Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Appeal Schedule Set
Quite a few people have submitted the the information that the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case has had its schedule set. Nov. 27 is the deadline for a submittal of MS's brief, which will be limited to 150 pages. The Justice Dept has until Jan 12, 2001 with 125 pages. And...you can read the rest.
Some legal documents require bizarrely nonstandard paper sizes which means you need to diddle your margins in Word
Which is why most legal offices still use WordPerfect. Note the file format that the DOJ has used. Yep, WP.
Also, I've heard that Word dosn't count the words in a brief the same way that WP (and the courts do). Something about not counting the words in footnotes which *do* count for legal brief lengths.
Wouldn't it be ironic if MS submitted an overly long brief because they made the lawyers use Word?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seriously, the court has standards about such things. Pica, double spaced, 1.5" margins, etc. This might have been relaxed a bit for desktop publishing realities, but I'm quite certain the 1-point type is right out.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The states sued separately from the U.S. Gov. Why should they have any effect on how much the US Gov gets to say? Am I missing something?
Well, the states wanted in on the DOJ's case, filed briefs in the original case, and forced Microsoft to settle with *them* and the DOJ -- not just the DOJ.
According to my sources, and public statements from the DOJ, Posner and Microsoft, if the States hadn't been there, a settlement *would* have been reached.
However, they were there, and because of that, they're part of the DOJ's 'team'. So their briefs become a part of the DOJ's brief.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
That's called trolling on slashdot, and it's not allowed.
640K ought to be enough for anybody's brief.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Although the original spec for the project called for 150 pages, Microsoft announced that they had decided to delay release by an additional 3 months to allow the increased staff to deliver a 450 page product. The new projected release date for Appeal (v2.0) would be February 27th 2001.
A Microsoft spokesman said "We didn't feel that we could do a very good job on the product in only 150 pages, so we decided to push the release date back from the original end of November target to the end of February next year. We believe that we can include considerably more functionality in Appeal (V2.0) in 450 pages than we could if we limited ourselves to the original target."
Microsoft also pre announced Appeal (V3.0) which spokesman said "would be over 3000 pages - a considerable increase." One source close to the Appeal (v3.0) team said that over 1000 pages of Appeal (V3.0) would be a reprint of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged with the "John Galt" character name being changed to "Bill Gates".
Mr. Gates said he was pleased with the progress on Appeal (V3.0), which he said could "revolutionize the legal industry". He strongly hinted that Appeal (V2.0) was a "stopgap" release, and that Appeal (V3.0) would be the release everyone should wait for.
If that happened, you'd realize how they bought off all the politicians
As opposed to Netscape and Sun, who lobbied like hell to get the DOJ to go after them? I don't like lobbyists, but Microsoft would be foolish to ignore the government now that it has shown that it's not willing to stand by and let the free market take its course. If Microsoft's competitors are willing to use the law to beat them, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire?
Microsoft was largely apolitical prior to the antitrust case. They believed that they could focus on their products and not worry about political lobbying. The antitrust case proved them wrong, and has prompted them to spend extra to make up lost ground. So they buy up representatives.
One of the biggest costs of the antitrust case may be the politicization of our industry. The Federal government is a 600-poung gorilla. Once it gets involved in high tech, it's not going to leave. And it's a far greater threat to innovation that Microsoft could possibly be.
So even if Microsoft did do some sleazy things, it's far more important that the computer business remain unpoliticized than that we get a futile breakup. The more companies use the law to win after losing in the marketplace, the more we will come to resemble every other industry, in which those with the most money have the most influence, and innovation and small businesses are squashed.
It's likely not possible. Lawyers are among the hardest people to satisfy, typogrpahically. When you submit a brief, it has to be on a certain size of paper, with certain margins and a certain point size and spacing. Anything not up to spec will be summarily rejected just as if it were hand-written on college-ruled notebook paper. Some legal documents require bizarrely nonstandard paper sizes which means you need to diddle your margins in Word and then make heavy use of a paper cutter. IANAL, and my father isn't either, but he's filed enough documents in his day to run into some of the strange technical vagaries of the judicial system.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Federal Judges are appointed by the President, as are supreme court justices. It probably matters who you vote for, as GWB has accepted campaign
0 .html
h tm
contributions from microsoft employees (and opposed litigation sometimes. A consultant for him worked at M$)
http://www.democrats.org/news/bulletins/sb03030
while Gore spoke AT Microsoft in FAVOUR of litigaton:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctg675.
In other words, those who are looking for government to give M$ a well deserved slapdown are going to be better supporting Gore.
-Ben
P.S. I don't like public health programs and the current Social Security laws. I'm still voting for Bush.
Ms believes that it is above the law.
Well, as a shareholder in MSFT, of course they do. Heck, they're trying to defeat a shareholder proposal to require them to itemize all their campaign contributions. If that happened, you'd realize how they bought off all the politicians and why they want to drag it on as long as possible, so that they can get their congressmen to kill actions against them.
The law is only for the poor and the middle class. Didn't you learn anything from OJ's trial?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, but they built that empire in part by using their monopoly power illegally. Remember that Microsoft isn't being broken up because it's a monopoly. It's being broken up because it used it's monopoly power in restraint of free trade by, for instance, setting pricing policies that essentially required companies to pay Microsoft even when they didn't install a Microsoft OS. It's great that Free Software may eventually be able to beat Microsoft by competing fairly, but that day's going to come a lot sooner if MS is forced to compete fairly, too.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I guess he meant it when he said "I know I'm ready for the job, but if not, that's just the way it goes".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Microsoft is excercizing its rights under the law. They have every right to mount a vigorous defense of the actions.
Personally, I don't blame them. Antitrust law is so vague and fluid that there's pretty much no way they could obey it and still be competitive. Antitrust law is continually twisted to fit the circumstances of whoever the current victims are. The defendent is then asked to come in and prove that they didn't do things that weren't considered crimes when they did them.
Antitrust law applies a new set of rules to companies once they cross a magic threshhold into the realm of "monopoly." There is no clear definition of what constitutes a monopoly, and in practice the determination is entirely determined by what the judge determines is the "relevant market," for which there are no clear or consistent guidelines.
Microsoft hasn't done anything that other companies haven't done many times before. Apple, for example, clearly has a monopoly on operating systems for PowerPC computers. Not only that, but they have a monopoly on Mac OS hardware as well. In other words, they are "tying" their hardware to their software. How is that any diferent from what Microsoft is doing?
The only difference I can see is that Microsoft has a larger market share. This seems to me a ridiculous basis on which to make law. Equality before the law is fundamental to our system of justice, and I see no reason why a large company should be held to a different set of rules than small companies are.
Antitrust law should be repealed. They are arbitrary, over-reaching, and vague. They change with every company, court, and prosecutor. And ultimately they serve only to protect incompetent companies from more capable competition. This can be seen in all the major antitrust cases-- Brown shoe, Standard Oil, Alcoa, etc. Market forces will inevitably erode monopolies that are inefficient. No government intervention is needed, and in practice it only makes things worse.
Both sides are trying to both appear neutral (so as to not to be seen as interfering in legal matters) and at the same time trying to attract\reassure voters with a few hints.
For example, Al shows up on Microsoft's campus, declares that he can't talk about the case and then proceeds to talk about how big businesses who abuse their monopoly power should be stopped. Heck, even Bill Gates would have agree'd with what he said literally but when he said it in the context of a visit to Microsoft it comes off as support for Reno and the DOJ.
With George he says almost the same thing, "big businesses who abuse their power, blah, blah, blah..." but then says on PBS "I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America". Microsoft, innovative??? Hmm...
Of course, what both these guys are trying to say is "I agree with whatever you believe - please just vote for me" and has little (or nothing) to do with what they'll actually do should they get elected. That's politics folks.
AC.
It was just a simple question on what power the president actually has over cases pending in the DOJ.
Thanks for the wasted moderation point.
--ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Larry Lessig presented oral arguments before the same court on Thursday, in Eldred v. Reno.
I sat in the front row and was impressed by the court's computer network that allowed judges to send messages back and forth to their law clerks, who sat to the side. Judge Douglas Ginsburg used his frequently, but the other judges didn't have laptops before them.
Larry was close enough to notice that the laptops were all Apple Powerbooks. Microsoft will have an interesting time there!
The 1999 annual report of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals includes a lot of information about the technological revolution in that court. See the PDF file.
This ought to show that this circuit court can handle advanced technological arguments and information and that there is no need for special courts for computer-related cases. I would have liked to have seen the case go directly to the Supreme Court for answers to some important points of law, but I for one feel this court can render a fair verdict and make the higher court's job easier.
However, everything else you're talking is nonsense. Microsoft is not profitable in its core business- it is running a pyramid scheme on its stock valuation and literally makes more money issuing its own stock than it does on sales of its own products. Pyramid schemes are of questionable value, because they always crash in the end, perpetual geometric growth being impossible. And finally, it's hardly been decided on a whim, that is absurd: read the Findings of Fact and consider that the judicial system took months to figure out that statement of the situation, starting with someone (Jackson) so unbiased that he didn't even understand the tech details and learned them through the course of the case (I suppose it would be better if the judge was a Debian hacker? No, wait, how about an MCSE? _That_ would be unbiased eh?).
Face it, the ruling for breakup was fair, reasoned, sensible, measured, and the only reason it's in question now is because Microsoft lawyers will (in violation of lawyer ethics?) practice a 'screaming baby tantrum' method of their craft, in which they don't care the slightest for the truth of the situation (that is surely obvious to them) but will practice their _craft_ on behalf of their client right over the edge of falsification, nonsense and obstruction of justice. They will claim _anything_ that will obstruct the guilty verdict, and are. It's the legal version of the same practices that dragged MS into court repeatedly.
The legal process may only _appear_ to mirror MSFT's wish for an outcome. It's had to deal with this sort of psychotic legal advocacy before, and understandably, the course through wild baseless accusations of unfairness and vigilanteism is not to rush out a verdict, but to drop into low gear and crank on the torque- OF COURSE things slowed down, OF COURSE they sort of spilt the difference between the DOJ's demand for normal procedure and MSFT's wild insistence on four times the normal resources. This is _procedure_ not outcome. It's the same thing as Jackson's splitting his decision into findings of fact (wildly unlikely to be overruled because they do not _come_ with results) and findings of law (which of course are being appealed until MS lawyers are blue in the face). In this case, the decision to allow absurdly long times for the appeal and expanded resources- just as if it were a retrial but with the FoF still admissible- is another cornerstone in the eventual thrashing MS will be getting at the hands of the Supreme Court, because the bottom line is- Courts are not terribly impressed with wild baseless contempt for their decisions. MS going through judges like a wood-chipper is NOT REALLY HELPFUL to them- because judges are aware of what happened to previous judges, as Jackson was with Sporkin, and it makes them dig in their heels, focus on the hard core of legal justice, and to build their responses in such a way that the out-of-control defendant has little leeway to cause more damage, as Jackson did with the FoF.
The slower the wheels of justice turn, the more finely they will grind. Microsoft seems to not understand this- and they are setting themselves up, and the economy at large up, for a very nasty fall. Imagine, _after_ .NET gets shoehorned into every area of net commerce, _after_ MSFT illegally seizes control of world communications and most of the IT functions of most governments, having them get brutally broken up by the Supreme Court! I am afraid the Supremes take legal process pretty seriously- the idea of them being 'bought' is stupid, and even if they fumbled things this time MS would only get sued _again_ and inevitably either MS _becomes_ the government or gets broken by the government for rampant contempt for the law- there's no middle ground, just a delaying of one or the other outcome.
Talk about messy, furrfu.
So that's why Epson just came out with a 2880x720 dpi printer....
both due on Nov 27
The article didn't say that. See below.
The appeals court ordered Microsoft to file its first brief, of 150 pages, on Nov. 27. The U.S. government gets 125 pages to reply
It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?
Anyone have an actual date for the gov. reply?
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
Well, breaking up one of the most valuable and profitable companies in the United States shouldn't be something that's done on a whim. If it were decided on Slashdot it would be a poll resembling:
"After reviewing all the evidence, do you think Microsoft should be broken up?"
a) Yes
b) No
c) CowboyNeal.
d) GRITS!!!! GRITSSSS!!!!! PETRIFIED AND STUFFED DOWN MY PANTS BY NATALIE PORTMAN!
However, remember that there are 19 states still following this up, and the new Prez can't tell them to drop it. Yes, without DOJ support, the states' case have a bit tougher time of winning, but they've already gotten past the key issue ( the finding of facts) with the DOJ's help.
Another thing in BillG's favor is that there's suggestions that the appealate court might send the case back to the federal level, with the stipulation that Judge Jackson cannot preside over it because of bias he stated in interviews after the trial (and during the trial if rumors are right). Mind you, a new judge could be worse for MS, but I think they'd take their chance with that.
But of course, MS wins mainly because we are now looking at any resolution to this (after appeals and SC hearings) no earlier than Q4, 2001, approximately the scheduled release of .NET. And if Win95 with IE was a problem, .NET would be even worse, and asking MS to halt the use of .NET would be like telling Napster to shut down -- they *could* claim they will go out of business with any unfavorable/breakup/C&D ruling, and most likely, we'll end up with another slap on the wrist case. The DOJ and others need to put pressure on the court system to speed this case up to still allow it to be fair, but to make sure that MS 'innovation' doesn't suck in too many ppl when the ruling is handed down.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
This was a parody of Heston's anti-gun control, pro-Bush TV commercial running in some states. Charlton holds a rifle in the air while delivering these lines. Charlton's demeanor as a mean and scary old man enhances the effect. It is truely one of the Halloween season political commercials no matter what side of gun control you are on. If you are pro-NRA, Clinton-Gore-Reno is the monster. If you are anti-NRA, Heston is rather threatening.
I could imagine Gates holding a Windows CDROM in the air while squealing out these lines in his high-pitched voice.
Ouch! I missed that. Remind me, who *is* the governor of texas?
that he supports anti-trust law, will yield to the judges opinion on
the anti-trust case, and dismisses speculation that he is in the
Microsft camp.
Unless people have better information, I think this should put to rest
the `Bush will axe MS case' rumor.
--
Until MS files their arguments, the DOJ can only guess at what MS is going to argue. Some arguments are probably easy to guess. For the ones they didn't think about, they'll have to wait for MS's filing before they can start their research.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You know, I really dont think M$ should be broken up, in all honesty, they did what they did on their own, they started from scratch and built an electronic empire.
I'm a opensource-ish kind of follower, yeah, but, let opensource dominate microsoft fairly, as it will in time. Don't chant "Die, Microsoft, DIE" just because of some shoddy business practices, if you think what M$ does is bad, you should see some of the overseas clothing factories, or perhaps those poor mylasian children who make most of your cpu's. (I think you guys forget these things..)
Had to play the devil's advocate, sorry. =)
Our legal system is more complex than ever. Why can't we use technology to better it for all involved? This MS case will drag on... and on... and at the very least Slashdot is going to be flooded with Microsoft trial stuff... and that makes my karma whore days sort of iritating. I have to keep coming up with stuff. Get some tech f00lz! ;)
----
Never mind. It was on the page earlier today for five minutes than taken down for about an hour. Guess they wanted to confirm it wasn't FUD.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
What can George do to derail this thing?
If George Bush wins he said he would do something to "end this anti-trust nonsense" or something to that effect.
Is there anything he can do as Prez to stop this? Could he appoint people to the DOJ to "drop all charges" ??
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Does the license offer any additional rights that the customer would not otherwise already have? If not, then customers have no reason to accept the license, and MS will have a hard time proving (or even suggesting) that they have accepted the license. Therefore, the terms do not apply. You are perfectly free to transfer Windoze from one computer to another.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The current Wired has a 50-page article which covers each of your points in detail & refutes them, Mr. troll.
You can read it on the newsstand now or here when it's released: The Truth The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth
As for your silly example of Apple: look up the definition of tying. Hint: it does not apply when two products have always been sold together.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.