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they want to preserve the chance to play the same old tricks -- special and secret OEM deals, required but unpublished interfaces, extend and extinguish, and an interesting new one: rights to inspect the source code of competitors' products!"
>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.
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
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.
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!
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."