Slashdot Mirror
Government Gives Microsoft Offer Thumbs Down
Robotech_Master writes: "This Wired News article has the details: the government thinks very little of Microsoft's own planned remedy, and in fact claims all its proposed meaures amount to 'nothing.' Hardly a surprise, but interesting all the same. " Today was the day that Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and MS were having a hearing to discuss "remedies." Not suprisingly, the government and Microsoft see things differently. Amazing. Hey, who's looking forward to several more years of incessant appeals and hearings? I thought so.
Long distance prices are cheaper now. That's easy to see even with only a little research.
While I do believe that Ma Bell was a more benevolent monopoly then Microsoft I think their breakup has benifitted society.
Part of the trouble with getting work done on phone systems today is the shear number of phone and data systems in use. Would Bell have done any better? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not a linux/unix/bsd zealot but I do think Microsoft has given pcs a bad name. Far from making it easier for new users they baby new users and then when that pretty new windows box crashes, as they all do. The user is left with no knowledge and support people that know less about computers then many highschool students. These new users are completely lost. Microsoft gives them a false sence of security by making some simple tasks very easy then not encouraging users to learn about that expensive and complex machine they are using.
Just my opinion I could be wrong.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Newsmaker: Thomas Penfield Jackson1 2-newsmaker.html
http://w ww.internetworld.com/print/1998/10/12/news/199810
Jurist in Microsoft case opinionated, tardy in decisions
http://www.mercurycent er.com/business/microsoft/trial/judge/
The second article has more about Judge Jackson's life before becoming a judge.
-- Chris Goldman
Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
Eventually, like the little spoiled kid, Microsoft will run off and pout in the corner -- maybe bully a few of the other little kids while they're at it, just to get their rocks off and feel a like they have a little manhood left.
I'm really surprised by the way Judge Jackson and the rest of the government has handled this case. It is very impressive.
I'd be interested to see a book by this Judge a few years after all of this is over. I'm not sure what his history is before practicing law, but he seems to be rather wise in the way he approaches these issues, even if they may not be within the average judge's grasp. I mean, for god's sake, how many other judges would have spent a night personally removing MSIE from Windows95 on their own just to see if it could be done?
Now, granted, I wouldn't want a lawyer to try the same thing in a medical malpractice suit, but . . .
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
>G.W. Bush has publically said many times that he would throw the MS antitrust case out if he could. It is safe to say that MS will be spending millions to get him elected.
This touches something that is a BIG difference between the US vs. the Netherlands (and probably europe): companies funding political parties, candidates etc.
This simply isn't allowed. This means companies have slightly less influence on politicians in europe than in the US. slightly...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
You have a claim that there was a benefit in forcing OEM's to install the `free' IE 3.0 into Win95. Just because it has benefits isn't enough. There are lots of benefits in bundling (say) a free version of Visual Studio, or a free version of Office into every install of Win98/Win2k. Why didn't they (then) pay netscape and bundle a free copy with every install of 95, instead of spending billions on their own web browser?
Why does Microsoft not do the first two bundlings? Because it would be anticompetetive and be the death-knell for every other office suite manufacturer, and applications development platform? Or do they not do it because they would make less money? Or do they not do it because they realize that this argument is a slippery slope. If they slide down too far within this 'bundling' idea, they'll be within range of the DoJ alligator and get bitten in half?
Software is software and so unlike the physical world because it is infinitely malleable. It is obvious that it's a stupid idea for your power company to 'bundle' a TV with their service. or for the grocery store to 'bundle' automobiles.
With malleable software and OS's, it's hard to divide between 'core system software' and applications. It doesn't sound nonsensical to 'tie' office into Win2k, or to 'tie' outlook or the web browser into it.
There are several GOOD reason's for tying office into Win2k. Finer integration, If it would benefit consumers,
Perhaps you should read something other than your own corporate propaganda.
Concerning the benefits of integrating Windows and MSIE, read Boies interrogation of Allchin where Allchin had to admit point by point that the claimed benefits would be available by separate distribution also. The trial brought up facts that countered Microsoft's claims about the benefits of integration where two of the three judges of the Appeals Court wrote their conclusion without doing as much as bothering with relevant facts.
As for your silly analysis of the role of the Netscape browser, why not talk about the obvious: if a killer application is in principle available for multiple platforms it will lower the applications barrier to entry in the operating systems market. Note that contrary to Netscape, Microsoft does not port applications to operating systems cheaper than Windows.
Furthermore, making exclusive deals on the basis of monopoly power is not ever "pro-competitive", just as not shooting people is not a philantropic act. At best a marketing act would be "competitive", although in this case it is merely not declared illegal.
Now that we have arrived at your use of Newspeak, and given your "many slashdot readers" line, I think it is not out of line to attribute some claims of the Microsoft company line to you.
1. a.) An operating system can be written by a single person in a short period of time, without this person having previously marketed anything, which shows that there is intensive competition. b.) Windows could only have been written by Microsoft's spending of many billions of dollars and only because Microsoft also produced a text processor, a spreadsheet, a flat database application - and whatever else is in MS Office nowadays.
2. a.) Linux is a serious competitor on the desktop for Microsoft and there are advanced applications in all categories for the Linux desktop (testimony under oath of Paul Maritz). b.) Linux on the desktop is unrealistic.
3. a.) In no industry there is so much competition as in the software markets Microsoft operates in. b.) There is no viable replacement for Microsoft's products now and there won't be in any short term, so any harm to Microsoft will bring significant harm to the global economy at large.
I wish you and your fellows would at some time accept the logical rule of "not (A and not A)". Alas, you don't and won't. Not accepting rules of logic makes any form of discussion with you and your fellows a waste of time.
-cjr
While I sympathize with your situation, I don't think you are right. Instead of trying to go point by point, enough to say that these arguments simply didn't convince Judge Jackson compared to the mountain of evidence provided by DoJ.
While some of that may be MS related (MS's transparent tactics didn't endear them to anyone there, and their previous lack of good faith when it comes to the Consent Decree), most of the ruling was pretty clear-cut.
But with that said, I am personally hoping the remedy is changed. First, I don't think it will accomplish anything lasting in terms of returning competition to the desktop. Second, I don't like the idea of the Government becoming involved on a lasting basis in the software industry-- once in, you'll get 'policy experts' whose only job is to tell us how to do our jobs, and we'll never be able to get rid of them.
Instead, I think we ought to be discussing good remedies. For one thing, each company affected (netscape, corel, etc) can use the finding of fact in a civil suit. The government could follow Cringley's suggestion and fine MS; it has tens of billions in cash reserves sitting around. Third, it could open the source to windows in a non-restrictive license. Fourth, it could implement full disclosure of MS file formats and APIs, forcing MS to fully document all of these, and imposing a waiting period of not less than one year on changes to these formats. Finally, it could impose non-discriminatory, fully disclosed prices on products to OEMs.
All IMHO, of course, and you can take or leave some or all of them. But I think it is pretty clear that MS has the monopoly. What we need to look at are remedies which will actually remedy something. Breaking up MS is both too extreme and won't solve anything.
MS's big problem right now, of course, is that they've played so much dirty poker trying to get cheap, one time benefits that now that the stakes are high, noone wants to take any chances. If they had been ruthless but honorable during the trial and before, the proposals would probably be less radical.
#include IANALBug Free Software
Solitare
Freecell
Minesweeper
Notepad
Broken Sofware to be open sourced
everything else
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Try and buy one PC notebook without paying for Windows. It's stunningly hard really - harder than buying a PC notebook without a hard drive. I reckon that's a pretty good indicator that Microsoft is capable of diminishing economic freedom of choice.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Very interesting post, I'm happy to see it moderated up.
(Usual disclaimer: IANAL, I'm no American, I'm biased towards breaking MS up, but not too well informed about the details of the case)
However, I have two main objections to your argument.
The first one is not exactly relevant to the subject, but here you go anyway: Your signature doesn't jive well with the body of your post. If you don't want to speak for Microsoft, the company you work for, don't use we when you talk about them. Ugh, caught myself nitpicking again.
Second, you state that: When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market. For the purposes of antitrust, "the market" is the arena in which meaningful competition exists between interchangeable goods. The DoJ insists we have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems, and they further claim that we used that monopoly to defeat Netscape, which we felt might be a threat to that monopoly in the future. And you then propose to define the market in question as application platforms for which you admit Microsoft doen't have a monopoly.
This however justifies the DOJs argument rather than invalidating it. What the DOJ is claiming is that MS leveraged their monopoly on one market (the OS market) to obtain a dominant position in another market (the browser market). In other words, Netscape has to be in a different market for the DOJ to be able to claim unfaire use of monopoly power. Remember, a monopoly in itself is not illegal, it is the attempted use of monopoly power to crush competitor in other markets which poses a problem.
Or did I miss something obvious here?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
While I am all for the harshest of penalties against Microsoft (why isn't their a corporate death penalty? or corporate imprisonment?) I doubt anything the US government can do will have any significant impact on MS or the way they do business.
Microsoft will still bully, break or buy their competitors, because companies large and small fear them.
Microsoft will still embrace and extend "standards" because developers will tolerate anything to be on MS's good side.
Microsoft will still have tons of customers because customers prefer name-brand over quality.
The government's moves are nothing more than making a loud noise, and saying "We thing this company is doing wrong." If they had any guts and/or really cared about customers getting shafted they would utterly destroy the company to allow fresh competition come to the scene.
I haven't been following the trial, and so I'm not at all swayed by this argument because your point is moot (IANAL but I like any word that makes you sound like a cow).
You need to re-read Jackson's conclusions. Microsoft is a monopoly, but he states that in order to be found liable you need to show anticompetative practices that were used to maintain the monopoly.
Netscape fit that bill. As middleware, the browser could offer an API to developers that could be used instead of Windows API. Unlike a competing OS, the chicken-and-egg problem is solved since it's already deployed on nearly every user's computer.
Jackson states that Microsoft realized that developer's "realiance on Netscape's platform would depend largely on the size and trajectory of Netscape's share of browser usage". Thus Microsoft used exclusionary deals with OEMs and eventually integration with the OS as a means to tie up the easy means of distributions for Netscape and crush their market share.
And realize that if this is to overturned, it will be on appeal, not a new trial. I don't know law, but I know that overturning a decision is a lot harder.
Besides, I'd think you'd welcome the break-up. I think that it will eventually make Microsoft better. And I'll still run Linux ;-)
But it doesn't indicate either that those two product shouldn't be integrated.
Either I don't understand your sentence (possible, I'm not a native English speaker) or we could follow what you say in it to its extreme and integrate Windows and Office, Outlook, Visual Studio,... up to the point of having MS selling only one box with all their product in it sold under the name Windows.
They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows
Of course this is an integrated part of Windows. MS did everything in their power to tie Windows and IE together in a way that is next to impossible to undo. The question is whether doing so is an excuse not to punish them? Clearly no, this is not because you break the law in a way that it is impossible even for you to undo it that you should go as if nothing happened.
Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. If the word justice really mean something in the USA then it should make their case stronger, not weaker. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95.
I don't really have a problem with having IE coming with Windows 95/98, I have a problem with not being able to get rid of it.
Last time I installed RedHat I had Netscape preinstalled. Did I scream bloody murder, Netscape is a monopolist? No. Am I an hypocrit because I thought and said this kind of things about MS? No. Why? Because Netscape didn't use their monopoly (well, they don't have any but you get the point) to forbid Redhat to ship with other browsers (like the one with KDE or Lynx) nor to forbid them to remove Netscape icon or to place another browser icon.
I think Microsoft should have the right to propose IE with Windows but they should not have the right to force IE with Windows and threaten OEM's and Apple, using their monopoly, if they remove IE's icon to put Netscape one. Integrating IE inside Windows was only one more mean, technical this one, to force them to ship IE.
You say:
When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market.
Then you say:
This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above.
The antitrust practice need NOT be in the same market and the market is well defined. Don't forget that it is illegal to use anti-competitive practices either to maintain a monopoly or to leverage a monopoly to gain market chares in another market.
In this case MS tied IE to Windows, thus leveraging the Windows monopoly to gain market chare in the browser market in order to maintain its monopoly on the PC OS area.
MS has a monopoly in the IBM compatible PC OS area. Netscape is a threat to Windows not directly because it indeed is not an OS but indirectly because by changing the playing field from the desktop to the Internet and by not being Windows-centric it made Windows irrelevant.
The monopoly power confered to MS via Windows would be totally irrelevant if people did not use Windows-centric desktop applications but instead used Netscape-centric Internet/Web/Network applications and this is to prevent that before it was too late that MS did tie IE to Windows.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I'm actually quite concerned over how the breakup of Micro$oft will affect the general computer user.
My concern stems from the Bell System break up in the 1980's. My father worked for the Bell System for 34 years, and I worked for one of the RBOC's for 5. I remember how "great" the Bell System was, and I saw how much things had changed for the worse while working for one of the regional bells.
The Bell System was a monopoly, and IMHO a necessity. Since the breakup, the only people who have suffered was the common citizen with inflated local rates, long distance and interlata charges, and more frustration because of the budgetary constraints of the RBOC's. Back in the days of the Bell System, if you ordered a telephone line, it was installed within a day or two. It takes up to three weeks or more nowadays to get a tech to come to the door because of budgetary cutbacks.
Anyway - what I'm trying to say is that I am curious on how the MS breakup will affect the rest of us. As a Linux user, I'm even more concerned.
I ponder on whether MS is a necessary evil, as was the Bell System. *hmm*
I guess either way, the common folk will lose...
[Connection closed by foreign host]
First off, there is a call for apple machines without MacOS. I for one would love a Powerbook running Windows 2000. The G3/4 processor while having horrible yields is quite good. Just because you don't see a purpose in having Macs without MacOS doesn't mean others don't. Obviously someone found the need for Linux, therefore LinuxPPC was created.
Apple "develops" the hardware in the same way Compaq, Packard Bell, or Dell do, the procesors are made by mottorolla, the video cards by ATI, the hard drives are standard issue, etc. They add miniscule changes that serve only to add a "Personalized touch"
And no, companies do not pay the "Microsoft Tax" if they don't carry Windows xxxx products. It's that simple. Once again, look at pricewatch.com Plenty of companies can be found who sell 1) just hardware 2) complete systems with no OS attached
Of course the bigger PC makers pay a tax if they carry other OS/software competing with Microsoft. Find a large grocery store that carries both Coke and Pepsi, I sure can't. If you want a discount then you have to bend over backwards, otherwise you pay the same price as everyone else. You scratch my back, I scratch your's, it's that simple.
"So, come clean, do you work for or are you affiliated in any way with Microsoft? "
I work for SGI, that's about as far away from Microsoft as it gets.
Imagine there's no Microsoft
It's easy if you try
No DOS below us
Above us only Linus
Imagine all the people
Using Linux today
Imagine no OS companies
It isn't hard to do
No crashes to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Playing Quake in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I hope someday you'll surf by
And Unix will finally be as one
Imagine no software possessions
I wonder if RMS can
No need for greed or hoarding
A brotherhood of Webs
Imagine all the people
Sharing MP3s
You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I'm hope someday BSD will join us
And the Unix world shall live as one.
Note: A humble effort, dedicated to the living memory of Trollmastah.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Shortly after the bulldog Reno was sicked on M$ and a modified special investigator statute was passed to look into the anti-trust issues Netscape brought up.
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
<disclaimer>
IANAL
</disclaimer>
That's because breaking up Microsoft isn't being suggested as a punitive measure: it's being suggested as a remedy.
Defendants that are found guilty of crimes in criminal proceedings are always expected to argue for leniency when they're being punished. But the situation here isn't even really punishment, which is why the government keeps using the terms "structural remedy," as opposed to "punitive measures."
That's also why Microsoft could argue that breaking up the company wouldn't make sense in the face of things like the AOL/Time Warner deal. Essentially, they were saying that the IT industry obviously wasn't in need of any help, because there were plenty of superpowers already being formed which have a reach at least equal to MS'.
Incidentally: while I believe that Microsoft was clearly as guilty as charged, and that remedies are clearly needed, I'm not entirely sure how comfortable I am with the idea of them being broken up. Further, I'm seriously worried that the AOL/TW merger is going to make MS' transgressions look like a bully in a schoolyard sandbox. Klein has already warned to expect many more of these suits in the future, and even Orrin Hatch is saying that he has misgivings about the merger. Especially now that the FCC is saying that Time Warner acted illegally during its recent spat with ABC.
Corporations aren't individuals. They're creations of the State.
The State grants the people who form corproations an immunity from claims against their own finances beyond what they invested in the corporation. To qualify for this privilege (and it IS a privilege) the corporation must operate under certain rules.
One of the rules is that if the corporation manages to obtain monopoly power in a market (and this does NOT mean a total monopoly - just enough to do certain things that would otherwise not be possible), there are extra limits on what they are allowed to do.
Much of the puropse of these limits is to keep them from using their monopoly power in one market segment to compete "unfairly" in another.
Microsoft's executives broke this rule, which is part of their corporation's license to evade personal liability for their actions. They did it willfully and repeatedly. Their victims complained. They got caught and convicted.
Now the corporation and its investors (who have the power to chose and depose the management and who invested or stayed invested knowing what they were joining and risking) must take the punishment.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I certainly can't know the minds of Microsoft management or the DoJ, but I have been reading the trial docs on my little Handspring - thousands of pages in all - and I sort of am getting the feeling that Microsoft is going to win this on appeal, and handily too.
:-)
Naturally I'm biased. I work for MS and I want very much for this to "go away". I wasn't here when the "alleged anticompetitive acts" (they always call them that) took place and so it all seems too bizarre. But I would like to hear what all of you think of my quickie analysis.
There were essentially four dangerous allegations leveled by the government against Microsoft. There were many legal issues involved, but these four seem like central pillars of the case to me.
Firstly, they contended we were a legal monopoly, secondly that we forced purchases of an unrelated product (IE) by tying it to the monopoly product, thirdly that we engaged in illegal exclusive dealing, and finally they said we tried to engage in market division with Netscape.
After deliberating, Judge Jackson threw out the third allegation, not because he didn't find we engaged in exclusive deals that hurt our competitors, but because he acknowledged that "competition for means of distribution" is a recognized pro-competitive act, and one that gets lots of leniency from higher courts. Both Microsoft's proposed CoL and the actual Conclusions explain this in greater legal detail. Basically, we didn't foreclose Netscape from shipping their product, and the law does not have sympathy for the argument that certain forms of distribution are "the best". To anti-trust law, this is a form of legal competition. Go figure.
So, in effect, this leaves us with the monopoly charge, the claim that we illegally tied IE to the monopoly product, and the market collusion. Jackson ruled against us on all of these critical points.
With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated. They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows - this is an approach the DoJ is taking once more. Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95. Now, if that is the case, I fail to see how they will rule differently on the issue of Win98, which is clearly more fully integrated with the IE binaries than 95 ever was. My guess is that this will be overturned.
Many Slashdotters seem to feel that the monopoly charge is self-evident and cannot abide controversy, but having read the DoJ complaint and MS's response, I think there is a reasonable chance the Appellate court might decide that the monopoly argument contains internal inconsistencies and overturn it as well.
When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market. For the purposes of antitrust, "the market" is the arena in which meaningful competition exists between interchangeable goods. The DoJ insists we have a monopoly in PC Operating Systems, and they further claim that we used that monopoly to defeat Netscape, which we felt might be a threat to that monopoly in the future.
This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above. A better definition of the market would be "application platforms", and I don't think even Slashdot can argue we have a monopoly there. Unless I'm missing something (quite possible) I think the Appeals Court will overthrow this also.
As to the Netscape market-division thing, I can't say I know how it will go. It sounds to be largely based upon the personal interpretation of the judges based upon how the two parties related the meeting. I'll be interested to see the results of this topic.
So, I'm sure you're all bubbling over with objections. Flame away!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Stock options. Most of us know that stock options are a normal ploy used to compensate employees instead of increasing their wages. Employee "pay" compensation for when stock options are exercised does not count against a company's net profit. Ballmer then tells the Microserfs that their stock options are now based on the value of MS stock value of a few weeks ago (around $67). If these stock options are exercise later (if the stock price goes up), then this payout is not factored into MS's revenue calculations.
Cookie Jar Accounting. In this method, profits and losses in a particular yearly quarter are manipulated. Make lots of money this quarter? Great. Don't make a lot of money the next quarter as you anticipate? Great. Just bugger the numbers so that you always show an slight increase every quarter by counting profits in one quarter to another quarter. This is good as it reduces dips in the stock market whenever one does not meet the quarterly expectations. The SEC is looking into this.
Kerberos, Netscape, DR-DOS, Real Network (work in progress), QuickTime, Java, Frontpage extensions, etc... But MS is now serious about computer security after ILoveYou. But as the Allman Brothers would say, Dear Mellissa.
Nice story in the Washington Post today that showed how much money MS is pumping into various groups. These include soft-money interests, and dubious "independent" organizations that represent the interest of the tech field. This is also a common practice in the environmental field.
OT: The FBI is now looking for the /. DDOS suspect. The prime suspect is a A. Coward that is either dressed as a Norwegian troll or a Californian Karma whore. Both are considered dangerous. Mr Coward was last seen in the statue section of the Metropolitan Art Museum. While not confirmed, it reported that steam was reported to be leaking from the front of his pants. An FBI spokesperson said that the source of the steam is not known, thank you.
IMHO winver.exe is very well written and I challenge anyone here to do a better job.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
What I don't understand about this is: What's to stop a broken in two microsoft colluding in a duopolistic fashion? In other words, what's there to stop Microsoft-OS from sharing API's with Microsoft-Apps and no-one else?
:)
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
If you love democracy, you don't cheer when The People vote a dictator into office. Similarly if you love free market capitalism, you don't cheer when it allows a company to grow big enough to squash the free market. Governments need to apply the minimum force neccessary to prevent the free market from being squashed.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
So the mountain of evidence has nothing to do with it then? While selective enforcement does happen, and should not be tolerated, it doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute those who break the law. It means we should make sure that everyone who breaks the law is prosecuted fairly.
Think about it. Remember last time this happened? They had Microsoft nailed and then let them off with a consent decree which Judge Sporkin knew wouldn't work. So, MS and the DOJ end up on the same team defending the consent decree. They win. Then Bill goes out and starts bragging to the press about how the decree won't change Microsoft's business practices one bit. He was right. He won that round.
Then MS pushed things too far again and they're back in the ring with the DOJ. The DOJ isn't going to let them off without an iron-clad solution this time. They learned what it's like to deal with Microsoft the last time around. They don't plan to make the same mistake this time. Hell, damn near every one of Microsoft's witnesses helped the DOJ's case more than any of the DOJ's witnesses. The evidence was there. Their own testimony confirmed their guilt. There's nothing left to do but decide how best to fix the situation. Microsoft wants a flimsy, unenforceable consent decree like last time. The DOJ damn sure won't give them that this time. So Microsoft will complain that they're being overly harsh and that the proposed remedy is too extreme. Well, I say they brought this on themselves. They had the chance to shape up and stop doing the things that the courts had decided were illegal. They chose not to. If you or I do that, we end up in jail for a long time. I don't see why Microsoft's punishment should be any less severe. We can't put the corporate heads in jail, but we can sure take away their power to commit the same crime yet again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is the real issue of monopoly. It is not that Microsoft is supressing other operating systems; they already have dominance in the OS market, and despite their paranoid moves to the countrary (i.e the Kerberos tweak), could maintain that position, legally, based solely on the installed base, the amount of existing software written for Windows, and the number of legacy systems using Windows/DOS compatible software and data. What ammounts to monopoly is using that OS dominance to unfairly gain an advantage in the non-OS software area. So the issue has nothing to do with stopping people from installing Linux(they can't), or even really wether they used illegal means to obtain their current position as the dominant OS (which is definately arguable). It's about non-OS software, and the tactics used to keep it on the desktops of PC's being shipped from OEM's.