Slashdot Mirror
Government Responds To Microsoft's Appeal Process
AftanGustur writes: "Just a day after Microsoft proposed a lengthy appeal process, the government has responded. The article has a lot of info on how [such] things are normally carried out. Saying that the government is not at all happy with Microsoft's idea is an understatement."
Good point. I think it was less of a "free all the information" thing and more of a "I'm incredibly lazy" thing. Another example of why I should not post before lunch. Not enough thinkin' through of things. Thanks, though, for not calling me an idiot (however deserved that moniker might be! )
The government said Microsoft's proposal "is excessive and would delay resolution of this appeal unnecessarily."
Microsoft's proposal also far exceeds what would be considered standard procedure with the appeals court, say legal experts. "The normal statutory period would be 40, 30 and 15 days," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor at Howard University Law School. "That's what's normal under the federal rules of appellate procedure."
This begs the following questions : If you make a contract and then break it and are taken to court is the court case thrown out if the other party no longer exists by the time you get through the appeals process?
If you make many changes AFTER said wrong doing does it change the original charge, and should you not be charged with anything?
Can your changes be introduced as new evidence in an appeal?
This is a typical tatic from Microsoft. They got caught doing something wrong, and by using massive delay tatics blunt the prosecution. Technology moves much faster than the court system, and MS has hinted that this case is no longer relevant and should be let go. With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.
The sad thing is that MS should have taken the higher ground. Large companies like Intel and Cisco to name a few have changed some of their practices that were considered "anti-competitive". They are still large and thriving companies.
Some of the business practices of MS are the SAME practices that caused many workers to unionize during the industrial age. Long hours with no compensation, lack of insurance etc. Companies like Cisco doesn't hire tons of workers for 364 days and then drop them when it's time to start paying for health insurance. I think that the biggest danger to MS is if it's low level employees unionize. We are in a tight labor market, and a strike of some type would really hurt. Of course that would force MS to start treating it's employees with a modicum of respect.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
This is what we used to refer to as: "If you can't impress them with facts, baffle them with bullshit."
You can put a lot of BS in 56,000 words.
My impression, with the length of appeal period and and size of M$'s brief would be an effort to obscure the truth and the issue, sort of the way someone with a really weak argument drifts the topic over to something they feel more confident with.
Jackson: You broke the law!
Gates: We innovated and made the world a better place by integrating every product known to man, including BUBBLESORT.DLL and INFINITELOOP.DLL into Windows.
It would be innovative of me to rob a liquor store with a bazooka, but I'd still be breaking the law.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
One further point...as a warning to others: I've found that any time I've bitched about anything on Slashdot I've been in the wrong. Bitching, whining and complaining are usually counterproductive and don't usually add anything to a discourse. A general thanks to all the other /.'s for smacking me whenever I stray. Much appreciated.
May I ask which other site? Or am I missing the subtle hint that my input isn't really "ready for prime time"? ;)
Why is it that government is stuck on MS software? Why is it that wizzbang Al Gore has not created standard document, spreadsheet and database structures for the federal government instead of letting MS "standardize" everything for them? This is not rocket science. It's bad enough that private industry has been screwed around with changing file formats and all the rest of the upgrade treadmill, but the whole country? Uncle Sam has the size to demand what it wants.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft is lucky this isn't a criminal antitrust case. The Department of Justice has a press release on one of those this week, titled ADM Executives Resntenced to Serve Additional Jail Time. That's the famous Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing case. Their top executives just got another year in federal prison.
MS will assign this task to their engineering team. SO we're assured that it will be 65 million lines of (legal) code.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Oh well,
Justin
No then we'd just "Blame Canada!"
Sorry too easy.
-cpd
Mildly Offtopic...
Anyone else extremely annoyed with the NY Times requiring a login to read their articles? Let us unite, my brethren, and not link to any more NY Times articles until they relent! Together will we crush them or choke their rivers with our dead!
MorboNixon in 2000
Here is a link to the story that doesn't need a login.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
I came to this conclusion after reading Secrets and Lies. Schneier considers NT to be the most insecure OS possible -- encryption and certificates are password-based (see his comments on "entropy"), the API is horribly bloated, nobody outside of MS has ever reviewed most of the code ... well, I'm preaching to the choir. The point is, nobody who cares about security should use NT on a public network. Period.
By the way, Scheier also has some nasty things to say about Linux. Not as bad (open source, much smaller API) but bad enough. But I digress.
Now, consider the extreme size and explosive growth of the Internet. And consider how many ordinary people are deciding they can't live without Internet access. And in a few years, most Internet users will have a high-speed connection.
Now, Microsoft dominates the desktop, so they seem well positioned to make sure that most of these end-user Internet nodes will be NT, CE, or whatever replaces ME. But millions of insecure nodes is an open invitation to a huge distributed attack. (There's rumor that this has already started, but I'm sceptical.) At first, we'll probably just see DDoS attacks against major web sites, like we've seen before but on a bigger scale. But sooner or later, somebody is going to realize that infecting millions of computers gives you access to a huge number of computing cycles. And all of a sudden, a lot of semi-secure systems owned by banks, the military, what have you, are open to brute-force attacks. How much is a complete list of Citibank credit card numbers worth?
When that happens, having an insecure computer on the Internet will be considered very bad citizenship. It may even be illegal.
I think we're talking 5 years for this scenario. About how long it will take the courts to handle the final appeal of US vs. Microsoft.
__________
What can the government actually do?
Is there anything the US government can do that MS can't just say 'bog off' to? If MS refuse to do whatever the government 'tell' them to presumeably they'll have to slap sales embargos on MS products
You're way off base here.
What can the government do if MS just decides to ignore them? They can send federal marshalls in to put chains on the entrances to all MS facilities and pull the plug on their internet and telephone connections. They can declare that the stock is split up into several companies and stockholders will wake up the next day with several baby bills replacing their MS stock in their portfolio, after fining the company down to the last farthing. They can haul Microsoft's corporate officers off to jail.
This is not going to happen (though 'tis a consumation devoutly to be wished) because if the court does order a breakup MS will comply. They are arrogant, but not stupid. The legal, political and law enforcement establishments will close rank against them if they try anything so brazen, the public and other governments around the world will support them. What they will try to do is to win their case in a more friendly court (best case for them) or to drag this out as long as possible causing as much political damage to their enemies as possible.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I know many people who were staunch supporters of Microsoft in this issue. Believing in a free market, they felt that Microsoft had simply outperformed the competition and deserved the rewards for their efforts. The also felt that the case brought against them was a last-ditch effort by fussy childish millionaires to compete with Gates in the only arena they could.
But as this case has proceeded, much attention has been drawn to Microsoft's lame whining arguments and brutish tactics. These former supporters of Microsoft have questioned their beliefs and envisioned the long-term effects of an entity like Microsoft. They have taken the time to digest some the Open Source litany. Some of them turned completely against Microsoft, fdisked away Windows, and dove head first into Linux et al. Others still use grudgingly still use Windows because they now despise Microsoft but they still see the Windows/Office juggernaut as superior tech for them.
The longer this trial drags on, the more exposure people in general will get to the ugly side of Microsoft. The longer this trial drags on, the more time Open Source developers will have to create better answers to the question, "if not Microsoft, then what?".
..Microsoft will use Word to produce it's briefs...
They might as well give up on that and use Wordperfect, now that they own Corel.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
They've consistently said that there were 10 zillion flaws in the case and they intend to mention every one of them in those 56,000 words (presumably with their innovative legal obfuscation technology).
I can think of no strategy more certain to lose an appeal. Appellate courts despise shotgun compilations of errors. There are ALWAYS errors at trial, often many of them. The question isn't whether the trial was free from error, but whether a particular error is reversible. If Microsoft hopes to reargue the facts on appeal, it has all but admitted that it lost -- likewise if the thrust of its appeal is the AMOUNT of little errors. Their best shot is a solid, one, two or three-issue appeal, perhaps littered with footnotes to raise subordinate issues.
But, clearly, I don't represent Microsoft and they alone will decide how they will manage their appeal. After all, they managed their trial so well, who am I to make suggestions.
Just noticed this on Cnet . I wonder...
I can't see how Microsoft is a monopoly. There are plenty of other operating systems, word processors, e-mail programs. Hell, they don't even have an instant messenger monopoly! Microsoft is pretty pathetic when you think of it. Forcing them to split up could destroy that fragile company. I mean, think about it, they don't actually even make anything, just imaginary 1's and 0's.
Whatever happened to American entrepeneurship and free-market capitalism?
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Why should the government be special?
I knew about this monday. ZDNet has a DOJ vs MS website at http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/spec ial /msdojendgame.html that keeps people who just gotta know up to speed.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Heh...as much as I want to M$ broken up, I realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The lawyers involved are enjoying being in the spotlight too much. So here is what I predict happening:
The lawyers from the govt & M$ argue for the next 6 months about the appeals process, then they decide on a 5 month appeal process.
Doh!
The appeals court has been looking at this for years. Whoever's timetable they agree to may indicate how they will ultimately find. It's not like any new evidence is going to come up in the appeal.
-Ben
I dunno, looked like an attempt at a [+1, Funny] to me . . . at least I hope it was.
The comment states first that " If Microsoft is forced to take an agreement they don't like, they'll simply move to another country. Then won't the Americans be sorry!" and then later "Microsoft is pretty pathetic when you think of it. Forcing them to split up could destroy that fragile company."
Yup, I'm pretty sure that Americans are always sorry when "pathetic" and "fragile" companies move elsewhere. Personally, if Microsoft packed up and left for (Canada/Mexico/Equador/Tahiti) it wouldn't bother me in the least. I'd be sorry in about the same manner most people are when the paper mill or hog farm down the road packs up and moves to the next county over because your county wants 'em to clean up their act.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
I think M$ has the right concept, delay till its no longer important to your average person. Give marketing more time to brainwash the masses into believing that m$ is god and they should worship at thier feet.
This is a good tactic concidering that the majority of the people don't know any better and really don't care. The longer they get this delayed the more people loose interest and when they hear about it again they wonder why this is still happening.
The overkill on their documents is to add confusion that adds more delay. I don't know about anyone else, but it would take me a good half year to read and process 56k words. More on the process what its saying but its just another delay tactic.
Regardless of the outcome its going to take a while. I am actually begining to believe that, unless they actually are charged with some of the blatent violations of the law they are still doing, they will not be broken up. After the appeals court gets done it will go to the supreem court, and that will take a good year or more.
Basicly, we seem to be stuck with them for a long while yet.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Well... that really suprised me.... NOT. This case has 2 sides: MS (A) and the US Gov (B). If (A) does something, (B) is against it and vice versa. That has been the case (pun intended) in this whole trial.
Both sides should work things out to get an agreement (settlement) as Jackson also suggested. However, if either side does a proposal, the other side is against it, doesn't like it and rejects it, most of the time for reasons not clear to any living soul.
The first round was for the US Gov. The second round will probably for MS. Now that are some scores the world can build on! Get a life, (A) and (B) and settle this crap, so the rest of the world can go on with their daily work.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
According to this wire story.
Bob Brammer, a spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General, said. "We are full partners and have full status as plaintiffs in the case, and we will continue the case."
Regarding M$ attempt to extend the appeals process, the CT AG said "Prolonging the (appeals) process creates additional cost, uncertainty and harm to consumers."
Work for Change & GET PAID!
This thing reminds me of the old show, Name that Tune.
MS: We can name that legal issue in 56,000 words.
DOJ: We can name that legal issue in 24,000 words.
MS: We can name that legal issue in 40,000 words.
DOJ: Wait a minute, you are suppose to go lower than us!
MS files another appeal with the judges to study the matter!
looks like they lawyers write bloated just like their programmers :)
can we assume that 5% of their 56k words are also buggy and/or incorrect?
"Here's 50 bucks, take this in case I get drunk and call you a bitch later." - Ricky (Vince Vaughn)Made (2001)
...Microsoft will use Word to produce it's briefs... I just wonder if they fixed that 'feature' in the word count where it didn't count the footnotes/endnotes.
I remember seeing an article a while back about this, and how one Appeals circut court said briefs couldn't be filed if they were written with Word because of said incorrectness of the word count.
Apparantly, those judges are right anal about how long legal briefs can be; supposedly they've rejected briefs that were one word over...
NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Is there anything the US government can do that MS can't just say 'bog off' to?
If it so chooses the US government can disolve MS in a second. The concept of corporations as "people" is simply one that government came up with.
I know this is an obvious troll, but I'm bored.
... and well, He gets it!)
I can't see how Microsoft is a monopoly. There are plenty of other operating systems, word processors, e-mail programs. Hell, they don't even have an instant messenger monopoly!
First of all, it is a monopoly. Everyone knows that, everyone knew it, and everyone's fine with it. You're allowed to have monopolies in this country. The law allows it. What the law doesn't allow for (which the entire case is about, if you were following along?) is using your monopoly in one field to create a monopoly in another field. In Microsoft's case, they were using their Operating System monopoly (which is fine and good) to create a web browser monopoly.
Now, if they created a web browser monopoly through fair business practices, there would be no problem. If they just bided their time, and let Netscape vs. IE war on, until one was the winner, that'd be no problem. But once you start pushing your product to people, and not give them a choice, is when the DOJ steps in, and we have what we had here today (which is the way He wants it
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth in great detail the timetables for filing notices of appeal, serving demands for records, filing of initial, answer and reply briefs -- the whole smack. They spell out page limits to the word length (and no special treatment is made for the bug in Word that doesn't count words in footnotes).
While the Court may vary the rules on motion of the parties, such motions are highly disfavored, even when they are joinly made by the parties, and are generally denied.
It is strange that Microsoft feels it needs so much time to prepare, or that this case would be so unusual, after going to great lengths to deny the specialness of this case to the Supreme Court.