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.
...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
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.
- 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!
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
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
>he was biased against Microsoft
Damn right he was biased. He has an obligation to be biased against any party who gives false
testimony in his court!
What surprises me the most about this Microsoft
trial, is that the Antitrust act is still the focus. The perjury alone should have been enough
to bring down the empire.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
...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.
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...