Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Proposes Lengthy Appeal Period
ackthpt writes: "Yahoo News is carrying this short article indicating Microsoft's preference for a five month appeal process."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Or Gore... doesn't matter who ends up in the oval office; it'll be a new face, and another chance at gaining the sympathies of the head of the executive branch.
On a side note, while I think Bush might favor big business more than Gore, I also think that Gore would sell his wife to the highest bidder if it meant a campaign contribution. While I'm fairly sure that Bush is probably no more trustworthy or fair minded than Gore, at least he hasn't actually demonstrated himself to be the world-class screwup Clinton-wannabe looser that Gore has."Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I hardly think five months will be enough time to make M$ appealing...
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Well said Rellik! This is @#$@ capitalism not communism, we don't need the @#$@# government coming in to help those little companies make everythign equal. The whole antitrust idea should be abolished Xcept for cases of utilites. If i have a sweet product i will do whatever i damn well please with it and distribute it under my won terms and if they don't like it they can buy something else. The MPAA/RIAA is taking Napster/DeCSS to court for making the things they sell avialable for free. This is basically what other companies do. Linux, Corel and whoever do, they provide the basic things MS does for a 'cheaper' price Xcept MS isn't being a bitch an complaining about it. If they make it easy to use, easyily accessable, and CHEAP, we will come to it. Other than that, MS4LIfe. :)
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
Well during an appeal, only the information and evidence presented at trial is considered. So current events should not influence the appeal courts decision. Only during the punishment phase would MS' status be a factor.
I am of the opinion that the best thing that can happen to microsoft - from the point of view of their products - is to be split as Judge Jackson recommended. Then they may actually get to writing good OS software and good app software instead of blending the two into the abortion that they are producing at the moment.... not to mention providing a good platform for other software packages - so leveraging their OS.
just makes sense that way.
http://websearch.about.com/internet/websearch/libr ary/weekly/aa081099.htm
Don't call people stupid, stupid.
Really? This is fascinating. How far does this go? Could I, under oath, tell a judge an obvious lie (say about a commonly known fact) and get away with it if opposing counsel fails to counter in some way what I said?
This might be mistaken for a flame because I'm exagerating the situation, but that not what I intend. I realize there are defined tasks in the court, but I wonder where the line is. Clearly we can't have judges performing their own intensive investigations, and I suspect that the MS lawyers could (also) protest that Judge Jackson is not a computer expert.
--
JADBP
--
JADBP
While you are probably right *now*, there was a time that people ditched a perfectly good 32-bit OS for DOS with Windows for Workgroups 3.xx
Honestly: back in the time when a Pentium 133 was a hot-rod, I know that a German PC-vendor called Vobis sold their Highscreen series with OS/2 preinstalled. I'm really sure of it because a friend of mine bought one (Hi Krissyboy!).
Believe it or not, but most people ditched it for the largely inferior DOS/Windows combination. I know, I'm probably a bit biased because I *liked* OS/2
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
they do have appeal.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Handful of airlines... high prices
Many airlines... low prices
I suggest you switch to name brand heroin. The bargain stuff just isn't the same quality it used to be.
as a car with the engine welded into an inpenetrable steel box is easy to repair. Of course it's put in there to keep inexperienced users from accidentally messing it up - like if there were a knob on your dashboard for injector timing, a lot of cars would be towed in for service because someone twisted the knob and didn't know how to adjust it properly. However that will never deter the auto hobbyist and do-it-myself-ers.
Seriously, a lot of vendors are handling the 'broken software' support problem (when a vendor sells a pc w/ oem windows on it, it's the VENDOR who has to tech support the damn software, not Msft) just by 'reimaging' the disk. Just wipe it out and start all over.
If your claim of market dominance due to ease of use and managability were actually true, the Mac would have outsold DOS & Windows LONG ago.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
that will never deter the auto hobbyist and do-it-myself-ers from trying to make a truely competitive, high performance race car, instead of an average, plain vanilla, ordinary family vehicle that everyone has.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm not sure, I think i'd prefer if neither of them won.
I can hear the crowd now "hit him, kill him, hit him back you fool...."
notwithstanding jokes about it being "half an operating system" :)) But IBM has already had their wrist slapped for predatory market practices in the 60's (the old 'plug in-compatible' trick) and so couldn't get away with the back-stabbing, illegal tie-ins and vendor intimidation it takes to claw your way to the top. You want usability? How about click on document icon, drag document icon to printer icon and release. But nooooooo, the average intelligent computer consumers freely decided they wanted their GPF's and black screens of death; they wanted their playskool toys with big chunky parts you can't swallow and bright primary colors, and cry for a confused nanny to edit their win.ini file when it breaks. They also wanted a windowing system that issues big scary bogus error messages if you dare try to install it on DR-DOS.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Can we throw Bush, Jack Valenti, and Hillary Rosen in there too? Please?
-RickHunter
Has the anti-trust case against Microsoft slowed down this company? Perhaps yes. But I think that MS also knows that they can't behave in the same fashion as IBM. After all, MS knows that they are where they are today because IBM didn't move fast enough.
Also, if Bush gets elected (no more BUll SHit!), they might have a better chance of not being split up.
If they can't release anything on time, how do you think they are going to get an appeal together that fast!
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Lengthly? "A five month appeal process"? Considering the speed of the legal process and Microsoft's lawyers, that's zippier than DOS on an Athlon.
Actually I found your comparison with playskool toys pretty weird: I tought that playschool was childproof and that swallowing the toy would be the equivalent of a KernelPanic/BSOD/Bomb(Mac). Now, if you hold the comparison with Windows then it is more like giving a fork to the kid to play around with. I have yet to meet a normal user whose PC is still fully functional after 1 year of use (with Windows of course).
Now, even being a non-open-source-OS-by-big-bad-IBM, I still like OS/2...in it's time it had a chance, but medriocity won. Sadly.... My new hopes are in Linux, but it's not yet ready for the average desktop user.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Five months to let the evidence sit and look real. More to the point, has anyone every gotten one of their "Freedom to Inovate" newsletters. It would be nice to see that used as evidence against them.
You'd think they'd just want to get it over with instead of dragging out this period where they know everything they do is being scrutinized.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
No MS-Basher can debate my points, that is a fact, you pathetic loser. I sugguest you go read the U.S. constitution, unless you agree with the decss judge that software isn't speech, it seems to guarentee MS' right to make/bundle whatever it wants.
Alternatively I suggest MS just got and buy a group of islands somewhere and turn from corporation into a minor dictatorship. A land where marketers roam wild and free, occasionally attempting to pass themselves off as lawyers or tech gurus.
Probably not a bad idea, they when they break the law it's far easier to bomb them rather than messing around with lawyers.
Maybe some dissatisfied customers could club together to get hold of a second hand B52.
How is MS "bundling" of internet explorer any different than say linux "bundling" telnet, or apple "bundling" email or quicktime?
It's not, from a practical or technical perspective. It's also not any different from KDE bundling Konqueror, or GNOME bundling a browser compon, or Red Hat shipping with Mozilla.
Are we a society of crybabies?
Apparently.
--
Will this really change anything? In the year 2050 when the appeals finally end and Microsoft is finally broken up, do you really think that this is going to stop people from using their products? The average consumer doesn't care. They'll use whatever is on their computer when it's shipped to them. Like it or not, Windows is currently the standard only because of name recognition and because their OS ships on the majority of new computers. The only way of changing this would be for them to completely stop creating the product. The average consumer doesn't care, and that's why there's little that we can do but drive them out of business (yeah right).
I honestly find myself wondering if we read the same findigs of fact and judgement.
You DID read them page for page, right? I did. and as a highly accomplished professional engineer who has watched the whole MS tyhing develop since the first PC I was frankly ASTOUNDED at how clearly the court understood the cogent issues.
Frankly, IMO they demonstarted a better grasp of both the market issues and the computer science then many a slash-dot-poster. (Jackson's office, among other things, clearly defined why most of Windows ISN'T OS code, something most of us knew but were hard pressed to explain.)
This may part of MS's strategy, but the main reason to lengthen the process is to make Jackson's remedial solution no longer pertinent in the fast changing computer industry. That's it. This is not a criminal case where one is simply punished for performing a crime. This is anti-trust. The final solution is one that restores competition in a framework of the consumers that were harmed by the illegal actions of the monopolist.
As long as this case is being decided, MS stock value will remain relative low. Furthermore, MS can't be the predatory shark that they usually are. They have to be a little bit more subtle.
Remember why MS "integrated" the browser into the Windows98. It was to make the previous Jackson ruling non-pertinent.
The sancity of the Findings of Fact i.e. "they cannot be overturned" is a myth perpetuated by the press and the BS'ers they quote (the same people who said there was a 100% chance the Supreme Court would agree to bypass the Appeals Court and take the case). The standard for overturning findings of fact is clear error, and I think Microsoft will argue there was a lot of clear error in the findings of fact.
a breif post for a short article which will lead to lots of meaningless posts like this one.
new slahsdot pole:
under my pants i wear:
[]briefs
[]shorts(boxers)
[]nothing
[x]bill gates
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The MS case is probably the biggest legal decision this court that the tech industry will have for at least a decade. Given that antitrust cases tend to wind on forever, this is still a quick pace.
In a fair court, by a fair judge who listened to months of evidence, and asked questions of both sides (did you follow the case day by day on cnet like I did?) they were found guilty of criminal conduct that violates the laws of this land.
While I'm inclined to agree with the district court's decision, I don't know if we can really characterize the trial as fair. A judge who reads anti-MS books in his spare time? No hearings at all on the penalty? Wow, if this were some guy charged with murder, we'd all be complaining that his rights were violated even if it was obvious he did it.Under the 5th and 14th amendments to the US constitution, no one (including fictional persons such as corporations) shall be denied liberty without due process of law. Process due includes the right to appeal to the supreme court as well as whichever lower courts Congress establishes. It's true that Microsoft has gotten part of their due process, but it's fallacious to say they've received it all.
-- Anne Marie
They have. It's called the United States.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm not arguing in favour of a centrally planned economy. Just saying that some parts of it are better managed centrally. More efficient, less duplication. Imagine having 70 different companies vying for your sewer business. The cost of switching providers and the inefficiency of having 70 sets of pipes is ludicrous. The same could be said for many other areas of infrastructure, where the cost of finding a substitute works against any price reductions that competition might bring. This is the famous "barriers to entry" argument about competing operating systems. You ought to know that.
You sound like you're one of the cardboard "right wing" hosts of some CNN news program. You're saying "Oooh -- communist bad, capitalist good" without responding to what I said. I could just respond exactly in kind -- "You're saying that Capitalism is good. Everybody knows that's wrong." Nice try though.
Abusing a monopoly hurts consumers, which is why infrastructure elements like power grids, highways, railways, banks, and other institutions that allow trade and commerce to thrive, should *never* be privately owned. There's lots of other places where commerce and competition provide real consumer benefit without putting people (and the economy) at the mercy of stock markets.
Straight forward factual evidence can show whether or not a corporation is abusing its monopoly, but making them stop abusing it is something much more difficult. In a case like Microsoft's, it may never be possible to stop them without causing injustice (by short-circuiting due process) or economic harm (by hurting Microsoft's shareholders).
On my computers, I can run any number of operating systems, so I fail to see how this can be said to be a natural environment for a monopoly.
Your sample is too small. Your results are skewed in favour of experienced computer users.
No no, go do a search of US Fed Circuits on FindLaw for the phrase "clear error" and you'll get a gazillion rulings saying "we review the findings of fact for clear error"; in contrast you'll get exactly zero saying the same for the supposed "egregious error" standard.
1. Linux is not a monopoly, MS is (read Finding of Fact).
2. Linux companies do not necessarily make the telnet et al that are bundled. MS makes all of their pieces (i.e. if they had bundled IE, Netscape, maybe Opera, and set it up so that you could choose whichever one you wanted, they wouldn't be accused of bundling)
3. Sherman & Clayton Acts (approximately 100 years old, it isn't new law).
4. They actively sought to use their monopoly to put competition out of business (Read Findings of Fact). This is what they're accused of, not having a monopoly (which is legal).
want me to continue?
At one point in the trial Microsoft testified that 'such and such' was impossible - Judge Jackson went home and tried to perform the action on his computer and found that Microsoft was lying; he was able to do it. He came into court the next day and stated what he had found.
While this sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to do - surely anyone with technical knowledge would likely have done the same thing - it is a violation of 'due process'. Judge Jackson was supposed to rule only on evidence entered at trial not on independent investigation he or anyone else performed outside of the courtroom. The Microsoft lawyers objected but Judge Jackson overruled their objection.
The fact that the judge caught Microsoft lying, even the fact that they were lying is legally irrelevant; remember, the essence of the law is 'straining at gnats while swallowing camels'. This may be the gnat of reversible error on which the ruling against Microsoft is overturned at the appellate level.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
wouldn't you start your sentence, regardless of the appellate process?
Yes, he would. Which brings up an interesting point: Judge Jackson placed interim procedural remedies on M$, which he lifted when the Justice Department applied to have the procedure "fast-tracked" to the Supreme Court. Now that the whole mess has been sent back through the normal appeals procedure, shouldn't the procedural remedies be reapplied?
Also, there are no "multiple levels" of courts between the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court, unless "multiple" is permitted to mean "one." After the District Court -- Jackson's court -- there is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. The end.
Ewps. I just reread what I said. The case United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation was decided by a judge, not by a jury of peers. Perhaps this is the distinction?
--
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or Nader... doesn't matter who ends up in the oval office.... Oh wait, yes it does. The political ambitions of the elected administration will determine which suits the Justice Department proceeds with and which are abandoned. Make no mistake about it.
-- Anne Marie
Oh, I agree with you... I just don't think that the political ambitions of Gore and Bush are different enough to influence the outcome of something like this.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Check the US Constitution. Especially that bit where it says that no fact, once determined by a court, can ever be judged by a second court. This is not some bit of legal procedure: this is a Constitutional safeguard against judge-shopping.
The standard is not clear error; it is egregious error, error so profound that it violated the Constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. If you have a reference where a court has merely overturned "clear error" in a Finding, I invite you to post it here.
If it were to going to have become one, it would've done so during the trial, not during the appellate phase. In this phase, there are no exciting witnesses, no presenting of evidence, none of the stuff that makes for an exciting spectacle. All there is is a bench of judges sitting in judgment on some esoteric legal controversies, and that's hardly the sort of thing that makes for exciting press.
What people don't realize is that suits like these always drag on this long. In that respect, it's more like civil law than criminal law.
-- Anne Marie
We should shit or get off the pot here, folks. Either we accept the fact that monopolies are good for consumers and leave them be, or we nationalize them and get it over with. This twiddling around and bullshit is a waste of time -- someone's got to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes on. Anyone who thinks competition is going to make all the boo-boos better is dumber than a sack of wet diapers.
Consensus makes interoperability possible and monopolies are the most economically efficient way to achieve consensus. The only question is who will own the monopoly. Will the monopoly serve the needs of many or the needs of just a few?
The pursuit of Microsoft by the DOJ is as much an attempt to rescue the tattered legend of the American Entrepreneur as it is to enforce the rule of law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's a list of which cases the supreme court has taken so far this term. Pretty much by definition, they're all cases of a constitutional dimension, which the DOJ v. Microsoft case is not. And, moreover, the supreme court still reserves the power to judge the case when it reaches them from the appellate circuit.
-- Anne Marie
That provision of the Constitution protects the rights of defendants in criminal cases. It does not grant any rights to the government or state attorneys general as plaintiffs in a civil case.
Since you're so wrong yea. 1. MS being a monopoly of OSes doesn't make any sense. How does anyone know that every single machine that came with windows is not currently running linux? That would make linux the monopoly, wouldn't it? I mean linux doesn't keep figures of how many copies are out there because it's free, so it's legal to burn it to a cd and give it to a friend, stick on your ftp server and let people download. So how do we know the entire world isn't really running linux? =) You cannot even prove MS is a monopoly, until you audit every single machine running today, or most of them. This is a non-serious argument, but it just goes to show how easy it is to not use MS, it's nothing like being forced to use one long distance company. If you don't like MS go download linux, what free alternative to Bell was there when it was ruled an monopoly, besides shouting really loud..? No, this is just a case of a bunch of loud crybabies trying to ruin it for all the happy windows users because their OS doesn't support as many devices, configurations, etc. 2. Some unix OS makers make all of the pieces that are bundled with their OS, and it's not easy to change the default software in some cases, certainly no easier than it would be to do so in an MS OS. And how exactly is it you can't specify to use netscape instead of internet explorer? Hell the OS even allows you to change the default link launcher, so you can make sure you are running netscape everytime you click a link... Sounds like it allows you to do what you said it doesn't. 3. The constitution is even older. Just because a law is unconstitutional for 100 years doesn't make it more constitutional. Hell racists laws were on the books for 100 years, those were good too? 4. Unix OS makers actively seek to put competition out of business, too. Just like every other damn company. what is this disney world?? You're probably shocked to hear soldiers actually fight on the battlefield and not engage is point debates, too.
Actually, MS licences a bunch of peices that are included in the OS. It's normally the utilities and codecs though. One example is the "Imaging" program is from WANG. In win2k the degragmentation software is third party too. Hyperterm is probably the most obvious third party peice. In the case of a web browser, opera wasn't around and netscape refused to make a version that could be embedded in an app the way a key peice needs to be in the windows platform. However it would have been cool if there was some form of api standard for being a web browser, such that anyone could have plugged in. Of course on a testing perspective that would have been a nightmare for anyone writting an app that used it,
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I will:
1. Monopoly in law does not mean 100%. MS is a monopoly, so found in Finding of Fact. Look up the history of Sherman & Clayton act, including all previous trials. No one (even Standard Oil) had 100%, and were still found guilty.
2. Despite what you might think, the Supreme Court (who have final say in it) has found that the Sherman & Clayton Acts are constitutional. Don't like it? Get Congress to repeal the Acts. Until then, they're the law of the land. (btw: whether other laws are legal or not isn't the issue, it's whether the Sherman & Clayton Acts are. Nice try at redirection).
3. Regardless of what others do, it's Microsoft on trial, Microsoft that is charged. If you believe others are violating the Sherman & Clayton Acts, talk to the Justice Department.
You can't appeal the same judgment more than once, because -- generally speaking -- if you don't raise an issue on the first appeal, you waive it. Your cynicism is unwarranted.
You're the kind of bozo that probably cheered when chinese tanks ran over the student protestors in tianemen square back in 91/92. After all, it IS illegal to demostrate without authority in that country, and certainly death is a common punishment there. Question is not whether MS broke the law. The law is absurd, example? How many laws do you break in a day? Well, are you married? Have sex with your spouse? Probably broke the law. I guess we shouldn't have any sympathy when the government thugs come for you, after all congress hasn't repealed the anti-sex laws.. Question is whether it is right. And I didn't say MS didn't have a %100 monopoly I said you can't prove MS even has a majority monopoly. How can you prove that of all the machines out there most of them run windows? Most of them could be running linux, there is simply no way to tell. Most machines ship with windows but you don't even need to see it you can just boot your machine with a linux cd and install it instead. So not being able to prove a company has a monopoly is the same thing as no monopoly.
I hate to sound paranoid, but is Microsoft hedging for a Bush victory/Republican Congress in the fall? Assuming that the appeals court rules there are serious procedural errors (procedural, not substantive) a new trial would be ordered and the whole dang process starts over.... Would the Bush Administration instruct its DOJ to pursue this case? Would the antitrust section be funded enough to take this behemoth through years of litigation? If I were an antitrust chief with the kind of budget corporate enforcement types get under the (historically) GOP, maybe I would be very inclined to settle? Of course, no matter what, the case will continue into the next presidency. But if a new trial is ordered right after Bush became, this would provide an excellent opportunity for the DOJ to say, "well, we're gonna give up/settle". (Remember, the folks who make these decisions aren't GS or SES, they're political appointees.)
Look at the recent strife in California with the LAPD. When you cut corners on matters of due process, real people get hurt, and real people suffer. When you don't cut corners, at best a little current suffering continues, and this industry and nation has been putting up with Microsoft for a long time now. We can afford to allow ourselves to obtain the necessary legitimacy before smacking them down and smacking them hard.
-- Anne Marie
The side which is calling the shots is the side which sits on the bench, wears shorts and T-shirts underneath their blisteringly hot robes, and gets called "Your Honor". :)
:)
Remember that: no matter what lawyers say, the judges are the ones who are ultimately controlling everything. Judges also have better sense than to hold press conferences during the time when a trial is underway (don't even mention Lance Ito to me; good grief, he was an embarassment to the legal system).
Lawyers serve two purposes. The first is to represent their client's interests in court, and the second is to represent their client's interests outside of court. Every time an attorney gives a press conference, they're going to do everything in their power to convey that their side is the one that's winning in the courtroom, that they're calling all of the shots. The reality is they are both presenting arguments to a judge (or judges, in the case of appellate work), and the judges are the ones who call the shots; and the judges are so good at calling the shots that they only have to call them once, when the verdict is handed down.
During US v Microsoft, Microsoft lawyers were holding daily press conferences saying how much ass they were kicking in the courtroom. It was totally laughable, given how badly they lost, but they still did it anyway. They're attorneys. They represent their client's interests, and it's in their client's interests to look good to the media.
Microsoft extends the current dark cloud in order to buy time to buy up outstanding shares. When the cloud finally lifts (as Microsoft surely believes it will) the guys on top will be that much the richer for it.
-- Anne Marie
Microsoft wants all of the legal stuff to take so long because the longer the trial waits, the less viable the case against Microsoft is. I think it really is that smiple. If Microsoft drags the litigation long enough, people will forget why it was even started iin the first place, and will realize that the entire point is moot because it is an issue that resolved itself. Do very many people care about OJ Simpson any more? I don't think so. Microsoft was never in the news as much as OJ. As for what happens in court, that will remain to be seen, but I can assure you that it won't affect most of us, even if the split Microsoft into ten seperate companies.
Only those who dream can grasp reality.
It would give more time to allow the judges' to weigh their options and see both sides of the case. I mean, why the hurry?
---
GetSystemMetrics(SM_SECURE) == FALSE
Rather amusingly, Microsoft is living up to their fiduciary responsibilties by screwing the public. Corporations exist, legally, to make their shareholders rich. It's been proven that in the postion that Microsoft is in, the best way they can accomplish that is unsavoury tactics. If they hold back, well, they're still doing illegal things.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I hope so! It would be cool to see live chase of Bill Gates in a white Bronco driving around for hours threatening suicide. Then, after the trial is over he could devote himself to finding "the real monopolist". If
I think Microsoft is seeking to gain a couple of things with this request:
1) They want to look like they are taking it seriously - that's why the coverage has had the number of pages listed ("Wow they really do have a lot to present!")
2) They want to look like they are the mature, responsible ones - if the government comes out spitting on this "reasonable" request - MS look like the adults.
3) The want to perfect the 10 gajillion pages of tripe they are going to dump on the court - if you're gonna dump sewage on someone's doorstep and get away with it - that sewage had better smell pretty good. Either that or run really fast.
4) They want to have grounds for appeal if it goes south again - "We didn't have time to prepare bwah bwah..."
5) They will take any chance they can get for the political climate to change, their product line to change, the industry to change so that it all becomes academic. "But it's all one system - look you can't pull the +class of software here+ out without the whole thing collapsing. The media player is built in to the kernel."
6) They want to change public opinion.
7) Insert your fave conspiracy theory here.
I can't stop thinking of that ruling made against Microsoft in their temp employee case - their press release said they were "reviewing" the judgement. Imagine the luxury of being able to "review" judgements instead of being bound by them like everyone else............
I once knew a gal that failed the "three day old fish" test.
;)
But I guess that topic might be more germane on slash.org...
Andy
Offtopic -- Mod me down!
...to span the election.
May the highest bidder win! (both/either the
presidency/chance to (not) breakup microsoft)
> The case United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation was decided by a judge, not by a jury of peers.
Heh heh. It occurs to me that it would be difficult to find a jury of peers for a monopoly.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
with all the resources that is m$.
with all the creative talent that is m$.
and this is a victory for m$? i just don't see how it can be so.
Hey, let 'em cling to the x86 platform in a single monolithic block. (That's why I don't like the Corel deal. Corel Suite 8 was written in Java.)
They'll sink faster that way when people want something that doesn't need to run in a 'fridge or set fire to their desks and their wallets.
Meanwhile the lawyers will pick their bones clean and we can all move on to better things.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So that we can still talk about trials without refering to decades I propose that the minute be extended to 1432.34 seconds. The new length of the minute will ensure my proposal and will have the added bonus of creating more software engineering jobs since we'd need to redo all the banking software. It's win-win.
> the same people who said there was a 100% chance the Supreme Court would agree to bypass the Appeals Court and take the case
Remind us again who all those people were?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> In the final analysis - I just do not see that this story is indicative of a Secret Microsoft Plot to Rule the World.
It really doesn't take much analysis. If I got busted for robbing a bank, no one would be surprised if I wanted to stay out of jail for five more months so I could enjoy my reapings, would they?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...One has to wonder...are you?
>Unfortunately for Microsoft, Judge Jackson gave the government almost everything they could have asked for in his Findings of Fact.
"Unfortunately for Microsoft".....why unbfortunately?
It's been very interesting to see what semantics the MS case has revealed. I mean, if you actually followed the whole shebang (no matter whose stocks & systems you endorse, etc) it has been incredible to watch a government team - of all things - conduct such a factually superior, legalistically adept, technologically informed case...against the odds.
All of this is reflected in the various decisions, peripheral papers, responses and findings. As long as one actually read them, that is.
Maybe it is "unfortunate" for Microsoft that they were able to counter only with petulance, doctored video, disinformation, subsequently-retracted statements, boasts, arrogance, and just...well, plain old denial.
Of course they also countered with MONEY (lobbyists, donations, etc.) and it's MONEY that has folks sying stuff like - to quote my ex-boss - "If the DOJ would just get off Microsoft's ass the stock market will be back to normal!!" In his case meaning, Iin an ideal world, like the one I knew at Microsoft, insane people would flock to throw money at _my_ company".
It's "unfortunate" indeed that more people don't look at the facts and realize just what this company can do, has done and may yet do. When someone has their history and about a million bucks in the bank for every employee, it's unlikely they will be a force for general good...ie it's unlikely anyone really has the luxury of de facto disinterest.
Is this goign to become another O.J. Simpson trial? This also brings up the fact that having a to nof money can get you out of almost anything. Then again, who knows.. maybe the judge will grant it because he/she is just sick of hearing about Microsoft everyday .. just like we are.
They're in favor of dragging their feet whenever possible. If they really thought they could win this, they would have been pushing for the speediest trial possible.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Microsoft wants to lengthen the appeals process as long as it can. It worked for IBM, no? If it lengthens the trial, it can continue screwing the populous. The long it screws the populous, the more money is made for the shareholders.
;)
Who knows - maybe in 10 years, when the Justice department finally gives up, MS will be a huge supported of OSS, just like Big Blue.
æeee!
I am forced to wonder how legal proceedings work on a general basis. My legal experience is lacking. If anyone with greater knowledge of this can tell me if it is common for one side of a suit to be "calling the shots", I'd greatly appreaciate it...
It seems like Microsoft is always suggests the "best way" to carry things out in their legal proceedings...
wasting my time? Yours was about the most pertainant comment of the whole discussion.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
um.
What exactly is brief about a document that takes 5 months to prepare, and is twice as long as normally allowed?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm glad my U.S. Supreme Court has better things to do than decide the fate of a multi-billion dollar software monopoly which has actively reduced it's competition in the past and today seems to be taking on Corel (Hey SEC: What gives?). Boy they must be working on a WHOPPER of a case load if that ones is too unimportant.. (Sarcasm intended). Serriously, why isn't this getting any attention?
I think Mainframe entertainment ought to sue Microsoft for the attempted use of the name "Bob".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Maybe it's just be, but this seems in many ways like a complete about face for MS. In the past they have always seemed to very confident of themselves, almost to the point of unreasonable arrogance. Or at least that's how their public relations people make them look. What would they have to gain by doing this, instead of requesting a shorter appeal process so they can get their name out of the mud, so to speak?
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
You're going to pay something if you don't have an internet connection. Ok, forget linux, what about the other non-free unixes, mac os, beos, etc?
I've said this before and i'll say it again.
,ect I know I can call them and if support can't figure it out it'll be escalated all the way to the programmer that wrote the code. Linux? No such thing. So yeah let M$ have their appeal. I just hope it gives them enough time to come up with a good case to have the breakup turned around.
You all should be damn thankful M$ is around. If it wasn't for all them damn winboxen breaking down all the time 'ol toq wouldn't have a job. Yeah thats right I FRICKEN love M$. I'm not a M$ apologetic either.
So why does the goverment have to screw with a good thing? I dunno, I think the US doesn't like the idea of a dynasty lasting over 20 years. If M$ were allowed to continue they'd be around another 100 years I bet.
You buy a car right? It has a radio. There are presets on that radio. Is the car company doing unfair practices by steering customers towards a paticular radio station? No. Oh wait a minute, the radio was manufactured by the automaker. Does that make it a monopoly? No. Go out and put a different radio in the car if it bothers you so much.
The same thing applies to computers. You don't like it? Go out and install linux and quit whining about M$. Its that simple. You don't wanna pay for M$? Tough shit either pirate it or buy it. You don't like closed source software? Tough shit go use Linux. Just because you don't like something it doesn't mean everyone else has to think like you do.
What value is there in M$? If something breaks, doesn't work, ect
--toq
Here here slut muffin I second that notion! --toq
Keep in mind, all of the above is bullshit, since Judge Jackson referenced the "illegal tying of IE into Windows" in his findings-of-fact, a decision that had already been overturned in the appellate court. I'm betting the appellate's going to take one look at that, and smack Judge Jackson's bitch-ass down.
Keeping that in mind, the FoF is probably going to fail the three-day-old fish test pretty easily. After that, picking apart everything else, especially considering Jackson's well-known and documented hatred of all things Microsoft should be gravy.
Has Microsoft done bad things? Yes, no one disputes that. But so has every other company on the planet, especially Apple, which seems to be a golden boy in the Slashdot community recently. Keep in mind that this "golden boy" is quite possibly the most closed-source, anti-competitive company on the planet right now.
But this isn't the way to go about it. In THIS case, I don't think MS has done anything wrong. The entire point of a business is to attempt to destroy all competition, because you want to maximize your profits. Microsoft is just VERY successful at it. They also neglected to realize that the rules change when you become a Monopoly. Slap them around a bit for that, give them a warning, and then kill them with extreme prejudice if they step out of line again.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
"The district court committed clear error when it refused to award compensatory damages for humiliation and emotional distress. We reverse and remand with the instruction that the district court award plaintiffs an amount which will fairly compensate them for these injuries."
Bill Neukom is happy to explain the clear error standard here.
That Microsoft be tried by Combat. Put Bill Gates in one corner, Al Gore in the other and let them fight to the death. You know who wins in that fight? HUMANITY!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Monopoly is good for consumers? Maybe in an alternate universe. You should take Economics 101. What you're saying is a complete bull shit, to put it mildly. Monopolies are bad for consumers. That is why anti-trust laws exist in the first place!
According to what you're saying, the planned economy of the Communist countries is the best, most efficient economic system. Well, we all know what happened to them. Soviet Union has already collapsed under its own weight, precisely because of extremely inefficient economic system. And many other countries followed. I'm sure that within a few decades this completely moronic economic system will go the way of the dynasaurs.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
We review a trial court's findings of fact for clear error. "Findings of fact by the trial court may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In the application of this principle, regard shall be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it." MCR 2.613(C). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."
CNET, ZDNet usually only quote anti-MS folks for legal analysis.
It's been announced Microsoft does not want to be broken up. Further more the company has decided to try and stall the process as much as possible. At the same time as they are stalling they are trying to put a positive spin on the matter.
:-)
Well who'd have thought it? What next bugs in a Linux? The sky'll fall next
FOR GOD'S SAKE REPORT NEWS FOR NERDS STUFF THAT MATTERS.
What ever happened to the "speedy" in one's "right to a fair and speedy trial"? No, I'm not talking about Microsoft's right, I'm talking about the rights of consumers (being represented by the DoJ).
I agree that the trial was a bit unfair, but I'd never heard that Jackson fell asleep during cross-exams. If so, then it should be fairly easy to get the apellate courts to side with them.
Shit adds up at the bottom...
I think Gore would get hita few times by bill in the fierst round but everntually he would get worked up enough in his standadr asskicker mode (like when he debates) and would sweep the floor with mr. gates.
Who's Bob Lande? I think CNet will take just about anyone who can sound officious enough =P
For the humour-impaired: that was a joke =P
--
Not to nitpick, but if you were busted for grand larceny, and was convicted by a trial by jury, wouldn't you start your sentence, regardless of the appellate process?
--
Sounds like an error in an FoL, not an FoF. Aren't awards usually a finding of law or penalty?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Microsoft may be big and greedy, but even the most reprehensible of felons deserves a fair trial. Give Microsoft a fair day in court; you won't regret it later.
One way or another this was going to stretch out for years, given the realities of the legal system. As the last trial proved, the technical complexities are beyond most court's ability to fully comprehend, forcing them to rely on relatively misleading evidence such as out-of-context emails (on both sides), slanted expert testimony, and the impression of honest or lack thereof the judge gets from the testimony of high-tech execs.
I'm all for a breathing period to pull together reasonable, comprehendible cases if it will lead to an informed decision by the court. Regardless of which way the decision goes, the last thing we want is another vulnerable-to-appeal misfire like Jackson's.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Does anyone know anything about the technical background of the judge? If doesn't understand the technology and given MS' history with the appelate courts they may actually be looking for a shorter trial.
Alot of the issues in this case take large amount of non-standard-legal background knowledge. If MS can arrange it so that there isn't enough time for the judge to really learn what's going on they may be able to get a decision in their favor based on ignorance.
Microsoft Island. Full of fun and fantasy for all! Enter into the realm of the bizarre and unreal as fact becomes fiction.
Alternatively I suggest MS just got and buy a group of islands somewhere and turn from corporation into a minor dictatorship. A land where marketers roam wild and free, occasionally attempting to pass themselves off as lawyers or tech gurus.
The DOJ/US Government is competing against M$
All they intend to do is buy enough time to embrace and extend the US Government.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
As I read it, MS wants 5 months just for the preperation of briefs.
Oh and they want yhose briefs to be three tiems teh size normally allowed i na hearing like this.
Can you say Staaaaallll?
Thought you could.
They'll appeal and appeal again until such time as they can no longer appeal the verdict. Once they can't do that, they'll argue over the details of the split. Then they'll appeal some technicality arguing that it was "unfair" or "excessive," and try to repeat the process over again. Meanwhile they're not changing their behavior nor will they. They can take advantage of the situation to destroy as much potential competition as possible such that the new companies will be able to dominate their respective markets unchallenged (witness recent purchase of a stake in Corel). Even if they get broken up they will probably ultimately do better than if they'd stayed the same company. Not that it matters, as ten or twenty years down the road some of the companies will get permission to merge again, just like the baby Bells have been doing as of late.
It's pointless, really.
z
I followed the case quite closely, and I read Judge Jackson's findings of fact; I was quite pleasantly surprised - he actually seemed to grasph all the issues pretty well. So I don't know where you get that idea. MS has tried to convince the public that the issues at the heart of the trial are actually really cloudy "because this is software, and it's just so complex and different from any other issue". Thats BS. The core issues in the case are pure business issues, and are the very same clear-cut issues that have existed since the first antitrust laws were put in place.
I don't think they should be denied due process.
I don't think they should be treated unfairly.
And, I don't think they should be allowed to drag this on forever. And ever. And ever.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Interesting.
The Findings of Fact actually contain some pretty blatant errors, and I would hardly call the government's case technically adept.
However it's also a fault of Microsoft that they did a pretty lousy job at pointing out the technical ineptitude of the government's case.
So I'd really have to say both sides bungled this job.
That you claim it's cut and dry is solely because of your prior bias.
Also add to your list perjury. Just about every executive of MS lied under oath and rightly belongs in court on criminal charges. There was also at least one case of evidence tampring if any DA is brave enough to actually enforce the laws.
It's probably all for moot if G.W wins though MS has him in their pockets.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
The question before the court is whether MS broke the law. Whether the law is constitutional has been decided. Whether the law is absurd is for congress to decide, not the courts. That's the way the US constitution spells out the "separation of powers" (legislative, executive, judicial). And the monopoly MS has in on OS's sold with computers. Read the Finding of Fact, Finding of Law, Remedies, history of Anti-trust law, study the Constitution, and study the history of Law in the US.
BTW: Your first comment has earned you (after this) dumping in the bit-bucket. I understand very well passive resistance, and admire Martin Luthor King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks. And, they recognized that by doing so, they risked imprisonment and punishment. For which I admire them. I also recognize that this case has nothing to do with moral rights, but with the power of a company to ignore the law. A well-known law enforced many times in the previous century. One supported by both liberals and conservatives. Your attempt to portray MS as being equivilent to the demonstrators at tianeman square is a sad indication of your level of thought.
Five months is a quickie in the legal system. Heck, people actually sit in jail for longer than that waiting for an appeal.
Eh...
Remember, peers of both. The Jury consists of (among others)Russia, China, India, and AOL/Time Warner.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
I don't see a longer appeal period as being a bad thing. Before we rule on a trial as important as this one -- one that could affect the entire software industry -- we really need to consider every possible angle and repercussion of the decision. [emphasis added]
Um, the trial will only affect Microsoft and, at most, future aspiring monopolists.
-j
How many new releases of Windows M$ can come out with in that 5-month period? WindowsME, Windows 2k, Windows blah blah blah... honestly, it's getting a tad bit ridiculous. It's starting to look like the titles of all the Street-fighter games (you know what I mean.. street-fighter alpha-beta-turbo-gamma 2). Done bitching now, thanks for wasting your time to listen :-)
Essentially, Microsoft is asking for twice the amount of time that is normally allowed to file a written brief. When you look at it from the perspective that it's a particularly complex case, giving the parties 60 days to file an appellate brief instead of the typical 30 days is not out of the ordinary.
Of course, if the government responds quickly to the Microsoft brief, then the case can be heard sooner rather than later.
Under the circumstances, I do not feel that the government will argue against this. Microsoft's attorneys have been working on a brief for a very long time, and the government won't get to see it until it has been filed with the court. While arguably, Microsoft does not need 60 days, the government will want 60 days to respond.
Also, the idea that Microsoft is delaying the case so that George Bush can get elected and drop the whole matter isn't really critical here. Under ordinary civil procedure rules, the case would not be heard before the appellate court until after the election anyway, and any decision, either for or against Microsoft, is going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the final analysis - I just do not see that this story is indicative of a Secret Microsoft Plot to Rule the World.
Now Microsoft Bob on the other hand - that was just plain evil.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
The only thing involving Microsoft that takes longer than the antitrust trial is a little novelty called a development cycle.
But in terms of factors in the final result, this raises the chances that one or more of the current justices could be replaced by choice(s) of our next president before the trial finishes in the Supreme Court. For now, without any news of announced retirements, I'll say the chances of a new justice sitting on the case are slim, but it's something interesting to think about with the election coming.
Gates needs a charisma transplant. Why is everyone so worried this guy is appealing?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
Keep in mind that preparations increase to the square of the level of the court. Microsoft blew it big-time at the trial level; they have a massive undertaking ahead of them. The Findings of Fact are especially devastating, especially because barring the most extreme circumstances, Findings of Fact cannot be overturned.
(There's a colorful bit of caselaw about overturning FoFs: according to caselaw, the sheer magnitude of the error must offend the senses like a three-day-old fish in order for it to be overturned.)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Judge Jackson gave the government almost everything they could have asked for in his Findings of Fact. He also detailed, at length, the legal reasoning behind each of his findings. Even if the Appellate Court disagrees with Jackson's Findings of Fact (which is very likely), the Appellate Court will not be able to overturn them unless Jackson's FoF fails the three-day-old fish test.
Microsoft's number one job right now is to figure out how to make the FoF fail the fish test. This is going to be an uphill battle for them, and probably doomed to failure.
Then the Findings of Law (FoL) has to be scrutinized. This is where the Appellate Court has the most opportunity to hand it back to Jackson. The Findings of Law are where Jackson says "this is what the law reads, and this is what it means"; the Appellate Court can say "well, Thomas, we like you a lot and all, but you need to talk to your dealer about the purity of your rock." That's going to be Microsoft's second target. Unfortunately, Jackson's FoL was very well researched; this, too, is going to be an uphill battle.
If I were Microsoft, I'd be begging for a full year for the appeal process.
Next, compare this to other large appeals, like the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. That one bounced around the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for the better part of a year. (The TRA involved just about every long-distance carrier in the country, and a lot of the local carriers. While it didn't have the cachet of the Microsoft case, it had a comparable amount of legal wrangling going on in it.) While the TRA appeal lasted a lot longer than people would have liked, it does show that five months for an appeal of a case of this size isn't entirely unreasonable.
The wheels of law move excruciatingly slow; but, on the plus side, they grind things up excruciatingly well.
Finally, keep in mind that this is what Microsoft is requesting. It's not what the government is going to request, nor is it going to be what the appellate court finally grants. The appellate court may well decide to grant more than five months' time; remember, the judges have dozens of other cases to hear as well, and their schedule may be so overfull as to require US v Microsoft to be pushed back.
They have have a fair day in court.
They have not been treated unfairly.
They have had extraordinary time to prepare their defense. And one would think, a virtually unlimited budget. They blew it. Bigtime.
In a fair court, by a fair judge who listened to months of evidence, and asked questions of both sides (did you follow the case day by day on cnet like I did?) they were found guilty of criminal conduct that violates the laws of this land.
I'm not suggesting now that they should start being treated unfairly now. But they have been tried and convicted. Now they're just trying to escape punishment, keep their ill gotten booty, and continue to eliminate competition and create monopolies in new markets.
There are other talented people in the world. And they deserve the same chance as everyone else, and the same chance that Bill Gates started with, to make a living and maybe even change the world, without getting squished by Microsoft every time they start to do anything.
Fuck delaying this. Let's get it over with. Where do we want the world of technology to be in 20 years? In a free market full of competition and innovation. That's where. What is there to consider.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.