Appeals Court Will Take Microsoft Case

Jason W writes: "In a legal victory for Microsoft, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case. This was before Judge Penfield Jackson could hear the governement's request to bypass the lower courts and take the case to the Supreme Court."

Comments

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[sconeu]

hand it back down to Aretha Franklin for final Decision

Maybe then the case will get a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Of course, she might just order Microsoft to "Take out the TCP"!

Sock it to me!

surprising

[snarkh]

It is a little surprising Microsoft chooses to fight so hard for a lost cause. Clearly some remedy will be imposed sooner or later. If they are to plead guilty to some of the alleged wrongdoings, they might get away with a much lighter punishment. Makes one wonder about their intelligence.

Also Bill Gates's performance during the depositions was pretty dismal. Either his lawers did not brief him properly, or he was too selfconfident to get briefed.

Re:surprising

[quonsar]

Makes one wonder about their intelligence.

Those people believe thier own legends. They are out of touch with reality. Not much different from what you find in your typical mindfuck cult. In fact it's probably only a matter of time until Bill and his followers depart for the mothership. Can you buy Kool-Aid online?

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

Re:Picture of OOG_THE_CAVEMAN (*way* ot, but funny

[quonsar]

ROFLMAO! (ok lameness filter, how about i balance it out with a buncha lower case? happy noooow?)

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

I personally don't think MS should be split, for the practical reason that I don't expect it to actually increase competition. However, I do support some corrective action.

I remember hearing something like that before.. oh yeah! At the end of my previous post! I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.

Debian and RedHat have not engaged in such practices; there is no evidence of them ever harming the consumer in order to harm their competitors, and furthermore they are not monopolies so even if they had it would not be illegal. If Debian engaged in the same practices as MS, of course people would want action against it.

I was being hypothetical.. RedHat or Debian wouldn't DARE bull the crap that MS did...

Why do I care? How about because I cannot watch DVD's without breaking the law or buying another OS? You agree that MS has violated standards; well the entire point of standards is to allow communication with other OSes, applications, etc. If I'm using a non-MS OS and MS doesn't obey standards, that means I cannot communicate with MS -- i.e. 80% of the machines in the world. Obviously that affects me; as you can see, I am online. So are you. Obviously the ability to communicate is important to both of us.

I highly doubt that MS own's the rights to DVD... I'm sure if Creative would/could make a DVD player for linux it would. But they haven't how is that Microsoft's fault? You have a TV card for Linux right? It has a video/audio in jack right? Buy a normal DVD player and plug the jacks in.. Easy DVD for linux.. That what I do when I want DVD on Linux..

DVD for linux isn't Microsoft's fault... so but your blame somewhere else for that one..

Re:Finally, SOmething that's fair

[RayChuang]

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this case right from the word "go" was the fact that EVERYBODY knew that Judge Thomas P. Jackson was going to stick it to Microsoft regardless of testimony. I won't be surprised if most of the case gets dumped out the window by the Appeals Court given the Appeals Court's penchant for overturning Jackson's decisions.

Does it Matter

[1DeepThought]

Correct me if I am wrong because I am no expert on U.S. law. As I understand it if the DOJ pushes it through the case can still go directly to the supreme court. Just because this lower court has decided to take it on doesn't mean the supreme court can't decide to take it from them. Like I said I don't understand US law in general and this appeals process in particular but is this, in a very basic way, not the case? Regardless I think it will end up making it through the appeals process it will just take a lot longer.

Re:Not exactly.

[Signal 11]

a case MAY be fast tracked to the SC, so as to preserve the rights of consumers at large (read: ALL Americans) rather than the rights of the few or the one (I.E. Microsoft).

The courts do not recognize 3rd parties in a lawsuit.. I cannot enjoin myself simply because I have been harmed by MS. This is not about the consumers.. not at this stage. Remember the rule: "innocent until proven guilty" - MS can, and will, exhaust every avenue of appeal and excercise every right a defender has. This is just one in a long string of slowdowns and setbacks for the DOJ.. and quite right, as it should be! When MS comes down, I want to know that it happened by the letter and spirit of the law.. not because of politics.

Re:About plaintiff v. defendants...

[RichDice]

Oh, and incase you think this is an economic sanction, I'll remind you that stock prices jumped up on news that Judge Jackson had ruled for the breakup. Even the baby-bills will be profitable.

Unlikely. Another interpretation is that everyone in the market was expecting this to happen anyhow (it wasn't exactly a secret what the judge would rule), and so this information was already price into the's stock's market value. The jump was probably due to the unexpected good news: that the judge wouldn't enact the breakup until after Appeals Courts ruled. While everyone expected that this would be the case in practice anyhow, that the judge didn't even try to enact his ruling was in M$'s favour.

Cheers,
Richard

What MS accomplished

[orpheus]

Unfortunately, MS did not entirely succeed in their goals.

1) if Appeals court declined to hear the appeal, they would have been fscked (an unlikely event)
Tiny victory for MS

2) If Judge Jackson decides to pass the case directly to the Supreme Court, and they agree to hear (the current constitutionally relevant portions), then the Appeals Court will be bound by those findings. Could go either way.

3) If Judge Jackson decides to pass the case directly to the Supreme Court, and they agree to hear (as above), further issues raised on appeal may be heard by the Supreme Court, but such new arguments may be unlikely, due to the nature of the appeals process. Could go either way - a possible chance for MS to reformulate (if done carefully) vs. tying their hands with what they say in the Supreme Court appeal.

4) the Supreme Court may decide to wait until the Appeals Court has ruled for reasons of simplicity. This allows MS to stall.

My assessment: a tiny victory for MS -- not nearly as big as the press made it seem. The alternative would have been for the Appeals Court to refuse to hear the appeal, since not all elements of the MS Appeals Court appeal would be Supreme Court fodder, anyway.

Re:Soapbox

[ethereal]

There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows.

Just like DR-DOS, Netscape, and others have tried to make money? Before this trial, Microsoft let companies make money in the windows market if they made a product that Microsoft didn't make yet, or if they were a windows symbiote (anti-virus companies are a good example here) that Microsoft hadn't assimilated yet. Remember the testimony during the trial about companies who would abandon plans for products just on the rumor that Microsoft would be entering that market?

Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE.

Why can't OEMs put Netscape on the machine with IE, and let the user decide? Because Microsoft bullied them not to, that's why. I've heard that IE is really a better browser; I haven't used it. But even if that were the case Microsoft wasn't willing to let the consumer decide on the merits of the software. Instead, they used their OS monopoly to take over the browser market as well.

Linux brought the internet where it is today.

Y'know, if you're going to try to allay criticism of the holes in your argument by taking one or two counterpositions, you could at least pick something factual for the counterposition. Linux has just begun in the last few years to run more of the Internet - to be specific, Unix and open source made the Internet what it is today. I hope that Linux makes the Internet even better tomorrow - I don't expect Microsoft to do so.

?They have a monopoly! It?s bad!? Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?

I care because half of the intranet pages at work only display correctly in IE. I care because in order to access my work Unix machine I have to use a Windows machine at home, even though I have a Linux box at home too, because my company's VPN software only runs under Windows. I wouldn't care about Microsoft being a monopoly if their software was high-quality and they arrived at their monopoly by making the best products, but I bitterly resent being forced to use mediocre software as a result of their illegally-acquired monopoly, and I'm appalled that such mediocrity is the standard to which the consumer has been forced to become accustomed.

Soapbox indeed...

Re:This is bad...

[demon]

He can't directly, but he could probably put pressure on the DoJ to stop fighting it, and it'd eventually piddle off into nothingness.

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

You say the APIs aren't totally closed. True enough. That would work against them. But they keep moving the target, because that way they can keep charging for classes and certification and new books. And their application programmers can stay one step ahead of the rest of the world.

Exactly why I said that MS need to be held responsible for when they modify standards. They also need to PUBLISH STANDARDS. Make the playing field more level. I'm in NO way saying that Microsoft should be left alone... FAR from it.. but breaking MS up will not change squat! Do you honestly think they won't cut a hush-hush deal between the two companies? Of course they will.. All I'm saying is that there need to be some sort of checks and balances on MS..

Re:why are they appealing?

[konstant]

In Canadian law, at least, you have to have a reason to appeal. I don't know American law very well, but it seems (inferring from the Wired article) that that's also the case in the US. So what grounds are they using for the appeal?

Fortunately, once the appeal is filed it will become a matter of public record and all of slashdot can descend upon it like a swarm of crows on a roadkill.

If public statements of Microsoft's lawyers are any indication, the appeal will be based upon four lrge grounds:

1) the prior law established by this appeals court

2) the factual record (appealing instances of the FoF in which Microsoft claims Judge Jackson made irrational judgements and ignored evidence)

3) the legal precedent of this case in context with other antitrust rulings

4) the severity of the punishment in relation to the accusations

It will certainly be interesting. I'm waiting on tenterhooks.

-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

Forget the Supreme Court

[craw]

The US Supreme Court (SC) is *not* going to take this case directly away from the US Court of Appeals. The DoJ may, if they are stupid, ask Jackson to petition the SC to take it. Jackson, if he is smart, will likely turn down the DoJ request.

Why? It is extremely unusual to by-pass the Court of Appeals. Unless the SC wants to make this a precident, they will just follow the normal procedure. The Court of Appeals is showing all signs that they are taking this seriously. They were willing to have all the Justices hear this case; three have opted out, leaving four Republican President appointees, and three Democrat appointees. This move is also unusual, but it tells everybody, Hey! We are serious and are willing to devote a lot of our resources to this case.

The Court of Appeals moved very quickly. While a schedule has not been release AFAIK, they will undoubtably expedite the hearing of this case. This would take away some of the arguments for taking this directly to the SC.

There is a lot of legal paperwork, review, hearings, etc... that will be generated by this appeals. Decisions will be made. All this generates a papertrail that is the foundation for a Supreme Court hearing. If they by-pass the Court of Appeals, then the SC has do this background work. The Supreme Court under Rehnquist does not hear as many cases than the SC did, let's say, 30 years ago. They would not want to venture into this without the background, nitty-gritty work that the Appeals Court would do.

The SC will not take this one away from the Court of Appeals. If Jackson asks, he will be turned down. Then guess who will be perturbed by this audacious move?

BTW, the SC is not a liberal court. In the past few years, the conservatives have been in the slim majority. The Court of Appeals will also have a slim (4:3) conservative slant.

Re:Forget the Supreme Court

[craw]

Read what I wrote. I discussed the very fact that the Supreme Court could be petitioned to directly take this case thereby bypassing the Court of Appeal. My point was that this will probably not happen. I don't believe that there are four Supreme Court members that will vote to by-pass the lower court.

Re:Forget the Supreme Court

[lbw]

Indeed, the Supremes may not accept direct review. However, I think that your note about the ideological slant of the court isn't entirely relevant in this case.

This is not a case involving a fundamental "right" or a foundational topic where the personal ideology of the justices is something of a determining factor. Rather, this is a case involving alleged violation of a very old and very understood Congressional statute, based on the bedrock of the Commerce Clause much more solidly than many other Commerce Clause based statutes the Supremes have allowed to stand.

The Supremes will not review or dispute facts of the case. That is not the role of an appellate court. If they take the case directly from the district court or the circuit court, as it is, then the current Findings of Fact will be accepted prima facia, barring any finding of procedural error in their determination. The only basis for finding for the respondant, or remanding the case back to original jurisdiction, will be a finding that the Sherman Act is unconstitutional in part or whole, that the law was improperly applied to the facts, or that the court made a procedural mistake which would have affected the outcome of the case. They might also find that while Microsoft did indeed violate the law, the remedy is not appropriate, however, a) the Supremes tend to be rather aloof on matters such as that, and would likely defer to the original court on remedy given no other fault in the original decision, and b) the Supremes have indicated a preference for structural remedy over regulatory oversight.

Given the gross improbability that the Supremes will invalidate Sherman in part or whole, and given the Findings of Fact wherein Microsoft's actions were a rather textbook example of Sherman violation, I do not believe that the Supremes will find for Microsoft in any substantive way. The ruling against Microsoft is a valid application of accepted federal law. In fact, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the case came to them still held against Microsoft, and they denied certiorari. Remember, once these cases reach the Supreme Court, they become primarily vehicles used to define our law. This case doesn't seem to lend itself well to being a useful vehicle toward that goal. Then again, the Renquist Court is a lot more ballsy than any other Court since '37, so who knows...

Re:Forget the Supreme Court

[JAPH Doggy]

But... there's special law on the books which specificly allows direct hearing by the Supreme Court in anti-trust cases. It's there because the defendants in anti-trust cases are always large mega corporations with virtually unlimited resources that can (without this law) tie up a case in appeals for many many years (witness IBM's case in the 70s and 80s).

It is the "Anti-Trust Expediting Act" which gives special circumstance to this case and allows the Supreme Court direct access.

--

Re:Forget the Supreme Court

[craw]

You make a good point about the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court and its relationship to this case. For many recent decisions, the breakdown has been Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor versus Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg. But ultimately, it really should come down to the relevance of the Sherman Act. And who knows how these Justices will view this with respect to the Constitution.

AFAIK, Rehnquist has normally taken a hands-off policy with regard to government intervention. Scalia is a strict Constitutional nut (Internet? Jefferson said nothing about the Internet:)), and Thomas is also hands-off. The more liberal members have taken a past position that government intervention is acceptable. That leaves O'Connor and Kennedy. They are the swing votes.

Your main point is insightful. This is somewhat uncharted waters with respect to this court. Furthermore, many ppl seem to think that the Court of Appeal will have the final say in this case. I get the feeling that most ppl think that the Court of Appeal that has overturned previous Jackson decisions against MS has the ultimate power.

Finally, MS has indicated that there were flaws in the procedure in which the Finding of Facts were derived. This is significant as the FoF serves as critical basis for many of the suits against MS. You indicated that the FoF is important and I agree. Therefore it should be interesting to see is the FoF survive the appeal's process.

Good Article at InforWorld

[Mr. Barky]

Here's Inforworld's article

Antitrust battle continues

Re:More Info on Wired

[Thomas Charron]

Three of them where disqualified, most likely due to stock investments, etc.

Re:Wow...

[demon]

It may happen yet, from the sound of things. We can only hope that the process to get the Supreme Court to hear it will go through, and then they'll decide they want to hear it.

IMO, it's important enough that they should. Doesn't mean they will, of course. But let's hope they do...

Let's get this right. . .

[werdna]

OK, guys, here's the drill. In a federal case, the Circuit Court of competent jurisdiction has NO DISCRETION AT ALL whether or not to take up an appeal after a final order from the District Court.

Thus, it misses the point to say that they "took up the appeal." They had no choice. After a Notice of Appeal is filed by Microsoft, the case automagically appears on the Circuit Court's Docket. Period.

What is interesting is what they *DID* do, which is to order the review of the District Court case en banc (that means ALL the judges who don't recuse themselves will hear the appeal, not just a panel of three). The order can be found on-line here

This actually isn't so great for Microsoft, because it means that, while they can be assured that two of the three judges who found for them in their first 2-1 victory (on different issues), those two judges will be a MINORITY of the panel that hears this case.

IF THE COURT HEARS THE CASE . . . the Supreme Court can still take up the case directly, or they might wait until after the En banc review is complete.

By way of explanation, Circuit Courts are big courts, typically with at least a dozen, and sometimes way more (the 9th Circuit, e.g.) judges. By random assignment, three of the judges are heard to review each case. After the three judge court has ruled, there is the possibility (before Supreme Court review) of the Court AS A WHOLE (en banc) to review the work of the three-judge panel, which is rarely done except for a really, really important case, or to resolve conflicts of precedent among prior three-judge opinions.

What is interesting is, not that the Court took up the case -- they had to. What is interesting is that the Court has decided to bypass the three-judge review, and go straight to review en banc. (Some Circuits call it "in banc.")

Re:Let's get this right. . .

[zencelt]

It is true that the appeal has to go on the Appeals Court's docket. Tho' as of this point in time MS has simply filed a notice that it will appeal, the appeal hasn't actually been filed. So no one, not the Government or even for that matter MS's attorney actually know what the grounds of the appeal will be. Judging from the quotes attributed to MS's attorneys, they plan to challenge everything they can think of.

Once MS does file its actual appeal, then the Government responds. The response normally takes the form of factual and legal arguments that support the contention that the Court should make a summary judgement in favor of the Government. If the court agrees with the Government, the summary judgement is entered and the trial (District) court's decision is affirmed. So while the Appeals Court must reach some sort of decsion on the appeal, it does not follow that there will necessarily be a hearing at all, much less lengthy ones. The Appeals Court can also find partially in favor of the Government at this point, thus limiting the issues that will actually be argued before it.

Furthermore, the appeal must deal strictly with matters of law and court procedure. Questions of fact have been decided by the trial court and are only subject to review if the findings are so out of accord with the record that no rational connection can be made between the record and the conclusion. As a practical matter, the appeal will focus entirely on the process the court used in the trial and whether or not it accorded with published Federal procedural guidelines, and with interpretation of the law. The appeal would only affect facts if the appeals court finds that some of the facts considered should never have been considered due to legal issues or procedural questions. In such a case, the appeal court could order the trial court to reconsider certain findings excluding the evidence that had been improperly cnosidered in the orginal trial. Reconsideration, need not neccesarily lead to a different conclusion. In rare instances, the appelas court could dismiss a finding, if it concludes that after the exclusion of the impremissible evidence, that there is no reasonable way to reach the original conclusion based on the facts remaining in the record.

MS will certainly challenge every decision Judge Jackson made during the trial on procedural matters, and will argue its theory of law both on evidentiary questions and the way the trial court applied anti-trust and other relevant legal doctrine. Given the complexity of the case MS is likely to raise, it seems virtually certain that there will be hearings.

But it seems likely that the Circuit Court will find in favor of the Government on at least some of the issues and thus limit the issues that will actually be argued before the court.

Eventually the court will render a final decision. The ruling could favor the Government, MS or cut both ways finding partially for the MS and partially for the Government. In the either of the first to situations the losing side is almost certain to appeal to the Supreme Court. In the last instance, the case would be returned to the trial court for a decision on the facts, based on the portion of the ruling favoring MS. The rest of the case could be appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear it until all of the lower court procedings are finished. This is under the doctrine of judicial economy -- there's no point in hearing part of an appeal on a case, where further appeals on other aspects of the case are possible -- it is a better use of the court's time to hear appeals on a case only once.

When the Supreme Court does actually receive the appeal, unlike the Appeals Court, it must first decide whether or not the case should be subject to its review. The Supreme Court does not take all cases appealed to it, it takes only small fraction of cases -- just the ones that its decision can resolve important Constitutional issues, unify interpetation of the law where several Appeals Courts have reached decisions that conflict among them or can generally advance the interpretation of a statute in important ways.

If the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, by this action it affirms the decision of the appeals court. If it accepts the case, then the appeal is scheduled for a hearing, etc.

Because the supreme Court is asked to review so many cases, and it is both a small body and one that scrutinizes the cases before it in great detail, it relies on the appeals courts to narrow and focus the issues. The appeals court winnows out the theories and arguments that have little merit or basis. What remains, then, are the most serious, big-picture legal questions. This winnowing process is essential to the effective working of the Supreme Court, and it is for this reason that it is very unlikely to accept a direct appeal from the trial court. There was no neccesary reason why it would have done so before the Appeals Court said it wanted to hear the case, and even less reason for it to do so now.

Two things are clear, MS means to delay this case as long as it can and will use every legal claim and arguement it can come up with to do so. The system is likely to work in favor of the delaying tactic. Although once he settled in, Judge Jackson moved the case with great alacrity, the Appeals Court may do the same. But in any case, it doesn't follow that delay will lead to an ultimate MS victory. It is also clear, that while this case is of great importance in the geek community, in the pc/software industry and those parts of "Wall Street" hitched to it, it is not necessarily clear that there is anything in this case that THIS Supreme Court will deem as worthy of its attention.

Re:Let's get this right. . .

[werdna]

It is true that the appeal has to go on the Appeals Court's docket. Tho' as of this point in time MS has simply filed a notice that it will appeal, the appeal hasn't actually been filed. So no one, not the
Government or even for that matter MS's attorney actually know what the grounds of the appeal will be. Judging from the quotes attributed to MS's attorneys, they plan to challenge everything they can
think of.

The Notice of Appeal creates the appellate jurisdiction, and fixes the dates for everything else to happen. There isn't really a "filing of appeal" process, although there are various documents that must be promptly filed with the appeallate court after the Notice of Appeal is filed with the District Court. The NOA is THE jurisdictional filing.

As to the grounds for appeal, that depends upon the definition of the term, the NOA as filed limits the scope in theory, to appeals "from the Final Judgment entered in this action on June 7, 2000, as well as from the Order entered in this action on April 3, 2000 (save from the portion of the Order dismissing the plaintiff's first claim for relief)." Similarly broad language was used for the NOA in the states cases.

You correctly write that we don't know what are the details until briefs are filed, which won't be due for months, and the time for that will probably be extended as well.

Once MS does file its actual appeal, then the Government responds.

Agaain, you seem to be confusing the lodging of an appeal with the process of filing briefs. The process has already begun, and jurisdication has already vested with the Circuit Court. Motions, indeed, have already been filed in that case! (See, e.g., the motion to file a brief for a stay pending appeal in case the District Court denies the motion.)

Furthermore, the appeal must deal strictly with matters of law and court procedure. Questions of fact have been decided by the trial court and are only subject to review if the findings are so out of accord
with the record that no rational connection can be made between the record and the conclusion. As a practical matter, the appeal will focus entirely on the process the court used in the trial and whether
or not it accorded with published Federal procedural guidelines, and with interpretation of the law.

You are generally correct that appellate courts review of facts are narrowly circumscribed, although the statement of the standard is not entirely correct in particular. This doesn't work so much for Microsoft as again it, since the fact findings are where things went the worst for them. In particular, the particular sentence selected for Microsoft's crime falls in the realm of "fact-finding" to the extent it depends on those fact-findings.

But it seems likely that the Circuit Court will find in favor of the Government on at least some of the issues and thus limit the issues that will actually be argued before the court.


It is a big leap from observing that the case has yet to be fully briefed to concluding that Microsoft will win. Only time will tell.

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

Remember the testimony during the trial about companies who would abandon plans for products just on the rumor that Microsoft would be entering that market?

Companies that shouldn't have been in business in the first place... if you have a better product that works on the same OS.. why run away.. weak people.. thats all..

Why can't OEMs put Netscape on the machine with IE, and let the user decide? Because Microsoft bullied them not to, that's why. I've heard that IE is really a better browser; I haven't used it. But even if that were the case Microsoft wasn't willing to let the consumer decide on the merits of the software. Instead, they used their OS monopoly to take over the browser market as well.

The user still has a choice...they can download the software or get the CD if they choose to. I used to use Netscape all the time, because it was the supperiour product, but now, it's not. I use IE. One, load time is a LOT faster. I don't want to wait an extra 3-10 seconds for the browser to open.

Y'know, if you're going to try to allay criticism of the holes in your argument by taking one or two counterpositions, you could at least pick something factual for the counterposition. Linux has just begun in the last few years to run more of the Internet - to be specific, Unix and open source made the Internet what it is today.

Linux. Unix. Same difference. But yes you are correct, I should have said Unix. I made a boo boo.. happy?

I care because half of the intranet pages at work only display correctly in IE

And a part of the other half only work in Netscape. I will give you this though... IE is TERRIBLY SLOPPY when it comes to HTML Standards... forgot a </td>.. not a problem.. forgot a </table>.. not a problem. That part I really hate. Another reason why I would like MS to comply to STANDARDS. I'm in no way saying that MS has NO FAULT, we know that couldn't be further from the truth.

Minor soapbox

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

a case MAY be fast tracked to the SC, so as to preserve the rights of consumers at large (read: ALL Americans) rather than the rights of the few or the one (I.E. Microsoft)

OK, time to get on my hobby horse and rant against a dangerous creeping locution: The anti-trust laws aren't intended to protect consumers. They are intended to protect citizens. The proper lines to draw are not between consumers at large v. producer, but citizens v. corporation.

I know it sounds minor. But we are already far too close to believing the hype and buying into the reduction of everyone to consumer cogs. There is value that transcends economic value. People are more than producers and consumers. Citizenry matters.

Re:Minor soapbox

[Vladinator]

Actually, yes. You are completely correct. Thank you for the correction.

Fawkin Trolls!

Re:So does this mean...

[mrBoB]

Exactly my point on why they need to be broken up further. However, the judge can/has/will make prescribe that the old business practices can no-longer be followed. there will be a commitee that over-sees what M$x2,3,whatever are up to. If the committee feels they are being assess, more problems for them. We can only hope that some more intelligent mandates come down from which ever court(s) hear the appeal(s).

Bob

Why microsoft did this...

[mduell]

M$ knows that if they go directally to the supreme the process will go much quicker and thye will be split up sooner. However, by staying in the appeals court for a while they can avoid being split up. Smart move beating the gov't to the punch.

Mark Duell

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Locutus]

So I guess it is the morons who use his companies products who are the losers? Sure glad the last dime he got from me was back in the late 1980's.... He's still a un-innovative loser in MY book.

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[drdan2]

Also: Judge Jackson is famously pro-monopoly. Conservative talking heads almost guarantee a victory for M$.

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Paradox]

They just want to maximize their chances of getting it overturned...


__

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[aaronhaley]

Part of the reason for not going to the supreme court is that due to the way the case is structured only part of the case would be allowed to be heard by the SC. Thereby splitting the case into two seperate cases which, of course, MS would never want. Especially if they can go this route and get it all swept under the rug... -jingy

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Master Bait]

The real winners know that love beats gold anyday.

-Natalie Portmap.

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[spidey(519)]

But does a bit more time really matter? I mean, they had to have seen this coming for a while now. And if it's an inevitable as you suggest, why not just breakup quickly before your compeditors have time to further jocky for possition?

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[glitch_]

Well...according to an Bill Gates did on Dateline...Microsoft is looking for the quickest solution. He commented that the "Quickest solution would be best for the consumer. A decision that will allow us to continue to innovate." Blah blah blah...and so on and so forth
Even though the fact is they are taking the slowest possible route

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Lullabye]

This will probably end up being an expensive ping-pong match through the courts, with each court overturning the other. Just my delusional thoughts

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[geeKing]

Wow! Very insightful! *Note sarcasm* That's kinda the whole point of appealing. That wasn't even worth saying. Let's keep Slashdot intelligent

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Hawk357]

By taking this to the appeals court Bill does buy Microsoft some time, but I fear the split up will still happen. No matter how much I dog out Microsoft, I'm in their corner on this case. What our government is doing here is wrong.

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Daemosthenes]

I think, in addition to all the great points mentioned above, Microsoft feels that it has a better chance of using it's World Domination powers to successfully influence the government in their favor at a lower level, rather than having to contend with the mighty Supreme Court.
- - - - - - - - -

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[Daemosthenes]

Oh, by the way, the correct address to access the MS world domination wallpaper is here. It includes the aforementioned picture and a bunch of other funny M$ stuff.
- - - - - - - - -

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[onticdreamer]

The strategy is not particularly complicated: Money today is worth more than money tomorrow.

Basic economics in the so-called freemarket place.

Re:Why microsoft did this...

[muldrake]

Money today is worth more than money tomorrow.

That depends on how much money today versus how much money tomorrow.

Giving away a browser for free is effectively throwing away money today for the opportunity to get much larger amounts of money tomorrow.

Re:About plaintiff v. defendants...

[Thomas Charron]

Nearly all of those Wall Street Types are earning alot more money then many of us here. I wouldn't call them stupid, that's for sure.

For instance, how much harder is it to retain an OS monopoly if you don't have a stranglehold on applications.

Dude, you're on crack. If you think that they will begin to lose money simply becouse they are broken up into small little monoploies instead of one big fat one, then you are severely mistaken. They will continue to make boatloads of money, no matter which way it goes. Heck, it may make them *MORE* money, becouse it could very well lead to MS Office *SQUASHING* any other alternatives under other platforms, if they end up with versions for these platforms...

Re:More Info on Wired

[aufait]

According to the AP story, three of the judges are disqualified from ruling on the case (no reason was given) that means only seven judges are available. This was one of the reasons the appelate court gave for hearing the case en banc.

Just because it is accepted doesn't mean it will..

[x-empt]

be overturned. In appeals court it is often ruled to agree with the previous judgement, especially when it involves an anti-trust case.

Microsoft just wants to share all their APIs throughout the company and this is a way that they can delay and share confidential information with the new company.


Free Porn! or Laugh

Re:Agreement doesn't matter - WITH HTML :-)

[Malcontent]

The DOJ may have been incompetent but they won. The MS team was even more incompetent.
Maybe the district court will throw this case out. As you stated they are packed with republicans and republicans will never punish MS (or any other corporation for that matter) they know who butters their bread. At this point MS is going to try to delay matters until their puppet G.W Bush becomes president and drops the matter altogether.

As for Bill G. he should be on trial right now for perjury. I saw some of the deposition and to this laymen he seemed to perjur himself multiple times. There is also a very stong case for witness tampering, evidence tampering, obstruction of justice and other felonies not only against Bill G. but several of his vice presidents as well. Too bad the rich in this country are above the law. Bill Clinton had to face the senate and the house and may still face a court of law for perjury but Bill Gates can flaunt his immunity at will.

My question is this. What can I do to make sure Bill Gates is tried for perjury? I presume I can't press charges against him. Who is responsible for seeing that justice is done in this case?

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Danneskjold]

Sure, it will happen, but it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will take this case. "Gravest National Importance" (which I believe is the operative standard for this particular type of jurisdiction) is a VERY stringent standard. Moreover, there are a plethora of SC opinions on the virtue of taking these cases through the appeals process, to isolate the true constitutional questions. In short, I highly doubt the SC will take this case away from the DC Circuit. The fact that the case is en banc is pretty interesting. The Ninth Circuit (most of the west, including CA) often hears cases en banc, because there is a minority of the judges in the circuit that often hear appeals cases and produce bizzare results. The en banc method makes it so those judges can't make law on their own. In this instance, it prevents Microsoft from facing a lottery on which judges will hear the case - all the judges (that want to hear it) will hear it. So the opinion will truly reflect the thoughts of the Circuit. All in all, probably a damn good idea.

This is good...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

I mean if the law allows murderers to appeal I mean why can't Microsoft right?...

-- My dime and a nickel

True, we are all gonna die...

Wow...

[cyphergirl]

Geeze.. that was fast. I was almost hoping to see it hit the Supreme Court first.. get this thing over with more quickly.

Re:Wow...

[THEbwana]

I guess that was the point of getting it to the supreme court right away - would have resulted in a ruling more quickly. So I guess MS won. This will now drag on for 2yrs+ which means forever (internet time)
Lets just hope that the "acceptable business conduct" he (the judge) prescribed can keep those MS'ers of our backs :-/

So does this mean...

[Dirtside]

...that MS-OS can spend time fighting the ruling while MS-AP goes on to continue being monopolistic?

Re:So does this mean...

[DreamMaster]

This raises the issue of what exactly the App company would get to take with them. As far as I can see, the distinction isn't exactly easy.

For example, I'd consider that DirectX is part of the operating system, but you include it in your list of applications. Also Media Player, as far as I'm aware, is pretty much bound into the operating system - so how much of Media Player goes to the App company, and how much stays as operating system; and will they need to do some costly "surgery" to MP to actually separate into two independant fragments.

What I'm getting at, apart from distinction questions, is that irrespective of your opinions on the matter, if they are forced to split they'll have a massive effort trying to break all the propriatary chains they've made between their apps and the OS. IE will be a nightmare: they've spent the better part of several years trying to integrate it so tightly into the OS so it can't be separated - it will be no easy task for them to undo that.

Re:So does this mean...

[Phroggy]

Yes, it's open to interpretation - and Microsoft gets to interpret it. The trial focused on Netscape, which was both an application and a middleware product (it includes a Java Virtual Machine), competing against MSIE, which did the same thing but was bundled with Windows. Consequently, the DoJ wants to take MSIE and associated middleware out of Windows. With a two-way split, that puts it with the rest of Microsoft, which is really just as bad, but they can't really arbitrarily say that Windows Inc. gets to keep the middleware now - it would defeat the main purpose of the split as a remedy for the problem that was discussed in the trial. Microsoft already contends that a split is inappropriate; doing the split any other way would be even less appropriate. Also, this is more than just my opinion. From section 7c of the Final Judgement:

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....

Notice the specific mention of Media Player. I'm betting they'll take DirectX and NGWS also, because although Windows Inc. is prohibited from doing evil things with that kind of this, MS-Apps is not.

--

Re:So does this mean...

[Phroggy]

Not exactly. If their request for a stay is granted, then Microsoft can continue to be evil until the appeal is settled. If not, then they have to clean up their act somewhat within three months.

If they lose all appeals and the Supreme Court upholds Jackson's ruling, then then MS-OS (a.k.a. Windows, Inc.) is pretty much stuck with just selling, supporting and developing Windows on a vaguely even level with Linux and other operating systems (Apple may be persuaded to release an Intel port of Mac OS X; who knows). However, MS-AP (a.k.a. Microsoft, Inc.) will take everything else, including Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, Direct X, Next Generation Windows Services (NGWS), the X-Box, whole shebang - and will have nothing to stop them from being completely and totally evil.

--

Change of president

[Skruffy]

The delaying tactics of Microsoft are pretty clear. Clinton is not particularly pro-Microsoft. There's no intervention on his part. Bush, on the other hand, who is pretty likely to succeed him, is vocally pro-Microsoft. If Gates can delay until Clinton is replaced by someone that is pretty likely to intervene on their behalf, the whole thing is likely to either go away or be watered down enough for them not to lose their main advantage in the marketplace (i.e. closed APIs etc).

They're not stupid. They know exactly what to wait for. A resolution at this time would be very bad for them...

Re:Change of president

[Skruffy]

Oh dear. Seems I'm not the first to point this out... Ah well. The arrogance of youth.

What does this mean?

[Otter]

So does this mean that the appeals court will be getting the case first or is it still to be decided whether it will go direct to the Supreme Court? My impression from the CNN story is that it's still to be decided.

Re:What does this mean?

[bkocik]

The DOJ has filed papers to have it sent straight to the Supreme Court. If that succeeds and the Supreme Court agrees to hear it, they'll take it right out of the appellate courts hands. So basically, yes, it still could go straight to the top.

Regards,

Agreement doesn't matter

[Dodger_]

This really doesn't matter. Tomorrow the DOJ can formally ask for the Expediatary Act and the judge can certify the case as meeting the Act's stipulations. Then, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to take the case, out of the district court's hand. You can bet this will happen too.

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Black Parrot]

> "Gravest National Importance" (which I believe is the operative standard for this particular type of jurisdiction) is a VERY stringent standard.

Well, BG certainly thinks it's of the "Gravest National Importance" that he be let off the hook. Otherwise, economic collapse, 10 plagues, and all that.

--

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Dodger_]

I knew, as soon as I posted, that this would be read the wrong way, and it's my fault. When I said that "You can bet this will happen too", I was referring to the DOJ/Judge Jackson's actions, not the action of the Supreme Court. I'm not certain which way the Supreme Court will swing. It's a very difficult choice that will have to be weighed carefully by the justices.

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Fyndlorn]

Because we can all be resonably ceratin that MS does not in fact want to expidite the process, and unless as the act states the matter is of grave national important it is unconstitutional to deny MS the right to proper procedure

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Habanero]

I heard an interesting interview with Judge Jackson on NPR last week. He seemed actually relieved that there is an appeals process and that his decisions would be reviewed by other people. The standard appellete process including the district court's turn, is, in a way, reassuring.

I had the opinion that Microsoft may want to prolong the appeals process as long as possible for the simple reason that the interim provides an opportunity for profits in a business-as-usual way.

But now, I think, that MS wants to prolong the process for another reason. Indeed, Gates and Ballmer have been quoted as saying that they are "so confident that MS will win on appeal, that they are not even going to plan for a breakup" as Jaskson ordered. However, I now think they are seriously planning for a breakup. It would be an egregious irresponsibility to their shareholders and customers not to plan for a breakup. And, I think it's such a complex job, requiring such a finesse of their employees' and customers' feelings, that they can use the extra time that a lengthy appeal via the usual chain of courts provides.

So, my guess is that first the appeals court will hear the case and that it won't be rushed to the Supreme court. Government may feel it's more prudent not to rush things and to have important decisions reviewed and MS may favor a longer appeal process.

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[SurfsUp]

Tomorrow the DOJ can formally ask for the Expediatary Act and the judge can certify the case as meeting the Act's stipulations. Then, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to take the case, out of the district court's hand. You can bet this will happen too.

I sure hope you're right, because if Microsoft manages to flout the spirit of the Expediting Act like this it will be another sorry day for American justice.
--

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[SurfsUp]

...there are a plethora of SC opinions on the virtue of taking these cases through the appeals process, to isolate the true constitutional questions. In short, I highly doubt the SC will take this case away from the DC Circuit.

The AT&T case was expeditied, why shouldn't this one be? In the AT&T, both sides agreed to use the expediting act, but I don't see why that should make a difference either.
--

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[GenChalupa]

The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court. The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible." The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels." The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun. To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel. The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife. There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination. That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt. To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong. 1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!) 2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing. Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ. What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.) Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here." Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight. "But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court. I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging. I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses. Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[hadron]

How much further do Gates and Ballmer need to go before they are jailed for contempt of court?

Re:Agreement doesn't matter

[Anomalous Canard]

Sure, it will happen, but it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will take this case. "Gravest National Importance" (which I believe is the operative standard for this particular type of jurisdiction) is a VERY stringent standard.

If this case, one involving a company which formerly had the highest market capitalization, does not qualify under this standard, than NO case ever will.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

Ah, but

[scruffyMark]

By the way, this would be even worse: in a strict socialist economy MS would be allowed to keep its monopoly, although as a state company.

Weellll.... In a proper socialist system, The government would run the American People's Ministry of Software for the good of the people. That would mean, there would be no need for breaking up the company. As a government monopoly, it would belong to all of us. And that means, its operation would be democratic. And, since corp == gov't, we already pay for the products through taxes. So, it's run to give people the most for their money, not to get the most money from people. Likely by visionless beaurocrats, but that would surely be better than the active evil of Gates & Co.

Likely, Windows would not have become the cludge it is, but a user-friendly(ish) UNIX OS, because the company would be there to make the best product. (When your profit stream is taxes, the way to maximize profit is to benefit the economy as a whole) And we all know what the most efficient OS style is.

In a properly democratic socialist country, all the company's products would necessarily be open source too, since to make informed decisions on the operation of the Ministry of Software, ie. to know how to vote, the people would need to see what MSFT/APM of S were up to, or at least to have some trusted computer scientist read the code on their behalf.

Re:Ah, but

[Drashcan]

"once that infrastructure exists, then socialism can take root"...

Could you provide an example. In Europe there definitely are none (nor Sweden, nor Danemark, nor Swiss, nor Belgium which, depending which stats you consult, overall offer the highest standard of living and have a developed economic infrastructure are not socialist countries). We tried in the kibbutzim we tried in communities in South America. You can call these ones limited successes. All the others were/are sheer inhuman disasters.

You are clearly not from a place were those "experiments" (catastrophies is a better word) took place. If you want to know how the system really works, throw out those text books and experience it yourself.

Capitain Flam
(tu n'est pas de notre galaxie)

Re:Soapbox

[Ace905]

"If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?"

I would. Definitely. Microsoft cornered and controlled the market, they didn't invent it. Remember, the original (D)OS microsoft sold to IBM, they didn't code.

Thank you for BASIC Microsoft.

"If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever"

Microsoft is being split for a million things they've done that Redhat and Debian both hasn't and in many ways could not. Open source being the most important reason.

Linux turns a profit, and is competetive. That's the type of competition I want.

Moderators SUCK

[Nick Mitchell]

off topic???? think F_U_U__U_U_H_N_N_N_YY__Y_Y

Re:Moderators SUCK

[babbage]

Yeah no kidding, I knew it was offtopic so I didn't give myself the +1 score, and still someone didn't like it. Sheesh.

I don't really care if anyone likes my [or anyone else's] sense of humor or not, but the tunnel vision around here really gets on my nerves sometimes. What's so bad about the occasional offtopic thread? THere might be some interesting discussions started if we could put up with a little of that, but noooo, gotta adhere to the Party Line.

Oh well, their loss, I'll lose no sleep over it. I think I'll go listen to some motown now :)

Don't worry. This is not the appeal.

[Imhmo]

They are asking the circuit court to stay the conduct sanctions until the case is decided.

If they get too out of line, the gov't could use the RICO statutes against them. That could involve criminal penalties (Jail Time) for MS executives.

RICO was originally intended to combat organized crime, but the laws can and have been applied to just about any objectional organization.

Re:Soapbox

[TummyX]

That's bullshit. IE still starts in a new process.

Netscape is slow cause it's POOORRRLY written.

Look at any other Microsoft product like Office. The load times are excellent (usually under 2 seconds). Look at the competition.

And preloading doesn't explain IE's excellent CSS2, VML and XML support. Nor does it explain why IE is faster at rendering AFTER it's loaded.

Re:If I recall

[Magic5Ball]

By the time this thing gets through the courts, things will have changed enough to make it not matter anymore.

Exactly. Millions will have been wasted by the government (and, indirectly, the American people) to produce something irrelivent and useless. Nothing significant will be changed at microsoft and all the years of high-profile MS bashing will have accomplished is to set the american tax payer back a few million. What's more, Ellision, McNealy, et al will still be touting has-been and defunct technologies in order to supplant Bill to satisfy their *.* envy. Nothing has changed.

Re:Translation please?

[the_other_one]

U Slayer: Kills Sheep

Re:Soapbox

[Roundeye]

And preloading doesn't explain IE's excellent CSS2, VML and XML support. Nor does it explain why IE is faster at rendering AFTER it's loaded.

The rendering engine renders incrementally, which is a better way to render than waiting for the entire page to load before rendering. But as far as support for those standards. IE supports some XHTML, which is an XML subset, CSS2 support is fairly laughable, although CSS1 is pretty much there. VML I don't know about (who cares anyway?).

IE5.* is a far better product than Netscape 4.*. Unfortunately it's still a prime example of monopoly leveraging and embrace-and-extend standards busting that both MS and NS have done in every supposedly standards-compliant product they've released. NS6 is already more standards compliant than IE, and a far better piece of software in general. Of course it's easy to see how well written Mozilla is when you can read through the source.

Re:why are they appealing?

[Black Parrot]

> 2) the factual record (appealing instances of the FoF in which Microsoft claims Judge Jackson made irrational judgements and ignored evidence)

I thought appeals only considered application of law, not the facts.

--

Re:Soapbox

[RobNich]

Although it creates a new process, the DLLs that IE uses (which contain all controls that IE uses, including HTML parsing) _are_ loaded when Windows starts.
With MFC/VC++ I can create an app that uses those same controls. If you use the MFC classes CInternetSession, CInternetConnection (or CHttpConnection) to download files in an application (which simplifies it quite a bit), if IE is locked up, those _system_ functions (atleast wrapped by the system, they are in "\winnt\system32\browseui.dll" and other similar dlls) will block your app forever.

As far as the "quick" loading of Microsoft Office, take a look at the startup group of the system. That "Microsoft Office" icon _is_ the preloading of Office. It loads the DLL(s) as soon as you boot (or log in if you're running NT).

And IE's "excellent" CSS2 support does not abide by standards. As a web developer, I know this. It does things similar to what it does to HTML, it's not as strict as it should be and allows you to do things that are _wrong_, for instance, using "font-style" to turn on bold when you should use "font-weight". It looks fine in IE but when you open the same page in Netscape 4.x/6 it does not. The developer thinks and says that Netscape is at fault. The developer is at fault, and IE is at fault for not adhering to the CSS2 spec.

I'm certainly not denying that Netscape 4.x was/is poorly written. ;)

Re:Soapbox

[Malcontent]

Best check on MS is competition. Right now MS owns over 80% of the desktop market, over 70% of the browser market, a huge share (don't know how much) or the server market. They use this dominant position to stifle competition so therefore there are no checks and balances. Even if there was a some sort of a MS watchdog organization they could not prevent MS from using it's desktop monopoly profits to subsidize other products (otherwise known as dumping) or force people to use MSN or whatever.
Exactly how do you propose to force MS to comply to standards when they can call the shots on the desktop? They can screw every single standard simply by making sure windows can't talk to it.

The greatest accomplishment of open source software was to prevent a MS monopoly on the server market.

Re:This is bad...

[Steve B]

It wouldn't just the NRA working from inside the White House...it would be Microsoft as well.

They could collaborate on the ultimate FPS game....
/.

Not so fast

[dbrutus]

Try reading Article II Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution especially the last sentance. Congress need make no amendment to get the Court to butt out of any area. They only have to pass simple legislation.

DB

Re:Not so fast

[Master Bait]

As long as the passed legislation is constitutional.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[aufait]

they file the paperwork directly to the Federal Court of Appeals.

Are you sure of this? In Maryland, you must file a notice of appeal with the lower court before filing the appeal with the higher court. Is this different at the federal level?

Think about this. Why should Jackson be involved in MS submission of the appeal? He just ruled against them. They are appealing his decision.

Congress passed a law that would allow Jackson to decide if the government can skip the appealate court and go directly to the supreme court once the notice of appeal has been filed. That seems like an excellent reason why Jackson would be involved.

Re:But Windows is useful! :-)

[MsGeek]

I can play both (if I wanted to) on Linux with KDE.

Re:Soapbox

[PurpleBob]

Wow. Most leaders of software projects/companies would have to settle for being hit by a bus, but Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer get to have a plane crash for THEIR hypothetical deaths. I guess money does go places...

(if you have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the question "What would happen to Linux if Linus Torvalds were hit by a bus?")
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.

this *had to* be filed in Appeals Court first

[sethg]

IANAL, but according to articles I recall seeing earlier today, the DOJ or the judge can have the case appealed to the Supremes -- after MS files with the Appeals Court. So if the DOJ wants the Supremes to take over the case, the Supremes can do so now, without having to wait for any action by the Appeals Court.

(This is a special rule for Big Important Antitrust Cases, and does not apply to most criminal and civil cases in the US, which must go through regular appeals-court channels. Kids, don't try this at home.)
--

Re:This is bad...

[finkployd]

Possibly, but I think it will be too far into it for him to stop it if he's elected. It might be too far already.

Re:Agreement doesn't matter - WITH HTML :-)

[kevin805]

No one butters the bread of district court judges. They may as well be god.

Regarding perjury, wouldn't you think Steve "We are not a competitor of Microsoft" Case would be a better target?

Oh, wait, we don't dislike Steve Case.

Or do we? He's AOL, and AOL is for lamers, so Steve Case is fair game, right?

I can never remember who's fair game for a lynching. I wish someone could print up a nice table of who's evil, and who's on our side. It would also be handy if someone could give a quick outline of how the law is supposed to change when it applies to people we like versus people we don't.

Re:Soapbox

[ASIO]

It has a video/audio in jack right? Buy a normal DVD player and plug the jacks in.. Easy DVD for linux.. That what I do when I want DVD on Linux..

Why fork out the extra cash? and I do it the reverse way, with Riva TNT2 and put it to the TV. it works, just have to reboot *shudder* to windows. Linux will catch up on DVD eventually, it's out there, just not as advanced as windows support is atm.

Re:Soapbox

[Paul Johnson]

there are plenty of other companies out there that still believe in proprietary code, closed source, restrictive licenses and all the rest.

As Elrond (IIRC) said, "If any of the wise should, with this ring, overthrow Sauron, he would set himself up in his place, and yet another Dark Lord would arise".

More seriously, whilst I agree with your main point, the Fall of Microsoft would create enough space for the competitors, including free software, to grow and take over its space. Right now we are the best placed member of the competition to do this.

Paul.

Re:Not exactly.

[aufait]

Remember the rule: "innocent until proven guilty"

They ARE guilty. They had a trial and have been found guilty. The only thing that will change this is IF the circuit court throws out the Findings of Fact and Law.

Re:Perhaps the 9th Circuit is as pissed as we are?

[werdna]

The 9th Circuit has nothing to do with this case (I just mentioned it above as an example of a LARGE Circuit court).

Of this much I am certain, a Circuit Court judge has probably NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in the public perception of his or her decisions. There are few positions in the world as powerful as that of a Circuit Court judge and few positions as desirable. Moreso even than the Supreme Court, these guys get to practice "pure law" i n the highest.

They pride themselves on their ability to follow the "law" rather than their instincts, and are far more concerned about their colleagues' viewing their work as pandering or anti-intellectual, than by writing a popular opinion. They tend to be more "by the book" than the Supes (who are not final because they are infallible, but vice-versa), precisely because they are subject to review.

In short, Circuit courts, particularly EN BANC circuit courts, tend to do a really, really good job on the merits. What Microsoft misses by the en banc review is that their best chances for a win (getting both of their two judges from the earlier case on the panel) is mooted entirely.

Moreover, there is one other thing. A 3-judge panel is BOUND by a prior 3-judge panel's decision as precedent. However, an en-banc panel can REVERSE the previous 3-judge panel. This adds a very interesting new possibility to the mix:

1) The Court can find the earlier opinion controls and reverse the District Court (or just reverse on some new grounds).

2) The Court can find the earlier opinion does not control, and decide to affirm the conviction on that basis.

OR, the new possibility

3) The Court can find the earlier opinion does control, OVERTURN the earlier opinion, and still decide to affirm the conviction.

In short, the briefing allows the government no only to argue why the earlier case isn't relevant, but can also argue that the earlier case WAS WRONG!!!!!

This is a big deal -- particularly because the third result can really slam the number of Microsoft chances on a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

Haiku

[575]

"Microsoft appeal"
A contradiction of terms
Except when in court

Re:Just because it is accepted doesn't mean it wil

[dbrutus]

Actually, MS is in deep water in any case. Let's say they 'get off on a technicality' and the findings of fact are accepted (they don't prove their innocence) but the findings of law are modified or rejected. This is a huge loss for MS.

MS ends up in the same state as IBM during its legal hell period. The followup lawsuits can all use the findings of fact to screw MS every which way.

DB

I've always wondered...

[Jasonv]

Imagine one day Bill and Ballmer get just right upset and 'give up'.

They declare they're tired of dealing with all the hassles. They buy some small tropical island (maybe, Hawaii or Australia) and let their lawyers know they want use that part of the lisence agreement that says they can make any changes at anytime.

They change it so that no one can use Windows xs or Office.. ever. Every copy of Windows everyone has a liscensed copy of suddenly becomes illegal to use....

Bill and Ballmer are relaxing on a beach, sipping their margaritas. The phone rings. It's the President. He wants to know what he would have to pay to be able to license windows again for the country...

Bill says, stroking Balmers bald head and raising his pinkie finger to the corner of his mouth, "One TRILLION dollars.... "

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[styopa]

Although MS does not go to Judge Jackson to ask for an appeal they do need to file for appeal, which they did not do. What MS has filed was the stay on the final decision from Judge Jackson. They only submitted the stay to Judge Jackson and not to the Court Of Appeals, yet, nor have they submitted the request for the appeal.

From some of the other news sources that I have read, MS was currently working on said paper work but it had not been turned in yet. It seemed that they were hoping that Judge Jackson would grant a stay on the decision before they even asked for appeal, why, ask a lawyer. Judge Jackson remarked earlier today that he would hold his judgement on the stay until they had filed for appeal.

From what I can tell coyote-san is correct in saying that the Court of Appeals took on the appeal before it was filed. They knew that MS was going to appeal, but US law says that there must be good reason for appeal before an appeal can be granted. If MS did not file a motion for appeal then they could not have submitted a good reason for appeal, ergo no appeal should be granted. This move by the Court of Appeals seems to say that they believe that there is a reason for appeal, therefore their opinion is most likely biased at this point.

Re:Hai-friggin-ku!

[Dirty Haiku]

Don't fuck with MS
Your death will come swift, fucker.
We will win this case

We will have revenge
All penguins will be murdered.
Dead birds in your lawn.

Blow this out your ass
We can buy and sell you, bitch
Get ass fucked by Gates.

Its all part of my *EVIL* plan,

[AjR]

I intend to use a piece of computer software called a "browser", with it I can hold computer owners in thrall to the crashes of my software. Slowly forced to endure shorter and shorter uptimes Computer owners will get more and more frustrated until eventually I will announce my demands for..

DUH DUH DUH

ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

(Holds little finger to mouth).

Quick, Number Two, launch the service packs!

(c) Dr W G Evil

Stalling?

[Black Parrot]

> This allows MS to stall.

Everyone seems to think MS wants to drag things out for as long as possible, but I'm not so sure.

It seems to me that stalling is good for MS only if they are ultimately going to lose. After all, the publicization of the evidence has been the worst PR disaster in MS's history, and the longer the case stays in the courts, the longer it is going to stay in the news. Not to mention the fact that every time another chance to present evidence comes up, the DoJ has another handful of e-messages from BG re squashing PDAs or whatever is giving him nightmares that month. You would think that MS wants it to be over with as soon as possible.

So to the extent that MS honestly expects to win, you should see them hurrying.

For that matter, I'm not sure it's to their advantage to stall even if they think they are going to lose. Sure, it gives them time to make a few more acquisitions for the kids to inherit, but it also generates more bad PR for them to inherit.

--

Re:Stalling?

[bharlan]

George Bush Jr visited Redmond and said he "prefers innovation over litigation." Microsoft understands those code words perfectly. The IBM case was dropped in 1981 by Reagan's new assistant attorney general for antitrust. A delay could work out very well for Microsoft.

Re:Stalling?

[Stephen Samuel]

....Not to mention the fact that every time another chance to present evidence comes up, the DoJ has another handful of e-messages from BG re squashing PDAs or whatever is giving him nightmares that month....

The time for presenting evidence is pretty much over. It generally takes a good bit of work to be allowed to present additional evidence in an appeal court. The exception would be if they tried to claim that specific evidence should (not) have been allowed at trial... So in terms of nasty new evidence, Microsoft has very little to fear in the appeal.

On the other hand, If they manage to get Judge Penfield's order stayed, they have little to loose (whether or not they ultimately succeed) by going the long and winding road:

1. They ultimately loose, in which case they've gotten an N year free ride and possibly squashed a few more erstwhile competitors.
2. They ultimately win, in which case, not having had the restrictions of JP's original order, they've lost nothing more than a couple million dollars in legal fees (cheap insurance for a company the size of Microsoft.

Even if the interim measures hold, it's still better than having actually broken up the company any faster than absolutely necessary.

Money is like gravity -- The bigger you are ... the faster you suck it in ... the bigger you get.
--

Re:Stalling?

[llywrch]

>Everyone seems to think MS wants to drag things out for as long as possible, but I'm not so sure.

MS's strategy has always appeared to be ``control the momentum".

BillG hears that the GUI interface is the wave of the future? Find one, market the hell out of it, & run all of the competitors into the ground.

BillG hears that the Internet is the wave of the future? Find a means to access it, market the hell out of it, & run all of the competitors into the ground.

(Then again, this has not worked in every case: take Artificial Intelligence. BillG heard about it back in the early 1990's when it was regaining some life, & decided it was the wave of the future. So what did MS give us? MS Bob, & later that obnoxious paperclip. As a result AI has gone to the Buzzword Graveyard along with multimedia & fast-track development.)

So the legal momentum is now against MS? Slow the momentum down to a halt, & try to reverse it. And even if they can't reverse it, every day doom is delayed is another day for a miracle to come & rescue them.

Geoff

Re:Bush can drop it, like Reagan dropped IBM

[stitch]

But surely, from my limited knowledge of U.S. government structure, once the case is in the hands of the judiciary, whatever the DOJ (executive branch) does is irrelevant. The defendant has been found guilty and its fate is now in the hands of the judicial branch - which cannot be touched by the executive.

Previously, yes, I imagine the DOJ could stop pursuing MS, but now MS has been found to have broken the law - and penalties imposed, the DOJ cannot simply stop the process.

WOW

[delmoi]

What a shock!

I never saw this comming, not at all!

Re:This is bad...

[JAPH Doggy]

No... but what Bush (or Gore) can do is this...

Given that MS were to win in the court of appeals, the president can simply tell the DOJ to stop. There's nothing that says an appeal must go all the way to the SC. One of the opposing parties must request the case be heard. If MS wins in the lower appeals court... the DOJ would then have to file the appeal to the SC. If the President tell them not to... then the story's over... and MS wins.

This is exactly why MS wants the case heard at the lower level first. They have a history of winning it that court and it delays things enough to keep the case from ever reaching the SC (given they win this appeal)

I fear that MS's chances of winning the appeal at the lower level are pretty good (and that scares me). Our only real hope is that either a) the DOJ's pending request to expedite the case to the SC is granted and the court agrees to hear the case... or b) the new President has enough balls to stay the course and allows the DOJ to actually appeal to the SC (after MS wins this round).

Of course... there's always the chance the MS loses this round too... then they will, of course, file yet another appeal to the SC. If that happens, then the High Court still has the option to accept or reject the case.

Regardless... I feel more comfortable about the case being heard by the SC since I have this sneaky suspicion that they're more inclined to agree with Judge Jackson than the gang of 10 (or is it now 7) in the middle tier.

--

MS Attitude problem

[dbrutus]

I would guess that the lack of remorse (which is standard stuff for judges to take notice of in sentencing) is only the last of Judge Jackson's problems with MS.

I would guess the brazen falsified testimony of the videotape, the 'screw you judge' compliance response when the order came down to temporarily provide Windows without IE were probably two attitude problems that got the judge's robe in a bunch. The problem is that if everybody were to act like that in court, the entire judicial system were to break down so judges have a longstanding habit in general to smack down people who try to pull stunts like that.

The only alternative is to end up w/judge Ito. Bleah.

DB

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[JAPH Doggy]

Aretha Franklin? Shit!

James Brown is the Godfather of Soul!

But... if it was up to me... I say we leave it up to Clinton to decide (that's George Clinton)

--

--

Re:Circumventing the Court

[Twanfox]

Ahem. With the various 'Findings of Fact' and 'Findings of Law' and rebuttals and such, it's a little difficult for someone with no first hand court experience to know when a trial is 'over', especially something this large.

All you had to do was say 'By the by, the trial is over. See reference page "insert URL here"'.

Thanks much for your informative reply.

To clear the things

[MotyaKatz]

No one can talk here about victories. CNN has a nice full story as usual.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[mpe]

This must be a troll, but I'll bite. MS does not go to Jackson, and say, Can we appeal this? No they file the paperwork directly to the Federal Court of Appeals. Think about this. Why should Jackson be involved in MS submission of the appeal? He just ruled against them. They are appealing his decision.

If it is normal court procedure for the defendant to seek "leave to appeal" from the trial judge they Microsoft are out of order. (Possibly also Jackson would be justified in jailing them for contempt)

As for the fast timing of this, think again. Was the Court of Appeals blindsided by this? No, they knew that this was coming. They obviously discussed this among themselves, came to a decision, and acted promptly when MS finally filed the paperwork.

Except that they appear to have said "yes" Before the paperwork was delivered.

What are you smoking?

[dbrutus]

Republicans will never punish MS? Judge Jackson is a Reagan appointee and from what I can tell is a fairly standard specimen of that administration's judicial picks.

DB

Re:What are you smoking?

[dbrutus]

The GOP is (rightly) concerned with anti-trust as a legal concept. Put simply, this particular legal theory is horrible and should be done away with.

What actually should have been done with MS is for them to be convicted of the criminal conspiracy to commit fraud on their ISVs and their customers under enough counts to trigger criminal RICO sanctions. This is multi-billion dollar fraud and this kind of law enforcement would have no Republican detractors. But Clinton-Gore decided to go the anti-trust route because they knew that they would be making partisan points and reviving a moribund liberal theory, that corporations are the enemy and only Dems will protect the 'little guys'.

DB

Re:What are you smoking?

[Malcontent]

I agree that these criminals should have been prosecuted under criminal law and be put in jail. Having said that though it seems like their stradegy backfired severely. By making an enemy in Bill gates they have forfeited the upcoming election. MS is already throwing around buckets of money at republican candidates as well as conservative PACs and other "stealth" organizations. Bill Gates will be able to install his puppets in the senate, house and the presidency. Dubya has already stated that if he wins the presidency he will drop the suit against MS and you can be sure MS will get him there.

Re:What are you smoking?

[jmtpi]

from an old (a couple years) article i found:

Haley Barbour, a partner in the Washington, D.C. law and lobbying firm of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, said "The Clinton/Gore administration wants the information superhighway to be a government toll road. That's why they're going after Microsoft."

Barbour formerly chaired the Republican National Committee and is credited with spearheading the Republican Congressional landslide of 1994.

in addition, remember that the gop controlled congress tried to cut the doj's antitrust budget right in the middle of the case. i think the republicans are much more pro-ms than against.

Re:This is bad...

[aufait]

Everyone who mentions this senerio semms to forget that the DOJ is not the only plaintiff in the case.

Let's assume that you are 100% correct: Bush wins and he orders DOJ to drop the case. That still leaves the states to appeal an unfavorable ruling from the Circuit Court.

Re:Not quite

[Black Parrot]

> The appeals court can stay the sanctions just as easily as Judge Jackson can.

A shrewd move for PJ would be to actually grant the stay. It won't make any difference in the long run, and it would dull the edge of complaints that he has been operating under prejudice (whether true or not).

--

The had no choice, justice tried to circumvent law

[cholko]

The party having no choice is the Appelate Court. I am very sure that they are just as disturbed by Jackson actions in regards to Justice's request.

He //Jackson// even stated he was willing to do whatever they //Justice// wanted.

That is not a Judge, thats a person with a chip on their shoudler.

This verdict will get tossed, and it would be good if the Appelate court chastises Justice and Jackson for their behaviour. The worst being was their attempt to prevent Microsoft from having a stay on the penalties of the case while the appeal was heard. That is totally unheard of in law, a defendant is always allowed granted a "stay hearing" versus penalties while the main case is appealed. Justice knew that by kicking it to the Supreme Court that that court could not hear or would not be able to hear the case before October which meant the first phase of penalties from the case would be in effect.

While I don't agree with Microsoft's behaviour, the Justice departments behaviour is far far worse. Apparently they believe that what they want is what they should get regardless of the law. They are playing Judge, jury, and executioner. How long before they try this versus individuals?

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever. If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?

How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS? Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1. Microsoft made the computer more usable for the "average" computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.

There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows. Its not like the API's are totally closed and just about impossible to hack a program for the OS, if that was the case, then hell yes, torch the place. But its not.

I truly believe that most of the slashdot users are pissed just because it's Microsoft and the fact that it's (ack) closed source! So what? They created (or bought) the source, its' THEIRS, not OURS. If you hack out open source software, that's YOUR choice.

Yes, some of Microsoft's past actions are questionable, but the majority of them have been resolved. Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE. How would the average user go about downloading Netscape if IE wasn't installed? (yea there's ftp.exe, but the average user doesn't know that it exists...) Yea, MSN is installed on a typical install.. so are Prodigy, AT&T WorldNet, AOL + others) which can also be uninstalled. Face it, Microsoft has brought the computer industry to where it is today.

Linux brought the internet where it is today.. of course Microsoft had to adapt to the internet standards and create it's own internet programs. It had to keep up with linux in that aspect. Now that it has caught up (and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. 'They have a monopoly! It's bad!' Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?

I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.

You watch to much TV.

[cholko]

The Appellate Courts have the right to do what they did. They aren't stepping out of line, only acting faster than what most people expected.

Sorry, but Jackson's court isn't a court anymore. He is working on the side of the prosecution, its been obvious he's been biased all along. You cannot have justice when the court is biased.

Re:You watch to much TV.

[connorbd]

Keeping in mind, of course, that right or wrong there was good reason for Jackson to be a bit slanted. After all, he was the judge for the '95 consent decree that MS urinated on so freely, and it's tough to keep a straight face when the most powerful company in the world is blatantly, obviously lying.

Now for that right or wrong part: maybe Jackson should have kept a straight face, and that could hurt. IMHO MS won't do all that well in Appeals, but they might wind up doing better than they would have because of that...

/Brian

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[craw]

IANAL:) but I believe the notice of appeal goes to both the US Court of Appeal and to Jackson. Jackson, OTOH cannot deny the appeal process. Once the appeal process is filed by MS, then the DoJ can move to ask Jackson to go directly to the Supreme Court. After asked by DoJ, then Jackson can petition the Supreme Court to by-pass the US Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court then votes whether or not to take this case (four votes needed, IIRC), while by-passing the Court of Appeal.

When I talked about Jackson's role, I should have more explicitly stated that Jackson cannot stop MS from filing their appeal. Many ppl here seem to think that Jackson can petition the Supreme Court to directly take this case before MS filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeal.

BTW, do you live in MD? I live in VA. He share one common point. We both live in the two states that have passed a rather dubious law, if you know what I mean.

Re:Delaying tactic

[Schnedt McWapt]

Bush can just fire their asses out of the DOJ.

You are mistaken.

[Tiro]

My understanding of U.S. Government is that President Bush (if elected) could order his (appointed) U.S. Attorney General to stop the legal proceedings against Microsoft. There would remain nineteen state attorneys general involved in this case, but (I believe) they have no jurisdiction to handle charges against Microsoft without DoJ cooperation.

By the way, this *is* a criminal case. This is not a civil case (i.e. Silicon Valley v. Microsoft filed with the intent of winning a cash settlement). The Antitrust Division at the DoJ is prosecuting under the Sherman Act. This is Criminal.

I've never heard of a corporation being granted a presidential pardon tho, and if Bush did that, he would go down in history as being a coconspirator with the MS Special Interest.

Few modern politicials have the balls to risk something like that :]

Re:You are mistaken.

[flatrock]

IANAL. The president could appoint an Attourney General who would drop the case, but that would be a very politically dangerous thing to do. I think the states could still pursue the case, but I really don't know.

The Sherman act provides for both criminal and civil penalties, however this is a civil case. No criminal charges have been filed, and criminal charges would be handled in a seperate case from the civil case. It may be possible for the government to still file criminal charges under the Sherman act, but it seems unlikly to happen.

Re:Soapbox

[YASD]

OK, let me rephrase. It was Microsoft that made the computer accessible to most people, because it ran on much cheaper hardware than a Mac, and both businesses and home users bought a lot more of them.

Regarding Windows being a mess, and not innovative, I agree with you 100%. However I feel obligated to point out that MacOS was also proprietary, and ran on proprietary hardware as well. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded as much as it did, we might all be cursing Apple today.

------

The non-impact of firing lawyers

[dbrutus]

When Clinton came in he immediately fired all federal district attorneys. No replacements, some posts were unfilled for over a year, and all that happened was a bunch of conservatives got their panties in a bunch.

Why would Bush firing Boies mean a hill of beans?

DB

Re:This is bad...

[dbrutus]

OK, let's take this forward, the DOJ stops and then what? 19 state anti-trust suits go forward without the DOJ. Big whoop.

DB

Re:This is bad...

[Christopher Craig]

For some strange reason, a large majority of the public favors Microsoft.

It's not a very strange reason. Microsoft has a lot of support in the media, which it gives lots of money to, and Microsoft makes statements essentially saying that this judgement shows that if you make a product that is popular enough the government can break you up. The justice department, on the other hand, has made no effort to counter this incorrect assertion. I have in the last week heard some very intelligent people who haven't really been following the case make statements saying they were scared of the precedent this set and that they felt it was wrong of the government to break up MS just because they got so popular. MS is throwing lots of money into making public perception that it was wronged because it got so popular. If someone (DOJ?) doesn't come out and explain loudly that it is because they committed product tying and abused market power, both of which are illegal, that MS was broken up then the public will continue to favor MS. That said, judges don't have a record of curryingto the whim of the public so I don't expect it matters much as far as the outcome of the case is concerned.

Re:Soapbox

[Dr. Sp0ng]

I'm sure if Creative would/could make a DVD player for linux it would.

Interesting example - Creative is, AFAIK, the ONLY DVD decoder card manufacturer that DOES support Linux. I have a Creative Dxr2 decoder card, which works great with Creative's own GPL'ed drivers. Picture quality is equal to that of the Windows drivers, and TV-output even works.
--

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[Rakarra]

Or, at the very least, the Surpremes will accept the case, but immediately return it to a *different* lower court for the first round of appeals.

Since when did Diana Ross become the ultimate arbitator of law in the land? I knew the music industry was powerful these days, but damn...

Drooling Sheeple

[Loundry]

I don't see why you use the Holocaust as an example.

Assume that he wasn't using the Holocaust as an example. His point is still valid, and you did not address it. If "majority rule" is the law of the land, and the majority of the people want to kill all of the Jews, then what happens?

For what it's worth, I'd also like to remind you that it's entirely possible for moderately intelligent, well-informed members of the public to support Microsoft.

If you ask almost any moderately intelligent and well-informed member of the public what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is, or how and why Direct3D became so popular, or how much Internet Explorer *really* costs, then you'll get a dear-in-headlights stare back at you. I think that it is impossible to support Microsoft if you are concerned about the future of computing and computer science as science, regardless of your intelligence or how well-informed you are.

Whether or not I qualify as "moderately intelligent, well-informed", I am a member of the public, and I am a proud Microsoft customer, supporter and shareholder. Yeah, crazy, huh?)

What about Microsoft makes you proud?

Personally, I think your attitude smacks of elitism and if anything, undermines your point.

By implying that the majority of people are too stupid to dictate the law of the land? Frankly, I agree with him and I don't think there's anything elitist or otherwise wrong in saying that. What's the difference between "Democracy" and "Mob Rule"?

I'd say, on the whole, our legislators are generally well-educated, presumably intelligent and America's "best and brightest." And look how badly Congress is capable of screwing things up. I doubt the track record of the general public could be that much worse :)

Most all of our elected officials are power-grabbing bastards. They don't have to be intelligent; they just have to say what enough voters want to hear in order to keep them in power. Why do you think the democrats insist on enacting and maintaining bankrupt social schemes? Because those schemes buy votes! Why do you think the Republicans keep trying to criminalize behavior in which no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property? Because such legislation buys votes!

And as far as the public's track record goes: WCW Nitro, Rosie O'Donnell, and NASCAR are immensely popular with the public. C-SPAN is not. Tell me again why you think that the public can be trusted to govern this country?

Re:Drooling Sheeple

[binarybits]

If you ask almost any moderately intelligent and well-informed member of the public what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is

Not a hell of a lot from a technical standpoint. Server is more expensive and is required to run the industrial-strength versions of Microsoft server products. I don't know what the exact technical differences are, but the core code is the same.

how and why Direct3D became so popular

Here I have no idea. I avoid Microsoft products, so I've never used Direct3D.

how much Internet Explorer *really* costs

$0. If you are implying that you pay for it through Windows, that might be true for those who choose to use Windows. Those of us who use Macs get it absolutely free. Even still, Windows costs about the same today as it did before IE was released so it can't be much.

I think that it is impossible to support Microsoft if you are concerned about the future of computing and computer science as science, regardless of your intelligence or how well-informed you are.

This is the kind of smug self-assuredness that annoys me about the typical slashdot crowd. There are a goodly number of intelligent, well informed individuals who support Microsoft's right to change their product however they want, and sell it to whomever they want on whatever terms they choose to set. I'm one of them.

I support Microsoft primarily for economic and political reasons. The theory surrounding antitrust is full of holes, and this country would be better off without antitrust laws at all. Antitrust as currently written is vague, overly broad, and basically makes every corporation with a large market share in violation of the law. This makes any successful company a target of potential lawsuits, which envious competitors use to beat in the courtroom those who they couldn't beat in the marketplace.

It is no accident that Sun, Netscape, and Oracle-- three of Microsoft's biggest competitors-- are actively supporting this case. I think this is a clear case of competitors using antitrust law as a club against more able competitors.

Has Microsoft done some sleazy things? Yes. Have they done some things that doeserve punishment? Possibly. Should they be punished for having a large market share and using that to promote their other products? Absolutely not.

I can certainly understand that intelligent people can disagree with me. I am extremely annoyed, however, that the reverse is not true. There is a near-universal assumption that anyone who opposes the dominant anti-Microsoft view is either woefully misinformed or in the pay of the Evil Empire.

For the record, I've never paid Microsoft a penny for its products, own no Microsoft stock, and have never been paid by them. I simply believe in the value of free markets and the right of producers to keep the fruits of their labors. I believe this right is being massively violated in this case.

Re:Yer just jealous

[catman]

Your Jealous cos we get paid buckets of cash, and you get nothing for your little pathetic Unix clone rubbish.

YEAH! Why should I use that little upstart clone when I can get paid to use Windows!!!
(Of course, when I'm not paid, I do use Linux. Why sweat Windows when I don't have to .. )

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[Black Parrot]

> The appeals court acted BEFORE they got the actual appeals paperwork - which means that they accepted the case BEFORE they could possibly decide whether the appeal had any merit.

According to an article at The Register ("Appellate court will hear MS whinge"), MS did turn in the paperwork -

And put up it did. Microsoft filed not only notice, but a full brief, with the US Court of Appeals Tuesday afternoon, citing "an array of serious substantive and procedural errors that infected virtually every aspect of the proceedings" in Judge Jackson's courtroom. Almost immediately after receiving the brief, the full appellate court agreed to hear the case "in view of its exceptional importance."

I agree that the response looks a bit rushed, but it is not clear that protocols were actually violated. I think we may be dealing with another case where part of the story got out before the details did. We should wait for Today's (Wednesday's) news before we get too caught up in debating any presumed "short circuit" of the judicial process.

--

Yea at least another year & 1/2

[Smitty825]

Yea, it will be at least 1.5 more years until M$ will be split up...maybe someone (Linux/BSD/Apple?) will be able to make inroads into the market for OS's before then!

Re:Yea at least another year & 1/2

[Shadowlion]

I mean, can you see any other rationale behind their new policy of no install media for OEM Win9x licenses?

Yes, as a bulwark against Linux and other alternative OSes.

Would *you* try and partition your disk and install Linux if you knew you didn't have a way to recover your Windows partition if something went wrong?

Without physical media, fewer people will be willing to try installing a second operating system because they don't have any way of restoring their machines to working order if something goes kaplooie.

Re:Yea at least another year & 1/2

[carlfish]

YM "five years" HTH. After the appeals court, it'll go to the Supreme court.

Five years is a hell of a long time in the software business. I mean, five years ago Linux was celebrating version 1.0, and the General Public was deciding whether they should upgrade from Win3.1 to Win95, and wondering if they should get on "That AOL thing." In five years, we saw Microsoft use its OS leverage to kill Netscape, and crap on who knows how many OEMs?

This means that Microsoft still have a lot of time to do a lot of damage. And if they think they've got a good chance of losing the case, it gives them five years to use their Monopoly to make sure that if they're broken up, both resulting companies end up as powerful as they can make them.

I mean, can you see any other rationale behind their new policy of no install media for OEM Win9x licenses? It's like they're saying "We've only got a few years of the gravy train left. Lets stretch it out as long as we can, and screw as many people as we can along the way."

Scary, huh?

Charles Miller
--

so is it already out of District Court hands?

[raul duke]

The title says it all.

So basically your saying that the government can't get this thing past the appeal Circuit Court and go straight to the Supreme Court?

I thought that Judge Jackson had some say in this matter. Or more like I was praying that he did.

Anywho thanks

Re:so is it already out of District Court hands?

[werdna]

When a court issues a final judgment, it typically divests itself of jurisdiction except to the extent necessary to enforce that judgment. In a case such as this, things get pretty complicated.

There is a process for post-judgment motions and appeals, with respect to which Microsoft has pending motions. I don't recall my appellate procedure, but the filing of the Notice of Appeal may have the effect of waiving the post-judgment motions, or might not.

However, the Supreme Court direct route is subject to a special statute creating S.Ct. disretionary jurisdiction on direct appeal after a District Court certification, under which the District Court may retain jurisdiction to certify even after a Notice of Appeal is filed. Again, the particulars would depend on the particular statute -- and this is probably itself an interesting litigable question.

-- hey, this thing doesn't happen everyday. Most statutes are regularly tested, even after they are recently passed, so there is ususally clear understanding what they mean and how they work. This case will raise lots of questions of first impression, including, most likely, the questions of appellate procedure raised under these never-tested statutes.

Re:Soapbox

[JonK]

The registry is a mess.

And your take on a centralised network-accessable store for rich data types (because not everything can be sensibly represented in ASCII) would be?

Configuring networking is a pain and requires a reboot on every change.

Partially true with 9x and NT, not so true with 2K...

You need to pay extra money to use multiple processors.

No you don't. Just plug in a second processor and run UPTOMP to update the kernel. Third and fourth processors don't even require the second step.

The file system is based on 8.3 names

No it isn't, and hasn't been since NTFS 1.0

and the shell is still based on DOS. See previous comment The system looks UGLY, compared to a Mac or a Linux box running EFM (drool).

This is puely a matter of opinion: to me, most Linux desktops look butt-ugly, largely due to the broken-ness of X. MacOS looks pretty enough, mind, but I can't take any computer system seriously when the makers think that compact keyboards and designer mice are a good idea...

MacOS doesn't have these drawbacks, and it was around before Windows and was always ahead of it.

Just which drawbacks would those be again? The preemptive multitasking? The memory protection? The MP support? So I don't want to hear that MS is responsible for all this damned "innovation".

And I don't want to hear from drooling Mac zealots that MacOS is the one true OS and every other computer on the planet should instantly self-combust because anything they can do MacOS can do better and has in fact been doing it better, and more prettily, for years already. But sadly, I've got to ;-(

BTW, where's the middle tier stuff for MacOS - or, for that matter, Linux (you know, stuff like Tarantella, Tuxido, MQ etc.)
--
Cheers

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[styopa]

I had not seen any of the articles mentioned that Microsoft had turned in their request for appeal. Thank you for clearing up the question that I had posted but had gotten lost in the shuffle. I thought it seemed somewhat strange that the Court of Appeals would do something like that, but with no proof otherwise (until now), I was relying on what I knew.

The fact that they did not jump the gun changes how I view the way the Court of Appeals is dealing with this case.

I agree that Microsoft has the right to a fair trial, but that does not mean that pushing this directly to the Supreme Court denies said right. The DOJ and Jackson seem to trying to bypass the Court of Appeals for distinct reasons, I am not in their head so I'm just speculating, perhaps they have lost faith in their ability to to rule on issues of this nature. Maybe the DOJ and Jackson are trying to save the tax payers money or allow the computer industry to know what the virdict is without dealing with 2-3 more years of trial.
The Court of Appeals have sided with Microsoft in two other cases. Perhaps the DOJ and Judge Jackson think they are as biased towards Microsoft as Judge Jackson is biased against them. Perhaps by moving this directly to the Supreme Court both sides will finally have an impartial decision.

Only time will tell on this one.

Re:Just because it is accepted doesn't mean it wil

[cvd6262]

Correct, but it should be easy for M$ to convince the court that no real harm to consumers was proven in the original case. They don't have to prove their innocence, they only have to prove that the last trial was somehow screwed up.

They could have fudged the last trial on purpose so they could sneek by on a technicality.

huh? IE intercepting this link?

[hawk]

This is *bizarre* I don't normally use windows, and it's only a temporary situation, but right here, on the ""read the rest of this comment" link,instead of to slashdot, it points to

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/appeals /06-A%20HREF=

[there's a paragraph & bold in there too, but slashdot eats them . . .]
It also happens to the same link in this followup window. Is the slashcode doing something wierd, or is it IE? Do other people get this as well?

hawk

Re:This is bad...

[Black Parrot]

> Microsoft undeniably has a monopoly but might be able to keep it if they can slow down the case long enough..

Personally, I think they're screwed even if they do get off. The publicization of the evidence has done them irreparable harm because no one in the industry - not even the clueless pundits at ZD and Gartner - can pretend anymore that everything is as it should be.

That and the fact that Apache has forestalled their grab at controlling the internet. They are still dangerous due to the sheer amount of money they can throw around, but overall I think their power has peaked and the internet gives the world too many ways to route around them. While Bill was preening in The Road Ahead, the real world took a different fork and Bill still hasn't caught up. Microsoft has simply become too big and to self-obsessed to turn on a dime like it needed to.

Also, if they get off scott-free again, their behavior for the next few years will undoubtedly be as bad as hit has for the last few (witness BG's anti-PDA e-message even while he was getting thrashed in the current case). They aren't going to have any friends that they can't buy outright, and in fact they will surely end up back in court within two years of any acquital, with all the PR costs that that entails.

While I personally think that a breakup (plus maybe a bit of jail time) is too good for them, I think it might be better overall to let them fall on their own merits (or lack thereof), and be seen to do so, rather than leaving BG the excuse of "it was all the DoJ's fault". The only reasons I'm not pushing that position strongly is that &lt 1% chance that they can leverage their desktop and their bank account to corrupt enough standards to take the internet back away from us. That and the fact that it would be shameful not to punish someone after such a clear display of how badly they have been behaving.

--

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

Okay, I fixed your quotes and incorrect punctuation.. I hate question marks all over the place..

Sorry... that's a Netscape problem.. (at least on Linux. I see that A lot).. since I don't USE Netscape unless in in Linux.. Someone replyied to my post in Netscape/Linux and [']'s turned into [?]'s..

The Appeals court grabbed it quick...

[SurfsUp]

...Before the district court had a chance to employ the Expediting act, to move it directly to the Supreme Court. I saw something like this happen in my home province, B.C. - former premier of B.C. was being charged with a blatant case of insider trading, and the provicial court grabbed the case quickly, before the federal court could get it, so they could let him off with a wrist-slap. Of course, the Appeals court can't let anybody off, but they can sure weaken the case if they want to. This looks very, very sleazy. I think it's well worth scrutinizing how the Appeals court conducts itself in this case, and if strange things are done, I think very sharp questions should be asked as to motivations and allegiances.
--

Re:If I recall

[aufait]

Millions will have been wasted by the government (and, indirectly, the American people) to produce something irrelivent and useless. Nothing significant will be changed at microsoft and all the years of high-profile MS bashing will have accomplished is to set the american tax payer back a few million.

If they DOJ's goal was to increase competition in the software business, they have already succeeded. Three years ago, linux was never mentioned in the mainstream press. Three years ago, no major OEM would have sold computers with other operating systems preinstalled. Three years ago, no venture captilist would have funded anyone who said they were going to go head-to-head against Microsoft.

Today, Linux is mentioned in all the media. Yesterday, the Washington Post had a large, favoarable article on it. More OEMs are offering Linux preinstalled. And, money poured into the IPOs of Red Hat, VA Linux, etc., whose primary competitor is Microsoft.

Personally, I think Microsoft s making a mistake by dragging it out. Even if they win a total victory on appeal, they will have suffered a setback in the market. They longer they drag it out, the bigger the setback.

I accurately predict a modded up article..

[MagPulse]

and I get modded DOWN!? take my karma, see if I care.

Re:Delaying tactic

[RenQuanta]

Of course you're right on all of that, but consider this:

Say Microsoft wins on this appeal, and the process takes until January Let's also say that Bush wins the election (shudder). It would be up to the Justice Department to appeal the appelate court's decision, but if the Adminstration changes, it could choose not to pursue that.

Copyright?

[overshoot]

Was anyone else amused by the Microsoft copyright notice on the web page with the Court's order?

Re:This is bad...

[jblackman]

That's why we don't put legal authority into the hands of the drooling sheeple. We have judges who presumably (at least sometimes) have clues. Otherwise you get mob rule as the majority decides to do crazy stuff like kill all the Jews or execute anyone caught with a joint.

I don't see why you use the Holocaust as an example. It did not occur because the majority of the German people suddenly decided they disliked Jews; it was largely perpetuated at the hands of Hitler and his cabal -- the (quasi-kinda-sorta)elected/legal government, essentially the conterparts to those you claim are protecting us from ourselves.

For what it's worth, I'd also like to remind you that it's entirely possible for moderately intelligent, well-informed members of the public to support Microsoft. Just because you don't doesn't make it intrinsically wrong conclusion.

(Naturally, I speak for myself here. Whether or not I qualify as "moderately intelligent, well-informed", I am a member of the public, and I am a proud Microsoft customer, supporter and shareholder. Yeah, crazy, huh?)

Personally, I think your attitude smacks of elitism and if anything, undermines your point. I'd say, on the whole, our legislators are generally well-educated, presumably intelligent and America's "best and brightest." And look how badly Congress is capable of screwing things up. I doubt the track record of the general public could be that much worse :)

-jay

Ah, one last thing. Yeah, I know you were referring to judges in your example, but they're not necessarily paragons of enlightenment. Here in Texas, they're often elected (in a lot of districts, the candidate who calls himself a Republican will almost automatically win, no matter how unqualified he is) and at the federal level, they're politically-motivated appointees a lot of times. So to sum up... they're not perfect, I guess. Or something.

well, no sh!t.

[boinger]

What, do you think the M$ legal team was just sitting on their hands until the decision was handed down? I'm sure they had all the paperwork ready to go, already addressed to the proper sympathetic ears.

Just because they're assholes doesn't mean they're stupid. Well, the M$ legal team tries really hard to look stupid for some reason, but...

oh, nevermind.

Re:well, no sh!t.

[Phroggy]

Microsoft had 60 days to submit their appeal. That's another two months of stalling that they decided to forego. That means either they're genuinely confident that they'll win an appeal, or they're doubtful that their request fo a stay will be approved.

--

Re:well, no sh!t.

[Mr. Barky]

They may have 60 days to appeal, but they also have a 90 day deadline to implement Judge Jackson's court order. Putting it off 60 days would give them only 30 days to implement the order if their request for a stay were denied for any reason.

Microsoft is a huge company and the 90 days that they have to comply with the order is probably fairly difficult as it is. They need to know immediately whether a stay will be granted. The rest of the appeal they want dragged out, as they can continue making their monopoly profits as long as it's on appeal. (Well, even when they're broken up, they'll be two monopolies instead of one - they'll still be able to get monopoly prices, though that may be somewhat limited by the conduct remedies).

Re:Picture of OOG_THE_CAVEMAN (*way* ot, but funny

[_xeno_]

Be careful with the noooooooow, it also get's pissy about many letters in a row....

Re:Yes, they knew it was coming, however,

[EricEldred]

I hope we get a better understanding of why the Appeals Court took the case even before the District Judge had issued an opinion about the stay.

But I wonder if Microsoft's haste and hyped claims of damages might not have the unintended effect of persuading the Supreme Court to take the case first. (I noted with amusement the angry comment in Microsoft's appeal brief that, prior to Judge Jackson's finding of fact, Microsoft enjoyed the largest capitalization of any firm--in other words, placing all the blame for the NASDAQ collapse on Judge Jackson's attempt to apply the law to technology economics--and not Microsoft's bad management.)

As one (in the case Eldred v Reno, to overturn the copyright extension act) who is now facing the exact same Circuit Court of Appeals, I ought to state that I do not believe they are biased, nor that one can predict which way they will rule by their political persuasion. However, I hope that the justices will examine the unprecedented 39-page appeals document with some care. For example, I hope they do not agree with Microsoft's characterization of Larry Lessig's friend of the court brief on the tying issue. (After all, Lessig is my lawyer too.) There they completely distort the brief and are trying to use psychology instead of logical legal arguments. Microsoft's usual practice is to keep trying with the hope that version 3 or 4 of the product will finally be okay. I hope nobody buys that here!

Discuss in OpenLaw

Translation please?

[Krollekop]

What does this mean in human-readable and international terms? I am no US layer.
Why is this a victory for the giant software manufacturer?

Anyway, their Victory is not that clear to me. We'll see what the next days will reveal.

Re:Translation please?

[bwalling]

I am no US layer

Is that part of the OSI model? Layer 10? MS probably doesn't like the US layer very much right now!

Re:Translation please?

[bwalling]

Sorry about the bad joke. This is a victory for them because the Supreme Court is more likely to support the breakup. The Appeals Court is generally more conservative (read: in favor of capitalism) and the Supreme Court is more liberal (read: socialism). The conservatives all feel MS will get their just desserts in the marketplace, while the liberals cry about them having too much money.

Re:Translation please?

[Phroggy]

Anyway, their Victory is not that clear to me.

I believe the announcement was made after the close of the stock market?

--

relocation?

[burgess]

not that i'm heartbroken by JJ's ruling - well deserved in my opinion ... but if my government decided my business practices were illegal, i'd certainly look at relocating to a country where i could continue to get away with what i was up to. any reason microsoft can't place all its assets into the hands of MicrosoftTonga and relocate to someplace a little sunnier? just a thought ...

Picture of OOG_THE_CAVEMAN (*way* ot, but funny)

[AntiNorm]

Found a pic of our pal OOG THE CAVEMAN posting to Slashdot.

Yes, I know, this is OT; but it is intended to be funny. Please treat it as such.

=================================

Could the state cases have gone direct?

[SEE]

Bill Gates, on Nightline, claimed that a direct appeal to the Supreme Court would have only included the federal portion of the case; the state part had to go to the Appeals court first anyway. If that were true, a direct SC appeal would have had the effect of making the litigation more complex and slower to resolve.

Any lawyers care to comment?

Steven E. Ehrbar

Re:Could the state cases have gone direct?

[aaronhaley]

True. It's called a bifurcation, I beleive, and would result in two cases. I'm sure that MS would love that. Besides, I think that they feel they will have a much easier time coercing another judge to "take care of their problem." Can you say free lifetime support for Office!!! -jingy

Re:Could the state cases have gone direct?

[ceymick]

I believe Bill's got his law mixed up. If the case were in a state court, with federal and state issues, then it could indeed be bifurcated, with the federal portion going into the federal system, while the state portion remained in the state system (although with a case this big and complex, the court would never allow it to be split into two separate cases).

However, if the whole case started out in the federal court, this doesn't apply. If Penfeild grants their motion (how much says he does?), then the Big 9 can take it if they want to, and the Middle 3 lose out. And they'll get all of the case, not just any federal issues.

Re:OK, but...

[dbrutus]

Try looking here for a starter article, or maybe here

DB

Why such a major victory?

[spidey(519)]

I don't know much about American law, so I was wondering why this is such a huge victory for Microsoft... What did the gov't loose here? Can't the case go to the Supreme court after the lower court, anyway? And doesn't that leave everyone pretty much were they started? Maybe someone with some knowledge of American law could help me out...

Re:Why such a major victory?

[Swede2048]

What this means for Microsoft is that in the meantime it can go about it's business as it pleases. The US Court System is quite slow (comparatively, maybe not, but surely on an absolute scale). It just means "justice" will be delayed.

Re:Why such a major victory?

[Phroggy]

IANAL, but the idea is that it will take longer this way. Once the appeals court makes their decision, it'll be sent to the Supreme Court anyway - if the appeals court overturns Jackson's ruling then the DoJ will take it to the Supreme Court, and if the appeals court upholds Jackson's ruling then Microsoft will take it to the Supreme Court. If it has to go through the appeals court first, the process will just take that much longer.

--

Re:Why such a major victory?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they lost in the supreme court, it's game over. There's no higher court to appeal to. If they lose at a regular federal appeals court, they can still appeal higher courts, including the supreme court later, making their odds much better. If they win any of the appeals cases, its (more or less) game over for the government and they have to find something else to harass Microsoft for.

Re:Why such a major victory?

[Fraize]

If the appeal is successful, and the ruling overturned, the Department of Justice can request an appeal, but only if the administration decides it's a good idea.

<br>
However, both parties in the next election have said that they would stop the DOJ if they could. Once one is elected, the DOJ's hands will likely be tied.<br>
<br>
It's all about timing.

Re:Why such a major victory?

[DJerman]

MS has some breathing room now before the sword falls. It's quite likely the appeals court will stay the conduct restrictions, meaning business as usual for the duration. On the other hand, it's a bit of a loss as the court is meeting en banc...

Now MS can't ask for a second hearing by the appeals court before having to go before the Supremes. Though what Diana Ross has to do with it I don't understand :-).

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[aufait]

I agree with what you said except for one clairification. Judge Jackson can not, on his own, decide to jump the circuit court and go to the Supreme Court. The DOJ must specifically ask for that. And, they can't ask for it until Microsoft officially files a Notice of Appeal. (As if there was any doubt that Microsoft would appeal or that the DOJ would ask to skip the appealate court.)

RE UCITA: At least Maryland modified their version although we do put it into effect in October while VA waits until next year.

Re:Soapbox

[divec]

I don't want to wait an extra 3-10 seconds for the browser to open.

That happens because IE is *preloaded*! Even if you "uninstall" it. Sure, Netscape could preload too, but then you'd rightly object to waiting an extra 3-10 seconds for your computer to boot, or about having lost several MB of memory.

Re:Agreement doesn't matter - WITH HTML :-)

[GenChalupa]

The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court.

The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible."

The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels."

The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun.

To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel.

The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife.

There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination.

That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt.

To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong.

1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!)

2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing.

Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ.

What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.)

Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here."

Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight.

"But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court.

I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging.

I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses.

Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."

Re:Agreement doesn't matter - WITH HTML :-)

[Malcontent]

If the president of the united states can be "tried" for perjury then everybody is fair game. I seriously don't think you can hang a perjury charge against Case for saying that (although he might have said other things I don't know).

My comment was that the law should apply to everyone equally Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Steve Case it should not matter. I heard Bill Gates lie under oath I did not hear any of the Steve Case deposition at all so I can't speak about that.

My question remains. Whose responsibility is it to see that people who lie under oath are prosecuted and what can I do make it happen. Bill gates should not be able escape justice just because he is rich.

Re:and cheerleading against MS is any better?

[Nail]

Indeed!

Sis-Boom-Bah!
I think, my comments, were ooooon topic!
Rah-Rah!
But maybe, perhaps, they reveeealed more!
Go Linux!
And so, too bad, Anonymous Coward!
Yeeeeaaaaa Team!!!

:-)

Nope

[SimonK]

13 states are also litigants, so even in GWB does get the DOJ to drop the case, it will not stop, though it may lose momentum.

I don't see it as inevitable that he will however. There are probably just as many powerful interests (Oracle, AOL etc) pushing for the case to continue as opposing it. His recent comments re what should be illegal under anti-trust not only do not match the current long-standing legislation (which is broader), but also may simply be pandering to the public sympathy MS still has.

I disagree

[Loundry]

This is the kind of smug self-assuredness that annoys me about the typical slashdot crowd.

Attacking what you percieve as my "smug self-assuredness" is not going to change my position. Save your breath and attack my argument instead.

Here is the crux of your argument:

I support Microsoft primarily for economic and political reasons. The theory surrounding antitrust is full of holes, and this country would be better off without antitrust laws at all. Antitrust as currently written is vague, overly broad, and basically makes every corporation with a large market share in violation of the law. This makes any successful company a target of potential lawsuits, which envious competitors use to beat in the courtroom those who they couldn't beat in the marketplace.

This is not very compelling. What are the "holes" in antitrust theory? And your argument that antitrust laws are "vague" and "overly broad" is weak, since those adjectives apply to hundreds of other laws as well. It seems that your problem is with antitrust itself, not with the vagueness and too-broad-ness of legislation.

I believe that no company has a right to make a profit. A company only has a right to produce a product or a service and hope that it's good enough that someone buy it. I believe that antitrust is a valid reason for government, for I believe that the *only* thing a company can do in order to sell more products or services is to improve the quality of their products and services so that consumers prefer them to the products and services of the company's competitors. They have to work very very hard, innovate, cut costs, and be very smart.

I think there are a lot of people who assume that any company which is successful is therefore right. (Essentially an ad crumenam argument.) This can only be true if the successful company achieved their success by hard work and skill and nothing else.

But we all know that luck and trechery beat out hard work and skill any day of the year. It isn't hard at all to see where Microsoft was unbelievably lucky (MS-DOS), and the trecherous part is what antitrust seeks to stop.

It is no accident that Sun, Netscape, and Oracle-- three of Microsoft's biggest competitors-- are actively supporting this case. I think this is a clear case of competitors using antitrust law as a club against more able competitors.

Likewise it is also no surprise that a rape victim cheers the law which puts her attacker in prison. Your argument only works under the assumption that Microsoft has done nothing wrong.

I can certainly understand that intelligent people can disagree with me. I am extremely annoyed, however, that the reverse is not true. There is a near-universal assumption that anyone who opposes the dominant anti-Microsoft view is either woefully misinformed or in the pay of the Evil Empire.

There is another type that I can think of: those people whose jobs depend on Microsoft products. Given that you don't know what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is (and thus how that relates to IIS), that you don't know how and why Direct3D got so popular, and that you don't know how much Internet Explorer costs, I think you are uninformed.

For the record, I've never paid Microsoft a penny for its products, own no Microsoft stock, and have never been paid by them. I simply believe in the value of free markets and the right of producers to keep the fruits of their labors.

I didn't assume you were a Microsoft worshipper. The other type of Microsoft supporter is the Ayn Rand type of capitalist who believes that any company which is successful is, by virtue of their success, right. If you accept that there can be some anticompetitve actions taken by companies which are excusable, then the only question remaining is, "How much do we let companies get away with?"

Companies only like "free markets" as long as they can enter the market freely to make money. Otherwise, they hate free markets. They would much rather be the sole producer of any given product. Then they wouldn't have to work so hard to make money. Companies would much rather sell us their excrement (literally!) than have to work hard to make good products. Competition ensures hard work and innovation, and companies can not be expected to play fair to ensure that competition exists.

Re:I disagree

[binarybits]

What are the "holes" in antitrust theory?

The hole is the idea that it is possible for a company to get a coercive monopoly in a free market, i.e. that a company can keep a high market share in the long run without keeping its customers happy. It's never happened, and there's a strong argument to be made that it never will. The specific economic reasons would take a complete post on their own.

The Cato institute makes the case against "predatory pricing" laws here. Similar arguments can be made concerning other aspects of Microsoft's actions, such as "tying" and "price gouging" as Microsoft is accused of doing.

The idea that a company can be so big that no competitor can topple it is just flat out wrong. As long as they don't have help from the government in keeping their monopoly, Microsoft can only keep competitors at bay by continuing to meet their customers' needs. In short, antitrust laws are unnecessary and should be repealed.

But we all know that luck and trechery beat out hard work and skill any day of the year. It isn't hard at all to see where Microsoft was unbelievably lucky (MS-DOS), and the trecherous part is what antitrust seeks to stop.


Sure, Microsoft got lucky. So what? They will get unlucky in the future. The key point is that Microsoft saw the opportunity and siezed it. You can't say that Microsoft's current dominance of the industry is due soley to stupidity on IBM's part 20 years ago. Microsoft has had several worthy competitors over the years, notably Apple and IBM (with OS/2.) It is hardly "luck" that allowed them to come out on top.

As for "treachery," my take on things is a little different. I don't think it should be illegal for Microsoft to use its success in one area to promote a product in another. Windows gives Microsoft an advantage in the marketplace, but it's not an insurmountable advantage. And if they use that dominance to push crappy products, they will eventually lose their position.

So "everybody" does not know that Microsoft's position is due to "luck and treachery." Yes, Microsoft has done some sleazy things, and yes, they are a fierce competitor. But they also give customers what they want, and they do it better than any of the competitors. They have innovated aggressively, adding new features, cutting costs, and improving their customers' experiences. They also used some aggressive business tactics, but all the aggressive business tactics in the world won't keep you customers if you don't meet their needs.

There is another type that I can think of: those people whose jobs depend on Microsoft products. Given that you don't know what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is (and thus how that relates to IIS), that you don't know how and why Direct3D got so popular, and that you don't know how much Internet Explorer costs, I think you are uninformed.

Fine, so enlighten me. The fact that I work primarily with the products of Microsoft's competitors makes my opinion irrelevant? This issue is fundamentally about economics, not technology.

And for the record, my job doesn't depend on Microsoft products either. I do most of my work on Unix, and pretty much the only apps I run on NT boxen are xterms and web browsers.

If you accept that there can be some anticompetitve actions taken by companies which are excusable

I reject the concept of "Anticompetitive actions." The only anticompetitive actions are those that involve coercion. And only the government is allowed to coerce and get away with it. Therefore, only the government can engage in anti-competitive actions without violating (non-antitrust) laws.

Companies only like "free markets" as long as they can enter the market freely to make money. Otherwise, they hate free markets. They would much rather be the sole producer of any given product. Then they wouldn't have to work so hard to make money. Companies would much rather sell us their excrement (literally!) than have to work hard to make good products. Competition ensures hard work and innovation, and companies can not be expected to play fair to ensure that competition exists.

Only with government help can a company permanently eliminate all competitors. As long as there are no government-imposed barriers to entry, a company must continue to satisfy its customers or they will go elsewhere.

Even without antitrust law, Microsoft is far from invincible. If they were to stop improving their products, Unix-based machines would eat into NT's market share, and Mac OS would take desktop market share. And if Microsoft stopped developing their product, it is likely that startups like Be or Red Hat would be able to gain a toehold. Once an alternative OS for the desktop has a sizable market share, it'll be all but impossible to eradicate it. Hell, Be is still being developed despite the fact that almost no one uses it. And Linux will continue to be developed no matter what happens in the marketplace. Even the mighty Microsoft must keep up with competitors to avoid losing their market dominance.

Re:I disagree

[Loundry]

Hey, I was mostway through a long reply when Netscape crashed! Long live Microsoft, eh? ;) Listen, I am really interested in the discussion and would like to continue. If you don't mind, I'll email my reply this weekend to you. I visited your web page and I believe we agree on most everything except antitrust.

Regards,
Jimmy

More Info on Wired

[Bernal KC]

Wired has more info here.

Interesting to note that the entire appeals cout will hear the case instead of the usual three judge panel. Does anyone have more info on why, or how unusual this migth be?

The Yahoo piece suggests it was a coup for MS to get it in front of the appeals court instead of going directly to the Supreme cout. I'm not so sure. To me it looks like Judge Jackson wins since his refusal to stay the conduct rememdies seems to have light a fire under M$'s arse.

Re:More Info on Wired

[Detritus]

I believe the usual procedure is for the case to be heard by a three judge panel. That decision can be appealed and heard by all ten judges (en banc) if the court grants an appeal of the original decision. Otherwise, they have to petition the Supreme Court, which can refuse to hear the case. Three judges have disqualified themselves, leaving seven judges to hear the case.

Re:More Info on Wired

[muldrake]

Interesting to note that the entire appeals cout will hear the case instead of the usual three judge panel. Does anyone have more info on why, or how unusual this migth be?

The circuit court is probably doing this en banc because regardless of the decision, the first appeal by whatever party is likely to be a request to rehear it en banc.

So by doing it that way in the first place, they avoid the waste of time of the inevitable rehearing.

Re:More Info on Wired

[ceymick]

What the other replies say is correct. Plus, since this is a big case (big, in terms of both the law/issues involved, and in terms of the media attention/hype) the court wants to take its best opportunity to do things right.

I think that, in conjunction with the above mentioned effeciency argument, is why they're hearing it en banc.

Re:More Info on Wired

[Phroggy]

From the CNN article:

>Seven appeals judges for the District of Columbia announced they would hear the case, while three other judges recused themselves.

Doesn't that mean that only seven of the ten judges will hear the case? That would seem to disagree with the Wired article. Or will all ten judges hear it, but only seven said the appeals court would accept the case?

--

Re:Soapbox

[Rand Race]

Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft.

Maybe, but saying it's just because it's microsoft is disingenous. If it were another monopolistic standards violating maker of substandard software we would be up in arms, but there really isn't one.

If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever.

You underestimate the average slashdot reader. If a linux company acted as Microsoft does the community would go medevil on them.

If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?

Me, at least.

How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS?

Me, at least.

Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1.

Mine was a Vic20, then a C-64, then an Amiga 500, then Win3.1.... then, quickly, a Quadra 800. Actually my first computer experience was the IBM 360 at my dad's work, but I didn't really have that.

Microsoft made the computer more usable for the "average" computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.

What about MacOS? BeOS? Amiga? Comparing it to Linux is setting up a straw man.

There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows. Its not like the API's are totally closed and just about impossible to hack a program for the OS, if that was the case, then hell yes, torch the place. But its not.

LOL, Qualcomm (in the SW field at least) has been virtualy destroyed by Outbreak Express. Hmm, I guess it is good that the APIs aren't totally open or Eudora would be an extreme infection vector too. AOL, Adobe, and Symantec are big boys in the industry, able to deal with MS from a position of power that the vast majority of developers cannot hope for. It should also be noted that Qualcomm, Adobe, and Symantec developed for Macintosh first (not sure about AOL).

I truly believe that most of the slashdot users are pissed just because it's Microsoft and the fact that it's (ack) closed source! So what? They created (or bought) the source, its' THEIRS, not OURS. If you hack out open source software, that's YOUR choice.

As a BeOS user I obviously don't care too much about this.

Yes, some of Microsoft's past actions are questionable, but the majority of them have been resolved.

If only the majority of them have been resolved then at least some questionable actions remain. If I shoplift a bunch of CDs and kill somebody then get caught and convicted for a $100 fine for theft then the majority of my crimes have been resolved... but I still get away with murder.

Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE. How would the average user go about downloading Netscape if IE wasn't installed? (yea there's ftp.exe, but the average user doesn't know that it exists...) Yea, MSN is installed on a typical install.. so are Prodigy, AT&T WorldNet, AOL + others) which can also be uninstalled.

But Microsoft says you can't uninstall Explorer.

Face it, Microsoft has brought the computer industry to where it is today.

Easily brought to it's knees by a dirt-stupid phillipino with a cursory knowledge of VB scripting. Thanks Microsoft!

Linux brought the internet where it is today.. of course Microsoft had to adapt to the internet standards and create it's own internet programs. It had to keep up with linux in that aspect. Now that it has caught up (and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry..'They have a monopoly! It's bad!' Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?

Because Microsoft used it's monopoly power to modify standards. Standards by definition are cross-platform so an affect on them affects all users not just Windows users.

I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.

The problem is that any attempt to 'keep Microsoft in order' has been an abject failure. Their unwillingness to comply with past antitrust settlements has lead the judge to believe that yet more behavrioral injunctions will not work and that the government must take more radical action to fix the problem. Microsoft's intransigence and arrogance has brought this on them.

OK, OK

[scruffyMark]

I was half kidding. Ok, maybe more like three quarters kidding. Seven ninths. American People's Software Company - c'mon...

Besides, I said in a properly democratic socialist country. Go on, disprove me. Name me one properly democratic socialist country. Name me one properly democratic capitalist country, for that matter.

And, by the by, Germany is a socialist country, isn't it? Well, red-green coalition government, anyway?

About plaintiff v. defendants...

[Signal 11]

A quick note - Microsoft is perfectly entitled to this and we should not complain - they ARE the defendant, and as such are afforded every protection the law offers them - including this. Oh, and incase you think this is an economic sanction, I'll remind you that stock prices jumped up on news that Judge Jackson had ruled for the breakup. Even the baby-bills will be profitable.

Re:About plaintiff v. defendants...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

"...stock prices jumped up on news that Judge Jackson had ruled for the breakup."

And we all know how smart those Wall Street types are. In any case, it only went up ~3 points--and it has since dropped 2, leaving it just below 68.

"Even the baby-bills will be profitable."

Don't be so sure. The Baby Bells and Baby Oils were each profitable because they had been split geographically--they each had an effective local monopoly. The Baby Bills are being split along business lines. This is a much more effective measure, especially against MS. For instance, how much harder is it to retain an OS monopoly if you don't have a stranglehold on applications.

And lest you think I'm pulling this out of my ass, there are Wall Street analyst-types who are saying the same thing. Check out www.nasdaq.com news some time.
--
Compaq dropping MAILWorks?

Re:What the heck?!?!

[Krollekop]

Yep, sure.

OK. Let's first suppose that the moderators had found your story interesting. They would have moderated up your intial comment, eventhough it has clearly a Trollish content. That positive moderation would have granted you some extra Karma points. And that would have been the first time that a blatant Troll would have gotten some Karma points.

Now let's also suppose that you explicitly did it for that exact reason... Hence, my post.

Yes you can buy Kool-Aid online

[dbrutus]

Here's the URL

DB

Re:Soapbox

[ethereal]

Sorry if I flew off the handle in my previous post - bad day at work.

Companies that shouldn't have been in business in the first place... if you have a better product that works on the same OS.. why run away.. weak people.. thats all..

That's just it - if you know that you make a better product, you still can't succeed if Microsoft goes into your market, because Microsoft won't let OEMs install your better program rather than the Microsoft product. This is the essence of what the trial was about - Microsoft uses its OS market share to destroy competitors not on the basis of product quality (like I said, I've heard that IE is better than NS) but through clout that it has from its OS monopoly. Even a competitor with a better product can't get started once Microsoft announces that they will make the product too, even if they never end up going into that market.

Sure consumers could just get the program separately, but I think we can agree that few new computer owners will go out and replace the provided Microsoft software with other products. The reality of the market is that OEMs control what software Mom has on her PC, and until about a year or so ago Microsoft controlled the OEMs with the choke chain of Windows pricing.

The blurb is a little misleading

[SirWhoopass]

According to the CNN story, there is still a chance that the case will go directly to the Supreme Court.

Getting the appeals court to hear the case allows MS to request a stay, keeping it from being broken up until the appeal is resolved.

Re:Perhaps the 9th Circuit is as pissed as we are?

[LLatson]

And don't forget that all of this will be for naught when good ole' boy GW gets elected and has the Justice Department drop the case entirely...

Yikes.

LL

Finally, SOmething that's fair

[Wister285]

This makes me happy to see that this happened. Quite frankly, I'm one of those Microsoft Linux hybrids... I like both equally (Windows for fun and productivity, Linux for all my servers). I guess I'm one of the few people who likes Microsoft at Slashdot (my Windows crashed about 2-3 months ago, I guess I'm lucky, but then again, neither does my P75 running Windows 98 SE also... that might have crashed a year ago, *knock on wood*).

I feel Microsoft has been done a misjustice in this whole case - and the monopoly? The market evens them out within a few years (i.e. IBM, American cars, American steel, railroads, cable, and MANY oher companies. This will pass and I hope that Microsoft doesn't have to spin Windows off in Windows Inc, because then Windows won't progress as fast. I agree with Netscape's Jim Clark (the article I posted).

Finally, Microsoft gets a break - and I feel that this is great. (here come the flames :-) )

Re:Finally, SOmething that's fair

[chanceH]

>This makes me happy to see that this happened.

Ditto man.

I hate Microsoft and their software, but this
lynch-mob-anti-trust crap is really disheartening.

Their whole monopoly is based on IP laws that
grant too much power anyways, so its no surprise
at all that they have some kind of monoply.

And as far as using their monopoly power to
maintain their monopoly, exactly how purposely
inept are they supposed to run their business
before its OK?

Living under the rule of law, you know wether
or not something you do is illegal before you
do it. There is no way to know that you are
illegally using monopoly power until you get
screwed for it.

This isn't rule of law, its a naked grant of
power to crush any company that gets "too good"
without kissing the feet of the right government power holders.

What the heck?!?!

[MathJMendl]

How did that get posted??? I was visiting a website and clicked a link and it told me it was posted all of a sudden. Last time I browse logged in.

Re:What the heck?!?!

[Krollekop]

You are just trying to turn your Troll into an Off-Topic or Interesting with +2 or +3, aren't you? ;-)

Re:What the heck?!?!

[MathJMendl]

What do you mean? Care to elaborate?

Re:What the heck?!?!

[Loligo]

>If you have any moderator points, then just
>moderate any post in this story, and your
>post goes *poof*.

Doesn't work that way. Once you post in a thread, you can no longer moderate in that thread. Like, the boxes no longer appear beneat posts.

Posting in a thread you've moderated in removes your moderation points already used, but not the other way around.

-LjM

Re:Soapbox

[Kiz315]

Posting to undo moderation mistake. Don't mind me...

--

How MS Software Screws Up their own Appeal

[Anomalous Canard]

From the New York Times copy of Microsoft's appeal (no registration required) as viewed on Internet Explorer.

The court, however, rejected plaintiffs' exclusive dealing claim, holding that the challenged agreements with various third parties "did not foreclose enough of the relevant market to constitute a € 1 violation."

I'm sure they wanted a (section) and not a € (euro) symbol there.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

Delaying tactic

[RenQuanta]

What M$ is doing is trying to buy time before the election. Bill Gates it banking on the prospect of GW Bush getting elected. When the administrations switch, Mr. Bush will doubtlessly stop the Justice Department from pursuing this whole thing.

God forbid it happen this way.

Re:Delaying tactic

[regen]

But there are also 19 States involved in this. Even if the DoJ pulled out, which I doubt would happen, the President can't order the States to drop the case.

Re:Delaying tactic

[chanceH]

Actually the executive branch enforces the law.

Re:Delaying tactic

[duckbill]

I would agree with one minor exception. It is more of the executive branch's duty to carry out the laws than the judiciary. While it is true that a new president could not prevent the court from ruling on the case at hand; they could do a truckload of damage in enforcing the decree.
First, the new chief executive could greatly restrict the budget and staff of the antitrust department. As a result, if Microsoft were to violate a potential or existing ruling (e.g. engaging in a prohibitive practice), the antitrust department would be severly limited in the resources to bring them to task.
More importantly, they could establish a hands-off policy similar to the Reagan approach of supply-side economics. (IMHO, one of the reasons why there are so many potential illegal monopolies. They grew during this administration.)* Even worse, they could dilute the talent pool of the organization. If the government moves away from enforcing the decision, the brighter attorney's will leave for greater challenge and their replacements could be marginal. After all, who wants to receive less pay to do a job that offers no challenge, and would have diluted prestige value.
The judicial branch lacks the resources to oversee their decision. AFAIK, and without additional research, the only time a court has buried themselves into enforcement was the aftermath of the segregation cases (re: Brown v. Board of Education). While they have a staff of federal marshalls and can initiate contempt orders, they are most often seen as the "Least Dangerous Branch" (coined by someone famous, but I forget the citation).
Consequently, many members of the judiciary do sway toward executive policy. In fact, some may even be considered executive shills. It provides little utility to bring down a decision they cannot enforce.
Congress also throw a monkey wrench into the situation. While your situation of drafting a law that says Microsoft is not a monopoly (or more probably drafting M$ favorable exemptions in the Sherman or Clayton Act) is possible, they already act as gatekeepers to judicial appointments. Lately, they have used this power to ensure that federalist judges receive nominations, and remove anyone who would be considered an activist. Whether or not this is good policy is moot, the net effect in this instance is that sitting and future judges would be more likely to promote executive policy. Consequently, the cheif executive could exert control over the M$ ruling.
Even in a favorable federal administration, M$ does have to face an army of state AG's who may use their resources to enforce a final decision. Unfortunately, they may also flow with the political tide and lack the teeth that a well-funded justice department.
While these powers are far less than "This how it is, deal with it," it is enough to make a serious impact in the future of M$.

* - I know that Jackson is a Reagan appointee, and I would argue that his M$ ruling is an exception rather than a general rule of Reagan antitrust policy and its progency. Moreover, I question whether he would have been appointed if the Reagan admin. had a crystal ball that could foresee these decisions. The major point is that since businesses new that the AG would not prosecute, they increasingly built "barriers to entry" for competition. Since this practice was RARELY challenged, they increasingly escalated this practice. In today's economy, these unchecked practices border on being violative of the Clayton and Sherman act (regardless of individual opinion on the utility of these acts.)

Re:Delaying tactic

[Twanfox]

Umm.. unless my classes in government were mistaken, there is this thing called 'Checks and Balances' which states the reason why there are 3 divisions of the government. No one branch may command the entire government. Congress makes the laws, with the presidential approval (or veto). The judicial system enforces the laws, though the president appoints the judges (but only when there's an open space to fill). Congress (I believe) can state their objections to such appointments, and on and on..

Stalling until the new president is elected may get Microsoft nothing because the president just can't go and say 'This is how it is, deal with it'. The judicial system is still free to carry out judgement on the laws at hand, no matter if the administration changes or not. Now, if a new law were put into place stating that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, then it'd be a different story, but that'd have to come from Congress, not the President, since he doesn't introduce new laws.

My $.02, such as I can remember.

Re:Delaying tactic

[muldrake]

When the administrations switch, Mr. Bush will doubtlessly stop the Justice Department from pursuing this whole thing.

The President has no such authority.

In any case, the pathetic weakling George W. Bush can't even shut down a website. I doubt he can shut down the Department of Justice.

"There is madmen in the world and there are terror." --George W. "Zippy" Bush

Re:Delaying tactic

[homer_ca]

The Justice Dept is a part of the Executive Branch, and they are the ones arguing the government's case in court. The President doesn't have the power to call off the case, but he can persuade the Justice Dept. lawyers to not argue as well as they could.

Re:Delaying tactic

[muldrake]

The President doesn't have the power to call off the case, but he can persuade the Justice Dept. lawyers to not argue as well as they could.

I don't think Boies would go for that, and I think there would be tremendous political fallout if Bush tried some stunt like firing him.

Clinton, for example, tried pressuring Reno on a number of occasions into not appointing prosecutors, and had only mixed success, and looked worse for having tried. A newbie prexy would be ill-advised to start his term by attempting to pressure the DoJ.

Re:Yes, they knew it was coming, however,

[Black Parrot]

> Microsoft's usual practice is to keep trying with the hope that version 3 or 4 of the product will finally be okay. I hope nobody buys that here!

Well, the had better make it version 2 or 3 this time, because there's not a fourth court to hear it!

--

Re:Whose request? (Nag)

[Kevster]

Of course, "extrodinaire" wouldn't have passed a spell-check. :) Then again, there's the question of what the "community extraordinaire" would mean, anyway!

The longer this goes on, the worse for MS

[scruffy]

I'm not quite what the advantage is for MS if the appeals drag out. MS's future will be uncertain until all the appeals are finished. If MS still ends up in one piece, they will still be subject to constant lawsuits. I also recall that other countries (in Europe?) were waiting to see what will happen in the US before taking any action.

Meanwhile, MS has to behave at least a little bit, and that has been and will be the open door for Linux and the BSDs to get a foothold in the OS market, and for Mozilla, KDE, and Gnome to get a foothold in the applications market.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[flatrock]

From the AP story "The circuit court acted shortly after Microsoft almost simultaneously filed a notice of appeal with Jackson and a motion with the circuit court to stay Jackson's penalties, even though Jackson was also considering a Microsoft stay motion."

Microsoft filed the appeal with Jackson. There seems to be a lot of non-lawyers arguing how M$ actions are unlawful and unconstitutional. I think the DOJ has enough experience with the law that they would be pointing that out if it were true.

It does seem like the appeals court acted very quickly on this, but considering the actions of Jackson and the DOJ it's not that surprising. The behaviorial modifications in Jackson's ruling go into effect in 90 days. 90 days is a pretty short time for a company Microsoft's size to significantly change how they do business. They need to renegociate/rewrite their licensing contracts with all their vendors. This will cost them a large amount of time and money. They obviously don't want to do it if they don't have to. They really don't want to do it twice. Once now and again if they get some or all of the ruling overturned. Microsoft requested a stay on the remedies until the case was appealed. Justice then filed a huge reply and seemed to be stalling. They even went as far as to request that Jackson not rule on the stay until M$ had filed the appeal. It seems like both Justice and Jackson are trying to get the case to the Supreme who won't have time to rule on staying the remedies until after they go into effect.

Why would the appeals court want to hear this case? Maybe because Jackson no longer appears to be an impartial Jurist. Maybe it's because Jackson pretty much ignored their ruling that M$ could integrate IE to Windows. They've ruled on issues related to this case before. Jackson and Justice appear to be trying to bypass them and subvert their authority.

Jackson has been anything but sympathetic to Microsoft. The trial has been rushed, the witnesses very limited. From the outset everyone was predicting that M$ would lose the case, but win on appeal. Now the DOJ and Jackson appear to be trying to limit the appeals process. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, even M$. The more of this crap that gets pulled, the less I have faith in the DOJ and the Judicial system. The worst thing that could happen is that a mistrail could be declared by the appeals court. Then everything starts over again.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[craw]

Re-read what I said. We are in agreement. And I know that VA has put off the date for the enforcement of the UCITA. However, VA kisses up to the AOL's (and other high tech) of northern VA. We provide 40% of the state funds while we receive back 25%. The folks in Richmond do not care about the quality of life in the VA suburbs of DC. They just want our money. Gilmore and the powers to be will not change the VA version of UCITA. They just put in this provision so that they can appear to be consumer friendly.

It was pretty "funny" how both states work on the UCITA. VA first to pass in order to attract high tech, and MD follows to counter this local battle. At least MD did it better than VA.

Re:Whose request? (Nag)

[rjamestaylor]

Yeah. After posting I hit myself in the head "D'oh!".

• extr_ordinaire

I should stick to simple words...

Re:This is bad...

[muldrake]

[. ..]I am a member of the public, and I am a proud Microsoft customer, supporter and shareholder. Yeah, crazy, huh?

Not really, you're one of the more coherent Microsoft proponents. It's easy to forget not everyone who supports Microsoft is a crazy troll sometimes. Incidentally if MSFT hits 50 I'll probably pick up some myself.

(I'm not going to defend the Godwin's law breaking, incidentally, that was just an example of mob rule--Hitler could not have been swept to power without a groundswell of support for his anti-Semitic rhetoric, but that's beside the point and I shouldn't have mentioned it.)

Ah, one last thing. Yeah, I know you were referring to judges in your example, but they're not necessarily paragons of enlightenment.

I hope I didn't seem to imply that. I said that they at least sometimes have a clue. They're also *usually* grounded in the law, and while their decisions can be based on stupid laws, that should be fixed at the legislative level--a law that pisses off enough people to influence an election will be repealed. . .eventually.

[. . .]and at the federal level, they're politically-motivated appointees a lot of times.

This is true. However, that doesn't necessarily end up being a bad thing. For example, Clarence Thomas, whose motivation for appointment was transparently political, has turned out not to be quite so ghastly as was feared at first. He's no Thurgood Marshall but he's been a tolerable Supreme Court justice. While candidates for these positions have to jump through a lot of political hoops to get there and are often appointed for the worst reasons, generally once they are there they have less motivation to kowtow to special interests. Sometimes you see an entirely different judicial personality with this pressure removed. Personally, in the long run I prefer appointed judges to elected ones, partly for elitist reasons. (I am an unapologetic elitist.)

Re:If I recall

[regen]

It is also interesting to note that it was because of that court case that Micro$oft became as powerful as it is. IBM didn't want to own the OS, they were afraid that owning both hardware and software would look bad before the court.

It's the the true baby!

[Wister285]

Yup, read above

Re:It's the the true baby!

[blightbulb]

misspelled blubbery

Re:My only question is

[bwalling]

Money buys you anything you want. Especially in the US.

Re:Soapbox

[ethereal]

Just out of curiosity, is that why my above post is marked "Score:5, Troll"? Since Troll is -1, that would imply that the post previously was +6, which I didn't think was possible.

Of course, if you really thought it was troll-like then don't answer that...

Re:Soapbox

[MattBaggins]

If Microsoft hadn?t become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a
>How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS? Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1.>
>Microsoft made the computer more usable for the ?average? computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.>

Yes you are so right with this arguement. This is just like with cars. Toyota is the most popular mid economy car at this time so if not for them no one would be driving cars. How many people here drove a model T as their First car? If a model T wasn't your first car then this proves that it is because of the Toyota Corporation that so many people now own cars.

Re:Perhaps the 9th Circuit is as pissed as we are?

[werdna]

In addition to the other 13 states, U.S. dropping the case wouldn't avoid the preclusive effect of the final judgment against Microsoft. In particular, imagine all of the private lawsuits in the wings, from Netscape, Sun, Apple, etc. Given all the judgments in the criminal case, those cases will be a cake-walk for the plaintiffs unless MS can wipe the slate clean.

A post-judgment settlement won't have that effect.

Re:Soapbox

[Mike Hicks]

Okay, I fixed your quotes and incorrect punctuation.. I hate question marks all over the place..

I highly doubt that MS owns the rights to DVD.

You're right. They don't.

I'm sure if Creative would/could make a DVD player for linux it would.

*cough*

But they haven't. How is that Microsoft's fault?

It isn't. However, Microsoft has behaved in much the same way as the MPAA/RIAA. They would like to control how/when/where people use their software just as much as the movie and music industries would like to control when people view their content. They want money. Lots and lots of money.

You have a TV card for Linux right?

No.

It has a video/audio in jack right? Buy a normal DVD player and plug the jacks in.. Easy DVD for linux.. That what I do when I want DVD on Linux..

You *might* be able to convice me to do that if the TV card had an S-Video input. No way in hell would I do that with RCA jacks or coaxial cable *shudder*

DVD for linux isn't Microsoft's fault... so but your blame somewhere else for that one..

Very true..
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA

Broken URL

[Krollekop]

Sorry for that one.
But I did check the URL in the preview before posting. I swear it!
I don't know what went wrong.

Bush can drop it, like Reagan dropped IBM

[geckoFeet]

Bush can order his attorney general not to pursue the case or, more probably, to settle on terms that MS won't find too, um, unsettling. That's what Reagan did with the IBM case, much to the disgust of a lot of the career civil servants in the anti-trust division of the Justice Department (a lot of whom quit). That still leaves MS starting at the state suits and all the private, civil suits, but there's no getting around the fact that the feds are the biggies, since they're the only ones that can order a reorganization or breakup. (Well, technically, the state of Washington can revoke MS's corporate charter, but nobody's suggesting that, alas.)

Re:Bush can drop it, like Reagan dropped IBM

[RayChuang]

My guess is that if George W. Bush is elected, he could pursue two ways to end this suit more to Microsoft's terms:

1. Issue an executive clemency order to pardon Microsoft of all charges.

2. Or have Bush-appointed DoJ officials work out a deal with Microsoft where MS will stay together, but (just to please the anti-MS crowd) we'll see the end of OEM bundling, and Microsoft make available to OEM's a "Plain Jane" version of the successor to Windows 2000 and Windows ME (e.g., the "Whistler" project) that has no web browsers or multimedia software installed.

By the way, things don't look good for Gore; besides Gore being shackled by the Clinton legacy, Gore is strangely unfriendly to news reporters, in sharp contrast to Bush being surprisingly accessible to reporters even now.

Re:OJ Simpson NOT guilty

[osguzzler]

I guess we're lucky that we don't all live in the states.

Adam:What kept you?.

Re:Microsoft Cheerleader....

[Nail]

The "cheerleading" is not in the successful use, but in adding it to a discussion where it is not relevant. Your points point and questions are well taken, but not relevant.

I believe that Microsoft does indeed act as a Great Satan in the software world, but again, this is also not relevant. What is relevant is your comment about modifying their business practices, but I believe that has been tried (see previous consent decree). So honestly, I think they've had a chance to change their evil ways, and they blew it.

It seems we have a difference of opinion with regard to cheerleading. So be it. IANACL, but I think it is cheerleading, my friend.

Re:why are they appealing?

[Darkstorm]

You forgot:

"We are innovators and have done nothing wrong.

And as far as kerbose goes we came up with the idea anyway."

Contempt of Court

[leonbrooks]

I don't know about Judge Jackson, but if they did that when a hearing was pending in my Court, my jurisdiction, I'd slam them and heavily fine them for Contempt of Court - and ring the Appeals Circuit judge who granted them the appeal without first adjourning and waiting for my Court to finish, and burn his ears off.

Re:why are they appealing?

[Anomalous Canard]

Antitrust cases are the exception to this general rule. Findings of fact are reviewed (I believe that correct term is that the case is reviewed de novo form the beginning) though it is unusual for an appeals court to reverse a finding of fact.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

What the *HELL* are YOU SMOKING???

[cybrthng]

Mr SoapBox Said:

Still doesn't matter. Because there are plenty of other companies out there that still believe in proprietary code, closed source, restrictive licenses and all the rest. Microsoft was merely the most successful and aggressive player of that game. And lots of people have learned from them.

What the HELL does that mean? Proprietary/Closed Source and restrictive licenses? Are you on CRACK. Those are NOT the reasons Microsoft are under the gun. Infact if you play by those reasons then cable companies and power companies should have been abolished years ago.

There is nothing wrong, physically, fundamentally nor socially with having a closed business model. Look at the crusoe processor. Sure it runs an Open Source OS, but you won't find out the specs for that processor, you won't find out how it works and you will be limited by the API and SDK's that the manufacture releases. That goes for Intel and AMD. The X86 architecture as it is today with hybrid cisc and risc is much worse then the software market. You can't optimized your software without paying intel or expecting the sdk/ddk companies to do so.

This case does no more than give Microsoft a black eye. We can destroy Microsoft, and all the rest of the closed-source world, and their paradigm. Just by continuing to make free software.

Another pathetic nuance of open source biggots. So tell me when we can sue cisco because i want to run Linux on the routers i own. Let me know when i can screw over Sony because i want to have access to the code on the dvd player because it doesn't work the way i want it. Also i may want to sue Oracle because they're closed source and the licensing schemes they come up with can put someone out of business. (ORACLE is a MUCH MUCH worse giant then Microsoft - Microsoft touches the consumers.. Oracle runs the world. Which one dominating the market really harms the consumer. An OS that is easy to learn or an overly complicatged, restrictive, buggy, expensive and impossible to maintain database system that controls so much of your day to day transactions???)

Please. get off your anti microsoft bandwagons and use what god gave you. YOUR FUCKEN RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Did you understand that? errm NO. lemme spell it out. It is your god given right to choose free software because for some reason you do not want to buy it. It is my right to buy something at the store and plug it in and have it work. Hey, it gives me time to be with my girlfriend, hit the trains with my mountain bike, play my dreamcast, listen to my music, surf the web. I don't have to sit and watch /var/adm/syslog or keep up to date on freshmeat or recompile kernels.

Yes.. meanwhile at my job i get paid to run linux and hpux servers (ofcourse running Oracle Applications), but that is something i do for work, and i have a toy linux box at home to keep up to date. However, at home i am a consumer. I choose what i want to run and that is a *CHOICE*. There have *ALWAYS* been choices and my soapbox don't you forget that.

Re:What the *HELL* are YOU SMOKING???

[YASD]

Well. I guess you put me in my place. I'm overwhelmed by your logic and grasp of the issues, not to mention your rhetorical brilliance.

Thanks for the tip on Oracle. Sounds like it needs some open-source competition.

------

Re:It seems strange

[VAXman]

What you need to understand is that most slashdot readers are extremely liberal and want the government to get much bigger and much more powerful. Instead of the free market deciding what technology gets made, most slashdot readers would rather that the government interfere and make design decisions, e.g. you can't integrate this product with that. If you want a libertarian view of the case check out http://www.moraldefense.com, which asserts that the government is breaking fundamental rights by persecuting Microsoft. Since most slahdotters are trendy and fashionable liberals, they want the government to get bigger and bigger and bigger to help stamp out all of the Big Bad Evil Corporations. It's pathetic, really.

Re:Yes, they knew it was coming, however,

[EricEldred]

Apparently the three circuit Court judges who disqualified themselves did so because they were, before becoming judges, employed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Looking over the judges' bios at http://www.cadc.uscou rts.gov/court_offices/judges/judges.html one might suspect that those missing judges might be more understanding of the antitrust issues and the government's case, than the others--but who knows.

That still doesn't explain why the Circuit Court so eagerly took the case, even before there was a formal appeal--the brief Circuit Court statement refers only to the great importance of the case--and that makes one wonder if the Supreme Court might wish to take it first.

Re:Well DUUUUUUUUHHH.

[Spyky]

So... can one appeal a Supreme Court ruling if/when it gets there? Or is that why it's called "Supreme"?

No it can't be appealed past the Supreme Court, thats exactly the point, thats why this is a victory for M$; delay, delay, delay.

Spyky

Re:Soapbox

[alehmann]

Well, yes, it was Microsoft that made the computer accessible to non-hackers. There was a tremendous market out there. Someone would have done it. It happened to be Microsoft.

I am sick of all these Slashdot posts claiming Microsoft is responsible for making the computer easy to use. MacOS existed before Windows, and was and is easier to use than Windows. Windows got the monopoly because it grew out of its DOS monopoly. Not because it was a better product. Why do I get the feeling that most people on Slashdot have never used OS's other than Windows and Linux?

The truth is, Windows is a MESS. I avoid it when I can, but sometimes I have a choice between pencil/paper and a Windows machine. The registry is a mess. Configuring networking is a pain and requires a reboot on every change. You need to pay extra money to use multiple processors. The file system is based on 8.3 names and the shell is still based on DOS. The system looks UGLY, compared to a Mac or a Linux box running EFM (drool). MacOS doesn't have these drawbacks, and it was around before Windows and was always ahead of it. So I don't want to hear that MS is responsible for all this damned "innovation".

Re:Soapbox

[Darkstorm]

I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order

And how is this supposed to happen? Even while in court for charges of abuse of monopoly power they are not even slowing down in their practice of screwing everyone they wish.

Bill once said he didn't want to sell us most of our software...he wants to sell us 100% of the software we use. Being a programmer I do take that a bit personally. And after using some of the M$ products (M$ SQL server for one) I've found them slow and not that good. Anyone actually try and use any of the visual studio products? I have, and from what I see they don't want anyone to do anything creative or "inovative" with them. They really suck bad. So while Bill convinces the morons that he has everything they need and we should all trust him, he f*cks us all.

If M$ won't slow down while in court you are not going to control them by regulation.

bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong

So how do you stop it? Splitting them up would take the bastardizing out of the OS and put it in the programs...hmmm, not as effective anymore. IE could no longer be an "integerated" part of winblows or upgrade have the api's in the os. Can you imagine quality testing of new programs for winblows? The list of possiblilities is so great I said to hell with it years ago. I just deal with the problems as they come along. Splitting them up is the only way to even start to have any effect on them.

I make my $$$$ off winblows, but it doesn't mean I have to worship at bill's feet.....

Re:Soapbox

[pen]

FYI, you can do this anonymously as well, as long as the cookie is there. The result is a lower score, so the post won't show up for users with higher threshold.

--

Re:Well DUUUUUUUUHHH.

[bkocik]

Supreme Court rulings are final. You cannot appeal them.

Regards,

Re:Yes, they knew it was coming, however,

[Black Parrot]

> That still doesn't explain why the Circuit Court so eagerly took the case, even before there was a formal appeal--the brief Circuit Court statement refers only to the great importance of the case--and that makes one wonder if the Supreme Court might wish to take it first.

Yeah, for me this really makes the CC look bad, but I suspect that we don't really have all the facts in hand yet. We may find out tomorrow that they actually have followed procedure, and the news sites just didn't have all the facts straight.

On the other hand, if they really did break protocol, it's tempting to believe that the SC will go ahead and expedite just as a way of slapping them for it.


--

Re:Microsoft Cheerleader....

[RayChuang]

What I find so ironic about this entire case is that when you look at Solaris 7.x, do you know what you do to search system resources in graphical mode? You use a WEB browser!! (Scott McNealy conveniently forgets to mention this in his anti-Microsoft diatribes.)

And look at how Konqueror for KDE and the upcoming Nautilus interface for Gnome; gee, why are they using the "web" model to search system resources?

In short, while everyone derides Microsoft for integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 98, they seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Solaris 7.x and the KDE/Gnome interfaces can do just the same....

Re:Soapbox

[Darkstorm]

The preemptive multitasking? The memory protection? The MP support

Um, I do believe that these were made possible and partially (if not totally) by the cpu advances. Memory protection was a by product of the way the cpu changed.

Decree

[The King of Europe]

I am the King of the whole of Europe, vested with absolute power. I therefore decree that no United States court verdict has any jusrisdiction on this continent. What's more, due to repeated complaints from my subjects, I've investigated Microsoft Software and found that it does not meet the minimum quality requirements for sale to the general public. I therefore prohibit the sale and use of this brand in Europe. Finally, I find IBM guilty of incompetence in having delegated the supply of processors and operating systems for their "PC" computer to companies without sufficient concern for consumers' long term needs. I therefore command all of the IBM officers involved in that decision to use Microsoft products and i386 architecture hardware to the exclusion of all others.

This decree is to come into effect at 17:30, Central European Time, 14th June 2000.

We.

said it all

[fishexe]

Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."

Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?

Circumventing the Court

[Twanfox]

Does this fall under circumventing the court already in progress? Am I mistaken in the idea that in order for there to be an apeal, the current trial has to come to an end first?

I think perhaps Microsoft's jumping the gun a little bit and looking to the projected future as they see it. I agree they should be able to appeal the decision (even though I don't like MS's market power), but there's this whole thing about putting the eggs before the chicken.

If I recall

[Frijoles]

I was watching CNN and they said that 7 judges were hearing the case and that three had stepped out.

I really don't know why they bother. Does this remind anyone of IBM? By the time IBM finished with appeals, etc, IBM was no longer a monopoly. I feel the same will happen here with Microsoft. By the time this thing gets through the courts, things will have changed enough to make it not matter anymore.

I'm not saying Linux/Mac/etc are going to unseat MS, but who can say what the future brings.

But Windows is useful! :-)

[Wister285]

Let's face it, can you play Solitare or Minesweeper on a Commodore?

Re:Soapbox

[Anonymous Covard]

It's absurd to say that if MS hadn't become a company nobody would be using a computer.

But it is fair to say that if Microsoft had not taken advantage of IBM's not locking down the PC hardware that desktop computing would have advanced far more slowly than it did. IBM's leverage in the corporate world (driving application development) combined with cheap clone hardware (for small business and home use) resulted in desktop computer advancement being compressed into far less time than previous desktop machines like the Apple ][ or HP's 9800 series (or IBM's own 5100) had managed.

Without that, Linux wouldn't even exist, because Linus wouldn't have had the machine to develop it on.

LINK: very interesting view/analysis

[Drashcan]

I do not know whether Dave Winer's 'What the Web Wants' has been Slashdotted already, but it is, in my opinion, one of the best analyses/comments about the (solution to) the case.

no-dioxine Chicken Frier

This is bad...

[MathJMendl]

Microsoft was hoping for something like this. That way they can stall and hold out until the next presidency. They are hoping the George W will get elected, as he will take it easy on them. It wouldn't just the NRA working from inside the White House...it would be Microsoft as well. Now let's just hope that this court finishes the case quickly and that it gets up to the Supreme Court by the end of the Clinton presidency. Microsoft undeniably has a monopoly but might be able to keep it if they can slow down the case long enough.. Remember when they were going to submit their resolution of the case to Jackson and asked him for more time? He told them that they had two years already! Let's just not make it three.

Re:This is bad...

[Darby]

For what it's worth, I'd also like to remind you that it's entirely possible for moderately intelligent, well-informed members of the public to support Microsoft.

I disagree with this statement. Certainly it is possible for moderately intelligent or even very intelligent people to support microsoft. I don't think it is possible to truly be well informed about them and still support them.

Well, actually I can see one situation. If you own their stock, obviously your net worth depends on them. This makes you non-objective about the issue. My personal morals won't allow me to profit from the types of actions microsoft is famous for.

The fact that they falsified evidence in a court of law would force me to divest myself of all association with the company assuming I had any. Nearly everything they have produced is released years after some other company already had it out. I say nearly in the interest of fairness although I cannot personally come up with a counter-example. Yet they keep spouting about their innovation. They also talk about how much they have added to productivity and the like. But take their figures (made up though they are) and subtract the cost associated with the various viruses, worms, and trojans which they made possible through a complete disregard for common sense in security matters (also made up this time by the victims) and most likely they have ended up costing us far more than they have helped.

Actually this does show one innovation. For about as long as email has been around there have been false virus alerts floating around warning of a virus that could infect your computer just from reading an email. This was one of the lamest hoaxes going around since anyone who was at all informed about computers knew that this was impossible. Microsoft apparently thought that this was what people wanted and so decided to one up it by making it possible to be infected merely from previewing an email.

Their technical decisions are based on destroying interoperability which is critical in the internet world. Their lack of innovation and destruction of innovative companies threatens to stagnate the industry.

This is the conclusion that being well informed forces upon you. You apparently are more concerned with your short term profits than with any choice being available to me. I can't say I think much of you for your choices since it is thoughtless attitudes like this which are making America, and to some extent the world, less free day by day.
---CONFLICT!!---

Re:This is bad...

[MathJMendl]

I recall Bush saying that he would essentially drop the charges if elected. For some strange reason, a large majority of the public favors Microsoft.

Re:This is bad...

[finkployd]

I'm pretty sure it's out of the Presidents hands. It's possible that Clinton encouraged Reno to persue this case, but now it's in the courts. The trial has occured and a ruling has been made. It's not like Reno can retract the whole case. Who ever is in Reno's place after Billy's gone isn't going to be able to stop it either.

Finkployd

Re:This is bad...

[mr_burns]

Remember, though, jackson didn't stay the sanctions, so now MS is moreso legally bound to act fairly in the market (as if they ever fucking cared about fair market practices, however) than everybody else starting in october. DOJ saw this coming and they advised jackson to hold off the ruling because of it. Now instead of a quick resolution with the supremes, they have a gavel up their butt for two years.

Re:This is bad...

[muldrake]

I recall Bush saying that he would essentially drop the charges if elected.

Bush has no such powers. If it were a criminal case, he could pardon the offender, but it's a civil matter. The moron Bush can go blow, President or not.

For some strange reason, a large majority of the public favors Microsoft.

That's why we don't put legal authority into the hands of the drooling sheeple. We have judges who presumably (at least sometimes) have clues. Otherwise you get mob rule as the majority decides to do crazy stuff like kill all the Jews or execute anyone caught with a joint.

A parliamentary democracy sucks, but it's better than what a "pure" democracy would be, which is insanity.

Re:This is bad...

[finkployd]

I don't think he can, that's my point. They have already been convicted and sentenced.

Finkployd

Re:This is bad...

[DJerman]

I hope the appeals court is paying attention -- they might get as mad as I am. Who knows, they're already meeting en banc (MS didn't see that coming I'll bet) and they snapped it right up. The appeal might be over next month...

Ok, so I'm an optomist. But the picture for MS isn't as rosy as they'd like to paint it, as I read the situation. They did serious harm to their credibility, and I'm sure that will come across in the transcript (with the doctored video and the reversals by the witnesses). Hopefully DOJ will have sufficient time to point these shenanigans out.

Re:Soapbox

[No One]

Wow, that was impressive. It's been a while since I've seen a post get every major point as wrong as yours did.

Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever. If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?

If RedHat (Debian's not a company) were dominating the OS market the way the M$ does, and were leveraging that monopoly into other markets the way M$ has, I flat out guarantee that 90% of the people who currently oppose M$ would be just as vociferously opposing them. I sure as hell would.

How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS? Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1. Microsoft made the computer more usable for the "average" computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.

Ah. You've never heard of the Mac, then? Ya know, was easier to use in '84 than Doze is today? Not to mention, if the average computer (l)user were stuck using Windows without help, he wouldn't be able to use his PC either. There's no good reason why Linux can't be set up today to be just as idiotproof as Doze. More idiotproof, given the user isn't always running as superuser. Finally, so what? What relation does that have to their violations of the law?

There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows. Its not like the API's are totally closed and just about impossible to hack a program for the OS, if that was the case, then hell yes, torch the place. But its not.

And you know damn well that they're only making money until M$ decides that they want that market, too. (see Stac, Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.)

Furthermore, we'd probably have less of a problem with them if they *were* totally closed. They're hypocrites who claim that everyone's got an equal chance on Windows, (as opposed to the Mac in the '80s), then they take special little privileges for themselves, without actually telling anyone.

I truly believe that most of the slashdot users are pissed just because it's Microsoft and the fact that it's (ack) closed source! So what? They created (or bought) the source, its' THEIRS, not OURS. If you hack out open source software, that's YOUR choice.

And it's OUR choice to not use non-free software; and our right to say WHY we choose not to use it; and, for those of us who choose it for ethical reasons, it's our responsibility to attempt to convince others.

Nobody is disputing the legality of closed source software. Nobody is attempting to make it illegal to produce. We're attempting to convince companies to voluntarily make what we consider the right choice. While many people advocated the open-sourcing of M$ software, they were advocating it as a remedial penalty for lawbreaking, which is a special case. Nobody is advocating the forced release of source for anyone who hasn't already broken the law. And you know it damn well. So you can knock off the damn grandstanding, already.

Yes, some of Microsoft's past actions are questionable, but the majority of them have been resolved. Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE. How would the average user go about downloading Netscape if IE wasn't installed? (yea there's ftp.exe, but the average user doesn't know that it exists...) Yea, MSN is installed on a typical install.. so are Prodigy, AT&T WorldNet, AOL + others) which can also be uninstalled. Face it, Microsoft has brought the computer industry to where it is today.

Knucklehead, the problem is you CAN'T uninstall it. It's bound too tightly to Windows, which is bloody stupid software design in addition to having been done for illegal reasons. Furthermore, a hell of a lot of people managed to download Nutscrape before Exploder was released, including a lot of AOL-using idiots. I suspect there wouldn't be any real problem. And I suspect you know it.

And the computer industry is where it is today in spite of M$, not because of it. They've never innovated anything; hell, they can't even copy other people's innovations in a timely fashion. (see the Mac, again.) And they can't even put together something stable but old-fashioned, ala Unix. M$ has done nothing but hold the industry back.

Linux brought the internet where it is today.. of course Microsoft had to adapt to the internet standards and create it's own internet programs. It had to keep up with linux in that aspect. Now that it has caught up (and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. 'They have a monopoly! It's bad!' Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?

Uh, Linux has kinda depended on the internet to get where it is, not the other way around. The internet was founded on Unix, VMS, and various other midrange/highend OS's. And the internet programs you're talking about were all originally written my others, but were bought out or stomped by M$.

And it matters because I'm sick of having to use Doze at work, of having to dual-boot to run games, of not being able to buy a PC without Windows (up until the antitrust trial, anyway), and of having companies that actually create innovative software get stomped out of existence by M$'s anticompetitive practices.

I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.

And tactics short of splitting them up *have already been tried.* M$ laughed at them, that's why they're where they are now. Had they actually followed the consent decree they signed five years ago, this case wouldn't have happened. If a criminal violates parole in spirit, even if not technically, shouldn't they be severely slapped for it? Same thing.

--

*Full* appeals court is taking the case

[aphrael]

Note that probably the most important part of the announcement by the appeals court is that the *full court* will take the case.

Normally appeals are heard by a 3-member panel of the full (11/12 member) court --- and the losing side can appeal the decision of that panel to the full court.

The appeals court has short-circuited that in this case, agreeing to hear the case directly. That's *extremely* unusual ....

Re:Just because it is accepted doesn't mean it wil

[styopa]

Just to point out some history. The "Findings of the Facts" on anti-trust cases have never been overturned. This puts Microsoft at a significant disadvantage. Unfortunately they have shown to do better in the appeals courts.

Re:i really dont think so:

[rhadamanthus]

"M$ knows that if they go...split up sooner i really doubt that msoft will be split up. the DOJ's demands are (as usual) way too broad to be accepted by the appeals court. the problem (IMHO) is that the DOJ doesn't quite understand the software industry's processes. amazingly, i would have to agree "slightly" with M$ on the ruling. in terms of "rights" to company code, the DOJ has no right to limit what M$ has to open-source, or not combine. M$ wrote the program, and they can do whatever they want with it. now, admittedly they haven't by any means played fair, but i would hate that if I wrote a copyrighted program that turned super-popular, the DOJ could force me to open it up to other developers. I wrote it, you can't make money off it unless I give you liscense. the DOJ should base there case on M$'s bullying of companies and control over OEMs through threats and money etc... the points about not letting OEMs customize windoze etc. are just silly and will probably ruin the case. just my 2-bits --rhad

Whose request?

[rjamestaylor]

This was before Judge Penfield Jackson could hear the governement's request to by pass the lower courts and take the case to the Supreme Court.

I admire the unusual speed at which Slashdot presented the community extrodinaire with this breaking news story.

I just wish a spell-checker had been consulted prior to posting.

That aside aside I also recognize this as a victory for Microsoft, b/c each legal step before the end will delay the end and perhaps slow down the break-up rush. Who knows? A year from now, sentiment may change and the powers that be (then) may not enforce Penfield's decision.

I'm still betting that Microsoft pulls a marketing coup out of this somehow...

Re:Soapbox

[dillon_rinker]

Remember the other suit, back in the early 90's IIRC, the one that didn't accomplish anything?
Oh, it accomplished something. Prior to the consent decree of 1994, Microsoft charged for its licenses based on how many PCs each OEM sold. Each OEM had to report how many PCs they sold to MS (important point - remember this). The government decided that this was very, very bad. They said (among other things) that MS could NOT charge for every machine an OEM sold.

However, they did agree that MS could charge for every machine sold within a model line. If an OEM wanted to license MS software on a particular model line, MS would charge them for every machine sold within that model line. So if a vendor wanted to sell PCs with OS/2 or DR DOS preloaded, they could create a separate model line and not have to pay MS. OEMs now had to report to MS how many PCs they sold within each model line (important point number two).

Because of the market dominance of MS in the consumer OS space, most OEMs didn't create model lines to sell other OSi. (Correct me if I'm wrong - anybody here buy a PC from a major OEM in the last five years with an OS other than Windows preloaded?) MS went from knowing how many PCs each OEM sold to knowing how many of each model they sold. The intelligence they received from the PC industry was increased by an order of magnitude. They knew what consumers bought and could tailor their marketing accordingly. They knew better than ANYONE what the consumer PC market was doing and where it was going.

In short, the consent decree of 1994 gave MS a powerful tool that assisted them in moving to where they are now. The government apparently didn't realize in 1994 that MS already so dominated the market. None of this was foreseen by DOJ, but you can bet your pants it was foreseen by MS. MS employees are not stupid.

So, anyone care to guess what nasty unforeseen consequences of this trial we'll see in the next few years?

Re:Agreement doesn't matter - WITH HTML :-)

[dillon_rinker]

Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public?

If you catch your kids with their hands in the cookie jar, you go harder on them when their defense is "I didn't do it" than if they just 'fess up and say "I'm sorry." A defense of innocence IS a lack of remorse, if you are, in fact, guilty.

Re:The had no choice, justice tried to circumvent

[yoder]

I do believe the idea that Jackson tried to circumvent the law is quite unrealistic to say the least. The case has been under the media microscope for two years, every gesture, every word, and every possibility has been discussed, and second guessed. The possibility that Judge Jackson, or anyone else related to this case has circumvented anything is quite improbable. So far the only unlawful behaviour has come from Microsoft.

why are they appealing?

[mikpos]

In Canadian law, at least, you have to have a reason to appeal. I don't know American law very well, but it seems (inferring from the Wired article) that that's also the case in the US. So what grounds are they using for the appeal?

Re:Soapbox

[DraKKon]

I make my $$$$ off winblows, but it doesn't mean I have to worship at bill's feet.....

How the hell am I worshipping at bill feet? By saying that MS shouldn't be split up? That just stupid.

Microsoft buys some time

[SurfsUp]

So, Microsoft buys some time.

I wonder how much it cost?
--

Cnet has a lengthier story here

[bwalling]

here is the link

"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[coyote-san]

I honestly can't figure this out.

The appeals court acted BEFORE they got the actual appeals paperwork - which means that they accepted the case BEFORE they could possibly decide whether the appeal had any merit. The appeals court acted BEFORE the trial judge could address the question of whether the DoJ was legally entitled to request the appeal be initially heard by the Supreme Court.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like they've just made it an absolutely certainty that the Supreme Court *will* ultimately accept the appeal, if only to publicly chastise the lower (appeal) court for acting with such unseemly haste as to cast the impartiality of the entire judiciary into serious doubt.

Think about it, after jumping the gun like this will anyone be able to view this court's overturning the trial judge's decisions with anything other than profoundly deep cynicism? They couldn't even wait 24 hours (for the papers to be delivered) for even the appearance of impartiality - no, it's clear at least some of those judges are foaming at the mouth to have their say. And that is precisely why they can't be permitted to have the final word.

Maybe there will be justice (pun unintended) and the Supreme Court will announce that they, not the appeals court, will be hearing the appeal directly since the appeals court has demonstrated itself incapable of acting in the Constitutionally mandated fashion. Or, at the very least, the Surpremes will accept the case, but immediately return it to a *different* lower court for the first round of appeals.

Meanwhile I want a list of the names of those justices. Appointment to the federal bench is for life, but I want to do be sure that this little trick is remembered if any of them are ever nominated for a higher court.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[craw]

This must be a troll, but I'll bite. MS does not go to Jackson, and say, Can we appeal this? No they file the paperwork directly to the Federal Court of Appeals. Think about this. Why should Jackson be involved in MS submission of the appeal? He just ruled against them. They are appealing his decision.

As for the fast timing of this, think again. Was the Court of Appeals blindsided by this? No, they knew that this was coming. They obviously discussed this among themselves, came to a decision, and acted promptly when MS finally filed the paperwork.

Re:"Appeals court acted with unseemly haste..."

[babbage]

" the Surpremes will accept the case, "

Woo hoo! Motown! Then of course it will get appealed to the Four Tops, who will review the case and hand it back down to Aretha Franklin for final Decision. Any idea what her politics are?

Okay okay that was lame, I know, but I couldn't resist :)

RE: Free lifetime support for Office:

[ripicheep]

Ugh!

Does that mean I have to use M$ Office for the rest of my life?

Soapbox

[YASD]

So, Microsoft buys some time. And, I suppose, more chances for the ruling to be overturned.

Does it really matter?

Let's suppose Microsoft is split in two and restrained from its usual dirty tricks. Let's even go way out on a limb and suppose that the restraints will actually work. Great. Microsoft can no longer reach for market domination.

Of course, they already have market domination.

So let's suppose that something else happens. There's another suit and Microsoft gets liquidated. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer die in the same plane crash. Whatever.

Still doesn't matter. Because there are plenty of other companies out there that still believe in proprietary code, closed source, restrictive licenses and all the rest. Microsoft was merely the most successful and aggressive player of that game. And lots of people have learned from them.

And the simple fact is, as long as people continue to buy proprietary software and click on those licenses, the closed-source people will continue to make money and exert control over the computing world.

The U.S. federal government is a big lumbering elephant, very powerful, but very slow. Look how long it took them to notice all the things Microsoft was doing. Remember the other suit, back in the early 90's IIRC, the one that didn't accomplish anything? We certainly can't count on the Feds to keep the software business competitive.

That's our job.

This case does no more than give Microsoft a black eye. We can destroy Microsoft, and all the rest of the closed-source world, and their paradigm. Just by continuing to make free software.

And on that note, I'm gonna log off and do some hacking...

------

Re:Soapbox

[Andrew Cady]

MacOS, AmigaOS, OS/2 -- all better than Windows. (There are dozens more, too). It's absurd to say that if MS hadn't become a company nobody would be using a computer. Windows's success is pure intertia (read: application support); if it didn't exist, some other OS (probably MacOS) would have gotten that same inertia and would be just as successful. An API is a standard of sorts, and whoever can monopolize the standards can continue to monopolize the industry. It was NOT quality that guaranteed the dominance of the Windows API, but it is the dominance of the Windows API that guarantees the dominance of Windows.

Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn?t be split or whatever.

I personally don't think MS should be split, for the practical reason that I don't expect it to actually increase competition. However, I do support some corrective action. Why? BECAUSE MICROSOFT BREAKS THE LAW; IT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO DICTATE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT MAKE COMPETITOR'S PRODUCTS INCOMPATIBLE, THUS HURTING THE CONSUMER SOME BUT THE COMPETITOR MORE. As it happens, THIS IS ILLEGAL, and that is why MS has been found guilty.

Debian and RedHat have not engaged in such practices; there is no evidence of them ever harming the consumer in order to harm their competitors, and furthermore they are not monopolies so even if they had it would not be illegal. If Debian engaged in the same practices as MS, of course people would want action against it.

(and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. ?They have a monopoly! It?s bad!? Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?

Why do I care? How about because I cannot watch DVD's without breaking the law or buying another OS? You agree that MS has violated standards; well the entire point of standards is to allow communication with other OSes, applications, etc. If I'm using a non-MS OS and MS doesn't obey standards, that means I cannot communicate with MS -- i.e. 80% of the machines in the world. Obviously that affects me; as you can see, I am online. So are you. Obviously the ability to communicate is important to both of us. MS WANTS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE FROM THOSE WHO DO NOT USE WINDOWS. That is why I care. MS is attacking MY ability to use Kerberos, MY ability to share files with other computers on the LAN. MY ability to print files on the LAN. MY ability to write documents and share them with my friends. MY ability to get documents from my friends. MY ability to get digital music or video from my friends and view it. MS wants me to have to give those up for using an alternative OS, whether or not I am willing to write or buy or otherwise get the code necessary to do so, and that is why I care.

Re:Soapbox

[YASD]

Well, yes, it was Microsoft that made the computer accessible to non-hackers. There was a tremendous market out there. Someone would have done it. It happened to be Microsoft.

And that is why it also happened to be Microsoft that ended up dominating the personal computer industry. They had an edge and they ran with it. They took some good-enough software and a lot of damned good marketing, crushed their competitors, and just kept on going. Hell, it had worked so far, why stop now?

Now it's easy for we Linux users to say, who cares, we don't have to use their junk. Let them control the pointy-haired boss's desktop. Problem is, a lot of us want to work in the programming field, and inevitably a lot of us are going to end up working for the PHB, and he'll want us using the same thing he uses.

And, as you pointed out, there's the little matter of standards and protocols. What happens if 90% of the people on PCs are creating their pages with FrontPage and reading everyone else's pages with IE? Microsoft controls the web by default, that's what. W3C becomes irrelevant, Microsoft dictates the standards, and we all have to chase their moving target. (Their undocumented moving target.) While everyone else buys their software, because MS programmers are the only ones who have the full specs to work from.

You say the APIs aren't totally closed. True enough. That would work against them. But they keep moving the target, because that way they can keep charging for classes and certification and new books. And their application programmers can stay one step ahead of the rest of the world.

I tried learning Windows programming a few years ago, and it didn't take me long to realize the kind of game they had set up for me. I looked around, and Unix looked pretty stable, and Linux had a lot more books than FreeBSD. It wasn't until much later that I realized it's stable because the user community is in charge and nobody can muck around with things for their sole benefit.

------

Insightful -- maybe -- but uninformed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding yourself to think that the supreme court will hear this case prematurely. I know many /. folks have a boner right now thinking about MS getting broken up but it's not going to happen yet. MS has argued successfully on two previous cases in front of this same appeals court.

Not exactly.

[Vladinator]

#include

Sig, you fail to consider that we already HAVE a law that addresses this: In anti-trust matters, if the case meets the criteria, a case MAY be fast tracked to the SC, so as to preserve the rights of consumers at large (read: ALL Americans) rather than the rights of the few or the one (I.E. Microsoft). This "Victory" on MS's part *is* a defeat for those of us who now get screwed by MS longer. Hopefully, the Govt. will file to have the case heard by the SC, which can snatch the case out of the Appeals Court and hear it directly if they so choose.

Fawkin Trolls!

Curious question

[styopa]

I just read on www.thestandard.com that Judge Jackson was going to hold out on the request for a stay on the "final judgement" until Microsoft had filed its notice of appeal.

http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,115 1,15946,00.html?nl=dnh

Could someone clue me into what is going on here? One minute I am reading that the appeals court has taken the case then next I am hearing that Microsoft hasn't even submitted its notice for appeal!

Handout 2000 (TM)

[raul duke]

Looks like the DC Ciruit court of Appeals sure got their new versions of Handout 2000 (TM).

I just wonder if Patrick Stewart handed them out?

Looks like Bill Gates is bringing out the gimp.

"Don't worry, its all good"

Appeals Court takes case for this reason

[RayChuang]

Folks,

I think the reason why the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC took this case almost immediately is very simple: they may want to stick it to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson AGAIN. :-)

People forget that Judge Jackson has been overturned quite a number of times by this Appeals Court, including overturning two judgements by him against Microsoft. Now that the Appeals Court has taken US v. Microsoft, this means that the chances of the Supreme Court getting the case will go down pretty quickly. In short, don't expect an Appeals Court ruling until around February 2001, and if George W. Bush is elected President, we may not even make it THAT far.

Re:Appeals Court takes case for this reason

[Mr. Barky]

No, I think it is more likely that they don't want to get cut out of the loop (they have egos too). They did this quickly and are doing it en banc since they figured that would be the best way to get the Supreme Court to let them take it. This is, after all, a major, major case.

There probably are a few of the judges who personally dislike Jackson (remember, only 3 were on the panel that struck down Jackson's ruling), but I don't think this is the likely motivation for the whole court.

Victory?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see how this is a victory for Microsoft. Yes, the circuit court accepted the appeal. However, according to the 'Expediting Act', found here (USC 15 Ch 1 Sec 29), it appears that the district court can still accept a request that the Supreme Court hear the case directly. The fact that the circuit court has accepted the appeal does not trump this option.

Re:Microsoft

[finkployd]

The difference is, Bill Gates isn't on a golf course looking for the "real" company

Finkployd

Appeals...

[suwalski]

Well, Microsoft is perfectly entitled to an appeal, just like any other court case. The only thing is that most people appeal to lower the sentence, and I hope Microsoft doesn't have some strange compromise planned. If they do, the already volatile split situation may become a little more stable and sway Microsoft's way. That'll be the day. Yey. I'm going to go play... Hooray. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it. Okay, I'll shut up now.

Perhaps the 9th Circuit is as pissed as we are?

[Dhrakar]

Hmmm. It may turn out that insisting on going to the District court is exactly the wrong thing for Microsoft. That is, the District Court judges are not stupid. They, I'm sure, have been following this case and are aware of:

• How they are perceived by the media (I.e. willing to roll over for Microsoft)
• How Microsoft wormed out of the previous rulings.

Thus, they may see this as a means of telling Microsoft "Look, you guys made us look silly. We will make sure that there are no misunderstandings this time." I have a feeling that they are taking this case en banc just to prove that their decision will be unambiguous and apolitical. Kinda puts a different spin on things, eh? ;-)

I don't get it

[SuperguyA1]

To be perfectly honest, I don't find Microsoft all that appealing!?!

(Sorry couldn't resist).

Small but important corrections

[Drashcan]

No Dude,

Small mistake over here. Socialism says: everything to the state. A strict socialist view on the economy is: "Nationalise everything", therefore MS := state company. By the way, this would be even worse: in a strict socialist economy MS would be allowed to keep its monopoly, although as a state company. Read an annotated version of 'Das Kapital' of Karl Marx if you want to know more.

A capitalist, supposing he is acting in a democracy, is normally (from the theoretical standpoint) a free market liberal. Of course he keeps his hands off of the market (businesses) as long as his capitalist system is not in danger.
A monopoly endangers that system since in the long run it can lead to an economic dictature. And an economic dictature, which by the way also implies a social one, leads to less free market.
So we end up with a dictature, in the "economically speaking" best case with a little capitalist flavour (Chile under Pinochet for example). A true believer in free market liberalism should also be for a minimum of market regulation, against too high concentrations of economic power.
Remember: capitalism/free market liberalism says you can move up on the social scale (that is/was its eternal argument against socialism which states the opposite - that's why to achieve mobility an "all overthrowing revolution" is required). Allowing monopolies would automatically mean a denial of this mobility.

Now comes the paradox: although the democratic (Clinton) administration is a little bit (for European standards it is) more left wing than a republican one its stance in the MS case is more capitalist/free market oriented than that of many republicans who are in favour of a hands off approach to this MS case.

The PIG One

the standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, according to CNN, the standard is whether immediate consideration is "of general public importance in the administration of
justice". I think both sides would agree that it is.

Not quite

[styopa]

MS is moreso legally bound to act fairly in the market.

Just because Jackson didn't stay the sanctions, or at least hasn't given word on it yet last I heard, doesn't mean that they have to play fair, yet.

The appeals court can stay the sanctions just as easily as Judge Jackson can. Not only that but the sanctions do not come into effect until 90 days, or is it 60 days, after the trial.

Microsoft doesn't have to do anything right now if it doesn't want to. Luckly for us they probably don't want to do anything foolish, like do what they were doing before the trial, for it will only hurt them.

Big Giant Effects of a Delay

[gunner800]

Obviously MS wants to put off any breakup for as long as possible. For one thing, money now is worth more than money later. And they can use the time to prepare for The End.

But as many people have pointed out (often by calling me nasty names), the point of the breakup is to correct the market, not to punish MS. If the breakup is delayed long enough, the market may correct itself.

If that happens, I wonder if the breakup would happen at all.

The appeals process is liked and/or tolerated in criminal matters because for the most serious offenses, the accused stays in jail until he wins an appeal. It's very different when the illegal activity is ongoing throughout the appeals.


My mom is not a Karma whore!