Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Watered-down Version Of DOJ Remedy
reuel writes: "Here are Microsoft's comments on the DOJ's proposed break-up plan. Looks like
they want to preserve the chance to play the same old tricks -- special and secret OEM deals, required but unpublished interfaces, extend and extinguish, and an interesting new one: rights to inspect the source code of competitors' products!"
"Gates and Balmer are brilliant!" "Microsoft plays hardball!" Yeah, right. How about a different theory: they're nucking futs!
Look at one end of the paper tube and you see a company with true moxie, with genuine chutzpah, that with a conviction on Sullivan Act violations still in the public's memory buffer is willing to keep up the tempo of scumbag activities because they've got it all worked out in advance how they're going to win hands down and nothing that anyone does or knows matters.
Look at it the other way, though and what you see is a bunch of supremely arrogant squirrels who couldn't get laid with a gun, doing the only things they can do because the voices in their heads tell them to. Corporate culture goes a long way.
It's an interesting way of looking at things, and only time will tell whether or not it will really work for them.
TygerFish
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
>Microsoft has definately abused it's power as a
> market leader (maybe even a monopoly)
MS was found guilty of illegal business practices. In the real world of corporate life, when a company repeatedly and illegally abuses monopoly power (and I do belive they have monopoly power), they are punished. They way monopolies are punished is by breaking them up.
The reason the DOJ is pursuing this admitedly extreme remedy is that MS has repeatedly ignored or circumvented other less drastic injunctions. If they had not shown that prior disregard for government imposed remedies, I would not support a breakup. However, while it pains me to see the government interfering in the private sector so much, it would be worse if when the next Big Thing(tm) came along, MS could use it's dominence in the OS and productivity applications market to stifle honest competition for market share.
Nothing in this breakup plan is likely to weaken the stranglehold MS holds on certain current technologies -- if Linux (or anything else) is to unseat MS as the OS of the masses it will have to be soley on vastly superior technology and lower cost. However, hopefully we can protect as yet undiscovered markets from unfair and predatory business practices.
No matter how this plays out it is going to be a pain in the ass for a lot of people for some time. However, I think this is the price we have to pay if we want better competition in the long run.
Both for AT&T and NSI, the breakup of a monopoly (though obviously very different) caused concerns of incompatability and consumer harm. Yet when all was said and done, people figured out way of making things work together and the benefit to consumers has been great. I don't know how MS will do it, but I am sure it is possible.
And who is to say that the Apps division will only develop for Windows? They might, but on the other hand assuming the OS division doesn't backstab them early, they might see it as an opportunity to turn the OS into a commodity market. Consider that if every major application ran on Windows, Linux, BeOS, and *BSD, the choice of OS would be kind of like choosing between Dell and Micron... you get slightly different bells and whistles but you can do your work on any of them basically the same. This is probably going to happen sooner or later anyway, so if I were a major application vendor I would want to be in on it early.
Why is no one addressing the other major elements of the Microsoft proposal?
1. the insistance on having this classified as a divestiture, instead of a reorganization (and the attendant legal benefits) (see below)
2. The fact that Microsoft is an international entity -- and could easily remain monolithic abroad, with only the US units being separate (and unified control manifesting to an overseas unit!)
3. That under such an arrangement, American law would be of limited effect. (If you thought MS had clout with the US govt etc., imagine the consideration it might get from a small 'unfriendly' nation.
4) That its overseas units can only participate in the divestiture *in accordance with local laws* -- which can prevent the final overall divestiture indefinitely, certainly for many years (I think CitiGroup tried this trick a few years ago)
In fact, as I go down this document, I see more pitfalls and minefields than tha Maginot line and the former BDR/DDR (E/W German) border combined. And IANAL
Surely others are interested in the substantitive issues that will affect the Real World break-up far more than our (largely unheard) M$ bashing
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
The reason Microsoft has their monopoly, is because they control both the applications and the OS. They control the entire desktop.
This allows them to lock the user in. By splitting the company into an apps co and an OS co, the reasoning (hope?) is that the applications company will now be free to write apps for other OS's. And that the OS company will be more willing to work with other application vendors.
So the point is to foster innovation (!) and competion with companies other than Microsoft. If Microsoft was split in three companies that do the same things all you have is Microsoft competing against 'itself'. Other companies would still face the same barriers to entry they have today, only more so, since they have three 'Microsofts to contend with.
You are correct in observing that both companies will have a dominant position in their market. But neither would control the entire desktop. And that's the point.
Steve M
I know we all hate to see Microsoft go but the breaking of a monopoly is actually good for us since it rejuvenates competition. Take a look at what has happened in the domain name business with the breakup of the Network Solution monopoly, prices have dropped dramatically and companies are now offering more and more services with registrations all at a better price. I say nothing but good can come of breaking up Microsoft.
It won't hurt Microsoft that bad, I mean do you really think the breakup of Microsoft is going to make Windows go away? Of course not. There is still too much money to be made.
If I was the DOJ I would be severe as I possible could since Gates and Microsoft are known to be hard hitters and even with a breakup they will still fight their hardest to maintain the monopoly they have now. They'll go down kicking and screaming, you can count on it...
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
They have balls, I'll give them that. Balls but no brains. It takes some serious testicular fortitude to drop a dingleberry like this:
providing to the other any APIs, Technical Information, or Communications Interfaces, or technical information that is not simultaneously published, disclosed, or made readily available to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs; provided that this provision shall not apply when (a) representatives of the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business are engaged in technical discussions to ensure (1) that their products work well together or (2) that developers in one Business take into account input from developers in the other Business; (b) the two Businesses are working together cooperatively to develop new software technologies;and expect anybody to let it slide. It defeats the entire purpose of the breakup, and the DOJ certainly understands that. Do they expect that the DOJ of all groups would get bored by the legalese and overlook it?
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
The DOJ seems to think their counter proposal has enough merit that they asked for Judge Jackson for an extension in the case to review the merits of MSFT's proposal and will issue a response.
Of course, they may simply be doing this to cover themselves when (not if) the case is appealed and thus will be able to say they gave MSFT every chance and considered every option.
bill gates sat at his computer. the worry over the antitrust case had weighed heavily on his shoulders for so long. bill loaded up internet explorer. he admired the sleek, user-friendly interface. he smiled at the accomplishments of his grand company as the microsoft attorneys and upper-level management bickered about the details of microsoft's remedy proposal.
bill clicked his way through the internet, sailing from one site to the next. he decided to do a search on "microsoft." 3.141 million matches. he clicked the first link and waited. slowly, the slashdot home page rendered onto his screen. he browsed the list of articles on the page.
something caught his attention. bill looked fondly upon his aibo. he clicked "read more" under a story labelled, "SONY ANNOUNCES NEW AIBO: SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN MAGIC PETRIFICATION RAY A REALITY!" bill was intrigued by the multitude of insightful, informative, interesting and funny comments. he reached the very bottom of the page. his attention was taken by a fascinatingly titled post, "OPEN SOURCE NATALIE PORTMAN"
bill read the post. he became aroused. he thought a moment... "hmmmm. open-source natalie portman..."
bill jumped from his chair, his genitalia stimulated, his face red. he rushed down the hall and burst into the conference room. shocked, everyone looked up.
"we must be allowed to see the source of our competitors!" he screamed.
i like german girls. and nannies.
NOTE: I can't use the strike tag here, so stuff in square brackets was struck out by Microsoft:
.doc so that a linux filemanager can recognize them and add the appropriate icon. Aha! Interoperability! And if they make available a windows bitmap of an icon that can be used (subject to the appropriate licensing terms, of course)...that's just plain generous!
.doc), you want to write files a windows box can read? Save them as text-only. More interoperability. Look how well Microsoft shares toys in the sandbox!
"Technical Information" means all information regarding the identification and means of using APIs and Communications Interfaces that competent software developers require to make their products running on any computer interoperate [effectively] with Microsoft Platform Software running on a Personal Computer. [Technical information includes but is not limited to reference implementations, communications protocols, file formats, data formats, syntaxes and grammers, data structure definitions and layouts, error codes, memory allocation and deallocation conventions, threading and synchronization conventions, functional specifications and descriptions, algorithms for data translation or reformatting (including compression/decompression algorithms and encryption/decryption algorithms), registry settings, and field contents.]
I guess Microsoft didn't think they could avoid interoperating, they left it in. They just change the wording so they don't have to effectively interoperate. So: they tell people that word files end in
Unpublished APIs? What unpublished APIs? We don't officially use those anymore. You don't need them to interoperate. Ignore the fact that everyone uses them because that's what they were written for.
Now that you can read Word files (remember: they end in
Yech! Look at their revisions sometime. The stuff they took out, added, and re-worded is just sick. They claim the government's definitions of just about everything are too broad, so they narrow them, making them apply to just about nothing.
And just look at the big section of nixed stuff at the bottom. Despite complaining throughout the document of imprecisely defined terms, Microsoft objects to the precise definition of this term, and wants to scratch it all out. This is almost starting to sound familiar familiar familiar familiar...
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
One way to look at File Formats is that they are essentially APIs for non-volitile data storage.
In any event, in addition to open APIs we need open file and data storage formats. No more forcing people to standardize on sub-standard software (such as Word, for example) simply because other programs have a perceived difficulty reading or writing to the same file format.
In the free software community, a library of file format filters to which all programs which store text or data to disk link would be fantastic - then people could truly run the Word Processor, spread sheet, image editor, and presentation manager of their choice with complete confidence that others will be able to read and share their documents.
While the free software community can do much, at some point someone needs to step in and require, be it through customer pressure or outright legislation, that APIs and File Formats be both published and adhered to. I favor the former, but would take the latter over the current state of affairs.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I suppose you can't blame MS for trying. Like a condemed man shouting "But I'm innocent!!" on his way to the gallows.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Typical Defense of MS:
The Bottom Line:
What they have done is NOT illegal for most companies, but IS illegal for a monopoly. When you are a monopoly you must play by a different set of rules than everyone else in the industry. The Double Standard (tm) is NOT some anti M$ crusade. It IS the LAW. - A law that's been around a lot longer than Monsieur Gates has walked this planet.
Please, if you want to defend M$, whether you genuinally beleive their innocent or just enjoy playing devil's advocate, please, please come up with something more creative than "they did nothing wrong".
--Aaron Greenberg
Microsoft's "management, sales, products, and operations" are all tightly integrated, reflecting the fact that Microsoft is--and always has been--a unitary company.
From testimony in the trial:
"I will be honest with you," answered Schmalensee, an important witness for the company. "The state of Microsoft's internal accounting systems do not always rise to the level of sophistication one might expect from a firm as successful as it is."
When Boies pressed him, Schmalensee added: "They record operating system sales by hand on sheets of paper."
(source: zdnet)
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
In connection with any disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces or Technical Information required under this provision, Microsoft may require the persons to whom such disclosures are made to:
i. pay a reasonable royalty to Microsoft for use of its intellectual property; [7]
Bites!
ii. disclose to Microsoft any APIs or Communication Interfaces that such persons have implemented in their products to permit them to Interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software; [8] and
How about everyone disclosing their APIs?
iii. allow qualified representatives of Microsoft to inspect the source code for such persons' products in a secure facility for the sole purpose of ensuring their compliance with the requirement that Microsoft's source code be used only to enable third-party products to Interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software. [9]
I don't think so.
BS - we really should encourage OpenAPIs - what MS has done with Kerberos and doing with SOAP is BAD for ALL.
"We can admit that we've been wrong," a spokesman for Microsoft said. "And it's time we corrected our mistakes. So, beginning today, we will release all of our software under the MGPL."
"Of course, there have been some changes," the spokesman continued. For one, the "click-wrap" license says that, by agreeing to it, the user agrees that all source code written by the user, upon any computer, using any operating system, shall be immediately emailed to Microsoft.
The license goes on to say that its terms "shall be utterly binding, without recourse, upon all entities, whether living or dead, everywhere, forever", and that the user "shall enforce the terms of this license, as a member of Microsoft's unholy Army of Terror."
The spokesman said Microsoft anticipated a positive response from the government. "And I think the public will be quite happy to help Microsoft defend its right to innovate -- after all, they will have the most important role."
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and writer of the original GPL, could not be reached for comment. An anonymous source at the FSF said that Stallman was "running for the hills."
Carousel is a lie!
As far as microsoft's "integration" of a web browser into their operating system. I don't believe this is a valid excuse to break up the empire. In many respects, integration is a benefit to the consumer. (While IE may not be the best implementation) I don't believe that you can honestly say that this is a valid monopolistic practice. No one is forcing the consumer to use IE, they're just making it slightly more convenient, and everpresent. If i don't want to use IE (assuming i would use windows for anything other than a few games), then I can just opt not to click on that little blue E.
:P ) The point is that M$ followed valid business practices. While some of these may have been a little shady (such as altering some industry standards to make them proprietary), none of these practices are illegal.
If IE could be uninstalled, I'd agree with you, but it can't be, and thats the problem. Windows loads IE on startup, the damn thing is always there running whether you want it or not, so contrary to your "you're not forced to use it" the simple truth is, YES YOU ARE. If you use Win95 OSR2 or any windows after that, you are forced to use IE, you are forced to let it suck up your RAM and CPU cycles, and you are forced to reboot when the fucking thing crashes and bluescreens you. Integration a benifit, my ass.
As far as monopolistic business practices otherwise. Would you step to the front of the room please if you would have done any different (open source developers, you don't count because you're not entirely greedy
Not illegal? You think the judge is pretty much ordering the breakup just because he wants to? No. Anti-trust law is quite a valid law, and MS broke that law. No, I wouldn't have done most of what MS has. I wouldn't have made DrDos "incompatible" with Win3.x, I wouldn't have bought Stac and fired everyone, I wouldn't have integrated IE with the damn OS (put it on the installation CD if the user wants to install it yes, integrated it with the OS no.), I wouldn't have forced OEM's to buy Windows, to put the IE icon on the desktop stock, I wouldn't have persued the development of MS-Bob, I wouldn't have broke off ties with IBM over OS/2.
Microsoft didn't become the company it is today because it played "fair" and it certainly didn't become the most popular OS in the world because it sucked.
They didn't become the most popular OS in the world because it was any good either.
-- iCEBaLM
They also wouldn't pleas Microsoft and wouldn't satisfy the "hang them high" crowd. Here they are. Very simple and with details that can be worked out latter.
1. Volume Pricing. Simply put they can't sell to the goy buying 1,000,000 units for less than they sell to the goy buying 2,000,000 units.
2. For each program they produce which generates document files or communicates across the network they must produce a simple file viewer or packet catcher ( where appropriate ) that is 100% compatible. No bells or whistles at all required. The catch is that this viewer must be under a BSD license and come with the full source code.
3. At Microsoft's own discretion they can use an IETF owned format instead of following #2 above. When they do it this way the I*ETF must approve the compatibility of each release.
Note that MS may interchange 2 and 3 at it's own discretion but not ignore them both. #1 is not optional however. They would of course need a whole new set of arguments to combat these remedies. After all they have no impact on what MS claims it wants aside from posibly increasing development costs a little.
For the user it would solve all the choice issues in one fell swoop.
PS: Too bad the Judge in this case won't ever here or care about this sort of thing.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
No one is forcing the consumer to use IE, they're just making it slightly more convenient, and everpresent. If i don't want to use IE (assuming i would use windows for anything other than a few games), then I can just opt not to click on that little blue E.
Yes, but in addition to that convenience, you pay the price of source code combination into the core Windows API. HTML/HTTP rendering code right next to memory swap drivers (and in some cases, even in the same files -- see the DOJ report for a full breakdown from their experts). What this means is that the OS's bugs are now the browser's bugs AND VICE VERSA. Think about it -- how many of us have had Windows crash simply because IE choked on some Java applet? Any benefit to the customer is offset, and some might say trivial in comparison, to the lowered stability (and therefore usability) of the whole OS. Plus, it cuts down consumer choice of OS. I might not want a browser on my 98 box. Maybe I'm making dedicated game machines. Not that this is a necessarily "evil" (tm) thing, but reducing customer choice isn't usually construed as being for their benefit.
The point is that M$ followed valid business practices.
A small sample of a VERY long list:
My point is the judge found that Microsoft has a documented history of breaking the spirit and the letter of the law when it suited its purposes.
Time to stop complaining and just make something undeniably better. MS gets to stay intact, albeit smaller. The product that's the best wins...then we all win.
This is a pleasant fiction that is inscribed on the gravestones of hundreds of computer companies. How many great ideas in computing, and in almost any field, have never really caught on or exploited by savvy investors years down the line? People do not judge on merit alone, unfortuantely. (of course, having no universal standard of merit hurts too.)
Ah well, life sucks sometimes. Microsoft will no doubt experience this fact firsthand before long.
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
I'm sorry, but are you listening to your own words? They most certainly did things that were illegal. They used strongarm tactics, backed up by their monopoly, to stop OEM's from doing what they had every right to do (bundle Netscape in this case).
I don't know what that means where you come from, but last I checked, that was covered under antitrust law. MS most certainly did not follow 'valid' business tactics. Defeating the competition is valid. Defeating the competition simply because you can push around sales outlets (OEMs in this case) and stop them from doing things you dislike isn't so valid. I'm not arguing on grounds of morality, this is the law.
Now, I do agree with your point on people needing to shut up and do something about it. Just like all the YRO stories in the world will prevent laws like UCITA because we're all too lazy to write our congressmen. People tend to get what they deserve.
In fact, the original recommendation by the government does, indeed, demand that Microsoft open the source. Not as in open source writ large, but certainly to a large number of developers.
In other words, give all developers the same level of access to documentation of the system API as you give Microsoft employees. The document goes on to add that developers must be using the code strictly for the purpose of developing programs to run on that platform, rather than to use it in a product which would compete with the OS.
Microsoft, as you might have guessed, wasn't real pleased with this, and they added their own language, including the right to charge a royalty to see that code, plus the right to inspect whatever the developer produces, "for the sole purpose of ensuring their compliance with the requirement that Microsoft's source code be used only to enable third-party products to Interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software.".
Shady. On the one hand, the language of the document essentially demands that they set up a "secure facility" for the purpose of showing people this code. That's mucho bucks, which might justify them charging a royalty fee. And, since the opening of the code is supposed to be for the purpose of developing software on the platform, I can see why they'd want some kind of enforcement policy (the "we get to see the code" part). But in all other respects, very very shady.