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)
I hardly think five months will be enough time to make M$ appealing...
________________
________________
Private Essayist
they do have appeal.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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); }
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); }
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.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's decent. That doesn't sound like a major stall to me - two months isn't a whole lot of time. They just need some planning sessions. Are we at the point where we would deny Microsoft the right to plan competently for their defense?
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.)
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
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............
...to span the election.
May the highest bidder win! (both/either the
presidency/chance to (not) breakup microsoft)
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.
> 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
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!
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 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.
Shit! If Bill Gates were threatening to commit suicide, I'd buy him a gun, with a laser sight, loaded with IR-seeking bullets programmed to 98.6 F, and a hair-trigger.
Then I'd give him a TV tuned permanently into the LIFETIME channel, or TNN, or anything that will encourage suicidal thoughts.
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!
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?
Besides, monopolies only make sense where a choice of providers is very difficult, for example in the case of a rail network, there is generally only one set of track between two adjacent stations. Hence a monopoly is natural here. However in the case the monopoly should be regulated to prevent abuses such as that envisaged above.
Where a choice of providers is possible, I believe that the choice should be encouraged, it generally works out being better for consumers and for the companies themselves (because of the need for training and true innovation to try to keep ahead of the competitors).
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.
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?
--
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?"
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.
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.
Five months is a quickie in the legal system. Heck, people actually sit in jail for longer than that waiting for an appeal.
Eh...
AND because for the average new computer buyer, from somone like dell or compaq, it is VASTLY EASIER TO USE, MAANGE, AND UNDERSTAND.
Windows being easy to use is a very subjective claim as for managing or understanding. Windows certainly isn't easy at all. It lacks remote access for one thing also documentation is a chargable extra, if it is even available at all.
Apparently you've never done phone tech support if you think an MS product is easier to use, manage or understand than any other product.
Or for that matter any kind of support or been any kind of sysadmin.
It merely has a large market share therefore it's idiosyncracies are more commonly understood.
Or its work arounds or the appropriare rite, such as the "reinstall it all and hope it works"...
Monopolies are bad for consumers. That is why anti-trust laws exist in the first place!
Also why monopolys tend to be highly regulated.
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!
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.