Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Denies Microsoft Request for Rehearing
An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting that Microsoft's request for a rehearing has been denied. The court will not reconsider if Microsoft acted illegally by commingling its software.
The appeals court also rejected the government's request to speed up the hearing." I love the word "Commingling". I wish it meant something cooler then it does.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
1) Linux is as easy to develop business-class software for as Windows
2) When a Linux user is willing to pay for a peice of software
People often assume that if you break apart OS+Apps, then immediately everything gets ported to linux. Nothing could be further from the truth. So much that the OS provodies is just not there at all in linux.
Let's think about this. What exactly does Windows provide as an OS-service that is (1) necessary for developing business-class software, and (2) isn't available for Linux? Presumably you mean standard APIs ... but what standards, and who gets to define them? If what you mean is the Win32 APIs, then you need to think again -- those are merely Microsoft's take, and not the only way to do something. So you must mean general APIs for OS services:
You'd better back up your assertion with some facts, because I just don't see what's missing. Oh, and BTW, I've been a business application developer for over 20 years, so I *do* know what I'm talking about.
I think what you mean is that you want development tools that make it truly easy to churn out software without having to understand the low-level APIs. You want Visual Basic and Visual C/C++ for Linux, and you don't want to have to learn a whole new set of APIs either. Well, then have you looked at Wine lately? What about Kylix?
But seriously, porting an application from one OS to another is hard work, regardless of the tools ... there's no economic incentive to do that if there aren't enough users who are willing to buy what you're selling. While I'll admit that many Linux users aren't interested in paying a lot for software, I would suggest that that's because they're more interested in paying what the software is worth to them. There are plenty of users out there who are willing to pay for software that solves a problem that they can't solve any other way. Sound card drivers, Word processing software, games -- there have been plenty of people who have purchased these products because they needed them.
I think the difference is that the Linux marketplace has such a wide variety of solutions available, that people tend to purchase only as much software as they actually need, instead of going for the all-in-one-high-priced-bundle packages that are popular in the PC marketplace.
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
The funny thing about the concept of corporatism is that it almost doesn't matter what government does, some corporation is going to benefit, and some others are going to be hurt. Katz writes about "evil" corporatism because it is easy copy to write. Katz's apathetic non-voting listeners want someone to blame for their inability to cope with the system, and so they flock to demogogues criticizing the nebulous "establishment."
Microsoft gets busted and that gets labeled as anti-corporatism because no one here likes Microsoft. But the reality of the matter is that many more corporations will benefit from this decision than will be hurt by it. AOL, IBM, Sun, Oracle, Apple, Novell, and a host of other companies are almost certainly ecstatic over the news.
In fact, that's part of the reason that Microsoft is doomed to fail eventually. They have made to many enemies. It doesn't matter how big you are, you can't stay king of the hill forever, especially if you are aggressively pushing your former allies off of the hill. Microsoft has rigged the deck so that they are the only ones that are able to develop for Windows and make money. Which only guarantees that they former allies will start looking for other platforms on which to develop their new cool toys. Microsoft might be chuck full of talented individuals, but if they alienate everyone else, they will find that they are unable to compete with the combined intellect of everyone else.
Or, as in this case, even Microsoft's tremendous economic power does not allow them to buy up politicians fast enough to outpace the political maneuverings of their enemies. Especially when their enemies have busted out their checkbooks as well.
Oh yeah, it's impossible to develop desktop software for Linux, after all Linux wasn't even written in America.
Whatever...
The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that MS Office would get ported to Linux (even if MS was broken up) for three very important reasons.
The reasons why desktop companies are interested in Linux have nothing to do with Linux's technology. Heck, porting from Windows to Winelib is really quite straight forward. Instead they have everything to do with simple economics. They know that Linux is a very limited desktop market, and they don't believe that it would be worth the effort to build and support software for such a small market.
Unfortunately for commercial software companies, their reluctance to port to Linux has not stopped the Free Software developers from creating Free Software equivalents to their commercial products. Even now it is pretty amazing how much useful desktop software is available for free with Linux, and this software is only going to improve. When Linux does start making inroads on the desktop for many companies it will be too late. They won't be able to port to Linux in time to compete with the freely available software.
Being required to ship a functional version of Windows without IE commingled would be one.
They can't evade an injunction if the appeals court upholds it. It appears that the appeals court feels that MS is as guilty as a cat caught in a goldfish bowl and if Jackson hadn't acted the way he did and didn't hand down such an extreme remedy we'd be seeing them uphold all of the decision.
If they attempt to ship Windows with any injunctions against that act in place, the parties that did the act (from the decision makers all the way to the people carrying out the act) could face, at minimum, Contempt of Court charges, winning at least several months in Club Fed.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm not really sure why everybody seems so keen on Jackson's idea of splitting Microsoft. If memory serves, it would have been split into Windows and Office. And that is supposed to help how? Last I checked, Exploiter was not a part of Office (except on the Mac, but the Mac Business Unit seems to be pretty independent). And I'm pretty sure Media Player and the photo stuff aren't part of office either. So they'd just be back up to their old tricks again. The only exception is that competing office products might have a little more of a chance. On the other hand, probably not. My experience with MS Office is that it's actually of reasonably good quality, and it seems unlikely that the masses of corporate users are going to switch to something else now unless Office really takes a crap.
The point here shouldn't be simply "Punish Microsoft!!!" The point should be to prevent them from doing it again. And I think that's a pretty great danger. I actually don't much buy into the argument that IE beat Netscape because of the bundling. My experience is that IE is and was (at least by the time bundling started) simply better. Netscape 4.x is, IMHO, pretty much a POS. Hopefully Mozilla will manage to make a bit of a comeback, but I'm still waiting on maturity there too. The environment has changed, though. I think these days people are more likely to just go with what's included with the OS. From a certain perspective (especially that of the fairly computer illiterate consumer) the included (commingled) products are a pretty good added value. My mom doesn't really want to go out and download Winamp over her carrier pidgeon modem, but if there's a music player included with windows, she might actually use it. It genuinely does make it easier for the "idiot" end user. So it's pretty easy for Microsoft to make a strong argument to justify it. The problem is that it IS using the OS monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
-Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Isn't this the basic argument for the use of debian? (apt-get)
Personally, i think that having windows update or apt-get or Apple Software Update handle all security patches is a *good* thing. Keeping track of tiny constant security patches the instant they come out is something that should not really be a requirement of running a web server.
However, the thing is that the Code Red incident is not an argument for automatic patch installs in microsoft products. It is a very, very strong argument against it. Why?
About ten or twenty people in earlier slashdot threads alleged that they personally signed onto the Windows Update website the morning before the code red worm hit the White House to see the hacked by chinese worm message. Some even got screenshots.
In other words, THE MICROSOFT UPDATE SERVER HAD NOT BEEN PATCHED FOR THE DEFAULT.IDA BUFFER OVERFLOW. You could argue that there is no single server anywhere on the internet where security is more important than windows update, and yet an automated worm was actually able to execute arbitrary code on their server remotely.
Meaning that had an alert black-hat gotten there before Code Red had, they could have done some REALLY SCARY STUFF. For example, they could have taken the default.ida patch that everyone was downloading to defeat code red, and inserted some kind of backorifice-like trojan into every sixteenth download of it, or something, and if they were careful it's possible no one would have ever noticed. No? Is there any reason i'm overreacting, or wrong? Can anyone at this point justify EVER trusting Microsoft as a customer on ANYTHING, EVER AGAIN, after seeing *windows update taken infected* by a worm that could be protected against by an already-old patch??
I see three lessons to be learned from the whole code red thing:
- Operating systems like RedHat and NT need to have services off by DEFAULT, and the interface by which users turn those services on and off needs to be clear and simple so that A) "Off by default" doesn't mean "the users don't benefit and B) Users know what they're enabling, and don't enable things they don't need. (The default.ida thingy that Code Red exploits DID NOT need to be on by default. It is as far as i can gather only useful for people hosting sites with search engines, which i would suspect an absolutely minimal number of the infected sites did. If default.ida had remained non-web-accessable until such time as the sysadmin actually knew they wanted it installed and switched it on, Code Red would not have been even a MINOR problem, because few sites would be using it, and most of those few sites would have capable sysadpeople.) However, more relevantly to this thread:
- Services like apt-get and Windows Update are absolutely necessary, because without them worms like Code Red can always thrive on the few inexperienced sysadmins left out there-- potentially causing harm to many others besides just the unpatched servers.
- Microsoft does not place the kind of priority it NEEDS to on the security of its central Windows Update servers, and Microsoft Windows Update is not a completely trustable entity. Therefore if you are a small company that cannot afford a top-of-the-line sysadmin, and you want an OS with automatic patching mechanisms that you can set-and-forget and actually trust with the security of your server (as you suggest microsoft would like people to do), Windows XP is not an acceptable choice.
Is ANYTHING i have said above that is at all inaccurate or unreasonable?Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"BILL GATES: Thank you for coming today. We're still reviewing the details of the ruling from the Court of Appeals, but it's clear that it reverses and significantly narrows the District Court's decision. The ruling lifts the cloud of breakup over the company, reverses the tying claim and says clearly that we did not attempt to monopolize the browser market."
The point is not so much that they couldn't bundle IE with windows (they could), but that since a seperate company would be developing IE other browser (or any other app) makers would have access to the same API's. Additionally while they could bundle IE, they couldn't stop anyone from not bundling IE and including something else instead (like Mozilla).
So the basic theory behind a breakup (which I'm not sure is the best idea either) is to give more opportunity for competitors to comete equally in any application space.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now that we have had some of the findings validated, but TPJ's remedies thrown out, What should the Remedy / Punishment be?
1) Big whoppin' fine. It'll be paid, there may be shareholder lawsuits, and the lesser - paid (and lesser-empowered) MS employees will be laid off. Executives' current holdings will be impacted somewhat, but the greatest pain will be felt on their wrist. Any further Econonic Downturns will be blamed on that Evil Justice Department's clearly misguded antagonistic attitude regarding the Freedom to Innovate.
2) Limitations on future behavior, (consent decrees) - we all know how well they worked the last time.
3) Strict government oversight - this sounds a bit too Big - Brotherish to me, even if Microsoft wants to become Big Brother.
4) Require MS to open - Source Hailstorm - MS will respond by killing it in favor of MS - Tornado, a similar, but Legally Different Innovation, with identical, transparent, but unstated goals.
Yo jigga, you don't wanna be around when Big bad DOJ comes busting down on yo ass like an 800 pound gorilla...
Seriously tho, as much as Katz complains about corporatism in America, it is good to see our government wield the power to punish greedy corporatism severely when it is clear it has overstepped its bounds. The examples may be few of government versus big business, but their are illustrative: the judicial branch is by no means in the pocket of corporate America.
Welcome to checks and balances, limited government sphere of influence, and this is a good example of the benefits those separations bring.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
I remember reading here (correct me if I'm wrong) that M.S. has an injunction placed on their XP release of Windows.
There is currently no injunction on the XP release. Certain senators and state attorneys want one but it isn't there yet.
Suddenly, they seem willing to settle out of court or at least want to hurry the process. Looks like they are getting to know what it feels like when you get dragged through court. I'm just wondering if all this effort to end this case on M.S.'s end is because they are afraid they won't be able to release XP as it is or when they want.
Huhh?? Maybe you're in a different world from the rest of us. Microsoft is actually the one who wanted this to be revisited and not fast-tracked. They want this to go on as long as possible. It's the government on the other hand that wanted this case to be fast-tracked.
"Insightful"? How about "Totally Wrong"
Mmmm.. Donuts
Was it anything to do with this?
------------------------
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
Whaddya mean?
I thought that (ZAW) Zero Administration Windows was already long since a reality!
I'm puzzled by all this talk of "system administration" for Windows.
Shows how "out of it" I am. ZAW must have been superseded by Something Better.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Not exactly. The problem is that MS is a monopoly, Thus bundling in this way is illegal because it is an abuse of their monopoly power. If KDE were to create their own distro with the GUI in the kernal where you couldn't take it out it would still be legal because they don't have a monopoly.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
(Well maybe not) Speaking of that...
Am I the only one who takes the COMPLETE paranoid view that Code Red (and all the other IIS virii) are going to be used as a rallying cry for Microsoft to take patching/updating out of the sysadmins hands and into XP, where it will be handled automatically? I can almost hear the marketroids..."Save hundreds of man-hours and millions of dollars by freeing your SysAdmins of the responsibility of constantly monitoring security lists and keeping up with the latest patches." Jeez.
El riesgo vive siempre!
I don't think that most of the folks at Microsoft even realize why they are hated so badly. They may even think it's just sour grapes.
It reminds me of the Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet. He held on to power through absolute totalitarian measures for two decades. His brutes were known to gang-rape the wives of dissidents -- and God forbid you ever dissented and you were a woman!
But after twenty years of power, he actually believed his own bull. He actually believed that if he allowed the people to speak their minds, they would choose him. So he opened up free elections. Unfortunately for him, Chile had a long history of democracy, and so people took advantage of the chance, and he was defeated.
He absolutely couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't want him in power.
Microsoft is the same way. They use strong-arm tactics to force companies to bundle their software, and their software, with a couple of exceptions, is generally poor quality. Gates & Co. are actually naive enough to believe the marketshare they've bullied out of companies and customers is our willing choice.
But in a capitalist economy with a democratic government, such a reign cannot last forever. If customers can't choose otherwise, the government typically intervenes. Their very complacency and need to be a bully will be their undoing.
CmdrTaco says:
"I love the word 'Commingling'. I wish it meant something cooler then it does."
Perhaps this is so, but he likes the word 'then' even more, since he should be writing 'cooler than it does.' CT continues to do this. I pointed it out last time too, which goes to show that CmdrTaco doesn't 'waste his time' reading Slashdot, anyways 8^}
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The latest versions of WinAmp include a "minibrowser" that is... the IE HTML control. All the latest "help" files (think texinfo pages, man pages, what have you) are done via HTML ... rendered in ... the IE HTML control. The latest IM, released today, starts up with this "AIM Today" screen... which is a webpage... rendered via the IE HTML control.
For added fun, the home addition of WinXP contains at least the following functions handled via the IE HTML control (at least as of the last beta before RC1 - I'll be able to test RC1 later this month, but not now):
The bottom line is that while it could be demonstrated that IE wasn't really comminglinged with Windows 98, it is so throughly mixed up in WinXP (and in many apps that run on Win98+), that it can no longer effectively be removed. It wouldn't just break Microsoft software, it would break third party software.
(Personally, I believe that modern GUI kits should have an HTML control, but that it should be as tied down as possible - no JavaScript, image loading only via the app, etc. so as to make it that much more "secure.")
(And I most point out the irony that IM, which is currently bundled with Navigator (I kid you not), apparently now uses IE to render it's little "IM Today" screen.)
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
This decision is consistent with the reuling that the original judge screwed up badly by mouthing off. The original findings of FACT remain, and someone else has to redo the penalities.
In this case, if there is no breakup, then a huge fine, say equal to most of their cash reserves, and a prohibition from releasing any new versions of Windows or other similar platform programs, such as their .NET effort for 4 or 5 years should be adequate. (one or two would not be enough) I might include Passport in this as well.
We need to drive home that they screwed up. They need the thousand watt lightbulb experience on this. They need to get it. Wrist slap penalties do not do this.
The primary target has to be the PR weasles, who have promoted a certain vision and way of doing business. The dev crew buys off on the vision, but they are kept in the dark on the PR wealse inner secrets on how to do business. The result is that the Dev crew maintains its loyalty, and doesn't realize their inadvertant complicity with the destructiveness of the PR Weasles.
The PR Weasles have grown a destructive culture in Microsoft.
They don't know you have to let your competitors breath.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Pronunciation: k&-'mi[ng]-g&l, kä-
Date: circa 1626
transitive senses
1 : to blend thoroughly into a harmonious whole
2 : to combine (funds or properties) into a common fund or stock
www.m-w.com
It is believed that the issue should be resolved by 2025, when the United States of Microsoft Supreme Court dismisses the case.
--
Do you mean something cooler or something hornier?
Because your concept of knowledge involves copy/pasting from dictionaries.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm willing to bet that Mircrosoft will appeal this to the Supremem Court, if only to slow down the process. Microsoft won the browser with the tactics no being declared illegal and is looking to win instant messanging, multimedia delivery and a few other items this way as well. WinXP is the key to this, and it has to ship soon, and with all the 'features' in place. Microsoft is just playing the game to prevent the gov. from stopping the release of XP. Once XP is out there, it can't be taken back. If Mircrosoft is forced to play fairly only after XP is released, it's more bad news for the rest of us.