Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Department Decides To Break Up Microsoft

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the penfield-jackson dept.

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.

14 of 784 comments (clear)

  1. here's a link to the PDF of the ruleing by jon_c · · Score: 5
    here

    -Jon

    --
    this is my sig.
  2. Re:I've been reading the judgement... by Shoeboy · · Score: 5

    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)

  3. The most interesting part... by kaphka · · Score: 5
    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.
    --

    MSK

  4. Where's the win? by Effugas · · Score: 5

    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

  5. The ultimate irony by / · · Score: 5

    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
  6. Re:This is terrible news by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5
    You need to read the original decision where he found for the DOJ. Basically most of the behaviour of Microsoft for the last 10-15 years has been aimed at preserving the OS monopoly.

    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!"
  7. Re:Will this change anything? by Battra · · Score: 5

    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.

  8. HTML version by / · · Score: 5

    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
  9. Name suggestions! by srcosmo · · Score: 5

    How about MICROS~1 and MICROS~2 :)
    Catchy, no?

    --
    free speach
    Did you mean: free speech
  10. Gates comments on breakup... by superape23 · · Score: 5

    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."

  11. I've been reading the judgement... by Rombuu · · Score: 5

    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!
  12. Start celebrating right now by SurfsUp · · Score: 5
    It will be years and years before this gets enforced.

    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.
  13. Scathing condemnation of MS... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5

    First, a nitpick: it wasn't the DoJ that decided to break up Microsoft, it was the Court. :)

    Quoting from Judge Jackson's opinion:

    First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. If true, then an appellate tribunal should be given early opportunity to confirm it as promptly as possible, and to abort any remedial measures before they have become irreversible as a practical matter.

    Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.

    Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.

    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:

    Finally, the Court believes that extended proceedings on the form a remedy should take are unlikely to give any significantly greater assurance that it will be able to identify what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy. As has been the case with regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion as to an appropriate remedy is sharply divided. There is little chance that those divergent opinions will be reconciled by anything short of actual experience. The declarations (and the "offers of proof") from numerous potential witnesses now before the Court provide some insight as to how its various provisions might operate, but for the most part they are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final judgment is entered. In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in enhancing or detracting from their accuracy.

    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
  14. What about Solitare? by v6stang · · Score: 5

    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, ...but I never got around to it."