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..."
--
"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?"
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.
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...
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.
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
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
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Now they can build hotels on Boardwalk.
Jason
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...
... 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?
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?
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.
"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
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C.
bbc leader image
Jesus, that's tasteless.
THL.
(I mean 'leader' as in the story leader, not 'take me to your...')
--
Keeping
From the ruling: "Given the limited scope of our disqualification of the District Judge,we have let stand for review his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.The severity of the District Judge 's misconduct and the appearance of partiality it created have led us to consider whether we can and should subject his factfindings to greater scrutiny.For a number of reasons we have rejected any such approach." - IV.D.2.Review of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law "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." - VII.CONCLUSION It seems what they really had a problem with was the Judge, his behaviour, and his remedies.
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking