Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Verdict Vacated
Everyone and their brother sent in this unsurprising news: the Appeals Court handling the Microsoft anti-trust case has overturned the break-up decision. A few story URLs: CNet, BBC, ABC, AP, Reuters, MSNBC. The decision is available in .pdf format. A brief summary: the Findings of Fact (Microsoft's conduct, etc.) are still in place, but Judge Jackson's evaluation of those facts and the penalty he imposed are thrown out. A new District Judge will examine the case, starting from the Findings of Fact.
Update 2h later by J :
Dan Gillmor's analysis
is good. So is this
Washington Post column,
which is insightful except it doesn't go far enough. It also shows MS CEO Steve Ballmer's attitude even before today's ruling: "Is there any limit to what you think you can put into the operating system at all?" "...as a matter of law, no, I don't think so..."
Aw, that's too bad. Look at all the good things that came out of the AT&T breakup!
My prediction is that the court will rule that a warrant is needed in order to use thermal imaging to detect hot air coming from Steve Ballmer's mouth.
If Billy throws a fit, you must acquit. This sucks mightly.
""We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the court said."
Didn't the judge in the DeCSS case do similar things?
Lemme get this straight, you don't like Linux and you don't like slashdot... What the hell are you doing here? If you've got so much time on your hands that you read (and post on) a website you don't like, I've got some a-advice for you little buddy, get a gun (you can buy one at walmart in your screwed up country), put it in your mouth, and pull the trigger.
The world might not be a better place afterwards, but at least it'll have one less whiny little shit.
Go ahead and mod me down to hell, I don't care.
Can we please have the story updated? This is the kind of +5 post within the first few minutes, from someone who actually knows what's going on, I think, that the editors need to consider. It's more important to let people know what's what right in the story with an update then making them read through it with a comment.
"In Thursday's decision, a federal appeals court unanimously vacated that order and sent thedecision back to the lower court."
The appeals court didn't overturn anything. They just sent the cans back to the lower court form them to reconsider. They may still re-issue an identical verdict.
Try "left over from the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush presidencies" The senate stonewalled most of Clinton's judicial appointees, voting on exactly zero appointments during his final year in office.
Wow, an "America is Dying" Troll. Is USA leader Bush saying there are only 8,000 U.S. Citizens? Will we be taken over by Canada, another charnel house?
Moreover, were it not for the distorting influence of microsoft's monopoly position, normal capitalistic market forces would persuade software vendors to adopt or create cross-platform libraries that would allow them to develop for one API and distribute for multiple operating systems-- in which case, we would not have been forced to buy microsoft windows so that my father could communicate with his work computer and my brother could play Starcraft.
(Note: As of now, there is a mac os x only competitor to MSIE. It is called omniweb. I am using it right now. Government involvement is never desirable. However, by nature, because monopolies destroy the power of the invisible hand of capitalism, government involvement is the *only* remaining means by which the populace can be removed from control by monopoly powers. Remember: corporations exist for the good of the people. Not for the good of the corporations. Government involvement is not necessarily good for the people by and of itself, but sometimes it is needed. This is why the government exists, to provide services that only it can.
I wish to apologise to the general slashdot population for the encouragement i am providing this troll.
Windows has had a bundled media player since the 3.1 days, maybe even earlier than that.
Also, two points about bundling IE:
1. Even the first versions of win95 and NT4 came with IE (v2, then v3). Nobody used them, because they sucked. Nobody complained about the bundling, either. OTOH people did/do use IE4+ because it was/is better than the alternatives. The actual bundling gave MS zero advantage, because people will not use an inferior product. People (including me) dumped Netscape not because of bundling, but because NS4 sucked. Then NS4.01 sucked. Then NS4.02 sucked, etc, etc, etc. Netscape did not produce a decent browser for months/years, while IE was continually getting better. Blaming the irrelevance of NS to the modern web on IE bundling shows a very selective memory.
2. IE had >50% marketshare _before_ it was integrated into the OS. Claims that IE won the browser war due to integration are inaccurate.
When a company improves their product to the point that other products are obsolete (like your toolbar control example), claiming that they have done something wrong is nonsense. There is no excuse for competitors sitting idly by, whining because their product no longer leads the market.
Back on topic, Jackson being booted off the case is a good thing, because he clearly and repeatedly demonstrated bias.
Justice being done is important, justice being seen to be done is equally important. Had Jackson remained on the case, the entire proceedings could be dismissed with a little marketing. If another judge comes to the same, or similar, conclusions then the writing is very much on the wall for MS.
1) Appoints a lumber lobbyist to head the forest service So? Clinton appointed two complete and utter assclowns to head the DOE... look what happened in California. 3) Is pushing to reinstate nuclear testing. I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see how this is a bad thing. I certainly am no nuclear scientist (my father was). I trust these trained professionals to do their job. 4) Appoints John Ashcroft as A.G. Someone who spent a good part of his career fighting against desegregation. I hope you are not implying that he will overturn Brown v Board. That is rediculous. 5) His nominee for dept of agriculture one said that that farming areas that are not ethnically diverse are more productive. I apoligize to you, as I am sure that Bush would, that the current Dept of Agriculture nominee is not 100% politically correct. Plus, maybe there are statistics that this is true. 6) Backed out of the Kyoto treaty giving even more reasons for other countries to hate the US Get a clue. This is a lie. Clinton would have done the same. Everyone knows that Bush is pro environment. Only desparate liberals use this is ammo. 7) Is Backing out of the nuclear dis-armament treaty. Is this the same treaty that India and Pakistan are not a part of? You better get mad at them too. 8) If any of you have ever been to the unspoiled beauty of Alaska, you will realize why it is completely insane to want to drill there. I, for one, honestly think that no one wants to drill in Alaska. Maybe its a necessary evil to sustain our greed for oil? 9) Repealed the public subsidy against logging roads in national forests. Have you flown low over the west lately? Roads everywhere already! No, I have not. But I am no expert on logging. Perhaps a real expert could post something on this that is not hysteria or heresay. 10) Heres one for the Slashdot crowd: he eliminated protections for those with repetitive strain injuries. Nothing personal, but I really don't want you to dip into my hard-earned money to pay for your "stress." Everyone knows it comes with the job. Deal with it. 11) Whats with the income tax reduction? The only ones its helping are those that are already loaded. And it is going to make it much more difficult for me to get my portfolio up to where I am loaded with the deficit problems that are going to crop up. Yes, I am a "loaded" college student, living on almost nothing. Give me your mail address and I'll mail you my check for $300. Better yet, give it back to you pork-barreling representive. God knows he has a use for it. --Anonymous coward
I pledge Alligence
To Microsoft
And the Shared-Source philospohy
And to the Monopoly
For which it stands
One company
Indivisiable
With Smart Tags and Service Packs for all
You may be seated.
This case has nothing to do with criminal law; it's about civil law. Microsoft is not "guilty"; it's "liable".
The government's mandate is solely to protect the interests of big business. It is necessary for the government to give the impression that the freedom or safety or well-being of the people is important, but in reality, none of this matters in the least. None of it. Dealing with big business and government all day long, I've come to the realization that our society is doomed; it's just a matter of time. The structures are in place for a near-instant overturning of the balance of power. I am NOT a raving lunatic, although I admit, this post gives no reasons to believe anything I'm saying, but it is quite possible that within the next 15 years, this will become a slave planet.
By the way, IAAL: I *AM* a lawyer. And I've got an honors degree in political science, and my job enables me to deal with some VERY big name power brokers, and trust me, if you think this is a country "for the people", you truly have no realistic idea about the way this country is run. The truth is out there, but you have to look. Read some Noam Chomsky for starters; he's on the right track. Watch for movements in the political realm, and trends by great powers, and see if you can put them together to form a bigger picture.
My best advice, as a lawyer, is bury a gun. Just in case.
Of course the Microsoft anti-trust case has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal law, so none of that is relevant to this particular topic.
Not because it made the judicial system look bad, because it made this particular trial look suspect. They're saying that even though they didn't find any obvious evidence of bias in the trial itself, the judge made statements outside the courtroom which indicate that he was biased against Microsoft. So they are having another judge review his judgements of law. As has been mentioned ad nauseam here, the findings of fact will stand.
I'd rather have the second judge review the ruling than leave this kind of possible taint on the ruling when Microsoft ends up submitting a full appeal.
--
"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?"
The fact that they _are_ a monopoly makes it unreasonable to _demand_ that the new judge be one that's never used Microsoft products. In fact it would almost be an advantage- if the new judge is a Mac user who uses Netscape etc etc. it could be taken as bias because you're _expected_ to use the monopoly product _unless_ you are biased against it.
Can we have a '-1: over 3K of straight Ayn Rand quoting'? o_O
If the Supreme Court upholds the findings of monopoly too, and you pull rank over them, can we just hire you as the sole judge in the US legal system? It would save a lot of money :)
This is standard SEC policy; I believe it is meant to prevent stock prices being manipulated. Whenever a major announcement is made that involves a publically traded company, trading of that company's shares is frozen for a short time before and after the (scheduled) announcement.
Please post the evidence that leads you to this conclusion. Thanks.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Posted by polar_bear:
Granted, Jackson didn't help by making comments about Microsoft, but it's hard to believe that our judicial system is capable of dispensing justice or protecting the average person anymore.
A long time from now - probably about the time that Microsoft has had its lunch eaten by Linux, *BSD and other OSes or that it's gotten such a comprehensive stranglehold on computing that there simply no alternatives - they'll finally rule against Microsoft and issue a penalty that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and (one way or another) cannot be overturned or appealed. But, the system is so ineffectual that the original case won't even matter. Netscape is dust and many of Microsoft's other competitors have been reduced to shells of themselves. Not by competition, but by tactics that would make Genghis Kahn blush.
Either we're going to become a nation of sheep or there's going to be a revolution of some sort in the next ten years. Fighting companies like Microsoft in the courts isn't working - and will never work. If people don't stand up for themselves soon they'll face a very bleak future indeed.
I'm not saying it would have to be a bloody or violent revolution, either. (Though the thought of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Craig Mundie against a wall in front of a firing squad does have a certain appeal...) But people need to start fighting these monolithic monstrosities soon or it won't be long before they stop suing Napster and start sending SWAT teams to college dorms to confiscate suspected computers...
It's not even noon yet and I'm feeling paranoid...time to get some caffeine...
On that point, I cannot disagree. The economic and legal definitions of monopoly appear never to have met one another at all.
Really? In what market does Microsoft hold a monopoly? Operating systems? Browsers? Evil? Hardly. If someone is a monopoly that means that it has no competitors in the market in question; that is, if you have a product belonging to that market, you must have obtained it from the monopoly. That is the economic definition of a monopoly; it is not disputable.
Given the definition, does Microsoft hold a monopoly in any market? No. To disprove this, I need only examine my network. Not only aren't all of my [operating systems|browsers|other software] Microsoft products, none of them are. That's right, not one. So somehow I've managed to build an entire mini-network (6 machines) without a single product from a company that holds a monopoly over the markets in which I would need to buy products to build it. Friends, we have a conundrum here. Either my network doesn't really exist (it certainly seems to; I'm using it to post this) or Microsoft does not in fact hold a monopoly in these markets. To resolve the paradox, we can only conclude that Microsoft does not in fact hold a monopoly over any relevant market.
The proof is simple and direct. The conclusion is the only one possible. Microsoft holds no monopoly in any market. I make no attempt to resolve whether it may have excessive market power as defined by law. That is an entirely different and much more nebulous matter. As for a monopoly on evil, I can't really argue for that either - there's no shortage of competitors - Rambus, Gracenote, Oracle, Sun, the US Government, the EU governments, the Chinese government, Al Gore, and that Krusty the Klown doll to name but a few. Unfortunately being evil is not illegal.
You're confusing monopoly with monopolistic competition. In order to be a true monopoly no other competition can exist. The distinction is that Microsoft has a monopoly on Microsoft software but not on software. In such a situation they will receive monopoly profits on their own products, but their customers always have the opportunity to find alternatives. Their monopoly power only extends to customers who refuse to consider other sources. This goes to "excessive market power" but does not by itself constitute a monopoly.
Was that before or after V7 Unix, System V, TOPS-10, TOPS-20, Multics, os/360, CP/M, VMS, SunOS, IRIX, and Linux? A quick check indicates that those products' lifespans include the entire duration of modern computing's existence...in fact the union of their lifetimes wholly contains that of DOS. So, no, kind Sir, I was never alive during such a time as you describe; indeed, I do fear your search for such a person will be confounded by his paradoxical nature.
Not one of the 6 boxes is a peecee. And of greater interest is the fact that disproving something requires only a single counterexample. Which I provided. If you prefer larger-scale counterexamples, I offer the following: dgux, dynix, solaris, sunos, aix, xenix, macos, lunix, mvs, vms, os2, plan9, inferno, riscos, ultrix, nextstep, netware, unixware, openbsd, netbsd, freebsd, linux, hurd, tru64/digital unix, irix, unicos, amoeba, and os/400, to name merely a few of the more popular products which compete or have competed with Microsoft in the OS market. Since one might assume that an educated person is already familiar with those, I felt a direct example from my personal experience might be an appropriate mechanism for disproving the assertion that Microsoft holds an OS monopoly. Please forgive my overestimation of your knowledge.
If the courts are free to define markets however they like, could they not simply define the market as "Microsoft operating systems?" In fact, it seems that for all practical purposes this is what they've done. Under that definition it would be very difficult indeed not to conclude that Microsoft holds a monopoly.
That's what made today's victory a hollow one for Microsoft.
What makes their "victory" a hollow one is that despite their best efforts, they haven't succeeded in forcing a single person to use any of their products. The trial is a mere nuisance; a way to make the citizenry believe the government is looking after their interests. The battle in the marketplace is the relevant one, and that's where Microsoft is suffering the greatest setbacks. Say what you like about their evil business practices, but short of government intervention nobody will ever be forced to buy or use their products. I don't, you shouldn't, and nobody has to. The trial is a farce and the case should be dismissed. I look forward to seeing the Supreme Court so order.
I remember that Jackson remarked that he was looking forward to seeing his conclusions reviewed by others.
I also remember that Jackson endured a tremendous amount of beligerent behavior from Microsoft, and some outright lies (something about a video of IE being faster than Netscape, but IE was on a 33.6 modem while Netscape got a 28.8 behind the scenes).
I think Jackson realized that he was no longer in a position where it was even possible for him to be objective, so he threw the book at Microsoft, then tainted his own verdict to force a review.
He might actually be rather pleased at the moment that his findings of fact and law are to stand. I hope these documents condemn Microsoft to severe punishment, regardless of the competence of the prosecutors.
The longer this thing carries on, the longer M$ is under the microscope and news headlines repeat and affirm that they are in fact an evil monopoly. Every action that they perform will be set in that light and scrutinized before the public. The biggest success of the case has been changing the public's perception of Microsoft.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
... he can just break a company in pieces. There's no precedent for that ...
... made MS look like the poor victim ...
No precedent, you say? Really? Why then, I guess someone should tell that to AT&T and the Baby Bells then, shouldn't they?
Surely you're kidding? Microsoft just doesn't convince me as the victim of anybody.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, I suppose that a well behaving monopolist knows that by squeezing too much it's customers will end in the invention of an alternative, sooner or later, and finish not only the monopoly, but the company too in the process. Of course, Bill Gates is too arrogant and the shareolders too greedy to stop and think about it, maybe this applies to the MPAA and RIAA also.
Anyway, since corporations only exist has social/legal constructs, they should accept the rules written by the congress, those same rules are the ones that make them exist after all.
The good thing about the Microsoft's abusing monopolist behavior is that they gave people a reason to search for alternatives; and became the common enemy for the open source/Free software movement.
After all, many people love the idea of being the little David beating Goliath just like in any RPG =]
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
DISCLAIMER: English is not my first language, if you want to correct my grammar or orthography, you are welcome.
And interesting quote, if Henry Rearden is on trial by having a monopoly, you are right, but if Henry Rearden is on trial by abusing monopoly power, it's another history.
IIRC, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse of monopoly power. Certainly, Microsoft did that. If they have beaten Netscape fairly, by offering a better product, we wouldn't have been discussing this issue, but MS Internet Explorer became a better product than Netscape much, much after they began giving it away for free, cutting one of Netscape's main revenue streams. Without research money and distribution channels, of course that Netscape's browser will fall behind, just like happened.
About EULA's, how would you refuse to use Windows or Office, if your clients, providers, etc. Require you to do so? It's like if you want to build a house, and need steel, you can only buy steel from Henry Rearden, like it or not, or would you live in a tent instead, just because you don't want to give jour money to him?
Anyway, I agree with you that it's a better remedy to educate people to think and evaluate choices, more than just being following the leader.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
...perpetuate and expand that civil liberties shredder known as RICO. Sure, that's what we really need.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The situation is more complicated than you try to represent it as. In several states (including Florida), the entire pool of electoral votes rode on margins smaller than the active userbase here on Slashdot. If you wish to dwell on the electoral college, the margins by which Bush won are actually SMALLER.
Then there's the whole can of worms regarding election practices to get into...
In the end, Bush was put into office not by the electoral college but by more antiquated voting technology being deployed in districts likely to vote against him (overall).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And to paraphrase Warren Buffett, "In the short term the markets are gambling machines, in the long term they are weighing machines".
And the Good Book says, "he who has ears let him hear."
I briefly read through the Appeals Court decision, and I found very little in it actually defending Microsoft's market practices.
Microsoft won because they knew how to play the game. This isn't about right or wrong, it's about Lawyer Vs. Lawyer. Microsoft only had to do three things:
- Drag the court case on as long as they could, and postpone any verdict as long as they could.
- Never EVER admit to even the slightest wrongdoing. Vehemently protest even the merest suggestion that anything they did was at all improper.
- Flaunt the judge at every opportunity. Remember Bill Gates not being able to remember business decisions he made, not knowing the meaning of simple words, and trying to say that Netscape wasn't a competitor? Remember the faked videotape?
The first two tactics worked well for a long time. (Note that even Bill Clinton used these tactics to some success.) But it's the third tactic which cinched the win for them: by basically giving Judge Jackson the finger in court, ANY reaction Judge Jackson had as a result could be blamed on him being biased against Microsoft.This will have a devastating effect on the software industry, since it's been proven that Microsoft has the money and the resources to buy any market they want to own, and the political power to get away with it. Even if you had the Next Big Idea and a million dollars to start with, how could you even hope to compete with Microsoft once they got wind of your idea and copied it?
We're only now seeing Microsoft begin to notice the free software industry. I don't think it will be long before they find a way to 'embrace and extend,' lock customers into Microsoft-only solutions, and make free software become irrelevant. Nobody thought it could happen to Apple, nobody thought it could happen to Netscape, nobody thinks it'll happen to Linux...
Ok since I'm not a laywer, does this mean it's back to sqaure zero? What does the new judge do first?
-Peace
Dave
Free as in "the Truth shall set you..."
An excerpt: I tried AOL Time Warner's competing "You've Got Lackeys" a few years ago, but found its virtual agents a bunch of weenies. Not their fault. Microsoft wrote code into Internet Windows that tripped them up when they attempted Web chores. No wonder nine out of 10 professionals today subscribe to Microsoft agents.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Now that's interesting. All of the Microsoft bashers were predicting the appeals court would upheld the decision because it was so sound and just.
Meanwhile those of us with common sense knew it was loony tunes. The appeals court threw out not only the remedy, but several crucial parts of the case. i.e. the Internet Explorer tying crap.
Now nearly everybody agreed that some of the exclusionary contracts and coercive contracts were violations. We felt that Microsoft should be punished for engaging in such behavior.
But punishing a company for making a better product than a competitor, and thus putting them out of business, is lunacy. Such was the case of Microsoft and Netscape.
Honestly the fact that Jackson bought that line of bullshit is plenty of evidence for bias.
http://www.sodablue.org/Computers/Windows2000/Reli ability.asp
I was at 96 days when I decided to add a USB card for a Printer and Scanner.
Hmm. I have Windows 2000 installed on about half a dozen computers. Every one of them runs fine, except one.
That one has a Tyan Trinity 400 motherboard and seems to have a problem with certain video operations causing it to lockup hard. It ain't the OS, it's the motherboard. No BSOD, just a lockup.
It's not unique to my computer either. Doing a search finds many people with the same hardware config having the same problem.
It was worse, before I moved my PCI cards around and put them in different spots. It was locking up any time sound was played as well.
Now I suppose I could blame this on Windows 2000. But then I'm not ignorant, like some people. So I'll blame it on what it is, a crappy motherboard. At some point here I'm going to buy another Intel board, I'm tired of Via weird stuff.
WordPerfect is still the defacto standard in the legal profession. Virtually no lawyers use Word. Given that the document was written in WP, that's what they provide. The PDF and HTML versions they provide are viewable anywhere anyway.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Well, who didn't see that one coming. Unfortunately, it's only going to hurt the softies more than us Linux bitches. No subscription fees for software - give me free software. Let M$ take of the web because in the real world the true techies will be living on the bleedin' edge and away from the M$N/AOL created web. Ever notice how M$N/AOL don't really take you onto the internet because they own you ass!!!
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Well, who didn't see that one coming. Unfortunately, it's only going to hurt the softies more than us Linux bitches. No subscription fees for software - give me free software. Let M$ take control of the web because in the real world the true techies will be living on the bleedin' edge and away from the M$N/AOL controlled web. We'll have Freenet where no one knows ya!
Ever notice how M$N/AOL don't really take you onto the internet because they own you ass!!!
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
It's well known that the Bush administration replaced the entire team of lead attorneys at the justice department with junior lawyers who had never tried a significant anti-trust case. So, while the Justice Department didn't drop the case at executive request, they did manage to replace all competent staff associated with the original investigation with complete incompetents. That's how one kills an investigation behind the scenes. --M
But, either way, the district court UPHELD the rights of individuals (in this case MS and its shareholders.) You might not like microsoft, or its shareholders, but the government was trying to FORCE them to change their buisness practices. MS's rights are just as valuable as yours or mine because cooporations are OWNED by people.
Like many, you seem to have missed the main point of the ruling. The court agreed that MS has a monopoly and had acted illegally to maintain the monopoly. What was remanded back to the lower court was the ruling to split them up. This simply means that they are guilty, but that the punishment isn't necessarily the correct one.
Linux is MS's competition. MS is therefor NOT a monopoly because it is slowly, and steadily LOOSING its marketshare.
I would like to see the data you use to support the contention that Microsoft is losing marketshare. They may not be expanding their market share, but that's because they already have about all they can get.
Again, the court has upheld the fact that Microsoft has an OS monopoly. You say that Linux is MS's competition, but try to tell that to all the PC makers: "Oh, you don't want to use Windows? Well just put Linux on there, your customers will never know the difference." Like it or not, nearly all PC buyers want Windows. If a PC maker doesn't like the tactics of the hard drive maker or the memory maker or even the CPU maker, they can just switch manufacturers. With the OS they have NO CHOICE.
This is what makes it a monopoly. The monopoly itself is not illegal, but it forces MS to change their intensely competitive actions, which they have failed to do.
Sounds like a recipe for a lower court to say: "Yes they monopolized X (some combination of software that was once commercially relevant) when the complaint was filed, but due to issues with tying, innovation, etc., X no longer exists, nor do the plaintifs' products, nor did Jackson ever scope out what X was very well, nor is there any way of putting the toothpaste back in the tube. Therefore: reveal some source, document your APIs, and never darken the court's door again."
I wrote parts of this stuff
Not quite. There are three parts to the original ruling: Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and remedies. The appeals court has vacated _remedies_ only, while both the FOF and COL were left intact. That means that the appeals court agreed that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive behaviour (FOF) *and* that it violated sections the Antitrust act (COL). (or, in english: MS is still a monopoly). A new judge will look at the facts and decide a new remedy. Note that this is not a retrial: only new remedies are considered. Also note that new remedy != lesser remedy (although, I agree, this is likely).
That is actually better news than I had expected. The ruling makes DOJ's position much stronger, since the bulk of their case has survived the appeal intact. It also opens the door for private lawsuits against MS. The plaintiffs in those suites do not need to prove that MS is a monopoly: the feds did it for them, and the appeals court agreed. The only question at this point is: is the DOJ willing to continue? Somehow I suspect I know the answer....
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
>The court has decided to send the case back to a >lower court to be reconsidered. No, the court has decided to send the case back down for the *punishment* to be reconsidered, not the whole case.
>The court has decided to send the case back to a
>lower court to be reconsidered.
No, the court has decided to send the case back down for the *punishment* to be reconsidered, not the whole case.
I'm not crazy about Microsoft but I want them to be defeated by legitimate means-not by some stupid judge who doesn't even know how to use a computer who thinks he can just break a company in pieces. There's no precedent for that and it made the entire case against Microsoft look like a joke. It actually made MS look like the poor victim because let's face it, compared to the US federal government even Microsoft looks puny.
---
To say "we find no evidence there was a problem" and then effectively "but there was a problem" is absolute garbage. The DOJ will probably appeal this...but they may hold onto that until after they see who the new lower-court judge will be first...
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Exactly -- they're still guilty. Its only the penalty of being broken up that was overruled.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Nope, they let the Conclusions of Law stand too. So the only thing sent back to lower courts for reconsideration is the remedy.
In answer to your question, let me put it to you this way.
I am looking for a word processor. It must be able to understand WordPerfect, as I have several important documents in older WP formats. While I was in a store last night (not computer-only, it sells a variety of products), I looked on the shelf. There were three relevant boxed software products. The word processing component of these three packages was:
You might want to can the multi-line signature thing. It looks pretty dumb.
Don't bore us, nobody thinks you're smart.
They didn't remove it. They disabled it. That code did ship with win3.1.
Can't survive in second place? doesn't know how to market in other positions?
Maybe you should pay more attention to IBM. They have comfortably made the shift from being a world dominator to just another huge conglomerate. Sure it seemed to take a while on American time but compared to companies form other parts of the world they made the shift fast. Expect Microsoft to do just as well when they do eventually get their asses handed to them on a platter. I expect in 15-20 years we will all be running an OS designed and programmed in China. They have the talent and the resources, just wait until they get the desire.
There is nothing wrong with second place... or even a 5.4% place (see Apple).
--- I do not moderate.
they remembered that Microsoft had filed a counter-suit against them (US Government).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
The opinion is mirrored here:
http://www.mlinux.org/00-5212a.pdf
My God! It's full of Voids!
I think they choose these pictures on purpose. During the trial, news sites usually chose pictures of Bill talking, shouting, or standing at a microphone or podium - suggesting Bill is fighting for his side. This particular picture just seems to say "Ha. Look who's on top, you sorry bitches. Who's your daddy? I'M your daddy. Yeah."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
The scene is a courtroom, where Henry Rearden, a steel industrialist, is on trial for the sale of his own metal:
Ah yes, Hank Reardon, the character who gave an exclusive distributorship agreement to his mythical metal to the business partner he slept with. That's ethical. Perhaps a little better than Roark, who blew up a building over a creative difference in the design, but still not quite the lily-white archetype of perfection Rand would like her characters to have been (too bad, really, flawed heros are a little more believable). Speaking as both a skeptic and a capitalist myself, you can do far better than Rand, who based her entire philosophy on empty tautology (A is A) and nothing more than ad hominem against her opponents. I prefer Robert Ingersoll for the atheist arguments, James Randi for the skepticism... still looking for a good capitalist apologist, but economics was never one of my main interests.
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
six months after WindowsXP starts spreading it's tentacles into our private lives for another exciting episode of, "Oh dear! What'll we Do? What can we DO?!?!?"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Not that I care either way. Break 'em up, don't break 'em up, I hold stock either way. What really matters is that their conviction for using their market status illegally has been upheld, which, despite being a no-brainer, means that Microsoft has to play nice.
Finding God in a Dog
Just as people who commit manslaughter (by definition, non intentionaly killing someone), there not likely to reoffend.M
But we punish them to make others think harder about there actions. And MS should be punished so that othere potentialy damaging monopolies think harder before they act?
Except the interview that raised so much furor was done after the trial was over and the verdict had been handed down. And the bias I was referring to (at least in the 2600 case, regardless of who was right or wrong) was very blatantly done from the bench. The MS comments were made after the trial, IIRC.
-jdm
What amazes me is the double standard we seem to have here about what the courts are "allowed" to be biased towards. Judges often gloat about or cite their "tough record" on crime, occasionally singling out their record of sentencing minorities to harsher penalties than caucasians (*cough*Philadelphia*cough*).
Or what about the 2600 DeCSS case? For anyone who has even read a few minutes of any of the preceedings, it is blatantly obvious that the Judge is severely biased against the defendants. Yes, I know that may get 2600 somewhere in the appeals court, but I can't possibly see a unanimous vote to remand a majority of the case to a lower court.
Yes, *gasp* god forbid we actually say bad things about a corporation or businessmen!! Even if they did blatantly lie on the stand and even bring forth false evidence. MS essentially admitted to perjury (sp?) with their false demos. But how dare we say this aloud?
It's a sad, sad, day when libertarian actually whole-heartedly supports the DOJ is a case against a corporation. Bah.
-jdm
Legally, MS is a monopoly. You can play whatever semantic games you like, but the law says MS is a monopoly.
\begin{rant}
No shit. I'm sick and tired of slashbots (and editors -- this means you, michael, Taco, and Hemos) jerking at the knee and whining about how Bush is going to beatify M$ at any possible opportunity. Sure, Bush isn't a good president, and he's downright bad on a lot of issues. However, Al "Corporate Whore" Gore would have been worse on this one. If any of these clowns would have bothered to look at vote-smart.org during the election, they would have noticed that Al Gore has spoken in favor of Microsoft on many occasions, hailing them as "great innovators" and "champions of the new economy". Furthermore, Gore even spoke at the M$ campus, hailing them and assuring them of his continued support. Gore also spoke out against the breakup, whereas Bush is on the record calling them a predatory monopoly.
Who's owned now? M$ gave over a million dollars in soft money to each party -- although it looks like Gore didn't need quite as much prodding, as he's been sucking their dicks since 1995 -- so these morons should get a clue.
\end{rant}
I guess I can stand to lose some karma for this if it's not in line with the "Slashdot Herd", but I've needed to rant about this for a while.
This poll was brought to you by Internet Explorer, now with innovative ActivePoll(TM) technology. Why suffer from the drudgery of filling out those confusing questionnaires, when ActivePoll(TM) can do it for you.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
It's a funny thing, appointed judges. Can you really be impartial about a ruling if you were placed through a political process? What about debts? What about the prevailing political atmosphere?
Richard Posner is a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (that's Chicago) He's quoted in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin as saying "People who think that federal judges base their legal opinions solely on their interpretation of the law and the Constitution are living in a make-believe world."
There was an interesting article posted on k5 about a man in a lawsuit against Coca Cola Corporation. If you're in the least bit surprised at the Microsoft ruling, you'd best read it.
IBM was required to openly hardware licence patents at a reasonable price. I'm not sure if this came out of the US or the European anti-trust actions, but it was the result of the 'plug-compatible' wars of the 70s.
The key bit about this is that it made PC clones possible. IBM had ISA and VGA and so on patented, but was forced to sell the specs to their competitors.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Trading of a companies stock is always halted directly after a large news story is released about them (this is why most companies release earning reports after the market closes). The reason they halt trading is so that investors are given some time to think about what they're going to do before they go off and buy or sell.
First, I think it's laughable that we see people here screaming and hollaring about "How dare you, President Bush!" Illustrates once again the ignorance of most people of basic Civics and Government. President Bush had a hand in the appointment of exactly 0 members of this Circuit Court. They serve for life so it doesn't matter whether the current President likes them or their ruilings or not.
Next, if the Circuit Court was paid off or anything like that, wouldn't you think they would have vacated the Findings of Fact (that rule that MS is a monopoly and violated Federal law)? No, they didn't do that. They simply said the current remedy is too draconian and that Judge Jackson's actions severely undermined the appearance of fair justice. To that earlier person who pondered why that matters, _YES_ it does. If the people do not percieve the Judiciary as impartial and fair, it's power is destroyed.
In closing, I wonder how many people here have a stake in the stock market (probably most, as about half of all Americans do in some sort). Go look at the action of the market after major milestones in the MS Case. When MS's prospects look better, it goes up, and the reverse is true as well. Why is this? Simple. They see, as many other do, that this case represents the truly grave danger of the Government sticking it's grubby hands into the economy and punishing economic growth. So to all those who stand at the sidelines and cheer MS's demise, remember this: whether you like or use MS products or not, if they are destroyed, it not only hurts them, but it hurts everyone.
Good day now.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
Have any proof of this? Or are you just regurgitating the same old leftist line?
If MS were to buy off the Circuit Court, they would have vacated the Findings of Fact. They didn't. They upheld the fact that MS is a monopoly and in fact did violate antitrust law. If all they could get was a vacating of the breakup order, they just wasted their money.
I don't fully agree with the decision. I don't think they went far enough, and I believe our current antitrust law is antequated, outdated, and irrevalent to the economy of 2001. That said, the idea that this was a bought decision doesn't pass the laugh test.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
Well, they're basically doing that with the tobacco suit by decreasing funding... Rather than supply the $58 million the DOJ wants and needs to continue through the appeals process, after they already have a guilty verdict, he's only allotted 1.8 million, hence killing the case...
if you look at history when justice is not done in the courtroom its done on the streets
So what, people going to start forcibly inserting Win98Lite CD's into my shopping bags? Installing linux on my computer when i step away?
Ummm, you know what? Windows and Mac OS 9 work just fine for me... Yes, i do have a machine running linux, but just as a staging area for websites... Basically all it's good for until we see more commercial application support, IMO.
And looking around the office, there are 80+ people running Windows, no complaints, except from IT, who just think it's dumb that the servers are running Windows as well... That's agreed, but that's the extent of systems "not working"
Seriously, folks, this is probably just justice being done (very) slowly and carefully, and it's probably for the best, even if it means we don't get the satisfaction of seeing MS split in two.
Though seeing Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates each split in two would be quite pleasant.
Maybe he's talking about the Dubya the elder ... Also there are still a lot of judges left fomr the Reagan days too...
Um, that's "DR-DOS" or "DRDOS", not "Doctor DOS" or "Dr. DOS". DR is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This was not your standard grammar flame. If someone doesn't know what the DR-DOS case was really about, or even what the actual product was (Digital Research's flavor of DOS, not "Doctor DOS" - that sounds like a Norton utility or something), they lose a lot of credibility as far as their opinions on Microsoft, etc. If you sound like you don't know what you're talking about, people tend to not believe you. Few people will bother to point out, as I have done, why they don't believe you, but they won't.
I'm pointing out the facts in an effort to make the original poster sound more smart, not myself. And no, I don't even complain about the myriad misuses of you/your/youre/you're any more; reading /. has permanently blunted my grammar spidey-sense in that regard.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Thanks, but the sig really should have prepared you for that :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Wow, I stand corrected! Although I don't know how many people would understand what I was trying to get across if I made the distinction between the two terms, I'll try to be more accurate in my usage of them.
See - and people say grammar flames never amount to anything :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The post was good, my mood at the time was bad. Sorry to take it out on you.
Actually I like the idea of scaling the punishment based on how much profit was made from the crime, although I think that would be pretty hard for a judge to determine what the percentages should be.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It will be nice to see a whole slew of new consumer-friendly products from Microsoft now - after all, they're entirely free to "innovate" now. I wonder how many other markets they'll get to consume before the government comes to its senses? If Microsoft is allowed to use the capital amassed from its past crimes to stroll into new markets, almost no industry in the U.S. is safe. It's just a question of "Where does Microsoft want to go today?"
This really was Judge Jackson's case to lose, though - I'm as pissed of about Microsoft as anyone, but you'd think a federal judge would have the sense to keep his mouth shut about his personal opinions of the defendant, and follow the legal procedures entirely by the book. This was only the biggest trial of the decade or so. More than anything, this appeal overturns his handling of the trial rather than the facts of the matter or Microsoft's guilt.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And that is supposed to prove what? That you conveniently overlook the money that the AOLs, Netscapes, Suns, and Oracles of the world paid government officials to get Microsoft prosecuted? Got any evidence that Microsoft paid more than they did?
Cheers,
Which corruption would that be? It should be a lot more disturbing if you actually think that one single biased judge should be allowed to decide the entire fate of one of the largest companies in the country without there being any recourse via the appeals process.
Cheers,
Dude, you're in denial and anyone who believes you has to be pretty gullible. It's really simple: If Microsoft really were irrelevant, there wouldn't be two or three stories about them here every single day at Slashdot, a GNU/Linux-leaning web site. The stories here about them wouldn't generate the huge number of comments that they do, and the whining reaction to every single thing they do wouldn't be so shrill.
(I do have to ask, though: Palm? Good Lord, is Palm fscked. It honestly makes me wonder if you have any idea what's going on in the real world.)
Cheers,
No need to get pissy, kid. Someone asked for evidence that the Appeals Court decided this way because Microsoft "bought whatever / whomever they needed," and you replied with links about Microsoft donations. Sure, it was meant to be pithy, not entirely accurate, but when someone points out to you the flaw in the argument, you actually stick by it?
So, you proclaim as conclusive evidence the fact that one side gave money, yet you have no idea if the other side gave more or not, and when challenged, tell the reader to look it up himself. That stuff might pass as an argument at your community college, but not in the real world.
Cheers,
Corporations are artificial citizens. Who would you levy a criminal judgement upon? The CEO? The whole board? All of the stockholders?
Why not? After all, these are the beneficiaries of the illegal conduct. The "corporation" doesn't get anything out of it, only the people making money.
When every stock investor starts getting notices from the court that they need to send in a check for $50 as punishment, maybe we'll finally have worked out an incentive for companies to stop violating the law. No longer will the board be able to say, "well, we have to maximize profits at all costs", they might have to consider how angry stockholders would get to be held personally responsible for their illegal actions.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
This is essentially what happens when the value of a company's stock falls due to a pending judgement
But ther's no direct correlation for the stockholders to say, "hey, you shouldn't have done this because I was held responsible for your bad decisions". The issue is responsibility, not money...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The fall in Microsoft's share price after Judge Jackson's ruling was quite obviously a result of that ruling. A 'fine' wouldn't have been any different, and most Microsoft shareholders would still have placed more of the blame on Jackson (for ruling to fine the company) than on the Microsoft board
No, that's completely wrong and ignores human behavior.
Number one -- a fall in stock price is not the same as a fine because you don't have to sell the stock, you can simply ignore it and wait for the stock to go back up.
Number two -- if someone recieves a notice that their fine of $50 (while possibly much lower than a drop in stock price) is due to the court by XX date, or they personally face contempt of court charges, then it becomes a personal issue.
They actually care about it and see that their own individual well-being is tied to the company on the downside as well as the upside. you can no longer simply take your money and run, you have to actually face responsibility for the company you own.
if Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch faced 55% of the jail term for corporate criminal violations of the law, perhaps they would police their companies better for violations of law. if they faced 55% of the financial liabilty for the companies in civil case, they might be more concerned about following the law.
As it stands, the worst that can happen is that the company gets a stern *tsk, tsk* from a court, maybe even broken up, but other than stock value, the investors never face any real personal ramifications despite their very real personal ability to influence those violations of law...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I don't like Microsoft but I want them to get their just desserts fairly and for the right reasons. So back to the lower court it goes and if we are lucky it will get worked out while it's still vaguely relevant to our lives.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
-The vast majority of games only work under windows
-Office only works on windows and since most of the world tends to revolve around Microsoft's document format this means I have to keep Office and thus windows
-The latest Quicktime hasn't been ported to Linux
-Several websites are designed to only work well with Internet Explorer
If I thought Microsoft was competing and I thought that the average user was getting a real choice, I'd have no issue with them. This, however, is not the case.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that once a guilty verdict has been issued, you can't drop the charges.
They could of course give up in spirit and not bother to show up at the new sentencing hearings, but that seems a bit silly even for the current administration.
--
But then again, I could be wrong.
ah, but how many of those appeals court judges did BushDaddy appoint? How about Uncle Ronnie? (I don't know... I'm asking... does anyone here know?)
Reality has a liberal bias
Sigh. Some people just didn't read the appellate finding, apparently. From the document:
Specifically, they reversed the DC's judgment that Microsoft violated part 2 of the Sherman Act, or in other words that they didn't illegally attempt to monopolize the internet browser market. They also remanded to the DC the finding that Microsoft violated part 1 of the Sherman Act, or the unlawful tying of the browser to the OS. The only part they did affirm, and this only partially (with the rest reversed, not remanded) was the violation of part 2 of the Sherman Act by using anti-competitive means to maintain it's OS monopoly. To see what exactly they affirm and what they reverse on that, feel free to dig deeper into the decision.What this means is that the appellate court DID NOT uphold that Microsoft is guilty of defending its monopoly, and in fact actually REVERSED an important decision necessary to the monopolization case. They've also REMANDED the second Sherman violation back to the district court.
I agree with alot of what you said.
These posts are full of left-wing knee jerk idiots looking to pass blame. I am sorry...but socialism *IS* a bad thing....often times it works GREAT....for awhile....and then, the system gets abused. Show me a good example where socialism has worked WELL for centuries. Capitalism has held up fairly well for a LONG time now. (For anyone who's willing to do anything for themselves...it's a great system.)
If *YOU* don't like what MS is doing...then stop using their stuff. With capitalism...it's up to all of you. Oh wait...I forgot....most of the idiots flaming about MS on slashdot these days use MS products. I really doubt alot of these people even HAVE a dedicated linux machine, let alone use it as their primary OS. *THAT* is how you beat MS. Don't cry and wait for the govt to do it...get off your ass and deal with it yourself. Your geeks...clean up your own back yard. The wannabe geeks can go crawl back under the rocks you came from.
And your quote for the day: "If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're around."
Because I am not the one who made the claim in the first place. The burden of proof is on the guy trying to making the point/statement. If you can't back up your words, then they are worthless at best. If you've all done your homework so well...then surely you can cite your sources. (Well...unless you were copying off the dumb kid again.)
I am serious...I haven't heard anything of this one, so if there's any merit to your claim...please back it up now. Some links to hard cold evidence would do it.
I guess we really don't want to look behind the curtain!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Welcome to the good ol' USA...
We have the BEST JUSTICE SYSTEM MONEY CAN BUY!
In our free market economy, we all have the power to decide that we aren't going to purchase Microsoft products anymore.
Muhahaahahah..... Damn, that statement alone gets +234, Funny.
Try telling that to anyone who's ever been told that resumes are only accepted in MS Word format. Or companies that are stuck with MS to stay compatible with customers/suppliers. Or IBM, who was forced to *not* sell OS/2 preinstalled on their own computers by MS. Not to mention I still can't go into Best Buy and pick up a computer with Linux installed on it.
Yeah, now you will come back with that I can buy one online. But what about someone buying a first computer? That's the problem with unfettered free-market capitalism, it foolishly assumes all consumers have equal opportunities, and are perfectly informed about *every* buying decision. Something which is essentially impossible. Go look up "market failure" in an econ textbook sometime.
-WintermuteThat's incorrect. There are 19 states who are also part of this lawsuit, in addition to the government. Even if the government drops out, the states have publicly stated that they will continue to appeal.
--
As Missouri's attorney general from 1977 to 1985 and then governor from 1985-1993, Ashcroft battled the equal rights amendment, and fought court-ordered school-desegregation plans. For instance: From US News&World Reports "In 1983, as Missouri's attorney general, Ashcroft objected when a federal judge coaxed the city and 16 suburban school districts into a voluntary plan to bus 13,000 minority city schoolchildren to predominantly white suburbs. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court three times, losing every round and drawing a rare scolding from a federal judge for his costly "feckless appeals.""
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Lets have the list of those things.
The reality is that we have a president that is not very original in thought and is beholden to special interests to a much greater degree than other politicians. For instance, he let industrial interest groups create his strictly voluntary pollution standards, and put an oil industry guy in charge of enforcement of those standards. Come on, if his daddy were not president do you really think this guy would have had a chance at getting into office? Nepotism rules with this guy. He never would have been employed in business if it were not for his father and that took until he was forty!! He then proceeded to run those companies into ruin and then ran his baseball team into the ground. As the head of the great state of Texas (speaking as a Texan) he screwed up everything Gov. Richards worked so hard to create. Education is abysmal, and the environment in many areas of Texas has gone into the toilet. I was shocked last week when I went back to Dallas/Fort Worth on business for the first time in about ten years. Urban sprawl nightmare with smog and unbelievable traffic rivaling that of Los Angeles!
I would like to not be as pessimistic as you are about our government. I am proud to be an American, and I will fight at every opportunity for what I believe is right. Make your voice heard and perhaps you can make a difference.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
How about I take you up on your offer for the $300? I will post a P.O. box and when I get the money I will take it down to the homeless shelter I am volunteering in next week.
As for some of your other objections:
I am sure nuclear scientists are good at their job, but I can tell you that a larger number of the patients at one of the businesses I am associated with are from Nevada, northern Arizona, Colorado and Southern Utah (downwinders)and they have more diagnoses of cancers than they statistically should. (particularly brain cancers).
A president should be politically aware of some issues when it comes to appointees. The appointees influence policy and should reflect and represent the public.
Bush pro environment?!!?!?!? Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho wheeeeeeeeeeeha. I think I am going to be sick.
Nuclear disarmament? India and Pakistan are the exact reason why countries should maintain this alliance and further it.
Necessary evil to drill in Alaska? Perhaps we should reevaluate our needs for oil and figure out how to reduce our reliance on it.
If you have not flown over the west, try it. Either fly your self or charter a small plane and go sightseeing. You will be absolutely amazed at how many roads there are in some of the supposidly most remote portions of our country. This is not heresay it is a fact.
As for the repetitive stress injuries, dude, wait until you get out of school and actually start working for a living. And don't begin to lecture me about living on almost nothing in college. I supported myself through college because my parents could not and then into the school of medicine here. Now I am back in graduate school. I put aside all creature comforts for my undergraduate and post graduate education and invested everything I could into the stock market and a couple of businesses I am associated with. I have worked hard and I have had some degree of success. As such, I believe I owe a debt of responsibility to others around me and in my community and I am more than willing to help out.
Grow up.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Damn strait! I will probably get modded down here, but what is it with this guy? Is he completely out of touch? Every morning I pick up the paper there is some other reason for me to become more and more disillusioned with the current president. He:
1) Appoints a lumber lobbyist to head the forest service.
2) Appoints an extractive industry lobbyist to head the department of interior.
3) Is pushing to reinstate nuclear testing.
4) Appoints John Ashcroft as A.G. Someone who spent a good part of his career fighting against desegregation.
5) His nominee for dept of agriculture one said that that farming areas that are not ethnically diverse are more productive.
6) Backed out of the Kyoto treaty giving even more reasons for other countries to hate the US
7) Is Backing out of the nuclear dis-armament treaty.
8) If any of you have ever been to the unspoiled beauty of Alaska, you will realize why it is completely insane to want to drill there.
9) Repealed the public subsidy against logging roads in national forests. Have you flown low over the west lately? Roads everywhere already!
10) Heres one for the Slashdot crowd: he eliminated protections for those with repetitive strain injuries.
11) Whats with the income tax reduction? The only ones its helping are those that are already loaded. And it is going to make it much more difficult for me to get my portfolio up to where I am loaded with the deficit problems that are going to crop up.
I could go on and on here without even mentioning foreign policy screwups, But that's enough venting for now.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Plutocracy.
... is that you need a LOT of sustained firepower to put a BORG cube ship out of commission. If you only cripple them, they regenerate!
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
The US Appeals Court today recieved a one billion dollar grant from the Microsoft Corporation for the technological advancement of the court system.
Ok...maybe not...but it would explain alot...
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
I think that's pretty close to whats happened. The most important findings in this case is that the finding that the claim MS attempted to create a monopoly in the browser market is not viable, and that tying windows and IE together was acceptable.
While they upheld that many of MS' buisiness practices were not acceptable for their position in the market, they indicated that the punishment must fit the crime, and that they did not believe that Jackson's plan was appropriate. I think we will likely see a punishement similar to what you predict, but probably a bit lighter. What will probably work itself into the mix (but shouldn't) is the effect that this ruling has had on the markets, and the effect the previous ruling had as well.
There's also the chance that we're going to see the DOJ drop the case entirely, because there's not much of a chance for huge results, and the fact that the current administration doesn't want this to adversely effect the economy.
But, IANAL, and this is just my opinion of what's likely to happen.
And in the his case in particular, why do we need an alternative?
First, a couple of notes:
That said, why do we need the Government to break up M$? Do you want a bunch of DoJ lawyers deciding how the software industry should be structured? The truth is M$ won the popularity contest. They didn't win it fair and square, and they didn't win it with the best, most innovative products or best support. But that's not how popularity works - if it was, 99% of the music on the airwaves today would disappear. We'd also have very different people in elected office. They won, nvertheless, because milions of individuals worldwide voted with their cash that they either preferred to go with Microsoft, or that they didn't much care.
No, it's not pretty, but the people have spoken. That said:
So, how would socialism make this better? By mandating a monopoly by whoever plays the best politics? By forcefully crushing anyone who wants to start their own software business? I don't see it. It's been tried, and it's a nightmare.
Helium balloons want to be free.
Maybe when enough people like you figure out that the Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all out to trash both your wallet and your rights, and that the Libertarian Party isn't a bunch of druggies but just feels that it's nobody's damn business what consenting adults do to themselves or each other behind closed doors, we might get somewhere.
Until that happens, however, basically, we're fscked.
--
In the long, twilight struggle which lies ahead,
there is the possibility of hope.
-- Draal, Babylon 5 #219
The courts move too slowly to affect anything in the 'net-realm anyways. By the time a "final" decision is made Microsoft will own the Internet, TV, cable, and video gaming systems.
That's why it is up to us, the consumer, to provide the judgment through our wallets.
--- witty signature
Ideas are not a scarce resource like gold or daimonds or oil. Microsoft is welcome to put whatever they want to in their operating system. They sell a product. Do stereo manufactures complain if Ford puts a stereo in their newest car?
Windows is a product. A product which myself and hopefully many others here choose not to buy. How would breaking up microsoft effect me? How would it help? Their attacks on open source, while amusing are silly. Sticks and stones. Will it affect current developers of free software? Will it cause Linus to see the light and stop developing?
Most people here react to Microsoft like they're coming out of an abusive realationship with Bill gates. Nothing MS does affects anything in the free software noosphere. Stop wasting energy and passion getting enraged over MS, or complaining about MS or their products. The energy would be far better spent re-directed into more free software development
You've all got Microsoft on the brain.
Let it go.
I am certainly no lawyer either. But I was under the impression that any court and toss out any facet of a lower court ruling, finding of fact, finding of law, damages, verdict...anything.
-B
You have to read the sections entitled "On Remand." In particular, on page 86 the court states "Should plaintiffs choose to pursue a tying claim..." and "plaintiffs must show that Microsoft's conduct unreasonably restrained competition."
This means that the facts of tying were not sufficiently established in the original trial and would have to be reconsidered by the new judge if the plaintiffs wish to continue the claim of tying.
is anyone else amazed by the incredible (lack of) depth of the AP article? :)
the Reuters one is a little better, but not much.
i do like how the MSNBC link is broken, though.
0x0D 0x0A
it was broken at the time of posting, but works now.
i'm using win2k, so that wasn't the problem.
0x0D 0x0A
There is this little thing called checks and balances. This was the Judical arm (over which the president has no control) vacating a ruling, because of improper contact between the judge and the media (from what I have read, this is a fairly no-brainer. you have no business as a judge doing media interviews during a trial).
Wow! Thanks for posting that, it made my day. I'm so used to seeing rich CEOs get off scott-free. It's very heartening to see they get punished every now and then.
Yeah, but it makes slightly more sense than if you think about it the other direction where open source authors are in the wrong.
Having more software doesn't encourage users to pirate MS software. It'd be having no choices that would encourage that.
And the rest of it is based on MS's lies. They claim that all computers sold are only to run their software, so if it hasn't been bought for a computer, that computer will inevitably be running pirated copies.
They also claim that they lose money from piracy. That's obviously false, all they lose is a potential sale, and usually because it's some 13-year old kid who wouldn't have paid $500 for an OS, it's a very small potential.
So, it's mainly MS's logic that's circular. But, I'm quite willing to exploit it, after all, they've lied to government and exploited us long enough.
This doesn't explain the judge in the 2600 case. He worked for Turner Broadcasting, relating to DVD protection. And TB is a large part of the MPAA.
So that's not bias? And yet he refused to excuse himself from the case, with barely any explanation.
I've hard of judges excusing themselves from cases for such distant relations as their uncle playing golf with a cousin of one of the participants in the trial. In fact, in the inbred political circles in some areas, that's a major problem, finding a judge who can hear a case because they don't have any third-degree relations with anyone involved.
Yet, in this case, the judge was specifically payed to help draft a law, then he's called on by his old bosses to help in enforcing that law. And that's not bias?
That should be treason. I think actions like that should get him removed from the bench and bisbarred.
You (if you are from the US) live in as much of a socialist country as it is a capitalist one.
The government passes many laws controlling businesses, taxes both companies and people, and applies that to improvements for the benefit of the people. That's a socialism.
It's nominally capitalist, but only within fairly strict guidelines.
The only problem is that our government is in the pay of the corporations and they pass laws that help the biggest. Which just shows that it's a corrupt socialism, not that it's not socialist.
Microsoft is purchasing enough legislators to force people to use their software.
Their suprise software audits are performed with federal marshalls, without MS having to provide proof of wrong-doing. Isn't it a bit scary that a company can buy federal cops to enforce their EULAs?
They're trying to get the government to forbid the GPL and similar open-source licensing agreements. Both so that no government agency (or agency working for the government) can use GPLed software, or release any software under the GPL.
They're also well on the way to switching to a subscription model for software. You can't buy it once and use it, you keep paying.
Combine this with their stance that any computer sold without an OS is one that will be used to pirate an MS product, and you get a situation where you'll be paying a government mandated MS tax on any system you buy, regardless of what you do with it.
There's a lot more they're doing, but it generally involves steps towards having the government mandate that everyone simply owes MS an annual tax, because, after all, the only software is MS's, and if you're not paying for it, you're a criminal.
Nothing personal, but I hope you lose a lot of money on those stocks.
Why? Because by buying them you're actively supporting a company that's guilty (and proved it, by lying in court) of many crimes.
And now you're complaining that they may be reprimanded for this and you may not get the full benefit of those criminal actions.
Oh, wah. My heart really bleeds for you.
The good thing about this being sent back is that when it goes through again, there won't be anything worthy of appeal.
I hope MS doesn't get broken up, I agree. I hope they get fines based on the percentage of their business that they unfairly stole from other companies. Simple 100% of the revenue from all the business they wouldn't have had, if they'd not forced competitors out of business with the monopolistic trade practices.
I have little sympathy though, for people who invest in mutual funds without investigating them. I won't invest in a fund which has stock in companies who I wouldn't invest in directly, and I wouldn't invest in companies whose business practices I don't condone. (Think Rambus and Microsoft, etc)
This country (and the world, though less) is getting too willing to say "Oh, I didn't know, it's not my fault." when they should have looked. If it takes a bunch of people losing their shirts over this, so be it. I'm sure they could make most of that back with a class-action lawsuit against the mutal fund, for investing in MS when this case was proceeding. It's the American way after-all. Don't accept responsibility, sue everyone who didn't protect you.
Ok, so the period was an accident.
Try to make a point relevant to my post while you pick on how I wrote it.
Sort of an ObRelevant, for the alt.hackers out there.
This would be a good idea, if it worked. However executives rarely get punished for their actions and ditto with companies.
Rambus drove their stock very high by illegally pursuing fraudulent patents. I don't see their officers being led off to prison, nor anyone in the business world saying that it's a likely outcome. Why not?
Ditto with MS. If you or I lied to a judge and deliberately fabricated evidence, we'd be behind bars immediately for at least six months. Why didn't Gates even get slapped for it? Or the people who, on his orders, knowingly faked a video 'proving' something.
Toss them in jail, and fine both companies HUGE ammounts (based on their take from the illegal actions, AND on reparations for the companies they've hurt.)
Until this kind of action is common, chances are that anyone who buys stock in a company like MS is endorsing their behaviour. If you do enough research to justify a stock purchase, their illegal activities are fairly obvious.
While I feel, on a personal level, for your loss of money, and I understand how that hurts the retirement date... I don't think you should do anything unethical to make more money, or by supporting the wrong people, do anything unethical by proxy.
Now, you did nothing directly to aid MS, but your purchase of their stock, along with many other people, is what drove the price up. People were willing to pay it. Had you not been, and others like you, not been, the price would have been low.
A high stock price *is* in MS's favour, and on a personal level, helps the officers of the company because of their stock options.
I see many people who are fully aware of MS's crimes, and yet don't want them to be punished simply because they own stock. It's like voting for bread and circuses... It's eating away at the stability of society just so you get a slightly larger cut than anyone else.
Because of this, it makes me question the immunity of stockholders. I would consider making it a crime for people to invest in a company they know is breaking the law.
It might have a "chilling effect" on the markets, but the world would continue. People would still want their products, so companies would still make them. Their investors would just demand a lot more oversight so that they could prove they didn't know about any crimes the company had committed.
Oh, and I'd also have tossed Bill in jail for a year for perjury when he lied and had those falsified videos shown.
The long and short of it is that you decided that having more money was worth the ethical cost of supporting someone like BillG. I disagree.
No problem, I've had discussions with you before so I know you're not just a grammar nazi or anything. Not *just* at any rate. :)
I think fines need to be based on the damage done, and partly on the ability to pay.
There was a pollution case I was reading about where the company dumped semi-toxic waste because paying the fine was cheaper than paying for proper disposal.
That's insane, even my city is smart enough to make the cost of a crime more expensive than compliance with the law. (Driving with a non-hands free cellphone is fined at $150, because that was twice the cost of a hands-free kit when the law was passed.)
I think punishments also need to be scaled to someone's ability to pay. A rich person and a poor person both live the same lifespan (aproximately) and a year in jail hurts both the same way. But a $10k fine might be a year's savings to the poor person, but to the rich person it's a month's worth.
IMHO we should base these things on someone's wealth. A $10k fine for a person making $30k a year becomes a $1.5M fine for a person making $4.5M a year. (Basically, though it should take total assets into account, etc)
I do realize it'd be very hard to properly implement, but nobody ever said law was easy. It might take a ton of investigation to do properly, ditto with the fine based on the ill-gotten gains, but it'd start to make crime an unattractive proposition.
He didn't actually draft the law, or the final law, but he worked with the department that lobbied for what eventually became the DMCA.
And yeah, it basically would be high-treason. By destroying the public's trust in the judicial system, the country is significantly weakened.
It's like when people start questioning if their vote actually matters, when vote tampering could have won a close election.
I wouldn't actually recommend the death penalty for it, just life in jail. To me, it seems fair for a traitor who sells out their country for some money.
You're just a crackpot troll, but you're also completely wrong, so I'll smack you around for it...
Even if open source developers had anything to do with this, their writing free software, in a price sense, means that less people will pirate software because they have free alternatives.
And we know that pirated software is a LOSS for microsoft. For every copy of Office that someone copies, Microsoft basically has to burn $300.
So... Microsoft and the BSA should PAY Linus for every copy of Linux in use, because that's someone who isn't copying windows. And ditto with Star Office, there's someone who doesn't need to copy MS Office.
Open source developing would be very profitable if Microsoft would actually pay the people who keep it from losing money.
*Your* purchase, along with that of all other purchasers, is the reason that MS stock has any value at all. If you hadn't purchased, it'd be that tiny bit lower.
Supply and demand. Supply is fixed, you upped the demand, the price increased accordingly.
Now, you happened to do this at a really bad time, but, all else being equal, MS's stock price is higher (if only by a fraction of a cent) than it would have been without you.
You don't really seem to care what you profit from though, so I'm not upset that you bought as it plummeted. Almost makes me believe in karma.
Of yeah, keep saying that MS's actions don't affect your stock price.
You *directly* profit from MS's actions, because public perception of the stock price is (usually) based on the actions of Bill and friends.
If it weren't, you wouldn't care what the court did to Billy boy. But, you seem to mind, so... maybe it does matter?
I'm not saying you're directly responsible to their actions, but by supporting them, you and people like you, are driving up their stock price, rewarding them by increasing the value of their stock options.
Most MS stockholders I've talked to have wanted all the charges against MS dropped, even as they've acknowledged their validity, because it hurts their precious stock price. That's a perfect example of selling out the rest of humanity just so you benefit, regardless of the kind of scum you're supporting.
Sorry, but I'd rather support all the companies MS crushed along the way with their unfair trade practices, insane lawsuits, and "piracy" raids, than to support MS themselves. But maybe if you rationalize it enough, you don't even see this anymore.
Well, that's what it is. If you follow the law and someone else doesn't, they've got the advantage. So you take them to court... They punish them for their law-breaking, AND make them follow the same rules as anyone else.
Everyone loses if this crooked company wins, because nobody will be able to beat them without being crooked, and they'll end up with a monopoly and be ruthless about enforcing it.
Much like a big software company we're all familiar with.
Sure there is. Just no flat fee that will affect them.
Let's take the Dr. Dos case as an example. Let's say that they increased their immediate market share by 5% by converting DrDos users. Then, they prevented more from switching by continuing this sort of thing. Figure out from similar markets, how much of their user base they gained only by unfairly eliminating the competition.
So, fine them n% of their earnings from their OS.
Then do the same with Office, etc. See how many people use Office because MS tweaked the OS to hurt competitors. Then see how many people use Office because Microsoft removed OS competitors (and thus the office suites that ran on those other OSes).
Fine Microsoft n% of their office-suit sales.
Etc.
It wouldn't kill them, but a fine based on their ill-gotten gains would be a great punishment. It'd not only hurt them, but it'd be a great incentive for other companies to play fair.
It'd also be a HUGE slap to all the assholes who own MS stock and support them, not because they're right, but simply because it's the best thing for their stock portfolio. I'd *LOVE* to remove immunity, for people who knowingly invest in a company involved in illegal actions.
(Man, just consider the Rambus investors, especially the ones who invested a year ago, when they announced their plans and it was public knowledge how they got their patents... those people deserve a bit of jail time along with the officers of the company, the lawyers advising them, and the employees putting this into effect.)
Nope.
I can't point to anything to prove it, but they've done this in many ways. They tweaked Windows 3.x to not run on DR-DOS (Thanks Ethereal for the nitpick).
They broke Lotus Notes in NT4 SP6.
They added delay loops in MS Office for the Mac to prove that Windows was a better OS (See, it runs Office faster).
The deliberate changes to sabotage a competitor are fairly common knowledge. Check google.
Which of the two companies gets:
Xbox
WinCE
WinXP
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Who gets Xbox, and the hardware (mice, keyboards, game controllers, etc)?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Or the lower court may decide that the Findings of Fact do not support judgement of liability at all.
Or the New & Improved DOJ (tm) may decide that they don't want to punish MS after all. Weren't Microsoft doing all they could to gain time during the antitrust trial hoping that something like this would happen?
deus does not exist but if he does
Microsoft today announced a new version of Office XP designed specifically for use within the court system. It includes a new feature known as "SmartJudgements" (tm), which picks up on keywords in a document (e.g. 'Microsoft') and changes the text around it to match pre-set templates. A spokesman for Microsoft was heard muttering something about embracing and extending before then announcing "All Your Judge Are Belong To Us".
:)
OK, OK, so it's (-1, Boring)...
deus does not exist but if he does
Back when there were viable alternatives, Microsoft wasn't a monopoly (almost by definition). What, exactly, would the Justice have pursued? Bill Gates' bad taste in neckties?
Maybe the fact that OEMs had to pay Microsoft a flat fee for every CPU they shipped, whether or not a copy of Windows was provided with it? This (& DOS before it) had been going on for quite a few years before that, and was one of the reasons OS/2 didn't take off. Sounds like abuse of the monopoly to me... and they did have an effective monopoly of the desktop OS market back then, even with DOS and Win 3.1.
deus does not exist but if he does
DOJ can let microsoft go, but there are co-plaintiffs! The states.
:)
Would that mean that the remedy had to be specific to MS's activities in those states alone? That could be difficult and confusing. Which reminds me, other countries need to jump on the bandwagon and start sueing MS in their local court systems on similar charges... maybe if all of the helicopters attack King Kong from different angles at the same time, we can win
deus does not exist but if he does
I'm sure it's been said before, but of the various united states who joined this case (19 or so, weren't there?), how many use and continue to buy Microsoft software?
Couldn't they make a statement by shifting to a different platform?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
But it still opens up MS to civil lawsuits that are very hard to defend against. The plaintiffs can point to this ruling as proof that MS in fact violated the Sherman Act. I believe that it also has an effect on the size of damages awarded.
And $30 billion+ in cash is a powerful draw for litigation. I'd suspect that at least a few lawsuits result from this decision. I don't like how much litigation there is these days, but if it's going to happen it couldn't happen to a better company. :-)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Now watch IBM grow.
Come on. Little competitive shit like this most definitely IS a problem when a large segment of an industry looks at your 'road map' for what to do next. The point is not that this behavior is illegal or that it violates the anti-trust act. The point is that it is a tactic, and it is a tactic they're using now. It is a tactic that has served Microsoft very well. I picked one example of this tactic off the top of my head. If you want the full list, read a history book that's not written by Bill Gates.
I reiterate. By the time this case finishes, MS won't care about the outcome. They'll pay the measly $100M(US) fine and won't even blink at it. It'll be written off as cost of doing business. Meanwhile, they will have moved on to bigger fish, control of the Internet. They want a piece of every monetary transaction that occurs across the net. In a couple of years (after the bigger fish is netted), they will throw the desktop market to Linux zealots like yesterday's gnawed bone.
But first they have to net the big fish, and for that they need to keep the desktop locked up just a little longer. Endless circles of appeals serve to do just that.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Several people have correctly stated that the ruling was vacated versus being overturned. While this is true, it matters little.
.NET servers in order to even register to vote.
...uhh, Mr. Jackson, sir. You're retiring in a few years, right? Government service hasn't been all that lucrative for you. I'm not asking for you to throw the case. I'm just asking for you to say a couple things that would cast a shadow on the decision.
Microsoft has always played delaying tactics while they bring other guns into play. For instance, when OS/2v4 shipped with voice recognition software, MS execs went on record as saying that it was just a toy and not ready for the real world (despite others and myself doing a lot of useful work with it). Meanwhile, they are investing boat loads of money into voice recognition software.
Gates has simply taken a page from Kirk's play book. If you can't win under the rules, change the rules.
The ruling has been vacated. How long will it take for another judge to be selected? How long until that judge has reviewed all the documents and issued a ruling? How long before that ruling takes effect? YEARS!! And by the time it's played out, Microsoft won't care because we'll all have been long since forced into paying them to authenticate our Internet accounts through their
I can see the seen on that yacht last year like it was yesterday:
Gates: Look, Thomas, I mean,
Jackson: I will not have you get away scott free, Gates.
Gates:You know we're guilty. We know we're guilty. Hell, everybody knows we're guilty. Your finding of facts were rock solid. There is no way we're going to win this case. All we're asking you to do is make a couple comments so that the Appeals Court will have the case reviewed a little longer. We're trying to get out of the OS business. That should make you happy. We just need a little more time...
Jackson stares at the floor, deep in thought...
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Criminal law is one thing which makes a nonsense of the idea of corporates as "people". A real person would await trial either or in prison or subject to bail, they would have to bring their entirity to court too.
But for a large corporation they can just carry on as usual. A real person couldn't do this, even a moderatly sized business...
So what is the solution; strip corporates of "person status"; halt their operations and freeze their assets as soon as charges are filed; charge Microsoft instead under RICO; etc?
I wouldn't go that far.
We bring the whole person into trial for practical, not punitive reasons; if you bring a partial person to the courthouse, said person isn't likely to be in any shape to testify.
The idea of shutting down a corporation because charges are brought against them is incredibly dangerous. This means that almost anybody with a good lawyer could bring a company to a screeching halt.
Once a corporation is convicted, however, the story changes. I suggest that we have a corporate death penalty (though I oppose the human death penalty); when a corporation is behaving in a sufficiently criminal manner, courts should be able to shut the company down, selling off its assets to pay back the stockholders.
--The basis of all love is respect
Among other things, this talks about the Freedom to Innovate Network. They describe this as a non-partisan, grassroots foundation that they started.
Will somebody explain to me how a multi-billion-dollar corporation can form its own grassroots movement?
--The basis of all love is respect
You can't open source the windows source code without compensating MS. How many billions do you want the taxpayers to shell out to effect this remedy?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
And how are you going to determine how big that fine is? How long would they have been able to carry their codebase? Going from the original NT to XP you have at least 10+ years of develpoment. Are you going to say they have to give up a decade of profits? How about 30 years? That's how long Unix has been evolving. So let's see, you are going to effectively steal their product and then fine them 30 years worth of revenue to open their codebase for free. Even me being a huge liberal who voted for Nader sees this as beyond extreme.
When they broke up AT&T they did not hijack their lines. As competitors entered the market AT&T was able to lease those lines for years while competitors added their own lines. The same holds true here.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
A monopoly -can- exist when other companies are in the same field. A monopoly exists when a company is able to act like it is the only company in the field. And Microsoft does. An example of this, oddly enough is Copyprotection. As long as competition existed for office applications everybody dropped copyprotection. Now that competition basicly doesn't exist for Office Applications Microsoft is adding copyprotection.
(Lotus was a long holdout, but even they caved in at some point and dropped their copyprotection.)
Hopefully now they will give more consideration to implementing some of the measures outlined here ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust. html ) -- more similar to IBM's punishment for unfair practices than to the Bell System's (breakup).
Unfortunately the essential.org article (which was *VERY* good, as good as the Stallman article itself) is no longer there, the staff is working on tracking it down again.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Checks and balances are all well and good...
Until you realize that the US Government is a litigant in the case. The DOJ is the plaintiff in this case, and the DOJ is part of which branch?
<church lady>
Could it be EXECUTIVE?
</church lady>
Sure, "W" couldn't poke his nose into a case between IBM and Microsoft, but as the plaintiff, the government can decide to forego prosecution any time they want to. If not in fact, then in spirit for certain.
I assume that this won't happen in part because of the consolidation with the 29(?) States' cases, but as they say... I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong on that count.
In other news, the US government announced that in the future it would be making documents available in Word XP format and will be requiring Passport accounts for access.
Given that Microsoft has been affirmed to hold a monopoly for O/S on x86, a possible remedy to the 'tying problem' would be to prevent them integrating into the O/S any functionality for which there exists similar products from other parties. They can still develop, market and even supply the software with the OS, but it must be possible to completely remove or replace the software without affecting the operation of the rest of the system. For example, they would not be able to 'integrate' WMP into the OS, given the existance of Realplayer et al. Any truly innovative product they develop they can do what they like with, but if there is already a standalone product out there, it must remain a separate application.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
OK, folks, I know you're all just jumping to flame George W. Bush and any other right-wingers you can find, but slow down a second.
.NET and their new licensing system, and a ban on the embrace-and-extend strategy.
What really happened is that the appeals court says that the original judge gave the impression he was biased against Microsoft, due to the nasty remarks he made about the company and the secret press conferences he held. The appeals court then overturned the sentencing portion of the verdict, and remanded the case to a different judge, to craft a new sentence. Nobody's saying Microsoft isn't guilty, they just want a judge who's not biased to sentence MS.
If you remember some of the comments Judge Thomas Jackson made about MS, you'll probably agree he was about as biased against MS as the average Slashdotter. As much as we may think that he was biased "the right way", a judge is supposed to be unbiased, and to allow otherwise is to corrupt the judicial system. This is justice being done (slowly), even if we don't like all the steps along the way.
Besides, who here thinks that just splitting MS in half is the best remedy? Each half will just be as bad as before... I'd much rather see carefully tailored prohibitions against some of the nastier anti-competitive elements of
Maybe you think splitting MS is suitable "punishment". But who does it punish? Microsoft itself is a name and some legal documents, and can't feel pain or unhappiness. The executives won't mind, because, with a split, there will be twice as many positions, and all but the most senior execs will probably get promoted. Does Bill Gates care? It would probably hurt his pride a little (about as much as a cream pie in the face), but it's not like he'll end up homeless on the street. Shareholders might get burned. Before you get excited, remember that your grandmother's pension (or yours, or your teachers') may be heavily invested in MS, without their knowledge. Burning MS might also send the tech economy even farther down the toilet. How many more of you want to be unemployed?
Seriously, folks, this is probably just justice being done (very) slowly and carefully, and it's probably for the best, even if it means we don't get the satisfaction of seeing MS split in two.
Somebody is going to mod me down as a troll, because they think that no person in their right mind could be anything but foaming-at-the-mouth anti-MS. Before you do, ask yourself, what contributes more to a debate, a hundred people agreeing with each other, or rational disagreement?
Beware the news you hear on NPR about this sort of thing. Listening to NPR's Marketplace this evening, I heard them say that many of M$' competitors fell sharply because of the court's ruling, "including Linux, which fell 20% today."
Of course, they meant VA Linux. And there are many other reasons for LNUX's downturn.
It was odd hearing Linux referred to as a company.
Funny for a Slashdot post to be critical of someone bashing Microsoft!
But I agree with you; he should have known better.
I found this bit of the AP article quite ironic ...
Since Bush took office in January, more than seven months after Penfield's breakup order, he has given no indication of how he would handle the mammoth suit he inherited from President Clinton
except to say that he is, in general, ``unsympathetic'' to lawsuits.
Fleischer underlined that point Thursday: ``The president believes people should work hard to enter into agreements and the president believes there's too much litigation in our society, generally speaking.''
I started to laugh, but was overwhelmed by anger or rightous indignation or something.
- bridgette
No, that would be like the bank robber robbing more bank's while he's out on bail.
Except that (accused) bank robber would actually be subject to bail conditions. If they broke them they could be carted off to prison.
AFAIK nothing similar. e.g. release a new version of Windows or attempt to tranfer assets out of the country and all your company belongs to "Uncle Sam", ever applied to Microsoft.
Corporations are artificial citizens. Who would you levy a criminal judgement upon? The CEO? The whole board? All of the stockholders?
Odd that this should only be a problem when it comes to punishing them, but not a problem when it comes to allowing them to have the same rights as real people...
If it's possible to give them rights then it must be possible to "jail", "bail" and "execute" a corporate. Indeed the latter is probably the easiest.
Corporations can be and regularly are tried on criminal charges and assessed criminal penalties (usually fines).
But they are not placed in jails, bail bonded, forced to attend court with 100% of themselves in the court, prohibited from going to certain places/enguaging in certain actions, forced to do work to help the public, forced to attend some kind of treatment, etc.
I'm sure many regular criminals would love to be able to continue comitting crimes and simply send their lawyer to court...
Funny - I remember reading or hearing about how when IBM got a subponea to turn over all of its documents, they indexed all of the documents to tape - and then destroyed the table of contents. Thus, the documents were present, but there was no master index on the tape!
That appears to be half the problem, corporates can drag out trials with the sort of thing which would get a real person jailed for contempt of court.
Jackson's problems stemmed, at least in part, from his inability to trust MSFT after they were caught lying in court (eg, the faked video tape).
IMHO the real problem is that even after doing this MSFT were treated as though they should have been trusted
Is there any word of trials of perjury against those responsible for lying in court (such as those that filmed the faked videotape)?
Except that this isn't actually "purjury", at best it's "contempt of court" at worst "conspiring to pervert the course of justice".
You can't open source the windows source code without compensating MS. How many billions do you want the taxpayers to shell out to effect this remedy?
You don't have to give them anything, just reduce the fine by 1%.
There will probably be a retrial just as was commanded by the Appeals Court, and a judge who is a little more level-headed than Jackson.
If there is a retrial Microsoft will again enguage in contempt of court and try the same appeal. Until they either run out of judges or the appeal court wises up.
A judge is supposed to decide the merits of a case (or an appeal) based on the evidence presented by the attorneys of the two sides, not by their own observations of the case.
And when one side gets court presenting forged "evidence"?
Yet, in this case, the judge was specifically payed to help draft a law, then he's called on by his old bosses to help in enforcing that law. And that's not bias?
That should be treason. I think actions like that should get him removed from the bench and bisbarred.
If he was involved and drafting the law then it would be high treason. Where the traditional penalty is execution.
Basically to top it off close to %80 of all internet users support microsoft which is supprisingly higher then the national public.
How did they do this poll? Web pages have been "ballot stuffed" before...
Name me one area in which microsoft has led the way, and no, software bloat doesnt count.
:)
Egomaniac naming of desktop components, "My Computer", "My Documents", "My Music", "My Network Places"...
Hell, they didnt even come up widos, they just bought out a company and added their own stuff.
Some people just don't realise how accurate an analogy The Borg are
"embrace and extend" is not a leadership philosphy, you would only use it as a strategy when you were falling behind, and needed to stop your slide, which is why MS uses it so frequently
But if you are already on top it can be an effective way to stay there. Anything else has to be better than Microsoft's offering before it is even likely to get a look in in the current situation.
Again, "we" are not "taking care of" Microsoft. Microsoft has power over the market and skill at manipulating any threats to that power out of business
Long before they can be "threatening", unless their first attempt were to be something which could do everything Microsoft stuff could do and more.
The only kind of things which stand any chance of being any kind of challenge to Microsoft, through a development and improvment cycle, are those protected by something like the GPL.
Proprietary software can be either killed off or asymilated, BSD licenced software can also be asymilated.
to the point where the normal apparatus of capitalism is no longer in any sense functioning, the resources needed to establish a second consumer operating system are controlled wholly by microsoft, and there is no way to return the market to a capitalistic competitive state short of some form of governmental intervention.
Also the longer this takes the more drastic any such action (and it's immediate effect) needs to be in order to have any effect at all.
Either that or you reach a point where any "treatment" is just as lethal as the "disease".
WP is the standard word processor for lawyers. Has been for years. They have (or had) special add on packs for lawyers. It used to be, back in the DOS days, that only WP could do the special characters used by lawyers.
Also IIRC certain kinds of word count (ignoring notes and certail annotations) are needed for legal documents which WP can do, but MSWord can't.
So basically the appeal court agrees that MS is the largest criminal organisation the world has ever seen but it refuses to punish it.
You probably mean largest non governmental such organisation.
Exactly -- they're still guilty. Its only the penalty of being broken up that was overruled.
The problem is that to a corporate entity it dosn't matter if they are tried, it dosn't matter if they are found guilty, it dosn't matter even if a sentence is passed. The only thing which matters is for any sentence to be carried out.
Criminal law is one thing which makes a nonsense of the idea of corporates as "people". A real person would await trial either or in prison or subject to bail, they would have to bring their entirity to court too.
But for a large corporation they can just carry on as usual. A real person couldn't do this, even a moderatly sized business...
So what is the solution; strip corporates of "person status"; halt their operations and freeze their assets as soon as charges are filed; charge Microsoft instead under RICO; etc?
Its just illegal to abuse it. So yes, you should care because they matter. The DOJ was real stupid not to go after the OEM deals. But no OEM for some odd reason wanted to testify agaisn't them. Hmm I wonder why.
The whole OEM thing is basically the kind of racket organised crime would love to have.
A legitimate business would say "you can buy our widgets at X amount each, if you buy a lot or buy regularly then the price goes down" (The reason doing that the latter situation means that the suppliers costs are actually less.) It would become a dodgy deal if supplier were to start saying "The price is X if you only buy widgets from us, otherwise the price is Y" or the supplier starts telling you what you can and can't do with them once you bought them. (The MS OEM agreements probably also contain a "if we catch you talking to the cops we cut off the supply" clause.)
The thing with software is that it's not actually a "widget", but suppliers like to sell it as though it is one (the actual cost being very low, especially if it's the OEMs who are printing manuals and pressing CDs.) Whilst at the same time claiming to sell some kind of abstract entity (generally immune to laws governing trade.) You also get things which on analysis are utterly bizare, such as Client Access Licences. Not even the "running a program is copying, therefore copyright applies" kind of logic makes any sense here.
Yes, they try to make money. Yes, they try to gain market share. But THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO in a free market!
If you have a company which breaks the law they will always appear to do better then honest businesses. If they are not weeded out PDQ then you cease to have a free market.
--
The lower court (not Thomas Penfield Jackson) may decide that MS should be broken up anyways.
Or the lower court may decide that the Findings of Fact do not support judgement of liability at all.
absolutely correct at to monopolizing, but not as to tying, which was remanded for finding in view of the new rule.
DOJ can let microsoft go, but there are co-plaintiffs! The states.
Aren't most of the crimes against other corporation entities? If you are saying that technology would be further along without a Windows monopoly, could we sue corporations for not researching enough or for making stupid decisions?
-Synoptic
I see no proof of innovation in any sense. You know, getting the king to grant you the exclusive right to conduct your form of business and murdering the competition are also good old-fashioned business tactics. Are you recommending those tactics, or are you just expressing a hatred for capitalism?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Right there, you lose half your argument. Moving on, we see you say that:
... The problem is you're assuming that Microsoft is the arbiter of what a contractual obligation consists of. Microsoft is not, and not even Microsoft's lawyers would claim to be. The only organization with any authority to determine what is or is not a contractual obligation is a court of law.
This means that Microsoft may very well have contractual obligations via their EULA. It's a well-established proposition of law that there is no contractual obligation which can withstand the scrutiny of consumer-protection legislation. If Microsoft says in their EULA that they have no liability whatsoever for their incredibly shoddy products, and a legislature decides that businesses are responsible for their shoddy products, well, guess what: that part of the EULA is null and void.
Does the EULA free Microsoft from having to provide technical support? Absolutely not. I'm willing to bet that if Microsoft released an incredibly shoddy product and refused to support it, a court would find that Microsoft was engaging in fraudulent business practices. Their disclaimer of "no warranty expressed or implied" wouldn't hold up worth a damn against a serious consumer-fraud case.
Now, it just so happens that antitrust law is soundly Constitutional; antitrust law rests squarely on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the ability to regulate trade among the states. Antitrust law is an interstate trade regulation, thus, Constitutional. A lot of free-marketers like to claim otherwise, but the Supreme Court hasn't been too kind to their attitudes.
"Taken as a whole, Rand's body of work is the most complete, thorough defense of human freedom I have ever encountered."
l it fr.htm
This song is basically what I think of Rand's "freedom".
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/songs/texts/cal
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
I'm not saying that everyone's provided for, but that when they aren't, there isn't any bullshit about "freedom." I'm no fan of the USSR, but to call Rand's ideas "freedom" is just too simplistic.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Linux is advancing fast and furious on Microsoft's turf, the desktop. Palm still dominates the PDA market. Microsoft isn't even on the map for the wireless market.
People are seeing the .NET initiative for what it is, Microsoft's way of controlling when and how you use their software.
Microsoft is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The small innovative companies MS has tried to crush, or buy, are rising up to the challenge, and beating Microsoft. Internet Explorer was Microsoft's last major hurrah, and that's just because they forced the entire company behind it. Can you see that happening with WinCE/Pocket PC? XBox? Wireless? Not bloody likely.
Microsoft rose from the ashes that was IBM's move into the PC market. Microsoft has become those ashes. They're no longer a leader, they're a follower. And Microsoft can't survive in 2nd place, their corporate structure doesn't know how to market and compete from other than a total dominating position.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Great piece, I almost submitted it as a story, but the /. editors don't post that sort of stuff. It's certainly worthy of its own thread.
Best Slashdot Co
WP is the standard word processor for lawyers. Has been for years. They have (or had) special add on packs for lawyers. It used to be, back in the DOS days, that only WP could do the special characters used by lawyers.
Best Slashdot Co
The best punishment would be a new sort of "community service". Microsoft should be forced to establish a trust of say 20B that will be distributed equally by the FSF (for free software) and the Software Publisher's Association (targeted for small business). With all of the Linux companies falling by the wayside, this would be great for the country and the industry as a whole.
/>
Could any lawyers out there please clear this up? Is this, or this not, a criminal case?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Female Prison Rape in NY
If the federal government agencies even threatened to bail from purchasing all microsoft software, they'd probably be able to pressure Microsoft into doing whatever they want them to do (or not do).
I feel little sorrow for people bitching about Microsoft yet continue to buy and use their software. How much does the federal government pay Microsoft each year in license fees anyway? Can you imagine if each federal agency went to computer makers and demanded "naked" PCs or lose the sale? Or if the federal government committed to buying Corel office products for example? It'd give enough cash boost to whatever Microsoft competitor that exists to make them a very viable competitor.
The court has decided to send the case back to a lower court to be reconsidered.
--
- We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality.
So do stock market investors not RTFA? MS's stock is up 5%. It doesn't seem like MS is that much better off.--
Back when there were viable alternatives, Microsoft wasn't a monopoly (almost by definition). What, exactly, would the Justice have pursued? Bill Gates' bad taste in neckties?
"We're breaking you up /now/ because in the future you will become a monopoly..."
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Various analysts - myself included - were not happy about the breakup anyway. It actually seemed to allow MS some extra potential for market stranglehold, and on balance - except for legal costs and stock price fluctuations - they would end up pretty much the same either way.
At least they are just one big monopoly that everyone can watch closely, as opposed to a few smaller monopolies in various markets.
They are doing themselves out of business anyway with the rules surrounding XP - all my corporate clients use Ghost for system backups Enterprise-wide and started getting worried when MS discussed unit-specific licensing, yearly software charges and similar issues, not to mention the appalling uptime you get even from an OS as supposedly solid as W2000. Quite a few of them are already rolling out Star Office, and some are seriously considering Linux as next upgrade (even one client with >4000 desktop users)
I use most major OSes for business reasons, and MS for games. It's just not robust/cost-effective/secure enough for today's world.
Not a troll/flamebait - the facts I get from corporations every day support my viewpoint.
Frog51
Yep. I'm all for capitalism, which includes free markets, and not for socialism, which features (government) controlled markets (using "market" loosely).
A market dominated by a single entity is not free.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Here's the sign:
The market goes wherever Microsoft wants it to. How could they keep people on their upgrade treadmill if there were "viable alternatives?"
And there are viable alternatives, as long as you never get locked into the Microsoft solution.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Mmmm... and they swim on land, too.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Windows XP is a great example - people are snapping that up - not because everyone else has it (they obviously dont, it just came out) but because they feel compelled for some reason to purchase it
WinXP is not available yet. But you illustrate the mentality I alluded to splendidly.
And I have no doubt that people feel "compelled" to purchase it.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
>
> So? Clinton appointed two complete and utter assclowns to head the DOE... look what happened in California.
Excuse me, Mr. AC. I represent the Assclown Anti-Defamation league. Your comment regarding Clinton's DOE appointees is a foul smear to assclowns the world over, and I call upon you to retract it at once!
Given to us by the Europeans...
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
Well, I'm not really sure about this... the way I see it, it doesn't need to treat its costumers well, just over the threshold (whatever it is) that will lead the consumers to change. Couple that with absence of competitors (or of significant competitors, or even of knowledge about significant competitors) and the barriers to change can be very high indeed.
In my view, (as is supposed to be the case in Europe) the government should step in whenever there is abuse of dominant position, iregardless of if the public has or not the alternative to unseat the dominant position - as we know, it is different to have an abstract right, and quite another to exercise that right.
Exactly, my thoughts and if you look at history when justice is not done in the courtroom its done on the streets, so the American courts have now given yet another reason for the Tim McVies and Osma Bin Ladins of the world, America is going the way of Rome before it, as a non American I feel very sorry for all the innocents who will be the victims today and tommorrow, goodbye America...
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
This is innaccurate. What they did was this: Beta versions of Win3.1 ran a DR-DOS detection routine; if the routine determined that it was running on a DR-DOS, a message box popped up that read "Non-fatal error detected" and gave the user the option to continue the installation or quit. This was removed from the release version of Windows 3.1. It's still crummy behavior, but it's a good bit different than "[tweaking] Windows 3.x to not run on DR-DOS".
...and what's more, this is the court that is usually favourable towards MS...
Why do you assume Bush is that dumb? He knows more about the US than you think
I' getting sick of this. Gore wasn't and still isn't the magic cure-all for the MS blues. Gore has said many times that he prides MS for being an innovative American company. He spurns free macs for windows. Gore was also receiveing soft money from MS too. So stop putting down Bush on this. Perhaps the judges want re-election, but Bush hasn't even looked their way, so don't start pointing fingers at him, just for having the job.
Nepotism only goes as far as state governor. Presidency requires the power of voting citizens. Bush Senior had very little to do with that.
Cancers? Why do you think the US has deserted islands to bomb? Oh, that's right, protestors don't want testing there. Now what? You tell me where to test. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Of course New mexico was a bad idea, and nobody deserved that.
Missing a point here. Do you really want 13,000 kids to have to go to a school at least a half hour bus ride away, when they live right by one? The only reason they had to be bused was because there would be unueven diversity in the schools if they went for the closest ones.
I think drilling is Bush's way of helping the poor, some people need lower gas prices, which accumulates to several hundred dollars in savings a year, for rich and poor.
Or, you;re so concerned, you buy a new electric car, contributing to the brownouts nationwide. Remember, Clinton hired the idiot DOE goons.
You're talking pure socialism.
Socialist policies and laws in the US, the New Deal, the Great Society, have been beneficial.
As long as the US is not pure capitalist, and not pure socialist, we're OK.
No, MS does not control the 'Net, but they can use their leverage to start making IE-only sites, using closed standards, and Smart tags.
My Mac is a MS-free zone. But now I can't get some of the web sites, not to mention E-books, free 'Net phone calls, some commercial apps.
MS doesn't have Control, but enough to make the mejority leverage, which is painful for the minority.
They're still a monopoly. They're still an illegal monopoly. The ONLY question is what to do about it.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The court seems to be directly expressing concern of the effectiveness of either conduct remedies, or structural remedies in such a rapidly changing market. I wonder if the new judge reviewing the case will look at this, and interpret it as, "Hey, find a solution that really does prevent Microsoft from continuing to be a monopoly."
One can hope!
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Judge: Let's break up the biggest consumer technology producing company in the economy. Don't broadcast this until after I issue my order and pretend appeals don't matter.
Economy: Okay, let's watch the stock market that high-tech stuff has been driving crash and burn immediately, starting today.
Appeals Court: Sorry, can't ignore the law and make your own rules judge. We'll have to send it back to someone less self-promoting at the law's expense.
Economy: Well, we'll start off with a big rally... [to be continued...]
Now what that says to me is that simply put, the punishment no longer fits the crime. I believe this isn't as big a victory for Microsoft as it originally seemed after seeing the headlines. Look for a more fitting punishment to follow seeing how an Operating Systems company and an Applications company could still control the marketplace in much the same way as it is now. (It could also mean they get off scot free, but I thought I'd look for that silver lining.)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Can someone (who really knows) explain to me about what legally constitutes bias by judges?
I understand that before or during the trial if the judge says, "Damn that OJ is as guilty as hell," that that would indicate he has already made a decision before all the evidence is in.
But from what I read, the MS judge first made his findings of fact and law showing that MS is a dirty, cheating, soulless, money grubbing whore, and then in an interview later said that MS was a dirty, cheating, soulless, money grubbing whore.
Are you not allowed to say stuff like this out loud as a judge ever, or did I miss a statement he made before the trial, or did he say something different in the interveiw than what he has said in court?
Thanks
- I like pudding.
Okay, this is rapidly becoming tangential, but...
We could argue little bits and pieces of how the election did or did not go wrong for the next few weeks; conspiracies and legitimate claims abound. But it would miss my original point. The original poster was trying to claim that Bush's election was illegitimate solely because of Gore's higher popular vote count, or at least that's all he chose to say. I was pointing out the rather obvious: that he had an axe to grind and that was why he chose to blame Bush for his particular problem-of-the-day in the first place.
Ouch, I don't like that line of thinking.
I'd like to believe that we take court actions for wrongdoing, not that we take court actions to "give other people a chance". That's a bit of judicial activism, if you ask me./p
Aha! You're one of those bitter people who doesn't like the electoral college when it doesn't support their candidate of choice. Your motivation is coming into focus.
Give us all a break, and a little credit, eh? The decision was entirely proper given Jackson's impropriety or appearance thereof. Your attempt to villify a man you clearly hate by blaming him for something he did not accomplish is pathetic, at best.
The fire and brimstone you want to rain down on us here is really an incredibly small thing compared to sitting idly by when judges don't do their job correctly, like Jackson did not when he acted with impropriety. A justice system we can trust is much more important.
So I can blame any bad judicial decision in 1992-2000 on Clinton? Cool, because there were a lot of rather activist decisions in those times that (I feel) had nothing to do with justice; now I have a scapegoat. (Hey, it's the childish/ignorant way!) It's a lot easier to blame a figurehead, isn't it?
So enlighten me. How, precisely, does the executive branch of the US government overturn a case? I don't know about you, but I read "Appeals Court" in the summary, which is probably still judges left over from the Clinton presidency.
Having waded through the decision itself, I don't understand this interpretation. The appeals court agreed that (a) the facts were as Judge Jackson presented them, (b) MS is a monopoly, (c) the deals with OEMs, ISPs, and ISVs threatening their access to Windows unless they dropped Navigator were illegal, (d) the deal with Apple was illegal, (e) almost the whole Java thing was illegal, and (f) code mingling (applications and Windows) is illegal. The part about MS bundling IE with Windows (just as an application) and the breakup remedy were remanded. They're still guilty, just not of quite so many things. The chances of getting the guilty verdict overturned would now seem to be remote.
If I were MS, I would be almost as afraid of procedural remedies for that list of activities as an actual breakup. WinXP is clearly illegal due to code mingling, how much time and money will they lose fixing that? Will they have to go back and fix everything since Win98? MS is still likely going to have to implement procedures and audits and reports to the court or the DOJ for years to show that none of the illegal activities are going on. Having been through the AT&T breakup back in the '80's, those kind of procedures take up a lot of corporate resources.
Plus, violating procedural remedies tends to get you put in jail for contempt -- not one of the best recruiting tools around.
Not hypocrisy. As a judge, one of the things you must do is avoid even the appearance of impartiality. That's why the appeals court was so darned eager to hear the appeal, because Jackson violated one of the cardinal rules of being a judge. Here's the good news, straight from the decision. We defer to the District Court's findings of fact They agree with the conclusions, they disagree with his behavior! Hallelujah! It might take longer, but MS will still get nailed.
Da comrade. Those crazy americans spend their money on useless lawsuits - but we - the people of USSR know the truth: F73WT-WHD3J-CD4VR-2GWKD-T38YD
... and that capitalist pig bill gates won't be getting your hard worked money.
K4HVD-Q9TJ9-6CRX9-C9G68-RQ2D3
VD4WG-Y998T-3MGWX-GPW2Q-3QVC8
PYDMY-DVJ9J-996VH-JX66P-9TWKW
T98GF-R6C7Y-3MCV2-7C9DK-VC2F8
FQD88-4X7FK-9HV9K-Q28FF-T3JC3
XCD9W-HG96D-DM7H8-J9C6W-KTPGQ
W7XTC-2YWFB-K6BPT-GMHMV-B6FDY
MD97J-QC7R7-TQJGD-3V2WM-W7PVM
PRVR2-CMXTB-J9PXR-3WVM2-XTVK6
W2M79-W299R-39H6V-J3RWH-43YGJ
XJ3XX-YR4CJ-TQD6J-76QJR-GJMJB
--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
A proper remedy to the to the case: The Gov't can only use GPLed software, or software supplied with the source... But I guess that would take an act of congress. An act of God would be far more forthcoming then that, since it takes un-godly amounts of money (hmmm, just like MS has) to get legislation like that passed.
I can keep dreaming....
Oh, and Napser getting shut down is W's fault as well.
By this point, a Microsoft breakup probably wouldn't do a whole lot. If Microsofts monopololy is to be broken what is needed is to revoke some of software copyright law so they couldn't other companies could easily read/write the same format files.
WordPerfect 6 format?!?!?! What's up with that? Were they afraid to publish in Word format?!?!?!!?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
No. The lesson is that a biased judge should be smart enough not to constantly demonstrate it to the entire national media if he wants his rulings to be accepted.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
There's probably more evidence to suggest that the PRC funneled money into our previous President's coffers than there is that Mr. Gates and friends managed to influence Mr. Bush who then managed to subvert the Appeals Court.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Should it, 'tho? It's not like this radically changes the fundamentals such as a reduced demand for high-tech products (everything from PDAs to fibre optics to desktop computers... probably non-high-tech luxuries as well) and a generally slowing economy... perhaps there'll be a bump, but more from mob psych than economic theory.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yes. But you do need anti-trust, because competition is clearly NOT the most viable option for a company.
If you combine
1. Market domination by a few major players, and
2. Very high entry costs,
then my suspicion is that collusion, especially in the form of price-fixing, becomes the 'natural' thing to do if unregulated -- since the high entry cost proves to be such a barrier to any new competitiors trying to undercut them. And in that case, society is likely *not* served well.
For instance, suppose Intel were the only game in town. They could gouge people fairly readily, because it probably costs a lot of money for the research to develop a microprocessor (even if you're trying to start small, in a local market) and the chip fabrication facilities probably aren't cheap, either. There's no such thing as a "regional" car company for another example, because economically, it doesn't make that much sense. This means that for a new player to enter, they need a lot of resources at the start to break into a LARGE market against an established competitor.
Hence, some anti-trust is necessary. It does have to be administered fairly, however, and should not involve judges who apparently desire stardom and forgo any judicial propriety to attain such.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Most presidents don't submit last minute nominees in deference to their successors. Another example of a US political tradition that Clinton spat on.
DB
Ugh! ya got me. I omitted the use of the word "modern". It does sort of make sense. Clinton employed many of the corrupt practices of a century ago but weren't Democrat reformers the ones who pushed through civil service to get rid of this kind of spoils system BS?
So, what exactly was thrown out? Just the guilty verdict and the breakup order? Or was the whole trial, including the Findings of Fact, voided?
Q: And how many of those appeals courts judges did Bush appoint?
A: Zero
Now how about some rational commentary instead of pointless whining.
I screwed up in the first message and put an extra <p> at the end by accident, so it's taking up more space than usual.
does the text at least line up right on your browser? i've only checked out the sig on netscape, what browser are you using?
btw, i kind of like the sig (taken from figlet, of course, with some periods thrown in to keep the spacers). that was like the smallest font i could find that looked decent. .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
make world, not war
Jackson's problems stemmed, at least in part, from his inability to trust MSFT after they were caught lying in court (eg, the faked video tape). Is there any word of trials of perjury against those responsible for lying in court (such as those that filmed the faked videotape)? .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
make world, not war
In a way, a small part of me is somewhat glad that they won't be broken up anytime soon. Now, if/when Linux succeeds, people won't be able to say it was ONLY due to the breakup of the giant. At least the court trial gave us a few years where MSFT had to behave, so we could help spread the good word in a fairer playing field.
Besides, I think the breakup was the wrong punishment for MSFT's actions. I don't think it was painful enough.
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
make world, not war
I don't get it. It is no longer Capitalism with Microsoft. There is no competition. The only purpose for Microsoft is to gain POWER. Power means money to MS now, the logical thing now would be to go after as much power over individuals and governments as possible to maximise profits. What say MS now gets cosy with the NSA and the FBI, so they can get organised crime by monitoring .NET traffic (and monitor others for blackmail), or requires penalties for false information on Passport databases (after all the govt may be using your data) etc ... need to protect MS or plausible reasons could erode lots freedoms ... creepy.
If Microsoft, who I don't think are evil, gets to finally achieve what they want then the US will essentially be a socialist state ... well actually worse .. a police state. The control of information means the control of peoples beliefs and the power to manipulate the government. MS may not be evil, but an evil man at the head of Microsoft could do terrible things. There is still time. But it is so worrying that so many do not see this risk in the worlds greatest democracy.
And no I am not American. I like Americans. But I think in some things they display surprising stupidity. This is one.
Pete
Bitter and proud of it.
And to complete the cycle. Microsoft will BE the government. Sleep well :)
Bitter and proud of it.
Even better.. In the OS segment, seperate the 9x and NT codebases, and give a third the development tools instead of giving it to the applications group.
Two companies having to work with a third party for their development tools is a great way to ensure interoperability.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Hm. Maybe now they'll have to use the same standard when examining Judge Kaplan's behavior during the 2600 DeCSS case?
---
Now they can build hotels on Boardwalk.
Jason
Thanks for the reply. I was in a bit of a rush to post (had to get back to work from lunch). I noticed the upholding of both the FOF and COL in the brief.
It definitely is better news than most here are making it out to be.
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
This means that the Findings of Fact (the abuse of monopoly power) still stand, and the case is only subject to review in terms of penalty. The case is being turned over to another judge at the circuit level, and if that other judge reccommends that MS be broken up (more likely he would rec. a lesser penalty) the break-up may still come to pass.
This section essentially says that while Judge Jackson's statements showed a bias, the facts still show that MS broke the law. (It says a lot more, but essentially says that the facts are still there, and MS cannot dispute them).
Essentially what this biolds down to is that the Findings of Fact stand, but the Conclusions of Law (the breakup order) show evidence of judicial bias, and as such will be submitted to another judge to determine a new conclusion (ie: may issue a new breakup order, order release of code, pay a fine to gov't, etc.)
Hope this helps. While I'm not a lawyer yet, IP, antitrust, and constitutional law are in my field.
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
No, that would be like the bank robber robbing more bank's while he's out on bail.
Oh, and Algore would have been better? Give me a break.
I could come up with a list of thing I wouldn't have liked from a Gore administration, and I'd be just as upset as you are about Bush.
The neat thing is that neither your party or mine really gives a damn about us. All they really care about is taking more freedom from us and making the government more powerful, only from different directions and in different areas. But, its all bad.
Services First, Technology Second, People Third
"Microsoft doesn't care much about shared source or Smart Tags and we are wasting our time following their marketing trail. We need to focus on Microsoft's true goal, which is to completely dominate the internet services market. We should pay attention to how they are building a services infrastructure, not a technology infrastructure. We should figure out how they are going to use tools like Passport and Microsoft Messenger to control our personal information and various internet transactions."
How to Download YouTube Videos
...why you ask? Because of Linux. This is a good thing people!
And everybody that use M$ products deserves whats comming to them...they do have a choise, if they choose to run M$ on their servers i guess they like getting phonecalls in the middle of the night...:)
Does this verdict shed new light on Microsoft's hostility towards various open source licensing arrangements? Although this is breaking news to us, I'm sure the lawyers and corporate officers at Microsoft caught wind of this long ago. They might not have known how the court would rule, but they've certainly been clued into what was being considered.
/remedy/ is going to be reconsidered, then consider this: how would MS feel about being compelled to comply with OPEN STANDARDS? E.G. - perhaps force them to disclose protocols, binary document formats, etc.? I've always thought this would be a much more effective remedy than splitting them up. Force them to publish the specs for MS Word docs. Force them to tell Jeremy Allison everything they program into SMB. Etc.
/that/ is why Microsoft has recently been so hostile to certain types of licensing arrangements. They are /scared to death/ of any license that doesn't allow them to take things proprietary. Because that is now a possible remedy that could be used against them.
So if the
Maybe
Maybe today isn't as bad as I first thought when I saw the headlines.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Do you always rebut statements of fact with hypotheticals? Let me see how that works. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, the ambient level of logic on earth will rise. Hey, that's pretty cool. I'm clever enough to be a g**k.
The fact is Justice should have pursued this when it really mattered, back when 95 was coming onto the scene. Back when there were alternatives to Windows on the desktop.
Um, when Windows 95 was released, almost nobody was using Mosaic or Netscape or anything about the Internet. There was no standard TCP/IP stack for Windows, just a few good third party hacks.
I think you're confusing this case with the "One CPU, One EULA" cases that the OEMs were bringing to the courts. And even those didn't happen in a newsworthy way until 1997.
[
'natural gas', not natral gas or natrail gas.
'stopped', not stoped.
grammar much?
[
I was just thinking today about what would happen to the latest monopolistic moves by MS and whether a breakup would help, and in fact, it simply couldn't, because the applications half of the split-up company would be where the new monopoly power would lie.
In the case of the Standard Oil break-up, and AT&T, it was possible to do a geographicly based break-up, e.g. by regions of the US. But in the MS case, it would be pointless and meaningless to do a geographic break-up.
It may be time now to start thinking again about the open source solution. Wouldn't it be a good thing if just the OS side was made open source, since that is where the monopoly lies. Opening up the OS and making it GPL would get rid of the monopoly power. And then MS would have to compete on an equal footing with other applications writers - just as happened with most other operating systems.
city: Adelaide, South Australia
... and although another court will decide what remedy is necessary in this case, that other court could also decide Microsoft should be split up. It simply gives MS at not being split up, but in the end this appeal may have no effect.
Do domain names matter?
Besides, the economy isn't really THAT bad - product sales are still pretty high... except in our industry :-(
Yeah i know its bad to try to cash in on something caused my Microsoft (oh, i'm NOT investing in them though), but I have a good feeling about it!
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
Now, instead of using the "update:" convention, we have /. editing their articles as they notice the flaws popping up -- whatever happened to being honest and admitting to mistakes when they happen?
So just because it made the judicial system look bad, and despite the fact that they found no evidence of bias to support Microsoft's claims, they overturned the decision anyways in the interest of maintaining integrity in the judicial process?
Although the appeals court reversed the remedy, and some of the conclusions of law, they upheld the findings of fact (what happened) and some of the findings of law (i.e., Microsoft IS a monopoly, and did use predatory tactics).
What this means is that the essential facts of the case will be taken as a given by the new trial judge, who will presumably hold hearings on the remaining (remanded) findings of law and on the remedy. Hopefully, this judge will also decide to keep his mouth shut until after the case is completely and totally finished...
It was Judge Jackson who originally ruled that the inclusion of IE with W98 was "illegal tying", and the 3rd Circuit that overturned that decision, saying that companies must be left free to innovate. In return, Judge Jackson mocked that decision in some of his interviews with the press - and also addressed it specifically in the last set of rulings.
Everyone knew then that, given the history, this appeal would be subtitled "Payback Time for Judge J". By taking this approach, the Appeals Court can embarrass him without actually overturning the whole legal process (which is actually proceeding in a rather orderly fashion, imho).
-Renard
lookout for riots and looting on the streets of San Jose and Austin tonight.
They did the right thing, this case was destine to fail from the beginning. They tried to make it on IE and what is an operating system. Do you really what politicians and judges to define what technology is or isn't. You what them to say a web server shouldn't be part of a kernel like TUX is? I don't think so.
Is MS guilty in terms of how they have conducted business. Sure, and if that is all the case had been about it probably would be a done deal and not dragging on. Also they didn't look at how MS has handled lawsuits and other issues in the past. They drag them out till they don't matter any more or they have adjusted their course as necessary. By the time this case is truly over, it won't mean a thing.
If the sentance was thrown out and appealed because Judge Jackson showed impariality and bias, couldn't the opposite be said? If a new judge is to determine MS's final ruling, wouldn't they be biased if they themselves, or any part of the court used Windows? Wouldn't it show that they are part of their customer base, and perhaps more likely to give a lesser sentance? Doesn't the opposite of what actually happened, actually apply here? So if the new judge/court handling the case uses Windows regularly, the actual product in question, would that fall under biasedness or partiality?
FLR
Wrong. The appearance of bias merely lead to Jackson being disqualified from re-hearing the case.
It was the remedy being vacated, not the "findings of fact"; they stand, but have been reinterpreted.
The remedy was killed for many reasons... mostly lack of an evidentiary hearing, and lack of a logical causal relationship showing how the remedy would stop the practices (as far as the limited technical understanding of these judges could see).
Most of the appellate courts problems with the "findings of fact" were minor, with two exceptions:
1) The appellate judges did not find evidence submitted in the trail that lead to Jackson's conclusion that IE prohibits entry into the browser market (from page 63):
During the appeal, the judges brow-beat the DOJ attorney concerning why Jackson would refer to both the OS and the browser as a "platform". The DOJ attorney just stared and stuttered. What an idiot!I really wanted to answer the question for him: like an OS executes programs, a browser renders web content; the dominant browser will have web content tailored to it's idiosyncrasies, causing standards to become obscure and proprietary, leaving competing browsers "chasing the tail" of the dominant browser, trying to emulate it's idiosyncrasies perfectly and follow the changing idiosyncrasies with every update of the browser. At this point in the ubiquity of IE, if Microsoft comes out with a patch or IE revision that causes web pages to not be rendered properly, everyone will remake their pages to conform, and every competing browser must change it's rendering procedures to follow the idiosyncrasy -- the same way MS kept DRDOS from ever being compliant with DOS.
For evidence, look at all the comments by ASP's in slashdot articles that have claimed that it's too cumbersome to maintain web pages that work for both Netscape and IE... and they just test for IE compatibility because of it's ubiquity. For further evidence, try different browsers that are trying to emulate IE: for example, at my Fidelity Investments web account, there are certain pages (news, graphs) that will not even allow my browser to try to render -- even if the browser impersonates IE but says the OS is Linux (as Opera will do), you get an error message instead that says to "upgrade to IE for Windows". I have many email responses from Fidelity Investments saying that they only support IE for Windows and MAC and will disallow any browser from even trying to render certain content.
The judges go on to say that the browser wars can no longer be used to prove anti-trust behavior (page 100, page 59 also explains this):
2) The appellate judges did not find conclusive evidence that "tying" was ultimately helpful or harmful to the market (Page 85, following a long diatribe of cases where tying was helpful and other cases where tying was harmful): This is followed by carefully laid-out merits that must be achieved to prove "tying" was detrimental to the market.There were other minor logic "flaws" that were found... along the lines of lack of evidence to backup a logical argument... as in if a,b,c,d, then e... the appellate court found cases where some point had not been part of the evidence given in the case. For example, Jackson said something along the lines of "along with all the commonly acknowledged instances of this behavior"... where the appellate judges said those commonly known instances weren't part of the record so couldn't be part of the conclusion.
The judges said that "every OS bundles a browser" as a reason to allow Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows. They also stated that the anti-competative behavior was entirely in business arrangements, and not proven to be embedded in the technology. They apparently do not understand the role of API's and special hooks into the OS that only MS is privy, as laid out in the "findings of fact".
In the entire 125 page document, there are only 6 paragraphs that use the term "API"; and none of those paragraphs show a good understanding of what Judge Jackson was talking about in the "findings of fact" concerning Microsoft's use of API's (and special proprietary hooks into the OS for the advantage of their own applications) in blocking competition. For example, IE was able to make a web page a users background -- that wasn't in a defined API, and it immediately gave Microsoft a clear "gee whiz" advantage over all other browsers.
"The appearance of bias" is a ruse. My opinion from reading the document is that the appellate judges don't like Jackson, had a score to settle, and were waiting for a reason to punish him with public humiliation. He erred, but not as badly as they made it seem.
I think they are intimidated by Jackson's grasp of the technical issues, that they can't begin to comprehend. They need more evidence for what was "obvious" to Jackson and other technically competent folk.
They also seem quite adamant that Microsoft needs protection. The remedy should not punish or hurt Microsoft, only allow future competition. These judges truly don't understand the problem, and have just let Microsoft off with murder (the millions of programmer lifetimes wasted trying to compete with Microsoft).
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Windows is number one because Microsoft knows marketing. OS/2 had the juggernaut of IBM behind it, which was a much bigger company than MS at the time and still couldn't topple them. How is fragmented Linux supposed to touch Microsoft? Their Linux is viral campaign seems to be working pretty well if you ask me. Face it, it's not about the product, it's about the marketing. People eat at McDonald's even though their food is crap. Microsoft has won.
Your legal argument is well-founded, but entirely misses the point.
The US Constitution, and the US Government, exists to serve the needs of "we, the people", not to further the aims of large corporates or a tiny minority of the very rich.
You claim that Anti-trust laws seek to punish success. Fine, I'm not arguing. What they exist to do is to defend the mass of the people, and if that includes defending them from someone extremely successful, then they should still continue this defence, even if that leads to an attack on that very success itself.
Anti-trust laws are not an attack on success per se, but they should never hesitate to be one, if that's what is required of them.
I can just see Gates smug little smile, doing a little tennis-clap.. applauding the ruling.. "I have the doomsday device!"
Of course, that just throws the bias in Microsoft's favor, since the new judge will be afraid to say anything bad about Bill Gates or the corporation itself.
In addition, it's unlikely under the current presidential administration that anything drastic will happen to Microsoft. We've entered into a Big Business-friendly era, and Microsoft is feeling right at home.
Got Rhinos?
Here's the decision: http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/06/28/microsoft_file/dec ision.pdf
Got Rhinos?
Face it, the Judge lost the case, not the prosecution. If he wasn't so obviously biased in his choice of Court advisors, allowances to the prosecution, or flapping his big frigging mouth off after the trial but before the ultimate resolution. The fact is Justice should have pursued this when it really mattered, back when 95 was coming onto the scene. Back when there were alternatives to Windows on the desktop. If they want to help the computer industry now they need to fight to ensure there remains competition in the server side of the market. (the desktop war is over, the victims have already been buried) Get some regulations out there to protect the privacy and information of individuals. Protect their freedom on the net by preventing companies from locking up the world. PS: It didn't hurt MS's case that Netscape/AOL merged with Time Warner, kind of rendered a lot of the future predicitions made by prosecution pointless.
Got Rhinos?
As was said on the MSNBC article covering this ruling (or rather, it was a link to other antitrust cases in history, eg: AT&T, IBM, etc) these cases are usually drawn out for DECADES before they're either given up or ruled on. IBM's case started in 1969 and didn't end until the 80's, and AT&T's case lasted almost as long too. Considering Microsoft's case started in 1998, we've got atleast 8 more years of this in the courts before they get around to doing something meaningful..
The thing that's really too bad is Judge Jackson did this to himself-- if he'd kept his mouth shut, not appeared on TV and in the media making public remarks about the case, there's a decent chance he'd have atleast been able to continue presiding as Judge over the case. Now they're handing it to a different Judge, possibly one that will be more in line with what Microsoft's lawyers want.
Got Rhinos?
The important battle was still won.
The important battle was the one that got IT managers looking at alternatives instead of blindly choosing a Microsoft product.
The important battle was one that got Microsoft's internal documents out on the Internet for all to see and read. These showed how Microsoft's goal was domination with IE. (Never mind that, in the end, they did make a better browser than Netscape.)
The important battle got Linux thousands of headlines and millions of dollars in IPO money and venture capital.
The important battle was the one that got the phrase "open source" in the vocabulary of millions of people.
The important battle was the one that IBM joined -- Linux as a viable server alternative.
The other important battle was the one that got embedded Linux rolling. I love my TiVO, and I don't have to worry about anything dealing with regular Linux -- I can just sit back and let it record for me. That's what consumers want, and Linux delivered.
Folks, it ain't over. Linux has the mindshare now. Linux has IBM. Microsoft has been forced to make a really stable OS (2000) to compete.
Competition is a good thing. Microsoft sees the threat on its horizon. Even if Linux dies (which I don't think it will), Microsoft will have changed dramatically. Microsoft now is competing on features and stability, not on "well, everyone buys our product anyway, so we can afford to make it crappy."
In short, don't forget how far Linux has come, or how far it can go. Don't get caught up in these "anti-open-source" agendas; they are meant to take away from the real issue. Some of the best programs in the world are released as open-source, some are not. It's not the issue. The issue is that Linux/Apache/etc. has started to be taken seriously. This is a good thing.
Got Rhinos?
This song is basically what I think of Rand's "freedom".t fr.htm
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/songs/texts/calli
WTF?? You're not just claiming that in theory everyone is provided with the necessities of life under communism, you're claiming that this was the case in the actual USSR? That seems outright delusional.
So just remember if you're sent to a labor camp, at least that you're not dying because you can't afford to live
And if you're shot in the head as a dissident, at least you're not dying because you can't afford to eat
And if you're starving in a famine in the Ukraine, at least you're not dying because...er...shit
When you buy a game, you can look on the back. It may say "Windows", it may say "Nintendo 64", it may say "Playstation", it may say "Macintosh" or even "Linux".
You don't HAVE to buy that game. There are millions of games out there. True, some are better than others. If one game is REALLY good, then you either have to buy the system it was written for, OR convince the game company to port it to your platform. YOU chose to buy the game, the GAME COMPANY chose to write it for Windows. I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault.
At one time, all I had was an Intellivision and a Commodore. I REALLY liked Zelda and Super Mario Bros. However, I didn't have a Nintendo. Nintendo had almost the entire console market share... yet I don't remember any anti-trust cases against them. Even so, they have lost that market share since, all without the "help" of the government.
As far as the browsers go, I use Netscape on Linux. However, Netscape sucks and IE is much better. But, I can either put up with Netscape or switch to Windows. I CHOOSE to put up with Netscape. You CHOSE To use IE over Netscape on your Mac. Even so, you didn't pay MS any money for it anyways, so the point is moot.
I agree that some of Microsoft's business practices MAY be in violation of US law. However, just because you break an anti-trust law doesn't mean you are a monopoly. In fact, the anti-trust laws are arbitrary laws passed by the government, and they don't affect whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly (which it isn't). This is one example of many where Government involvement is NOT needed. We are taking care of Microsoft ourselves... why do you want to change that?
You see, because of the free market, people all over this country have switched to Linux. Nobody forced them to do so... they do so because Linux is better for what they want to use their computer(s) for. Unfortunately, for the average (i.e. dumb) user, Windows is still easier to use and more convenient than Linux. We are working to change this, but at the current time, the average person that uses Windows will tell you that, yes, it sucks (i.e. unstable, slow, etc), BUT these they are willing to live with these problems for the ease of use.
Yes, Microsoft is a giant. Yes, they try to make money. Yes, they try to gain market share. But THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO in a free market! If businesses didn't try to make money, we would still be riding trains everywhere and building our own homemade computers.
Microsoft WILL fall by the way any company in a free market falls... by a better product taking away their market share! You can't expect this to happen overnight, as Microsoft has a HUGE userbase. And, in my opinion, they are still the best product for some people.
So, how can you, after seeing how the free market has allowed Linux to come in and cause serious damage to Microsoft's server market share, go crying to the government to interfere with capitalism at work and manually break up Microsoft?? The truth is that Microsoft is the BETTER product for many people to this day... and that probably pisses you off, and you don't want to accept it.
I hate Microsoft. I want to see them fall as much as you do. However, when they fall, I want them to KNOW that it was Linux that took them down... that it was a better product developed through the use of open source, that took down the giant! If the goverment goes in and breaks them up before we win, then they will just blame everything on the goverment instead of Linux. In 100 years, it will be the government that stopped Microsoft, not Linux.
We are making such good progress, why would you guys want the government to stop the war when we are on our way to victory?
I have never been FORCED to give Microsoft any money. In fact, the only person that has EVER forced me to give them money is the government via taxes (one of these days, I'm sure I will be robbed, but not yet). In fact, I don't think ANYBODY has been forced to give Microsoft their money... yet Microsoft takes in tons of it. This must mean that there are still tons of people that CHOOSE to give them money for one reason or another. We need to find these reasons and stop them ourselves.
The government is NOT the answer!
Some of you have the illusion that you (or anybody else) were forced to give your money to Microsoft. If you think so, post a reply and tell me how it happened, and we'll see if we can see how you were forced.
as reported by Bloomberg News 13:39pm:
Headline-"NASDAQ SAYS SYSTEM BEGAN MALFUNCTIONING AFTER MICROSOFT HALT"
Oh the Irony
LOL
TIME is the Aether...
Very cool. Judge Jackson's staff didn't even respond to a hand written remedy which I proposed a while back. Perhaps the new Judge will seriously consider the alternatives. Clark
c/written/delivered/
Clark Evans
http://distributedcopyright.org
Ah, my favorite troll. I'm not sure why some people continue to think IE is worth anything. It could be that Windoze loads it on start up so that it looks faster to some people. It's still slower than Netscape 4.x on NT for me. I suppose people who must have all the flash trash, images and java that adverters can toss at them might like IE which won't let them turn them off. (I have to turn them off each time you open the thing). Some people might even like the total system integration that alows malicious web sites to own their computers. No, here at work I'll stick to Netscape. Others can continue to give away their freedoms by whatever means they will.
And that is the issue. It's not a single application, it's my ability to choose. MS has used all sorts of dirty tricks to force applications, all inferior, down people's throats on their platforms. They have also used all sorts of dirty tricks to keep hardware makers from even thinking of making drivers for other OSs. You know, that stupid little flag on the box, interface specs in a timely manner la la, so that you have less of a choice about platforms. They have refused to compete and will continue to refuse because they can't.
All those dirty tricks are haunting them. Win2k is NOT STABLE. A friend of mine's been running it and it's not much better than NT, a crash in six weeks or less ususally less. It could not even format a hard disk at my house for my wife's MS box. All the little breaks and odd things they put in to thwart competitors have got to make their code base a bloated hell. If only that effort had been put into fixing things instead. Still, their programers are no match for the thousands of happy volunteers a decade of abuse has spawed. Free software sucks less and there are now more Linux developers than Windows developers. Hearts and minds are lost to them and won't be comming back.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is insightful? Since when does the executive branch have anything to do with the judical branches decisions?
There were 3 areas of liability found at the District Court level.
Basically, the ruling today upheld 1, reversed 2, and remanded 3. They said that the plaintiff (Justice) did not provide any of the proper evidence (definition of the browser market and barriers to entry) for 2, and thus reversed the ruling. They also said that per se liability cannot be applied to tying software products together, and that if that liability is to be pursued, it must be reviewed under the rule of reason. They also discussed how so far, basically, Justice has not showed liability under the rule of reason. The pretty much instruct the District Court as to the questions they should ask.
Finally, the reason the remedies were overturned was 3-fold.
Please, people, read the ruling before passing judgement and pontificating! This looks like more of a win for Microsoft than people are giving it credit for.
My understanding is that there are two different burdens of proof on appeal. This seems to be echoed in the decision (if you read it).
Findings of fact are generally deferred to by a higher court. The reasoning is that the original judge -- who had direct access to witness testimony, etc. (Or the jury) had the best chance to decide what is so, and read the faces of witnesses during testimony, etc. The further you crawl up the appeal ladder, the farther you are from the real evidence/facts of the case. Findings of fact are generally only overturned if there is a finding of 'obvious' error.
Findings of law, on the other hand are decided 'De Novo' -- anew. The thought here appears to be that the law doesn't change when you crawl up the appeals ladder, but knowledge of the law increases (in theory) as you climb.
As such, it's not uncommon to find comments in high level cases that read like:
In this case, it was no surprise that they essentially left his findings of fact alone. Where they did touch his findings of fact, it tended to be on the law underlying those findings not the facts themselves. The legal decisions (i.e. what to do with the found facts) is where they did most of their damage. This seems pretty normal activity for an appeals level court.(I'm still reading the decision).
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This seems to have been a majour sticking point for the court of appeal. They pointed to the rapid movement in the computer industry as a reason why Jackson should have allowed an evidentiary hearing before giving a remedy. The facts of the case were, in some cases for years before the case went to trial. An evidentiary hearing would have allowed him to figure out what was going on now and adjust his remedy to that.
It's actually quite possible that an evidentiary hearing could hear about what microsoft is doing now, and result in a far more draconian response than what Jackson decreed. On the other hand, they might look at the netscape/ AOL/ Time-Warner merger and decide that everything is fine now (unlikely).
This recent decision does seem to open up for the DOJ (and even intervenors) to make submissions as to what the current state of the market is in hopes that we'll get a rullling that really does stop Microsoft's monopolistic practices as of now, not as of 1995 when they didn't control the 'net like they do now. We might even see an opening up of questions such as Microsoft's creeping domination of the network multi-media market, and other areas.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Whoa.... Head hurts.... Too much circular logic...
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Well, there was always the story of the Novell Netware server that was "lost" for four years, and turned out that it was built into a wall by accident. They only discovered it because they decided to audit all their equipment and couldn't find a server that they obviously had running.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
MS has changed a lot in the last two years. Back in the days when they toasted Netscape, they were using their monopoly position to defend themselves (at least in their own paranoid fantasies).
.Net and hailstorm the defacto information currencies of the new Microsoft Internet. They sure can't use their regular tactics to try and keep Linux out of the servers and off the desktop. No special deals and incentives, no exclusionary contracts, no threats to punsish OEMs with discriminatory pricing, no tradeoffs with Sony to make them lay off the Xbox.
The difference now is that Microsoft MUST use its monopoly power, just to carry out its strategy and meet its quarterly targets. The recent licensing moves are a huge giveaway that they expect monopoly power to be a key revenue asset. Since the Appeals Court just found all that behaviour to be illegal, Microsoft suddenly has a big problem.
They can't use their market position to force Passport down everyone's throat. They can' use it to put Real out of business. They can't use it to make
For the first time in 15 or 20 years, Microsoft is going to have to compete. So, what the fuck are they going to do? Ballmer will huff and puff, but they haven't a clue.
Corporations can be and regularly are tried on criminal charges and assessed criminal penalties (usually fines).
Piss on Ford? Piss on Chevy? No!
Piss on Microsoft! Show the world how you feel, don a Piss on Microsoft sticker on the back window of your vehicle. Ok, maybe that's a bit geeky but it gets the message out!
-jc
Why doesn't the Linux community put together a decent enough product that it can compete instead of crying that daddy-government isn't fixing their problems for them. You sound like a bunch of welfare receipients who were just told they are going to have to fend for themselves from now on.
Also, something you geeks may eventually learn (I finally learned it (the hard way) after decades of programming) is that technical-superiority != good-product. There is a lot more to making a product successful than just programming the code and you guys aren't even close to figuring that out as is evidenced by your jealous daddy-make-it-fair attitude.
You can keep your dreams of socialized software, I'd rather make companies compete for my dollars.
Still feel like using the turn "socialist" as an insult?
Yes... Because as an alternative, socialism still sucks.
Temkin
The world is moving toward socialism. (snip) Which is a good thing.
Not everybody agrees with you. Being successful is not a crime to be punished. I oppose any system that takes from those that "can and do" and gives to those who "can and don't".
Temkin
No, the popular vote on the national level should not be the overall decision on who takes the presidency. To use national popular vote only would disenfranchise the smaller-populated states completely, and all the presidential candidates would have to do is pander to the large population centers on the east and west coasts, and possibly up and down the Mississippi. Now, not to say the current system is perfect, I strongly disagree with the "winner take all" system of electoral votes per state.
Open sourcing thier OS does nearly nothing other than allow people work out how it works. I guess you really meant GPL'ing it, this would not take it away from them! It would simply mean that whatever price they sell their OS for, the purchaser can give it to someone else for free if they want. Imagine MS have to GPL everything, they could price WinXP at $10 billion and make a consortium buy a copy from them to resell as they wish (knowing MS can in turn undercut them by selling more copies at a lower price). Imagine they cannot even charge for the OS, they still have not lost it at all as you would suggest. If you have a DB your working on in MySQL and you discover that you can't do something vital, who do you call first to do it for you? If you want WinXGPL (trademarked, patented and owned by me so FO) customised for your network, you are going to go to MS first and others second. The fundamental fact is that if they were forced to open it and keep it open they would still be the primary development centre and can leverage revenue from there thanks to the high costs of entry into the game to rival them (you reckon you can create a Windows distribution with any substantial changes just because you have the source).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Simple, do you want government to intervene whenever it is for the greater good or do you wish it to let exploitation happen as the market will always sort it out. I want intervention (I just want people to elect sane representatives to do it appropriately, but I know that I'll never see that) and I cannot understand how anyone can believe intervention is never appropriate. Think of it this way, I would not let ANY company make 90% of the cars on the road AND lock the bonnet AND be a major petrol distributor (and only their petrol works and you can't analyse it to figure out what their adding, if you do they sue) AND a road builder AND AND AND. Owning bits of the whole game is fine as long as you don't "control" any part. No-one can deny that MS own the PC market (yes 10% is elsewhere but they are nearly by definition seperate markets) and as the car scenario is unsafe and offers horrible potential for exploitation (from the garage who'll crack open the bonnet to service it unofficially to the manufacturer themselves providing a EULA that states they car must be returned after five years for "safety") MS is unsafe (Outlook Virii as a headline example) and offers the potential for exploitation. I believe in the people first, everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Here you make a jump where you ascribe attributes to me that I do not believe I have demonstrated byeond the fact that I would strip people of the fruits of their illegal labor (i.e a heroin dealer, guns runner or extortion raquet). Would you really bust a drug deal and let the dealer keep the money?
Other than that I believe identically to what you describe here! I believe society is simply a complex network of individuals of equal importance. I don't believe that you can ascribe anything to society really however, for example our TV is not the sum of society, it is what is produced by the people who go into that business (a load of individuals). I believe that everyone owns the right to the fruits of their labor subject to a taxation system which serves to ensure the stability of all individuals. We may not agree on taxation levels but I doubt you really mean that peoples rights to the product of their work means they should provide no "product" to society, even if it is only to cover a legal system to deal with criminals.
Finally I also believe that people can exercise copyright on software (to me there is no question code is artistic, data mightn't be). You can do what you like with your code it is the product of your work. A software patent however is an extra protection that I believe is a joke concept and I can't really even express why it is just so insane. I hope you weren't implying that stripping software patents strips the rights to the fruits of your labours because software patents are what strips the ability to use your labour (no you can't write any code that plays DVDs).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Ok, I'll take an easier example to accept, Would you catch someone robbing a bank and then let them keep the money? Basically whatever laws we have must be enforced (of course it is preferable if the laws are sane, I believe that current drug laws are fscked). Do you really believe in no law, just money? If so, it's time to move to your world and become a murdering thief and sleep at night.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
It's not directly due to Bush, but his "leadership" is certainly making the problem worse. This crisis was brought on by greedy Texan energy companies that bought the California companies as soon as they were deregulated and immediately starting bleeding California dry by raising their wholesale rates by criminal amounts.
Before deregulation, wholesale electricity typically cost 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Now it's up to 1.50 during peak periods. Show me another industry where you can get away with raising your prices by 5000% just because you have to opportunity to gouge the public.
In your world view, I suppose the fact that those who run these Texan energy companies are bidness associates and personal friends of Bush the oilman is just a coincidence, isn't it? In reality, if someone else, even a Republican who wasn't a Texan oilman, was in office, this shameful situation wouldn't have proceeded as long as it did.
However, the fact that they KEPT his findings of fact means that Microsoft will not escape punishment. Far from being a blow to the case, this is the best outcome we could have hoped for, given Judge Jackson's mentally impaired behavior.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Maybe I can sell the stocks I bought at $90 before the next judge rules to fsck them again.
It ain't over, folks. Just delayed. Looks like Jackson blew it (and not the Justice dept).
Oh, those claiming that this is due to GWB are simply dreaming. Now, if Justice decides not to pursue the case in a retrial, then you can say the current administration had some influence.
But, Supreme Court notwithstanding, Bush has no influence over judical decisions. (Just kidding about the Supreme Court thingy).
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Judge Saul Sanders, the man who effectively ruled the election in Bush's favor, almost attended a Free Republican rally in his honor with Katherine Harris last week. At the very last second, under some considerable pressure, he excused himself from the lionization. Bias? Where was the news coverage of this?
Judge Jackson simply stated the obvious. Gates was dissembling at the trial, Microsoft attorneys were arrogant and transparently lying.
Difference between Sanders and Jackson is that Jackson had a well-oiled attack machine on his butt, and Sanders sort of filters through the cracks of news coverage.
Follow the money.
The governement should use mob tactics, take 25% off the top of Microsoft profits, so the Supreme court judges can give themselves a pay raise for having to deal with all this BS in the first place. So we have even more to complain about!
Moderating to further my personal world domination agenda... and to get chicks.
The government should use mob tactics, take 25% off the top of Microsoft profits, so the Supreme court judges can give themselves a pay raise for having to deal with all this BS in the first place. So we have even more to complain about!
Moderating to further my personal world domination agenda... and to get chicks.
After the news broke, Nasdaq halted the trading of Microsoft on the market. Yahoo finance had a really quick quip about it... does anyone else know why they did such a thing?
-gerbik
A lot of comments have wondered about the rational for the decision. Why, if the court says there does not appear to be any bias in the decision, would they bother overturning it? I think they are doing the government a favor, because they have just removed one criteria on which Microsoft could continue to appeal down the road. When a case is this important, absolutely everything must be 100% by the book. The actions of the Court of Appeals will make sure that is so, and will make it harder for Microsoft to appeal later.
Is that the appeals court upheld that Microsoft is guilty of illegally defending its monopoly. This clears the way for a whole slew of lawsuits.
Q: Why do people think Microsoft software is poor?
A: Because it's unstable, unreliable, and requires frequent reboots. Q: What do the editors and net-ops of OSDN, who run sites such as Slashdot, Freshmeat, and SourceForge, and cheerleaders for Open Source, assume is the first solution to any problems with their network?
A: REBOOT THE DATABASE! REBOOT THE FIREWALL! REBOOT THE ROUTER!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I expect in 15-20 years we will all be running an OS designed and programmed in China.
You mean like Red Flag Linux (no, really)?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I am looking for a word processor. It must be able to understand WordPerfect, as I have several important documents in older WP formats.
wp2x will convert WordPerfect 5 documents to HTML, TeX, etc. From there, you can use StarOffice.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My take is that all three branches of the gov't are now proven corrupt.
1) Executive. Bush and Cheney's best pals made upwards of, and in some cases exceeded, $100M in personal cash since B&C have taken office -- through the manipulation of California's electrical grid.
At no point has the president, now or in the recent past, railed against M$. Contrast this with the presidents of the 40's and 50's, who often made scathing comments about corporate greed and behavior, and backed them up by funding the competitors.
When was the the last time you heard a president refer to america as the 'home of the free and the brave'?
2) The Legislative. No senator has banned M$ software in their state offices. Only 18 states have the guts to fight the menace.
3) The judicial. Penfield has decades of antitrust experience, yet he suddenly sabotages the trial with secret meetings and scathing comments about the convicted defendant. Oh, I guess he didn't realize his ruling would get thrown out if he did that.
A quick search on google will tell you that the original FBI investigators of the OK bombing were fired. Why? because they were explosives experts and knew 5000 lbs. of Amonium Nitrate could not devastate the Murrah building so completely. They concluded someone on the inside plated additional explosives...and were fired. The next team concluded only McVeigh was involved.
Some say an FBI or CIA agent was aware of McVeigh's plan, and covertly planted additional explosives in the Murrah pillors to exacerbate the attack, thus increasing national sentiment for a decrease in personal freedom and an increase in domestic 'spook' spending.
Hate to say it, but the US government is probably more corrupt today than in the 1920's. McVeigh should have parked that ryder truck at 1 Microsoft Way and done the world a real favor.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
As for Bush, he didn't overturn the decision. I don't recall him sitting on the bench or in the courtroom influencing this decision, so I really don't understand comments like that.
As for Socialism, yes, I look at it negatively. A society in which Man A is paid equally as Man B despite the fact that Man A is a lazy bum that spends his money on movies and beer and Man B is a workaholic that invests... First, you have two men making the same amount of money for unequal work. Second, you still have capitalism in the end, for Man B will have more to spend and will lead a more elegant life, while Man A will just keep spending on movies and beer.
Either way, Socialism is not the answer. Absolute capitalism may not be the answer either, but some form of capitalism is necessary.
Which is one reason why I am very happy to live in the United States. Although I am becoming less and less happy about it every day.
"...most (all?) Socialist countries have much higher standards of living, and much lower per-capita debt load than the USA."
I would just love to see you prove that.
"Socialism and Capitalism are not opposites. That you think so..."
Uhh, I know this. You are making some fairly horrible assumptions based on almost zero comment. I've taken two years worth of political science already, if that matters. That I still support capitalism is certainly not the product of those classes, I assure you. That I think my professors are almost completely leftist idiots... well, perhaps that is a product of those classes.
"Socialism is not about giving everybody the same income, it's about providing a social construct where equal opportunities exist for everybody."
I know. I was generalizing. Give me a break.
"Every USian I've spoken to thinks that the USA provides this, but it doesn't - if it did, you wouldn't be in the state you are today."
I was born in Georgia, so I don't see why... </sarcasm> But seriously, I don't believe that Michael Jackson should be making millions of dollars for making a few albums, nor should anyone else be able to make an absurd amount of money that doesn't help anyone at all. That's not the product of the system, though. That's a product of our greedy government.
I read recently from a socialist point of view that greed was one of the leading ideals of capitalism. It isn't. Greed is easily the worst aspect of the "leaders" of any economic system. Greed is simply one of many effects of a country whose laws make it easy for people to want to get ahead of others rather than simply be comfortable for each other. And it isn't capitalism that does this. It's just stupid, greedy politicians that line everything up for themselves at the people's expense.
"In my country, if a person gets into an accident (say they get hit by a car), they don't have to pay for hospital care - everybody is guaranteed the same level of health care, regardless of how much they earn."
Believe me, I wish that were the case here. I hate the fact that money is more important than everything else here. At the risk of sounding like a socialist, I would love for people to just provide what is necessary to live comfortably and to enjoy life, rather than always trying to get ahead of the next guy. I realize that there are advantages of socialism that the U.S. can't come close to right now. This does not mean that it is all the fault of being a capitlist nation. Just as I know that socialism isn't perfectly evil, many socialists should realize the same about capitalism.
"You will end up looking much less foolish."
Do yourself a favor and stick to arguing rather than name-calling and degrading. Name-calling, in my opinion, is what makes people look foolish. If someone's views differ from yours, at least that's what that person honestly believes. I would not resort to calling you names for a simple disagreement. Just enjoy a friendly argument... If you sway my position a little, then so be it. If I sway yours, then so be it. If nothing else, we are both a bit more enlightened about just one person's thoughts on the issue. Fair enough?
I'm an optimist. But that doesn't mean I'm expecting any help. I'll go down trying, though.
It's not for regular programs. Programs linked to libc does not need it anyway.
[ Linux application does not specifically "require" linux. They require an ELF loader and some dynamic bindings. If you'd supply them for Windows, you can natively run Linux applications on Windows. Thus ordinary Linux cannot violate GPL, unless they do not claim to run on Linux ]
Is there anyone in the world who doesn't believe that; 1-Microsoft is a monopoly? 2-Breaking up Microfot will be good for the IT industry? 3- In the U.S. money purchases justice? 4- George "W" Bush is a buffoon? This decision presents a major opportunity for the EU, if Brussels choses to enforce a breakup or trading sanctions against the Redmond beast; If they do, the European IT induustry will leave the U.S. in the dust.
Microsoft may be a monopoly, but that in itself is not illegal! The reason they are under fire is because it is believed they exploited their position of monopoly, thus it is called an antitrust suit, not monopoly. Personally I'm glad Microsoft is being broken up, and though I respect that people can think differently of Microsoft, I'd be very interested to see how many, if ANY people here on slashdot have thought about why they don't like Microsoft, other than going with the group, and being irrationally fond of linux.
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
Yes. This is true but they must get the nomination first. And if you piss of the nominator [Incumbent President] you don't get nominated.
You are fully aware that my comment was not related to this case specifically, but rather the relationship between the executive and judicial branch in general. And if you aren't, then arguing with you is a waste of my time.
Windows 2000 isn't stable at all. It has crashed twice on me just this morning. BSOD's. But if you want to share some of what you are smoking, I'll take a puff.
Who do you think nominates judges to the Supreme Court? Any judge who wants to further his career does whatever he thinks will please those who will make or break him. Believing that the executive branch has nothing to do with this injustice is childish and ignorant.
It seems fairly simple. You could take Microsoft's lead. Flagrantly violate antitrust and business competition laws (after all, those ones don't really count. It's not like you're *murdering* anyone or anything like that.), and after you've wiped out the competition you've already got a billion dollars. In internet time, this is something you can easily do in only say, four years. Since it takes more time than that for the government to even notice you, you're in the clear by that time. You have enough money to purchase expensive lawyers that will stall the government court cases for at least ten years, by which time you can buy your own small country (say, The Netherlands or Switzerland) where you can successfully live out your retirement without fear of arrest.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Free market capitalism, where everything can be bought and sold. Still feel like using the turn "socialist" as an insult? Gaz, with karma to spare...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Not that any judges except Jackson himself are to blame. If he had acted a little more like a judge deciding a major case, and a little less like an instant celebrity, the decision may have stuck.
This appeals court has a definite right-wing bias, and a history of striking down anti-trust rulings; they would have voted against Jackson's decision anyway. This just gave them a convenient excuse.
--
the great satan himself is on my local ABC affiliate (we're local to microsoft, so. . . .)
His speach is just FULL of holes, hehe.
"This ruling upholds a companies right to innovate".
Damnit, come on, this is gonna be hilarious!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Yup. There is no politician with a better track record than Gore at giving lip service to the environment.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Some one correct me here, because IANAL. I thought findings of fact could not be vacated, even by the Supremeos?
In any case, I read about 2 weeks ago that 65%-80% of the appeals courts were Regan/Bush appointees. Thus giving the lie to the right wing nuts "LIBRAL COURTS! LIBRAL COURTS!" chant. I think that Jackson was a consertive appointee, too.
IMHO, I think the 'pubs are doing the "big lie / Bloody shirt / big lie" school of public relations. Seems like every time they have something they want to do it turns out to do the exact oppsite of what they say it will do.
I don't know. I do know that as of now, I'm not better off than I was six months ago, and I don't see that improving in six months.
DON'T BLAME ME, MY VOTE DIDN'T COUNT.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I don't feel sorry for this guy at the beach at all. Anyone that brings a computer to the beach is an ASS. And 99% of the movies made today completly suck. Maybe this will convince people to go outside and do something REAL for a change.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Come on, folks, the first paragraph reads: Notice:This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S. App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
Come on, aren't there any lawyers out there who could help us with a few "corrections"?
Okay, okay, I'll wait for the new lower court penalty...
sigh,
Mateu
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
This is a tricky issue. Couldn't sticking ugly icons all over the desktop be considered "defacement"? To use your analogy, isn't it more like painting polka dots on the leather upholstery?
Well... to Judge Jackson this is the rebuke that vindicates. I didn't think the appeals court would be so smart about it. Proves he knows the law, but also proves he can't keep his mouth shut when he has to.
I'm thinking that this is frustrating, but in theory it's nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. I say in theory because you never quite know what the Ashcroft DoJ is likely to do in a situation like this. I will say this -- I hope the judge that gets the case factors in Microsoft's recent behavior and their open defiance of the breakup order. If said judge is doing his/her job properly the second time around could be worse.
Then again, that's assuming the best of the courts. After the whole Florida fiasco I don't think we can be too sure.
/Brian
"obvious bias" only counted outside the courtroom, IMHO. Jackson has a history of dismissing his own experts if their testimony makes no sense -- ask a perpetual-motion pusher named Joseph Newman how he was supposedly screwed by Jackson.
I've gotten the sense that Jackson is actually quite conscientious about his work. In the above-mentioned case Jackson threw out the testimony of an expert witness that claimed Newman's suspiciously efficient electric motor generated more power than it took in because it simply didn't make any sense scientifically. What killed him was his inability to keep a poker face about the situation, which in practice is probably rather meaningless but still doesn't look good in public.
/Brian
Time for a different party?
Indeed it is. I vote Green.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
The order is not quite being interpreted the way everyone says it is. According to the legal commentary I heard on NPR this morning on the way to work, part of the reason for throwing out this remedy is that they didn't feel it would prevent Microsoft from exerting its monopolistic strengths in OS and Browser markets even after the company was split in two. They have asked for a new court to come up with a remedy that should actually weaken Microsoft's position with regards to its control of these markets.
More data, damnit!
The odds of landing on Boardwalk are of course much greater...
Hmm. I've traversed the entire Monopoly board from Old Kent Road to Mayfair many a time, and I've never once landed on Boardwalk. Or Park Place, for that matter. Then again, I'm playing this edition.
M$ has caused a lot of pain. However, they have benefited the industry as well. The fact that there is consistancy in OSs (windows) is often a good thing for programmers like me. Imagine the early days of the eighties when the PC first began to appear. Writing a program for a single OS and expecting it to work in 90% of homes and offices was a pipe dream then.
I am more worried about the Government overstepping its bounds in "protecting" me than i am about Microsoft hurting me. Believe it or not, M$ will not last forever. It will some day naturally falter. The Government on the other hand, will not give back the ground it has taken. I do not need the headache of Uncle Sam regulating my industry. Don't think the Government will stop at breaking up Microsoft. It won't stop! It wants to regulate more and more.
The government is a bigger concern to me than Microsoft. That is why this ruling does not ruin my day.
Added to which, no government that approves a merger like AOL-TW can break up MS.
Holy shit, are you telling me that we still have 8 more years of suffering to go?
The court just gave MS the go ahead to suck every last bit of money from every customer they have. We all know that they are going to take full advantage to tie everything they can to the OS. I am afraid it is to late and the hammer has already dropped on them. I do not know a single enterprise customer that does not beleive MS is just taking them for a horrible ride. This looks bad on the surface but in reality it is a good thing for linux.
Got Code?
Remember, this just says that the breakup was unwarranted for the tying in of their browser. They're still going to get reprimanded by the same court who broke them up. And, with their Smart Tags, .NET, and many other technologies made to focus more on forcing people to comply with Windows/Microsoft standards, they may see themselves back in court with the threat of a breakup again.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
--- Submission is feudal.
Has there been a more stereotypical "Republican" administration in the oval office? Environmental regulations have been thrown out the door, debt reduction has been cast aside for a populist tax cut and there hasn't even been a minimal attempt to try and disguise the fact that big business can buy influence with this administration. To make the point even scarier is that we're only 6 months into Bush's term!
All this from a man a 12-yer old could beat at Scrabble.
Thank God the R's have lost the Senate.
Is he serious? Most people I know or see think Microsoft can do what they want. It seems to make perfect logical sense. They own the operating system, and they are the only ones that can legally distribute it, they can bundle whatever they want with it. He is trying to keep up these people's thoughts, and say its right, and there is no law against it.
But seriously, there IS a limit. There IS a law against it. That is why they're in court! He knows it too.
You shouldn't have posted AC -- hopefully the mods will allow people to see it.
1) Netscape 4 sucked so people switched browsers.
2) IE had a greater marketshare than Netscape before Win98 shipped
One thing you neglect is Microsoft's bundling agreements with ISPs and with third party application vendors. There was lots of contractual arm-twisting going on even back in the IE3 days, and it sounds like the appeals court rightly upheld this conduct as illegal.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I mean c'mon.
how different is microsoft bolting features onto windows different from how General Motors bolts features into cars?
Does it bother anyone that a stock GM car comes only with a Delco radio? Is this really so different? Does it bother anyone that Ford trucks ship with Firestone tires?
There's still a thriving aftermarket for car stereos, tires, fuzzy dice, upholstery, struts, shocks, engine mods, etc.
Why get upset when microsoft bolts a rudimentary IM client into windows? Why worry? Is it that Microsoft is unfortunately one of the better software developers, and people are terrified of competing against the team that always wins?
If you can't convince someone that your tires or shocks are better than stock - then you don't make a sale. Why should it be any different for a streaming video package?
Should the Big Three ship without windshields just so the little guys in the business get a crack at the market?
Maybe those companies saw what microsoft sees: if you ship a fully featured product that meets all of a user's needs adequately out of the gate; you'll get more business than if you left important pieces of the experience out.
Our parents don't want to go online to download ICQ or Winamp. They'd be lucky if they even knew what the leading packages were for any given media/internet feature. They are Microsoft's market. If microsoft didn't include functionality that allowed them to see pictures of, or see video of, or have an IM chat with, their grandchildren - then they'd start to percieve microsoft's offering as somewhat broken - just as any of us would perceive a car sold without tires.
The -only- way to stop microsoft (if you don't like it, hate it, fear it) is to vote with your feet. Don't buy it. Don't try to convert microsoft users (they already bought theirs) - Educate people getting ready to buy a new system. Throw together and host a download of your favorite *nix flavor that has a better feature set. Support that download and it's users. Educate clients (if you're a tech) about microsoft alternatives: their lower cost of ownership and their (at least) comparable performance and superior flexibility.
but don't whine and bitch online because Microsoft is winning.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
This decision was not overturned. It was vacated. All this means is that another judge will review the findings of fact and the original ruling, and a new penalty will be considered. The lower court (not Thomas Penfield Jackson) may decide that MS should be broken up anyways.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Pathetic.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Which consumer is that? Did you get his/her name and are they aware that they are an endangered species?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wasn't Ma Bell broken up during the 80's... When Reagan was in office?
Main Entry: monopoly Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -lies Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell Date: 1534 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly Nowhere does it say void of competition. 95% of all the worlds computers have windows running on them. The only way to 'compete' in that market is to offer your OS for free, as BeOS, linux, and others have demonstrated. Ya, ask BeOS if MICROS~1 monopoly has hurt them.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Moderate or Post ?? POST!!!
Dont get me wrong, Microsoft would have been even bigger if they were broken up. And there was a good chance that they might have started spewing out software which was actually good.
But now, they would just sit back in their comfy chairs and return to producing the same old crap they like to...usual blowware..and thats how they would die..
A moment of silence to commemorate this occasion, when Justice didnt persevere.
Rapid Nirvana
---
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
And I agree completely with your point, the suggestions made by the FSF will do far more good than braking up the company (which is something I don't think makes much sense anyway), and I certainly hope this will receive some attention.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
So, /. editors, when are we going to see the 'edited by' or 'update' line correcting the little gaffe above? =)
Not to bust chops, but let's not get into the habit of sneaky-quick-behind-back-fixing-errors. Nobody's gonna blame anyone for thinking that, at first glance, this was what the article was saying.
---
Chief Technician, Helpdesk at the End of the World
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Yes, the findings of fact were not overturned (surprise, surprise) but let's place the blame for the remedy being overturned where it squarely lies, with Jackson. We could right now be arguing about the breakplan instead of wondering if it will ever oocur in our lifetime if Jackson could have kept his big mouth shut and handled the remedy phase appropriately. Don't blame George Bush, don't blame the lawyers (well OK, I have always said if it wasn't for lawyers we wouldn't need them), don't blame anyone but Jackson.
I have a question: who owns the Washington Post?
____________________________
2*b || !(2*b) is a tautology
Hell...Freezing...Over...Pigs...Flying...
Whew, that was close.
EK
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Not that any judges except Jackson himself are to blame. If he had acted a little more like a judge deciding a major case, and a little less like an instant celebrity, the decision may have stuck.
Thankfully they have not vacated his findings that they have used their monopoly power illegally, only that his remedy is to be reconsidered by another lower court.
There is nothing to say that the next lower court can decide on the same punishment, or something else entirely. At least that was my understanding from the clip I read at www.salon.com.
I do not have a signature
Look, it's absurd to blame Bush for this. I'm no fan of MS but it is pretty clear that Jackson's behavior is what tanked this, he was making his *personal* opinion known throughout the case and a judge simply can't do that. I only hope the next judge will see the same issues while exuding impartiality.
(Warning, off topic)
As far as the whole Bush got fewer votes thing, I'm so sick of that stupid number and the mindless Bush bashing. You want it to work a different way, get the constitution changed. You want some numbers, how about these:
Total Counties won by Bush: 2,434
Total Counties won by Gore: 677
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million.
Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
States won by Bush: 29
States won by Gore: 19
Furthermore, who knows how many people bailed out of line or didn't go to vote on the western half of the country, thanks to the media calling it (wrong) with hours left to go.
"Is there any limit to what you think you can put into the operating system at all?" "...as a matter of law, no, I don't think so..." That exact statement. I think a few linux distros should have a modified installer which destroys NTFS partitions and resizes existing ext2fs partitions to take up that space just to spite him. Or build something into the kernel which does that on boot. This is probably flamebait/redundant, but that's the FIRST thing that came to mind when I read that.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I'm not sure if this re-inforces my point or is a complete red herring, but the link is ultra cool! I'm breaking out the Monopoly board tonight! I can already picture some of the things I'll be thinking.
Oh sure, go ahead and buy Ventor Ave, spend your money. FOOL! Don't you know that Illinois Ave is the spot most likely to be landed on IN THE ENTIRE GAME! Now I just have to decide, do I buy the spaces that are rarely landed on when I hit them because I might not hit them again for some time or do I buy the ones with the highest probability so I can be earning trickles of income while I go around and around trying to complete my sets of property? Aaahhh! My brain hurts!
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
I was going to try to reply rationally to your post, but there's just no point. You're completely and utterly ignorant. You don't have the slightest shred of knowledge about ANYTHING you just wrote. Take for example, saying the John Ashcroft spent his life fighting against desegregation. What could possibly make you think that? I mean, while governor of Missouri, he had the highest possible rating for diverse judgeship appointments. You know what, the more I think about it, your statement is not just wrongheaded, it's slanderous. For Christ's sake, why not just say "he appointed John Ashcroft, a man well known for his tendency to eat the souls of the unborn, AG"? It would have made at least as much sense. You're an idiot.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Sucks though, when you install 2k, use all of the Microsoft drivers, install all of the critical (and most of the recommended) updates from the Windows Update site, and the damn thing still crashes running Microsoft software (Office2k), or sometimes even reboots itself in the middle of an application.
However, I do agree that 2k has been the nicest OS M$ has come up with. Widespread support, hardware and software compatibility, that's where Microsoft still holds the market; but stability is where Linux holds true. Props to JosefKerr's 306 day uptime and still running - which isn't even near a record; in December, Alan Cox posted this siting of a box that was up for over 500 days... is it still running I wonder? (try THAT, Windows!)
$_ =~ s/siting/sighting/;
Damn Link. Just type in Microsoft.
Damn. Third time's a charm
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. -Welsey Willis
The poll was only mentioned on television and is not on cnn's website. I assumed it was going to be theri but I guess it never poped up. I would probably have a karma of 4 or 5 by now if they put in the web. :-)
Basically they did their own poll data gathering by phone or by asking people on the street like most polls are conducted. I assume it was not web pased because I never saw such a poll on their site. Since they asked the same questions to so called non-internet as well as internet users it had to be traditional.
But people into computers really seem to give Bill Gates credit for MS Office and IE which are supprising the only good products ms ever made. The problem is they assume everything esle is good as well and computers are suppose to crash and many even believe servers are suppose to crash as well. I guess the brainwashing and not knowing anythign else really makes a difference. Alot like the supporters of the communist chinese government. Many Chinese immigrants here in the US support the govermnet oddly enough and the constant media hype and not knowing anything else created the communism popularity. The same is true with windows and MS-office is marketing enough to them about anything made by Microsoft.
I also remember reading several years on newsweek magazine that 86% have a positive impresion on Microsoft. There was even a sizable number of people responding who credited Bill and not IBM for creating the pc revolution. Absolutely amazing! I was shoked in disbelief when I read it.
Marketing really does make a difference.
http://saveie6.com/
http://saveie6.com/
What does this have to do with the appeal?
The answer is simple. With numbers like this the government will look bad picking on poor old Microsoft and Americans will likely be upset if they are broken up. The oil companies in charge of the energy crises are huge target on the governments list because Americans care. They do not when it comes to Microsoft or they actually support them.
We slashdoters may know better but barely half of americans even believe ms is a monopoly? Even those who think MS is, believe that its a good thing for the industry and economy. How many of you written politicans argueing for breaking them up? Now how many of the vast majority have written politicans demanding to leave poor bill alone for innovating? My guess is a hell of alot more. I except the poll results to show on cnn website soon since I just saw it on television. Otherwise I would of put a direct link
The justice department is just reacting to the public's perception of a great innovator who is unfairly being picked on by an intrusive government for making superior products. We all know some of microsoft's tricks on how to cripple other companies rather then competing but the public does not know this or care sadly. The bush administration will likely be largely infleunced by opinion. By the way many conservatives like Orin Hatch and Barr support breaking up Microsoft but know that the public perception is agaisnt them so they will not recommend an injunction agaisnt them to Ashcroft. Its not Bush but the american public and also the republicans hate government interaction.
http://saveie6.com/
short of dropping the whole case against Microsoft. I'm glad to see that some people still realize we live in a capitalist society, governed by market forces and not Big Brother. The government has no right to dictate what kind of software companies can produce, and I thank people in the Bush administration for seeing that.
With the Supreme court apeal guaranteed... this may have some odd effects... Bush may get involved, people may want to see the proceedings on TV, who knows this case is getting OLD to.. I mean they are arguing about IE 3.0 getting put in as part of windows... ehhh wonder if the whole thing could be settled by a crazy Napster, RIAA, AOL, Microsoft, DOJ, Merger that would be unheard of.
I run Opera also... Did you know that Opera 5.12 is out today?
-- Andy
This is only Round 2.
There are more appeals and legal manuvering to go. Don't think that this is the end. This issue will not even be in the next round for 90-180 days. Resolution will not be complete for 3-5 years. By then Windows9x will not even be the prominent OS and no one will remember or be using Netscape 3.x. Microsoft strategy is to make this the longest appeal possible. The longer that this trial takes the better for Microsoft.
Brief recap...
1. Combination of the browser with the file manager and OS.
2. Proactive incompatability with other non-Microsoft browsers.
3. Specific exclusion of Netscape browser.
This is only round 2.
This far from over.
-- Andy
Huh? '95 was the first consumer-level windows with their integrated TCP/IP stack in it.
IBM sure did slow down that trial and awful lot, more than you would expect from something that was "dragging them down"
Every Linux Geek should read the decision, both so they know what they are talking about, and to recognize Microsoft strategy when they see it. Microsoft is still very clever and plays good strategy, and we should be aware of it...
.NET, C#, and the rest. Why? For one, if it is standardized, then Microsoft could claim anyone could make a .NET clone, it's just that consumers and developers, acting as consumers with full market knowledge, yada, yada, decide to purchase the superior Microsoft produce. Freedom to Innovate. Checkmate, bastards.
.NET in the works, although it may not be released until the last second, and will be a business and legal win for the company. In time, your grandmother (or, by that time, your mother) will be running Linux on her home system - but it will be the Microsoft distro, running .NET and Passport.
In the first few pages (around page 19), the decision reports that the Appeals Court upheld that MiddleWare would not count when determining that Microsoft was a monopoly. Microsoft defined middleware as any system that supplied an API for applications programming (Java was an example). If the middleware layer became an industry standard, then the API could be mapped to other operating systems, making Microsoft's monopoly irrelevalent. Application designers could write an application, using the API, that ran on Windows as well as other operating systems, and consumers could then move to another operating system with a significantly lessened cost-of-entry. Thus, Microsoft would be unable to leverage it's monopoly power - the market would take care of the remedy. With increased processing power making indirect APIs more attractive, Microsoft thinks this is a real threat.
The Appeals Court upheld what we all know - the current middleware software (Java et all) isn't good enough - you can't write a fully portable, fully powered application on top of it. Thus, it doesn't factor into the court's decision that Microsoft is a monopoly.
So, what does Microsoft do? They try to invent an API that is powerful enough -
What if they don't buy it, and split the company up anyway? Well, Microsoft, while it was one company, already created the application-to-operating system interface, and can seemlessly use it as two companies. Plus, they can port it to other systems, and leverage their market share on office applications in other markets.
So, yeah, I expect a Linux port of C# and
That's not precisely true -- merely assessing each as a square along the playing board doesn't factor the various non-dice related influences on board position. The odds of landing on Boardwalk are of course much greater (according to one analysis, Boardwalk is the 18th-most-landed upon property, whereas Park Place is 33rd.
For more detail, see http://www.tkcs-collins.com/truman/monopoly/monopo ly.shtml.
FreeBSD - the power to serve.
As the picture with the story implies:
Resistance is futile, you WILL be assimilated.
Gosh! Twelve months ago they had MS dead to rights on their ridiculous schemes. In comes Dubya, out goes the case. Now we have .NET and SmartTags to look forward to, as well as an even more closely integrated browser, a downright silly interface rework, another game console whose developers can't perform a simple trademark search (or are too arrogant to think they even HAVE to don one...) rampant VBS viruses and assaults on the intellect a'la' Ballmer and his ilk. Not to mention a total cluelessness about open source development and how to build a truly useful platform...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Interesting to note that the MSNBC article also claims (erroneously) that the ruling that bundling IE with windows violated the sherman act was thrown out. Does anyone else find it a bit troubling that they use their own news company to put an even better spin on this news than there should be?
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
It's a Judge's JOB to be partial, it's just the setting in which he's partial that's important-- and being publically partial, ridiculing the defendent, etc., isn't something appeals courts or other Judge's smile upon.
He had every right to feel the way he did, and in the ruling handed down today, the opinion said as much-- but it also said if he felt the way he did, he should have made such comments from the bench, not on TV talk shows or to the press/media at large. By doing it from the bench, it gave both the defense and the prosecution a chance to object or defend themselves, whereas in public, there was no chance for that.
As for your claims of my anti-MS bigotry-- I actually run Windows 2000 and other MS products. I only run one Linux on one system-- RedHat Linux running on a monitor-less Pentium 166 sitting next to me that I telnet into from time to time. Other than that, I'm a professional Windows software developer and work literally only a few hundred yards from the Microsoft campus here in Redmond.
I just think Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer into Windows, while argueably evolutionary, was also anti-competitive and in direct response to Netscape. Had they waited and included Internet Explorer a few years later (like say, in 2000) they might have had a better arguement (just as Microsoft, over the years, has included apps to play multi-media files (Windows Media Player), or included 'new' technology as part of the operating system (the toolbar control, which pretty much put vendors of toolbar controls for Visual Basic or Visual C++ out of business)).
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
When a Judge reaches a verdict, he is being partial. As was said in the opinion handed down today, the things he said would have been FINE had he said them from the bench. His mistake was airing his opinions on TV and to the media without telling the defense or anyone else.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
As was said on the MSNBC article covering this ruling (or rather, it was a link to other antitrust cases in history, eg: AT&T, IBM, etc) these cases are usually drawn out for DECADES before they're either given up or ruled on. IBM's case started in 1969 and didn't end until the 80's, and AT&T's case lasted almost as long too. Considering Microsoft's case started in 1998, we've got atleast 8 more years of this in the courts before they get around to doing something meaningful..
The thing that's really too bad is Judge Jackson did this to himself-- if he'd kept his mouth shut, not appeared on TV and in the media making public remarks about the case, there's a decent chance he'd have atleast been able to continue presiding as Judge over the case. Now they're handing it to a different Judge, possibly one that will be more in line with what Microsoft's lawyers want.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
I'm afraid I disagree with this statement. Microsoft is successfull because the produce the most effective product to fill a consumer demand.
Not the best: certainly not technically. The most effective. MS windows can be operated by the (virtually) non-computer-literate. *No* free os can say the same. Mac is an alternative, but Mac have a sufficiently restrictive hardware policy that for 90% of the market, the Mac solution is not effective. Windows may not be unbelievably stable. It may not be fast. But most users can find the power button or hit ctrl-alt-delete. A very large section of the market not only can not read, understand and work from the init() or pppd() or whatever man pages, but don't want to, and don't want to learn how. They want to be asked simple questions and to give simple answers and they want all the clever stuff done automagically. In reference to (for example) linux, insufficient quantities of systems administration and maintenance software enable them to do this. So Linux is not their answer.
I don't like MS products. I use them for certain purposes. But, they are providing the most effictive product to meet a significant market need. And that's why they got this big in the first place.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Pity is Americans should be shocked and outraged at Microsoft's past, present and future plans, but are too busy watching reality TV.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Bill Gates gave a brief speach telling what a burden has been lifted from their shoulders and how he wants to thank the thousands of supporters who have called and written in support of Microsoft during this trying and difficult time. (nothing said of the thousands, including one vocal interviewee on the news, who were not supportive and feel the rat has made off with the cheese) Bill continued with the party line that they have established technological partnerships with thousands of technology companies and continue to work with their partners to improving hardware, softwage, etc. for home and business. Note: Their partners. Nothing is said about improvements for non-partnered technology companies, and you could read that as any company which does not buy Microsoft language IDE's or compilers, or basically sell their soul for a slice of the pie. He sounded rather unrepentant, but not necessarily defiant. I'd like to note, however, that whenever I here him use the word "innovate" I wonder how many people around him understand how negatively this will impact them.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This gets moderated +5 informative, yet the post provides absolutely no factual information. Good work, moderators! This proves that the key to high karma is simply posting empty left wing rants. Gotta love it.
--
Daniel J. Kelly
Jello Biafra sums it up best with, "...liberty and Ju$tice for all who can afford it."
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Milosovic extradited, Bill Gates still free.
I think it should be obvious what the perfect legal remedy is for Microsoft. Just fine Microsoft 50 billion dollars and then the government can use that money to sue the motion picture and music cartels!
Microsoft will be have much less money for FUD/marketing for a year or so, and artists will be one step closer to being fairly compensated for thier work and having it available to whoever wants a taste.
James
http://james.nontrivial.org
1. It available in pdf.
2. Wordperfect is the "standard" in the legal profession.
Burn Hollywood Burn
We begin by considering whether Microsoft possesses monolopy power...and finding it does, we turn to the question whether it maintained this power through ainticompetitive means. Agreeing with the District Court that the company behaved anticompetitively,...and that these actions contributed to the maintenance of its monopoly power, we affirm the court's finding of liability for monopolization."
After these statements, the court goes on to essentially shoot down everything Microsoft tried to tell them was wrong about the finding, essentially agreeing with Jackson the entire way, or noting errors in Microsofts reasoning. This is actually quite interesting, since the part about why the court is vacating the Jacksons remedy is limited to the last 30 or so pages out of 125 and seems to be quite narrow.
Jackson made improper comments to the media
Jackson met with the media in secret during the trial.
Jackson didn't hold an evidence hearing about what course of remedy the court should go through.
All of Microsofts arguements about why they are not a monolopy where shot down one by one, just as they were by Jackson. All of Microsofts arguements about the fast track nature of the trial and how it was handled was shot down with the simple words "Microsoft agreed..before the trial".
So what we have here is a prediciment for Ashcroft, who clearly is not interested in going after Microsoft. He can try to make it disappear, but the states now have their affirimation of the ruling and may be able to continue without the federal goverment, he may try to settle, again with the States getting in the way and with the appeals court giving just as damning ruling as the Finds of Fact, or he can piss of his republican freinds and continue with the case.
It will be interesting to see what's next...
Burn Hollywood Burn
Maybe you will get a clue first?
They specifically mentioned not taking Justice' view (ignoring Jackson's comments) nor MS' view (start all over) in their decision, hence the reason it was vacated.
Interestingly the decision does not really fault MS for it's tying of IE to the OS (the lower court will decide further), but rather what they did to java;
Some choice quotes from the ruling;
As explained above, however, a monopolist does not violate the
antitrust laws simply by developing a product that is incompatible
with those of its rivals........Because the cumulative effect of the deals is anticompetitive
and because Microsoft has no procompetitive justification for
them, we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements
requiring use of Microsoft's JVM as the default are
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act. As a result, even Java
''developers who were opting for portability over performance
TTT unwittingly [wrote] Java applications that [ran] only on
Windows.'' Conclusions of Law, at 43. That is, developers
who relied upon Microsoft's public commitment to cooperate
with Sun and who used Microsoft's tools to develop what
Microsoft led them to believe were cross-platform applications
ended up producing applications that would run only on
the Windows operating system.
On the IE tying;
There being no close parallel in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of
per se tying rules carries a serious risk of harm. Accordingly,
we vacate the District Court's finding of a per se tying
violation and remand the case. Plaintiffs may on remand
pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason.
That's the long and short of it. Anyway, MS may not need victories in this case as clearly their strategy is to stall until the case is irrelevant.
There is a lesson to be learned here about giving in to loathing at an inappropiate time as Jackson did. As a consolation, it's fun to read the decision recanting Jackson's rants calling Microsoft a bunch of gansters.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Really? In what market does Microsoft hold a monopoly? Operating systems? Browsers? Evil? Hardly. If someone is a monopoly that means that it has no competitors in the market in question; that is, if you have a product belonging to that market, you must have obtained it from the monopoly........Given the definition, does Microsoft hold a monopoly in any market? No. To disprove this, I need only examine my network ...
You must have not been alive when DOS was the only operating systerm. Microsoft was enough of monopoly to snuff out caldera's DRDOS. Evidently they felt guilty enough to pay 150 million for what they did This antitrust case is DejaVu all over again, They did this by introducing an incompatibility in DOS according to Undocumented DOS that had no technical reason whatsoever other than to break DRDOS compatibility with Windows 3.1/DOS. DRDOS had a real chance for market penetration - it's just that MS would not allow it to be installed by OEMs. More detail here
The proof is simple and direct. The conclusion is the only one possible. Microsoft holds no monopoly in any market.
The proof is simple and direct. You are wrong. Pull your head out of the sand. The world doesn't revolve around you and your 6 pc mini-network.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I take that back, you were alive during DOS days.
Not one of the 6 boxes is a peecee. And of greater interest is the fact that disproving something requires only a single counterexample.
The only thing that you prove is that your a guy with 6 non-standard machines that disagrees with the seven appellant judges when they unaminoulsy said today in their ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly and it holds an OS Monopoly. (You bothered to read the opinion, right??) The arguments that you use is the same one that Microsoft used. "that there are alternative OS"
from page 15 of the ruling today;
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined
the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to
entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that
because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct
proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately
indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting
each argument, we uphold the District Court's finding of
monopoly power in its entirety.
If you prefer larger-scale counterexamples, I offer the following: dgux, dynix, solaris, sunos, aix, xenix, macos, lunix, mvs, vms, os2, plan9, inferno, riscos, ultrix, nextstep, netware, unixware, openbsd, netbsd, freebsd, linux, hurd, tru64/digital unix, irix, unicos, amoeba, and os/400, to name merely a few of the more popular products which compete or have competed with Microsoft in the OS market.
The important thing to note here is none of these OS belong to the relevant market. The only OS worth mentioning from your list is macOS and OS2, and the court explains in detail on pages 16-23 why these don't compete with Microsoft OS monopoly in the relevant market In other words, your not going to Circuit City and find computers running solaris (or linux for that matter). Nobody is writing apps for OS2 anymore, and everybody isn't going to throw away all their intel hardware so they can go out and purchase all new (and more expensive) machines so they can run macOS. Likewise, people aren't going to pull out their old Z80 Kaypros so they can run CP/M. Just because their is some guy in a basement doing it somewhere doesn't mean it's a competing OS. You at one time could purchase Nextstep for PCs (far superior to what the Mac or MS had at the time) but nobody bought it because their was no applications for it nor was there the promise of apps on the horizon. So it died.
Just because you have examples of alternative OS running on your mini-network doesn't neccessarily prove that it's a competing OS, as it has a market share of One Nor does listing a bunch of other OS that existed at one time or another.
That's what made today's victory a hollow one for Microsoft. The appellant court affirmed what most of us have been saying all along. Microsoft holds an OS monopoly and uses it to squash competition. The question remaining for the lower court is if they were wrong to "tie" Internet Explorer to the OS and what should the corrective action should be to restore competition in the relevant markets
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This remindes me the way that Pinochet lawers here in Chile try to blame the Judge in Pinochet's case for everything :)
The same thing everywhere isn't?
I wrote this article for my customers. You are welcome to use it without payment if you don't change it, show my name and company (with trademark registration symbol) as the author, and tell me where it appears.
Microsoft Breakup Decision Overturned by the Court of Appeals
Judge Jackson had compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers".
by Michael Jennings
(Thursday, June 28, 2001) Today the Court of Appeals handling the Microsoft anti-trust case overturned the lower court's decision to split Microsoft into two or more companies. The breakup would have placed the Microsoft Windows operating system in one company and created a second business for everything else.
This decision of the Court of Appeals has been widely recognized as fair because of the behaviour of the judge of the lower court, in which he had not given the required appearance of impartiality. Judge Jackson had, for example, compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers", and Bill Gates to Napoleon. (See page 111 of the Court's decision [PDF format]).
The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson's 206-page Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal conduct, was entirely acceptable. It was his conduct outside the courtroom that was a violation of the code of conduct for United States judges. (For more about this, see pages 111 to 115 of the decision.)
Earlier, many people had praised Judge Jackson's skill in handling the case inside the courtroom. Technically oriented observers considered the Findings of Fact to be very well informed.
However, the penalty that Judge Jackson recommended for Microsoft was voided because of his public misconduct. The Court of Appeals directed that a new district judge examine the case, using the Findings of Fact as a starting point.
The story is very widely reported. For examples, see: ABC, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Seattle Times, CNet, The Industry Standard, Reuters, Guardian, Motley Fool, and MSNBC. The NY Times article requires that you register. Registration is free.
Silicon Valley.com said "[Microsoft] can continue its brutal practices for a while longer..."
There were two parts to the anti-trust case, 1) the Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal activity, and 2) the remedy, which is what would happen as a result of the court finding illegal activity. Judge Jackson had ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies. It is only this second part, the remedy, that has been voided (vacated) by the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals wrote, "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte [outside the court] contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality."
The Court of Appeals added, "Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process."
The ruling of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, by a 7-0 vote.
More links:
Open Secrets.org report on Microsoft soft money donations
Common Cause report on Microsoft political contributions
Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Older Articles:
Microsoft Unfazed by Threat of New Antitrust Suits (Thursday, June 21, 2001)
What, me worry? Microsoft's Ballmer stays cool, confident, composed. (PC World, June 17, 1998)
Michael Jennings
Futurepower®
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.
Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606
E-Mail: jennings_michael @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)
Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001
Bush's education improvements were
I see M$ lawers getting johnny the GI JOE with the kung-fu grip with that most excellent christmas bonus.
--toq
There you have it: The case was vacated because Jackson said some commonplace things. Being a judge, he used bad judgment, for he needed to appear to ride above such matters. But the fact is that what he said is what pretty much everyone in the computer world knows to be true. It is so obvious that MS is a monopoly it's not worth discussing. When Jackson said something along those lines, he doomed his verdict.
Still, it is interesting that the appeals court couldn't actually find evidence of bias in the ruling. They just didn't like what Jackson said on his own time. And you know that MS hired plenty of guns to find bias anywhere they could. They failed. MS is a monopoly, and there was no official bias. Merely unofficial bias. Just as we all have.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Absolutely. In our free market economy, we all have the power to decide that we aren't going to purchase Microsoft products anymore. The end result of such a decision is obvious. In any political structure where the ultimate decision of market viability is given to anyone other than the masses, a much worse situation can and will develop. And if the recent (~100 years) trend of socialism throughout the world is to be used as any indicator of success, Microsoft could simply purchase the nescessary officals to ensure their everlasting domanance. I'd much rather have their presence by an elective choice.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
You've been tricked. You think that Jackson was biased because he had an opinion of whether or not Microsoft was guilty AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS HAD CONCLUDED. It's the judge's job to have an opinion at the end of the trial. It's amazing how successful M$' lawyers were in fooling people into thinking that the comments were made at a point where they would still have been indicative of bias. IT'S NOT BIAS IF IT'S AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS - he said those things at a stage of the trial where having anything less than a fully developed opinion would have meant that he wasn't doing his job.
Maybe the important battles were won.
But, despite you've had won all the battles, you can still loose the war.
If you don't believe me, ask Hannibal (the cathargian)
And the war is about the users, not the programmers (or licences).
It's about the desktop, and there is still a long way to go, Linux...
Judges are nominated for life for a reason. So they dont have to worry about pleasing anyone. They can piss off everyone, They will remain on the bench. They're less biased than lower courts, for that simple reason. They're a judge till death or resignation.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
I have a few copyleft and thinkgeek T-shirts, but believe me, if you you really want to score with chicks, the Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate T-shirt is a must. Period.
Nothing bests making them cry-laughing.
-- p a n a p i c - panoramas des alpes: Mont-Blanc, Mont-Rose, Cervin, etc...
Yes, it is no problem at all that one person possesses billions of dollars while others possess very little. Why? Because that person EARNED it. He had to work for his money. He had the will to actually start his buisness, not just tell his friends about his great idea. He used cunning and even a bit of luck to get his billions of dollars. If he was producing a terrible product, he would fail. But he did not, and thus, he succeeded, and others were nothing but horrible workers with low pay.
Jackson screwed up by appearing on mainstream TV, comparing Microsoft execs to gang members, etc. so his judgement simply is not creditable. However, the court has admitted that a) Microsoft is a predatory monopoly and b) Microsoft's behavior was in clear violation of the law.
Microsoft is a dual monopoly which they have maintained historically by enforcing one monopoly with another. Breaking the company up into two monopolies is clearly not the solution and could result in more agile competition from proprietary software when Office developers no longer have to think about the market share of Windows and vice versa.
Ralph Nader has argued for a breakup arguning that it would take an army of law enforcement officials to ensure that fair play was used. In reality, the 100+ lawsuits against the software giant will have a far greater impact than 1000+ law enforcement officials. Microsoft cannot afford the liability that this will create in the long run as the software market continues to slow down (55% percent of office users are using Office 97), so their management may become paralized as a result (remember IBM and their lawsiuts?). Already several tech stock magazines have cited these reasons for listing Microsoft as a turnaround candidate, so this really isn't new news.
Bottom line-- this is not the victory that Microsoft thinks it is.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The important battle was the one that got IT managers looking at alternatives instead of blindly choosing a Microsoft product.
The important battle was one that got Microsoft's internal documents out on the Internet for all to see and read. These showed how Microsoft's goal was domination with IE. (Never mind that, in the end, they did make a better browser than Netscape.)
The important battle got Linux thousands of headlines and millions of dollars in IPO money and venture capital.
The important battle was the one that got the phrase "open source" in the vocabulary of millions of people.
The important battle was the one that IBM joined -- Linux as a viable server alternative.
The other important battle was the one that got embedded Linux rolling. I love my TiVO, and I don't have to worry about anything dealing with regular Linux -- I can just sit back and let it record for me. That's what consumers want, and Linux delivered.
Folks, it ain't over. Linux has the mindshare now. Linux has IBM. Microsoft has been forced to make a really stable OS (2000) to compete.
Competition is a good thing. Microsoft sees the threat on its horizon. Even if Linux dies (which I don't think it will), Microsoft will have changed dramatically. Microsoft now is competing on features and stability, not on "well, everyone buys our product anyway, so we can afford to make it crappy."
In short, don't forget how far Linux has come, or how far it can go. Don't get caught up in these "anti-open-source" agendas; they are meant to take away from the real issue. Some of the best programs in the world are released as open-source, some are not. It's not the issue. The issue is that Linux/Apache/etc. has started to be taken seriously. This is a good thing.
This doesn't come as a surprise to me. What IS surprising is the REASONING behind the ruling. Since the appeal STILL found Microsoft to be a monopoly, what then, if anything will be the remedy?
"Ok, Microsoft. You're a monopoly. You're predatory. BAD Microsoft! Go take a 'time out' in your room to think about this."
-jhon
that judge's wallet is very fat right now...
Human life depends on the environment, like all other life. Even if you don't give a fsck about tigers and frogs, one day we'll wake up struggling for air cause the world is so screwed up. The sooner we start to rescue the environment (for our own sakes if nobody elses), the smaller a job it's going to be Why not fix these things up while there are still tigers and frogs to thank us for it?
BTW read "This Other Eden" by Ben Elton. Sure, it's fiction and it's silly, but it might make you think.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another" - Doctor Who
Urm, how do we have human life without an enviroment that supports it? Them's weird priorities. "We need to concentrate on having lots of installed software, then buy some computers"... ?
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another" - Doctor Who
Free burn copies of Win98, ME, and 2000 for everybody!
If you smoke after sex, you're doing it too fast.
Quite. For some "good" and "insightful" analysis that isn't oozing with derision akin to that of Penfield's and that of the rest of the the /. community, check out Salon's take on the news. It is far more unbiased and takes an honest look at what the ruling means by asking a variety of different "experts".
On a side note, "Still, a small degree of celebration is fair. The tags are out of our browsers for the time being. That is progress, real progress." What is all the fuss about smart tags? From everything I've read about them they seem like a very novel and useful new idea.
-acidboy
Face it, the Judge lost the case, not the prosecution. If he wasn't so obviously biased in his choice of Court advisors, allowances to the prosecution, or flapping his big frigging mouth off after the trial but before the ultimate resolution.
The fact is Justice should have pursued this when it really mattered, back when 95 was coming onto the scene. Back when there were alternatives to Windows on the desktop.
If they want to help the computer industry now they need to fight to ensure there remains competition in the server side of the market. (the desktop war is over, the victims have already been buried)
Get some regulations out there to protect the privacy and information of individuals. Protect their freedom on the net by preventing companies from locking up the world.
PS: It didn't hurt MS's case that Netscape/AOL merged with Time Warner, kind of rendered a lot of the future predicitions made by prosecution pointless.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Interesting to note how much more soft money Microsoft's been giving to the Republican party lately - they used to be much more even-handed about doling cash out to the parties.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
They always stop trading when stocks start to spin out of control. They stopped the trading of MSFT shares which last traded at $74.96, up $3.82, or 5.37 percent. When the stock market over reacts to anything it can turn out pretty bad, this is just a precaution.
[...]
[...] "The offense of monopolization has two elements: (1)the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2)the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product,business acumen,or historic accident." [...]
[...] "While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an antitrust violation,[...] it is a necessary element of a monopolization charge [...]
[some explanations of principles follow, then the court considers MS's objections]
[...] "In sum,we hold that with the exception of the one restriction prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces,
all the OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft s market power to protect its monopoly,unredeemed by any legitimate justification.The restrictions therefore violate 2 of the Sherman Act."
[...] "Accordingly,Microsoft may not be held liable for this aspect of its product design."
[...] "Accordingly,we affirm the District Court s deci-sion holding that Microsoft s exclusive contracts with IAPs are exclusionary devices,in violation of 2 of the Sherman Act."
[...] Accordingly,we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is exclusionary,in violation of 2 of the Sherman Act..
[...] "Therefore,we reverse the District Court s imposition of liability for Microsoft s development and promotion of its JVM."
[...] "we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements requiring use of Microsoft s JVM as the default are exclusionary,in violation of the Sherman Act."
[...] "Accordingly,we conclude this conduct is exclusionary, in violation of 2 of the Sherman Act."
[...] "Therefore we affirm the conclusion that Microsoft s threats to Intel were exclusionary,in violation of 2 of the Sherman Act."
[...] "Because the District Court identifies no other specific acts as a basis for course of conduct liability,we reverse its conclusion that Microsoft s course of conduct separately violates 2 of the Sherman Act."
C. Causation
"[...]Microsoft urges this court to reverse on the monopoly maintenance claim, because plaintiffs never established a causal link between Microsofts anticompetitive conduct, [...]and the maintenance of Microsofts operating system monopoly." [...]
"We disagree."
ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION
[...] "This,in turn,requires plaintiffs (1)to define the relevant market and (2)to demonstrate that substantial barriers to entry protect that market. Because plaintiffs have not carried their burden on either prong,we reverse without remand."
TYING
[...] "Accordingly,we vacate the District Court s finding of a per se tying violation and remand the case.Plaintiffs may on remand pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason."
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND REMEDY
[...] "We conclude,however,that the District Courts remedies decree must be vacated for three independent reasons:(1)the court failed to hold a remedies-specific evidentiary hearing when there were disputed facts;(2)the court failed to provide adequate reasons for its decreed remedies; and (3)this Court has revised the scope of Microsoft s liability and it is impossible to determine to what extent that should affect the remedies provisions."
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
"[the law] requires federal judges to avoid public comment on the merits of [ ]pending or impending cases [...] avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, on the bench and off [...] to initiate or consider ex parte communications on the merits of pending or impending proceedings [...] to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. [...] All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate,repeated,egregious,and flagrant. The only serious question is what consequences should follow."
"[...] leads us to conclude that the appropriate remedy for the violations of 455(a)is disqualification of the District Judge retroactive only to the date he entered the order breaking up Microsoft.We therefore will vacate that order in its entirety and remand this case to a different District Judge,but will not set aside the existing Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law (except insofar as specific findings are clearly erroneous or legal conclusions are incorrect)."
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part,and remanded in part.We vacate in full the Final Judgment embodying the remedial order,and remand the case to the District Court for reassignment to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
See subject.
O.J. Simpson won because he had a better legal team than the government did. The same thing just happened here. Bush got into office and cut funding for the Justice Department's legal efforts against Microsoft. The legal team now in place pales in comparison to the one that tried the case the first time. You don't have to control the courts. You just have to control the budget of one of the legal teams.
If O.J. won solely based on bias, why did he waste millions of dollars hiring the legal "dream team." From what you argue, he could have won it with a public prosecutor. (Remember the try-on-the-glove incident? Had O.J.'s lawyers been facing worthy adversaries, that fiasco would never have happened.)
You need to spend a little more time reading the newspaper and a little less reading Slashdot. Your lack of understanding in this case, the O.J. case, and world events is scary.
The lesson here?
Republicans or Democrats
Conservatives or Liberals
Money talks!
And that justice is available for anyone who can afford it.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
You have to remember that it took almost 50 years for the AT&T antitrust case to be setteled. Sure AT&T had court victories here and there, but in the end they lost the case because they were a monopoly. I don't see much difference here.
This isn't going to be like a murder trial, either guilty or not guilty, there are many differant points of guilt or innocence that have to be proven, and every one of them can be turned/returned/overturned/changed in following appeals.
Its going to take a while, but I think MS is going to end up losing out on this one, especially if they keep up with thier current buisness practices.
RA7
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
Hmmm, I thought that image was advertising a new product... "Microsoft Appeals Court 2001" ;-)
Evidence of bias will always be available as long as the court uses Windows!
Re: Microsoft... I'm sure this is a redundant comment, but wtf, there are 900-odd equally redundant comments up there so wtf? ;)
* It's very depressing news. Clear proof, if any were needed, that big business controls the US government.
* As a non-American citizen, my righteous wrath is tempered by the fact that they control everywhere else, too, except some of the more enthusiastic theocracies and the two remaining communist nations (Cuba and North Korea).
* It's not exactly unexpected
* It now down to us. No-one else is going to beat these creeps.
We have to work and work and work to promote Free software. And, for those who are skilled enough and lucky enough to have the time & energy, help to improve it, spread it around. Read the evangelism FAQs. Get your facts straight (don't claim NT/2000 BSODs every day, or every month even. You just lose credibility with the people who need to understand why Freedom is important.
Incidentally, to all the Slashdotters who work for the Beast... LEAVE! Seriously, how do you folks justify working for these people to yourselves? Do you think...
-
There's nothing wrong with what Microsoft do, or
- if they didn't do it, someone else will, or
- screw the ethics, show me the money, or
- something else entirely?
Just interested...--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
Dan Gillmor??? "What he said" is an analysis??? Credit where credit is due. The analysis is by John Lettice of The Register. What an unbelievably americentric attitude.
Don't bother writing software anymore. Throw out your computer. Now that Micro$oft has finally managed to make friends in high places, they can dictate law as well as the market.
Already, most software is owned and sold by Micro$oft... even though a 14 year old could create these things (and they have).
I mean, when Micro$oft rips off IRC do and legal eagles come to the defence of the poor guy who wrote the program (in college)?
Quite your job, become a cook or something. Unless you want to work for Chairman Bill.
______
jeff13
I've seen speculation that AOL was holding back on the Mozilla/Netscape browser for not wanting to make it look like IE *didn't* have a monopoly. Now what?
Apparently MS and AOL are also going back and forth on dealings for whether AOL will get an icon on the Win desktop or just bundle the Netscape browser with the next version of AOL. What about that now?
looks like those capitalist pigs got what they deserved! eh comrades? uhm...
Now that the press is reporting that the decision has been reversed the legal niceties of that reversal matter little. The Bush people will settle and Microsoft will give them a nice campaign contribution before the soft money limits kick in.
Rather less of the decision has stood than some Slashdotters appear to think. The case has been remanded back to be heard by a different judge and the Appeals Court has made it clear that the new judge need not take much notice of Jackson's opinions.
The Appeals court has overturned parts of the 'findings of fact' in practically every area. I suspect this is part of a strategy. Under the ridiculous Appeals court rules the idea is that the Appeals court is bound by findings of fact by the lower court - hence Jackson's stated intention to prevent review by issuing the findings of fact as a separate document. If the Appeals Court had vacated the findings of fact directly there would be a possible appeal to the SC. However the Appeals court has essentially remanded the case in such a manner that the new judge is free to reverse as much of Jackson's findings as they see fit.
Specifically missing from the rulling is any endorsement of Jackson's findings, they decline to vacate them, but they don't bind the new judge to them.
I doubt that the case will get as far as a new trial since the Bush people are practically certain to settle. I suspect that the Gore folk would have settled also, although on rather less favorable terms. The terms of the proposed breakup were idiotic, they would have created two monopolies in place of one. I think they had more to do with the size of the lawyers egos than policy sense
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
to kick MSFT's ass with software than it is to do the same with the law? Y'all act like you don't trust free software to win the day on its own merits.
"The roles of giant, transnational corporations and government have slowly reversed,"
"Government is now more an instrument of such corporations than the corporations are instruments of government." - Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA International
The Executive also nominates the judges. In this case, I believe many of the judges were nominated under Bush Sr. or Reagan, so although this executive branch has no particular influence over them now, presidents with similar ideologies-- possibly similar DNA-- appointed them, and that's a big favor to do for somebody. Finally, don't forget that someday Bush or a successor may get to appoint somebody to the Supreme Court-- that's certainly incentive to play nice.
I wonder if this would have happened if the election results had been different...
----------- Sig what?
The real problem, is it isn't up to "us" to nail them, it's up to Junior's Justice Department. You think they are going to go aggressively after one of the biggest Republican campaign contributors?
However, because the finding of fact was upheld, it should make it easier for various companies that think they were harmed by MS's anticompetitive actions to go to court themselves and collect damages. This might be a bit like trying to weaken an elephant by turning loose a batch of mosquitos to suck its blood, but it beats waiting for Ashcroft to go out there and say "Bad Elephant! If you trample another crowd to death I will have to beat you with this feather!)
Bill: Ok, if you drop the suit, I'll give you Milosevic.
Enjoy waiting on your government waiting list to be issued a PC that makes a TRS-80 look like a Beowulf cluster of 200GHz 65,536-processor massively parallel computers.
That is, assuming the local politician in power "allows" private people to have it. He has, of course, his payoffs to consider and his interactions with the official government computer makers, who produce 1/1000 of what is needed because they aren't capitalist, and in that land of need, the pie (don't know why it's so darned small!) has many other people who want a cut before something frivolous like a home PC.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
This quote is by Steve Ballmer, from the Washington Post op-ed piece:
"because Windows has real-time communications built into it"
I don't think he knows what "real" or "time" mean, and he especially doesn't know what "real-time" means.
--Blair
They 9(M$) put $millions into bush's campaign.
This is a real worl example of the Satr Wars scene when the Empire blew up Alderan. We were right to break up the standard oil monopoly, and WE should have broken up M$ This is truely a sad day
* Carthago Delenda Est *
i don't know where you got the idea that there were only 6 presidential candidates in the last election. npr did a story that said there were 255. anyone can run for president as long as they fill out the paperwork and pay the processing fee.
Bored with your projects?
Try Einsteinium
After checking all the links on the story to get all the info, I decided to check www.microsoft.com to see what the company itself had to say for its victory:
'Save $50 on Office XP'.
Oh, and by the way , you can get yourself cool 'Freedom to Innovate' support-microsoft t-shirts if you follow a link. Can't get that at ThinkGeek, huh?
There is no such thing as 'world peace'.
So, what are the odds this will make it to the top? Must be nearing 1:1, unfortunately, each day that passes makes the reasoning behind the decision exponentially outdated...
Paizurishitetai desu ka?
While it comes as no surprise that the appeals court overturned this decision, it is also largely irrelevant. The Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of the beginning of this trial. They have grown more powerful and spread even further.
This is thr problem with dealing with tech issues in the legal system. The trials take so long (just wait until the appeal on the appeal is done etc etc etc) that the issues are no longer relevant by the time the decision is handed down. The industry changes too drastically too quickly. This started over MS' integration of IE with Windows 98. At this point, there are very few valid competitors to IE for Win9X/2K/Me/XP and thus it doesn't really matter. Furthermore, invasive features such as Smart Tags make it irrelevant whether or not the browser is integrated. Even the browser itself becomes an anti-competitive tactic-leading uneducated users to MS-oriented information.
I don't know what the solution to the Microsoft problem is, or what the solution to the problem of the ineffectiveness of the courts in dealing with tech issues is, but I don't think the current setup is of any use.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
This is a big decision that's guaranteed to flare up emotions (just look at the posts so far). So, they halted trading so that people could run through the emotions and eliminate any "irrational exhuberance" before deciding what to do with their stocks.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
also, all this bitching especially in the open source community (and on /.) about microsoft backfired. No judge could say that microsoft had a monopoly when you can get a clone OS for free. MORAL OF STORY: it ain't over to the fat OS sings. I salute USA president BILL GATES and VP STEVE B. They had the power to check the courts.
(ALL praise to "smoking" Steve Jobs for starting alternacomputing, birthing the yin and yang of zeros and ones... sparking people minds to pop kernals around the internet. umm munch on linux, be cool, don't put money into software. We need to grind software to a halt.
Break the chain of causes, Linux is the second UNCAUSED CAUSE...(theologins understand this and can spell reasonably.))
You know the Microsoft destroys the night, Linux devides the day...
bbc leader image
Jesus, that's tasteless.
THL.
(I mean 'leader' as in the story leader, not 'take me to your...')
--
Keeping
I worked for IBM briefly in the 80's, and I could see that their anti-trust trial was putting a real drag on their operations. For example, every scribble we jotted down onto a scrap of paper had to be copied and saved on microfilm in case it was needed as evidence. Things like this tend to put a damper on productivity. They were also very timid about enforcing patents during this time, allowing competitors like Compaq to spring up out of nowhere.
Over time, the trial adds enough friction to the business to allow others in the market to catch up.
The real question is, with the new administration, will they keep the trial going. It looks like they'll go for an early settlement instead, thus greatly reducing the 'punishment'.
It's been the popular opinion to blame the republican party now in the executive branch of our government. It's easy to complain about a number of other things. But considering how Microsoft has learned from other companies (Bell, AT&T, et. al), they used techniques to save themselves that would have worked with anyone. They quickly jumped in to get people paid off to have strings pulled that prevented the case from going to the Supreme Court (which happened to be very anti-MS, and everyone knew it). They simply moved their case to a court that rested in a region that would "benefit" (for the immediate future) from Microsoft's continued success.
None of us should have expected things to go the right way though. We all know what MS is. We all know how much money it has. We all knew that they were going to weasel out of this one.
Why bother.
Was he an undercover MS agent? Instad of ruling in favor of MS, he acted in a way that would surely lead to have his ruling against MS overcome. He performed an sabotage against his own case.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
Actually, you're wrong. MS is being tried in the same way Standard Oil was, and is helping set antitrust for the next century. This case will eventually go in front of the Supreme Court - hopefully before Bush appoints anyone - and the "Constitutionality" of antitrust laws will be established. Again.
The difference is simple: they don't have a monopoly that they're leveraging. You have to look at the entire case, not just the portions that interest you. MS is a monoply - this has been proven time and time again. A monopoly, in and of itself, is not illegal. That is worth repeating: A MONOPOLY IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT ILLEGAL. It is when you use your monopolistic advantage to gain control in other areas - IE, WMP, and the new Windows Messenger. By tying things to the item that creates the monopoly and attempting to make them the standard you are leveraging your monopoly power illegally. Therefore, the WMP 8 player and Messenger that will only come with Win XP helps - illegallly - push, for example, Real and Apple out of the streaming market and AOL out of the IM market. Just as Netcaspe was pushed out of the browser market..
"That hotel's a dump and your monopoly's pathetic." -- Skinner/Tanzarian
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Why aren't those lawyers using Xywrite or something even more backwards?
WordStar rulez btw.
No, O.J. Simpson won because he was a celebrity, and the jury did not want to see a celebrity go to jail. It would be a shock to the nation to have a celebrity like O.J. executed or sent to life in prison. In the U.S. judicial system, celebrities get special treatment. It's not the government's fault, though. It's the juries' fault.
Actually, there is more of a chance of landing on Boardwalk. You see, the most commonly rolled number with two dice is seven (1/6 chance). Park Place is seven spaces after Go to Jail. Thus, 1/6 of the possible landings on Park Place get taken away. Boardwalk is 9 spaces away. The odds of rolling a nine are 1/9. Out of 36, the odds are 6/36 and 4/36. Therefore, on every 36 trips around the board, Boardwalk gets 2 more landings. Also, there is a Chance Card that tells you to "Take a walk on the Boardwalk," further increasing the odds.
The world is moving toward socialism. Ever wonder why the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes? It's socialism: spreading the wealth. Which is a good thing. The thing is, there are different forms of socialism. Real socialism used to be practiced in Russia and China (communist countries), where there was no capitalism. Then Russia became capitalist and even China's economy moved toward capitalism (with a communist government).
If the government wants Microsoft to straighten up their act, they should just install telescreens in Microsoft's office complex and in Gates's house. Posters would on every cubicle in the offices and on every wall in Gates' house, saying, "Big Brother is watching you." Judge Jackson would be the face on the posters.
On the telescreens, they could have somebody reading all of the anti-MS posts that get posted at Slashdot.
Q: And how many did Dubya's daddy and Reagan appoint?
A: Four
Stephen Williams, Douglas Ginsburg, and David Sentelle were appointed by Reagan. Raymond Randolph was appointed by Dubya's daddy, while Judith Rogers and David Tatel were appointed by Clinton. Harry Edwards was appointed by Carter.
We knew thee well
Screw 3...
when MSNBC starts deciding what news we can view and what we can't... we see tangets merging.
Screw 3...
Why should there be no limit if he had earned it? Why does it make it necessary there should not be any limit?
Of course, US antitrust law is not against monopoly, so what you are saying misses the point, but here I beg to differ in what you seem to be really saying. Although I think MS is in fact doing a lot of WRONG things and should be fined trillions of dollars, that's aside the point.
I really have no problem with Balmer's statement. Who the hell is the federal government to mandate what M$ can and cannot include in their product. Microsoft has been pretty sleezy and deserves repremand, but the feds and the media have gone way too far.
I never said Rand was perfect or any of that. I simply used her writing as an example. Actually, I'm somewhat of an unorthodox Objectivist, in the sense that I disagree with Peikoff and the rest at the ARI on a few things. Nor am I a kelleyite, either. And yes, there are others who have stated the case for this or that idea better than her - but what her true value is is often forgotten: integration, the conceptual, logical, non-contradictory juxtaposition of seemingly disparate areas of human thought. Discovering the symmetries, etc. Taken as a whole, Rand's body of work is the most complete, thorough defense of human freedom I have ever encountered.
And btw, your use of the word 'apologist' to describe capitalist proponents leads me to believe that this is a troll.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
Your english is not too bad, sir/ma'am. And your brain seems to work reasonably well. There's something to be said definitely for abuse of monopoly power - but the plain fact is, in 99% of cases, a monopoly can only stay a monopoly if they treat the customers reasonably well. Otherwise people will eventually tire and find alternatives. The only time government should step in to stop a monopoly is if the monopoly cannot be unseated by the public - these are cases where violence and other crimes are used to maintain power. In these situations, it's a different story, and troops move in. Luckily this hasn't happened on any real scale yet, as far as I know.
Also, I just caught Gates' statement about the verdict vacancy and wrote a little rebuttal, a bit of a flame but I think it's reasonably accurate and I had reason to be reasonably angered. You can find it here.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
Ah, see! Rand was right :) She specifically said that men's bellies were what communism appealed to. Feed me and I will believe! But see, in my view of freedom, the ability to feed myself is among the highest attributes one can possess. And freedom is required before one can do that.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
So you're accepting the law without questioning it? Drug dealers are bad? Yes, most are - for the simple fact that drugs are illegal, mkay? But a drug is something you own - and it is something you should be allowed to sell. Notice what I said far far above, at the beginning of this thread, about government controlling what products and services we have available - and notice that if drugs were legal, there wouldn't be any gang warfare, no one trying to get your 12 year old hooked. It would be like cigarettes and alcohol, there would be kids who got their hands on it but overall things would be much more peaceful.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
I totally agree that they have the most effective product, hence their success. But I submit that their market is dying out, people are more and more used to computers, a whole generation now has grown up with them in various forms - people are aware now, and the ease of use is not going to be as important in the future. My little brother is 7, he sat on my lap for hours when I was learning BSD, he runs slack 7.1 on the pII-350 I helped him build for his birthday. This is an extreme example, but our lil brothers and sisters are much better at younger ages than we were, and they're far from stupid. The short of it is this: Microsoft provided an easy entry point for computers to help them become so widespread. Then, the children grow up with computers, know much more about them, and many of them choose the superior product, because it's not as scary as it is to the older crowd. Over another generation computers are so ingrained and so fine-tuned that we use them without thinking about them, like a dishwasher, and there's never any reason to pay for software or even much service.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
I believe in the people first, everything else second, thats why I opject to software patents (and to some degree patents and IP as a whole, excluding copyright for artistic work). What do you believe in?
You say you believe in people, then you claim the desire to strip them of the fruits of their labor. If a man's work produces nothing that he owns, then his work is worthless to him and so are those who leeched the value from him.
I'll tell you what I believe in. I believe in individual human beings - and I disbelieve in any group mentality such as 'society' except as an abstract concept, to be taken in context, and not as an absolute or a concrete. I believe that a man or woman owns the product of their work, I believe they have a right to it, that it is a right that is theirs, possessed at birth, and not delegated to them as some form of favor from a government or a society or a 'god'. I believe that the only form of 'society' that is less than objectionable is full-out 100% pure Capitalism. What may surprise you is that as far as software goes, I believe a person has a choice to keep their code to themselves, but I myself would/do not. In the real world, one potato feeds one person. With software, one program feeds everyone. Socialism actually works - look at the internet routing, everyone randomly using everyone else's computer, etc. It makes sense here, because of the nature of the world it exists in. The fact is, Capitalism in the real world makes the Socialism of the internet possible. But it is a voluntary Socialism, one may retain all rights to one's product and do what he/she pleases.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
A note, first: This is NOT in support of MS - it is an attack on the case against them, but it is NOT in support of them.
...
... I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I have made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with... the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product.... Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and to do it well... I refuse to apologize for my success, I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. ... I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation, as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above, and against my own - I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, and I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it"
Antitrust laws in and of themselves are flawed and are flagrant violations of the U.S. Constitution. They were originally designed to halt the advance of railroad and timber companies run by men who were seen as 'robber barons' - to paraphrase a famous rebuttal of that idea, I pose the question "If they were robber barons, why did they create? A robber does not create. A robber steals. But if they're creating, then it's not theft - if there was nothing, before they created it... what then is there for them to steal?" The problem I have with this antitrust suit is that they are being pursued for being successful - the arguments used against them have little technical merit, and are based soley on the interests of their competitors. Bundling software? Well, it is their product, their effort. Let them do as they please.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have no love for MS, their operating procedures, or their products. I'm simply saying that litigation is not the answer - educating the consumer is. Microsoft is successful because the general computing public does not know much about alternatives, nor even about what is specifically wrong with MS's products. That is changing, slowly but surely, and I suggest the idea that MS is creating its own demise with these invasive technologies such as 'smart tags' and these software registration hoops we're being asked to jump through. The market will regulate itself, people will, if educated, make better choices, they will, often as I've discovered, willingly take the extra time and energy to learn a more complex, less 'fancy' operating system - for the simple purpose of avoiding MS's inherent malfunctions, both in terms of software quality as well as software function insofar as privacy is concerned.
For those of you who think the government needs to protect the consumer, I suggest the idea that you are right - inasmuch as the government should punish fraud, breach of contract, false advertising, etc - but not to the extent that they actually retain a grip on what products and services we have available to us. Has MS committed fraud? I'm sure they have, although I have no direct example to give. Has MS advertised falsely? Indeed, I remember a couple of MSN commercials a couple years ago that were blatantly false, promising faster-than-56k on 56k lines etc. Has MS broken contracts? Microsoft has no contract obligations, they produce a product and the consumer is the one who signs the contract, aka the End-User Licensing Agreement. The EULA even frees MS from the responsibility of technical support, bug fixes, etc. Sue MS all you want, but if you do so, use proper legal grounds - sue them for what they did wrong, not what they did right. Slackware and Redhat and all the other Linux distributions participate in 'bundling', providing media players, web browsers, online help systems, even supplying some packages that notify the package maintainers every time a new installation comes online (example: pine). Are any of these really bad things? No, they're GOOD things, good for me and good for you and good for the software developer. The only difference is, MS's bundled software is all made by MS - and that is not in itself bad, the only bad part is that most MS code is of low quality. And let me note the fact that MS has been defending themselves on the wrong grounds - they claim they have not broken antitrust laws. What they should be doing is following Gates' viewpoint, that antitrust laws are unConstitutional, and then attempting to prove so by way of Constitutional scholarship.
What I'm saying here is that when government sues corporations for crushing their competition, they're really suing them for being ultra-successful. The government should be harrassing MS right now - but not for the things it has chosen to attack. I want MS to win the court case, and I want it for the simple fact that I want what is right. The truth, no matter how hard or brutal, is preferrable to any false bed of coushions. MS is dooming itself to massive revenue losses, the drop of the value of MS stock, and the disfavor of public opinion, as it bludgeons its way down the road it has chosen. Let the consumers and the market as a whole regulate MS. I quote Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged - as an attack on antitrust laws, not as a defense of MS:
The scene is a courtroom, where Henry Rearden, a steel industrialist, is on trial for the sale of his own metal:
Judge: "Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognize its right to do so?"
Rearden: "Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."
Judge: "We are speaking of... other methods."
Rearden: "Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognize it as such."
"No, I do not what my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
I read like 20 pages of the findings w/ respect to this writing. It sounds to me like the court agrees with most of the lower courts findings but is "on" Microsoft's side because the judge was impartial and thus, Microsoft did not get a fair trial. :)
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
And X11 doesn't work? I've been using X11 for ages and it has rarely ever crashed on me or gave me problems. Get a life.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
monopoly=void of competition... last time I checked there are HUNDREDS of OSs out there... some good, some not so good...
what Microsoft is guilty of is bundling loss-leader software into its OS, which hurts, not OS makers, but third party programmers... THAT is what is needed to be gone after...
_______________________
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
monopoly laws were put in place to protect the consumer... the consumer is NOT being harmed by MS
_______________________
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
it is no business of government what features i choose or do not choose to include in my software.
so long as i do not steal from others, use force or fraud, there simply is no crime to prosecute.
now *did* Microsloth use "force or fraud"? did they "steal" code? these are factual questions and if true deserve prosecution.
or is Microsloth merely guilty of successful negotiation? exclusive source contracts with suppliers? and other such things that everyone else is just jealous of?
prosecution because of jealousy is a lousy way to run a court.
and what if Microsloth never did any of these things? then Linux, BeOS, xBSD and the other variations on a theme might never have the backing of so many people who want to do it "right".
oh, i noticed that the file manager / browser in KDE is the same program. how is their bundling the "browser" into the "os" any different?
Bob-
just say NO to evangelists.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I simply can't believe that this is going to be brought back in any form within another ten years and so, barring Microsoft actually killing someone, I guess they are off the hook for the time being. In all honesty I really think this is a good thing in disguise. Watching them over the last year or so I get the feeling they are not far from jumping the shark and making that blunder or series of blunders where they end up doing to themselves what the Justice Department intended to do all along. I know that I won't be using anything with an XP in the name. Their ideas about licensing software are giving the shop I work in far more cause to investigate alternatives than anything else they have done.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I think that Judge Jackson is a very good Judge but the Appeals Court didn't want to break up M$. So the Appeals Court used this rather lame reason that Judge Jackson wasn't perfect in the way he spoke to the press. I'll have to do some more research on the biases of the judges on the Appeals court to feel confident one way or another if this is what happened, though. -Rick
-Rick
...why trading was halted? Not used to stocks and trading, sorry, so I just don't understand why this happened.
Cheers
Ian
they'll get what's coming to them, all monopolies do in the end. just give it some time and chill out.
Steve Gehrke warakiya@sdf.lonestar.org
Hell, they're still guilty, just the ruling is being thrown into a lower court.
And guess what, its not only the US government, its the states too, you bumfuck.
MS, granted, whatever they seem to have given to the computing world, they either stole or bought it out.
I am not Slashdot's bitch!
This is good news for the Xbox, since that seems to be a product of their hardware, operating system, application, and game divisions. I'd imagine it'd be a big pain in the ass for them if those were all separate companies all of a sudden. Besides hampering internal communcation and collaboration, what if suddenly MS Hardware had to BUY copies of Windows for all their Xboxes due to an anti-trust decision? That would drive up the cost of the system dramatically.
;-)
Well, they could always switch to Linux.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I loved the report on NBC news tonight on the ruling, which said that this is a huge ruling in favor of Microsoft, and then a pundit said 'all they get will now be a slap on the wrist'. They then cut to Bill Gates himself, who didn't answer a single question asked of him, just like a politician. Is this spin or what?
We should keep Microsoft as one company. Other-wise we will have 3 or 4 big companies instead of 1
Oh please mascforever, for all the posts I have read on /. over the years this is the first one that actually got me to register so I could flame you.
"I hope all you Dubya voters are happy with yourselves." George W. Bush has not yet had a chance to appoint judges and none have been confirmed (if you read the papers, that was the big deal with the Senate changing hands).
2. "think about your rights slipping away" What rights have slipped away? Seriously, this is just a mindless rant as a scare tactic. Nothing more than your attempt at FUD. But, either way, the district court UPHELD the rights of individuals (in this case MS and its shareholders.) You might not like microsoft, or its shareholders, but the government was trying to FORCE them to change their buisness practices. MS's rights are just as valuable as yours or mine because cooporations are OWNED by people.
3. "wealthy executives who actually control our government." Actually it is the wealthy executives who ARE the government. They get elected in part because they are rich, and in part because they are hard workers. Yes, the ones that do not run for offices donate large amounts of money to the political parties; HOWEVER, rather than ranting on /. why not call up your congressman or senator? You might be STUNNED how quickly they will meet with you. You are a vote, coporations are not.
4. "society controlled by a privileged few with no interest in our well being." Yes and no, they are looking out for THEMSELVES (i.e. to get re-elected.) There are few (congress+executive) but they are bound by the will of the people. Their interest is to not piss us off. IF they do, they loose - so therefore it is in there best interest to at least partially please us. Coporations, again, do NOT vote. They cannot tell their workers how to vote. Ross Perot spent a fortune and look how well that worked. Money isnt everything, even in our capitalistic society.
5. on your mindless rant about AT&T: Your entire comparison is flawed. AT&T was the ONLY choice. When wireless technologies matured, they would have had NATURAL competition anyway (from Europe vendors if nothing else). Even assuming that AT&T would still be a total monoploly today if not broken up, you forget one VERY important thing...
MS HAS COMPETITION. Linux is MS's competition. MS is therefor NOT a monopoly because it is slowly, and steadily LOOSING its marketshare. It is pure capitalisim to allow linux to compete naturally. If Linux really is the better platform (which I believe), then it will win.
--SpanishExtermination
I myself am an advocate of Linux and the Open Source Movement, and I'm often critical of Microsoft, but I think people are missing the larger issue here. Let's not let our religion blind us to the Appeals Court's point. The Appeals Court agreed that Microsoft had monopoly power and used it unlawfully; however, it disagreed with the lower court's remedy (Microsoft's split). The Appeals Court merely sent the case back to the lower court to resolve the time claim and remedy problems inherent to the lower court's decision. The Appeals Court doesn't care about Windows, MacOS, Open-Source, or any technology, it is concerned with procedural substantive due process - ensuring that a defendant received a fair sentence in line with what is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If a judge has a personal vendetta against a defendant, that defendant cannot receive a fair and just trial - this includes sentencing. The lower court may have been correct in its findings of fact; however, the judge's partiality tainted the appearance of judicial fairness. This is what the Appeals Court was concerned about. On camera, the lower court judge likened Gates to Napoleon and Microsoft to a group of gang members he sentenced earlier. Hopefully the next judge will be a bit more pragmatic - at least enough to conceal his personal opinions of Microsoft during the trial.
...but of course, I'm probably drinking too much blue Kool-Aid.
I personally have mixed feelings about splitting Microsoft. I truly believe that we would be created a two-headed monster here. The courts are powerless to prevent one operating system company from intimately allying itself with an applications company (i.e., Novell and Computer Associates). Operating System manufacturers have every legal right to favor one application manufacturer over another, so a split does nothing to benefit. It merely means that the wealth and power earned by Microsoft is redistributed, but still within the Microsoft empire. Even opening suspect components of the Windows OS would be more immediately beneficial to competitors. Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft port some of its software over to Linux, especially DirectX