Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Decides To Break Up Microsoft
Well, it's official. The United States Department of Justice has called for the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies: an applications company which will manage software like Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer, and an operating systems company that will manage products such as Windows NT. CNN coverage here.
That would be simple, and arguably OK. But that won't happen. To avoid the slightest hint of collusion, there will have to be
Helpful Usenet postings might even be banned, unless they can guarantee full propagation. (Good luck there!) Employees will be fired, fined, or imprisoned for accidentally talking to the wrong person. It is absurd to make professionals work in that environment.
The DoJ and the court are simply ignorant of the practical ramifications their decisions will have. In fact, they think they know so much about engineering organizations that they don't even need to listen to Microsoft's outside witnesses. Imagine trying to break Linux development up into the Kernel-Mode Division and the Userland Division, with an insulation layer of attorneys and judges in between, and without allowing Linus Torvalds or Bill Joy to speak. Thirty-seven hackers would be found dead the next day from laughter. But that's what the DoJ/court proposed for Microsoft, with a straight face. And they truly, sincerely think it is OK. They're so far off in their own imaginary world that Jesus Christ himself couldn't find them with a telescope.
Office/OS "collusion" didn't even break the law. What broke the law was the discriminatory, anti-competitive contracts. Simply making Microsoft offer the same terms to all customers (e.g., $300/MS-Office for quantity 1, $270/MS-Office for quantity 100, etc.) would have eliminated the bulk of their anticompetitive behavior. Making them publish APIs for advertised features would have eliminated most of the rest.
I think it's a bad precedent, and people are happy just because Microsoft is being shit on. But free speech includes the right *not* to speak, to keep trade secrets and confidences. When the attorney for the United States decides that you've been "anti-competitive" by not publishing something, you'll change your tune.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
This will be a big boost for the WINE effort, as I mentioned previously. More than that, we'll probably see every x86 OS that has a POSIX-compliant API module offer a Win32-compliant API module. In time, they'll all run Office just fine. Some of them will probably work better than Microsoft's OS offerings, too.
Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the APIs to break compatible software, either; the decision prohibits that. And of course none of this waits on appeal; only the breakup is delayed.
In the end, this might be good even for Microsoft. They've dumped much junk in their OS to maintain their monopoly. That strategy now stops working. So they may let the engineers determine what goes in the OS again, as they did when Dave Cutler designed NT, instead of the marketing people, as they did with Win98/98/NT4/NT2000. We'll see.
Microsoft will probably drag their feet on API disclosure. But it won't work. The only question is whether they give in before, or after, the judge sends some Microsoft executives to jail for contempt. That's a very real possibility. Federal judges have more than enough power to enforce their orders.
Microsoft probably won't win on appeal, either. Unlike Judge Sporkin, who made some mistakes in the first Microsoft antitrust case back in 1994 (yes, this is try #2), Judge Jackson has done a good job. Nobody has pointed out any serious errors on his part. The trial has been watched by so many people that any major reversable errors would have been widely publicized.
Read the actual final judgement; it's better than most of the commentary on it.
I suspect that MS-AP will wind up keeping the Microsoft name, and MS-OS will wind up being called "The Windows Operating System Company" or some similar name. This would make sense because MS-OS is going to remain a much more tightly focused company with a single, well known trademark. Thus it makes sense to leverage that trademark as a new company name and let the more diverse MS-AP keep the (also very well known) Microsoft moniker.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I'm not sure what Judge Jackson did differently from previous judges, but it prevented the case from turning into a decade long battle of legal armies.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wall Street has expected this for a long time. I'm no stock guru, but I'd say that the ~35 point drop we saw in the last few months has a lot to do with people basically reacting to what happened today (if that makes sense). If MS wins an appeal, I would expect to see the stock price bounce right back to where it was.
Microsoft won't win an appeal. This isn't going to be another rigged game like the last three trips to the circuit court - it's going straight to the supreme court and Judge Jackson's work is as airtight as it gets. Even during the period before the Supreme Court rules on it, Microsoft will be hobbled by restrictions we'd never have imagined just a year or so ago. This isn't speculation, it's for sure. When the thickheaded market finally realizes this, guess which way Microsoft's stock is headed.
Don't forget also that there are a hundred or so private suits in progress (more to come no doubt) and all those guys have their greedy eyes on Microsoft's $50 billion cash horde.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Isn't the point of democracy to first elect responsible leaders and then have them lead? Possibly, though, the democratic process doesn't quite work wherever you live?
The idea that government should not be allowed to interfere with business in any way is absolutely absurd. Business has only its own interests at heart. The government theoretically has the interests of the population at heart. If this is not true, there is somthing wrong with the process by which people come to power and this needs to be fixed, rather than bowing down before the almighty corporations.
Logi - I can do anything, but not everything.
That isn't what I see the text saying:
(apologies for HTML illiteracy)
> 2. Provisions Implementing Divestiture
> a. After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business
> nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets[...]
This, and other parts, say the remedies last only for the term of the Final Judgment (obviously, I suppose.) But look here:
> 6. Effective Date, Term, Retention of Jurisdiction, Modification.
> a. This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered; provided, however that sections 1.b and
> 2 (except 2.d) shall be stayed pending completion of any appeals from this Final Judgment.
and a couple lines further:
>c. This Final Judgment shall expire at the end of ten years from the date on which it takes effect.
So, if we understand "the date on which [the Final Judgment] is entered" to mean today, then ten years from today (plus 90 days) the ballgame is over. That portions of it may be stayed pending appeal will not (as I read it) extend the time the companies must be separate. If I've missed the part that says otherwise, please enlighten me.
I loathe MS but I disagree with you.
They can still keep their patents. But they can't take action (etc) if a 3rd party develops something that competes with their software.
So if you develop a player for FOO multimedia files and are thus competing with MS they can't attack you. But you can't just use their patents - that's not the same as competition, b/c it's illegal on it's own.
You answered this yourself: But they can't take action. Please tell me how a patent that they can't legally enforce is going to stop anyone from doing anything. We will have three years to figure out how to get the stupid patent itself overturned.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
... doesn't mean that your OEM won't purchase them seperately and install them on your system, or that you yourself can't do that.
Remember, this is just to keep MS from screwing off in the future. So what if your OEM has to go to N+1 companies instead of N. Most big OEM's install a half-doxen commercial packages and a dozen or more demo's. One more or one fewer won't make much of a difference.
Fines don't go to victims; they go to the gov't.
If a company wants a remedy, they need to sue Microsoft.
-Billy
As Jackson says in his ruling, Microsoft still doesn't admit a damn thing. It's is just so maddening that they are still practicing business as usual with PDAs and what not. I imagine the judge finds it contemptuous.
But MS has made it very clear that anything short of a breakup will be useless, because they'll never change their behavior. They're the repeat offender who finally keeps getting in trouble, because no matter what the punishment, he just won't change. This time the key gets thrown away. Bye, bye MS, I hardly knew ye.
-Jon
this is my sig.
They can do this all they want, they cannot touch open source software :)
Finkployd
This leads one to wonder about things like DirectX - is it part of the operating system, or is it actually an application all on it's own?
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The MS APIs are probably the best-documented in the industry.
:)
You had me until that line. Now I know you must have been joking
Finkployd
"Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System... "
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
You got it exactly backwards. This says that IE can't be tied to Windows in any future distribution.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining
Who's claiming that? Everbody knows we're out to "get" Microsoft, because they cheat and break the law, while consistently carrying on business without any detectable shred of ethics or morality.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
For crying out loud, if Pablo Picasso had gone around stealing old ladies's purses or if James Jopyce had run around the streets of Dublin throwing rocks through shop windows, they'd have gone to jail like any of the rest of us.
Nobody's "persecuting" "innovation." (Let's leave to one side the word-grinding debate as to whether Microsoft was or wasn't really innovative, whatever that means, for right now.) Microsoft is being whacked because they broke the law - to be precise, after already having been warned once about their dubious tactics in 1994, they proceeded to stamp up and down on the law and feed the shreds through a tree chipper.
Keep in mind, though, that the DOJ isn't beating up Microsoft because Microsoft took unfair advantage of the general public. We mere citizens don't count shit to the government. Microsoft is being punished for screwing over a number of other multi-billion dollar corporations.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Following up my own post...
Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can)
Well, actually, no, not the way this restriction is written. But another provision of the remedy does offer a lot of promise:
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that ISV or IHV to -
i. use, distribute, promote or support any Microsoft product or service, or
ii. develop, use, distribute, promote or support software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft product or service...
Bingo! We just have to have an ISV (Red hat? Suse? Mandrake?) bring out a media player that incorporates ASF, Microsoft sues, and gets slammed by this provision. Any of you lawyers out there care to comment?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
:)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Telling someone "here, this is what we do, oh, and BTW, you can't do that without paying us licensing fees" doesn't seem much use to me. I don't think the jugement affects this. Nothing that I could see (IANAL) seemed to stop them from owning and using patents - in fact, the final judgement states that IP rights used by both companies (presumably including patents) "shall be assigned to the Applications Business, and the Operating Systems Business shall be granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to license and distribute such Intellectual Property in its products".
There's a very big difference, IMOHO, between having you arrested and arresting you; likewise between having your property taken away and simply taking your property away. Sure, either one sucks. :-) But if it's wrongly done, the blame must ultimately lie with the government.
The government meddled from day one by awarding software patents and making it difficult to reverse engineer legally. While I disagree with the ruling, I do not have a problem in theory, at least, with the government, which enabled Microsoft's profits through intellectual property laws (which are monopolies according to the Constitution), testing to see if Microsoft is abusing the privilege
It seems a very bad thing to me. If government-awarded privileges show themselves destructive of the common good, the privileges themselves need to be curtailed. The goverment has certainly created and then punished monopolies in the past. Ma Bell, for instance. Legislation to fix legislation to fix legislation is all too common, and too dangerous.
(IP is only a right if you assume that government grants rights rather than protects them, IMHO.)
There's a distinction traditionally made between natural rights (life, liberty, property, for instance), and created rights (though I'm not sure "created" is the right term). I certainly view IP as the latter sort.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
No. I detest Microsoft, and I love freedom. My feelings for Microsoft, however, are irrelevant.
Did you actually follow this case AT ALL?
Anti-trust laws protect the common interest, not freedom. This is an inherent compromise. I cannot make better reply to such a vague question.
PS M$ HAS performed criminal acts; that's the whole point.....
No. That is an important point; there are other points. The punishment must fit the crime, and the laws themselves must be just. Such points are important in any legal action.
or are you just part of the Microsoft "grassroots" letter-writing strategy
Let me state my feelings more strongly. Microsoft sucks. Bill Gates sucks. If they go under and he spontaneously combusts tomorrow, Free Beer on me.
There. Happy? I still disagree with you.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
How about "Microsoft" for the application software and "MicrOS" for the OS company? Hey BG, I invented that my own self, but I'll let you use it without even suing you.
Yours WD "Generous" K - WKiernan@concentric.net
I suppose if you want to be really pedantic it's "Get sent evil content in such a way that it happens to be the first thing in your inbox, while you have the preview pane fully enabled, and if the evil content happens to be making use of the ActiveX controls that keep being improperly marked as safe for web use, your computer is toast- otherwise maybe it's just welcome to Melissa-land and here's hoping your friends like getting sent email viruses". But that takes so long to type ;)
Fishbowl--
Here, lemme rephase into a sound bite:
"Linux people say Microsoft can't code. Microsoft agrees--that's why their business practices are so desperate. Believing their code could not survive the rigors of a fair marketplace--even with the unprecedented technical coup that was Internet Explorer 3--Microsoft went so far as to <i>revoke the right of Compaq to sell Windows</i> under the (mistaken) impression that, unless users had the Microsoft browser crammed down their throat, they'd never switch. The supreme irony is that Internet Explorer genuinely is the better product, and never required such vicious tactics to achieve dominance."
People really forget how amazing IE3 was. It was truly incredible.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I was reading the story on C|Net News and all of the sudden, the Windows Critical Update notice came up on my desktop. It's kind of freaky if you ask me.
So if having a monopoly in both the OS and App spheres is not illegal (and I agree that it's not) then why break up the company? Why not slap a punitive fine on them, and other remedies that will prevent further abuse, but leave them intact?
---
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
Microsoft meets the legal definition of a monopoly... you're not the first to point this out. I stand corrected. I was thinking more of monopoly in the dictionary sense:
The legal definition of a monopoly, apparently, concerns percentage of sales, which is an awkward metric, since strictly speaking Linux itself is not offered for sale. But like I said, I stand corrected.
This does not, however, change my opinion on the whole; I assume my reasoning is obvious.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
After the split, MS shareholders [1] will find themselves owning both MS-OS (Micro-S.O.S) and MS-AP (MicroSaps) [2] stock. These two stocks will find themselves competing to keep their places in the portfolios of the same investors. Since there is no reason to expect both companies to perform equally in the next year, they will have to adopt a competitive stance. Otherwise, they will be cutting their own throats to benefit their siblings
In today's tech market market, the importance of stock value cannot be overlooked
[1] except Covered Shareholders = past/present employees and directors with 5% or more
of MS (not many people in *that* group!) who cannot own shares in both companies
[2] My guess is that they'll be Windows Corp. and Microsoft Applications Inc.
If it had been up to me, I'd have set the 'covered shareholder threshold' at 0.5-1% (or even lower) to assure that more of the top management had a personal stake in the competition. However, I suppose that there are SEC reasons for the 5% mark, and most top level executives probably want to see their babies perform.
MS-AP is actually the more profitable of the two, with a broad range of apps and services, and a large market penetration in the layman desktop (a sector that is not eager to retrain in new apps). Both companies fear 'user freeze', where FUD keeps the users on their existing systems (which 'work just fine'). No more lockstepped upgrades of interlocking OS/Apps!
MSAP will find that it has a major asset that is rapidly aging: its expertise in the hidden Windows APIs. They'll be eager for partners to make use of this resource while it is still valid and valued. MSOS, on the other hand, will benefit from releasing as much API info as possible, so MSAP doesn't outperform them on Wall Street and to allow better apps to keep users buying MSOS through Win 2000/Milennium and beyond.
MSOS needs a revenue stream -- which means more paid OS upgrades or license fees, while MSAP would prefer that WinNT/9x/2000/Millenium stayed on the market for a long time. They will have no edge in Win2002 (etc.) Another revenuestream for MSOS would be to buy applications companies and to rebuild its App division (permitted under Section 1(c)(ii) of the decree)
MSAP will be more open to widely porting their apps, and will seek unifying technologies (seeking crossplatform compatibility like any app developer) Their familiar UI is a potent market edge to overcome initial weaknesses in raw performance, but they'll be scrambling for development partners who 'know the terrain' of other OS's.
The bad news is that the 1000 lb gorilla is now two 500 lb gorillas. MS-AP isn't likely to offer very beneficial terms at first! Expect tight NDAs and restrictions, since it knows it has a sure winner (MS-Office, etc.) . The good news is that this will enable Linux/BeOS/etc. to take a place on a lot more machines, which benefits these communities as a whole.
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
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining, when the very thing that the whole trial was about isn't fixed in the end.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Since when does the executive branch have any power of judicial? Bill Clinton isn't a great supportter of it either. I think slashdot should have a poll, a.) can't wait for the breakup, b.) a breakup doesn't work, c.) a breakup but differently d.) lets just break bill gates head e.) who cares its all going to be years from now and by that time everything will have changed
Actually, I believe that as soon as a company's sales represent a certain fixed percentage (over 75?) of a given market, they are a monopoly, in the legal sense. Nobody, not even Microsoft themselves, tried to argue that they didn't have a monopoly. What they argued was whether they had used that monopoly to alter other business transactions in their favor.
And picking and choosing who is a criminal isn't the government's job, it's the court's job. And that's what has happened here.
You're right, you surely don't understand the nuances of the case very well. You don't even understand the roles of the major players.
But ya know what? That's okay. That doesn't make you a bad person, or ignorant, or a fool. It just means you are underinformed. Join the club--there are lots of us.
In this case, I disagree with you that this is troubling, for two reasons. First, Microsoft got what they deserved. No, I take that back--they got a tiny fraction of what they really deserved. But at least what they did get was justified. Second, it won't have much appreciable effect one way or the other. So take heart--nobody got hurt.
Justice is only fun until somebody puts an eye out. -- Mom
MSK
I had completely forgotten that. Did they "try" to do this, or was Compaq unable to sell Windows
;-)
for a time? Are we talking "3.1" ? </i>
Did it. The "smoking gun" letter made it on Cnet. I used to have a link to it; I was going to reference it in a public rebuttal to an anti-linux screed from Ed Muth. Better rebuttals came out before I finished, and I pretty much decided the horse was dead enough
This was Windows 98, incidentally. No IE icon in Win 3.1.
No, you have to f*ck with some <i>big</i> companies before you get to have the Supreme Court agree to break you up...
Anyway, Compaq capitulated. IBM was the company that had to buy Windows 95 off the street(10x the cost of OEM!) because they had the gall to sell OS/2.
Computer industry pricing structures are oddly similar to the prices that HMO's and other insurance companies get on medical care. I'll have to investigate this more...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Resaerch
http://www.doxpara.com
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)
Thank you for picking that nit. Why doesn't someone correct the article?
And though I believe the judge is upholding the laws, I don't believe these laws should exist. I'm not pro-MS, I'm anti-this.DoJ; and this trial is just one of the many reasons.
If Valve and Interplay owned effectively _all_ of the game market, Sherman Act would apply to their working together so closely too. The fact is, it's so unnatural for something like that (Valve and Interplay owning 95% of games or so, nobody much even considering buying games from other vendors, 'nobody ever got fired for buying ValveAndInterplay') to happen, that it's hard to see how unnatural the Microsoft situation is. Does one car maker sell 95% of all cars? Does one soft drink vendor have 95% of the supermarket shelves and twist the arms of supermarkets to have veto power over anything in the supermarket, by threatening to withdraw their product?
When Valve and Interplay can work together so well that they can _break_ a computer software store simply by pulling all their products and leaving the store with empty shelves and nothing to put on them, _then_ I'll consider forbidding them to share information except in public.
Microsoft's been in that position for _years_ and the restriction is deeply justified. I personally would have been happy with just a *SLICE* "OK, now go about your business", but as we know, Microsoft lies, so the ruling _assumes_ that if you just went 'chop' and walked away, Microsoft would go 'florp' and join together again immediately, either clandestinely or right out in the open, and would _be_ still one company, with nothing changed.
It's a pity the ruling had to get into this stuff and make picky little regulations, but really- as if you could tell Microsoft "Okay, break up now! And be good and allow real competition to happen!" As if! So, since they are so deeply criminal, you have to oversee every little thing, because they are totally unrepentant.
*sigh* Hell, nuke 'em. Simplest solution :)
Stock ticker symbols GPF and BSOD?
They do get into a load of marketing trouble if they were to hike their license fees on their IP since this customer unfriendly action would be reflected in revised TCO numbers and whadda ya know Windows becomes much more expensive than Unix.
The fact that they were less expensive than the commercial Unix variants was one of their strong points on the volume low/medium segments of the market.
Quietly, without much fanfare, I've been prepping to move our IT out from under MS's thumb into a standards based, platform neutral infrastructure. I doubt I'm the only Network Admin to be doing this.
DB
Microsoft became more, larger than the government... The government did not like that... Microsoft is broken up...
You can't handle the truth.
Our difference here is semantic. At least here in the US, we say the Legislature writes laws, and the Judiciary interprets them. These are deemed branches of the Government, along with the Executive branch. Lawmaking and judging are, of course, kept separate (or they're supposed to be... but that's a different rant). Perhaps you put things differently up north... but to my ear, it seems odd to say that the courts aren't part of the Goverment. They're certainly not private.
in canada the prime minister (who has incredible powers compared to the u.s. president) appoints supreme court members himself, albeit from a list provided by the provincial law associations with regional restrictions-- ie. three must be from quebec, etc.
In the US the president picks all federal judges, subject to the approval of congress. He generally picks the Supreme Court justices firsthand, and takes the advice of Governors and legislators from his own party on the lower positions. Congressional approval is usually a rubber-stamping, with a few notable exceptions.
such a narrow selective process and yet canadian citizens have complete faith in their supreme court and judiciary. how do they do it?
From your description of the gun control situation, I'm tempted to say, "low expectations". ;-)
Seriously, though, we've had major problems, IMHO, with the whole scheme. Checks and balances only work when the branches of government remain in opposition to one another... if they begin to cooperate, things get messy. In the 20th century the US Executive branch began loading the Judiciary with people biased in favor of increasing the scope of Legislative power. Long, sordid story, and it's nowhere near over.
they recently named the first woman supreme court chief justice in the world.
We appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the US Supreme Court in 1981. Either your justice isn't the first, or you're very casual in your use of "recent". :-)
may i also comment that this has been one of the more civil threads that i have ever seen on slashdot.
Oh... wait a second, I forgot...
YOU FOOL! YOU DISAGREE WITH ME? DIE!!!
Ahh... much better. Forgot I was on Slashdot for a minute there!
your signature doesn't sit well either. you're certainly right about the trade off between individual liberty and the greater good.
I think I'd prefer to say, "the common good". I'm not sure I'd like to say there's a greater good than individual liberty.
while on the subject of canada, somehow the banning of handguns and other firearms north of the border has impinged on the personal freedom to shoot each other and yielded the greater good of fewer broken families and lost friends.
I'm pleased for you. My impression is that your country has indeed often chosen to limit individual liberty in the interests of what it believed was for the common good. It's well that such a place exists; if I wished to live in such a society, I could move there.
I want to be free. I want to be left alone to order my own affairs as I see fit, so long as I don't prevent my neighbors from doing the same. And I want to own guns.
As it happens, I don't at all believe that banning handguns in the US would stem violence (corroborating data available upon request). Frankly, even if it would, I would oppose it. I have no wish to trade liberty for security, and there ought to be a place for such people as I. People who shared this attitude founded the United States, and quite a few still live in it. We'll fight to keep it free.
the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself from the government-- having that *enshrined* in our constitution-- to me is ludicrous. what happened to government of the people for the people?
It has a nasty habit of turning into government upon the people and against the people. Privately held guns are at least something to help prevent that eventuallity. And actually, I see the fact that the goverment might try to take our guns as sure proof that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government.
They are useful for defense against unlawful individuals as well. I don't wish to live in a place where I am not allowed the most practical means of self-defense.
to me that would be like microsoft giving you are hammer to smash the monitor with so you would get less blue screens.
Our government doesn't give us guns; we make and buy them ourselves. Your solution is a little more like Microsoft coming around to collect your hammers, so you don't damage your monitors.
why not fix the problem of disconnection between the government and its people rather than coming up with an ultimately destructive escape hatch?
First of all, I'd prefer the Government wasn't too closely connected to the people. I don't approve of mob rule... the masses are not much more benevolent dictators than individuals. I expect a government limited by constitutional principles.
Secondly, the US government has the potential to run amok. Now granted you guys made us look bad in the 1812 War, but these days the Canadian Government seems an unlikely candidate for Global Despot... they'll just have to stick to overtaxing the Canadians.
Our Goverment is proven dangerous, powerful, and getting more powerful. It's all very well to say, "well, change it, then!" but doing so's another matter. It's not in the nature of government to give away power.
Anyway, there's a long rant for you. Pleasure hearing from you... though I'm not sure why you chose to make a thoughtful post as a Coward.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
How can you expect them not to pay the consequences from a court case in which they fscking FAKED EVIDENCE (thank you, David Boies, for spotting that!) Are they special somehow for being allowed to make up whatever evidence they like in the courts of the United States of America, or does anybody get to lie in court with no consequences whatsoever? Or do you have to be able to buy presidential elections in order to be able to outrank the judicial system and make a fscking mockery of our laws?
Sorry, this is more important than techies at this point. They seriously went too far for my taste with some of those courtroom stunts. In some ways I am deeply unsatisfied with even the breakup and regulation because I seriously think some PEOPLE should be doing jail time- I'd like to see some of the people responsible for this arrogance jailed as felons. I don't think they deserve to be allowed to vote, I think they should spend the rest of their lives as convicted felons, with some of the privileges of citizenship DENIED them. I know several people who _are_ convicted felons who are more worthy citizens than the Microsoft brain trust.
I've been an opponent of the two way breakup since day one, and not because I don't like Microsoft. I really do hope this gets moderated up so that people will perhaps see this.
;)
Quite frankly, two companies is doing nothing. The 'applications group' definition is so blatantly ambiguous and vague that it's trivial for the applications group to say 'okay, we claim WebTV, all our cable company holdings, MSN, etcetera' and embed these kind of things within their applications, continuing to illegally support the applications side of the monopoly.
The OS group will likely compensate by raising prices - there is absolutely no clause whatsoever in the ruling against unfair pricing for consumers and OEMs. Microsoft is not forced to justify costs in any way, shape, or form.
The ruling also has a very severe loophole, which the OS group will be very quick to abuse. They know that in 10 years, if they don't win in appeals, they can get back together again. And they will. Now, what's this loophole? If you read over the ruling, Microsoft is not allowed to cause any "Middleware" to run at decreased performance levels or have difficulties with the OS, *EXCEPT* in the instance where they provide in writing a reason for this, and possible workarounds.
There are NO requirements for what the reasoning must be whatsoever, or restrictions on workarounds. So, in other words, they will DELIBERATELY collaborate WITHOUT collaborating. Microsoft will claim that Office was DESIGNED for Windows and the competitors did NOT so they are trying to 'catch up' or some such nonsense. Or they may just say 'because we feel like it' and list 'only write for OUR OS' as a workaround. There are nowhere NEAR enough preclusions and restrictions against abusing existing market share.
This ruling has more potential to cause HARM to consumers than anything else. It is VERY easy for the applications group to claim WebTV and abuse market share and marketing. There are so many ways for Microsoft's two groups to abuse this ruling *within the ruling's context* and get away with it.
I have ALWAYS advocated a three-way split. Operating Systems, Applications, and Other and Internet Holdings. In case you didn't know, Microsoft owns *MANY* Internet properties, which are tailored EXCLUSIVELY to Internet Explorer. With the applications group in control of these properties and Internet Explorer, they can continue to do this. They also own a cable company that operates near/in DC as well as WebTV. Allowing the applications group to maintain/retain control of these properties and refusing to force them to divest themselves of these properties and/or splitting these properties into a seperate group will give the applications group a painful advantage.
Assuming that the OS group does poorly, once the 10 years are up, the Applications group could merge with them again, or they could just build their own OS based on the OS group's code. There are no restrictions that will prevent Microsoft from regaining a monopoly within a month after the 10 year period has expired, much less a year. Once the 10 years are up, Microsoft will be back to their old ways.
Do you really think this is teaching Microsoft a lesson? They've probably been hiring managers and high level people like mad for weeks leading up to this. All they have done in court is posture and lie. They have known for weeks they would lose and are counting on appeal. They're ready for a split if it comes down to it, and if not, they can simply fire the extras. They won't move, either. To move would cost them all credibility.
Reguarding their stock, as a couple people have asked me, I am not an analyst, but I don't forsee their stock actually plummeting till they lose on appeal. Microsoft's cockiness, attitude, and general "we will get our way because we're the biggest thing America has going for it" (think about the tax revenue) seems to be contagious. Especially to investors. Combined with the sheer amount of shares within the company, this would tend to indicate low volume, maybe a sharp drop, but not a true freefall. Perhaps another point or two. However, Ballmer has damaged confidence and trust *SEVERELY* by filing to sell several million shares *BEFORE* the ruling was issued, as if knowing that the stock was going to plummet. This was released by the SEC today - they seem to be going out of their way, AND the DOJ (note how the ruling wasn't issued till AFTER close of the market?) to prevent a collapse in consumer confidence. Were consumer confidence in Microsoft to collapse, very VERY bad things could happen to the market, and with Microsoft's market cap and valuation, could trigger severe repercussions, in my opinion.
I don't forsee this being out of the courts for at least two years - Jackson had the option to expedite the case to the Supreme Court on appeal (IANAL, that's just how I understood it) and chose not to, indicating another force towards not destroying consumer confidence. Maybe they're counting on everyone forgetting while Microsoft waits on their appeals to be heard. I'm not sure - I don't work for the gov't, and IANAL.
Disclaimer: These are my views, not yours, not my employer's, etcetera, ad infinitum. Reproduction of this comment in whole or part is expressly prohibited without written or emailed consent. Emailed consent may be obtained by sending email to prj@nls.net. Absolutely no commercial reproduction is permitted without written consent, so much as is allowed by Slashdot and VA Linux, formerly Andover.Net's "comments are owned by the poster" policy. No, I'm not anal - I'm just sick of my quotes being stolen.
=RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford
Doesn't exactly roll off your tongue, does it?
Actually, I thought that, since they used to be called Microsoft, and now they are smaller, they should be called Nanosoft. :)
But I capitulated when someone here suggested MICROS~1 and MICROS~2. Now that's funny!
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I must say, I think you're missing the point. It is assuredly not the business of the US Government to look out for Microsoft's good, helping it to improve its products.
Besides which, to say they'll improve their products isn't to say they'll succeed. Improving their products isn't their goal; making money is their goal. If the best product made the most money, several today's underdogs would be on top, along with numerous companies which died along the way.
Q: Did AT&T's parts die after their breakup?
Did AT&T make a living by marketing products with a shorter lifespan than a hamster?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Yes, but intellectual Property that is used both in a product developed, distributed, or sold by the Applications Business and in a product developed, distributed, or sold by the Operating Systems Business as of April 27, 2000, shall be assigned to the Applications Business, and the Operating Systems Business shall be granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to license and distribute such Intellectual Property in its products...
:) I don't see what the problem is?
This means that OS can continue to use COM without restrictions, they just don't own it
So they might as well keep the media stuff- they can go play with AOL/Time Warner *g* get used to the idea that they are allowed to still be slime, because the ruling _must_ restrict itself to the areas where MS is literally choking off all the air, and the venture capitalists are obliged to run every potential project by MS to see if it gets thumbs up and 'yawn, we will allow this to thrive- for a time' or thumbs down and 'I wouldn't- we're going to kill those people, don't invest in that'.
MS media is _far_ from that powerful. Hence, it can go wherever they think it should go, and best of luck to it. Very likely it will continue to struggle for some time- and it's no longer so feasible to dump money into that stuff financed by OS/Office revenues. Some of these things will have to start paying their own way- that is the point.
Who's going to compete against them? Lotus? Lotus software has been a joke ever since excel unseated 123. The free software programmers? They have a lot of potential, but not even a decent mail app at the moment. Betcha they also squat and shit their own platform independent GUI library within 2 weeks of getting split off from the Mother Company, too.
The OS? Who cares once you have an easily portable GUI library. So what if you need to port it to Plan 9 or BeOS or CPM/2000. 93 million people are going to need SOME OS. Maybe you even make money selling that. Of course people will buy. It's MS2 after all...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I see a lot of people here being a bit exhuberant about this ruling. I tend to take everything with a grain of salt..
I'm very far from being any kind of M$ advocate, but splitting up any company is just wrong. It is one thing to punish a company, it is wholly another matter to forceably split it in two. It is like capital punishment:
the government decrees that this entity shall no longer exist, and poof! it longer exists. I hate microsoft, but this concept is scary to me.
While I agree that they are not really that innovative, and that they have done some very illegal things, and that they might even be a monopoly, but a split-up is not the right way to go. There are a myriad of other remedies (opening the windows source code, fines, forcing them to port office to other platforms) that would benefit the marketplace much more than a breakup.
Also, tell me what good does being required to publish interfaces do if they can still keep putting in secret hooks for their apps. Yes, their apps company will know about these hooks, and other apps companies won't... this will never change and it's futile to try to change it... If you force them to open up their IMPLEMENTATION, their SOURCE CODE, then you have actually transferred some power to the end user.
Well, don't flame me just because I'm not all "yeah yeah let's dance in the streets" about this... I'd be curious to hear what rational people have to say...
- jonathan.
The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989
I've done extensive work with extranets, SSL, and web applications here. Here is why the judge has separated the two:
IE does things to the underlying OS that Netscape and any other browser does not. When you install it, it replaces the SSL libraries already on the system. It also replaces a large amount of system files.
As a matter of fact, IE 5.01 will install half the SSL files and security permissions needed to access the supposed secure features of W2K, such as driver signing, encrypted file system, and the Certificate Authorities that w2k uses to authenticate.
Netscape does not do this on any version. As a matter of fact, you can mix and match Netscape versions on your machine, which you CANNOT do under IE. Merrill Lynch, when they first released Merrill Lynch Online for Windows, shipped NS 3.04 because it did the least damage under 128-bit SSL to the system, and it worked.
It is this level of integration that caused this issue in the first place. This is why they want to separate the two between two companies. This level of integration is a NIGHTMARE to all of us who have to deal with SSL. I would prefer to have it so the following happens:
1. I can install multiple versions of IE on a machine, which this will guarantee if this goes through. I now have to have multiple machines to do this, because VMware is slow, especially when emulating IE 5.5 or W2K.
2. The underlying OS will not dictate certain brower functionality and vice versa. IE is notorious for changing the functionality of a system depending on the version.
3. SSL will not screw up a system anymore, and will not install things you do not need or will not use (hopefully!).
AOL & Netscape are APPLICATIONS, no matter how you say it. IE does things to the OS. Netscape does not. AOL does what it has to to the dial-up networking stack because MS's is incredibly flaky and will not work on all computers. AOL is the only application I know of that will work on all computers installed with Windows without the usual major issues of the MS TCP/IP stack. They did an awesome job with it.
I am glad some people see the light and know what MS has done here, which causes all sorts of issues that developers and integrators have to work around because they call it "innovation". This work with IE smacks of typical strong-arm tactics that turned developers away from them.
It does? I just read it and reread it, and I can find nowhere a definition of a monopoly. Please point this out.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
His reaction to the decision, read the transcript here.
I stand corrected... it would appear that they are, from a legal standpoint, a monopoly. Let me put it another way.
I submit that a legal definition, such as this, is a formalization of a common definition. We commonly use the word, "murder", in a certain imprecise but meaningful fashion. Legally OTOH, murder has necessary and sufficient conditions.
Microsoft has viable competition. The people have choices... mine, for instance, is Debian. Calling such a situation a monopoly is like accusing someone of murdering a still-living person. If it's legally true, the law's wacky.
What they argued was whether they had used that monopoly to alter other business transactions in their favor.
And this is clearly nebulous. :-) What kind of a law is that? You can have a monopoly, but you can't use it... and you, the company, are responsible for figuring out what that means.
But putting aside the (to me, real) issue of whether it's a bad law, I'm far from convinced that splitting up Microsoft is an appropriate "remedy". As Reality Master 101 points out, Antitrust laws ARE NOT PUNATIVE. They are remedial.
And picking and choosing who is a criminal isn't the government's job, it's the court's job.
The court is part of the government. But I think I should be more clear than to say, "pick and choose". When I speak of picking and choosing, I mean when:
When laws are vaguely written, people can easily be selectively prosecuted for violating them. You can write laws so that everyone is a criminal... if you can then pick and choose who to prosecute, you've got tyrrany.
You're right, you surely don't understand the nuances of the case very well. You don't even understand the roles of the major players.
But ya know what? That's okay. That doesn't make you a bad person, or ignorant, or a fool. It just means you are underinformed. Join the club--there are lots of us.
You argue couthly... I appreciate the courtesy.
In my own reductive view, there are only two major players. The People of the US (moreso those of certain states than others), and Microsoft. Laws are in place which limit the freedom of economic activity, in the economic interests of the people.
That doesn't qualify me to decide the case, but I can certainly evaluate, in a general way, the justice and efficacy of the laws, and the way in which they're being enforced.
I disagree with you that this is troubling, for two reasons. First, Microsoft got what they deserved.
By this argument, you can throw out due process entirely, so long as someone gets what they deserve. You could justify lynchings that way.
Second, it won't have much appreciable effect one way or the other.
Again, the end directly justifying the means. You're probably right... I don't see how MS can beat the Free Software movement. But there's a big difference between losing a fight and being forced to forfeit.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
its about what they did to stifle competition using powers that only a monopoly has, and how they tried to use their monopoly in one market to create a monopoly in another.
I'm sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. Any questions as to how they used their monopoly powers is predicated upon the assumption that they had a monopoly. And whether they had a monopoly is a question of whether they have competition.
being a monopoly isnt illegal, what microsoft did was and they must be stopped from doing it further
Of course, whether it should be illegal is at issue here. And yeah, wouldn't all hell break loose if Microsoft were to give away yet more software. Sheesh.
and punished for their crimes as well.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there's no question of punishing Microsoft here. Antitrust laws are not punitive. They are remedial.
simple as that
Your opinion is simple indeed.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Well its generally precident that in anti-trust cases, the verdict is not supposed to be punishment, but remedial in nature. In other words Microsoft isn't being punished (and if they were the punishment would have been harsh,) but simply the desisions by the courts are indented to fix the problem and help everyone, even possibly Bill Gates if he handles the split right, could continue to make even more money.
I appreciate the interesting point. I looked the matter up. The US Constitution forbids both Congress and the States to make ex post facto laws, without distinguishing between criminal and civil laws. (Aritcle I, Section IX, Clause III, and Article I, Section X, Clause I).
Disturbingly enough, however, you're right... the interpretation that these clauses apply only to criminal laws goes back to 1789, Calder vs. Bull.
I am appalled. The more I learn about the constitution, and the way it's been (mis)interpreted, the spookier it all gets. Thank you for pointing this out.
Obviously, MS is not in criminal court, and so your argument of sacrificing an important principle is, in this case, invalid.
Actually, I maintain that an important principle is being violated. It cannot be just to punish people (or companies) for violating either secret or yet-unwritten laws. I didn't realize, however, that such a state of affairs was the status quo.
As far as "picks and chooses who is a criminal", that's called legal judgement. It's the foundation upon which our entire system is based :).
I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Selective enforcement of laws is certainly illegal, however.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
IE is based on MOSAIC....
IE actually grew from Spyglass's version of Mosiac, but it's so ridiculously unfair to deny the order of magnitude improvement that IE3 was. For crying out loud, it had the first good JVM *anywhere*.
IE would have destroyed Netscape without the dirty tricks. Problem was, they got greedy and tried to both co-opt HTML(thus dooming IE4) and enforce compliance By Any Means Necessary.
They just didn't need to.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Of course, a big reason that Linux (and BeOS, and possibly the revival of Macintosh) got so successful is that they were given their chance to come out and not be strangled to death when M$ got hauled into court. Otherwise, those OEM deals would have been very stifling.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I'm not so sure there's a valid distinction to be made between the two, for the purposes of this argument, but let's pass on that...
OTOH MS is still a monopoly in the desktop space, where the only real competition now could be Apple and maybe BeOS, Linux is only entering this and is far from being mature (but its coming).
I daresay, Linux is running quite a few more desktops than BeOS, mature or not. In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop, so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least. And as far as I can tell, that's the only sense in which the consumer needs any protection here.
Don't worry, any suit seems nebulous when you are not a lawyer,
And often, I'm told, if you are. Let me rephrase that... this one seems more nebulous than most. :-)
this is because the law got out of our reach, whic is bad IMHO.
Amen, Brother!
I don't like the Government meddling with technology either but I still think that the anti-trust laws are still up to date.
The more I think and read about it, the more I think they're not. The Sherman Act... we're talking about a document intended to keep a company from limiting the supply of a physical good in order to raise prices. It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy... and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty.
They have. It is not as if they weren't told it was wrong.
Yeah, they surely were guilty of all the antics you list. The real question, to me, is more about the power of the US Government than Microsoft's scruple shortage. Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
Oh, BTW, have you kids? Pretend yes for one minute.
Let's say that you caught your kid doing very bad things.
Let's say that he ask for forgiveness and you grant it.
Let's say you catch him again doing the same thing.
Let's say he deny everything despite ample proofs of the contrary.
Would you let him go away easily?
With this characterization I totally disagree. The US Government is not our parent, and we are not its children. We are adults, governed, supposedly, by our own consent.
Had I children, they would not be secure in their effects against search and seizure on my part. I would not hesitate to ask them self-incriminating questions, and demand answers. They would not be permitted to speak in any fashion they pleased. They are children, and are ruled by their elders, not governed by their elected peers.
There is a growing paternalism in the US Government, which I find most offensive. They're not supposed to be protecting us from ourselves, or deciding who's naughty and scolding them back into the fold. They're supposed to be protecting our rights, and enforcing our contracts and clearly defined, categorically applied laws.
Seriously, they cannot arrest you directly but with the current trend in copyright/patent/trademark/intellectual property laws in general companies (MS included) will have enough powers to put you in jail at a whim because it would be next to impossible not to break these law and to still have a spark of liberty left.
This, however, is really the fault of the government. They're the ones who put you in jail, and who make and enforce unjust laws. So no, it's still not MS I have cause to fear, IMHO.
A government which picks and chooses who is a criminal is another story. Isn't that the role of a governmnet?
This has come up elsewhere, so I believe I should have been clearer in my diction. No, they don't pick and choose, in the sense that they should never have discretionary power over enforcing laws. The role of the Legislature is to make clear, generally applicable laws. The role of the Executive is to bring charges, uniformly, without favor, against anyone who seems to violate those laws. The role of the Judiciary is to decide whether those laws have indeed been broken.
It should never be the case that the Legislature makes laws which are vague, aimed against individuals, or which make the whole population criminal. The Executive must not choose to prosecute one fellow but not another, according to their desires. Nor should the courts play favorites, or interpret law to suit their purpose. These things I mean by picking and choosing.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Yes... I notice your post was number 666 as well! ;-)
I didn't want to post this myself for fear of mindless flaming and ridiculous moderation (as I've already seen).
Yeah... that's a sad state of affairs. I half expected it myself.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I don't keep up too much with Microsoft software for Macs, but I thought that a big deal was made about Office 98 not being a port, as opposed to the previous versions. I could just be thinking of Internet Explorer, but I really thought that was the case for Office 98. That's my recollection, anyway, I just checked a couple of Mac sites (here and here, the first two results from Altavista for '+"office 98" +"not a port"') and they seem to agree with me.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
As Reality Master 101 points out, they're not supposed to be punished at all.
regardless of their position now
Since they are supposed to be remediated, only their present (and possibly immediate future) position counts.
(and I disagree: business structures and attitudes in place unfairly favor M$ precisely because of their monopolist behavior. Since that behavior damages consumer choice, the monopoly is illegal).
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I run Debian. I don't see that my choices as a consumer have been overly limited by business structures or attitudes.
Also, I think M$'s past conduct and history of not abiding by promises / good faith agreements preclude any punishment less harsh than structural remediation.
That's an interesting point... they are a lying pack of dogs, aren't they? If one accepts your prior argument, this one probably merits consideration.
Also, while there's a great deal of attention being paid to Linux and M$ competitors, the truth really is that M$ continues to hold a significant majority of market share through illegal machinations.
The law is not intended to prevent companys from gaining a significant majority of the market share, by hook or by crook. The law is intended to protect consumer choice. Linux, *BSD, BeOS, and other operating systems are available... as are Mozilla, Lynx, Netscape and Opera. Consumers have numerous high-quality choices, and some free ones to boot.
Note as well that there is no regulation in the software industry. Would you rather have a US Department of Computing or a series of unorganized Justice decrees?
I'm not sure what I could have said to prompt such a question, but no, of course not. I'd rather have the Feds stick to their Enumerated Powers, and goverment in general go back to protecting rights and enforcing contracts. I don't see why I must choose between the present (IMHO unacceptable) situation, and the worse one you portray.
Personally, I think our freedom to compute lies not in government regulation but in the correct and apropos application of meatspace law towards the 'net (or at least the US portions), keeping in mind the ways in which the 'net is different than the environment that formed the laws in the first place.
You're an optimist. I think our freedom to compute lies mostly in strong crypto and in ignoring many laws on a fairly massive scale. :-)
M$'s hijinx with Kerberos, its security probs with IIS/IE, etc. only help justify my rather unfriendly attitude towards it..
If an unfriendly attitude were all that needed justified here, we'd be in complete agreement.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Under the circumstances, the higher court's opinion of Judge Jackson's actions don't matter much. The damning part is in the findings of fact, which the appeals courts cannot challenge, they can only review the findings in law. Since the findings of fact essentially say "Microsoft broke US antitrust laws", they have extremely limited room for manouevre.
Similarly, if the higher courts uphold judge jackson's judgement, which they pretty much have to do, they can't change the remedies.
Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. Personally, I don't think that the suit did more than speed up Linux's inevitable ascent... you can't strangle it, and how many people get Linux pre-installed even today?
You're probably right about the Mac (though the pretty colors helped). But then I don't like Apple much more than Microsoft... at least Microsoft has never disappointed me.
BeOS still is barely treading water, as far as I can tell, so God knows what they'd be doing if the suit hadn't come along. Probably sitting on El Camino Real with "Will code for food!" signs. :-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
It was clear from the start that Judge Jackson was out to get Microsoft,
If you listen to the words of Mr. Gates, yes. If you actually read Judge Jackson's findings, you might see that he is indeed quite fair. To listen to Microsoft's legal, PR, and the media outlets they have bought and partnered with is being biased.
Microsoft fakes video tape and lies in court, aggressively pays for opinion pieces in its favor, and we even get to see some of its employees post here. Its not a one time thing. That's what they do. Contrast this behavior to the court. Who do you trust? Microsoft is going to use every trick it can to maintain its monopoly, because one they lose it, its gone.
The OS company shall simply be called Windows and the applications division shall retain the name Microsoft.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
No, Joe, I think you're the only one. The rest of us are overjoyed, or at least indifferent.
Oh, twaddle, we are not. As well you know, having replied to my gripe... so cut out the knavery. ;-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"The folks who line their pocket are the large corporations who then get the rules they want. You would rather leave it to the corporations directly? Isn't this logic flawed somewhere?"
Exactly, we *should* leave it to the corporations directly, i.e, survival-of-the-fittest vs. Govt. regulation to ensure "good" outcomes. Whatever you may say about MS, it won its battles on the field, without using the govt. to do its fighting. Compare this with defense, which gets billions of $$$ in contracts in return for campaign contributions, or tobacco, or the gun lobby, all of whose profits depend more on how happy they keep their congressmen, instead of their customers (well, doesn't matter in tobacco's case - what can the customers do, smoke something else?).
Until recently, the software industry was remarkably untainted by govt. intervention, AKA campaign contributions in return for political support. Companies didn't have to worry about keeping congressmen in their pockets, coz this was one industry where nobody gave a shit what our eminent elected representatives thought.
Now, you can rest assured it'll be like any other heavily lobbied industry. Now, companies will have to spend their resources on keeping politicians on their side, to prevent something like this. Well, it was a good ride while it lasted.
If you develop a product that competes against their similar product, they cannot take action. But if you infringe on their patents, they CAN take action.
Nope, you don't get it. They can't take *any* action, legal or not, against you if it violates the terms of the remedy. That would include creating and patent licence conditions that would violate the terms of the remedy, or enforcing them if they somehow existed. They can have their patent but they can't use it against us.
This gives us three years to figure out how to defeat the patents themselves.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
"Microsoft went so
:-)
far as to revoke the right of Compaq to sell Windows"
I had completely forgotten that. Did they "try" to do this, or was Compaq unable to sell Windows
for a time? Are we talking "3.1" ?
Also, I cannot believe I misplelld "typo"
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
No physical evidence?!? You're kidding, right? If someone robs you and then burns what he took, then it's not provable because there's no physical evidence?
I disagree. The Sherman Act defines in great detail what is and is not a monopoly, and how a monopoly may and may not be used legally. There is very little that is "nebulous" about it.
I wish more people would take the time to read the Findings of Fact. The text is long, but very informative. It first demonstrates that Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly (which isn't illegal by itself), and then exemplifies how they used this monopoly contrary to the Sherman Act (which is definitely illegal).
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
It's about time. Although it'll obviously hit the appeals process, the decision has the split beginning in 90 days. (Hopefully it'll get expidited to the Supremes, who can save everyone time by letting it stand without hearing it)
;)
At any rate, given that I live in Bellevue, not more than a mile from MS, I believe I'll be cruising by and taunting them today. It's childish I know, but I think I deserve a chance to vent after putting up with them for so long.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
continue for three years after said release to license on the same terms and conditions the previous Windows Operating System Product to any OEM that desires such a license
Yowch! Given that most of the software industry seems to be working on a 1-year or less release cycle, the idea that you have to continue selling version [x] for *three years* after the release of version [x+1] is mind-blowing.
Wonder if they're also required to provide bug fixes?
...As the ruling was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. But that would be nitpicking...
Contempt of court, jail time, billion dollar fines...little things like that.
-B
At present Windows is losing ground compared to other operating systems. It seems to me that it just wasn't designed to go much further than it has.
My bet is that Microsoft keeps appealing this until Windows loses enough ground that it ceases to make them any money. At that point they can surrender and allow Windows to be split off into a seperate company. They won't even have to support it anymore. How convenient that would be.
Of course, that's just what I'd do if I were an evil software mogul. I would have repeatedly and intentionally pissed off the DOJ until they had no choice but to split it up.
numb
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
It's interesting that you bring up the movie studios, because I see this as a close parallel.
Breakup destroyed the system the studios had of discovering and nurturing talent both off screen and on screen. At the apex of complexity the musical picture is permanently extinct because the technical and financial depth to do them is gone. The technically sophisticated blockbusters of today usually have to be vetted with a financial committee --and it shows.
On the other hand, talent still finds a way to make moves. And we get more access to a huge range of films, including foreign and indie films that run from quirky shoestring budget affairs up to megablockbusters.
As a consumer, I can live either way. Either way, 80% of the films are utter crap, and a few are gems. If I were a movie maker, I'd like it better this way.
I think the same thing is going to happen in software. 80% of software will still be utter crap, but it will be a lot more fun if you aren't a Microsoft lackey.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Brief: jozz.com
Detailed: jozz.com
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Is anyone else sick of daily updates on this trial when any actual penalties or remedies won't be in effect for another 7 years or so, allowing for the proper appeals?
This is not another boring "Slasher should cover more " posts, it's in the media at large.
Realtime news isn't that important.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
Microsoft also will seek an emergency hold on an order requiring that computer makers be given more flexibility in the way it configures the Windows operating system. The company contends that this would let computer makers damage their Windows product and hence create more cost in service calls and harm the product's reputation when it breaks down.
LOL!!
Let's take a closer look and do some analysis:
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
Interpreted literally, this would mean a "Microsoft employees counting the days until they vest their stock and retire" company, and a "Microsoft employees biding their time to pad their resume" company. Those are the two biggest functional splits at MS.
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
Big deal, the developers on the never-gonna-ship netdocs project don't even share API's with their PM.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
Cannot know? Do you mean know in the biblical sense? That would explain why Michael Dell is so submissive and obedient.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
In a timely manner is the sticking point. Microsoft's arguement is that they've never delivered anything in a timely manner before, and this would constitute undue hardship.
--Shoeboy
I don't work for microsoft anymore.
(former microserf)
Are you kidding? Get paid to be a constant pain in the ass to corporate executives! Where's my resume....
Bwah ha ha! MS wouldn't know innovation if it bit it on their collective asses. I have never been able to think of something they thought up themselves. Evolutionary changes yes, but then, that's not innovation.
;)
Of course, where were you when Standard Oil was broken up? How about when the movie studios stopped owning all the movie theaters? ATT? IBM nearly coming to tbe brink, giving MS and the rest of the microcomputer industry the room they needed to grow?
Competition keeps companies (slightly more than otherwise) honest. Monopolies like MS have no competition that actually threatens them. They have no reason to be good capitalists. Their only motivation has to be to protect their monopoly. And that hurts everyone - even MS, b/c the economy is harmed.
Ironically, the weather guys are predicting that this afternoon we might get some sunlight here in Seattle (it's overcast today). I wonder if they were speaking metaphorically
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Go to E*TRADE and select "After Hours Quotes" on MSFT. You may need to log in / have an account to get the most current info.
For more information, click here.
I know this is a troll, but I'll bite...
---
No longer is innovation lauded, but persecuted.
---
What innovation? We'll laud it when we see it.
Seriously though - please name all of the innovation Microsoft has produced. We'll wait.
---
The unsuccessful are rewarded, and the successful are put to death.
---
If by 'success' you mean shipping buggy bloatware to customers and tying them to closed standards to keep it in place, then I suppose you're right.
Not that Microsoft is in any danger of dying, or that its competitors (the ones that still exist) are taking its place, but...
---
No longer is the consumer important, but just its competitors.
---
That's funny, I could have sworn that I was a consumer...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I had expected to see a LARGE fine attached to the breakup order.
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
Kind of disappointing...
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
I think the split will change a few things.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Hah hah!
(Damn I wish I could post an audio snippet of that!)
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
* smack *
Aww come on maaa... I was having the best dream!
So if the company is broken up, which one served Slashdot with a cease and desist?
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
MSK
That is, the Supreme Court can tell the DoJ to shove it through appeals like everybody else.
I don't know the Justices well enough to determine whether they are likely to, but I just know that they can.
--The basis of all love is respect
If the breakup ever actually happens, which I doubt it will, you can look forward to big changes. Namely, that after the breakup, they're by definition not a monopoly anymore, so anything goes for the two companies, and they don't have to worry about the government sticking its nose in their business anymore.
Of course, a lot of people here think it means that the new apps company will come out with a version of Office for Linux, but that's silly wishful thinking. It's more likely that they'll kill off Office for Macintosh if it's not making much money, as they no longer need to falsely prop up the Mac platform to make it look like they don't have a monopoly. Once that pretense is abandoned, the two companies can be as vicious as they want.
The break up'll prolly never happen, though. At least most of the Slashdotties better hope not. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Well, this is a repost, since my original post 10 minutes ago has apparantly died somewhere in a bitbucket.
See http://www.xfiles.nildram.co.uk/ms/ for a mirror.
Now we just wait for the appeals to begin.. then hopefully, end.
--
David Taylor
davidt-sd@xfiles.nildram.spam.co.uk
[To e-mail me: s/\.spam//]
Isn't that a bit of a paradox?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
On a lighter note, any news on the planned names for the two companies?
Yup.
Micro
&
Soft
--
+&x
Microsoft has consistenly leveraged its size and its popularity in both its OS and its various document management tools("document" including MPEG-4 video streams, mind you.)
Lets say a breakup is completed. Exactly what prevents this leverage from being executed?
So Microsoft Office gets ported to new platforms...this is new? Microsoft has been willing to port its code to popular alternatives to their Windows OS for quite some time--they're even starting to do a semi-decent job of it on the Mac. After all, why let any other Office vendor take over a market?
Splitting Microsoft will probably have the effect of making somewhat riskier steps(i.e. Media Player for an Operating System that MS/OS is seeking to prevent from gaining market acceptance) more feasable. But overall, I can't imagine either corporate culture changing significantly merely because of a simple division.
The split does not solve problems. At best, the split helps enforce whatever primary remedies Jackson can put into place--and considering the culture of MS is at least partially, "We know what's right, and we're smart enough to get around any loosely worded agreement that prevents us from doing that right", compliance is going to be damn near impossible without some truly intrusive measures.
Splitting the company isn't intrusive. It's just a bureaucratic structure.
My first thought would have to be, no matter how the split occurs, an outside board needs to be able to demand with force of law that any programmatically interesting function that's been left undocumented be remedied. The NT authentication functions, required for remote management, come to mind. This is a good example of Microsoft's technical acumen obscured by their business distrust.
It's funny, some Linux people say Microsoft can't code, can't innovate, can't do anything right. And Microsoft agrees. It must be so depressing to work in an office where your code is presumed to be so bad by your own coworkers that they'd go so far as to revoke Compaq's write to sell Windows just because they couldn't imagine that the product was good enough to eventually dominate a market on its own merits.
We shouldn't be directing our regulatory furor against the coders--honestly, they've done some damn good work over there at Microsoft, and about all they've got for it was ten instances of "innovation" per paragraph, followed by chants of "by any means necessary". Microsoft's business side needs to be muzzled--and the bottom line is, splitting one ravenous horde into two still leaves you with two ravenous hordes.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
So that means that MS cannot update the kernel in such a way as make any API obsolete or perform worse if any Windows apps still use it? How many times has a Linux kernel API been removed or "downgraded" because of a change in the way the kernel works? In these cases, a new API is created, and everyone is told to use the new API instead of the old (I think cli() vs. spin_lock_irqsave() is a good example). It looks like MS can't do this, which means the Win32 API is going to stagnate.
Not that this is a bad thing, IMHO, because I've always thought the Win32 API was too much of a moving target, and anything that makes Windows stagnant is a good thing. :-)
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
This does not bode well for the future of large corporations. I wish people would stop things like this, and I hate Microsoft but I don't want the government to mess around in private enterprise. This is not about goverment intervention in private business, this is simply a case where free enterprise has fallen out of control and the goverment must step in and push things back in line. Microsoft has clearly abused their position and power. They have and will continue to use their monopoly positions in both operating systems and applications to push themselves deeper and lock out any chance of competition. If the government doesn't slap them down who can and will?
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
First of all, there's a 2 year of appeals and escalating to the supreme court. Second, at the time the final decision will be made, the Bushor the Gore administration will be in power, and BOTH of these presidential candidates have expressed their sympaties for MS (expecially Bush), so it may even happen that the new DOJ people will drop the case.
Besides, just to show how irrilevant the decision is, the stock market on Nasdaq after hours is howing MSFT up 3/4 to 71 1/4 as I am typing this.
And of course, as someone already noted, it's not the DOJ who decides, but the judge.
Sigged!
If the rest of company behaved like the hardware company, they wouldn't be in this mess (and neither would the rest of the computer industry that depends on them).
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
So that means that MS cannot update the kernel in such a way as make any API obsolete or perform worse if any Windows apps still use it?
That's one way to read it. In intent, I think it's supposed to discourage changes which are *intended* to disrupt the middleware vendor --- and MS could probably work around it by inviting the middleware vendor in and offering to help them update their software to deal with the API change.
Click here
Good for cnet's standards, of course. I guess I'll "bookmark" the writers, Ben Heskett and Mike Yamamoto.
Sigged!
The OS group would be at about $17/share, with earnings in the three-quarters of a dollar range.
The Applications group would be about $40/share, with earnings above a dollar per share.
What will be most interesting is to witness the impact this has on other stocks. If the WIndowsOS is only worth $17, then what's BeOS worth? Bugger all... (and this is, perhaps, accurately reflected in its current pricing).
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
anything that isn't part of the court's definition of OS goes to the other company. Anything that is in both comapnies goes to the app co and OS co gets a free license to use the tech indefinitely. That's from this afternoon's ruling.
Cris E
St Paul, MN
The ultimate irony would be for someone to write a new outlook virus that distributes a copy of the court order to each computer before propagating itself. Any script kiddies working on it yet?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
No, I think many may agree with me, the IE does not have as much value as you say...especially over the 2 portions. Remember:AOL is out of the CONTRACT or whatever they had with Microsoft (i dont know what it was, doesnt matter anyway), and now the world's largest ISP's browser (as well as the worst) will be Netscape...this brings usage of IE down dramatically. Damn, I imagine we all expected the overwhelming user response to this, this will EASILY surpass the previous records, and it goes to Emmett, very smooth...
Bincrypt (bincrypt.com) Curiosity killed the monkey.
Today's big new is that Judge Jackson issued his ruling, agreeing with the DoJ on practically every point.
Remember, the case is DoJ vs. MSFT, with federal judge Thomas P. Jackson as the final arbiter. Well, at least Jackson was the final arbiter -- now, it's up to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court (depending on whether the DoJ requests a "fast track" appeal and whether Jackson agrees to it).
- Richie
e.g. directX - this is an obscure interface to ensure that games HAVE to be written for Windows. That's why they give it away for free- its not out of the goodness of their heart- its because it locks games into Windows. hint: what OS do most of your friends have on their PCs? Bet it isn't Linux... "I only use Windows to play games."
'Regardless, the Court of Appeals has historically been more favorable toward Microsoft than Judge Jackson, so I have no doubts Microsoft will WIN their appeal'
Lets just say that if they do it will be the biggest legal upset since OJ Simpson. The case is overwhelming. It would taking a simply amazing screw up on behalf of Judge Jackson for them to get away with it.
"You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they?"
If they think they can make money that way then of course they will- that arm of the company couldn't before because the company overall would have lost money.
There are companies out there installing Linux right now. If the market gets big enough- they will have to. It's the only way they can ensure their continued monopoly for one thing...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Wall Street has expected this for a long time. I'm no stock guru, but I'd say that the ~35 point drop we saw in the last few months has a lot to do with people basically reacting to what happened today (if that makes sense). If MS wins an appeal, I would expect to see the stock price bounce right back to where it was.
-B
This has the potential to really change things. The one really brilliant piece of the ruling that I have not seen publicized enough is that one company will get Windows, and the other will get all the development tools.
This means that Windows, Inc will finally have to fully document their APIs. The tools to code for Windows will be in the hands of someone else. This means that anyone wanting to port gcc, yacc, or whatever will have the same level of access to the internals that the applications company will have.
It doesn't go as far as forcing them to open up the Office file formats, but this will make tricks like the Kerberos nonsense much harder to pull off.
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
Which brings up an interesting question: what happens to further development on COM/COM+? The technology is *integral* to the functioning of the office products; it's also, in recent years, been repositioned to be essential to the operating system as well.
Under the literal terms of the judgement, the shared IP goes to the office division --- which may make sense legally, but is absurd technologically.
I wonder if this is part of why Visual Studio 7 has been so delayed?
Microsoft is already going to lose. All of us are making sure of that. Why let the government set the rules of this game? Whenever they do, the folks who line their pockets get the rules they want. It's just insanity to let government infringe on the industry that has made this country richer than it ever imagined it could be.
I don't like it. And I'm not convinced that this isn't going to open the door to even more regulation of the computer industry. Government people are never satiated. They start a feeding frenzy and don't stop until they've killed an industry (i.e. railroads in the US) or regulated it to a place where they hold all the cards (i.e. power, airlines, door to door letter mail, etc.).
Is that really where we want our industry to end up? Under the thumb of power hungry bureaucrats with no skill or knowledge except how to claw their way to the top of the Washington dung heap...
It's not where I want us to be.
According to the ruling, they all go with the "applications" company.
The Operating Systems co, is just operating systems. Everything else goes the other way.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Both Gore and Bush have publicly stated that they are against these proceedings. Once they put in their own AG it's all over.
We've heard this before and it is total BS. There are also 19 state attorney generals who are co-plaintiffs in the case. Even if a new USAG is named, the 19 state AGs would have to agree to any modification. Not that anyone can at this point. The judge has entered a final order. Barring him being overturned on appeal, the proverbial fat lady has sung.
But, even more importantly, this will all be settled before a new AG is named. The SCotUS will hear the appeal in the fall and rubber stamp the decision. Microsoft is going down.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
What's your definition of monopoly
My definition would be something like, "a situation in which one company has such extensive control over the supply of a commodity that they can arbitrarily dictate the market price." I'd have to think that over, but it looks good to me offhand.
In any case, anyone who runs windows does so because they choose to. Plain vanilla Linux (not to mention FreeBSD) has a market price of zero. Further, it's of higher quality than Windows. The supply is unlimited. Microsoft hasn't won, the people have viable choices, and there's just no need for the DOJ to rescue us.
You've said you're not a lawyer, so I'm trying to put this in terms you'll understand.
Neither am I particularly dense. As a citizen of a country which espouses liberty, I expect that if the government is going to curtail someone's freedom to protect the economic interests of the people, that the people are actually in danger and unable to defend themselves. This is not the case at all. If the DOJ wants to apply the Sherman Act where it'll do some good, let them go after the Post Office or the Public Schools.
Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous...
Not being a lawyer is a poor excuse for not understand the law. Read the law and then comment on it.
First of all, I have read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Secondly, being a lawyer is every excuse for not understanding the law. Laws are often incomprehensible simply from reading them, because their actual meaning is dependent upon myriad judicial interpretations, and the way they interact with other laws. Such factors are often extremely difficult to assess without becoming a lawyer.
For example, the US Constitution: Article I, Section VIII. The Enumerated Powers of Congress. If you aren't familiar with cases like United States vs. Darby, and Wickard v. Filburn, you surely couldn't understand how the Commerce Clause could be used to justify, say, the Brady Handgun Act. I happen to know this because I've stubbornly plowed through loads of information and nagged lawyers for answers.
And if I kept it up for every case I had an interest in as a citizen, I'd be a lawyer before long. So your statement doesn't seem to hold any water at all to me.
Thirdly, having read the Sherman Act several times, it still seems damned nebulous to me.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty
I'm really tired of hearing this "Death Penalty" reference. This is certainly not the death penalty. Microsoft will not be dying. Instead it will be seperated into two parts. One of which will probably retain the name, and most of the better staff.
Ok, my turn. What's your definition of "Death Penalty"? .
If you take away a company's means of sustinence, and its very identity, it's pretty clear that they're dead. Microsoft, as we know (and loathe) it, will no longer exist. That's dead to me.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Yep, and the guy who was supposedly in charge of the demo testified repeatedly that it was the same computer. Until Boies pointed out that the icons suddenly changed - at which point he said he wasn't there when the demo was being recorded.
It's not so much that the court pointed out that it wasn't good evidence - the MS employee made *false* claims about the evidence, under oath. You may think it was a mistake; you may think it was a lie. But it was a lot more serious than the court merely saying "it's not very strong evidence".
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
So what's to prevent the two new companies from poking holes in their firewalls for each other and sharing information informally?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Oh mygosh people! Don't you see! Its ALL LIES to get you to let down your gaurd! This is just a trick.. like one o'them trojan thingies! While you're out drinkin' your free-beer celebratin' and stuff, MicroSoft will be quietly breakin' up the US Government! Don't let it happen! STAY alert! Mustnt fall asleep. . . Think of the poor lil' chilrens!
-
Starsucks
It will be years and years before this gets enforced.
Not a chance. The breakup is scheduled for 1 year from today. It will happen on time. I predict that this will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court which will rubber stamp the decision this fall. The finding of fact is hugely damaging. The SCotUS will review the finding, but not challange it. The finding of law is equally strong. It will stand on appeal. This case was prepared to be appealed. It will stand because it is all true.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
--
Linux, on the other hand, is not differentiated. You can run Apache on your workstation. I remain unconvinced, but unless you think it important, I'm not inclined to belabor the point. This is a long enough post already. :-)
A monopoly doesn't mean there isn't ANY choice. It means that there is little, that the switching cost is extremely high, and that a company has virtual control over a market.
There is plenty of choice, switching cost for the cool stuff is zero, and I'm not sure the word "market" is even wholly applicable here.
The choice is mostly between something which sucks and something outstanding... I won't say which is which, but Windows isn't the latter. ;-)
Switching from something costly to something free is hardly an argument. Sure, for a large organization it can be very expensive, but that's neither the fault of MS nor Linux, nor of FreeBSD, etc. Asking the DOJ for help because your company can't make the transition, and they'd rather force their present platform vendor to change its ways is absurd.
And even talking about "control over a market" seems very strange in this context, because we're lumping together the supply of both free and non-free items. Let's say Debian winds up on 90% of the computers world-wide (oh, please, God, pleeease!), and nobody buys Debian disks, they just download it. If Windows is installed on the remaining 10%, Microsoft has 100% control over the market for operating systems. I would find it difficult to say, under such a circumstance, however, that MS had a monopoly from which the public needed protected.
Anti-trust legislation isn't about keeping one company from dominating a market, it's about protecting consumers from artificially inflated prices and making sure they have choices. Microsoft can neither raise the price of operating systems generally, nor prevent people from using high-quality alternatives.
There are *always* alternatives to any monopoly other than food, water, shelter. You can walk, rather than use the oil/electric monopoly. Use a radio rather than a landlocked phone. Use carrier pidgeons, Write a letter, etc.
By this analogy, perhaps I could grant that Microsoft has a dangerous monopoly on the supply of carrier pidgeons. :-)
I think you misunderstand the application of Monopoly/Antitrust law. Its *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
I understand this quite well.
It *is* illegal to *leverage* that into *new* markets. Slightly subjective, granted, but Microsoft's argument is easily compared to a defendant arguing that "assault is subjective" when the victim was beaten within an inch of its life.
Here's where I think you fail to understand Monopoly/Antitrust law. Netscape is not the victim. These laws are not put in place to protect Netscape. They are put in place to protect the consumers. And the end users, the alleged victims, certainly have not been beaten within an inch of their lives. In fact, they're better off than they were before... though certainly through no charitable impulse on the part of Microsoft.
Did they drop the price of their monopoly product? No. Their monopoly product was threatened - and so they entered a new market - with the express intent to damage compitition in that market (which might have affected their monopoly market) - and gave THAT away.
What they basically did was to destroy the browser market completely. Now we don't have to pay for Netscape or IE, and the act spawned Mozilla, which is a far greater boon to the people than either of the others. All of which happened without the DOJ's help. Not exactly the sort of thing which makes me feel dependent upon the government for my protection.
They aren't being punished for having a monopoly -but for keeping competitiors/things that could have upset that - from realizing.
Supposedly, they're not being punished at all. Antitrust laws aren't punititve. Supposedly they're being broken up to protect the consumers.
But without those laws, we WOULDN"T BE TYPING HERE! :) AT&T wouldn't see the need for all these datalines. 56K is surely enough for anybody, right?
Without the laws which made Bell a government-mandated monopoly in the first place, an antitrust action wouldn't have been necessary.
IBM would have most of the computer market under their thumb, and who needs client/server?
Are you kidding?? IBM had a market share of 65% at the beginning of the case! The case was dismissed after 13 years because it was totally irrelevant. That's a sad testiment to the nature of big government, not big business.
That is supreme irony. :)
No... the supreme irony is that the US government is almost solely responsible for creating US monopolies.
Market based economics fail in the real world, sadly.
This is the real source of our differences. I don't believe that for one minute. The only alternative I feel I need to provide is freedom.
Additionally - thinking a law is unjust does not justify flaunting it.
Sure it does.
Well, ok, it usually doesn't. I've argued this point here before. But there are, to me, clear examples of laws which need broken. Rosa Parks flaunted a law, and it was a deed well done IMHO. Ditto for the folks who staged The Boston Teaparty. And I would argue that nearly any law of a Fascist or Communist government should be flaunted at any opportunity.
Microsoft's attitude is still "We did nothing wrong". (Funny, considering without those laws, they wouldnt' exist).
Again, I think this is totally untrue. The latter part, I mean.
Not that the laws are wrong, that they did nothing wrong.
I daresay, if you asked them privately, they would certainly tell you they thought the laws were wrong. That's simply not a viable tact to take in court.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
M$ isn't getting split simply because they are big. They are getting split because they used their position as a monoploy in illegal ways. They could have remained a big powerful monopoly forever if they simply refrained from illegal tactics. They had plenty of chances to become compliant with the law, yet thumbed their noses at all of them. The basic princples of anti-trust law aren't all that complex. Their team of pedigreed lawyers are perfectly capable of compehending whether a given action is probably in violation. I imagine that the orders from the top were to either 1) ignore the sherman act since it can't possibly apply to a software company (what-ever!) and/or 2) figure out how to get away with as much as possible while still being able to have some sort of technicality based defence (kinda like the kids who fill in random numbers on their math homework and claim that they "did" their homework)
There are other huge monoploies that are not AFAIK not participating in illegal activity. The justice dept. may check up on them once in a awhile but doesn't go after them. Although, I think that threatened monopolies are very tempted to violate anti-trust law, rather than loose market share (*cough* intel *cough*)
I believe that we have the Regan administration to thank for all the media mergers (might be Bush though). FCC regulations were severly weakened in the 1980's allowing for the media merger madness of the last few decades. Unfotunately, these mergers allow for conlicts of interest and fiscal streamlining that seriously degrade the quality of journalism, without violating anti-trust law. The print and TV news has gone from crappy to downright embarrassing in my (short) lifetime and I shudder to think of what it will look like when I'm elderly.
btw, the court can decide to fast-track any apeals directly to the supreme court. whether this will happen hasn't been announced yet. some speculate that it will fast track since M$ will appeal for-e-ver if need be and a speedy resolution would benefit customers, competitors and the economy.
for names i vote for "crap" and "more crap"
- bridgette
I can sort of see that the siblings will have reason to compete, but I can't imagine MS-AP porting anything to another OS, ever. They probably see each other as enemies, but everyone else as much worse enemies.
imho they'll likely try to act like one company (in strategy) as much as possible. Maybe MS-OS can't write secret APIs, but what's to stop them from writing the PaperClip API, that any application can use if it wants to animated a paperclip on the screen. And that API would be open to everyone, just, because of trademark issues, unusable to anyone except MS-AP, etc.
Thus, you can't get the magic cookie that PaperClipAPI returns and you can't use SpellCheck or any other nice fast useful (for word processor) APIs built into the system. It'd be just like now with hidden APIs except that trademark law would prevent the use.
And if they couldn't do that, they'll try something else. And if everything they try involved them being dragged into court for a minimum of six months to force them to change, we'll be in the same stagnant situation we are now, where MS-AP and MS-OS help each other by killing any competition.
1.
The fact that there is competition does not preclude MS from being a monopoly. You're a monopoly when you do not have to 'keep up with the joneses.' MS doesn't have to improve its products - it can merely require that anyone it does business with use MS software exclusively or not at all. The position of MS in the marketplace gives it the clout to be able to do this 99.44% of the time. That's why they're a monopoly.
And even being a monopoly is considered acceptable, provided that you don't use one monopoly to get another one. But MS did - OSes and content browsers are functionally seperate. Their IE strategy attempted to give IE as much of a monopoly as Windows. This has been illegal for a LONG time and MS knew it. They're not innocents.
2.
Stifling competition is considered to harm consumers. Monopolies aren't capitalists. They don't have to satisfy their customers. They only have to keep their customers from going somewhere else. This just isn't tolerated.
3.
The superiority of a product has nothing to do with the business practices. Windows is not being burned. MS is merely not being allowed to misuse it. If you like it you are still permitted to use it. No one's stopping you.
4.
These are the rules of doing business. MS knew that. No one forced MS to break them - they chose to do so and now they're suffering the consequences. And the govt. has had this (pretty rarely exercised in the big picture) power for a century. Oddly enough it's worked great in telecommunications, microcomputers, entertainment, petrochemicals, transportation, and a number of other fields.
I think you're ignoring the innumerable successes of antitrust because you can't stand the idea that it's possible for a business to harm the society it exists in, and that the society takes precedence.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Part of the problem with this ruling is that a logical-shift-right (er, that's division by two) doesn't make sense for a lot of the company.
:-)
Microsoft Press shouldn't be part of OS nor of Applications. It should stand alone. Likewise for Microsoft Hardware.
Anyway, the long and short of the idea that just struck me is that perhaps a LSR of MSFT is so unusable that it forces the company to break itself up however it best sees fit.
There's still the sticky issue of collusion and product tying, but it's much less likely with a umpteen-split company. Or, rather, less likely to be 'all in the family' instead of with whatever business offers the most money. Heck, the Linux community could kick in a buck each and buy the Apps division's cooperation in releasing Windows-incompatible APIs...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
For those who can't do PDF, here's the HTML version. Grab it before it gets slashdotted by the entire world.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Whatever you call it, I just want to stand up in my cube and sing "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" over and over. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
However, unless you are the CEO of Corel or Red Hat, you can only see the arival of "BalmerSoft GNU/Linux" and "BG-Office for Linux" to be a Good Thing.
Now we will see if open source and/or free software can really compete with closed source empires, based on merits alone.
My guess is that both baby-Bills will be big players in their markets, but not the only players, and might actually have to innovate for a change in order to stay afloat.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It will be years and years before this gets enforced. The estimates I have heard are around 2 years for this to go through the appeals process. I just skimmed the ruling now, and it appears that Microsoft has a year after the final ruling to comply. I wonder if any lawyers here know if Microsoft still gets that year after the appeals are through, or is it 12 months or whenever the appeals are done, which ever comes last. Either way, expect 2 to 3 years for this break up to occur, if and only if Microsoft loses its appeals.
There have been some talking heads on the TV saying just that.
:-) or how about jackson-sucks.com and bill-rules.com :-)
It seems M$ have exactly 4 months in which to declare if they are appealing. The appeals court then has one month to respond whether it will hear the case, deny it, or pass it directly to the supreme court. I expect the appeal to be filed tomorrow, so we could know in a month when the supreme court will get this.
The talking heads are mostly in agreement, the appeals court will drop this hot potato directly to the supreme court. No sense in allowing it to sit around continuing to harm the world economy. I would expect the supreme court will uphold much of what has come out today, but may redress some of the points like separating java from the OS, which is where it belongs.
But the americans had better vote in a democratic majority congress and democratic president, so that a slightly more liberal supreme court judge can get nominated soon. Hmmmmm, Al Gore is the lesser of two evils, when looked at from this angle.
2 names, now available : Wang, Digital
the AC
wait, are those smileys really necessary today
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Got me, but first off you'll have to think of is as "platform group" and "apps groups". No so much OS groups. It would be very useful if the public could still get IE for free with Windows, also media player and well.. notepad and friends. OS's these days are expected to have apps. Look at any Linux distro, they don't come in a big box that says "Linux Kernel 2.2.14", they say "Redhat" and "Turbo" and come with lots (and lots and lots) of apps.
If you considered all the software that is "bundled" with most linux distros then you could put Office/BackOffice and Money all in the OS platform.
But that's not going to happen.
There are some groups that don't fit into either whichever way you look at it. MS Press and MS Hardware aren't even software companies, should they be in the OS or applications group? Maybe it would just be easyier to have one company do Win2k, WinMe and WinCE. And another company just does the rest.
But then you're back to. "what software comes with the OS?"
I don't think the government really thought about this, and if they did I don't think they really understood it. The break up is one of the stupid ways to "fix" Microsoft. I like the idea of opening API's, or Open Source.
The ruling is so idiotic that it may be the reason Microsoft wins the appeal (if they do). They will have a good case for "this isn't really possible, you'll need to think of something else".
-Jon
this is my sig.
So you did. My mistake. Though actually, that's not necessarily a good thing... appointing the best person for the job, though harder to quantify, is the point.
i am not canadian, but i wish that our government embraced our population more like theirs do.
Oh, I'm sure they'd love to. It's just that people like me keep fighting against being embraced.
higher taxes yes, (though ontario's taxes on business will be 10% lower than all of it's neighbouring states next year)
God knows if their provincial taxes were as high as their national ones, they'd have no money left at all.
as for the infringements of personal liberty for the commom good, how would you classify our government's role in forcing a generation of young men into vietnam?
I'd classify it as "bad". More specifically, "really, really bad".
for the common good?
Neither for the common good, nor for liberty. It was a thing ill done. FWIW, I oppose (at least) peacetime draft.
i hear in canada they have government healthcare that everyone pays into. not perfect but recent studies showed that care there was on par with u.s. healthcare
The latter statement is, to say the least, controversial. At any rate, what I oppose about such a scheme is that (like Social Security here) it's not voluntary. I have no choice about it... if I decide not to put my money into it, the government comes and puts me in jail. Even if I pay, I am bereft of my choices within the health care system. Such a coercive system is offensive to me.
i will ask you very honestly: why do you need a gun? hunting, sport... but why handguns?
I will answer you honestly: whether I need handguns is not the point. I want handguns. I do not need to tell the government why I need something... it is enough that I want it, and am not hurting my neighbors.
I go out of my way (having lived in some pretty crummy places) to live in a rural setting, with little crime. I don't really need to lock my doors... some people even leave their keys in the ignition when they leave their cars. I certainly hope that in any case I would never need to use a handgun for violence against another person.
Why might I feel I needed one? Because my self-defense is my own responsibility... the courts have made it clear that a police officer need not risk his life for mine, and I don't know why I should expect him to anyway. Because I am often far from help... and the same can be said by people in NYC.
Why might I want one? Because I feel a responsibility, as a peaceful person, to participate in making my community more secure. Because I believe that my owning such a weapon might make the government ever-so-slightly less inclined to abuse its power. Because I believe that it symbolizes my dignity as a free person, governed by my own consent. Because I like the noise it makes.
i would be interested, entirely academically-- i'm not trying to bait you, on how you think that the canadian government restricts the personal liberty to an extent that doesn't seem to pay off in the long run.
I'm no expert on Canadian government, so I'm not sure my answer would be worth much. In any case, my answer would go astray of my real point. It's not whether it pays off... that presumes that one's freedom is not itself to be valued, that it is not an end in itself. I'm not interested in being house-slave, even if it's a posh position.
you want low expections? consider campaign finance spending
Consider free speech.
or the dealth penalty-- an abhorrent and illogical tool of the penal system
Abhorrent to you, maybe. And not illogical at all, from my perspective.
why are one out of five school children under-nourished in the richest country in the world?
I'm not familiar with this statistic, but I find it difficult to believe. Anyway, you'd might as well ask why any of them are mal-nourished, when they clearly needn't be. I don't know. I don't know enough about the problem. I do know that in most places you can get an adequate diet for free... I've done it.
why is our voter turn-out so low?
You presume that it should be higher. The point, IMHO, is that government should be irrelevant to most people's lives. But insofar as it's a measure of discontent, I'd say because government has been centralized so far that people don't feel they have any serious influence. They may be right.
why is literacy here so low?
A socialized, monopolistic educational system.
because of the extent of personal liberty over the common good?
Quite the contrary... because of misguided efforts to promote the common good at the expense of personal liberty. Or haven't you noticed that everything the government runs turns bad?
why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the west?
A single, simple cause: The War Against Drugs. Another egregious affront to liberty.
why so many school shootings?
A socialized, one-size fits all federal educational system which isn't much more than a system for warehousing children. Certainly not because kids suddenly have access to guns.
i've never heard of another nation with such lofty morals and incredibly low expectations. "as long as i'm ok, who cares about the rest."
America leads the world in charity. Sure we have responsibilities to others... it's just not the role of government to make sure we fulfill them.
yet they manage, with a dose of the 'common good' to beat us at our own game of being the greatest nation on earth in which to live.
Not for me. For me, Iowa, USA is (as far as I know) the best place in the world to live... though it could assuredly be far better.
I don't mean this in any hostile sense, but why don't you choose to live in Canada? I would, if I were you. You have family there, you share their values, it sounds perfect.
Heck, I don't begrudge Canadians their choices. I don't even think Nebraskans should have to live the way Iowans do... the loss of the freedom to choose is one of the great tragedies of the American drive to centralize government.
But anyway, let me make clear, I am not pleased with the state of America these days. I am not defending our status quo, and many of the problems you cite concern me much. But my vision of what changes are needed is quite different than yours.
sorry for being so argumentative.
Don't be. Thank you for the vigorous debate.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Being a monopoly wasn't the problem, nor was it illegal. Using (leveraging) that monopoly to benefit its products in other markets is where Microsoft screwed up. So, by forcing it to divest itself of its products in these other markets, it is left with its single product that, alone, doesn't pose nearly as big a threat to competition in existing or future markets. Nor would the new company be able to tie its products to the monopoly product any longer, or use that monopoly product to beat the OEMs into submission. They will certainly continue to support Windows, but they'll have to do so using the same information that everyone else has access to, and receive that information in the same timeframe that everyone else receives it in. They will no longer have the same incentive to support only Windows if they see other markets as being viable as well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I dont like Microsoft. Go Government. Wait a sec, I don't like the the government either. Go...ahh, just go.
--
+&x
as per the court order. So this means that the applications group will have to use the same API's and tools that the rest of us use. Proprietary extensions will be hard to do, because the application group will not be able to leverage them. Of course, with MS's trustworthiness, there probably will be all sorts of behind the doors collusion going on.
b. After Implementation of the Plan and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business shall be prohibited from:
i. merging or otherwise recombining, or entering into any joint venture with one another;
ii. entering into any Agreement with one another under which one of the Businesses develops, sells, licenses for sale or distribution, or distributes products or services (other than the technologies referred to in the following sentence) developed, sold, licensed, or distributed by the other Business;
iii. providing to the other any APIs, Technical Information, Communications Interfaces, or technical information that is not simultaneously published, disclosed, or made readily available to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs; and
iv. licensing, selling or otherwise providing to the other Business any product or service on terms more favorable than those available to any similarly situated third party.
Section 2.b.ii shall not prohibit the Operating Systems Business and the Applications Business from licensing technologies (other than Middleware Products) to each other for use in each others' products or services provided that such technology (i) is not and has not been separately sold, licensed, or offered as a product, and (ii) is licensed on terms that are otherwise consistent with this Final Judgment.
... hi bingo
My favorite bit was from just before this quote:
IOW, "I can't believe that you weren't prepared for the government to ask for a breakup, and if you weren't it's your own fault anyway."
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The idea of a third company with IE made some sense to me...that would be kind of analogous to AOL, if it was paired up with MSN (And they could put microsoft's share of MSNBC in there with it).
As usual the bulk of slashdot posters seem to be missing it. Of *course* splitting Microsoft up is going to be good. You are forgetting you are taking the most powerful software company in the world and making it into two... each no where near as powerful as the previous one.
Whats going to happen? Each one is going to want to be the "Microsoft" that wins from the breakup. They will do everything needed to become better than the other part... the same that happened with the baby bills.
Eventually you will see the APP group either supporting every operating system there is in the world... or writing their own. Same with the OS group. These are proud people who have suddenly seen their value and lot changed don't think they won't fight to get it back.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
Some other thoughts:
2.b.iii of the judgement looks like it'll kill off embrace and extend. No more MS-Kerberos type games.
3.b.iii An OEM can look at the Source (In a restricted enviornment) for the sole purpose of interoperability. Cool.
4.b I'd like to Volunteer for the job of Compliance Coordinator. We can work out a suitably exhorbitant salary later. I'm perfectly suited for the job and would coordinate compliance with the ferocity of a rabid pit bull.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They have a year from today if they don't appeal. But, they will. If they still lose their appeals, they will have exactly 1 year to do the splitup.
:P
This has got to be a bad day for Bill Gates
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Why? Because you would prefer it that way?
Sorry, in this country, you have to prove that a corporation has broken the law before you can do something like that (well, in theory). Microsoft has been convicted of a very specific action: using dominance in the OS market to put the smackdown on competing applications. This justifies separating the operating system business out from the rest of the company.
Saying, "microsoft broke anti-trust law, so it's a free for all" is the same thing as saying "he got busted for smoking a joint, let's seize his house." Or almost the same, because the second actually happens. If you don't like big companies, don't do business with them.
It's not intended to be a breakup into two equal parts. Microsoft is being ordered to divest itself of the OS division. Presumably, certification would go with this (the certs are more closely tied to the OS than the Apps). Read the decision, it's short.
Of course, I would definitely prefer to see the DOJ broken up, maybe into a "harrassing business" division, and a "shooting members of undesirable religions" division. But the decision is entirely reasonable. *IF* Microsoft is going to be broken up (i.e. dump operating systems), the decision is a well designed way to do that.
--Kevin
The two companies are going to keep on doing the same things they always have, and they're going to continue to rub each other's backs for mutual advantage.
What advantage is this supposed to remove? Opening the APIs? This hasn't been an issue for some time now. The MS APIs are probably the best-documented in the industry.
Me, I'm looking forward to the frustrated whining of the anti-MS zealots as they try to figure out what ELSE to blame after MS completely fails to start dying after the splitup.
So, you won't explain why you don't think that the DoJ prosecution of Microsoft was political in origin?
Mainly because I've explained this so many times before that I got tired of doing it over and over. I need to write an article and put it up on a website so i can just direct everyone to it when I need to explain my views. But, since I must, here goes.
I'm not saying that the DOJ prosecution happened in a political vacuum. Democratic administrations have always been big on enforcing the anti-trust laws. Republican administrations usually don't enforce these laws. The fact is that the court has determined that Microsoft did, in fact, break the law. You're apparently saying that the law shouldn't be enforced because it's being enforced as some sort of political retribution against Microsoft for not participating in the political game enough.
I happen to believe that anti-trust laws are necessary to the health of the market and that their enforcement is a good thing. If a bunch of politicians have to get their feelings (or wallets) hurt by Microsoft before they actually do something to enforce the law, then that's a bad thing because it means the law isn't being applied across the board, but is being selectively enforced. I think that's wrong and dangerous. But I do not believe that Microsoft should be allowed to continue its violations simply because of a political situation in Washington, or because the Republicans get into the White House. Anti-trust laws should be enforced fairly and equally across all industries. If you think that Microsoft could have avoided this by playing the games in Washington, then you've pointed out the corruption that exists there, which is a problem, of course. That doesn't make Microsoft any less guilty, it just means that they aren't the only guilty party here. I think Microsoft should have taken the hint last time they were prosecuted and cut back on the blatant violations. They seem to be far too arrogant for this, as evidenced by Bill Gates' own comments after the last consent decree was signed. They've done nothing but push the DOJ on this. Finally the DOJ pushed back hard enough to actually affect Microsoft (or so I hope).
The trial showed that the presiding judge was biased against MS from the start
How so? I thought he was extremely patient with the antics of Microsoft's lawyers and witnesses.
, and the proposed and actual "remedies" wouldn't do anything to remove a monopoly if it really existed.
They are isolating that monopoly product from the products that Microsoft was using the monopoly to benefit. Windows alone is not nearly as big a threat to the industry as Microsoft is when they control Windows, as well as products in nearly every other major software market that can benefit from Microsoft's strongarming. This, combined with the behavioral remedies that will be imposed, should be sufficient to keep Microsoft from further abusing its power.
The articles you quote are blatantly against anti-trust in its entirety, as well as bashing Joel Klein for enforcing the laws against companies that appear to be breaking them. Damn, the nerve of that guy, he thinks he should be able to do his job and get away with it. If you believe those articles, then we are not going to be able to resolve this discussion. If you think anti-trust laws are wrong, then we have a fundamental disagreement that isn't likely to be changed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You are right that MS sholdn't be punished in this case, but this is because they don't have monopoly power on it and thus can't abuse it.
So you agree that there are two markets to speak of here. I'll follow your lead and call one the "retail market"; the other I'll call the "installation market" (since in a sense they're both OS markets).
Now you agree that absolute control over the retail market, measured in sales, is insufficient for being a monopoly. Neither, of course, can domination of the installation market be sufficient for having a monopoly... otherwise, in the example, Debain would be a monopoly.
It would appear that to be a monopolist, one must dominate in both markets. Great. For the moment, let's call Microsoft a monopoly. Now in your words:
If a company has a monopoly but manage to keep simply because they have the best product and the best price
(or, of course, because people choose them for their own reasons...)
and other companies can't outmatch them and they didn't use their monopoly power to keep them at bay (say, sell at a loss) then more power to them, if the customers want choice they have the possibility.
Now explain to me how Microsoft can use their monopoly power to sustain their domination of the installation market (and thus their monopoly). Any end user who wants Debian can install it on his PC, free of charge. If enough of them chose to do so, Microsoft would have no monopoly. What power has Microsoft to stop the laws of competition in the installation market?
Microsoft can neither raise the price of operating systems generally,
Oh, and what did they do to IBM. Did they not multiply the price of Windows for them because they wanted to develop an alternative to office? And keeping your price the same while it would have dropped in a competitive environment is just as bad.
They raised the price of Windows, not of operating systems generally. As well they can do; they own Windows. The same way McDonald's can charge $100 a Big Mac if it pleases them... because while only they can sell Big Macs, they don't have a monopoly on hamburgers. If their price goes up too much, people will begin eating Whoppers, even if they don't think they're as tasty.
That's competition. Companies frequently do increase their prices in competitive environments, if they think they'll profit by it. And it's no different with Operating Systems. High quality alternatives are available. If Microsoft's price goes higher than the market will bear, people will switch.
nor prevent people from using high-quality alternatives.
MS can,
I, and many other Slashdotters, are living proof they can't.
at least they try very hard.
Sure. No law against being obnoxious.
They do it by making it very hard for Windows and other MS applicaitons to cooperate with other applications/OS's. Why do you think Wine and Samba are such huge projects?
I don't like what Microsoft does. But they're entitled to change their protocols and data formats every day, as far as I am (or the law is) concerned. It certainly hasn't kept me from using Linux.
Are you claiming that since their action did have good consequence the charged should be droped, even though the action itself was bad?
Of course not. I'm claiming that the free market produced a better result than timely government interference would have... as is almost always the case. The laws are bad.
Are you kidding?? IBM had a market share of 65% at the beginning of the case! The case was dismissed after 13 years because it was totally irrelevant. That's a sad testiment to the nature of big government, not big business.
Yup, but this was largely due to the fact that they didn't have as much room to use the same tactics during the 13 years (remember that IBM was already using the FUD method among others), thus making it easier for competitors to...compete (and among them...MS).
a) In what world is 65% of a market a monopoly?
b) FUD is not, nor should it ever be, illegal
c) Personal Computers, with standardized, interchangable parts, changed the market, and there was nothing IBM could have done to stop that. The DOJ's imposed upon the taxpayers' wallets and IBM's freedom, without producing anything.
You will have a hard time making me believe that Microsoft were breaking anti-trust laws for the sake of civil disobedience.
I don't mean to; Microsoft is neither idealistic nor, IMHO, admirable. But their motives aren't at issue. MS is, I believe, breaking an unjust law, which is why the comparision is appropriate. I chose very sympathetic examples merely to make my point, not to flatter MS.
Well, I certainly am ill-placed to speak for themselves but apparently, officials and employees (judgin from article and posts from some of them here) seem to believe sincerly that they did nothing wrong.
They know they broke laws (of course... thus the coverup); they don't believe they did anything wrong. Big difference.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
IMHO competing against monopolies is not easy...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Which is not to say I like Microsoft... I certainly don't. But if you love freedom, you have to be prepared to speak out for your enemies.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. It might have been closer to a monopoly when it assaulted Netscape, but it's obviously not so now. Linux (okay, okay, GNU/Linux), is prospering happily alongside Windows, and the movement has spawned its own little industry. And it's free, for crying out loud, in every sense. I, for one, don't doubt for a moment that Linux would trounce Windows on its own merits, given more time. Besides, there are other fine, though less popular, alternatives.
Instead, we're to see the US Government step in. Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous... and if a law is vague enough, it's as good as allowing ex post facto prosecution. Sure Microsoft is scuzzy. That's what makes this action so popular... but are we sacrificing an important principle which would protect us later? I'm surprised to find so many Slashdotters hailing government for meddling with technology, using all those oft-maligned outdated laws, simply because this time it suits their purposes.
I don't know. I surely don't understand the nuances of this case very well, so perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty.
But what fear have I of Microsoft? They cannot arrest me or take my property. A government which picks and chooses who is a criminal is another story.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I know if I was 'Conservative' I'd be asking some hard questions along the lines of 'just how much total contempt for our country and our country's legal system can I tolerate?'. It seems very reasonable to expect an attitude, from the arch-conservatives, of "Microsoft, I totally oppose the Sherman Act etc etc- but you are a _dick_, to hell with you people. I'm supposed to hold still while you fake evidence and don't even understand that you're on trial? While you try to screw over the government and cut funding for the DoJ? Oh, now you're going to _bribe_ me, that makes it soooo much better, sheesh! Don't you people understand you are acting with the arrogance and exact behavior and attitude of Mafiosi?"
Honestly, if you are going to think about the realities of the case you simply _must_ allow the government people, perhaps even the Presidential candidates, to be human- and to have _some_ sense of self-preservation. Publically aligning with a gang of renegade criminals is just not that great PR-wise. It doesn't look great on a resume.
People should not have been surprised when the judge had a clue and a brain and used both. People should not be surprised if the case goes before an archconservative appeals court- which can't be bought- and which upholds the decision, because unlike the 'separate IE' order, THIS time the foundation is in place.
Microsoft's utter hubris and stupidity in thinking they can fight, buy or intimidate _anything_, is going to hurt them bigtime through this process. Hell, these people are the same ones who _disbanded_ the Mac IE team and assigned them to WebTV (which sounds OS-ish, come to think of it!) They appear to be pursuing a scorched earth strategy- a "Let us have our way or we ALL die!" strategy. The tragedy is that things have gone far enough- and all they're doing now in their frantic attempts to make the breakup seem like a disaster for the economy and IT and the world- is making that the reality.
And the comedy of this is- they caused nearly as much damage and destruction by operating in good faith with their dumb notions of making computers so easy that people don't have to learn ANYTHING in order to use them. That approach is what gave us the email virus- which was once a _myth_. It gave us Bob and Clippy- and there are still community college courses for 'how to use a word processor'- they failed, and in the attempt made 90% of the world horribly vulnerable and impeded by hassle and stupidity.
So- the scorched earth won't actually be all that different...
Secondly, is it true or not true that the appeal will or can be pushed directly to the Supreme Court?
On a lighter note, any news on the planned names for the two companies?
Visit
Until the appeals process is over, there's not going to be any real action on this ruling. Microsoft is notorious(?) for loosing in the lower court, only to appeal to higher courts, and then prevail, long after the media explosure is past.
So, don't go celebrating in the streets just yet, there still a lot more to do here.
I submitted a story about this a long time ago, but have since lost the link. Anyways, here it goes:
The University of Victoria snubbed Bill Gates from either giving them lots of money or from giving him an honourary degree because the higher-ups in the faculty decided that they didn't like the business practices of Microsoft, and felt that MS hindered competition, etc. Take it as you will.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
It's an earthquake! The world will now fall to ruin!! No, wait, it's actually a new Outlook virus on the loose. Well, what else did you expect from the Judge? M$ will still plead innocence.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Just look at Mac OS X's "Carbon" API - a subset of the Mac OS API that works under a true multi-threaded, etc OS. If Apple didn't define the Carbon API, Mac OS X would not be possible, because some of these older Mac OS APIs are just not compatible with OS X.
I sure hope MS doesn't read this comment and use it in their appeal. Message to all Microsoft employees: I think you suck, and I'm looking forward to your company breaking apart!
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
They tuck this little bit in at the end, even though it seems to me that it's the core of the ruling: (excuse the long quote)
"Applications Business" means all businesses carried on by Microsoft Corporation on the effective date of this Final Judgment except the Operating Systems Business. Applications Business includes but is not limited to the development, licensing, promotion, and support of client and server applications and Middleware (e.g., Office, BackOffice, Internet Information Server, SQL Server, etc.), Internet Explorer, Mobile Explorer and other web browsers, Streaming Audio and Video client and server software, transaction server software, SNA server software, indexing server software, XML servers and parsers, Microsoft Management Server, Java virtual machines, Frontpage Express (and other web authoring tools), Outlook Express (and other e-mail clients), Media player, voice recognition software, Net Meeting (and other collaboration software), developer tools, hardware, MSN, MSNBC, Slate, Expedia, and all investments owned by Microsoft in partners or joint venturers, or in ISVs, IHVs, OEMs or other distributors, developers, and promoters of Microsoft products, or in other information technology or communications businesses.
Most of these are uncontroversial, but quite a few aren't.
Internet Explorer was a done deal, I suppose. No point in even discussing it.
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
Server software? I'm ambivalent about this. From an engineering standpoint, most server software probably can't be considered part of the OS. But for practical purposes, I think it makes sense to allow that. Especially since putting the server software in the same company as the client software defeats much of the purpose of the ruling.
Developer tools? I'm also ambivalent about this, for the opposite reason: I think compilers should be considered part of the OS, but I can see the danger in that arrangement.
Indexing server software? Does that mean ActiveDirectory, or whatever it's called? I don't know much about server systems, but isn't that basically NT's security system? It would be very dangerous to have security separated from the OS.
Voice recognition software? Oh well, I guess it'll be another few decades before we can talk to our computers. (SR won't become universal if it's not supported by the OS.)
"Client Applications"? No more command-line ftp? How about ping? More seriously, what about Windows file sharing? A server OS isn't worth much if it's not allowed to serve files.
Well, that's enough for now. As I've said before, I think splitting up Microsoft is a good thing in and of itself. (I'm not sure that the government should have that power, though.) But they need to do some more work on the line between the two companies.
-o Disclaimer: My employer doesn't even agree with me about C indentation style. o-
Well Microsoft Office and Outlook and IE all bundled together seems like an obvious idea, especially if they work seamlessly togther.
How about MICROS~1 and MICROS~2 :)
Catchy, no?
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
The big question is what will happen to their internet services? What will happen to their hardware? These things are neither 'applications' nor 'operating systems.'
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
With extreme difficulty.
The DirectX suite is an unmitigated disaster. DirectDraw and DirectSound are somewhat non-sucky, but the rest of it is absolute excrement.
DirectPlay doesn't actually work, and never did (read Unix Network Programming by Stevens and write your own UDP packet handling; it's easy). With the exception of force-feedback joysticks, DirectInput doesn't provide anything you can't get from Windows event messages. OpenGL does everything Direct3D claims to do and more, does it better and faster, and does it in one-third the application code. All of DirectX is based on Microsoft's COM which is a slug by design.
This is not to say that Linux is any speed freak in such matters (so far), but trying to create a DirectX compatibility layer is not going to buy you anything except an ulcer.
DirectX is a complete loss from top to bottom. There are a half-dozen or so interesting ideas in DirectX worth exploring, but there's plenty of room for better ideas and APIs. Go develop them, and leave DirectX to die in well-deserved obscurity.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
A reasonable and educated person might very well claim that this is not at all ironic- it's the expected result. Monopolies in general tend not to be innovative- they focus on protecting their monopoly and sucking up buyers' cash rather than developing better products. Microsoft's hardware division actually has to compete with other companies for business, so it has to provide products that are good enough to convince people to buy them instead of the competetion.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
This case is concluded; as a result, the findings of fact (Microsoft is a monopoly) and the findings of law (Microsoft violated the Sherman Act) are now legal precedent. In particular, the findings of fact are almost impossible to overturn; to negate them, a higher court would have to find no reasonable person would have deduced these facts from the testimony. (Source: prior Slashdot postings).
Avoiding this is the one thing Microsoft could have gained by a settlement.
Bad news: this is prime fodder for ambulance chasers.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Bill Gates said today of his estranged operating systems unit, " I never liked the bitch and I was only in it for the sex. All my friends told me to dump the tramp years ago, I look forward to playing the field again."
HA-ha
Besides the fact that I think you're full of crap about the reasons for this case (I'm not even going to go into that again), we have yet to see if there will actually be years of appeals, or if the judge will send it straight to the Supreme Court to get the whole thing over and done with. As for the popularity, usage, and quality issues, they'll likely remain the same for a while, but there will at least be room for something new to appear, whereas that can't happen at this point. Perhaps the Office corp will fix some of the crappy features in their products to make them work more reliably. Perhaps the Windows corp will provide all comers with the information they need to create office suites that can compete with the Office corp. Things will start working more like they're supposed to work rather than stupid things being done in the name of protecting the monopoly.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Some highlights:
From the Final Judgement
1) Split up into two companies is based on what the two portions of the company were doing as of Apr 27, 2000. No saying "Hey, Office is part of the OS"
2) The 2 NewCo. may not recombine, enter into Joint Ventures, provide APIs to each other that are not available to other ISVs.. or basically collude.
3) The OS company cannot know OEMs for supporting other OS's, OEM's can change the boot up sequence.
4) Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs
5) Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product
6) MS has to create an internal position to monitor antitrust compliance within the company (boy, there's a sucky job...)
Very interesting stuff.... nothing too surprising though...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
The Real fun part of this is that the Judge gave Microsoft the hard part of deciding what goes where. MS just has to follow the general OS vs Apps guideline. If Jackson doesn't like what they've done he just starts ruling arbitraily. This way MS can't say (well they can but everyone will wonder what they are smoking) that they were forced to put a specific department someplace where it doesn't belong. It was MS's choice to put it where ever they wanted.
Too late. He peaked a long time ago. The question is how long before people start viewing him like the pitcher that's lost his stuff but can't bring himself to leave the game. Who wants to start the pool?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I think all web sites should be completely Lynx-compatible, with violations being punishable by death. But that's just my opinion.
it should have been split into at least three companies. msft has their fingers in _many_ pies here:
1. apps (office, ie, money, blah)
2. operating systems
3. media/service (msn et al)
4. hardware
5. certification
...and so on. two companies is not enough to get a fair division of all their arms. where will hardware go? operating systems or apps? won't that allow that company to tie their software to the hardware?
anyone have a quick rundown of what goes where with the split?
--
Choice parts of this included forbidding MS to coerce VARs, and I liked section iii -- ``Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence, startup folder, internet connection wizard, desktop, preferences, favorites, start page, first screen, or other aspect of a Windows Operating System Product (and goes on for specific things they can't do).''
This, in my opinion, may hurt MS more than the actual breakup. Forcing them to act fairly (and there's a compliance board they have to set up to assure this) may be the best thing that the Justice Dept could have done, even better than breaking them up.
Also, one of the nice things is that MS will have to disclose all their OS API's that other companies use -- no internal things that cause MS Apps to break! And my guess is that the development environments will be considered applications, so that means that all the libraries and such that MS uses will have to have an available API with the underlying OS -- meaning a better chance at obtaining compatability with things like WINE.
In short, I think the ruling is good -- least of all for the breakup. And my guess is that most of it won't be turned over on appeal.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
"This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. If the problem persists, contact your vendor or appeal to a higher court."
Sadly, I agree that IE is at this point a better browser than Netscape at this point. Mozilla could change all that - we'll see.
But this isn't innovation. Innovation is creating something completely new, or a drastically different version of an existing concept. IE is, no matter how good or bad it may be, nothing more than an implementation of an existing concept.
The invention of the GUI is an innovation. The Windows 95 GUI is not. The development of the mouse is an innovation. The newest Logitech model out there is not. Cavemen creating fire is innovation. Your average BIC lighter is not.
See where I'm going with this? No matter what you think of their products - good or bad - Microsoft rarely if ever actually innovates. They usually wait until someone else does something and either comes out with a knockoff, or buys out the company. They are nothing more than implementers.
My problem is how they do it. It's one thing to be unoriginal, it's quite another to be unoriginal and predatory. I wouldn't mind Microsoft being so boring if they didn't smash other more innovative companies on a regular basis.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
An addendum -
Before someone says it, yes I know that Linux and open-source software in general doesn't tend to innovate - preferring to reimplement existing things instead. The difference is, in such a culture you are able to innovate without a ten ton gorilla on your back.
Maybe once the open-source community reimplements everything that is missing on their platform, some exciting stuff may appear. This may be starting to happen already, even...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
If there's one thing that xbill should teach us, it's that the more "Baby Bills" you have, the worse life gets, no matter how small and harmless-looking they are.
You are probably right. I had one ear on the news while typing that, and who knows how accurate talking heads are. Poking around a dozen various news sites on the web shows a dozen different opinions what will happen. Add to that 235 different opinions here on /. and its clear nobody knows much of anything.
:-)
I'm just going to ignore the whole thing and go sleep now. Then I'm going to get up in the morning and ignore the whole thing some more. Wake me when they throw gates and balmer into prison
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Ok, now we have two companies.. One is for OS, the the other is for everything else (hard/software, X-box, etc..) So how does this help any, ok, now I don't have the neat "IE4" layout that is the only reason that I installed it, I don't own any Office products, mostly because they are +$200.. all my "Office" products are from Corel WP Suite 8... sure it's old, but it gets the job done... I borrowed my copy of Windows 98 6 weeks ago, and that was from a copied CD...
I may get killed tonight by some of you, but things wouldn't be the way they are if it wasn't for Microsoft.. A few days ago, Slashdot reported that Linux now had ATA/100 support and that Linux had beaten "evil Microsoft" at adopting a standard. Do we know that Microsoft hadn't been working on it? and if they do have it, they have to package it so *EVERYONE* can install it correctly on their machines..
Windows was/is built for the "Lowest Common User" in mind, that means that they can't be the first ones to support something, because they have to "stupidfy" it.. Do you think that the only things you can change about TCP/IP are in the Properties box under Networks.. if that is all there is to it there wouldn't be a 300+ page book about it...
So now we are going to have more problems from all this, because now, things aren't going to work the way they use to..
I don't know why people who want to use Linux, use Linux, and stop brothering us who want a simple OS just to surf, game, and read Slashdot on..
Nothing as far as I can tell.. These two peices of microsoft are still collections of already seperate peices. A representative from Microsoft once told me, "Microsoft is a colloction of aquired and modified companies under one big bank account". So, that means we have made a superficial cut in the "big bank account". Will this cut still be able to overfund new projects with the revenue and lack of development of other projects? Yes, it's not like they are running on credit.
Question: Can the paradigm of breaking up a monopoly even be used properly any more? I believe we will have to think of better ways to increase competition besides smacking down a corporation. How about companies with a larger share of the market having to give a proportional amount of money to competing companies. That could get complicated, but so was this multi-million doller trial, eh?
-Effendi
-Effendi
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows and Office each hold monopoly positions for their products? Do we not now have two companies, each with a monopoly in their realm?
I suppose that if the OS & App companies can't collude, then that opens things up for competitors in both fields, eventually... but I liked RMS's suggestions better than this.
---
In the case of anti-trust enforcement, only structural or behavioral modifications are allowed the court. Behavioral constraints have been ignored by MS, so now we're trying the structural changes. The judge says in his memo, the outcome of a breakup cannot be predicted.
Aside from recovering court cost, the judge can't even impose a fine.
No, you're wrong. Significant parts of the remedy take effect exactly 90 days from now. Make no mistake about it: In 90 days they're putting the handcuffs on Microsoft and marching them off to jail. From the remedies:
This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered;
3. Provisions In Effect Until Full Implementation of the Plan of Divestiture. The provisions in this section 3 shall remain in effect until the earlier of three years after the Implementation of the Plan or the expiration of the term of this Final Judgment...
Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM Uniform Terms for Windows Operating System
Products Licensed to Covered OEM. Microsoft shall license Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions and shall not employ market development allowances or discounts...
OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence...
Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs...
Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware...
Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV Ban on Exclusive Dealing. Microsoft shall not enter into or enforce any Agreement in which a third party agrees, or is offered or granted consideration...
Ban on Contractual Tying. Microsoft shall not condition the granting of a Windows Operating System Product license...
Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System...
Agreements Limiting Competition. Microsoft shall not offer, agree to provide, or provide any consideration to any actual or potential Platform Software competitor in exchange for such competitor's agreeing to refrain...
Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version. Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release...
:-)
So, what I'm saying is: go ahead and pop the cork... Microsoft is going into the slammer, it's for real. We're got 90 days to figure out the best ways to exploit the new leverage the good judge is giving us. What's on the top of my mind is how the ban on contractual tying could be used to counter Microsoft's slimy dealings on ASF. Can we find the terms of their file format patent license to be a contractual tie? (bet you we can) And get it thrown back in their face immediately. Boy, wouldn't that be sweet? And at the same time give the DCMA and UCITA, with their oppressive new restrictions on reverse engineering etc., a swift kick in the nuts. Same goes for their attempt to pollute Kerberos, though I truly that one is being handled well through other means. But Microsoft really has some strong attacks going on the legal, intellectual property and patent fronts (just as Halloween II recommended) and up to now things haven't been going all that well for the rebel alliance.
This ruling gives us lots of groovy new ways to hit Microsoft where it hurts, starting right now. The next chapter in this sorry saga is going to be mostly fun for the barbarians
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
"Hmmm... Well, you can go with Microsoft products if you really want to bet your job on it, but they probably won't even exist as the same company in a couple years."
"Are you sure you can count on continued support for this product after the break-up?"
"You should really consider going with a company that has a more stable future, otherwise you could be really screwed."
"MS-SQL on NT? Are you sure you want to gamble on a single vendor like Microsoft? With Oracle on UNIX, you have several OS vendors to choose from. Also, NT and SQL will be split apart in a year or two! Who will inherit your support contract?"
We can all hoist them on their own pitard. This will be hilarious. :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The Judge wasn't origionally very fond of the 2 company idea because, realizing that there will be little or no reason for the companies to compete, that it would only distinguish them as two companies monopolizing their respective markets. Anyone know how they plan to actually help the industry with this rash but meaningless punishment?
All of this started just because Microsoft bundled their Internet Explorer with their OS. Hmm... Doesn't Red Hat Linux ship with Netscape installed??? Is that the same thing??? I use both Red Hat and microsoft products and I'd have to say that this break up will not only hurt the economy but also hurt the computer industry. I mean how many flavors of operating systems do we really want out there? Its bad enough try to get companies to support 3 or 4 OSes, but what happens when there are more? I'm afraid that because of this things are going to become even MORE incompatible. Just something to think about.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Now, the breakup of Microsoft will certainly cost the company an immense amount of money as it buys new lodgings for the spinoff company, duplicates support staff, reorganizes, etc. But none of that money will be going to the companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal actions. I'd have liked to see them get a few hundred million each.
Any company that feels it was harmed by Microsoft's business practices can sue them for damages. Given the evidence, they may well win.
Microsoft will likely be beset by several hundred rather large house flies in the next few years.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Timetable:
Not later than four months after entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall submit to the Court and the Plaintiffs a proposed plan of divestiture. The Plaintiffs shall submit any objections to the proposed plan of divestiture to the Court within 60 days of receipt of the plan, and Microsoft shall submit its response within 30 days of receipt of the plaintiffs' objections.
Four Months plus (probably) one month (as much as) sixty days plus 30 days...
Call it six to seven months.
Which puts it after the new gov't is in power.
Everyone vote liberal this time around... There's a slaying of the behemoth on the line.
Also of interest:
1.d Until Implementation of the Plan, Microsoft shall:
iii.take no action that undermines, frustrates, interferes with, or makes more difficult the divestiture required by this Final Judgment without the prior approval of the Court;
Guess that precludes NGW...
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
IE's good on Mac
Netscape 6 still looks bad
Opera reinstalled.
First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)
Quoting from Judge Jackson's opinion:
Basically the Court is saying, "You guys are lying, cheating, and acting like nothing has changed, and saying that you can get away with it on appeal. You know what? Go ahead and appeal. I'm getting the knives out."
It gets better: Microsoft offered a bunch of witnesses to testify to the 'detrimental effects' of a possible breakup. To which the Court replied:
Basically saying, "your witnesses are BS and you're just delaying the inevitable."
I love this judge.
You can find the text of the ruling here, btw.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Well, the Samba team should be happy. The thing that they have *always* needed is access to the APis. That will happen before any appeal. As a side-effect, it should let us see the Kerberos 'extensions'.
But this ruling (if implemented) will reduce Microsoft to an irrelevance very quickly.
First, the OS group will lose their 'Unique selling point' - 'If you want to run Office, you have to run Windows'. That goes. As soon as the apps company releases Office for another platform (which will be soon). Then the OS has to compete on a level playing field, and without the apps, they can't. At the very least they would have to be cheap.
Secondly, the Apps company will want to move the 'Back Office' apps (IIS, SQL Server, Message Queue) to stable server platforms. And that means UNIX. This will happen *very* fast. This will kill Windows2000 server, and the Windows2000 Datacenter team can go home now.
Thirdly, The remaining good engineers will leave. A lot have already gone. OK, maybe they'll stay. But they will want *big* pay rises, because they won't believe in the share options any more. I know I'd be 'considering my options'.
The OS group will be left nursing a large number (Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinCE, Win2K, WinBleurgh etc) of operating systems to support. For the forseeable future. They will have no 'killer app', because they can't bundle Office. Oh, whoops. That means they might have to (gasp) compete - and that will be a new experience for Microsoft executives.
And they can kiss goodbye to NGWS (Next Generation Windows Services). This will actually be the first big casualty, because developing it will probably defy the non-'structural' remedies, which come into force before any appeal. So they've blown all that money already. If I were a minority shareholder I might consider whether the directors were acting properly when they decided to spend that money. And there are a huge number of minority shareholders.
Which brings me to my final point. This ruling opens the way to a *lot* of other lawsuits. Including some very nasty class actions. In fact, the pork barrel is so full the problem will be preventing coronary heart disease in the lawyers.
Thomas Penfield Jackson, We Salute You.
There's a rather credible (if somewhat paranoid) argument that by getting the judge pissed off at them, MS damaged *his* credibility, and thereby increased their chances of winning on appeal.
If Microsoft didn't want the judge to be biased towards the DoJ, then why did they go out of their way to piss him off?
:o)
Two reasons:
Microsoft's Arrogance,
and Microsoft's Arrogance.
Now, I realize that's really only one reason, but it's such a big one, that I thought it was worth mentioning twice.
Is Solitare considered a seperate application? I think M$ has a strong argument for Solitare being a crucial part of the OS... Definitely the most popular "utility" in the history of Windows :0)
"I always wanted to be a procrastinator,
Whoa, now.
The only technical things that are clearly defined, are the specific existing known product names and project codenames.
There is no entry in the list for "Internet browser," a term which Microsoft has steadfastly (and fairly reasonably) said they require, in order to know what their new boundaries would be.
For example, given the definition of "Middleware," it is hard to tell exactly what CAN be included in operating systems in the future. Is the "Windows Explorer" (not Internet Explorer) a Default Middleware product? You can use Norton Desktop or other OEM-produced item to avoid using it, but with no local file browsing at all, what use is the OS to the average person? Is the command line component CMD.EXE/COMMAND.COM (et al), a Middleware product?
Looking at Windows today (or any other Operating System), what fits the definition of Middleware? Everything above the kernel, and even some parts OF the kernel, could be construed as Middleware. The fact that Microsoft has, in the past, ported the majority of the Win16 API to the Macintosh (Windows on Mac), strengthens this argument.
If I were a devious Microsoft, I'd turn the Operating Systems Business into a company that produced,
Everything else would be a part of the Applications Business, charged with developing such Middleware as,
All that the Operating Systems Business would have to do is develop interfaceless devices such as XBox, and headless/rack servers.
What do you want to install today?
[
The Justice Department called for the Microsoft breakup weeks ago. The big news today is that an entirely separate branch of our Government, the Judiciary, has ruled that the breakup is mandated. Your headline is a terrible misstatement, an offense to American civics students.
While the Justice department is clearly a political animal, the judiciary is somewhat (at least one step) insulated from all that.
I for one am really (favorably) impressed at how the independent judiciary has come to grips with the real issues here. The issue is not whether a lower price on Microsoft stock will 'hurt' their shareholders, it's whether Microsoft broke the law.
For a professed non-computer user, Judge Jackson has done one heck of a job, and in an incredibly timely manner. Kudos.
It will be business as usual while they appeal and drag things out. More things will be embraced and extended. Meanwhile MS is building a new headquarters in Sealand.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!