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.

Comments

Fiasco? *I* don't think so.

[|deity|]

With out the breakup of bell linux might never have come about. Part of the popularity of Unix was it's cheap price and the fact that one could get the source code for only a small fee. "Unix was cheap. AT&T had been forced to practically give it away for free by government order.", a quote from a recent Salon story. AT&T was not allowed to make money off of technology that did not relate directly to communications. Without that breakup BSD would not have been developed and neither would linux at least not as easily or in this short of time.

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.

A Nice Pace

[Seumas]

It's nice, for once, to see Microsoft walking into things with the mentality that they've always carried. Instead of helping them here, it makes the situation worse. It's like the little kid who's parents let him get away with practically anything. Parents go away for the weekend and hire an old-bitty of a babysitter and the little kid suddenly finds himself being scolded every time he turns around. He just isn't used to this and doesn't know how to react.

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

Bundling

[Convergence]

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,

Nonsense (was: Re:I think Microsoft will win)

[cjr]

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.

Split them up along product lines

[the_other_one]

Bug Free Software

Solitare

Freecell

Minesweeper

Notepad

Broken Sofware to be open sourced

everything else

Re:I think Microsoft will win

[Chris Siegler]

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.

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 ;-)

Re:Sorry, but I cannot in good conscience agree

[Zagato-sama]

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

[Reality Master 101]

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.

--

Billion dollar game of chicken

[348]

This was allways a billion dollar game of chicken between the Clinton administration and M$. Clinton and Co. succumbed to the pressures of lobbyists shortly after the infomas Netscape letter which just happened to be in line with Gore and Ms. Clinton campaign supporters. Gates and M$ formally have NEVER backed either party. Gates was invited to the White House on several occcaisions and courted in hopes he and M$ would contribute. They did not.

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.

And I can't agree with you.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

I think Microsoft will win

[konstant]

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!

That's one way to look at it... here's another...

[Danse]

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.