Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ruling On Hold - Still Talking
Bahwi was the first to write with the news that Microsoft and the Government are still talking, at Judge Jackson's suggestion. So, it looks as if a settlement may still be reached.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
And this is supposed to be scary how? :-)
Present: the future of the computing world is increasingly threatened by the specter of being overwhelmed by mediocre, proprietary bloatware from what amounts to little more than a predatory monopolist. This entity threatens to make itself a part of everything we do. It wants to have a piece (and it's not satisfied with little pieces, either) of just about every pie there is that matters.
Possible scary future: the future of the computing world is threatened by... ???
In this case: better the devil I don't know than the one I know all too well!
To deter other people from committing similar acts of fraud, perjery, and antitrust violations. Maybe the next time someone considers whether or not to commit a criminal act, they'll think, "Gee, even Gates couldn't save himself after he got caught, and he was even more rich and powerful than I am. Maybe I better reconsider what I'm about to do."
Mr. Gates, do you know why they call it THE SLAMMER?
By the fashion police?
So yes, consumers can put a dollar figure on it, babe. (That's not even mentioning the office suite monopoly.) Sorry.
LONDON (Reuters) - A teenager arrested in Wales for allegedly hacking into e-commerce Web sites had obtained the credit card details of Bill Gates, head of Microsoft and the world's richest man, newspapers said on Sunday.
>Folks,
>I personally believe that the reason why Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
>is NOT issuing a judgement today is simple: he may have come to his
>senses and realize it appears that the Department of Justice's
>Antitrust Division under Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein is NOT
>wanting any form of settlement.
Jackson's just giving Mircosoft more rope to hang themselves with for any possible appeals of his ruling by appearing to bend over backwards to encourgage a settlement in the case. Remember Microsoft stated during the trial it couldn't remove the browser from the OS. Now all of a sudden Microsoft is making the offer?
IANAL either, but I've heard from several sources that if Microsoft and the DOJ settle, everything which happened in the trial so far basically gets thrown out, including the Findings of Fact.
This is why I hope the DOJ does *not* settle.
The thing I believe Microsoft is trying to avoid at all costs is having to officially acknowledge their guilt, because this will open them up to a *lot* of additional lawsuits. They don't want the court to officially stamp a 'guilty of wrongful behavior' label on them, but they also don't want any settlement with the DOJ to have to include any admission of guilt on Microsoft's part.
I will be terribly, terribly disappointed if a settlement is announced with the words 'Microsoft takes these actions without admitting any guilt.' However, it appears obvious that the judge is going to delay any ruling as long as he can in the hopes that a settlement will happen, and then I predict it's no more than two or three years before Microsoft tries worming its way out of the letter of the law again. Bleah.
Right now, gnumeric can import excel, and could do with more help
abiword uses wv to import word documents, kword also uses wv though they have seen fit to branch off their own version to do so. It too could do with more help
These specifications are also available on the July 1998 MSDN Microsoft Developer CD. They are stored on this CD in the proprietry .ivt format, but nonetheless I've even implemented an .ivt to .html converter for you to read those files under linux.
Get ivt2html and convert that office.ivt on disk 3
Alternatively wotsit.org has versions of many of them as well, including the word 6 file format which wv can handle as well
Now if someone wanted to do something constructive but wants to start small, then rather than sitting around on their arse blathering uselessly they could take a look at the public specs for mathtype and put together a linux equation edit file format to mathml converter which both abi and kword might use as an importer for equations.
Or they could help enhance libwmf to convert wmf files into svg format.
Its not just the office formats that are the problem, its the fact that they all embed or are based upon, or otherwise require the ability to convert all the secondary windows formats as well, so theres loads to see and do
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Right now, abiword is helping wv achieve winword exporting to go with wv's current ability to import word 2000,97 and 6 formats
Some code to help those projects would be 100 times better than waiting for any microsoft code to appear, as even if this very unlikely event took place the code would certainly be windows/intel centric and horrific to extract and integrate anyhow
Getting microsoft code will not be a magic pill, even with the best will in the world as with mozilla it is very hard to seperate and make modular huge codebases, it is even difficult to read and understand them as so much of the knowledge required to make head or tails of them exists only in the heads of the original developers
Its difficult when they want to make themselves understood, imagine if they were forced
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Over at the Smoking Gun (you know, the guys who posted the restraining order against newly-married multimillionaire Rick Rockwell) they have a copy of his mugshot, as well as a copy of an accident report where they also mention that the mugshot was the result of some traffic violation.
-mike kania
>Does anyone besides me find it a little creepy
>that he's *smiling* in his mug shot?
(goes back to look at the picture again)
O_O
Oi vey.
Personally, I think that the Justice Department is just wasting time and money really pursuing this.
If you take the position (as I certainly do) that Micro$oft's business-as-usual practices harm consumers, then there's a very real case to be made that the mere trial activity itself has done a great deal of good over the past couple of years.
It seems apparent that Micro$oft has felt itself hampered from pursuing some options as aggressively as it would have preferred. Witness for instance the fact that Dell, Compaq, and Gateway are all shipping machines now without a scrap of Micro$oftware on them. Things have changed for the better, IMO, and regardless of the real verdict in this trial, it's been a worthwhile cause.
--
Swampfox
Real Hacker (tm) Wanna-be
Swampfox
Real Hacker (tm) Wanna-be
Deals
It /was/ meant as a joke, and I appreciate those who see it as such. :)
They should have to both release the docs and also maintain / extend them, so they cover any new or changed APIs in their OS and Office product lines. It's fair though to let them invent new secret APIs anywhere else.
Antitrust law doesn't do anything lightly. So whatr is a very likely outcome is some kind of modified final judgment. Something along the lines of establishing guidelines for future conduct, a blue ribbon panel to monitor MS for some number of years into the future and the threat of additional prosecution if the panel deems that the guidelines have been violated. If you think that they will pull down the great leader Bill's statue from the town square, loot the palace and delare a new republic you are delusional.
I would like to remind everyone that even if the ruling DID come down today, that doesn't mean they won't appeal it, nor does it mean they'll be broken up. Settlement is the quickest solution for both parties - a ruling would certainly be appealed by one of the two parties.
Settlement talks have stalled.
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail, (G)rab Hammer?
Abort
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
Abort
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
Fail
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
Retry
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
Fail
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
Abort
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail ?
CTRL+ALT+DEL
CTRL+ALT+DEL
'sapientia potestas est'
That is really funny. A Psychologist writing on a lawsuit. Is this guy Dave Barry for the MS believers or what. It's really funny.
/ Essays/Judge_Jackson's_Findings_of_Fiction .htm
"Judge Jackson's Findings of Fiction"
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft
Dr. Edwin A. Locke is Dean's Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and is affiliated with UMD's Department of Psychology. An internationally renowned behavioral scientist, Locke's work is included in leading textbooks and acknowledged in books on the history of management.
It is too late to prevent the death of the personal computer revolution. It happened in the mid 80s, when homogeneity began to emerge in the form of MS-DOS (and later, Windoze) dominance. Killing MS might bring the revolution back.
Here's to the personal computer ressurection!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Damn straight, dude! It's bad enough to have MS products treated as defacto standards. The last thing we need is for them to become government-sanctioned real standards.
But I wonder if that's exactly what the aforementioned article is talking about at the end, with comment about pitchforks, torches, and consequences.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts were designed to protect _consumers_, not business competitors.
As I remember from econ 1 oh so long ago, competition is good for the consumer.. It keeps prices down, gets technology into the market faster, provides greater choice, etc, etc.<br><br>
So, MS may not have walked into your home or office and stolen money out of your wallet and put horrible programs on your PC, but the effect is largely the same as if they had.
--Andrew Grossman
You are right that they are not supposed to publicly comment on these things while they are before them, but once the settlement is handed down I think it would be great if he could be interviewed.
This is by far the single most important case facing computers and technology, and it has the potential power to change the way the masses use computers for the next decade.
Last thing to keep in mind though, with a case this big, the Judge more than likely will give a detailed outline as to how he came to all of his conclusions, so the majority of the questions (besides boxers or briefs, no pun intended) will be answered as soon as his decision is made.
Am I the only one that sees M$ stalling as much as possible?
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case has, in order to permit more time for settlement talks, delayed for a week or more his decision on whether the company broke the nation's antitrust laws, sources said Tuesday.
Sources familiar with the case said there is no fixed time on the delay while the government and Microsoft negotiators continue to talk, but that it will be a week or more.
Reality has a liberal bias
Is this the famous superior morality and social consciousness of the the Open Source community? Gee, I used to execute the rich and send the poor to concentration camps in the name of Freedom all the time, but the UN kicked me out of Latin America. Glad to see this kind of thinking back.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I just burned my last moderator point, or I'd moderate this back up. I think it's pretty funny myself.
Can't wait to see this one in meta-moderation....
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Hehe, I'm not an AC, that's how. btw, I'd mod yours up too. Funny as shit!
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
If Judge Jackson was going to issue any ground-breaking and lasting changes...
Remember that if JJ tries to slap them down too hard (a breakup, eg), they're just gonna appeal like crazy. And one basis for that appeal might be that JJ didn't give them enough of a chance to settle. "Well, yer honor, we were juuuust about ready to settle when Judge Jackson, there, issued his ruling. If [sniff] he'd just waited another day, we would have settled and this whole thing would be history now." I think JJ might also be thinking that some punishment now is better than a possibility of (perhaps more, perhaps less, perhaps no) punishment in the future.
I agree with what you're saying, though. A fine and some attention by a bunch of government watchdogs isn't going to fix the real problem. But that problem may not be fixable any more.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
However, you guys... you CAN be put in jail for antitrust, it just never happens. But that's because it always is like, "ooops, slipped up and broke the antitrust laws... sorry" and the company pays.
First of all, I don't think any of Slashdot readers is in danger of being put in jail for antitrust law violations. Maybe after my first billion... but not yet, not yet.
Second, a corporation is an independent legal entity (the name 'corporation' comes from Latin 'corpus': a body), it is legally a person. Bill Gates did not violate antitrust laws -- Microsoft did. Regardless of the fact that Bill is MS's majority shareholder and until recently used to be its CEO (or the president, or whatever), Bill and MS are two separate persons.
There could, conceivably, be a case where our friend Bill would be accused of knowingly directing Microsoft to do illegal acts. However that would require showing that Bill knew for sure that these actions are illegal. Showing intent is hard in the best of cases, and in antitrust... this is just not going to fly.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
"You may think he harmed software development, but that again is a personal opinion of yours"
Maybe so, but it is exactly what Judge Jackson's pending ruling will boil down to. Once the ruling is made, it is no longer just "somebody's own opinion". If the law means anything at all, it becomes a "fact" (as decided by the US justice system, appeals notwithstanding.)
I for one would rather see the majority of MS's API's and file formats die. DirectX (for example) is without a doubt the most badly designed confusing obfuscated overcomplicated mess of an API that I have ever seen in my life. While there is a need for standard API's and fileformats for various things, Microsoft's "solutions" are the last ones I would opt for. Rather create better standard formats.
Hmm
We will live with the decisions made about this case for a very long time
It might not always be a speedy process, but the law does, in general, appear to be self-correcting. Over the past century or so the law has shown itself to adapt to capitalist behaviours that harm consumers, and it will continue to do so in the future. If it seems, in another 10 to 20 years, that the law no longer applies very well and has become damaging to consumers, you can be sure it will eventually be changed. So I wouldn't despair too much.
How true. How true ;)
Its only funny as long as you put them in feet first. Otherwise you wouldn't get to see the expressions on their faces. :)
-- Segmentaion Fault (core dumped)
Company! I meant company! :)
Coming soon - pyrogyra
That's cos he's not actually endorsing that someone do that. It's such an outrageous suggestion that it becomes funny instead of gruesome. It's a joke. Consider looking up the word sometime.
Ehh, never mind. Like I said, yer humor-impaired and you've just proven it.
Like M$ would code for the neolithic Win3.1 APIs!
Really? IANAL, but does a settlement at this stage invalidate the "Finding of Fact" already published? I seriously doubt it.
And AFAIK all the other suits are based on the "Findings of Fact" because facts are hard to prove in court. The law is much easier to prove, and may need to be proved over again for the specific damages being sought.
This is a tricky area of law. Any lawysers out there to comment?
And in my recent survey (ie walking around talking to people) I've found that 85% of americans are morons who should be sterilized for the good of the species. Another 10% (hairdressers, artists "the kind that think 'blue' is art", and philosophers) should be out on to a space ship and sent out to colonize another planet.
Of course these polls are not scientific and would probably break quite a few laws and social standards should they be implemented.
Non gratis rodentus anus
Ummmm... MS isn't monolithic. That is, there are different groups within MS for various projects. The 'Office' group isn't often going to be working on the same code that the 'Home Entertainment' (or whatever it's name is) delves into, and so forth.
For most of the software engineers and such, they don't really work on multiple major projects at the same time IIRC. The bigger questions would deal with certain assets (like cash reserves, space...), and shared people (that aren't tied to one project, like HR folks, the lawyers, and senior management.)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Isn't Sony a Japanesse company?
There will NOT be an apocolypse today!
Coca-cola will NOT be handing out cocaine laced cola free to the city of San Francisco!
Natalie Portman will NOT be petrified!
The Statue of Liberty will NOT be modified to show an extended middle finger!
Babies will NOT be stuck to the wall with a mixture of chewing gum and peanut butter!
This is like... non-news.
(disclaimer... this is a joke, ok, laugh, funny, ha ha... with a dash of sarcasm)
When you compare Microsoft to AT&T and Standard Oil you forget that both of these companies where horribly ineffiecent, bloated, and highly restrictive. The only way they could maintain their "competive edge" was to enforce a monopoly. By breaking this stuff down, especially AT&T, you have the growth of industry and cheaper prices for all. If AT&T of old was still around in tact, would you have the broadband that is highly available today? Probably not. Espcially with a monopoly in place, AT&T of old would make a ton more money forcing everyone to use old cheaper technology.
Is this the way you want your favorite, dominate software company over the world to work?
How do you split up a software company? Who gets the key people with the key knowledge of how the software works. You can split MS along product lines, but that really doesn't keep them from doing the things they've done in the past. You can split them into several identical baby Bills, but how do split them evenly when the important resources are likley the employees, who could simply decide to flock to one of the baby Bills, and you're back where you started. The only thing it would really succeed in doing is make Microsoft a confused mess for a while. It's hard to justify that as a long term solution to help consumers, not to mention get it to hold up in an appeal.
The US government needs to handle this very carefully.
As we get closer to a settlement/ruling of one sort of another, we have to face the question:
What might be the effects of a strong/harsh ruling against the biggest blue chip tech company on a stock market/economy which seems to be driven in large part by (arguably) overvalued tech stocks.
i.e. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
(p.s. does anyone know how much money, in terms of corporate and personal income taxes microsoft has contributed to the US government's coffers? I think those of us in the rest of the world may have to be concerned with conflict of interest!)
I know this is offtopic but...
Didn't the ending of the game leave a great deal of unanswered questions. Like for starters exactly what happened to all the people in Midgar and CLoud and company. At least with FF8 we get some form of resolution and the like. Any thoughts?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
what exactly for?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I had an idea. Have the wacky adventures of Bill Gates in a new series based on "That 70's show".
=
Dad: Now bill what did I tell you about those roudy friends of yours
Bill: No, parties, no taking the car out, and now unaproved software development. Yeah dad I got it.
===============================================
Later that night Bill and some of his friends are comming home from a party and they think they are home free.
===============================================
Bill sneaks into the dark house thinking the coast is clear
Dad: Suprise!
Bill:*shit*
Dad: you dumb ass
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
nobody cares a fuck if you are ANAL. i just can't understand everybody yelling "I ANAL, I ANAL". fucking crazy slashdotters.
um that's a link to slashdot not an article.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
You forget that in the case of AT&T the case dragged on forever (about 10 years) until AT&T settled it by agreeing to the break up of the company. Note the qoute In 1995, AT&T announced the largest voluntary break-up in business history. in this article.
fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year?
Nope they only made $8.7 billion last year. And the government can fine them any amount they want to.
3Com/USR/Palm has shown that
Umm... 3Com bought Palm and USR, and didn't get broken up at all (It still owns all of USR, and most of Palm). And 3Com's performance has been terrible recently with the exception of the wonderful Palm.
They could force MS to quasi-open source their software but ask Red Hat how terrible that is for business
This didn't really deserve a response, but whatever. YOU MUST BE LIVING IN A HOLE OR SOMETHING BUDDY, Red Hat is a great company with an extremely high market valuation, which means investors think it will grow by leaps and bounds.
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
They could release everything, but next year's version will have changes to the API, and next year's version of Office will use the new API, so everyone will "have to" upgrade.
True... but how many developers are going to make "Microsoft Compatible" software when they can instead make "Windows Compatible" software that will run on operating systems maintained by other companies as well? Developers will stick to the larger user base.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
> I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here, or what, but I'm pretty anxious to see the source
> code for Windows. I think it'd probably be very instructive, even if (as a lot of nay-sayers say)
> it would be a lesson in what not to do.
Personally, I'd rather see them be forced to document all their APIs, all their file formats, and all their protocols. In perpetuity.
// TODO: fix sig
I consider this to a bad omen for the results of the trial. If Judge Jackson was going to issue any ground-breaking and lasting changes which would truly effect Microsoft's monopoly power, he wouldn't be acting so chummy with MS. My guess is that MS is going to pay a big fine and have more government scrutiny with nothing that will truly solve the MS problem.
Do you really think there would still be a settlement discussion if MS was going to be broken up some how? I think the best that we can hope for is requirements allowing application interoperability and maybe openning a few APIs. Sooner or later MS will stop doing what they're supposed to again, but by that time no one will care.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Does anybody actually think that MS is going to have to really shake up the company or open source the code (Ya right!)? This is the US Government that we are dealing with here, they might just be the only group of people sleazier than Microsoft. Realistically they are after the one thing that matters....Thats right, $MONEY$. Microsoft will probably get fined, and have their feathers rustled (for TV/media purposes) ,but the one thing that will likely change will be that MS will now have to have gobs of lobbyists staked out in DC forking over gobs of money to corrupt politicians. MS will continue producing inferior software, the Gov't will continue being sleazy, and we'll beat Mircrosoft with the one thing that matters... quality.
I think the new concept in justice, if there is one, is that proposed by kwsNI, i.e. that there's no point in even prosecuting sufficiently wealthy criminals...sort of the next stage after OJ, I guess. If that's really the way it works, then there's something very wrong with the American legal system.
I think Americans are required to put "IANAL" before giving out advice, otherwise they are automatically sued for malpractice or practicing law without a license or something. What if people post "i am a lawyer [insert bad advice here] " ? Do they get a bad reputation?
Lars -
Well, come now, does Dubya make anything other than vague noises? The man wouldn't know a firm position if it bit him in the ass.
I've been watching him bumble-fsck his way through the govenership here for a while now praying he doesn't end up occupying any oval-shaped offices. Just my two cents as a Texan and as an American.
(If you think this is a flame then you're goddamn right it is; I despise Bush.)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I hate to say it, but wrong != illegal. Just ask the cop that took my license after pulling me over for speeding, without even using a radar/laser gun.
People with power will always get away with crimes against those without power.
Microsoft has performed an illegal operation and won't be shut down. If the problem persists, please contact the DOJ.
This isn't one of them! It's wonderful to see these pro-Microsoft sycophants make fools of themselves. Deep down, I'm sure that it's their "operating" systems that are truly dead meat. I'm also quite convinced that they know it too.
Windows-CE is already effectively dead. Windows-flavour-of-the-month, that bloated, slow, and unreliable non-operating system is not far behind.
I look forward to the end of Microsoft, the company that should never have been, (gone by 2010) and I would be proud to hang a sign on old Bill Gate's home that reads "Condemed" because his Microsoft controlled house went wild and destroyed it.
Ahh, such pleasant thoughts.
A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail, (G)rab Hammer?
cd (g)rab
-hammer
-bill
query?
-b
BILL
-shake
-throttle
query?
-t
(Bill Cosby voice)
BILL-EEE, BILLY, BILL-EEE!!!
(Wile E. Coyote clearing his head sound)
ddeeeYIIIDEEEEyiiideeeeYIIIII....!
...yeah...that's "prevaricate", Chuck.
Or is it Mel?
Mel A. Prop?
...and yes I know that spelling is wrong you weasels.
Not like any one of you has actually SEEN a production of The Rivals...
...sheesh.
-By breaking this stuff down...you have the growth of industry and cheaper prices for all.
My post, without trying to be vociferous hyperbole-filled yammer, was an advocation OF BREAKING UP MICROSOFT. BREAK THEM UP. NOW.
I suggest:
-OS Company
-Browser Company
-MSN Company
-PC Peripherals Company (sticks, mice, SidewinderWazooExtrmerTurboSnarfers, etc.)
I would let the OS Company maintain control of the X-Box development. I would force the game development houses into the Browser Company.
Gates is a damnable malcontent of the worst order. I don't give a good gahoot how much he endows to charity. His ultimate goal is to be the arbiter of content and the distrubutor of access to all dataflow on this planet. ALL OF IT. Yes he realizes he cannot maintain absolute grip, but at what percent exceeding 90 do we as a global culture realize how we are dominated by this corporation? You totally mistook the meaning of my post.
In reference to Microsoft being an American corporation, my comment only meant to convey that I would rather see the software market dominated by American firms. Idiotic patriotism? Damn me for being so. Not one single Euro / Asian firm has ever demonstrated to me to be somehow more committed to the welfare of its workers, the welfare of the global populace, or to the spirit of innovation and free thought than American firms in general. This is not some parrotting of MS "right to innovate" crap. Euro / Asian firms act in total collusion (even more than their NorAm counterparts) with national governments to fix prices, form cartels and consortia, and generally screw around with peoples' lives.
whew...
And FINALLY...
I meant that X-Box might bring the old Atari age back to the United States. I would be overjoyed if
people were employed in North America in the fabrication, manufacture and assembly process of X-Box hardware. Not to mention game development work. Probably never happen, since MS is more interested in paying $2 a day to Singaporeans to punch circuit boards.
Sony is a dangerous monolith. MS is a dangerous monolith. I want them figting each other on as many fronts as possible...since national governments are now a joke totally incapable of reigning in corporate power.
...and as she might say... "To sashay!"
It's irrelevant what the polls state - it's what the judge believes to be the proper thing to do. We don't elect judges, and heck, we don't even elect a president (directly). In this case, it's evidently a good thing that this is true.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Poll: MS case a waste of money
...and...
"The poll, conducted by Zogby America for Americans for Technology Leadership, found that 67% of those interviewed said the government's decision to pursue court action against the world's largest software company was a poor use of public funds."
"Only 16% said they believe consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's business practices, which the government called monopolistic. Another 55% said the company has helped consumers."
And for the sake of it, another poll shows that 68% of the people polled have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates. Additionally, 58% oppose any breakup.
Food for thought.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
First off, I can remember when MS said (in court) that it was technically impossible for them to remove IE from Windows. They might have even had a tech expert at the trial, i don't remember exactly. Now, I have read that they are offering this as a settlement. What gives? No matter how you package it, this is a lie by MS. Pure and simple. Next, competition is A Good Thing. Take a look at Intel & AMD for instance. Before AMD was making processors that could compete, prices were fairly high. Now that AMD is really giving Intel a run for thier money, the prices are falling like a rock. Now, are AMD's chips as good as Intel's? Depends on who you ask. But I am getting off topic a bit. My point is that MS deserves some type of punishment to encourage competition. IANAL, so I will leave that up to Those Who Are Lawyers. I like the earlier post however about the top 100 execs feet first into a wood chipper tho :o) Segfault
segfault@bellatlantic.net
I think it had to do with his being a Hardcore Gangsta... check those glasses, man.. not just anyone wears those glasses in New Mexico....
Actually I think it was for a traffic violation.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Hell yeah, it's about time someone from Microsoft came in and talked to the slashdot crew.
I happen to be in the minority that believes that what Microsoft is doing isn't necessarily illegal, and that their monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, it brought PCs to the people in a big way. I also happen to be one of the few that believes that microsoft employees tend to be among the most talented employees in the world, and that they are severly under-respected despite incredible achievements.
Anyone who thinks this Microsoft thing is over is foolish, this is the American Legal System, it's never over until someone runs out of money.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
can be found at http://www.lamlaw.com
I believe judges are not supposed to comment publicly on cases that are currently before them.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Hasn't 3Com fallen on some hard times in the last few months? I know it doesn't necessarily follow that the business strategy mentioned is to blame.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
>A PRO-M$ COMMENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT!
.sig to "But I'm sure this'll get moderated down anyway..." Probably be posting at a 2 default within a week.
And when was the last time a well-written pro-M$ post was moderated as flamebait? 90% of the time, they put "But we all know this'll get moderated down" in there somewhere, so the moderators fall over themselves moderating the thing up to 5, Insightful whether it actually deserves it or not. Maybe I should just change my
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
>In short, I want the gov't. to
>
>BUT
>
>I don't want the gov't to control me.
Your solution is to tell all hardware vendors and all Software developers that they *MUST* support multiple Operating Systems. Gee should we pass some more laws?!?
Any company has a right to support or not support what ever they want.
One viable solution is :
could have been squirreled away? How do you know something isn't ? seen the source, have you? examined it thoroughly , have you? If so, why not contribute to a project like WINE or something :) ?
no sig
I have given this much thought. It seems to me that breaking up Microsoft may be the best thing for many Microsoft products.
Windows has so much of the market that it is becoming unprofitable. It is strangling itself.
MS is reluctant to even attempt a port of many of it's programs to *nix, as it may take away some of Windows market share.
If the OS and Apps were spun off into separate companies, the O/S may flounder, or make it's way into PD or OpenSource. But, the Apps would be free of the restriction on growth that comes from being tied so closely to the OS.
We could see MSOffice for Linux, EI for Linux, etc.
It could be a boon to both the linux community and to MS/Bill. It could also be bad for linux, but I doubt it.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong
Dave
Fuck this, it isn't even worth arguing. Slashdot is full of a bunch of whiny children who sit around all day and stroke each other off over clever repartees to microsoft and posts like this. The real irony, however, is Slashdot's holding company, Andover.net, is now worth a billion dollars. The whole situation disgusts me- what a perversion of capitalism. I'm never coming back here, ever. Fuck all of you.
Does anyone besides me find it a little creepy that he's smiling in his mug shot?
Death is but a doorway.
Here, let me hold that for you.
Actually, he was arrested for speeding and driving without having a license on him. I saw a URL with a copy of the police report once, and if I still had the URL, I'd post it here. Meanwhile, this is the closest I can come:
http://www.brillscontent.com/f eatures/bill_0998.html
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
You don't have to wait! Windows is open source for students. University's can have full access to the source code of Windows (9x, NT, 2000) for educational purposes. It's under some sort of MS-PL, it's not allowed to publish the code to someone else, you'll have to forget it when you've finished the university and it's highly patented, so it's not allowed to create a windows-clone from the source.
(-% TwistedMind %-)
This sounds like a good point. After a Microsoft breakup, we will have even *more* Microsofts. And apart from the fact a break is very hard in software industry, this will also be a precedent for company's like Corel, Sun, e.a. who have a great variaty of software products.
(-% TwistedMind %-)
I wish...but no. The only thing he has done is in the realm of money, which if it isn't extortion or anything like that, he can't get any jail time for. The only wrong thing he's done is with business practices...
;-)
Now if there was only a law for being a bastard, then perhaps we'd never see him again
-bugbbq
It seems to me, having read the news postings over the past week or so, that the government is blowing a bunch of hot air at the brick house of Microsoft. They need to do something to make MS hurt, and make it hurt badly. -Teflon Eppy
"Nothing sticks to Teflon! Except those damned rockets..."
Does everyone with a clever .sig get modded up? Doesn't seem that way...
-Teflon Eppy
"Nothing sticks to Teflon! Except those damned rockets..."
Much as I hate to do so... *screams, "AMEN!"* *nods to himself* Just had to do that. Although that wasn't the purpose of the post, I imagine, all the BS about MS dodging judicial bullets is getting old. -Teflon Eppy "Dodge this."
"Nothing sticks to Teflon! Except those damned rockets..."
Well, the amount it would have saved microsoft is probably quite a bit less than the amount that they made by continuing buisness as usual this long. And I doubt that the amount of money that it cost taxpayers is a huge overriding concern of microsofts. (In fact, if it becomes a PR fiasco for the government because of how much the trial costs, then so much the better for microsoft, since it will then be less likely to continue the lawsuit, and more likely to settle favorably for microsoft) And as for why it takes this kind of serious threat to make microsoft actually seriously consider a resolution to this mess, consider: what incentive is there for microsoft to spend resources finding a resolution? Morals? Hah. Not to unduley rip on microsoft, but consider these three points:
- We live in a capitolist economy.
- There is very little incentive to pursue anything in a capitolist system besides fiscal gain.
- Microsoft is a very successful company, financially, under the capitolist economy.
Therefore... It is likely that microsoft got to be sucessful by acting the way that the system encourages: By pursuing profit. Morals and fair play are all fine and good, (and good PR), but only as long as they don't get in the way of the pursuit of the great green buck.Hmm...
If I can just get a little "stay of execution", I can squeeze out a few more bucks of stock value. If we can make it to $120.00/share, we can acquire the Justice Department, and then make weak-willed legal remedies a Microsoft property. Next, a minority stake in Congress... - Bill Gates
Yeah, jeez, the gov'ment has a monopoly on all those tax dollarz
Stupid Lusers. Go worship your penguin.
At least my animal puts out. And learn how to spell.
-- Defenestrate Microsoft!
Getting angry at M$ as a whole, or even at Gates, seems like missing the mark to me. Even if the DoJ dissolved M$ tomorrow, all that would happen is that a lot of semi-competent people would lose their jobs and all the people responsible for the evil would retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of their lives getting fat and humping the native women. Everybody would start using Macs. M$ or a company like it is here to stay, for the rest of our lives, because 95% of computer users like the start menu, and every time one of them wanders into the Linux community, one of us calls him a cretin because he can't configure his dial-up connection. He doesn't know that M$ is evil and wouldn't care if he did, and we shouldn't care that he has a crappy operating system. All he wants is email and internet porn, and Windows makes him happy. I see no problem with that.
The Linux community should pick its holy wars with care; by fighting to replace Windows as the OS of choice for the average AOL user, we're inviting a certain amount of noise and confusion into our lives. Do you really want Linus to be bombarded with emails saying, "I can't get my homepage to come up in StarOffice?" Let M$ sell overpriced, brittle software to the naive and undercut any attempt at competition; it'll happen whether you like it or not, and it's what they're good at. Even Jim Clark teamed up with M$ when he realized Healtheon's only other option was to compete. M$ can't screw Linux, though; the strategy outlined in the Halloween documents assumes that the only reason OSS can produce good server software is that the protocols are simple enough for all those Linux-minded feebs to understand, and it's the most credible strategy I've seen.
And until hardware vendors start shipping drivers for alternative PC OS's with their products, and until software vendors start releasing alternative PC versions, no real change will take place.
The zero-choice pre-load is, I think, the causative factor of the other two--if computers start appearing in stores and on web sites pre-loaded with something besides MS-Windows, then vendors will start addressing those other choices.
I'll repeat my solution, which I've posted here before. Unfortunately, it involves doing very little to Microsoft; fortunately, it doesn't single anyone out for special punishment:
The trouble we're having with Microsoft is only a symptom of a larger problem. If not them, then somebody else would be doing it. If they are only broken up, the problem will continue.
An interesting point raised in the monastary was be that Microsoft has to do nothing other than maintain full support for their products on every operating system back to Windows 3.11. So that'd be everything has to work on 3.11, NT3.51, NT4, Win95, Win 98 and Windows 2000.
Not only would this mean that it was in Microsofts interest to NOT change their API's, but that would be good for consumers as well, because they then couldn't force people to upgrade to run their latest products.
oh yeah..learn the facts...Mitnik had a fair trial, he pleaded guilty to cell phone fraud..or something like that...look it up.
Why don't you look up how long he sat in jail before he got that trial. Or how he was denied the right to know and review the evidence against him. If they're going to make it impossible for him to mount a decent defense, then what choice does he have?
I don't give a rats ass whether a cop thinks I appear to be speeding. If he's going to pull me over and give me a ticket, he better be able to tell me how fast I was going. If he can't, then I'll just contest the ticket and walk. I've been ticketed for speeding when I wasn't. That's why I believe that the cop should be able to prove it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Now this dosn't always work perfectly but for the most part it does.
I think it was NBC Dateline that aired a piece last night about the Louisiana State Supreme Court disallowing law students at a state university from providing legal defense for poor people, unless they were below a certain income level, which amounted to allowing them to represent only the absolute poorest of the poor. This was apparently (although they deny it of course) because the students had been representing some poor residents who were trying to block a chemical corporation from setting up another chemical plant near their neighborhood. (There were already 6 plants nearby that put out more than 650 times as much chemical pollution as the US average. They said you're exposed to as much pollution in half a day in that area as most Americans are exposed to in a year). They eventually held up the corp long enough that they built the plant elsewhere.
That wasn't the end of it though. The chemical and oil corporations got the state governor on their side and were throwing around a lot of money. Since judges in Lousiana are elected, they are much the same as politicians when it comes to getting relelected. They need money, and lots of it. This seems to be what the corps were using as a carrot to get the court to help them out by preventing the law students from representing the people that were getting in their way. The moral of the story? If justice depends on money, only those with money can get "justice."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No prob. I just read up on the mitnick case to figure out what happened exactly. I haven't read about it in a while. It looks like you're right about the cell phone thing. He was convicted on that one it looks like, but I'm not sure if he got prison for it. He's been convicted several times for various things, but hasn't spent more than a couple years in jail altogether until this last time, and wasn't serving a sentence when he was accused of breaking into Shimomura's system. (although I think he may have been on probation)
It's obvious that he's no saint, but it's equally obvious that the prosecution completely disregarded his rights during the course of the case. They wouldn't reveal the evidence against him or the damage amounts among other things. They also wouldn't explain why he was so dangerous that he had to be put in solitary confinement until he waived his right to a preliminary hearing. There were other offenses against him as well. It's scary that they got away with this kind of stuff. The 6 corps that had been hacked later submitted letters declaring that the "losses suffered were not material or non-existant", but the prosecution never turned these letters over to Kevin's attorney. Meanwhile, the prosecution and the press were running stories about Kevin costing these corps billions.. later reduced to millions.
Here's a few links in case you're curious.
http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-04269 9.html
http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-05289 9.html
ht tp://x30.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566653614&CONTEXT=9 48113995.419102759&hitnum=72
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And it's idiots like you that think it's ok to lock up people just because you *think* they did something wrong. The issue at hand is evidence. If the cop didn't use the radar gun, then he has no evidence of wrongdoing. This is the kind of thinking that gives us a bunch of BS laws that get selectively enforced against people as those in power see fit.
Mitnik was as guilty as the day is long.
Fine. Give him a fair trial, access to the evidence against him and every other right that a person is supposed to have when they face our legal system. If they won't do that, then they're just as bad, or worse, than he is.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, if Microsoft wants to appeal, the DOJ can have the appeal sent straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower courts altogether. This was a change that was made for the express purpose of getting anti-trust trials finished in time to actually matter.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you are going to state that something is a fact you had better back it up with *something* otherwise you lose credibility.
I see your point here and I agree that the site is biased. I think that the author means that they haven't seen any reason and that none has been made public. Perhaps one is sealed in a court record or something, but it's not public. You can't prove a negative, so they can't prove to us that no explanation was ever offered. It's conceivable that they could get a prosecution attorney to state that they never made an explanation, or at least didn't make it public, but I doubt that anyone could get them to comment on it. I've read through a lot of info on the case, and I've never seen any explanation for it. The prosecution never really had much to say about little details like that.
The link you added help fill in some blanks for me, but I'm still having trouble coming up with a complete timeline of events for everything that happened. I've been looking around for a site that has a timeline of his various convictions and probation and prison term beginnings and endings. That would help quite a bit. I don't dispute that he should have done jail time. I was just disturbed by the way his case was handled, mostly by the prosecution, but also by his defense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Your missing the big picture. If the judge rules against Microsoft in the Findings of Law, then it's established that they have violated anti-trust laws. This then adds fuel to everyone else's lawsuits against Microsoft (most of which are with merit). If there is a settlement in advance of this, then the trial itself can't be used for much evidence.
So, unless your an MS stock holder, you should be hoping that we at LEAST get the ruling of law done.
sigs are a waste of space
Even the rumours only suggest that MS offered to license source code. Nobody credible seems to suggest that MS offered to open source anything. They've licensed OS source in the past, so it's not much of an offer. As for "dis-integrating" MSIE, we can all just hop over to the 98lite site to do that, already!
Interesting how MS advocates always emphasize that having a monopoly is not against the law. Never mind that it was their abuse of monopoly power that got them in trouble? If there's a reasonable way to take away their monopoly, so they'd have to compete on their products' merit, that would be highly appropriate!
As for MS claims that breaking up the company would ruin them: How credible is that?! It looks like they're taking the most obvious remedy and claiming that it's extreme just to gain sympathy when it's exactly what happens. Never mind that they already seem to be reorganizing along the divisions that would leave them most profitable?
It's obvious why the DOJ would like a settlement: The remedies would go into effect right away. I'd much prefer to see a ruling for the same reason MS would not: There would be an unambiguous statement of exactly how they've broken the law.
Picture, if you will, Bill Gates and Judge Jackson...embracing on the steps of the Justice Building...shaking hands as Gates hands him one of those HUGE checks ( the photo op kind ), and as the camera zooms in we see the amount....$1. Jackson and Gates shake hands and a few speeches are made and everyone goes home. *sigh*
There are two ways to phrase it, so pick whichever your personal politics prefer:
Liberal:
Ban Microsoft from licensing its software, directly or indirectly, to the Federal Government or the co-litigant state governments. This denies Microsoft access to the market represented by the single largest employer in the U.S., permanently breaking their monopoly.
Conservative:
Ban the Federal Government and the co-litigant state governments from licensing software from Microsoft, thus ending Microsoft's monopoly status without punitive action or invasive oversight.
----------------------------------------
If the problem is the monopoly, then this simply ends the monopoly. This creates a large, protected market for non-MS software. It also cuts off embrace-and-extend decommoditization of file types and protocols by MS, since anyone dealing with the government would have to use systems and file types inteoperable with non-Microsoft software.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Well, I have. Mrs. Malaprop was my favorite character.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
For a nice discussion of what the Fed. Govt. could do in this area see Lawrence Lessig's article in The American Prospect Online . Excellent article. Highly recommended. I found his ideas very interesting and, IMHO, a much better way for the govt. to be attempting to set policy instead of their favorite means (i.e., taxes on what they want to discourage and tax breaks for things they want to encourage -- which usually turns into tax breaks for big campaign contributors).
Lessig's comments about his experience with the FCC `good ol' boys' saddened me, though. (I had to wonder if the movie ``The President's Analyst'' wasn't right on the money after all.)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
As much as I don't care what happens to Microsoft, I'd like to see this drag on forever as long as real pressure from government/judge is still there.
Linux has benefited most of this and will continue to do so as long as this actually stays in the spotlight.
After that, Microsoft (if left whole) could start toying with RedHat/VA Linux/Caldera stock and future without even doing it itself and that might not be a nice thing for Linux.
So please Judge/Gov/Micro, keep up the pressure and the break-up warnings or just break the company into:
-NT
-Win9x
-Office/Visual Dev software
-hardware: mice, gamepads/wheels, soundsystems....
This would be nice for Linux as it will then get Office, Visual Studio et al...., win9x would die and that is a good thing. Win NT would survive and stay strong and that is also a good thing for competition is always a plus for consumers (us).
Do you think the Judge reads Slashdot? Can we ask him?
What about an interview with Judge Jackson here on Slashdot? Is it even possible?
The kernel needs a Gtk/Gnome-based post-install device configuration tools "a la" make xconfig. (Better sig coming soon
For those who do not understand this, let me briefly explain: the results of a court case here in the U.S. can be used as "precedents", which are in essence a lawyer's foundation for arguing his side of "what the law really means" based on how previous courts have interpreted those same laws. Thus, a good decision (against M$ probably) in this case can potentially be used in unintended (bad) ways in the future -- which is what I think Judge Jackson is trying to avoid.
So even if M$ has done all the evil things that the DOJ says they have, every facet of Judge Jackson's rulings can be used to define the interpretation of how anti-trust regulations are used for and against software companies in the future.
I could be completely off base here, but what this says to me is that the judge is essentially ready to rule against M$, M$ knows it, the DoJ knows it, heck -- we all know it -- but that maybe justice can be better served without a precedent setting judicial decision. The danger is that any decision could potentially cripple parts of the software industry by taking the control out of the hands of innovators and placing it in the domain of lawyers whose sole interest is winning the money and control of the 'Net, etc. for their clients.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Pro business ain't necessarily pro Microsoft, and if Dubya has two brain cells to put together, he knows this. Just ask Sun, Caldera, Apple, IBM...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I hardly consider dropping people into woodchippers to be humorous. Those that do have a serious mental imbalance.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> I happen to be in the minority that believes that what Microsoft is doing isn't necessarily illegal
What you and your "minority" believe to be illegal is irrelevant. What matters is what the laws say, modulo whatever spin the courts put on them.
> it brought PCs to the people in a big way
Apple and others were doing just fine before Microsoft got into the game in a big way.
> despite incredible achievements
Such as?
As for the employees, well, I've met a number of former MS employees who were very talented people. It kinda makes you wonder where the disconnect is, eh?
> Anyone who thinks this Microsoft thing is over is foolish, this is the American Legal System, it's never over until someone runs out of money.
Actually, it's over when the Supreme Court has had its say.
But you're right: money is a big problem with the system. And your implicit threat that MS will win due to vast cash is hardly an endorsement of their position. Indeed, it's a big part of the problem.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The DoJ doesn't really know what to ask for. And MS is naturally stonewalling.
You can bet that MS won't agree to anything that will limit their ability to exploit their monopoly. Sure, they'll negotiate just to stall for time, and also in hopes that the DoJ will wimp out and settle for something that won't cure the problem (in which case we'll be here again in another 5-10 years), but they will never agree to anything that would cure the root problem.
I suspect the DoJ will wimp out before it's over.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't know about the re-education camps, but I like the paintball idea. The DOJ doesn't even need to close the company down, just open it up to the paintballers. Let's see MS try to get W2K SP1 out while a couple hundred guys in camoflage pants are running around shooting at each other.
-B
Who can compete with a company who could simply afford to give everything away for free until no competition exists, then just carry on as normal and still have the odd billion in the bank!
Hang on... are you talking about Microsoft, or Linux here?
Oh.. I forgot... Linux isn't a country...
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Is it possible, under any circumstances, for Mr. Gates to be charged criminally? Is there any crime which he has committed for which he could go to jail?
As an academic point, yes. The famous meeting with Netscape to divide the market was a pretty clear violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and the Act provides for jail sentences.
As a practical matter, are you outta your flippin' mind?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Agreed politics are important.
Don't forget that Billy G made a very large (1 M$ IIRC) party/campaign contribution to Clinton in '92. Lopsided, no less. I was surprised the DoJ went after him at all, but Janet[-from-another-Planet?] has always been a loose cannon and a socialist staff is hard to rein in.
I don't think Dubya is going to forgive BillyG for hurting his pappy so easily.
This is a good point. MS truly doesn't understand what they did was wrong. They certainly won't accept restrictions on what they see as their rights.
As you say, the real question becomes whether the DoJ will wimp out. Who knows? MS's arrogance may make the DoJ more belligerant.
The cake is a pie
Proof here
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
Would he dare? Unless, say, Gore gets hit by a meteorite, Bush ain't going to be lucky enough to have an easy opponent. Whoever wins probably won't exactly have an overwhelming mandate to go nuts. Bush might make it easier for future mergers and such to go through, or perhaps ease off on other future anti-trust actions, but I don't know whether he has the chutzpah to tamper with a very, VERY public case.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Seeing as the current mess is the result of Microsoft completely ignoring the provisions of the 1995 consent decree with the DOJ, how could the DOJ ask for anything less than such oversight.
Microsoft has, time and again, shown their utter disregard for the law and the process. Judge Penfield has demonstrated exceptional restraint in not slapping the MS lawyers with contempt charges and moving toward summary judgement after they willfully and brazenly were shown to be manufacturing evidence in the form of the videotaped demonstration.
-Jordan Henderson
Unmmmm, happens to me quite often when I fail to take the "party line"
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
>Destroy all existing copies of all Microsoft products and watch the personal computer revolution die a quick, untimely death. Or help apple immensely, I guess :) Note to moderators: A PRO-M$ COMMENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT!
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Why does it take the threat of a judge making a ruling on a case to actually get these two together and try to work out an arrangement/resolution to this mess? Wouldn't it have saved both Microsoft and the taxpayers a ton of money if
they could have tried this out in the first place.
Maybe it would have saved some money on the part of the "taxpayers" (I really would like to see some hard numbers in regards to income and funding for the DoJ in this matter) and saved Microsoft money (why I should care about Microsoft's moeny is beyond me). But they still have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and should be punished for their crimes.
Not only has this been proven by a group of intelligent legal authorities but there is ample evidence that can attest to this.
Now I know that having a monopoly is not necessarily wrong legally as such however using that monopoly to keep that monopoly and say using unfair business practices that can harm the consumer is an illegal act and should not be tolerated.
OK, that's out of the way (since I know everyone's going to flame it). I really don't see how Microsoft is going to get any more than a slap on the wrist and told not to do it anymore. We could fine them, but how do you financially
fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year? We could break it apart, but they would still be owned by the same people and everyone would go on making their profits, just like before. Hell, 3Com/USR/Palm has shown that it
can even be a usefull business strategy. So then what? They could force MS to quasi-open source their software but ask Red Hat how terrible that is for business.
If you want to fine them you make it much larger than a couple billion. Then you take the money and pump it into the competitors or perhaps some really nice OSS projects. Imagine just how good linux could become with say $50 billion to spend on getting SMP working *for sure* on say a good sized Sun Enterprise server.
Red Hat is not exactly rolling in it as far as companies are judged. I know for certain that adding source code would significantly level the playing field and prevent the underhanded tactics that MS is using. Why do you ask? Because simply put all you have to do to make sure your software works for windows is just make sure it works the way the source says windows should work and plan you app accordingly.
Personally, I think that the Justice Department is just wasting time and money really pursuing this.
Just because this dosn't affect you dosn't mean it's not important.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I hate to say it, but wrong != illegal. Just ask the cop that took my license after pulling me over for speeding, without even using a radar/laser gun.
Well I don't know about where you live but here the there is something called the point system. Generally speaking offences are tallied up within the space of say 1-3 years and if you exceed the number of points allowed you get your liscence suspended. I sure hope you challenged it.
People with power will always get away with crimes against those without power.
In general this is correct. If I can't defend myself I am usually going to get victimized.
What modern man has developed is various schemes that prevent rampant abuses of power to the extent that it could hurt those that are defenseless. Now this dosn't always work perfectly but for the most part it does.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
What if it became a federal crime in the United States to use any software that was not produced by Microsoft?
Do these thoughts chill you to the very bone marrow? They certainly do me.
If you do not think in your wildest dreams that such a nightmare could become possible, then read the article Ma Bell, Meet Ma Bill which you can find at this site . It gives a sane, compelling reason why Microsoft must be stopped dead in its tracks-- there can be no compromise!
Microsoft has demonstrated over and over again that they will not give up one inch of the power they have, and this power is very nearly absolute.
I shouldn't be surprised to learn that Bill Gates, coming as he does from a powerful law firm family, already sees the vision of the future as described in the article . Nothing would make him richer or even more powerful than he already is than to have the predictions made in this article come true for Microsoft. And, as far as I am concerned, nothing could be more horrific.
I certainly hope that the DOJ is not going to let Microsoft dilute the terms of this settlement like they did to the antitrust settlement they made with the DOJ in 1994. It will be a tragedy for the entire computer industry if they get away with such nefarious trickery again. Bill Gates has already demonstrated that he is ready to do it again, by his adamant insistance to have four words removed from the end of one of the conditions of settlement-- four words which would come back to haunt the DOJ again in the future-- four words which would yank all the teeth from the document, allowing Microsoft to blithely continue with their unfettered power over the industry.
The American public has to be educated about this-- everyone has to be made to see that even if they can live with the shoddy software produced by Microsoft, they had better think twice before they give absolute power over the total control and dissemination of the exchange of all information and all e-business in the world to a company as greedy and, yes, evil as Microsoft!
Erchie
The whole Microsoft antitrust trial began over IE and Netscape.
Let them de-integrate IE from windows entirely and open source it under GPL. Everyone who's been bitching for a good Linux web browser would have it. Busting MSFT into pieces will not help the computer industry. Also it would be nice to ask^H^H^H force MSFT to allow competitors in the office arena to be able to include a save as Office9X format for their word files.
Let's see what actually happens
no sig.
Actually, I fear that a ruling might put us closer to this scenario. If the government starts telling Microsoft what they can and can't do at every turn (which seems to me to be the likliest outcome) then who do you think they'll turn to if they decide we need a "acknowledged, certified, and regulated information public utility in the United States?" Wouldn't they most likely choose the corporation that they have the most influence over?
Really, I don't see this happening in any case. It's pretty clear that in every aspect we are moving away from official public utilities. In a lot of communities you now are able to choose who you want to buy phone service, gas, electricity, and water from. It just doesn't seem likely that this will ever come to pass.
Even if this does happen, wouldn't it be scarier if Apple were thrust into that role. They would be in a position to tell you what hardware and what software to use. In a lot of ways they are closer to the old "Ma Bell" business model than Microsoft, since they control the hardware(phones : computers) and the service(switching stations : operating system). Of course, they don't have the success of Microsoft, so they're okay.
M$ already offered to make it's pricing fair and open to the public, and to open source code to Windows including W2K. On top of that, M$ offered to seperate IE and the OS completely. The govt attorneys said that the offer was not enough, but since the offer was in the right direction, Judge Jackson decided a little more time might bring a good settlement. It looks like M$ is going to have to do a lot to get the feds happy, and I am anxious to hear the outcome.
Since my NCAA Basketball Bracket is all messed up with the exception of MSU; I am going to post my prediction:
Prediction:
M$ will not offer a settlement that will please the fed attorneys, so Judge Jackson will have to rule on it at the end of the week or the beginning of next week.
The feds want the following: Fair pricing, open code, IE and OS seperate, and a split up into divisions. (Perhaps OS, Office, Utilities, Games...)
M$ will offer all of the above except the split up.
Judge Jackson will go with what the feds want except the opening of the source will not be exactly as 'open' as we see fit.
Now let's see if I am right, or really wrong!
Perhaps this has been explained, but what exactly is the goverment's motivation (cowardice?) for making a deal?
How is the MS situation any different from Standard Oil or AT&T? Is the market simply supposed to take MS at their word that they will now "behave"?
I am encouraged that the dominant software firm in the world is a U.S. company. I would be even more encouraged if that entity became two or three vigorous entities rather than one monolith.
By the way...am I alone in hoping against hope that the X-Box might return Bushnellesque days back to America? Is Sony not a similar monolith worthy of a challenge and opposition?
Wouldn't it be great if they actually assembled X-Boxii in the U.S.? Or hell, even in Mexico...
Ah...ranting...
And remember - Dubya's the one who gave us the campaign rallying cry - "There ought to be limits to freedom!" in response to a parody website. (The site's http://www.gwbush.com).)
Statements like this prove that you kids are crazy Microsoft bashers and nothing more. If you want to dislike Microsoft for technical reasons so be it, I can understand that, but to just bash Microsoft because Bill Gates is rich and your not is ludicrous.
[FromTheMorning]
Wouldn't it have saved both Microsoft and the taxpayers a ton of money if they could have tried this out in the first place.
Yes, but it didn't happen for the same reason that people don't start talking until after the war. Some of it's human nature, some of it's so you know just how much you can push for.
We could fine them, but how do you financially fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year?
A very heavy fine might do it. This has the added advantage that it would help make up for the hole in public finances made by this case in the first place.
We could break it apart, but they would still be owned by the same people and everyone would go on making their profits, just like before. Hell, 3Com/USR/Palm has shown that it can even be a usefull business strategy.
Well, it would force them to change their strategy a bit, but that is probably going to be little more than an inconvenience. One advantage of this is that any deal between the new companies could be open to investigation. This would mean that either Microsoft Apps will have to pay through the nose for the information they need to make their apps work better with Microsoft OS than the competition, or other apps makers would have such useful information. In theory. In practice, though, you're probably right.
They could force MS to quasi-open source their software but ask Red Hat how terrible that is for business.
I think the idea is that the settlement shouldn't be good for business. Bill Gates, for all his flaws, is really quite a good businessman. He'll probably find a way to adapt, and the result could be better written MS software. Could.
Personally, I think that the Justice Department is just wasting time and money really pursuing this.
Personally, I think any attempt to go through the legal system is a waste of time and money. Such a shame it seems to be the only way in so many cases.
And second, you are exactly right about dissolution of MS. But, think of one solution that would hurt the PC world less than MS being a single entity. Before anyone starts in on this, I would encourage serious thinking. The following factors must be taken into consideration:
- 1/3 of servers today are MS NT driven (give or take). Of course, maintenance of these servers is expensive and requires direct support from MS to constantly release patches to keep them operating in scaling environments. Lot's of people made some uninformed decisions that must be considered to avoid PC backlash
- Most computer techs are MCSE or on the path toward MCSE or would like to have MCSE. Of these, quite a few scorn anything but microsoft. A few are MCSE only to eat, provide shelter, etc. (cf poll). The rest are lemmings. This broad base of technology trained (unfortunately, they do know how to handle most of MS quirks well enough) must remain either intact or easily modified.
- Most (>50%) users would need to have their computers work almost exactly the way it worked before the punishment
These must all remain intact or the middle and upper management types in America depending on NT would have to admit they made a mistake (I believe I heard of one that admitted his secretary made a typo once, but that's as close as it gets), the lively hood of (est.) 500,000 people in the tech field would be devasted, and the explosion of PC usefulness will be that drives innovation will be seriously cut back and other options will never have a chance, since most people do begin their computer experience with MS today.Personally, I don't care what happens to MS. What I don't have or can't get from the web, I write myself. As for work, I do systems work and OS does little but offer me a telnet window and sound card.
I don't see MS in the picture at work outside of providing TCP/IP services for those who like the MS interface. But, I would prefer that the punishment of MS not destroy what I work with and play with. Be carefule what you wish for! If, for instance, MS does not exist tomorrow, then it is conceivable that the number of computer users will decline over the next 5 years. This means less people using programs, utilizing less programmers, meaning I can no longer demand my working environment.
So, in closing, I wish to challenge anyone to come up with a punishment for MS better than competition from the open source movement. I personally believe that any company is vulnerable to the whims of the free market.. especially those on top (look at IBM in the 70s). Don't talk to me about AT&T, they were given the monopoly by the federal gov't in the 30s. In other words, every rant and rave are keystrokes lost from coding by those who want to see Gates fall. Maybe, those who cry the loudest cannot code to the standards of Microsoft.
If everyone ranting thinks Open Source is better than any MS product (which I believe), prove it. Don't purchase MS products. If you think you can design a better UI, do it (I can't, so I must rely on GNOME or KDE, depending on mood). If you think you can design a better client-server scheme, be my guest. Put up or shut up. If you can't put up, learn to code, then put up.
Sorry about the length, but I get tired of people complaining about an alleged Microsoft monopoly. (As far as I know, I don't personally own or use an MS product, nor do I come in contact with them on my own time. I know quite a few people like me. The fact we have been using computers for about 5 years since we started a personal boycott of MS for less expense than operating an MS computer is a curious kind of monopoly) This monopoly is only in the minds of people. They don't own anything tangible. Is it jealousy driving this or has Microsoft levelled a serious threat to Sun, Linux, *BSD, Lucent, or any other systems oriented software development group?
Stop bickering, ignore Microsoft, write the best code you can, and prove to whomeverwants to know that there are better alternatives. It is not enough to want in order to succeed in this free market. I would worry more about patent law that MS. A lot more.
Sorry for the ramble
a crime is not merely obnoxious. to say that his crime is being obnoxious is to confuse the point... there isn't any reason you couldn't be put in jail for fraud. but I'm not saying he actually could be. I agree with the others on the nature of these crimes. However, you guys... you CAN be put in jail for antitrust, it just never happens. But that's because it always is like, "ooops, slipped up and broke the antitrust laws... sorry" and the company pays. If, however, there was ever proof of an executive "let's violate those antitrust laws... I love doing that" and then was found guilty of a violation... I think you can send them to jail for overt violations just as with other crimes.
-pyrrho
Why does it take the threat of a judge making a ruling on a case to actually get these two together and try to work out an arrangement/resolution to this mess?
Because Microsoft had absolutely no incentive to deal until the Findings of Fact were realeased. Then it became readily apparent to them that they it was highly likely that the judge would rule against them. It took that much just to make them consider a deal.
As for saving money, that hasn't really been a concern of Microsoft. They've (literally) spent over ten times as much on this case as the government has. Last I saw (late last year) the government had just topped $10 million. Microsoft was estimated to have spent well over $100 million. Historically speaking, this anti-trust case has been a real bargain for the government compared to previous large cases. If they manage to reign Microsoft in, it will be worth every penny.
I really don't see how Microsoft is going to get any more than a slap on the wrist and told not to do it anymore.
Well, the DOJ tried that already. They got burned bad too. Microsoft laughed off the consent decree last time and I don't think the DOJ wants a repeat performance of something that made them look like complete idiots. That's probably one reason they haven't cut a deal yet. Microsoft has been proposing solutions that weren't any better or more enforceable than the consent decree was.
We could fine them, but how do you financially fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year?
Microsoft doesn't make anything approaching "100's of billions a year." IIRC they made less than 10 billion last year. If you want to punish a company like that, you fine them a whole lot of money. That's not what this case is about and I doubt that a fine will play a significant part in the outcome of the trial, simply because it wouldn't solve the problem. Punitive damages will likely be awarded to those people and companies that sue Microsoft if the judge rules that they broke anti-trust laws.
The remedies portion of the trial is supposed to provide a solution that will allow competition to return to the market. The only competition Windows currently faces is from open source software. If the only way to compete with Windows is to get people to produce a competitor for no charge, the market for that product is screwed up. Commercial companies have all been undermined by Microsoft's dirty tactics. Even when they produced a superior product. Microsoft cut them off from consumers and that was all it took to kill them.
Perhaps Linux will make headway in the desktop OS market. Maybe it will eventually replace Windows altogether. Certain software markets may disappear, but I doubt it. People will still sell proprietary apps and services for Linux. They will still sell customized versions. The market will change, but it won't disappear. Software makers will make sure their software plays well with others, simply because that's what consumers will expect. I think we'll all be better off in that situation than in the current one where the standard is controlled by a single company that isn't averse to using that control to squash anyone that gets in their way or to take over new markets.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Folks,
I personally believe that the reason why Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is NOT issuing a judgement today is simple: he may have come to his senses and realize it appears that the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division under Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein is NOT wanting any form of settlement.
Remember, Microsoft last Friday made a major offer that should have been the basis for accelerated settlement talks. Yet, Klein and his team at DoJ have thumbed their noses at the offer without even bothering to do a written response back to Microsoft. Given the fact that Judge Jackson wants this case settled and so does his arbitrator (Judge Posner in Chicago, IL) wants the same, the two judges may have just caught onto the fact that much of this case is a political sham by the DoJ as a favor to big donors who are Microsoft competitors. (I'd like to know just how much Sun, Oracle, Novell, Caldera, and Real Networks have paid to Democratic National Committee coffers laterly at fundraisers where Bill Clinton and Al Gore were present.)
In my opinion, a large portion of this case smacks of extortion and political favoritism as some competitors in the software industry are using their influence in the Clinton Administration to use the DoJ to extort concessions from Microsoft.
Two things people forget:
1. The Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts were designed to protect _consumers_, not business competitors. I mean, has Microsoft harmed consumers? Has there been a backlash from a vast majority of consumers because they feel they got ripped off? No. Where has the backlash come from? Mostly a small, but very vocal group of Linux users (and that's till a small number of Linux users in general--note that Linus Torvalds is not at the head of this campaign).
2. Both Judges Jackson and Posner are _Reagan-era_ appointees. They are not as anti-business as you think. Judge Jackson could have issued his judgement TODAY; since he didn't, this indicates Jackson has some concerns about just what the heck is going on on the DoJ side.
P.S. You can moderate me down to troll or flamebait status, but given the history of the DoJ in the last seven years intimidating people who criticize the Clinton Administration....
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
> But if this actually happened, what would be considered the source code for windows?
It hardly matters. They could release everything, but next year's version will have changes to the API, and next year's version of Office will use the new API, so everyone will "have to" upgrade.
A source release is not going to do anything to solve the problem.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...you just may get it.
A number of people are hoping for a complete MS breakup of the release of the Windows source.
MS is a huge company. Any decisions that are made will set the precedent for the way the software businesses are run. We will live with the decisions made about this case for a very long time. Let's all hope they are the right ones.
Things may be done today that change each and every one of our lives. Some will benefit, some will suffer.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
I would hope that all file formats would get released 100% into the public domain, so that all software instantly becomes Office compatable (okay, given them a few weeks). That will be a major problem for M$, as long as they are forced to keep their file formats open.
Same with their APIs
Just a little hint...
The Office 97 file format (which is the same as the Office 2000 file format, by the way) is available on:
MSDN Library January 1999.
It's also on http://www.wotsit.org.
Just thought I'd let you know... because it hasn't seemed to be any kind of major problem for M$ so far...
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Here's to hoping that Micro$oft releases their source code to the public.
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here, or what, but I'm pretty anxious to see the source code for Windows. I think it'd probably be very instructive, even if (as a lot of nay-sayers say) it would be a lesson in what not to do.
But if this actually happened, what would be considered the source code for windows? Windows 2000 has a very different code base than, say, Windows 95 (which is DOS-based); would all the versions be released? I suppose the answer depends on whether they are forced by judicial mandate to release it, or if they release it based on a settlement of their own devising.
darren
Cthulhu for President!
(darren)
Bill Gates could be convicted of perjury if a Court and jury conclude that he knew he was lying in some of his sworn testimony. He did say things that were flatly contradicted by email. If a court/jury considered the email factual, and Bill's "forgettery" unconvincing, they would convict him of a felony.
IANAL, but he's very close to that IMHO. MS did things (forced licencing) that he said in swon testimony that they did not do. I find the email convincing that he once knew. And I find it beyond credence that he forgot.
If you want to fine them you make it much larger than a couple billion. Then you take the money and pump it into the competitors or perhaps some really nice OSS projects. Imagine just how good linux could become with say $50 billion to spend on getting SMP working *for sure* on say a good sized Sun Enterprise server.
The government may be able to fine Microsoft, but giving the money to competitors or an open source project is not something they can do. It's also in my opinion an extremely bad idea. The last thing you want is the government doling out cash to create a "level playing field". How would they decide who gets the money? What would that do to the stock market? The opertunities for corruption are horrible. Would they give it all to US companies, or share the cash with foreign companies that were allegedly harmed? It would be a nightmare of litigation that would never end.
If Microsoft is ruled a monopoly, the companies they harmed have a right to sue, and I'm sure many will. This case is about how Microsoft may of harmed consumers, not competitors. The government brought this case against Microsoft, not their competitors. If their competitors want to sue them they are welcome to do so.
IMO Microsoft has harmed consumers, but mainly through their abusive pricing mothods and their bundling deals with OEMs. In this case the government seems to be more concerned with protecting the likes of Netscape and AOL than protecting consumers. If the government would quit trying to tell Microsoft how to develop software, and concentrate on their business practices we would likely have a settlement which provides relief to consumers by now.
Those are the range of remedies. If Microsoft loses, there's going to be either judicial oversight of future business decisions(a "conduct remedy") or a breakup (a "structural remedy"). That's what happens in an antitrust case. Look at AT&T, IBM, Standard Oil, United Shoe Machinery, etc. Even the ones that were settled involved judicial oversight of future business decisions.
Furthermore, the judge has delayed the ruling at the request of the DOJ lawyers, clearly indicating that the DOJ believes there is life yet in the settlement process. Or, more cynically, they desire to portray themselves as the wounded party if settlement talks fail (sigh, we tried your honor, but bad old Microsoft...) Either way, the judge is expressing no clear opinion with this latest delay.
Good point. It's only for ten days, though. The judge is keeping the pressure on.
There are many actions that are illegal to take if you're a monopoly, and Judge Jackson's findings of fact show Microsoft taking many of them. There's also the issue of how the monopoly was achieved, again addressed in the findings of fact.
There is a provision stating that the DOJ could petition the Supreme Court for direct review, but it is by no means certain.
Congress has enacted legislation before that fast-tracked appeals to the Supreme Court. Remember how fast the first Communications Decency Act case got to the high court? And the DOJ has already indicated they want to take that option.
In a higher court, the debate turns to matters of constitutionality, which Jackson doesn't even have under consideration.
What constitutional issue is there? The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress enacted the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts long ago, and there have been no serious constitutional challenges to them. Big companies have been broken up before. Standard Oil and AT&T are the biggest examples, but by no means the only ones.
They (sic) are many more (chances for Microsoft) to come should this process be protracted. The story is most certainly not concluded, unless a settlement is reached.
The days when Cravath, Swaine, and Moore could drag an antitrust case out for a decade or two are over. There have been a few changes to the law since then to speed things up.
Microsoft is worried because if the Judge makes a ruling then it is admissible evidence in about 600 other civil cases brought by the companies and people harmed by microsoft. If they reach a settlement the judge's finding of fact are not admissible. So we really want a decision.
George W. has made random noises suggesting he'd be friendlier to Big Business. Let's say Judge Jackson slams Micro$oft later this week - it isn't over then. Micro$oft can appeal, and if Dubya's in office (and controlling DOJ, as well as the Antitrust folks themselves - Klein may be *gone* in a year, y'all...), the vigor with which M$ has been pursued thus far may disappear. A settlement, on the other hand, really can't be as easily rescinded or ignored after November if Bush wins.
Don't mistake law for reality - politics play a very, very big role here.
OK, that's out of the way (since I know everyone's going to flame it). I really don't see how Microsoft is going to get any more than a slap on the wrist and told not to do it anymore. We could fine them, but how do you financially fine a company that makes 100's of billions a year? We could break it apart, but they would still be owned by the same people and everyone would go on making their profits, just like before. Hell, 3Com/USR/Palm has shown that it can even be a usefull business strategy. So then what? They could force MS to quasi-open source their software but ask Red Hat how terrible that is for business.
Personally, I think that the Justice Department is just wasting time and money really pursuing this.
Flame away... :)
kwsNI
- Dump the top 100 Microsoft execs feet-first into a wood chipper
- Destroy all existing copies of all Microsoft products
- Send anyone who, for some reason, likes Microsoft products to 're-education' camps
- Transform the former Microsoft headquarters into a giant paintball arena
There you have it. Very easy. Have fun, DOJ!--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Same with their APIs.
IANAL. In spite of the apparent upper hand the the DoJ has, it is probably seriously considering settlement for a number of advantages that it has over a court decision:
1) MS cannot appeal a settlement (easily, if at all)
2) The DoJ can get remedies in a settlement (like opensourcing Windows--yuck) that a Judge would be very reluctant to impose.
The problem here is a failure of imagination. The DoJ doesn't really know what to ask for. And MS is naturally stonewalling.
There are no advantages to an imposed decision except maybe the court would be more angry if it were controverted, and might impose contempt penalties quicker.
OTOH, MS has a history of settling, then worming their way around the settlement. That's a big part of why the DoJ dragged them into Court this time. The case is framed as a breach of a previous settlement agreement.
Settlement talks have stalled.
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail, (G)rab Hammer?
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Is it possible, under any circumstances, for Mr. Gates to be charged criminally? Is there any crime which he has committed for which he could go to jail?
And why, pray tell me, you are so interested in sending Mr.Gates to jail? He may be very successful and very obnoxious, but these are hardly reasons to incarcerate him. You may think he harmed software development, but that again is a personal opinion of yours and hardly a crime. Besides, there are plenty less successful but just as obnoxious people -- should they all go to jail, too?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
You are very mistaken.
This is a clear signal from the judge to Microsoft: settle now, or else. He's tried to get Microsoft to settle, even bringing in another Federal judge to mediate, which is very unusual. But Microsoft hasn't been willing to make any changes that would end their monopoly power
I don't know any more than you do what was included in the settlement proposal MS faxed to the DOJ last Thursday/Friday, but rumored inclusions were opening the Windows (version?) source and dis-integrating IE from the OS. These are not concessions that would terminate their monopoly power probably, but a monopoly is not intrinsically illegal. The offer is nonetheless very substantial and would certainly give our competitors a vast advantage over us if it were accepted and drafted into practice.
You appear to take the stance of the DOJ - you won't consider any offer from MS an acceptable "compromise" unless it makes provision for legal oversight of future business decisions or a breakup. However, that is not a compromise - it is an utter rout for MS. Such a bargain does not differ from the DOJ's hardline stance one iota, and no reasonable person could suggest that it would be anything other than capitulation.
Furthermore, the judge has delayed the ruling at the request of the DOJ lawyers, clearly indicating that the DOJ believes there is life yet in the settlement process. Or, more cynically, they desire to portray themselves as the wounded party if settlement talks fail (sigh, we tried your honor, but bad old Microsoft...) Either way, the judge is expressing no clear opinion with this latest delay.
Microsoft has had their day in court, and soon the judge will decide their fate. Only the Supreme Court can override him, (there's a provision in antitrust law that fast-tracks big cases to the Supreme Court, bypassing the circuit courts of appeal)
Again, incorrect. There is a provision stating that the DOJ could petition the Supreme Court for direct review, but it is by no means certain. A district court judge could very well overrule Jackson.
Legal opinion is generally that Judge Jackson has done an excellent job on a difficult case.
That doesn't necessarily mean a superior court will rule with him. Remember that MS and the DOJ have confined themselves largely to arguments on the evidence of the case and a smattering of theory. In a higher court, the debate turns to matters of constitutionality, which Jackson doesn't even have under consideration.
This is Microsoft's last chanced
With this judge. They are many more to come should this process be protracted. The story is most certainly not concluded, unless a settlement is reached.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Microsoft has had their day in court, and soon the judge will decide their fate. Only the Supreme Court can override him, (there's a provision in antitrust law that fast-tracks big cases to the Supreme Court, bypassing the circuit courts of appeal) and only for serious legal errors. Legal opinion is generally that Judge Jackson has done an excellent job on a difficult case. This case has been so closely watched that any legal mistakes during the trial would have been noticed and widely publicized, so the Supreme Court will affirm.