Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Sent Back To Lower Court
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.
Didn't the appeals court make this ruling a week ago?
If MS wasn't a HUGE corperation then there wouldn't even have been need of a trial.
Uh, yeah. I know that because of PR you have to spin things in such a way, but if you really believe that M$ didn't understand what the government's opinion was, you'd believe that Ballmer has a future as an exotic dancer.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Not much. They are way behind on this one. Now they will decide on actions that will do little to slow MS.
.Net.
MS is more bold than ever and are making a huge push to get a death grip on subscription services.
Will the remidies deal with
If they don't what is the point. This has gone on to long and MS is poised to turn the corner on the next decade.
The government is to late to help. And I don't know what remedy would work anyway.
Oh well...
What I really want MS broken up for is out of hope that the applications division will then offer their products for other Operating Systems.
Working for a major corporation makes it difficult to get anything approved on the desktop that wont run the industry "business standard" software packages - Office, FrontPage, etc.
Office for Linux would make our lives in business and IT so much nicer, since we must use MS products anyway.
Just a wish...
If Windows XP gets out the door before any penalty kicks in, I don't think we have any hope.
Isn't M$ trying to weld Office and IE in permanently to XP so it can't be separated, as well as bribing their way out?
The new news is that Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly was the specific judge selected to hear the case. I believe everything else has been known already.
NYTimes story (no login link)
...Bill Gates' son will be dead before the court agrees on something definitive for Microsoft. There's so many appeals of appeals of procedures that were basically just sub-appeals of some appeals of the real thing that it will never end.
This is getting ridiculous. This is clearly a flaw and in the way US's law-model was designed. If you have the money, you can go on and on and on as long as you want.
IP Therefore I am.
Hope you liked your present!
Love,
US Appeals Court
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
While the /. article is factually correct, it missed the main point of the action today. The big thing that happened today is that they selected the judge (Kollar-Kotelly) who will be re-hearing the penalty phase. Kollar-Kotelly is a Clinton appointee. There's a biography of her here, but it doesn't tell much about her politics. Anyone know what her attitude is likely to be?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It was ruled that the original judge (Thomas Penfield Jackson) would not preside over the penalty phase of the trial since it was determined (fairly or not...) that he was biased against Microsoft, based on statements he made durring the trial. The DOJ denied these charges presumably because they wantedan advantage durring the penalty phase.
This new article identifies Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly as the presiding judge for the penalty phase.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
According to this article, the dead just love Microsoft. Even writing letters from beyond the gave in support of M$. This is not a troll (I wish it was).
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Obviously the most important fact about this announcement is that we have a new (and hopefuly more competent) judge involved.
First the good news, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice before and should therefore be sympathetic to the limited resources available to them compared to the big money behind Microsoft.
More good news, she's decided against the Big Banks before and in favour of the credit unions in one of her previous decisions.
She also appears to have seen through the foolishness of some patents in another one of her judgements, this time against the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Anyone have any other pertinent info?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
You don't FORCE anyone to do anything. Atleast if you live in the USA you don't force users to try something different, it was afterall the users that made Microsoft a Defacto. (just like you may choose to make linux your defacto).
Doesn't mean microsoft is a monopoly when it is the easiest to use, most intuitive and simple operating system that my grandma can run.
- Siding with Credit Unions on allowing them an expansive definition of who can qualify as a CU member in a civil decision against the American Bankers Association.
- Deciding that the FDA can regulate/label GM foods just like any other food additive. Not likely to make the Greens happy, but a reasonable, consumer/regulatory friendly decision. And,
- Finding against the CIA in FOIA suit brought by the National Security Archive, requesting bios the CIA prepared on Communist leaders. This was aparently the first decision that didn't uphold a doctrine held by the CIA that they didn't have to release documents if it they claimed to neither confirm nor deny the very existence of the documents, however, it was on a technicality that the CIA in fact already acknowledged the documents existed
Trying to find anything related to a previous antitrust decision was basically fruitless, though she aparently was the presiding judge that signed off on an agreement between the DoJ AntiTrust division and Fox Television.Work for Change & GET PAID!
I would like to see them prohibited from publishing or releasing free or not free, any new software that is internet enabled such as a browser, etc for up 8 to 10 years. New versions of the OS could be released with only the current level of internet capability, say as of April 2001, or whatever
Time off for good behavior so if they play really nice the judge can knock it down to 5.
That, and a really good fine, like about 10 or 20 billion dollars, the possible profits from their illegal acts, should be a good enough slam to get their attention.
Let them sell Office if they want, without any new internet capability. No more new issues of IE, in or Out of Windows, freezing them at the current level. No more MSN special clients. No special .NET clients
Freeze the intenet capability right where it is right now.
This would certainly work as a jail term. They couldn't do anything with there ill gotten gains for many years. But it won't kill them.
And of course, to get anyplace, they might have to sell of part of their operation anyhow.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The problem is....
I can uninstall Warp. And I can uninstall HatJava. But I can't uninstall IE. And the majority of the people out there are lazy apathetic people who are thinking "Well, it's fre, and it's already installed, and even if I install something else, it'll still be taking up space, so I'll just use this [browser|encoder|player|...]".
The issue isn't that other applications can be installed with Windows. The issue is that other applications _have_ to be installed with Windows. Not only that, but that for Windows to even work correctly, some of those applications have to be present. If you don't see the problem with this, let me try this. You can buy these CD's, but in order to do that, you have to buy this CD player. And this CD case. And this CD labeling system. You may never use these tools, but that's how the CD's come - bundled with all this other stuff.
You forget that you are a technical person probably with a broadband connection. 90% of the US, at last count, was still on 56K or slower dialup connections, and 98% of them run Windows. Sure then can download Netscape and RealPlayer and Quicktime, but they aren't going to, because it's inconvenient, and Cousin Betty got a virus the last time she installed software from the internet, or it may not work right, and then they will get pissed off, run their restore CD, and not put Netscape, Realplay, or Quicktime back on the new install.
The typical PC user is _dumb_ when it comes to how computers work and what they do. Even the non-typical ones are pretty dumb. My wife knows a good deal about computers, just from me, but when it comes down to it, she just wants her computer to work. She complained last night because she had to reboot after updating the DAT file for McAfee. Of course you have to reboot, but it was an inconvenience, and she wanted to go play EverQuest.
This case isn't about defending the rights of the Geeks to get Opera and Cygnus WinTools and stuff pre-instlaled on our computer from Dell, it's about defending the apathetic Joe Average computer user from having their entire computing experience controlled by a single company.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
There is a HUGE difference between every company that you just mentioned and Microsoft. Microsoft the only company in the list that is a monopoly. This ruling doesn't change the fact that they are legally a monopoly...just means the punishment will be different.
Anyways, all of the rules change when you're a monopoly. One of the biggest changes is that you can't use your monopoly power in one market to push into a different market...can you seriously tell me that's not what MS is doing?
Juiced? Or Not?
Since MSFT shares the same vision as Hitler's Third Reich (world domination)...may they share the same end.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
a LINUX story AND a MICROSOFT story within one break of each other? You really wanted to load test the banjo today, eh? heh,
________________________________________________
What's sad, is that Microsoft is the industry standard, not because their products are that much better, but because their marketing machine is better.
I'll admit that, any more, Word seems to be better for what I do than other WP's, but that's mainly because I'm used to it. But Exchange is far from the best mail system out there. Oh, wonder of all wonders, it's integrated with a calendaring system. Who would have guessed that MS would do that.
MS is the standard because people are lazy. And that's just sad.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
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.
With a new judge assigned, the penalty phase will be drawn out as arguments are re-presented to a far greater degree than if Jackson were still presiding over the case, since he has gained a familiarity with it over the past 2 years. This, it seems will be sufficient to allow Microsoft at least the time needed to release Windows XP and perhaps cause even more damage to the computer industry.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
IANAL, yada, yada, yada....
:-) Then they appealed to the Supreme Court and simultaneously asked the appeals court to put the case on hold until the supreme's decision. Appeals court refused. The case is moving forward.
DoJ can ask the judge for a preliminary injunction against XP, that is, an injunction that is issued *before* the trial. The judge will do it if 1) he/she thinks that there is high likelihood that he/she will come to the same conclusion after the trial, and 2) the plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued immediately. In this case it's easy: MS is arrogantly using the same anti-competitive tactics they were sued for, and if injunction is not issued before XP is out, it will be too late.
Microsoft is well aware of that. This is why they are trying very hard to delay the case and push forwrard the release of XP. First they re-appealed to the appeals court (The Register had a funny title for this "Microsoft asks the court to find it a little bit not guiltier"
Two questions remain: will DoJ ask for preliminary injunction against XP? (so far they have given several indications that they will). Will the judge grant it? That remains to be seen....
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
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
WordPad and its ilk are good enough for most people. On the other hand, a trimmed down spreadsheet would be nice as part of the standard tools.
But your freedom would be strictly limited (e.g. you would be locked up) the whole time. For a corporation, the analog to sitting on death row would be...what? Taking them off the internet? Or just requiring them to use Windows?
-- MarkusQ
How do you know that WinXP isn't the cheaper of the parts that's coming out? Maybe the expensive part was getting all of the applications fixed so that they wouldn't crash under XP. They are shipping 1 OS and, from what I understand, 10-15 applications. Even at cheap prices, 10-15 applications that I buy on the bargain shelf for 10 bucks a piece will still run my $100-$150. If that's the case, then the OS is worth between $0-$150 bucks, depending on whether you're buying the home upgrade, or the Pro full version. We have no idea how much the OS costs, because no one has been able to figure out what the market would pay for Windows if it had the choice, and the usual Free Market effects forced MS to sell Win at whatever it could compete for.
And I'm not pissed because I wanna play my CD's on an 8-track, or on the $199 Sony player. But I'd be just as happy having to drive across town to puck up that $100 Technics player, because, frankly, I've like the buttons and interface on it better than Sony's. (Not really, I have all Sony audio stuff, but I had to continue the analogy :).
I like the way Compaq used to have their servers set up. When you bought them, they had every software setup you could use on the hard drive, encoded and packed up. Booting started the install procedure, where you picked which software packages you wanted installed. The restore CD blew away your HD, and put that boot image back on the disk, and once you had your software setup picked, you got the opportunity to build restore floppies for the different software packages.
Why can't we do this? Computers ship with 30G hard drives at the low end today, I can put Netscape, IE, Opera, Mosaic, and umpteen other browsers on the disk to install on first boot. Same with Word/Wordperfect/Wordstar/whatever or Quicken/Money or Realplayer/WMP.
The fact is, people just don't care. We care, but we are the minority voicing concerns in a way that the affected majority don't associate with. Until your Aunt Martha understand that she should be able to use whatever she wants, then MS will go about their business unscathed, because not enough people are pushing for them to get their arm ripped off instead of their hand slapped.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Oh blather.
Most people simply aren't going to install Netscape simply because it's a piece of shit and has been for about 4 years now. (although NS6 is better it still lags behind IE5.5)
In the 1980's Honda cut into Chevrolet's marketshare pretty hard. They sold cars that were affordable and higher quality than what Chevy had available.
You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
it was afterall the users that made Microsoft a Defacto.
Bzzt wrong.
Very few users in corporations get to choose the hardware and software they use. Since the majority of PCs are sold to corporations it was this that made MS defacto. And the users are FORCED to use what the corporation says.
But even if MS as defacto standard was a good thing (I don't think it is, but I'll assume it is for the moment) the fact that MS then used their defacto standard in one area to drive out competitors in another is by no means a good thing for users.
And that is the problem. MS has used their success to unfairly compete. And they continue to work limit choices to MS and MS only products via unfair business practises.
And I sure do not want to live in an MS only world.
Steve M
What pisses me off is that one is supposed to have a "fair and speedy" trial. There's no reason I can think of for such an important case to languish between trial and appeal for so long.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
Surely for this crowd there will be no problem in making the choice of what OS, browser, etc. to use or not to use.
I'm part of this crowd.
I cannot choose my OS at work. I cannot choose my browser at work. If fact, I can only use the corporate standard OS and apps. I not allowed (supposed) to install anything.
And this is the point. The users don't choose OS's, corporations do. And as MS's monopoly becomes more entrenched there will be fewer and fewer choices for OSes, applications, etc.
That sucks.
Steve M
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.
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.
Excellent. Maybe an actual unbiased decision can come out of this. If she were on record as always siding for the little guy, MS would use its money to get a different judge (possibly justifiably). If she were on record as always going with the corporate behemoths, we'd be screwed.
That the case is receiving some new blood and a fresh point of view is reassuring.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Actually people aren't sueing Microsoft for bundling software. They're sueing Microsoft for using it's monopoly status to destroy other companies.
Without restriction Microsoft can kill any software company that it wants to.
At this point it fairly well documented that Microsoft will use unfair and illegal tactics to kill any competitors...
If you think you are safe then you are very naive. Microsoft could put presure on hardware companies to not allow drives for your product. Microsoft could persuade the big OEMs to charge more if customers wanted to use your product. Or Microsoft could force them to not sell your product at all. Microsoft can try hire all your best programmers away from you. Microsoft could use their enormous advertising budget to slander your company and product. So how are you going to compete now that your software doesn't run on any hardware and either no one will sell it for you or if you do sell it, part of the profit goes directly to Microsoft.
One doesn't have to be a savvy computer user to realize Netscape 4.x sucks.
When I start going to websites and they come up looking wrong, or throwing error messages, or whatever. I say "this sucks."
If I start using a different browser and obtain better results, I say "this doesn't suck."
Such has been the case with Netscape versus IE. In the early days of v2 and v3 it was IE that exhibited the "this sucks" problems. That behavior has since reversed, and so has each products marketshare as a result.
From what I've seen of the Netscape -> Mozilla progress it appears it's because Netscapes initial design was pretty poor and it wasn't easily maintainable as it progressed.
If they take action against Microsoft then I think Gates should just run the business into the ground. Destroy the whole damn thing. Put tons of people out of work and help to destroy the economy.
I don't usually respond to zero-rated comments because nobody but you will probably ever get to see my reply. Or care to.
That aside, I've often wondered if Bill wouldn't do just exactly what you propose? I've dealt with bullies on the playground as a child, and I have a serial workplace bully for a boss now. Bill Gates is undeniably and provably a corporate bully. And a bully's behaviour is extremely predictable. As soon as they recognize they are in a lose-lose situation, they don't just exit the situation, they end it for all involved so that nobody can win. The classic "I'm going to take my ball and go home" maneuver. So, yes, I think there's a slight possibility he might do what you want him to do.
As far as ruining the economy, you've grossly overestimated Microsoft's contribution to the world economy. Statistically, they're a pimple on the ass of something the size of General Motors. They consume few manufactured goods, thus very few suppliers are wholly dependant on Microsoft as a customer for their survival. And if Bill closed the gates to Redmond tomorrow, all their 'old' software that's out in the wild today will just keep on running as it always has. If I can't buy a new release of Windows next year, my company will not go 'tits up'. In the meantime, those ex-Microsoft employees are going to get together and fund startup companies, or go to work for newly emboldened ex-rivals who are competitively hamstrung by today's monopoly controlled marketplace. If the demand for Microsoft-style products exists, then somebody will fill the void. It's always been that way in a free market economy, and I hope it always will.
Anyway, if Bill wants to burn the place to the ground, I'll be more than happy give him the match. And aside from a little more overtime for haggard Washington firefighters, it probably won't have that much of a financial impact on anybody else one way or the other.
It doesn't matter if you want to upgrade. All new computers will come with XP and all old version of the Microsoft OSs will raise dramatically in price. Because it is a radically different OS from 9x/ME, Microsoft will be able to justify making products incompatible with older OSs - they planned to do this with 98 over 95, but couldn't get enough people to switch. Expect one of the next few DirectX releases to be XP only, new MS product releases to be either XP only or have XP only features (integrated messaging, whatever). Plus, with many people having aging computers, and with the economy turning around (well, that's debatable), and with more people networking their homes, there'll undoubtedly be a market for XP.
People have predicted the demise of MS forever - they are in a perfect position right now though barring any government action. Somehow I doubt Ashcroft appointed lawyers are going to be terribly aggressive in this new stage of the trial, but we'll see eh? There are the individual state cases, but even those are receding - see New Mexico's settlement with MS.
I guess my point was just to subtle for you.
Sue whomever you like.
But in case you simply missed the point...
One of the main arguments in the post that started this thread is that users choose operating systems and by implication MS became a defacto standard because users chose it.
This assumption, that users can choose the software they use, seems to be widely accepted. And we see in posts on both side of the argument where that is the case. I believe that this assumption is incorrect.
My point is that the majority of the software purchased is chosen for the users and not by the users. It is choosen by the corporations that buy the software.
I don't have (to much of) a problem with my employer dictating the hardware and software I use. I'd prefer to be able to make my own choices but so be it.
What I do have a problem with is that the overall number of choices is shrinking (bye bye BeOS) and thus in those situations where I do have the ability to make choices my options are becoming more and more limited.
And I find it truely evil that MS is abusing their monopoly position to further limit my choices.
Good luck with your lawsuit!
Steve M
Its not about bundling which is perfectly legal. Its about oversupplying a given market to bring demand down below the cost to produce it. Microsoft uses the word bunlding to make use think they are just being the good guys and bringing us more software and greater features. In actuality, they are driving competitors out of bussiness by tying which is illegal. This is why IE was everywhere when netscape was still hot. Microsoft bundled it with ever cd-rom for every magazine to even on hardware driver installation cd's. They then tied IE api's with their standard c++ calls so IE would be required when using third party apps compilied with visual c++. This is very illegal and is quite different then just bunlding something.
http://saveie6.com/
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary gives bland, but good reviews of Judge Kollar-Kotelly. (The publication calls attorneys and gives reviews without identifying the lawyers.)
Lawyers interviewed reported:
1) Good legal ability
2) Good judicial temperament, however headstrong lawyers may produce a spark (i.e. Neukom may have trouble)
3) Strict on courtroom protocol
4) Tries to get cases settled
5) Civil plaintiffs' lawyers think that she leans to plaintiffs. That would not be unusual for a Democratic appointee.
6) Civil defendants' lawyers think she is pro-plaintiff. "She is one of the more liberal judges."
7) Criminal defense lawyers thought she was fair to both sides.
On the whole, probably not the best news for Microsoft, however, Jackson was one of the few full-time judges on the court that is not a Democractic appointee, and I don't know that Microsoft had much better coming the the luck of that particular pool of judges.
How big a fine to impose and what to do with the money.
I don't see a breakup as being able to remove MS from the seat of power it now holds. If you open sorced windows, they'd just create a new closed version with "extra features".
Therefore, I think MS should donate it's $30 billion in pocket change to the free software foundation, for advocating and implimenting Free open source software in schools and companies. Ultimately, with enough people working with and on Linux(with enough eyes all bugs are shallow), the government reserves the cash as an asset in the form of freely available software solutions. This does 2 things:
1. removes monopoly power by creating alternatives for not only americans, but everyone everywhere. These alternatives by nature of their open source license are guarenteed to always be available in the future.
2. provide public awareness of alternatives to windows while leaving MS "cashless", unable to rival the marketing power of the 30 billion retrieved in the case.
MS's monopoly needs to be brought down a few notches and I feel that MS should foot the bill for that.(no pun intended)
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
...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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"A split might not hurt (3-way, preferably), nor would opening Windows."
The only kind of split that would both leave MS free to do what they want with their products, AND would eliminate the monopoly would be to split them off vertically (ie, create a minimum of 3 "baby bill's").
Each "baby bill" would have full rights to all current MS IP and trademarks, as well as an equal share of all money, facilities and employees.
They'd not be permitted to cooperate in any way (they'd all have to pay user fees to an oversight board that would monitor this). They'd only be able to cooperate thru industry standards groups (which set open standards any company can use).
I see this as the ONLY way to actually punish MS, and to prevent them from continuing their "innovative" embrace, extend, extinguish business model, as no one of the "baby bills" can stray too much from current API, file formats, etc, or risk becoming incompatible...
Not to mention that no one "baby bill" could have the control over OEM licensing, and price as MS currently does.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Microsoft isn't "HUGE" by any stretch of the imagination.
You couldn't be more wrong. Microsoft is worth $334 billion. They are the second biggest company in America. Only General Electric is bigger -- and MS even overtook them for a bit back in '98.
William H. Gates, the company's chairman and co-founder, hailed the new program as "the best operating system Microsoft has ever built."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Essentially meaningless?" Microsoft sure looks like the proverbial 800 lb gorilla to me. Suit yourself though.
Please don't mistake a legal system for justice. :-)
But seriously... I don't understand how these cases can possibly run for so long, if the goal is "justice" rather than "paying the lawyers". The UK legal system largely works on the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and the need to prove something "beyond reasonable doubt". I assume the US system claims to work on similar principles. So...
Why not give both sides a maximum of, say, one month, to present their arguments in a major case like this? If the prosecution cannot make a compelling case in that time frame, then I would argue that clearly there is reasonable doubt, and hence a not guilty verdict should be returned. OTOH, if the defence cannot refute facts demonstrated by the prosecution in that time, this would take away their chance to string the proceedings out interminably through a long trial and appeals process -- which could and should be drastically simplified, by the same argument.
Restricting the time allowed in court would immediately fix absurdities like the MS case, and I would argue that it's no less likely to produce the correct result than the status quo. Of course, to make a change so fundamental, you'd have to convince the lawyers, and they have something of a vested interested in keeping the status quo, because it pays better. :-(
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If the U.S. system allows me to sit on deathrow for 20 years apealing my conviction for a murder that I did not commit, the same priviledge should be extended to Microsoft.
The difference is that someone on deathrow spends their time in a prison. Rather than being able to carry on with whatever they are doing whilst possibly having to attend court so infrequently its hardly even an inconvenience...
Slight offtopic, but wasting a weekend to install linux with the latest apps might cost a business more than that $199 to buy an XP license.
Assuming the cost of installing XP is $0..
But all that work to set up linux only needs to be done once, then you can replicate that work with minimal time per unit across 10 or 1000 or 10000 pc with no additional cost.
Also you don't need special third party tools to do this.
This is not the case XP.
How much Windows software (including for XP) even has the option to install once, run evrywhere...
The "replication" idea assumes that everything needs to be installed on every machine, which simply isn't the case with unix type systems. Indeed use LTSP and nothing needs to be installed on user facing machines.
Well, to be completely honest a lot of businesses will do the same thing with Windows installs via ghost or some other drive imaging program.
You only need to use drive imaging with Windows because if you try and simply copy the files it messes up (except if you use Linux to do it...)
Also consider that XP supposely defeats using drive imaging, so could automatically be more expensive to install.
"Her reputation is excellent," said Plato Cacheris, a prominent Washington lawyer whose clients have included Monica Lewinsky and two Russian spies, Robert P. Hanssen and Aldrich H. Ames. "She's intelligent and fair."
Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who has appeared before the judge, described Judge Kollar-Kotelly as "practical and experienced."
"She's not pro-government or pro- anything," he said.
E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., another lawyer who has appeared before her, said she "brings a tremendous amount of trial experience" to the Microsoft case.
"She has absolute control of her courtroom," Mr. Barcella said. "She's very pleasant about it and very bright."
A 1996 article in The Washingtonian magazine rating local judges offered similar praise.
"Her expertise in mental health issues might have put her on the map, but Kollar-Kotelly excels in virtually every type of case," the article said. "On the bench she is all business, extremely organized and efficient."
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.