Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Drops out of Microsoft Case
Hiawatha writes: "Looks like
Microsoft has peeled off one of the states." The article is kinda interesting, it talks about how New Mexico's attorney general is all on Microsoft's side now against the remaining states. It's amazing that after years of abusing its power, Microsoft is just gonna walk over this. *sigh*.
This is not based speculation from their actions. It is based on direct evidence of MS executives' intentions.
Did it help you, the consumer, when Microsoft used it's discriminatory pricing to punish vendors who marketed competing products? Did it save you from the confusing situation where multiple products competed for your affection?
I must admit, the whole IE bundling thing is dumb. I think MS was actually making the right decision to include a browser with the OS. But there are other issues that have nothing to do with MS's "freedom to innovate". There's nothing innovative about using your monopoly to stifle competition. That's what this lawsuit is about.
Punishing MS for business tactics that harm consumers and the free market system is not contrary to OSS, America, or anything else other than unbridled capitalism. The US did unbridled capitalism for a while, and it didn't work well. That's why anti-trust laws exist.
if MS had a true monopoly, there would be only one OS on all systems.
By this statement alone, it's obvious that you don't understand what you're talking about. People like you love to throw out this nifty-sounding bullshit and hope that other ignoramouses will buy into it. If you knew a thing about markets, you'd know that you don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly. You'd also know that having a monopoly is not illegal in itself. You'd understand that it comes down to how whether or not they use that monopoly in ways that gives their products a marked advantage over other products which has nothing to do with the quality of the product itself. This goes against the idea of free and open competition that our economy is based on. That's why the government is supposed to step in and right things. In Microsoft's case the government completely screwed its first attempt by believing Microsoft would abide by the spirit of their agreement rather than jumping straight through the first loophole they found. Now they're back for another try and I, for one, will be extremely pissed off if they screw this one up too. I'm sick of seeing Microsoft use their OS monopoly to beat OEMs and competitors into submission. Nor do I want to see them get away with the profit of their actions. Of course the fucked up IP laws in this country only make it easier for them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I read that comment as "We know that no one can control Microsoft, so at least we'll get on their good side while they're relatively weakened". What a huge loss for the forces of law and order.
I'm amazed that anyone would consider lightening up on Microsoft just because they're trying (not very convincingly) to clean up their act now. Present good deeds don't make up for past misconduct in any other court in the land. The attitude is "Well, they've changed their ways, and it would be too hard to prosecute them any further, so...". Where's the famous American thirst for vengeance that gets fired up whenever some lunatic blows up a building? :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The New Mexico AG simply doesn't want to have a say in further proceedings. If she can get M$ to pay the State's costs so far and retain the right to share in any eventual settlement extracted by the DoJ and the rest of the States, then it's just a management decision about where to allocate her staff, no matter how she or M$ might spin this. It won't have any affect on the rest of this case.
Remember the important things:
* The Appeals Court found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This won't just go away, no matter what Gates does.
* One of the reasons for vacating the breakup was uncertainty it would be an effective remedy to prevent future Microsoft misdeeds.
* Another Judge could impose a breakup into _more_ pieces (OS Client, OS Server, Browser, Office, and Media); it could happen.
* Conduct remedies could be imposed, with or without breakup; this would burden Microsoft greatly with DoJ oversight procedures.
* The DoJ has to satisfy 18 States, some of which are still "very troubled" (read, pissed off) at Microsoft's recent actions and plans.
* If not finally reversed, the Court's decision will fuel a storm of civil suits in the US alone. AOL Netscape has a solid foundation.
* Europe's antitrust commission hasn't even _started_ in on Microsoft yet, and the US guilty verdict may influence their thinking.
Microsoft is dead, everybody knows this... except them.
Um, lemme see. The single quote from the AG contains, "I am no longer persuaded a breakup remains appropriate or will ultimately be ordered by the courts. It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy." That doesn't come screaming out of the page at me as "being all on Microsoft's side."
That sounds more like, "they're not going to give up, and they have more money than all 19 states in the suit put together, so we would run out of money first. Let's go do something constructive instead."
Ah, but it's Slashdot. If you're not ranting against the evils of Microsoft, you're all on their side.
(Go ahead, smack me for wanting some journalistic integrity. I've got karma to blow.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
No! Bad! 99% of the prosecuting states isn't good enough! I demand a full 100%!
Maybe we should see if we can get Judge Patel on this case. Her technical incompetance could be useful. Just call the Microsoft programmers "hackers" (Well, it's gotta be some really hacked up code...) and we've got it in the bag. But then again, she'd probably be happy with a nice big Microsoft "donation", right up next to her RIAA one.
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
Got Rhinos?
Basically, monopolies are owned for the most part by fairly meglomaniacal types, and so even when it would make economic sense to spin part of it off, they don't want to, or don't think about it, because they like owning an enormous, monopolistic company. The companies get so big that they repress their own industries, and end up not only preventing themselves from making a profit, but also stifle the growth of the industry, cutting into their own revenues too.
This is one of the reasons I was happy that the courts rejected the break up order. I'd rather see Microsoft get beaten down than have them be split into two smaller, more dynamic Baby-softs, that continue to dominate their markets (OS and Office software, respectively) for years to come.
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
Did most people choose Internet Explorer because it was technically superior or because Microsoft made it integral to the OS and made the OS unstable for other browsers? (BTW, don't tell me about how much more wonderful IE is. Let's talk about its relative merit at the time they began bundling it. I used NS and IE at that time and they were comparable. I actually preferred NS. Lately Netscape/AOL has really dropped the ball, but that isn't strictly relevant.)
The drive behind the antitrust case is exactly that consumers were denied the ability to make choices based on merit. Just because Soviet candidates always received 100% of the vote doesn't mean people actually wanted them in office...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And to those who say that Microsoft is crumbling; it's image is ruined. Bull. That's not even close to true. Their stock is making an amazing come back after losing nearly two thirds of their stock value. Sales are better than ever; the advertising over their .NET and XP software is everywhere and they haven't even started their campaigns yet. Crumbling ususally isn't associated with a soaring profit line and stock price...
Not saying that this is good [lest I get the hurt of the -1 mod] but I'm just saying that as the lame Backstreet boys say Microsoft "is stronger than yesterday...."
-H. Simpson.
(I really think I just ruined my post by using a quote from a pop boy band)
...microsoft probably agreed to ignore all license violations in the NM govenment offices.