Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses
Jon Rochmis from wired wrote in to tell us that Declan McCullagh has a story up now: Microsoft Loses. There really isn't a lot of details, except that the news is officially out, and that the penalties (and of course many more lawsuits) will be forthcoming.Update: 04/03 09:08 by H :Check out the official government site for the ruling -- in excruciating detail. CNNfn also has got an analysis up.
Usually I'm a troll who writes stories about Perl Necklaces Vs. Python, and Jon Katz having gay sex with Cmdr. Taco, but today I'm a bit vexed and think I ought to point some rather important things out.
I'm a Linux developer and proponent and am not the world's greatest Microsoft fan. Then again, I'm not the world's greatest Microsoft critic either.
Microsoft did nothing to monopolize the browser market. They did what was the natural evolution of browsing, and information management/retrieval. They did exactly what the folks at KDE did. They merged the concept of file, shell, and web browser. It's quite admirable, actually, and hardly something worth making a major fuss over.
Netscape would have died a slow and ugly death anyway, with or without Microsoft's help. Let's face it, their browser sucks. It crashes way too much for an application that's supposed to be in the 4.X versions no matter what platform you use it on. I actually use IE for Solaris because it's more stable even though you basically have to install the entire damned Windows API with it. Netscape has also done nothing to help the web forge ahead in the technology front. And though Microsoft hasn't done much more, at least they're a major contributor to XML technologies which are absolutely the future of the web.
Regarding Java. Sun Microsystems has done more on its own in the past 2 years to destroy Java and its original promise than Microsoft could have ever accomplished, even if they had gone on unchecked. Sun's pulling out of ECMA, their constantly changing "Standards", and their forced-branding after the fact for J2EE to put a choke-hold on Application Server vendors is just as dirty a tactic as Microsoft has ever attempted.
To accuse Microsoft of monopolizing the browser market is like accusing the guys who wrote bash of monopolizing the shell market. It's everywhere, it's the default, and it's the best, BUT if you don't want to use it, you sure as hell don't have to. Microsoft didn't put hooks into the operating system to keep Netscape from operating properly. Netscape does a great job of crashing and misbehaving on its own.
Alright, to wrap up. Microsoft wants the freedom to innovate and we're seriously hurting their and everyone's freedom to innovate by supporting the judge's ruling. So stop the biased "Hoo-rahs" and take a look at the bigger picture here. People will be afraid to try new and exciting things because it may crush or obsolete the current standards or de-facto favorites, but then again people used to think taking a sharpened stick and rubbing it in between your teeth was a good way to clean them before the toothbrush was invented.
Microsoft's business practices aside, this is a VERY SAD DAY for software developers, whether they target Linux, Windows, Mac, or BeOS. We're opening ourselves up to having our competitors file lawsuits for putting them out of business just by doing what we think is the most natural thing to do... Do it better.
thank you.
Hah hah!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
They won't get appealled successfully, if that's what you're asking.
And since these new CofL were pretty much pre-ordained by the FofF, folks haven't been waiting--I think I've seen a figure of over 100 already filed.
However, these conclusions are what they'll use; they're the actual finding that MS is a monopolist.
MANY people lost money, a lot MORE people will lose money VERY soon. When people start receiving their first and second quarter mutual fund reports, fund managers are going to have to say due to a sell off in technology i.e. Microsoft and every other tech company, we lost 10% of your money this quarter. This translates to anger against the government. Why is the DOJ ripping Microsoft and my stock. Call representatives in Congress and ask what the hell they are doing about this situation. Not a pretty picture.
/Secretary of State/etc...)
You forget one thing: this was one day. A quarter is MUCH longer than one day. The 300-point drop can be expected to be temporary. Microsoft's stock is going to get hammered probably for the rest of this week, but then we will see it start to recover as the market hysteria dies down. In the meantime, I don't think it's at all unprobable that the stock from Microsoft's competitors is going to get a sizable boost. Still sucks if you've only invested in Microsoft, but frankly if you've pinned your entire portfolio into a simgle company, no matter what that company may be, you deserve a hammering. Even the most idiotic of investors knows better than to do that.
Also, you seem to get the idea that because Microsoft's stock nose-dived, all the other tech companies followed suit. Not true. Many stocks took a slight hit, but that may or may not be related to the case. The 300-point drop in the NASDAQ was due, mostly, to Microsoft alone.
Bad stock markets days like this make things VERY rough for Mr. Gore. Bush will be putting this on Gore for the rest of the campaign. You want an out of control DOJ that sues EVERY company (Smith & Wesson, the Tobacco industry, Microsoft, Glock) and puts your stocks in the toilet: Vote Al Gore. Not a very pleasant thought considering the majority of those who buy stock also vote.
So Gore has something to worry about. I wasn't planning on voting for him anyway.
Now, that we have thought about this rationally. Think about what would happen if Bill Gates said "Fine, if you don't want us to innovate then were going to shutdown Microsoft and return all value to the shareholders." Think about how many industries, businesses, individuals are affected by Microsoft financially both directly and indirectly. I would venture a guess that you would see a depression unlike any other since the 1930's. Believe it or not, a great deal of the expansion of the U.S. economy over the past 15 years can be attributed to Microsoft. Whether they did something bad or not doesn't change the fact that you, me, the businesses we work for, the schools we go to, and just about everything around us is effected by Microsoft.
One: That's just something M$ might say. Of course, it's a lie; they've never innovated anything at all. There is absolutely nothing they've ever done that someone else wasn't already doing. And usually better, at that.
Two: Your depression bit is little more than an alarmist scare tactic.
Three: Even if that bit is true, it only works against you. Should the entire U.S. economy really be so closely tied to one company? Think about that. A company which holds that much of a monopoly needs to be put into check. A DoJ ruling isn't the only thing that can cause a company to go sour, you know. It would be like the President dying with no system of succession in place (Vice President/Speaker of the House/Senate President pro tempore
And one final point. One which I'm sure people would find interesting. Look over the trial. You'll see a lot of things said. You'll see Microsoft claim that its software is innovative, competitive, and so forth. But you'll never once hear Microsoft claim that its software is the best. They knew exactly what they were doing: cramming mediocre software down people's throats, using dirty tricks to trip up competition, and so forth. At least, though, they didn't commit perjury by claiming superiority.
--
The Findings of Fact were very clear, and we have heard a lot about the potential lawsuits that would depend on quoting them. OTOH since a final ruling had not come down, those lawsuits couldn't yet be filed.
Will those lawsuits start to be filed with this decision? Or does that have to wait for final punishment?
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
According to WashP ost Msft is still going to build a web browser into the 'os' - (so thpppppt!! Take that you mean ol' judge) - whoppee. Clinton was impeached and still probably gets all the 'comfort girls' he wants in the office. You can't 'punish' a popular person, no matter what 'crimes' they committed, why that'd be a public outrage! Obviously the judge is at fault here, and Msft stock will eventually recover and soar on to new heights. Indeed, it may be a good time soon to buy msft stock!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm not particularly concerned whether Microsoft gets slapped on the wrist with a drinking straw or gets obliterated from the face of Corporate America. Either way, if I had my druthers, I'd make sure they honored refunds on their damn products.
Sometimes I *like* Microsoft products. I do! Windows is easier to use than Linux for a lot of things, even if I enjoy using Linux more. And I can't beat Excel yet. But I want to have the *choice* to use a Microsoft product, or an alternative, and not have to pay for the products I *don't* choose. If I buy a PC and it comes with Windows, and I want to use Linux on it, then Microsoft should have to send me a refund when I send them the product back, as their licensing agreement states they will. If only ONE thing comes out of the ruling, it should be this.
Finding God in a Dog
Are you saying that Apple doesn't sell easy to use computers?
I own one, so I certainly wouldn't say that. But Apple's computers are expensive, and they were a hell of a lot more expensive 5 years ago when microsoft was busy cementing their lead in the OS market. Apple also was grossly incompetent when it came to marketing and selling their product pure technical superiority or a better interface aren't the only things that matter.
What about OS/2?
I don't know that much about GEOS, but I know IBM screwed up OS/2 big time. In 1990 when the Windows-OS/2 wars were at their peak, IBM was a much bigger company than Microsoft, and a lot of people thought IBM was going to win. Microsoft beat IBM at their own game by producing a decent product at a good price.
One good example of this is that IBM charged ridiculous prices for OS/2 development software, while MS practically gave Windows development tools away. Microsoft was also the first company to truly understand that an OS requires useful apps, and when they ported Word and Excel to Windows it was more so they could help Windows market viability and not vice versa.
Computers would be JUST as popular today without Microsoft, and in fact probably even MORE SO considering that PC Os's should cost $0 (or close to it)
You get what you pay for. Mac OS is priced about the same as Windows, and the per-computer cost of Windows is a lot lower than $150 for OEM's. As for requiring $2000 computers to run, that's laughable. The average computer today costs about $900, and you can get a usable one for under $500. And you are free to buy a no-name PC without Windows and install Linux or anything else you want on it. Most people don't because Linux is a lousy desktop OS for most users.
Keep in mind also that most sodtware packages cost at least $50, and a lot of them are $100. Considering the large number of functions performed by the OS, $100 is not an unreasonable price.
Microsoft was (ironically) the also the only OS maker that truly recognized the value of open systems. They have always sold Windoze liscences to anyone who wanted them. Apple, Next, IBM, and most others on the other hand tried to run their stuff largely on proprietary systems, and I'd argue this is a large part of why they lost. Yes, their OS is closed and proprietary, but it runs on commodity hardware, largely because of Microsoft's liscencing policies.
The simple fact is that Mac OS and Windows are the only viable desktop OS's at the moment, and Windows is the only one that'll run on commodity x86 hardware. Be might be a contender in a couple of years, and if so Microsoft might have some competition on its hand, but the original posters point was that Microsoft has done some good by producing a decent OS at a decent price. I think that's clearly the case.
Alright everyone take a deep breath......that's good. Now lets all think about this rationally for a moment.
1. Microsoft will appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals, aCourt that has already overturned a Jackson decision (see the 1997 anti-trust suit by the DOJ). Chances are this will happen again and even if the DOJ decides to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, the Court has the right to put it back into the lower courts.
2. MANY people lost money, a lot MORE people will lose money VERY soon. When people start receiving their first and second quarter mutual fund reports, fund managers are going to have to say due to a sell off in technology i.e. Microsoft and every other tech company, we lost 10% of your money this quarter. This translates to anger against the government. Why is the DOJ ripping Microsoft and my stock. Call representatives in Congress and ask what the hell they are doing about this situation. Not a pretty picture.
3. Bad stock markets days like this make things VERY rough for Mr. Gore. Bush will be putting this on Gore for the rest of the campaign. You want an out of control DOJ that sues EVERY company (Smith & Wesson, the Tobacco industry, Microsoft, Glock) and puts your stocks in the toilet: Vote Al Gore. Not a very pleasant thought considering the majority of those who buy stock also vote.
Now, that we have thought about this rationally. Think about what would happen if Bill Gates said "Fine, if you don't want us to innovate then were going to shutdown Microsoft and return all value to the shareholders." Think about how many industries, businesses, individuals are affected by Microsoft financially both directly and indirectly. I would venture a guess that you would see a depression unlike any other since the 1930's. Believe it or not, a great deal of the expansion of the U.S. economy over the past 15 years can be attributed to Microsoft. Whether they did something bad or not doesn't change the fact that you, me, the businesses we work for, the schools we go to, and just about everything around us is effected by Microsoft. You want to run Linux, that's fine. I like running Windows 2000. You wanna use Netscape fine. I like running IE 5 - it has a tendency not to crash my system like Netscape. We both have a choice.
Let the market slug it out, its already making Windows obsolete anyway (anybody heard of Palm and little OSs running on cell phones).
CNN just came out with a "This just in" announcement, about 5:10 EDT.
In their report, they described the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as "a vestige of the 19th Century".
Earlier today, well before the announcement, they mentioned that MS stocks had dropped like a rock (clue enough, IMO, that everyone knows they are guilty as sin), but they still unashamedly reported that MS could still string out the appeals for years, and therefore "might still be able to dominate the internet software market". [Sorry, quoting from memory - probably not the exact words.]
You'd think these people were actively rooting for MS in the case, and get a stranglehold on the software world's air supply on the rebound.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yawn. Everything is as expected.
The most interesting thing will come in several months when the Judge will issue his ruling on the remedies (as in, shall we break Microsoft up?). That, of course, will be followed by years of appeals, etc.
So all people who are waiting for Microsoft to implode can exhale now and continue breathing for quite a while.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
'Twas 2000, and the FSF
Did hack and wibble in the wabe,
All caffeinated were the borogoves,
And the l33t hax0rs 0u7gr4b3.
"Beware the Microsoft, my son!
The bugs that glare, the clauses that grab!
Beware the browser integration, and shun
The frumious file.cab!"
He took his vorpal source in hand,
Long time the bogus foe he sought.
So rested he by the CVS tree
And stood a while in swap.
And as in grinding swap he stood,
The Microsoft, with bugs unnamed
Came crashing through the tulgey wood,
And GPF'd as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
His vorpal source went snicker-hack.
He left it blue-screened, and with its windows cleaned
He went gallumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Microsoft?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Callooh, callay! O frabjous day!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas 2000, and the FSF
Did wire and wibble in the wabe,
All caffeinated were the borogoves,
And the l33t hax0rs 0u7gr4b3.
I wrote this just now. I deserve a pat on the back. Thank you.
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
If Microsoft closed it's doors, I don't think we'd have another "great" depression. Just because they go away doesn't mean their software and all of their support people do. Companies would still run Windows for a while, and they'd still have support for it. (There are 250,000 MCSE's after all)
Very true. The world would not have a recession, but more likely it would be a minor correction, allowing third world countries to start using Open Source software and cheaper alternatives, given lesser barriers to entry.
The US might have a minor setback, but even MSFT is only a bit player in the total tech sector valuation based in US corporations.
Now, here's the ouch painful part:
Washington State might have a recession. Boeing is in a downturn, apple sales are off, and it's only MSFT and SBUX that keep us going.
Redmond would have a recession. This would be wonderful, as all the Californians would move back home and we could finally get rid of all those SUVs that clog our roads.
Seattle might have a recession, even though most Seattle businesses are more webcentric, and have little to do with MSFT. For example, Adobe (three blocks from my house, in the Center of the Universe (aka Fremont)) might lose a small fraction of its business.
Over all, this would be a good thing for the world.
Will in Seattle
Otherwise, you might see the cost of the free product has been reflected elsewhere -- you get to pay for the upgrade but also for training staff on the new software, training MS is more that happy to charge for.
This comes precisely to the issue at hand, did Microsoft exercise monopoly power to slaughter the market? Let's review. 1) Offer new browser software for free, as a "loss-leader." 2) offer same software to OEMs with some better licensing terms for Windows in lots of several thousands. 3) Wait a few months. 4) Make slightly better version of said browser software. 5) threaten OEMs with substantially higher costs, or worse, if IE is either not given preferential placement on the desktop, or the only browser shipped with OEM products. 6) Say the browser is now a part of the OS.
You may not have seen any direct costs in the above scenario, but I am sure several vendors did or thought MS could seriously screw them for not playing ball the Redmond way. This prevents the market from acting as it otherwise would, suggesting that a significant amount of money and effort went into to forcing the market one way or preventing any correcting forces. Monopoly action.
So, you the consumer are left with a less competitive market, with lesser products than otherwise would have been available. Does this cost you? Maybe, maybe not. But consider if MS had failed. Java might be more important than the OS. Middleware (I think of WebTurboTax as one example) would be more widespread. MS might be smaller as a result, but good companies take what the market dishes out and fight back in the ring. They don't try to buy the audience, the ref, point to the opponent and say, "You use our gloves and our trunks and our shoes and you'll like it. By the way, you'll go down in the fourth, if you know what's good for you."
That is what has cost you and me money. Not necessairily physical dollars, but potential. All because MS felt threatened that they might not be able to compete as well as they had in the past.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
I'm not so sure myself. This scares me. The whole tech industry has flourished (in the US) partly because no one government paid attention to us at all and pretty much let all problems be solved by technical means and by market forces. Now a great many people who don't understand the technology involved think they understand this industry well enough to meddle, this may bring increased regulation to all parts of the tech industry. Now I personally dislike Windows, alot, and prefer Linux so much more that my home machine spends less than 5 hours a month running windows, and then only for games. And I certianly won't defend some of their business practices that came to light during the trial, but I'll take a MS monopoly with all it's power, bad software and underhaned practices any day over bad laws written by myopic legislators, designed to fix a problem that will have corrected itself by the time the bill is signed into law. I prefer the monopoly because I can openly defy a monopoly by using or writing (if i ever become a talented enough programmer) free software and they can do nothing to me. If I openly defy a bad government I'll be arrested.
To make matters worse, once an industry becomes regulated someone has to do the regulating. Human beings are called upon, often underpaid, overworked civil servants are called upon to enforce laws written by legislators who need lots of money to get re-elected, who are subject to a little push or suggestion from those with money, and an agenda. You can bet that large companies in regulated industries have an agenda, and the money to help fund campaigns. So what happens? The regulations intended to protect the people from the big evil corporations end up being twisted into a tool used to maintain monopoly power. Now all of the sudden it is illegal to openly defy a powerful monopoly by using or writing free software (can you say DeCSS?)
Now I think we can all agree that MS should breakup, not be forcably broken apart by the justice dept, but completly on their own. If their applications and developement tools divisions wern't forced to not only limit themselves to windows, but to also tightly integrate with windows I think MS would be able to produce some very high quality software. The problems is they know that Windows (all flavors) cannot stand on their own as they are if it wern't for the massive application and tools support they enjoy. People put up with windows because they want/need to use Office, or play AOE. If MS spun off it's major divisions into say:
OS's
Applications/Games
Tools
Then I think the computing world would be a much better place. However this has to happen voluntarily or it won't work old loyalties will die hard and bitterness will be pervasive. No this is a change MS has to go through on it's own, before they fall down too far. Just remember folks once upon a time IBM was the Big Evil Corporation (tm) that was choking the life out of the computer industry, today we sing their praises as cool and hip for understanding and embracing our beloved Linux better and faster than any other established company. Remember things change, and usually for the better if those involved are left to sort them out on their own.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
"Nevertheless, both prudence and the deference this Court owes to pronouncements of its own Circuit oblige that it follow in the direction it is pointed until the trail falters."
The Judge then goes on to base his argument largely on Supreme Court precedents, leading me to suspect that Judge Jackson is anticipating a direct Supreme Court appeal under the Expediting Act. The ultimate disposition of case may well turn on whether the Supreme Court accepts the direct appeal.
There's no business like show business.
Seastead this.
Well, this is hardly unexpected. I mean, Microsoft couldn't settle, because they would have had to admit guilt and they would be liable for hundreds of suits from other companies.
so....
What does everyone think the long-term effects of this will be?
Will they be IBM, where so much of what they do becomes legal driven during the years of appeals we all know is coming? Will they lose all focus? Will they emerge later? (like IBM is now).
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
And the brethren went away edified.
I mean, I know most of the ./ community thinks so, but just look at what happened to stock today. MSFT dropped 15 points. That caused the NASDAQ to drop 300 some points. At that trend, the stock market is really going to suck.
I'm all for Microsoft being broken up and getting other OSes out there, but I think the adverse effects of the non-technical stockholders selling what they have could be a major problem.
Well, that ought to spark enough flame mail for the day. I'll have to be sure to check it regularly.
kc8apf
Assuming that MS loses all the appeals it makes, which would take quite a while to begin with, and Judge Jackson decides to go with the most extreme remediation -- breaking up the company -- will Microsoft really suffer?
If MS were to be split up into 3-5 different entities, each company would have more room for expansion and capital growth as its management would be less of a hassle. Breaking up MS might actually help each one of their major software products (BackOffice, IE, Office, etc.) and hardware to be more properly developed and marketed. As it is, MS has begun to operate like the mother of several smaller companies with separate marketing, development, and research departments. Even though Gates may not appear to be the official "king" of his empire anymore, the leaders of the new companies will most certainly have either the same aspirations, or they may simply be "pawns" as some of the readers suggested.
The MS empire will most likely not degrade under these circumstances, but be permitted to take over the other industries in the IT sector. The decentralization of Bell, for instance, never seemed to harm the actual company, but rather create more localized monopolies.
.sig: Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. - Bertrand Russell
Microsoft will survive this, but the big hammer they use on competitors will be taken away. Probably a good thing.
I go to school at the University of Texas and down here you can see one of the most corrupt software deals M$ ever made. Our school has signed on with M$ to sell all "major" M$ products ( I am talking about Office Frontpage NT etc....) for $5.00 a cd. To most people this looks like M$ is giving away all its major products to our students. This is not so, I found out that we pay for M$ products as part of our tuition!!! This is a corrupt deal if I have ever heard it. We were never told of or even asked if we wanted their products. Ladies and Gentlemen this is bullshit.
This is the kind of corrupt deal that makes me want to see M$ disapear. Yeah our school officials were definitely part of the deal but so was M$ for taking the money from the school for this licensing deal.
These kind of tactics are definitely against most legal principles I have ever heard of. This is a state instituion! run with public money!!
This is a very crafty scheme indeed. Not only does take the money without even truly selling the software but it hooks the students into this school into their software.
If M$ gave away the software I wouldn't be against it. Other companies do this and I believe its a fair practice, and so is giving very steep student discounts. I understand that getting students hooked into brands of software is importent. But this deal is rediculous and corrupt.
This is just what I personally have seen of M$, from what I have heard these deals get much worse.
I will be happy on the day that such business practices are punished. Even software developers need to be a little fearfull of trying unfairly to eliminate the competition and pulling people unwittingly into tricky deals.
We punish this practice on other businesses, why do people think that technology is seperate.
Personally I think that the people oppose the punishment of M$ sound like people who are trying to defend themselves because they fell for the tricks of this corrupt scheme. They went along and now have to justify why they were a sheep in Bill Gates' flock of morons.
Personally I hope they will wake up and think for themselves. This is much harder than going along with everybody else.
Cheers
TECH STOCKS BEEN HYPED AND OVERPOPULAR FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!! AS RESULT, STOCK MARKET RAPIDLY CLIMBING IN VALUE TO RIDICULOUS HEIGHTS!!! BUT OOG KNOW YOU CANT EXPECT CURRENT STATUS QUO OF PROPSERITY TO REMAIN CONSTANT!!! EVENTUALLY SOMETHING TRIGGER MASSIVE SELL OFF IN TECH STOCKS, WHICH SET OFF CHAIN THAT BRING STOCK MARKET DOWN!!!
OOG REMINDED OF EVENTS BEFORE GREAT DEPRESSION AND 1929 STOCK MARKET CRASH!!! BACK THEN, EXCESS MONEY PUMPED INTO STOCK MARKET THROUGH SPECULATION AND BUYING ON MARGIN!!! ECONOMY RISE, BUT ACHIEVE HOLLOW PROSPERITY WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP!!! WHEN SELLOFF OCCUR, BANKS NO ABLE TO GIVE CUSTOMERS MONEY AND MARKET CRASH!!!
THOUGH SITUATION NOT AS EXTREME AND GOVERNMENT MORE PREPARED FOR DEPRESSION, SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK POSSIBILITY!!! CURRENT MARKET BLOATED AND INFLATED BY TECH STOCK AND ECOMMERCE HYPE!!! AT SOME POINT STOCK MUST GO DOWN AND MARKET MUST DROP !!! HOPEFULLY INVESTORS WISE ENOUGH NOT TO SELL ALL AT ONCE, AND DOJ WISE ENOUGH TO SLOWLY RELEASE RESULTS TO LESSEN IMPACT!!! STILL, TECH STOCK MORE OF TREND THAN ANYTHING ELSE AND NEED BE BROUGHT DOWN EVENTUALLY!!! OOG JUST HOPE NO DEPRESSION OCCUR AS RESULT!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
Now enter the obligatory 5 years of appeals...
Seriously, does any legal-type know what happens now? If so, please share with us before we have to endure 400 "They're dead now!" posts from people who (like me) have little understanding of the next step.
I mean, how many appeals avenues are left? What exactly can they appeal, and what is set in stone? Is this ruling likely to have teeth, or is it only the first move in an endless and boring dance?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
(congress.nw.dc.us is hosting the freedom to innovate network? huh?!)
---
I don't remember this case being "rushed to trial" in fact it seemed to take forever for this case to get moving, let alone all of the delays M$ threw at the DOJ/State Attorny Generals.
In fact I read half of the Findings of Fact, I've still got to finish that 200 page document...damn good reading. I can't see given the findings of fact, how M$ can claim that the document didn't show they were a monopoly. I'm going to curl up with Judge Jacksons's Conclusions, and sit back and watch the appeals and the other lawsuits that are opened up due to this ruling. All I can say is "Burn Micro$oft, Burn!" You get what you deserved. Let's hope that the punishment is as stiff as Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts document was worded.
Heck even if Judge Jackson only slaps them on the wrist with something as minor as not being allowed to preannounce hardware/software, they'd be royally screwed. Think of it, who would want to buy something called an X-Box when they could have a Playstation 3? I'll take the Playstation, at least all of the games I've currently got for the Playstation 1 will work on the 3, but much better... :-)
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
How's this for a suitable pnuishment? Microsoft should be required, by law, to ship only bug free products. Think about it -- fixing all those bugs will require an enormous amount of work, and be very expensive; it's a suitably tough penalty. Further, this action will benefit Microsoft customers (who have been shafted for years by being forced by monopoly considerations to buy defective products). Plus, can you imagine Microsoft's appeal? What is Gates & company really going to say, "We demand the right to continue shipping defective products?" The specific details can be worked out (how much of a per bug fine will Microsoft have to pay, whether Microsoft can "sell" their current stock of existing products under a 100% revenue fine, etc). I sure wish I was a friend of the court right now. (Anyone from the Justice Department reading this?)
So here I was, at home with a cold, watching and cheering as I watched the CNN coverage of the findings of Law. Pretty good coverage I thought, I was happy they hadn't broken for a commercial yet.
So finally they broke to commercial. First ad:
NASDAQ -- you know, their series of ads saying "where do you find companies like this? Nasdaq, the stock market for the next hundred years" Their featured company: Microsoft
I'm not sure if my throat hurts more from the cold, from the cheering or from the laughter.
What's important is not what caused this plumment, but that people will think that the MS ruling caused a stock plummet. On the longer run though I think you're right- people are finally waking up to the fact that what is basically a bet that EVERY company now existant will survive and thrive is a very very stupid bet. Especially when so much of the tech industry relies upon things of dubious and efemeral nature- especially the software market (which, among other things, can be made worthless by open source efforts that release equatable programs for "free") and things like .com DNS names, which look like they'll be ubiquitos and rule in the future, but probably wont. What people are really betting on when they bet tech (to the extent that they bet rationally) isn't the company's products or brand itself but the company's ability to retain some of the limited pool of skilled tech employees- the guys and gals producing great ideas that give their companies temporary monopolies.
As long as this case is open, Microsoft has to behave, at least behave better than they would otherwise. Free software has been helped a lot by the fact that Microsoft couldn't squash it using all possible means because that would have hurt their case in the courts. The appeals mean that Microsoft has to be careful about their bullying. Whatever the final result is, Microsoft will not be the same. The IBM antitrust case is a good example here; IBM eventually won the court battle, but they lost a lot in the market.
I've skimmed the conclusions of law, and it's interesting to me that Judge Jackson's reasons for concluding that Microsoft violated the Sherman anti-trust act read like a list of what everyone thinks is wrong with the UCITA and the DeCSS case. For example:
"...Microsoft bound Internet Explorer to Windows with contractual and, later, technological shackles in order to ensure..."
Replace Microsoft's tying with the DVDCCA's attempts to control players, and you get the same situation. And for the same reason -- attempting to abuse monopoly power.
Or,
"...extent that Microsoft still asserts a copyright defense, relying upon federal copyright law as a justification for its various restrictions on OEMs..."
Of course, attempting to justify anything and everything by being protected under copyright is exactly what the UCITA is about.
Personally, I think Jackson's finding of fact shows a poor understanding of the situation -- yes, microsoft had a monopoly, but they faced a highly elastic long term demand, and couldn't reap outrageous profits. But, I think his conclusions of law will supply a lot of material for anyone who wants something to quote against UCITA or the DMCA.
--Kevin
We wait again for the remedies to issue.
We knew that microsoft had lost as soon as we read the findings of fact,
which were a determination of what happened.. This just draws the only
possible conclusion that could be reached from the facts: illegal
conduct.
The FofF can be appealed, but the grounds are essentiall "no reasonable
person could come to this conclusion from the evidence presented." This
is close to impossible, and can be disregarded. The CofL can be
appealed on the grounds that they're incorrect given the facts, but
there's only one possible conclusion, monopoly. Analogy: he laid
in wait, then tortured and killed the victim. The only possible
conclusion is murder with special circumstances.
Next come the remedies, which can be appealed; MS would merely need
to convince the appellate court that another remedy would be better.
However, the court will usually defer to the trial court's judgment
on such matters unless it's clearly on a limb, as the trial court
heard the evidence and has spent much more time on the matter than
the appellate court possibly can.
In short: very little room on appeal for MS, unless the judge
does something *really* wierd for remedies. Breakup will be
examined closely, but would likely stand. It is highly unlikely
that anything short of breakup would be overturned.
hawk,esq.
The other problem that I see as critical is that, as Parish acknowledges, "everyone else is doing the same." The notion that Microsoft is the leader in the matter seems to me as nonsensical as the notion that they are a technical leader in the computer industry.
It is nonetheless quite fair to say that the big problem for Microsoft is not the "death of a thousand paper-cuts" that may come out of secondary lawsuits based on the evidence of this big one, but rather the long term effects of employee benefits being strongly dependant on the value of the option plan.
If the value of Microsoft stock does not continue to rise, then those option plans, and the resulting long term financial security of MSFT employees, is injured. And it is that injury is what is liable to ultimately cause crucial injury to the corporation.
As for outsiders that are injured, I have less qualms than you. People have chosen to invest in what is necessarily a risky investnment, just like Dutch Tulip Bulbs, the South Sea Investment Company, the Nifty Fifty, and Tokyo real estate. If they were foolish in underestimating the risk, that's a loss that they foolishly underestimated.
Throw in "ethical considerations" and it may turn it from "well-deserved" to "richly-deserved..."
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I'd like to make this comment a place for people to put their favourite comments from the ruling, so reply to it with your faves. Mine so far are:
and...
and especially...
Microsoft counterclaims that the DOJ is using a federal court to enforce state laws in conflict with Microsoft's federally guaranteed rights.
Judge Jackson responds...
Yeah! Accuse your presiding judge of being an instrument in the subversion of federal law. That will make him like you.Personally, I hope not. A bunch of smaller companies all sharing the same product lines but having less developers to maintain them doesn't seem like a good idea for the marketplace or for consumers.
The remedy I prefer is one where they are divided along product lines. Some of the most important divisions to be made are:
Personally, I think seperating the DOS-derived Win98 codebase from from the NT codebase is a bad idea since we all know that Win98 and its future derivatives are technology the company is trying to phase out. It would be equivalent to seperating out Word 6.0 from Office 2000. The company with the older product wouldn't be a competitor and would be saddled with bad technology. Seperating out WinCE might not be a bad idea, though, since it's fundamentally a different code base and target market.
Some other ideas might be seperating out their developer tools or their multimedia tools into another company. I'd also like to see if they do split the companies up who gets what subsidy and tangetal business that Microsoft has absorbed and bought out over the years. Maybe a seperate holding company for their subsidies would be a good idea.
Microsoft is the world's largest Mac software company. With some of their products given to seperate companies from the OS company, we might see more platform independent products from those companies. Without an interest in keeping loyal to Windows, we might see such products ported to Linux and other OSes in the future. The lack of loyalty for one another combined with the inability to bundle might mean an end to Windows as a platform and the dawn of a better age for consumers.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I haven't read the findings yet (no-one has), but this is only the beginning.
First, the remedies will be announced. Then, the appeals start. Realistically, these will take years.
However, I understand that the findings can be used by the *many* class action suits. This will hurt MS badly. The real damage will be to their share price. Historically, a significant part of the remuneration to MS staff has been in stock options. In the past, this was a great deal. But if the share price starts to fall, they will find it very hard to hire and retain the best people. Unless this is very carefully managed, it could easily lead to a vicious circle.
It will be very interesting to see what MS does over the next few months to shore the share price up. I hope they don't do anything illegal in the process. That would be tragic.
I remember when the Findings of Fact came out, and Slashdot had a bunch of legal experts analyze it. Will they do the same for the Findings of Law?
www.eFax.com are spammers
(Older info is also available at the US v. Microsoft page at the the U.S. Department of Justice website)
--
The shareholder is always right.
(disclaimer, IANAL)
... after all, that's muscling vi and emacs out of the market). This one is very scary since it tends to suggest that the government might try to take a role in OS design.
After skimming over the decision, I have some ideas as to where the eventual penalty in this case might go.
There are a few major issues that the decision seems to rest upon: Microsoft's exclusive contracts with OEMs to which it used to muscle Netscape out of the market, its corruption of Java, the fact that it tied IE in with Windows, and its high prices.
Nowhere does it mention that they made Windows incompatible with another piece of software, or that they used hidden APIs in any of their products, which would be the biggest argument toward opening part or all of the Windows source code. Since neither of those is mentioned at all, or even alluded to, I believe that opening their APIs/source code isn't a likely penalty.
A large portion of the decision is dedicated to Microsoft tying products into Windows, so I'd expect strict rules as to what can and cannot be built into Windows in the future (watch, WindowsME will ship without Notepad
I don't know if anything in the decision really seems to point to Microsoft potentially being fined. I'd think that there probably will be a fine levied regardless, since it's such an easy thing to do. It looks like if anything is done regarding money, however, it might be that rebates will be offered to consumers, and future pricing on Microsoft products will be regulated. The "fines" will likely come in decisions in other lawsuits that will spring up now that Microsoft is officially an "evil monopoly".
The sections of the decision about Microsoft's business practices... it's exclusive contracts, and that it used its monopoly power to try to build a monopoly in a second market are very interesting indeed. There are definite shades in the decision that suggest the judge might be open to ruling that Microsoft be split in some form.
Up until today, I thought splitting Microsoft up was such a remote possibility based on what I've heard about the case so far, but after reading the decision, it seems like it might be a distinct possibility. Based on some of the wordings in the decision, a split would likely break Microsoft into seperate but equal, competiting companies, rather than along product lines. A break along product lines wouldn't solve most of the problems outlined in the decision.
Regardless, after the appeals are all through, what finally gets decided will be interesting to see.
NO CARRIER