Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Trial Sent Back To Lower Court

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the one-small-step-for-justice dept.

nexex writes: "FoxNews is reporting that as expected, a federal appeals court sent Microsoft Corp.'s antitrust case Friday back to a lower court to determine what penalty should be imposed on the software giant. "Microsoft has failed to demonstrate any substantial harm that would result from the reactivation of proceedings in the district court," the appeals court ruled. "It appears that Microsoft has misconstrued our opinion, particularly with respect to what would have been required to justify vacating the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law," the court wrote." Well, now we get to hear about Kollar-Kotelly instead of Jackson. Yay.

5 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. I just want to know one thing... by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If MS is broken up (ignore for the moment whether that is the right remedy or not) where will all the .NET stuff go? Will it go with the OS side, the apps side, some combination? At a glance it would go with the OS side, but is that the Right Thing? Will it all just dry up and go away? It's not such an easy question it seems.


    Wondering where this initiative of MS will go worries me slightly. I'd hate for the court to unwittingly unleash a "monster" without some method of redress should whatever remedy they come up with prove innefectual.

  2. Interesting coincidences by stienman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Windows 95 started shipping today a few years ago, WinXP hit RTM (realease to manufacture) this afternoon, and the court sent the trial back down today.

    At this point, I bet the lawyers are scrambling to prepare a motion to stop shipment/distribution of WinXP, but can they succeed in less than 60 days? If so, they'll have dealt a good blow to MS - all those copies of WinXP sitting around in warehouses (we're talking several million boxes of product). This won't hurt MS much financially (much), but it'll be really interesting to see what happens then. MS would have to throw them away if the court required some unbundling. And if the court said, "No shipment until ruling" then MS would have a strong reason to help move the process along - including making some concessions they were unwilling to make a year ago.

    Believe me - Microsoft, as a whole, is riding on WinXP, as it is the most stable MS product yet, not to mention that it's the first windows to realize their dream of five years - one version/code base for both home and coporate users.

    If they can't get it out within a year...

    -Adam

  3. Re:I dissagree by Enzondio · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think the reason people are concerned about these delays is that in the mean time Microsoft can continue to extend its monopoly and cause further harm to the industry.

    It may end up that by the time justice has run its course it will be too late. If .NET does what I believe Microsoft wants it to do it may be very difficult to dole out any kind of effective punishment without crippling business on the Internet.

    In a slightly less extreme view of things Microsoft is likely to continue to harm competitors and the industry in general during this waiting period.

  4. Re:my solution by Enzondio · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Microsoft may continue to bundle applications or "new features" but they must publicly announce what applications are to be bundled and give reasonable feature descriptions of those applications at least two years before they appear in any release.

    I don't believe it would be fair to impose that kind of limitation on any company. In this industry two years is a very long time. Besides, in developing a product the feature set will most certainly evolve so this would effectively put a two year delay on any product they want to release.

  5. Simple definition of Microsoft's monopoly by matty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...for those that just don't get it yet.

    First, read this.

    Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.

    Now, listen carefully:

    THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!!

    This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly and an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)

    It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.)

    To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this.

    Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.

    Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?

    I am pleased and relieved that the case is going the way it is. This will preserve some measure of computing freedom for us all.