only suppress possibly copyrighted information but also criticism and explanations of how the protocol works.

   It may be of your interest to investigate this new demonstration of antitrust behavior by Microsoft Corporation.

3. Write your congressperson with the following text:

   Dear Mr/Ms ....

   I am writing you to inform you about some portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that are clearly being used for a purpose that I am sure is not what Congress intended when it enacted it. I would like you to consider an ammendment to this Act to clarify some points.

   In particular, Microsoft Corporation is attempting to use the DMCA to suppress free speech in the public Web forum known as Slashdot. While there was a leak of copyrighted information posted to that forum, Microsoft Corporation is using the DMCA to try to also suppress criticism and technical advice offered by some posters. While that technical advice might be unwelcome to Microsoft because it concerns proprietary protocols that Microsoft is unwilling to publicly discuss, this by no means is a copyright infringement, just a possibly unqualified opinion.

   I am sure the intention of the DMCA was to prevent and punish illegal acts on the Internet, and not to be used as a vehicle to suppress criticism or dissenting opinions.

   Thank you,

4. Email the New York Times with the following text:

   The new attempt of Microsoft Corporation to suppress public criticism and dissenting viewpoints in the forum Slashdot shows that Microsoft is continuing its monopolistic practice without regard to the current antitrust trial in which it is involved.

   It seems that a breakup of Microsoft Corporation is fully justified, given that in the current situation Microsoft is big enough to just ignore the United States government and judiciary and disrespect the United States Constitution.

   The new embrace and extent tactic is using proprietary extensions to a widely used secure networking protocol in order to grab the Unix server market. When the protocol was made public, thus allowing Unix and Linux servers to interoperate with Windows 2000 machines, Microsoft claimed copyright infringement and is attempting to erase the information (and with it also some criticism and technical explanations) by threatening with lawsuits. The basis of its claims is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to fight pirates, not to suppress freedom of the press. This outrageous demonstration of contempt must be stopped now.

• Disclosure of APIs, 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.

In fact, Microsoft's incompatible modification of the Kerberos interface probably violates one of the remedy terms:

• 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.

Remember that Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust law; they've had their day in court and the only remaining issue is the punishment. So issues of this nature should be reported to the Department of Justice's antitrust team.

Yes, Microsoft can appeal. But the disclosure requirements will go into effect while the appeal proceeds. Read the DOJ filing.

• Disclosure of APIs, 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.

In fact, Microsoft's incompatible modification of the Kerberos interface probably violates one of the remedy terms:

• 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.

Remember that Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust law; they've had their day in court and the only remaining issue is the punishment. So issues of this nature should be reported to the Department of Justice's antitrust team.

Yes, Microsoft can appeal. But the disclosure requirements will go into effect while the appeal proceeds. Read the DOJ filing.

...the OS company would be allowed to keep internet explorer in the OS. Wasn't that the whole point of contention in the lawsuit?

This is in 1(c)(ii): In the case of such Intellectual Property that is related to the Internet browser, the license shall not grant the Operating System Business any right to develop, license, or distribute modified or derivative versions of the Internet browser. Basically, the proposal says that _only_ the raw OS gets split off, meaning that we have MS as today, except without owning Windows. The only blooper I've seen is that MS might sacrifice the OS business and develop an identical department... didn't see anything in the proposal against that.

Sure MS has monopolistic practices, but no more than the baby bells or the cable companies.

And by this you're justifying them how? Two wrongs do not make a right. IMHO, cable companies should be next to be legislated, if not actually prosecuted for their business practices.

...the practices that make MS a monopoly. Such as an OEM not being able to install another OS along with Windows, or MS charging different prices to different OEMs.

All addressed in section 3(a). Section 3 contains the interim restrictions, which contain a lot of the meat of the proposal, and will continue to apply to the OS business.

However, the main reason Office is so succesful is MS basically gives it away to the OEMs.

Is it just me or does this ring of RedHat's business model? If they can keep it up, sure, why not. But I doubt it'll be that easy.

People use IE because Netscape sucks.

People use IE because it comes preinstalled, and can't be removed easily. And, most people have other things to do than finding the netscape download link (really, did Netscape deliberately obfuscate the route to the download page?)

MS only made Java better.

MS broke the standard, as specified in the license they signed. This not only breaks Java's standard, but is an actual contract breach. If they wished to 'enhance' it, as you say, they were free to develop an independent toolkit for Windows use, as long as the core API was standards-compliant.

Go read the Findings of Fact, and the Government proposal. Some of the stuff in the Findings is just mind-boggling, and definitely not what I'd consider fair or sound business practices.
---

...the OS company would be allowed to keep internet explorer in the OS. Wasn't that the whole point of contention in the lawsuit?

This is in 1(c)(ii): In the case of such Intellectual Property that is related to the Internet browser, the license shall not grant the Operating System Business any right to develop, license, or distribute modified or derivative versions of the Internet browser. Basically, the proposal says that _only_ the raw OS gets split off, meaning that we have MS as today, except without owning Windows. The only blooper I've seen is that MS might sacrifice the OS business and develop an identical department... didn't see anything in the proposal against that.

Sure MS has monopolistic practices, but no more than the baby bells or the cable companies.

And by this you're justifying them how? Two wrongs do not make a right. IMHO, cable companies should be next to be legislated, if not actually prosecuted for their business practices.

...the practices that make MS a monopoly. Such as an OEM not being able to install another OS along with Windows, or MS charging different prices to different OEMs.

All addressed in section 3(a). Section 3 contains the interim restrictions, which contain a lot of the meat of the proposal, and will continue to apply to the OS business.

However, the main reason Office is so succesful is MS basically gives it away to the OEMs.

Is it just me or does this ring of RedHat's business model? If they can keep it up, sure, why not. But I doubt it'll be that easy.

People use IE because Netscape sucks.

People use IE because it comes preinstalled, and can't be removed easily. And, most people have other things to do than finding the netscape download link (really, did Netscape deliberately obfuscate the route to the download page?)

MS only made Java better.

MS broke the standard, as specified in the license they signed. This not only breaks Java's standard, but is an actual contract breach. If they wished to 'enhance' it, as you say, they were free to develop an independent toolkit for Windows use, as long as the core API was standards-compliant.

Go read the Findings of Fact, and the Government proposal. Some of the stuff in the Findings is just mind-boggling, and definitely not what I'd consider fair or sound business practices.
---

it seems to me that when the supreme court finally got around to racially intergrating public schools, the legalleese included the term "in due time," which some schools interperted as "years from now." these schools managed to keep intergration on the bottom of their to-do lists for a very long time.

You don't think the DOJ has learned from these tactics? Quoting from the Proposed Final Judgement:

cc. "Timely Manner": disclosure of APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces in a timely manner means, at a minimum, publication on a web site accessible by ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs at the earliest of the time that such APIs, Technical Information, or Communications Interfaces are (1) disclosed to Microsoft's applications developers, (2) used by Microsoft's own Platform Software developers in software released by Microsoft in alpha, beta, release candidate, final or other form, (3) disclosed to any third party, or (4) within 90 days of a final release of a Windows Operating System Product, no less than 5 days after a material change is made between the most recent beta or release candidate version and the final release.

Note that those four conditions are OR'ed, which means no later than anyone at MS has used them, and when you're within 90 days of a final release of a new version of Windows, 5 days after they've changed (whether anyone's used them or not).

Sounds like a good definition of "timely" to me.

-Esme

Disclosure of APIs, 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.

Note that this doesn't specifically require Microsoft to put all those documents on the Web. If you agree that Microsoft should be required to do so, write to the Justice Department at Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov and ask that they require that in the final remedy.

Disclosure of APIs, 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.

Note that this doesn't specifically require Microsoft to put all those documents on the Web. If you agree that Microsoft should be required to do so, write to the Justice Department at Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov and ask that they require that in the final remedy.

Bill Gates, upon hearing this news, is reportedly trying to obtain a thermonuclear device to detonate in the slide area, which will cause a tsunami which will devastate much of the US East Coast, including Raleigh-Durham, NC and Washington, DC.

By this, Gates hopes to kill two birds with one stone, destroying the US Department of Justice and RedHat, a leading provider of the Linux operating system.

The Department of Justice has tried to plug all the holes Microsoft might slip through. I suggest reading the DOJ filing to see if they missed anything. I especially like the "Knowing Interference with Performance" section.

If Judge Jackson signs off on this, it's going to happen. Nobody else gets a say.

[Snipped explanation of how the "secret APIs" aren't really secret and MS is innocent. Honest.]

...yet, it only took five years for MS to decide they'd document that API? Clue: In dealing with MS on a technical level, getting anthing out of MS is like screaming at the wind; It is entirely ineffective unless the wind happens to be blowing that direction.

As for your motivations, I can only think that you must be trolling, since nobody can be so misinformed if they've looked at this even for a little while...reading the Findings of Fact even in part will give you plenty to chew on, let alone having picked up any article printed over the past 15 years on the subject.

Even if we were to ignore the Department of Justice's own Findings of Fact, the books and magazine articles on undocumented APIs from DOS through the latest version of Windows, as well as my and other's knowledge of undocumented Microsoft APIs and the impossibility of wrenching usable details on how to use them from MS, your claims still don't pass the sniff test.

If I'm wrong -- as others have mentioned before in this thread -- you meerly have to point out how we are mistaken, with some reasonable proof behind it. If you're just guessing or trolling, get a grip. You don't have a very big audience at this point.

btw, personally, I would like to see the current directors (and other high-level types) fired, and outsiders brought in... After all, it's mostly those guys who broke the law.

Does anyone have a list of states?

I find it interesting that all the docs on the DOJ web site are in html and Word Perfect 5.1 format.

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] The changes you requested to the table were not successful because they would create duplicate values in the index, primary key, or relationship.
Change the data in the field or fields that contain duplicate data, remove the index, or redefine the index to permit duplicate entries and try again.

/project/SubmitReq.asp, line 48


Wow, click on a link related to the DOJ and they take apart Microsoft in a FLASH!

Now thats what I call internet time!

(For those of you who don't know.... "j/k!!!")

Here's the actual wording of the DOJ decision.

Any legal types out there want to give their opinions?

Just to add an air of surreality to the whole thing, the URL provided by the US DOJ on their website is wrong. The Proposed Final Judgment is actually here, and requires Adobe Acrobat.

For my money, the most interesting part is 5.A.i.(1) -- Microsoft will be required to provide on demand (during business hours):

...copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, source code, and other records and documents in the possession or under the control of Microsoft (which may have counsel present), relating to the matters contained in this Final Judgment...

(Emphasis added by me and is not in the original)

This I hadn't expected, although perhaps I should have in retrospect. We all know how MS feels about their Secret Sauce ... I wonder how they're going to react to this, even though 5.a.iii prohibits release of any information gathered from MS, "except in the course of legal proceedings to which the Plaintiff is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law."

Myself, I hope the DoJ periodically pulls the source and compiles it themselves to see if it behaves exactly like the publicly available version(s) of Windows.

--

Were you disagreeing with me? I have to assume not, given your linked data.

There are going to be peaks and valleys in any measurement. It just happens that there was a horrific increase 1986-1994. Sure is convenient to measure over the last 7 years and not the last 15....

Want to see teen involvement in homicide: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide /teens.htm

Name.Space, the leading pioneer and advocate of new generic toplevel domains (gTLDs) in operation since 1996 has hard data on what new TLDs are popular and in demand by people on the net at large.

In 1996, Name.Space began accepting suggestions for new gTLDs from public input, and has moderated the list to the present number of 549, from thousands of requests. These gTLDs came into operation between the autumn of 1996 and the present and are currently available for registration.
Register here!

Here are the top 20 new gTLDs suggested by the public and presently in operation by Name.Space:

web .
space.
shop.
art.
sex.
info.
zone.
music.
firm.
design.
media.
travel.
online.
arts.
inc.
x.
mail.
home.
family.
2000.
bank.
usa.
news.
ltd.
world.
fuck.
mag.
corp.
direct.
law.
free.
love.
auction.
sale.
casino.
service.
games.
fun.
mall.
studios.
cam.
market.
asia.
sports.
cafe.
mad.
internet.
hacker.
city.
network.

see Vote for new gTLDs
and Name.Space active gTLDs.

In an early effort to gain the global recognition of the new gTLDs serviced by Name.Space, a letter was sent to Network Solutions on March 11, 1997 requesting the addition of the gTLDs serviced by Name.Space and their associated nameservers into the ROOT.ZONE file (the recognized master list of globally-routed TLDs, controlled by NSI).

NSI refused the request to amend the ROOT.ZONE file and Name.Space subsequently filed an ANTITRUST action against NSI on March 20, 1997.

After more than three years of litigation, the Court of Appeals ruled against Name.Space and in favor of NSI, granting NSI IMMUNITY from antitrust prosecution, for their "conduct in this case". The court's decision was an obvious POLITICAL decision, not a legal one. (see http://namespace.org/law)

In the original complaint, Name.Space also listed a group of "non-party co-conspirators", many of whom, or their associates now make up ICANN and the key influential persons surrounding the ICANN process and formerly known as the IAHC (International Ad Hoc Committee) at the time the initial lawsuit was filed in March, 1997.

Now that NSI has been declared IMMUNE from antitrust prosecution for refusing to allow competitors, including Name.Space, to add new TLDs to the root, NSI presents the addition of new TLDs as if it was their idea in the first place--in light of the fact that Name.Space and others were denied precisely what NSI is carving out for themselves.

Why did James Tierney close down the DoJ's antitrust investigation into NSI and their parent company SAIC without finding any wrongdoing? Perhaps you should all write to Mr. Tierney at the DoJ and ask why the US Government is protecting NSI, while crusading against Microsoft? Is this another case of "selective enforcement"? Who is benefiting financially from all of this? Why is there no oversight into conflicts of interest within ICANN? How did NSI get away with paying public relations "flacks" and other "shills" to disrupt, discredit, and coerce their competitors such as Name.Space, with such impunity?

The addition of new gTLDs to the root is a matter of a simple TEXT EDIT of the ROOT.ZONE file. Isn't it about time that this be done without further delay? Get a head start--if you are an ISP you can run the expanded ROOT.ZONE file today by downloading it and installing it on your DNS servers. For more info, see go to Switch to Name.Space

I can't really see how Napster can win, even though they claim that they cannot be held responsible for their user's actions.

It's a bit like taking a ride in someone's car when the driver is drunk. You are aiding and abetting an offence, which is an offence in itself.

IANAL of course!

Jeff

Try this article for a look at how well a total handgun ban has worked for England. Crime involving weapons is actually increasing.

"But the rate of crime is much lower than in the US!," you might say. Not according to this study by the US Department of Justice.

Britain does not use the SAS as a routine policing force for anti-firearms violations.

I am somewhat surprised at the high level of anti-gun sentiment on slashdot. You would think that in a group with a large percentage of self-described nerds with a penchant for anti-government, libertarian thinking, there would be more people into firearms. Or at least that the detractors would be better informed.

Shall we just pick and choose from the Bill of Rights for just those amendments which please us, then? Yes on 1, no on 2? I bet the police and courts find 4 and 5 pretty pesky at times, let's get rid of those while we're at it.

• Of course they're guilty. If you think Microsoft hasn't deliberately exploited their monopoly to injure competitors, you haven't been reading the evidence. It's all online; do your homework before posting. Start with the findings of fact.
• Microsoft has missed its chance to settle. Any settlement after this point will be on less favorable terms than Microsoft was offered last week. Justice offered rather good terms: some strong restrictions on tying products together, an end to pricing gimmicks, but no breakup. Microsoft rejected that offer.
• Look at what happened to IBM in a similar situation. Thomas J. Watson Sr., the president of IBM, wanted to fight the Justice Department to the bitter end in the first IBM antitrust case. He was finally overruled by his board of directors, pushed aside, and replaced as CEO. The new CEO (Watson Jr.) settled the case. Something like that may be going on within Microsoft. Notice that Gates has changed job titles recently. Microsoft has six directors; Gates, Allen, three old guys you've never heard of, (from Tandy/Radio Shack, HP, and Simpson Timber), and the venture capitalist who got Microsoft started. They have some hard choices to make.
• Stonewalling won't work. Usually, companies in serious antitrust trouble try to act very nice until the case is finished. Not Microsoft. Not only have they not modified their behavior much, they've tried pressuring the Justice Department via Congress, creating pueudo-grass-roots organizations to lobby for them (this is called "astroturf lobbying" in Washington), faking evidence (remember the faked video?), and issuing vast amounts of misleading PR. It didn't work. Microsoft's stonewalling makes a breakup more likely. Microsoft has been so uncooperative that only drastic remedies will have any effect. We'll hear that argued during the remedy phase.
• Any effective remedy will reduce Microsoft's profit margin. Microsoft has an incredible profit margin, around 30% of sales. Only because they have such monopoly power can they maintain margins like that.

Microsoft will survive this, but the big hammer they use on competitors will be taken away. Probably a good thing.

• Of course they're guilty. If you think Microsoft hasn't deliberately exploited their monopoly to injure competitors, you haven't been reading the evidence. It's all online; do your homework before posting. Start with the findings of fact.
• Microsoft has missed its chance to settle. Any settlement after this point will be on less favorable terms than Microsoft was offered last week. Justice offered rather good terms: some strong restrictions on tying products together, an end to pricing gimmicks, but no breakup. Microsoft rejected that offer.
• Look at what happened to IBM in a similar situation. Thomas J. Watson Sr., the president of IBM, wanted to fight the Justice Department to the bitter end in the first IBM antitrust case. He was finally overruled by his board of directors, pushed aside, and replaced as CEO. The new CEO (Watson Jr.) settled the case. Something like that may be going on within Microsoft. Notice that Gates has changed job titles recently. Microsoft has six directors; Gates, Allen, three old guys you've never heard of, (from Tandy/Radio Shack, HP, and Simpson Timber), and the venture capitalist who got Microsoft started. They have some hard choices to make.
• Stonewalling won't work. Usually, companies in serious antitrust trouble try to act very nice until the case is finished. Not Microsoft. Not only have they not modified their behavior much, they've tried pressuring the Justice Department via Congress, creating pueudo-grass-roots organizations to lobby for them (this is called "astroturf lobbying" in Washington), faking evidence (remember the faked video?), and issuing vast amounts of misleading PR. It didn't work. Microsoft's stonewalling makes a breakup more likely. Microsoft has been so uncooperative that only drastic remedies will have any effect. We'll hear that argued during the remedy phase.
• Any effective remedy will reduce Microsoft's profit margin. Microsoft has an incredible profit margin, around 30% of sales. Only because they have such monopoly power can they maintain margins like that.

Microsoft will survive this, but the big hammer they use on competitors will be taken away. Probably a good thing.

Having the government regulate an out-of-control industry is often best for the consumer. Take steam-boats, for instance. Operators of steam-boats in the mid 1800's were constantly 'innovating' their products by pushing the pressure of their boilers higher and higher (to make the ship engines faster and more powerful). In the process, literally dozens of people died from boiler explosions every week. The casualties of Microsoft's 'innovations' may not as clearly defined as so many new tombstones, but the role of the government remains the same: to make sure that consumers are protected when their knowledge is imperfect.

Steam-boat operators went to great lengths to promote the safety of their products and hide tragedies when they occurred. M$ goes to great lengths to repeat the word 'innovation' as much as possible while, from the Conclusions of Law:

• Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future.
• Microsoft fails to advance any legitimate business objectives that actually explain the full extent of this significant exclusionary impact.
• Microsoft itself engendered, or at least countenanced, instability and inconsistency by permitting Microsoft-friendly modifications to the desktop and boot sequence...
• the full extent of Microsoft's exclusionary initiatives in the IAP channel can only be explained by the desire to hinder competition on the merits in the relevant market.
• Microsoft's actions did not even benefit Microsoft in the short run... [if they] would thus diminish the [competing] applications barrier to entry.

• There is no evidence that Microsoft tried - or even considered trying - to prevent its anticompetitive campaign from achieving overkill. Under these circumstances, it is fair to presume that the wrongdoer intended "the probable consequences of its acts."

--

--

--

--

go here

The DOJ has the Conclusions of Law up.

--

--

True, Microsoft would never think of using market power to influence another company to limit a competitor (like they said they would in los documentos de la Dia de los Muertos, or like the gub'ment said they did in DOJ v Microsoft).
--

In other news today, Microsoft has announced that they have at last released a bug-free version of Windows, version 2.12. "We are proud that we have been able to release the first truly bug-free operating system ever," said Steve Ballmer, second-in-first-in-command of Microsoft. "With this version, we believe we will hit Linux where it hurts--on old, useless 386 PCs."

"It took us some twelve years, but we're proud of this achievement," said Bill Gates, first-in-second-in-command of Microsoft.

Linus Torvalds, leading light of the Linux open source operating system movement, admitted distress at having such hard-fought competition for the lucrative 386 market.

Now that Microsoft has released such a compelling 386 PC solution, Torvalds is believed to be concentrating his efforts on getting Linux to run more effectively on Macintosh SE/40s, in hopes of salvaging what he can of the Linux market in that sector, given the competitiveness of Macintosh System 4.0, a relatively bug-free version of the Macintosh System. Torvalds also announced work on a port to the Archimedes, believed to also be a possible gap in the Wintel hegemony.

Torvalds was also quoted as saying "First post."

Microsoft is a industry-leading monopolist and software startup buyer. For more information, visit Microsoft's homepage.

By using javascript to restrict access to my web site, I affect the following:

Restrict access no differently than using .htaccess files, or other techniques.

Send a messages to users of Micro$oft products, who to often have not read the legal decision by Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson. I want them to read it.

They can make whatever decisions they wish once they are fully informed.

You can read the DOJ report for yourself here. CNN is somewhat correct - it does say that "existing substantive federal laws appear to be generally adequate." However, it emphasizes the dangers to security posed by anonymity, and it does not shut the door on new laws.

We've got an archive of other related articles on our Law Enforcement Online page.

A. Keiper

Salon has some info from David Horowitz:

"According to Department of Justice figures, in 1993 there were 1.4 million crimes involving interracial violence nationwide. Eighty-five percent of them were committed by blacks against whites. A white is 50 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a black person than the other way around."

newer data is available from the gov, specifically table 30, which shows blacks murdered 21,627 whites between 1976 and 1996, while whites murdered 8,344 blacks.

Given the percentage of poulation the two races make up, and the (not so recent?) spate of black on white crime, maybe these computers could be used to track down violent racist criminals. Sad to note the high rate of white crime against Native Americans.

so does that point the finger back at the gov't again? No sorry, what was I thinking, a government agency lying for political gain, I must be on crack again. Thank god for the CIA!

(google's got the Valentines feeling, how sweet)

People need to stop thinking of this as a minor inconvienance for large corporations, and examine the real damage that can be done using these tools.

Say such attacks were aimed at a small ISP on a regular basis over a period of weeks (months, years). This ISP is going to lose a lot of customers due to the attack. They may never be able to recover financially from the attacks.

Or what about the innocent user who happens to get on the bad side of some script kiddie? This user has a static IP, and is stuck without his internet access for however long the script kiddie decides to keep it up.

Or what about the university with hacked accounts on its systems which are being used for outgoing attacks, using up all the university's bandwidth and dropping them off the net for hours at a time, days on end?

These things happens every day, and have for years! These attacks didn't just suddenly pop into being with the large corporations - those are just the first the media payed any attention to (and thus, the first many people heard about)

I personally have either experienced, or know people who have experienced, all of the above.

And someone described these "protests" well in another post:

Its one thing to tie yourself to the gate of a nuclear power plant in protest.

Its another thing entirely to grab some innocent bystander off the street, tie them to the post, and then go home and drink hot cocoa or whatever.

These attacks are being committed by breaking into computers and using their bandwidth. Would you agree that this, at the least, should be illegal?

The issue may have legal reprecussions in addition to the obvious moral ones. Check out Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, esp. this tidbit:

...individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities;

My reading of this legalese is that any company that wants to do business with the Federal government has to make corporate information easily accessible to all.

The majors claim that under no set of circumstances could Sherman Act jurisdiction apply to their foreign conduct. However, the United States has reason to believe that, acting through various "copyright societies" and joint ventures-- including music video and "digital radio" ventures formed to conduct business in the United States--the majors may have entered into a worldwide series of related agreements designed to dominate, discipline, eliminate or extract monopoly prices from companies providing high-technology audio and music video programming services via cable, satellite and wire transmission (hereinafter "music programming") in all major geographic markets. In addition to the domestic effects arising from the operation of the American components of the alliance, it is likely that foreign components substantially affect the domestic and export commerce of American music programming companies.

There was also a story on Bloomberg (which is down right now so I can't confirm it) a few weeks ago about a DOJ case on CD price fixing via kickbacks to record stores; I haven't found anything on the DOJ site about this, for some reason.

As one who is experiencing the hell that is Adjustment of Status on a first hand basis, let me tell you that it truly sucks. I am a natural born US citizen, and my wife is Chilean. We were married 2 1/2 years ago and hope to finish her Adjustment of Status in about 5 months (of course 2 years ago they said 1 year). As far as Green Cards go, marriage to a citizen is the simplest option. There is no security check or per country quotas, but it takes forever (although less than H1 apparently). She can work without restriction in the meantime, thankfully, but needs to reapply yearly. She can't leave the country without special permission, even to visit a grandfather who had a heart attack recently (not sick enough). We have spent all told about 48 hours on line at the INS, travelled 400 miles on LA freeways, and spent $600 on paperwork. We would gladly have spent more if it meant the process would go any faster.

On the INS website, you can see the lie inherent in their claim of having too large a workload. Their workload has remained roughly constant for the last 3 years, but the backlog has increased substantially.

Why does it take so long? The answer is partly that those who are against legal or illegal immigration don't support steps that would make the INS more efficient and (god forbid) friendly. That being said, the fault is mostly borne by the INS itself.

It is a beauracracy which was left behind by reengineering and the computer revolution. I have not seen a single computer at the main INS office in LA. Proof of payment is a cash register receipt, correspondence is often hand written and hand stamped. The receipt letter for the Adjustment of Status (hand written) refers to a "Crate #" and I have no doubt that there is indeed an actual crate involved.

The INS website has some half-assed proposals for restructuring it's operation, but none go nearly far enough. I think the document processing of the INS should be privatized. A company like EDS would be happy to streamline and automate the data collection and verification part of the application process, leaving only the decisions to the INS. In fact I believe that the immigration part of the INS should go to the State Department, which already handles visas and does a decent job, leaving the border patrol and adjudication in the hands of the Justice Department.
--

The exclusions are below:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) 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, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

1) It doesen't look (to me) like this is legally "public" yet. The cryptome page says that the document is based on hardcopy from an anonymous source. Normally (if I remember from my time as a cop beat reporter way back when) all the documents in a civil case only become public at the end of the trial, if there is one, and still may not be completely released then.

This is important as the argument that the judge is somewhat buying from DVD CAA so far is that, while the code has already been posted a lot of places, the information came from an illegitimate source that should have known better, and was posted by persons who should have known that this was not public information. If this is an otherwise confidential court document, posting it does not defeat trade secret protection for DVD any more than any other posting has.

If this is actually a confidential court document, whoever released it doesn't just have DVD CAA to worry about, they should be consulting a lawyer on what the civil contempt rules are in California.

2) FOIA is no help. The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply here at all. "The federal FOIA does not, however, provide access to records held by state or local government agencies, or by private businesses or individuals." This is a civil filing in a state (California) court.

the Freedom of Information Act

It seems to me that by prohibiting the functionality of deCSS, the DVD CCA is tying together two different products (DVDs and DVD players) much like when IBM said "you can't connect third party devices to your IBM computer" or when printer/copier manufacturers said that you had to use their toner/paper or lose any warranty.

After all, the DVD CCA et alia are a consortium conspiring to keep people out of their DVD manufacturers club by creating an artificial barrier to entry (access to the decryption algorithm). The barrier is artificial because it really only affects playback devices, not copying. Therefore they are effectively engaging in fixing the price of DVD players by limiting competition, which is a crime.

Could the defense be effective on this sort of idea? See here for more ideas on these lines.

The terms of his probation have been distorted by the media, both pro and anti-Mitnick. The terms are that he's not to touch or posess a computer or cellular phone without the written approval of his probation officer. So if his probation officer agrees to it he can work at McDonald's and even get to use the deep fryer or use the cash register.

The media has manipulated everybody on this story. The general public has had Mitnick's abilities amplified to mythical status and the terms of his probation suitably magnified. The 'hacker' community has been led on by publications like 2600 to believe that he's been unfairly sentenced to a point where he can't possibly make a living or even pay back the 4000 dollars he owes as restitution.

Complain to antitrust@ftc.gov and newcase.atr@usdoj.gov (see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm ). They do listen sometimes!

--Neal