Slashdot Mirror
Bush Administration Stops Microsoft Breakup
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration to cease its drive to break up Microsoft, which has already been found guilty of violating U.S. anti-trust law in a complaint filed by the Federal Government and 19 states. See the BBC or CNN for more. It isn't clear what wristslap, errr, remedy the Justice Department will seek instead. Update: 09/06 15:21 PM GMT by M : Declan McCullagh of Wired notes: "The text of the DOJ announcement is here. Wired News has an article. Also, the DOJ says a 'Senior Antitrust Division Official' will brief reporters at the department's DC headquarters at 11:30 am ET, so look for some followup stories from that."
There is also a black hole at goatse.cx.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Black hole == unknown size, unknown (but
assumed to be practically infinite) density
If you can figure out what _really_ happens to
matter compressed to that stage - call the Nobel
Committee. As far as size, I believe that
physicists can calculate the event horizon of
the hole (if they can guesstimate it's mass) -
but within the horizon itself, all bets are off.
This definitely has been answered in other articles, though it'd take me an hour to dig up an old link.
Doesn't much of it boil down to "I can do/have done this better, and I can prove it!" sorts of sentiments?
HAHHAAHHAHAHAHAA
stupid lameness filter
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Searching for the funniest joke in the world seems to be such a fruitless endeavor because jokes are subjective & cultural. Outside of a certain cultural understanding most jokes would be plain dumb. (Try telling a dumb blonde jokes to a group of tall blonde amazon women. You'd likely be beat down, if not killed.)
What is funny to the British is often completely over the head of Americans simply because our culture is different from theirs and visa-versa.
Part of it is because even though we all speak English, the everyday language, the slang, is very different. If you ask someone for a 'fag' in England, you'll get a cigarette. If you ask the same thing in America, you might get beat up because someone thought you called them homosexual.
Sounds like they are looking for a non-existant Holy Grail. It still may be interesting to see what they come up with, though.
Why do people spend time gardening, and let all their neighbors see their flowers for free? Why do people spend time cooking, and let their friends eat it for free?
How did this get rated "funny"?
Gee, I guess this means the people who think Flash is going to replace everything are SOL now.
Hi, Rob!
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
well, bush just lost my vote.
Bring on Gore.
... and in a related announcement, spokesmen unveiled an upgraded version of the United States government, to be named "Microsoft US/2010", scheduled for release first quarter '02.
OK folks, time to come out swinging. As a tech writer, I hereby swear to do something worthwhile for the Linux Documentation Project by the end of the month.
What are you doing?
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
We could see Microsoft above the law if this goes on.
C
There's no problem that cannot be solved with a suitable amount of high explosives
The worst part is that couldn't we all see this coming? Ashcroft was such a weenie during his appointment hearings, especially whenever the topic of Microsoft came up. Microsoft, of course, must have been getting the inside word on this, which explains their incredibly nervy behavior (many aspects of XP, Smart Tags, etc.) in the last few months. This was surely all arranged between Bill and Double-Yah many months ago.
Those bastards!
-Waldo
It seems like Bush, as the head of the
administrative branch, is in no position to
give -any- orders to the judicial branch.
eh?
We don't have to depend on Linux now. Especially considering its outrageous cost ownership - even compared to Microsoft products - as explained below.
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
Linux' cost consists not only of the frequent updates, which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.
Another factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
The upcoming 'solution' to this, EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
George W. Bush & Microsoft: TWO GREAT TASTES THAT TASTE GREAT TOGETHER!
Really, are 2 Microsoft's better than one?
I told everyone not to vote for him, but you didn't listen! Its all your fault! America is run by idiots!
i know who is not getting a vote in 4 years...
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by President Bush...
Funny, i don't see any claims that George W. Bush told anyone to do anything.
Typical Slashdot bias.
P.S. Write your state senators and tell them to press on -- the trial can go on without the DOJ.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Before he was elected, already Republicans warned that they would do whatever was in their means to make life easier for Microsoft.
Apparently, in lack of other means, they resorted to bullying the DoJ.
Welcome... to the Corporate Democracy. Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?
Hugs, Cyke
bush has made it clear that he has the interests of corporations at the forefront of his agenda. I still think he is better then Gore though...
-teknopurge
http://techienews.utropicmedia.com help us beta!
Website Hosting
Before everybody gets all worked up about it, I think it's safe to say that a Democratic president would have done the same thing eventually. In recent years, MS has started contributing heavily to both parties, thus they can get pretty much whatever they want, no matter who is in the White House.
Free Hans!
The CNN story does not mention Bush at all...
Just because a few of us can read write and do a little math, doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the universe
There is no way I will vote for bush. I didn't this time and I certainly won't next. The interesting thing is I didn't think all of the people who had the theory that the administration would effect the case were right. I really believed that it wouldn't effect the justice departments case, boy was I wrong!
Since the states attorneys are still parties to this thing, can they continue to ask for the only CORRECT solution, breakup?
Eat that anti-MS zealots!
A breakup might have been good, but what are the alternatives? Star Office? Hah. Apple? Linux? BeOS maybe, but none of the others will work for most people, or are to iExpensive.
I thought they needed something approaching a breakup until I saw who agreed with that. Thanks for setting me straight guys!
Actually I believe it was Ashcroft that made the decision. Wouldn't want to stop new bloatware from bringing the PC biz back to life! I can't believe this thing actually takes up 2G.
Anyway, this should be no surprise - if Bush thinks clean air would hurt the economy he certainly wouldn't slap MS, would he?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Isn't the matter of punishment before the courts right now? I can see how a president can tell his lieutenents who to prosecute at some level, but this degree of interference? Yech.
You wonder what happened to all those robotic Microsoft "Barney" toys? They've been rebuilt into the President of the United States.
:)
I'm just waiting for the BSOD.
... is that the DOJ is completely dropping any intent to have the "IE-tying" complaint reexamined. (which was one of the most basic elements of the case).
They claim they're making these changes to their stratagy to make sure consumers get a fast and appropriate solution to the problem. BS. Since when did the solution to providing expedient justice under the constitution become dropping old charges and reducing penalties?
Furthermore, why a change in stratagy at all? Microsoft has already been found guilty. It should be clear to anyone paying any attention at all that there's a very distinct motive at work here.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
I hope the DoJ offers to pay the legal bills of poor old M$ too. Look what all of this has done to their stock prices.
heh
I want you found, blindfolded and shot.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
I remember when I was reading slashdot before the elections and the microsoft point was brought, everybody seemed to agree that if bush was elected, he would jump in and stop this... so this isn't a surprise...
The sad part is now you can see how the American Gov is above plain basic justice...
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
I wonder what future president Jenna Bush will do after a prior administration's DoJ finds Microsoft guilty of monopolistic practices for allowing Borg of only their approved series, because the collective is run on their OS
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Certainly took MS's checks long enough to clear...
Oooops !
I am afraid the stock prices of Red Hat and Mandrake are going to hell in a handbasket...
Gosh, this is just bad news.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Where does this say Bush was the reason for stopping the MS breakup? I see a reference to the Bush administration, but I assume that means someone he appointed (ie John Ashcroft) is the person who "Stop[ped] the Microsoft Breakup".
I think the EU has been sitting on the sideline waiting to see what happens. I wonder if they will get more involved now that DOJ is dropping the ball.
This isn't the company you want. Move along.
Does this mean now that George W. gets to spend nights at Bill Gates' mansion, and Bill gets to spend nights in the Lincoln Bedroom?
I'm curious, does anyone know how much a US President costs these days? Obviously, M$ can afford it, whatever it is.
I'm simply appalled that M$ will get what appears to be a slap on the wrist and sent home.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Yeah, I remember it well - paid MS assasins infiltrating the opposition. But you should really update this text, you keep posting the same one...
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Bush isn't mentioned in either CNN or BBS article... The only explanation I could find is that The decision was made in order to obtain a "prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers", said the DoJ in a statement.
I don't know about you, but this has had exactly the opposite effect on me. Relief? No. Disbelief? Yes.
I'm no political analyst, but IIRC "Bush Administration" != "George W". And for those of you who are wondering, the BBC article names the Bush administration. There's no mention of it in CNN.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I fail to see how breaking Microsoft up helps consumers, or more / less importantly, how it will help our falling economy.
If you split microsoft into Windows / Apps or something like this, then you have 2 monopolies. If you go with a top down split, then you get the same thing that exists with Linux user interfaces, or that still exists with web browsers. You have KDE, GNOME and countless others, making it a bitch for developers, and for users to get used to. In some situations, you really want everything to be the same way.
Captain_Frisk
The CNN article does not mention Bush. The BBC article only mentions his name in the context of "The decision by the Bush administration reverses the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft."
President Bush did not (necessarily) instruct anyone to do this.
--
Zach Garner
Well, bush is already in the pocket of Big Oil (and thus the big 3 car manufacturers). Is it no surprise that he was bought out so quickly by the MS lobbyists.
The worst part is that couldn't we all see this coming
During the campaign flame-wars here, I dont know how many times I saw people right here on slashdot predicting Bush would stop the breakup. Everyone knows he is deep in the pockets of big oil and industry, did you not think Microsoft would get a piece of that action?
If anything the past couple years have shown, is that we now truely have a government by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Jeesus... Just after having a friend finally convince me that breaking them up would be a good idea, they come around and reverse their stance and pull this crap? On what grounds does the Bush administration have to unilaterally push a decision down like this, other than possibly a bucketload of cash?
As much as a MS user I am, I even like Win2K and XP, and their office suite is good, but look at how much consumer benefit came out of having competition with the Intel vs AMD... I doubt we'd be past 1GHz by now if AMD didn't step in.
There is no details as to why this happened, and after finding out about some of their more sleazy business practices, I think it would be a good idea for them to get a good smack upside the head.
Oh well, there goes the market. Lets hope that linux keeps gaining ground like it has, maybe at least that'll force MS to get a bit more competitive. (Hmm, $0 for Linux, or $200 for XP... hmmmmmm)
If God gave us curiosity
oooooh man that cock in my mouth tastes soooooooo good...
www.bushisamicrosoftlackey.com?
Here's the list of possibilities from the CNN article: Among the conduct remedies Judge Jackson originally imposed were: prohibiting Microsoft from punishing hardware and software companies working on competing products; prohibiting it from favoring computer companies and software developers that helped Microsoft exclude competitors; requiring Microsoft to license Windows to PC makers under uniform prices and terms according to a publicly available schedule; and barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up startup screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards.
IMHO, these sound like much more practical measures to force Microsoft to allow competition. A Microsoft which competes fairly may actually be better than two Microsoft monopolies.One is Microsoft, who has done it a couple of times now.
The second is the Church of Scientology, who got the IRS to consider them as a tax-exempt religous organization.
All I can say is, look out Heber Jentzsch and David Miscavige, Microsoft is thinking of releasing MS Religion 1.0
You'll see this: "The US Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer push to have software giant Microsoft broken up.
The decision by the Bush administration reverses the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft. " Since Bush is (nominally) the head of the Bush administration, it's proper to presume that Bush gave the order. Whether someone advised him on it is another matter, but Bush is the president.
If you ask me, George is just plannifying his strategery to get the economical situations back. Bush, like his father, has a keenly awarity of the severeness of the recent economical turning downward.
Part of the economical restimularity proposed by Bush's administration includes a provision for strengtherizing the stock market. The best way to accomplish this, obviously, is to redistributerate the nations wealth resources. This means we don't want to go after Microsoft. Once the stock market begins to redisconfigure its direction and go itself from its turning down of the economy, the economy will be better!
Leave George alone. He's the best thing to come along since Clinton.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
I think the govt. is afraid this would REALLY tank the economy... (and.. rightfully so)
As it is, things are already sliding into depression despite Greenspan's armwaving.
Rant follows...
The idiocy of thinking that a massive economic bubble would somehow NOT be followed by an equally large bust.... and that you can 'steer' a complex economic system around like a car by simply changing a single interest rate.
Where do I sign up to get paid millions and have a lear jet for making decisions like these folks ?
-- confused
...that is, the characteristic Slashdot "Bush is the Great Satan" slant.
In the future, please provide a link to an article that actually says what you summarize (such as "The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by President Bush to cease its drive to break up Microsoft" -- I missed that in the two linked articles), or clearly label pathetic zealotry-inspired speculation as such.
Thanks so much.
How can Ashcroft defend his tough-as-nails posture regarding alleged computer crime by a small-time russian company who threatens nobody, while refusing to pursue an in-the-bag conviction already won in part, of a notorious bad actor whose conduct will affect virtually every computer user on the planet?
Ashcroft's new motto: "We're tough on crime, except when they donated to our campaign fund."
Let's face it: We're in for 3+ more years of Bush Jr. doing bad things because he can get away with it in our climate of general apathy and disillusionment. Now, I'm all for being disillusioned, but watching this idiot get away with things that should have us on the White House lawn with torches and pitchforks is getting old.
Let's name a few: -Allowing religion to limit science.
-Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
- Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains (Alaska, Kyoto).
- Doing his best to restart the good 'ol cold war (ABM treaty breaking, trying to isolate China).
Let's face it: This guy's the worst example yet of how bad things are getting, and unless people start to notice they might as well just start allowing only Fortune 500 companies to vote in the general election (hey, you said you wanted to get rid of the electoral college, right?).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
When it was announced that MS would not be broken up, MS's share price soared. No surprise there. The Nasdaq also rose dramatically. That's a bit more of a surprise, but a large part of the computer industry depends on the release of WinXP to drive sales, so it also makes sense. The Dow Jones also rose quite a bit. That's a surprise. The Dow Jones is supposed to be an INDUSTRIAL index, so it shouldn't be affected that much by MS's fortunes.
That's the whole story. You (for the American audience) / They (for the rest of us) elected a president on an economics ticket. The US economy is on the verge of a recession. From the above it is clear MS's fortunes in the near future will have a large part in determining whether a recession occurs or is avoided. There is no way Bush will allow the court to hurt the economy by hurting MS.
The article that I first saw on CNet said that this announcement was *ONLY* the Justice Department and that this did *NOT* represent the wished of the individual states.
The newest CNet article is unclear, saying that the Justice Department and the States and the Judge will all meet over the next two weeks.
There might be a chance that the states won't go along with this. The Attorneys General of the states tend to be more progressive in consumer protection.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
The BBC story said that the Bush administration ceased to seek a breakup.
I don't think the president himself could do it because it would be an obstruction of justice. (waaaaay more so than Clinton lying about sex.)
Previous comments about Ashcroft may prove true since the Attorney General does head the Justice Department.
--Al
and that did not seem to stop him. He's the Supreme Court's President. Hail to GWBush, King of the 87 IQ Club.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
What the hell did they put in his wheaties? First he castrates Stem Cell research, now he's putting his nose in the MS case... Do they require urine screening for this job or can any coke-head be president?
In all seriousness folks, I'm not surprised that MS won't be broken up (we already know how well that worked with the Baby Bells) but I'm shocked that Bush decided to put his nose in that mess! Considering how politically safe he walked the Stem-Cell research line... this is just out of left field!
...violent protest. This can't be true
THE DEPARTMENT ALSO said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant.
What's left?
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
Bill rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the Hose again!
Given the current economic climate, this was the absolute worst time of heavy handed industry regulation anyway. And note that Justice will drop the demand for breakup, they will not stop considering other means to regulate MS. Who knows, at the end of the day, with Justice's shrill anti-MS posture gone, and MS's shrill anti-breakup posture gone, there actually may be a solution satisfactory to all. (Yeah, unlikely I know, but...)
You can buy anything in this world for money. Why should the Justice system, senators, or even the United States President be any different?
Microsoft is merely a demonstration of "applied influence".
Believe it or not, there are people that think that this might not be a bad thing. First let me clear up that I am not one of them. However, there are some reasons why having a strong microsoft may be beneficial, especially to the US Gov. An american company that controls most of the desktops in the world could potentially be very usefull.
On a side note, don't ever think that MS is more powerful that the Goverment. We are in a Republic, and that means that the people (and corporations) tend to be left to control themselves, but that is not necessarily the norm. If the US gov wanted to come down on MS (perhaps nationalizing the company) how would you stop them? Legal action? Through the government??
Just a couple of quick (and admittedly not real well thought out) thoughts.
Zeus_tfc
"Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book. Inside of a dog its too dark to read." Groucho Marx
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
and what were all you open source liberal commie slashdot geeks going to do if MS were broken up??
LEAVE THE COUNTRY IF YOU CANT COPE
This is exactly what happened to IBM in the 80s which made them behave better and led to greater innovation in the PC market. (and also gave rise to Microsoft's DOS)
A breakup would have been untenable and would have just made two monopolies instead of one. This way, at least they might find themselves under the eye of some court appointed watchdogs.
It isn't the monopoly that is the problem, it is the business practices that gave rise to that monoply and which continue today which hurt companies and consumers alike.
No where in the story does it say that Bush ordered this. It never even mentions the president. That headline is one of the most pathetic and biased attempts at "journalism" I've seen since Sam Donaldson covered the last elections. You're job isn't to make up our minds for us or infer for us anything, it is to report what's happening and let us decide or infer what we want. I just lost ALOT of repsect for slashdot.
That is just irresponsible reporting.
No MS breakup, what now? What to do with MS?
Well, they have about 30 billion in cash and short-term investments. Maybe about 20 billion dollars in fines?
Massive fines to top-executives of MS (Gates, Ballmer etc.). It really hurts when they touch YOUR money!
Opening of some of their proprietary protocols. I'm thinking of Office file-formats (competing Office-suites could really compete) and maybe DirectX
And, what could WE do to help comptetition gain on them? Well, think of ways to help. You Linux-application crashed? Write a bug-report! You notice something could be done better? Write to the developers (if you can't change it yourself)! Write documentation! Create artwork for the desktops! Evangelize!
People, it's time we got off our arses and start doing something!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
From the BBC article:
The US Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer push to have software giant Microsoft broken up.
The decision by the Bush administration reverses the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft.
Bush is the head of the Bush administration, so one can presume that it was him that made the decision.
In 2000, Microsoft was by far the biggest computer & internet industry contributor to election campaigns with a total of $4.6 Million.
53% of this went to Republicans, 47% to Democrats. Although it does not show to which campaigns received the money, or which level of election (presidental, senatorial, etc), Gore probabaly got a pretty good chunk of this. Microsoft was playing both sides of the table, but I still dont think this would have happened under a Gore administration, he just knows too much about the tech sector.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Where ?
CNET and CNN both didn't make one single remark about Bush instructing anyone to drop the suit, so where is it?
Are we that slanted we can't report anything correctly?
burning karma because of bigots is my hobby
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I wonder how much Gates payed for his campain, or maybe how much he payed now.
I lack the words to express how bad I feel about the issue. This is fucking disgusting... Where is Justice, I wonder...
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Read the BBC article.
"All your presidents are belong to us!"
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
I have long been of the opinion that it ould be good for Microsoft to be broken up. This would reduce the embodied liability of their future actions to some extent and give them a graceful exit from the OS market as hardware sales continue to slow...
This notion of putting severe restrictions on Microsoft's conduct, and imposign additional liabilities if they violate those restrictions will certainly help Linux and other competing products. While I am annoyed with Bush for using political pressure to help decide this, I certainly think that this will have an effect far different than the one Microsoft is seeking.
I also agree with the appelate court that breakups should be pursued only as a last resort in part because it is difficult to ensure long-term effectiveness. This is a real victory for Linux, FreeBSD, and everyone else.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I would read the BBC article if I wanted to know about the British government but since this is the US..... :)
My sig of choice is Marlboro
Probably a stupid question, but whats "SOL"?
The decision by the Bush administration reverses the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft. BBC Article (emphasis added).
You were saying...?
Liberty in your lifetime
Lets get coding
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The basis of this lawsuit is Microsoft "bundling" their browser. Let me ask a question from the opposite angle: What should Microsoft have done differently?
It seems to me that, especially from the vantage point of today, it's pretty obvious that a browser is an integral tool in an OS's toolkit. KDE has a built-in browser. The Mac ships with a browser (if it wasn't IE, it would have been Netscape). Hell, even various Unix flavors ship with a browser.
And yes -- the browser should NOT be able to be de-installed. If your going to use a browser as a tool of the OS (say, to display error messages), then you need to know that your going to have a consistent tool there to use. Nothing stops you from installing another browser and deleting the icon -- just like having KDE's browser doesn't stop you from using Netscape.
Of course, we will also have all the Pro-linux people who never use a shred of Microsoft software tell us that they have a clear monopoly.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Too many decision makers in the government are easily swayed by the corporate dollar and charisma in both parties anyway. Very few politicians in DC aren't for sale nowadays, and the same goes for federal judges, I'm sure.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I told everyone on Slashdot that this would happen, in a reply to an article on Bush and the other guys running for president at the time. If you don't believe me, go dig up the slashdot articles on last years election.
:-(
I told you guys, hoping that I would be proven wrong. Oh well
And wait a second... the Republicans always claim that they think the government should punish law breaking. I guess the laws only apply to the lower classes and not higher classes or large companies.
Who's that in the blue dress under the President's desk. Is that... is that... Bill Gates?
Well, although MSFT has seemingly been going sideways.. In reality it has been trying to drop all along. MS has been buying back MSFT in order to keep the price stable. I'd guess they've stopped doing that and are hoping this new news will allow it to maintain price naturally.. Guess not eh?
... of an american president these days?
pronoblem
Wow. A Republican stopping a DOJ investigation into an anti-trust case.
I bet no one saw that one coming.
The post by m says that Bush intervened. Since this tidbit isn't in any of the stories linked in the post, I'd like to know the source. Or if it's untrue (or at least inaccurate) to say that Shrubya himself intervened (or even knows how to spell Microsoft), I'd like to know that too.
IIRC, the original suit was brought by the DOJ and the attorneys general of 18 states. The DOJ has announced it will no longer seek a breakup, but that's no guarantee it will happen. For starters, the 18 attys general have a say in the matter. Next, the guilty verdict has already been handed down. IANAL, but I believe that only the penalty phase needs to be re-heard, along with any updates. It has happened before on several occasions that someone was sentenced to death even though the prosecutor didn't push it because the law of the land said it was a valid punishment for the crime.
I seriously doubt a breakup will happen, but this case is far from over. Microsoft has already been found guilty of at least some of the charges. The question is what the penalty should be. There may be 1000 opinions, but the one that counts is the one belonging to the judge.
----------
Something cleverHere's a suggestion: require Microsoft to publish all their license agreements, including the ones that prohibit OEMs from shipping PCs that dual-boot Windows and another OS.
Will anyone that didn't see this coming, please raise your hand?
::crickets::
One more victory for the Iron Heel. Hardly a surprise, and maybe it's better that the case not drag on while people pin their hopes on it and MSFT continues to strengthen its illegal monopoly. The sooner MSFT no longer has to act under its current "We're not a monopoly, we're your friend" cover, the sooner the Revolution can begin.
By Revolution I don't mean Linux, KDE, and Konqueror. I mean armed Revolution. MSFT is extremely vulnerable. Their complexes have no perimeter security. Their networks have no perimeter security. Their products...you get the idea. The founders of this country would not allow what's happening now, and neither will many Americans once the full force of the monopoly strikes.
How would people strike back at the Iron Heel? I would expect to see:
Serious virus development aimed at destroying infrastructure using MSFT software. What's out there now is wimpy stuff by amateurs. Exchange admins use Outlook. Make your next virus chain-attack through local system security, not just the address book. When half the exchange mail stores in America go down in flames, people will take notice.
Network attacks on US Military MSFT-based infrastructure. It's out there, and it's vulnerable, and people need to be aware of this.
Network attacks on MSFT corporate infrastructure. Again, trivially simple to be much more damaging than anything done so far. MSFT has 'protected' themselves with Akamai? Big deal -- their DNS infrastructure, their public web sites, and their internet connections can be taken down for weeks or months by concerted effort. And their Intranet is entirely available by 802.11 all over their campus. Drive into a public Microsoft parking lot with a Linux laptop and a sniffer, and you're in.
Good old-fashioned street protests. The anti-globalization movement is disorganized but strong, especially in Europe. Effective leadership can focus that rage on MSFT. Make it so the nightly news can't avoid the issue. When someone carrying a anti-MSFT banner is gunned down by the police, the people will have to know.
Other violence is obvious to the reader but I won't discuss. Note that I am not advocating any of this, merely suggesting likely outcomes of the current trajectory, as helped along by the US administration. Posted as AC for obvious reasons.
steal 100 bucks go to jail...
...noooooo not me ;)
steal 10000 bucks get parole...
steal 10 billion bucks (like ms) and you're a king (esp. when you kick back to those already charge)
read your history, things have always been this way...
cynical
looking more like corporate feudalism rather than democracy these days isn't it
use Signature::Witty;
Perhaps you cannot read, but the article did not state that the Justice Department did this at the instruction of Bush. You might speculate that he was the source of the decision, but reporting it as fact is clearly extremely poor journalism. FWIW, the Justice Department specifically disclaims any administration involvement, saying that the decision was made internally so that the case could be concluded in a reasonable period of time.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I thought that get out of jail free cards only happened in the game of monopoly.
... the Golden Rule -- the person with the gold makes the rules. And Republican or Democrat, politicians pay close attention to who has the gold...
Is anyone actually surprised by this outcome? I'm not.
All about me
Microsoft holds back on its prices despite demand for Windows XP
Intresting quote from article: Of course, analysts point out that computer makers probably wouldn't stand for a price increase right now, with their margins under so much pressure. Then again, Microsoft is always free to raise prices later -- no matter what the computer makers think. "What are they going to do, put Linux on their machines?" asked Greg Vogel, who follows Microsoft for Banc of America Securities.
The Chandra X-Ray Observatory happened to be looking at the presumed site of the hole at the moment it absorbed a comet, blasting x-rays off into space as a byproduct.
That hole in the center of the galaxy is Microsoft. It wasn't absorbing a comet, but rather our Department of Justice.
Sigh...
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
The U.S. government is probably one of Microsoft's biggest customers. I am sure that there are some people in charge of procuring the computers that feared that M$ would charge more if they were broke up. I'm also sure that they figured that the government itself would have a harder time negotiating with M$ if a breakup were to happen.
I'm also sure that there have been significant back-room deals made. There always are.
The "right-wing" is and always has been pro-business.
All of the proceedings were done under the Clinton administration. They can't undo the results of the trial but they sure can minimize it.
This is nothing new. GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil essencially put mass transit out of business in the US a few decades ago, they were found guilty and paid a fine of one dollar.
I wouldn't be shocked if M$ had to do the same at this point.
Its amazing and scary how many of you read a head line posted by an "editor" and just assume its true.
NONE of these articles says anything about Bush ordering the DOJ to back off of Microsoft.
If anyone has any doubts about the power of the media and its ability to affect the brain dead public, this should put those doubts to bed.
Sigs are for wimps!
Furthermore, this should end any lingering doubts about Slashdot's agenda.
We are but the sum of our experiances
If Bush really did have anything (even very remotely) to do with this decision impeachment hearings should start immediately. It is bad enough that he [very obviously] bought his way into the presidency, but to interfere with the justice system and pass judgements can not possibly be legal (unless the US gov has changed from pseudo-democracy to monarchy/dictatorship).
Now you might speculate that they're lying, and that Bush actually did order this action, but to report so as fact is clearly very poor journalism.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
A breakup may not have been the best solution. I'm not an economist or lawyer, but it seems to be that merely breaking M$ into an OS division and an "everything-else" division wouldn't have accomplished much, except to give us two monopolies instead of one.
OTOH, business-oriented people love Bill Gates for his business strategy, which is the most audacious since the days of Standard Oil. Most Republicans are business-oriented people, so it stands to reason that a Republican executive branch would have issues with smacking down M$.
There aren't any decent alternatives for leadership, though. The Democrats have sold out their former constituency, and any third parties are too small to break through the deadlock, and are too far to the left or right for most people to agree with anyway.
sigh.
While it is disheartening to see such a monument of legal work flushed due to a president who has been bought and paid for. I don't know if it qualifies as news in one sense.
Slashdot might as well have been running that banner on the front page since the day the election was forced to settle, leaving blanks for the date and a blank for the link to the reported news on whatever site.
Now that the federal case is more or less gone, the only thing left is to pressure the state attorney generals to persue redress with microsoft directly
I believe the findings of fact still hold as valid in and of themselves
IANAL bla bla bla
So, do XRays coming from the event horizon of a black hole get affected by Gravity Lensing, like light does, or because they're from the source, it is irrelevant? Like how would you detect this anyways, with the equivalent X-Ray "optics" we use with light currently?
What are the odds of a significant mass (another black hole or star) getting close enough in-line with a black hole to try and observe this...
Clearly your position is grounded more in a kneejerk bias to defend the President, regardless of the merits, than an informed understanding of what is going on, or a valid criticism of the original posting.
Bottom line, the President is absolutely answerable for this (although it may well be the right thing to do from a legal perspective). Writing "state senators" can and will accomplish nothing.
First, the Department of Justice is an agency of the Executive Branch of Government, that is to say, they work for the President of the United States. John Ashcroft was appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the President. While he is sometimes granted autonomy as a matter of course, Ashcroft would take no position contrary to the wishes of the President. You may recall not too long ago, when Richard Nixon sought to have "independent counsel" Archibald Cox sacked -- two officers resigned office (or were asked to resign) rather than follow their boss' instructions. Only Robert Bork, one of the few remaining executives in DOJ who hadn't resigned, agreed to follow those instructions.
Now, just so you understand -- the Department of Justice are the lawyers for the United States Government. If they drop the case, the U.S. government will not proceed. Furthermore, and far more important, the House and the Senate have no constitutional authority to enforce any law against anyone (except a case for impeachment), presuming that, by "state senators," you meant the Senators representing your state in the Federal Senate. Your state senators wouldn't have much to say about anything -- except the cases brought by particular states -- and they would likewise be constrained under their respective state constitution separation of powers from acting against any company. You might write your governor, if you wanted to continue seeking structural relief, for all the good it will do you.
Is allowing a known monopoly to charge grossly inflated prices for an operating system with both security and privacy flaws a benefit to consumers? I'll let y'all be the judge on that one.
Side note: Bush is the same president who thinks that allowing 3rd world style arsenic-in-the-drinking-water-standards, drilling-the-ANWR, and well-nigh banning stem cell research will be good for the economy too...
Really. The point is not that Bush is letting Microsoft off the hook--he's not. The Bush administration (important to remember that) is saying, ``we don't think a breakup is called for, we want to see conduct remedies instead''.
This is not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, Tom Miller, the Iowa attorney general who has been one of the biggest movers in the states' suit against Microsoft, has agreed with the Bush administration's decision on this matter.
When even the most aggressive of all the state AGs agrees that ``conduct remedies are enough, they'll do'', what in God's name are the rest of you mewling about?
Let's also note that the Bush administration is no longer pushing for a breakup. That doesn't mean a breakup won't happen, because in the end, it is the judge hearing the case who gets to decide what action is necessary to restore competition to the marketplace. If the judge in question thinks a breakup is called for, well, it doesn't matter a damn what the Bush administration or the states want--Microsoft will be broken up.
This is, realistically, not news.
The DOJ's decision not to pursue the MS breakup is disheartening, but I'm not sure it's the end of the world. Whether or not that's the case depends completely on what business restrictions they will push to have slapped on MS.
Breakup would have been the ultimate punishment for MS, but in the end what is the suit against them all about? It's about stopping their evil business practices, which properly-designed sanctions might still be able to do something about. Granted, the Bush administration is not likely to push for strong sanctions. (Okay, they're almost certainly not going to, but one can hope.) In the off chance that they do, then the real goal here has been accomplished - protecting everyone from MS predation.
Ashcroft still reports to Bush, and it's unlikely that any attourney general would make a decision this big without at least letting the president know.
Also, it's widely known in DC that Bush is taking advice from his aides a lot more than from his cabinet, to the point where some members of the members of his cabinet are publicly joking about it. (As attourney general, Ashcroft is in the cabinet)
According to this Washington Post article, Cheney's son-in-law is now running the MS case.
Maybe because investors know that most companies, when split up, end up making even higher profits. Look at what happened when they split up Standard Oil, or Bell Telephone.
I'm no MS fan, but I don't disagree with the decision per se. The less the government does to regulate the market, the better. Still, I wouldn't have been sad if they were broken up.
But it's not like Microsoft is off the hook now or anything. They're certainly not going to drop the whole case, it's just a question of what the penalties will be. And just because the DOJ isn't pursuing the break-up doesn't mean the court can't decide that that's what they want to do anyways.
Admittedly, I'd rather see the company dissolved, but at least they seem to have retained some teeth in what they (DoJ) are seeking. Namely, the prohibition of unfair licensing agreements and baring MS from preventing OEMs from having their own boot loaders seems like it might go a long way towards opening up the OEM market to alternatives.
I'm not at all suprised that the Bush administration (dubya or his minions) is waffling on acting against a big corporation, as a Texan I have watched him bend over backwards ever since he got elected to lick the boots of 'big bidness'; his agility in that realm is notable even for a Texas politico.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
How much campaign contribution money would it take to get you to change your mind?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'm no fan of MS, but given my current job search headaches I'd prefer not to see a recession get triggered by something that could be avoided. Selfish? Short-sighted? probably. But I'd like the economy to recover sooner than later, and a MS breakup would result in later.
cz
Today marks the first time that I have ever been ashamed to say I am an American. I have lost what little faith I had in this administration and can only hope that something stops Bush before big business truly is the highest authority in the nation. As for me, cashing that refund and moving to Japan is sounding better by the minute.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration...
OK, this is blatent flamebait, but I don't care. This is slightly better than the previous "instructed by Bush" (Michael apparently added the "administration" part).
But it's still bad. Michael, why do you think people hate you and think your a total biased fool? For your information, the DOJ is part of the Bush Administration, so phrasing it this way is out and out biased bullshit. It's like saying, "The Bush Administration instructed the Bush Administration".
The decision came from within the DOJ. If you have proof otherwise, then post it. Otherwise, get rid of that total biased bullshit and grow up.
On a different note, this is why I voted for Bush. Finally, rational decisions in government.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
In light of the problems with bundling, MS should be forced to sell the operating systems at a fixed, published price, with only qty breaks.
Every one pays the same price based on volume, without exception, or bundling or other deals. And oems are free to do what they want with the code, similar to other products, no more "you must put our icons on the startup".
Putting everyone on the same footing is the place to start.
The yahoo article has Bush's name, by the way, even though the other articles do not mention his name, remember that he is the President and their boss, so the decision still reflects upon him.
Let's think about this; we have two options.
a) Microsoft, you are a bad bad boy. *CHOP* Now you are two bad, bad boys, and if you are bad again we will *CHOP* you again.
b) Microsoft, you are a bad bad boy. We will watch you, make your programmers work according to the dictates of lawyers, fiddle with your documentation and business ad lib, and tell you a whole list of things you will simply not be permitted to do.
Scenario a) leaves us with a series of scrappy, bitter companies which, no matter how much one might wish that they would play nice, almost certainly will not. Moreover, just because they are chopped up doesn't mean that they will shrivel up and blow away. As two companies which have already been punished as one, they will be under much reduced scrutiny, but still have massive market power within their niches.
Scenario b) leaves a company which is already slow and bloated even more bloated, additionally hindered and otherwise prevented from being a competitive shark. For those of you who were around to watch the IBM case, they were run by lawyers into the ground. They bled red ink and lost major ground in the market. I think GW, or whoever made the decision, has just shafted microsoft one hell of a lot harder than a split would have done.
I know the kneejerk reaction is that they are getting away with it. I don't think they are, and if you actually read the reports, you will see that they are not. Yet.
Turns out Bush had very little to do with the decesion
m l
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33790,00.ht
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Couple of thoughts.
:)
First, who says president Bush is behind this? I followed all the links but saw no-one point directly to the president. While I do not dount that the new atmosphere has something to do with this, direct involvement should be proved. Maybe I missed it though, quite possible.
Second, I believe we need a regrouping. This is obviously a major disappointment for the OSS community. I can forget moving the company to MS Office for Linux now. So where do we go from here? MS will be here to stay, we better deal with it.
That means learning marketing lessons from them. You conquer the world by conquering small markets at a time - the "crossing the chasm" idea. It seems to me we need to identify chasms we can cross. Maybe we can become the desktop system for government. Maybe we can emphasise cost svings and ride on the XP cost increase to conquer a market of small broke companies. Maybe the graphics market (remember Apple?) or some other market. The desktop as a whole is out until we do, I think.
So, ideas anyone? I have sysadmins running Linux on the desktop - that's a statr I guess.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Who said that "breaking up is hard to do..."
-Frijoles-
That's news to me. I realize completely that Murdock is a pretty solid Republican, but I think you need to do a little more background research on Turner. Reed Hundt (FCC chairman during Clinton's first term, helped Gore invent the internet) in his book "So you want a Revolution" talks of Turner as wishing to build a competitor to Fox, only liberal. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that he gives large donations to both parties (most public figures do), but he is definately a loyal Democrat.
Understood, I usually read the BBC last. It clearly states in the BBC article that it was really pushed by W's team of monkeys. Now, how the hell did this moded up?
Also in a sick way, I think that there are things that can be imposed that are far worse than breakup. The feds can come up with a concent decree that ties MS's hands pretty bad and then a single judge can oversee that it is imposed properly. I just don't see Balmer and Gates asking someone if they can do something or getting slapped on the hand if they do something they shouldn't. They are egomaniacs.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Perhaps all of Microsoft's campaign contributions [opensecrets.org - search for Microsoft] proved to be a good investment.
Interestingly, MS really hedged its bets by contributing to Ralph Nader's and Harry Brown's campaigns in addition to Bushito's and Gore's.
I saw the title of this post and I just knew what was going to happen: The politically uninformed were going to instantly post "Bush is wrong! Screw Microsoft! I hate republicans!"
Bush is not the problem. When you weigh your options (Gore), you quickly see why. After all, Al Gore -did- invent the internet. I don't see Bush mentioned at all in the article (granted, I skimmed - quote it if I missed it), only the DOJ, which I suppose in indirectly Bush anyways.
It's not being debated that Microsoft has some rather unethical practices. However when you look at the whole issue, why should Microsoft be punished for squashing their competition by creating a product which is the best (for the technically inept)? If you're a Free-OS bigot, you will probably argue until your face is blue against this point, but millions upon millions of people and businesses will tell you otherwise. Personally, I don't use Micros~1's products, either.
It comes down to simple capitalism. Microsoft accelled (not to be confused with Microsoft Excel) themselves to the top, ethical issues aside. After all, having bad ethics is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Personally I'd like to see my tax dollars going to other things besides constantly trying to drive a stake into Microsoft's operations. If you hold this as a dominating personal political issue, you need to rethink your issues.
Personally, I don't see how anybody could be for a party that wants to tax you when your relatives die, or happily live on in the legacy of the likes of Clinton or Condit.
vi rules.
0, 1. (Just my two bits.)
Ummm, 1,0.
Spackler - Keeping Slashdot binarily correct for the last 2 minutes
I know this'll just get lost in the noise of idiotic posts that this place is famous for, but it struck me as extremely ironic that slashdot, an open source riddled, smouldering pile of turgid code collapsed today when this story was posted. very funny stuff. You realize you people were prevented spouting off about how much more superior and wonderfully stable this open source malarky is because it collapsed yet again? LOL. MS bashing never looked so foolish.
:) so all you suckers working $10/hr desk support trying your hardest to believe this socialist/communist nonesense can keep on struggling, keep trying to make the rent while giving away your work (for those of you fools around here that actually even contribute to an OSS project) while the rest of you trying so desperately to latch on to some of the feeling of 1337ness attached to being a kernel hacker, even though you have yet to grok the frickin pipe, have a nice day. suckers.
I am posting this using win2k. for all your badmouthing and lies, it is a fantastic OS. no crashes, no reboots, no complex conf files to dicker with on setup, my registry is comfortably backed up under (count em) FOUR different system states, making rollback a simple matter in the event of bad 3rd party corruption or even - get this- restoring my system to freshly installed status in under FIVE minutes!!! haha.
You people and your 'make', 'dependencies', 'inodes', 'conf' and a fantastically crash prone windowing system are the most foolish tech advocates possible. If you hate Winders and MS, at least have the sense to use a worthwhile alternative- QNX, MacOS, *BSD etc. This Linux disaster is your own just dessert.
Meanwhile, I can stop working and live comfortably on the dividend MS stock pays quarterly. I was smart, I bought another 3500 shares earlier this year, bringing me up to a total of 35k shares. DotCom money invested soundly, I might add
Maybe you should view some public opinion polls there dude, just about every poll I've seen has showed the public does NOT think they should be broken up. Just look at cnn's front page, its nearly 70% in favor of the DOJ. Get your facts straight, slashdot's opinion is a small fraction of people.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I have never seen a more perfect example of jerks with mod-points punishing opinions they disagree with than in this discussion.
As of 3:46 EDT:
Dow: -193.40
Nasdaq: -54.91
MSFT: -1.48
RHAT: -0.30
Looks like the preservation of Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices will turn out very bad for the overall economy...
Let's talk about data loss....
I just installed SP6a on an NT4 machine. Nobody told me that, though NT can handle large hard drives, it can't *boot* when one of the boot files is beyond the 8G boundary. And SP6a didn't check; it just merrily went about its way fucking up the computer.
Now, this isn't my machine; I didn't install it or anything else. I'm merely doing some routine maintenance, as was asked of me. I know you don't install the system and data on the same huge partition; and I know you don't install the system partition with NTFS.
I have yet to lose a single file to ext2; and I've been using Linux for 8 years. NT, on the other hand, has raped me many times.
Also, you never, ever, ever apply every single fix that comes out just because you can. You don't have to by a new Red Hat CD just because 7.2 just came out. And with Microsoft, it's exactly the same thing, a new OS a year (alternating server/workstation). And, as demonstrated by the stupid setup that screwed me today, it takes a certain amount of knowledge to adequately admin an MS-Windows box, as well.
So, all-in-all, you rate not only as a troll, but as a stupid fucking troll, at that.
As Bugs would say, "What a maroon."
The parent post wasn't entered by me, it was something the buggy slashcode replaced my comment with. A shame they haven't corrected that!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If you read CNN's article, and I suspect that if you read the other ones as well, you'd see that the DoJ is merely stopping the breakup, NOT the trial. The trial will continue, with the DoJ seeking conduct remedies...
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.
Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)
Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.
Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
I am sorry to say that Microsoft regards rules, custom, law, and everything else as something that are to be circumvented. Bill Gate's version is that everyone has the "Total Microsoft Experience" and that he has all the money. Its word is the expediant of the moment and it will refuse to follow any law. Microsoft obviously thumbed its nose at the legal system during appeal by refusing to follow Judge Jackson's orders in preparing for the breakup. As such it is corporately in contempt of court (and should be held so thank you, as you and I woulld under the same circumstances). I would love to see them broken up by the new Judge (which she can do thanks) no matter what the Justice (or lack there of) department decides. Short of that it has now placed itself in a position where it will dictate what you use, not you deciding what is your best solution.
Sex is heriditary, if your parents didn't have it chances are good you won't either.
Sorta Outta Luck or Sh*t Outta Luck..
What most everyone seems to be missing is that the DOJ does not get to decide the sentence for MS. That is in the hands of the judge the case was handed to. She can still break the company into little mini-microsoft clones if she wants to. There is a degree of less likelyhood to that happening, but it does not change the fact that it is up to her not Ashcroft, Bush or the DOJ.
I must admit that I am extremely apolitical, and that I'm still uncertain about who I hated more, Bush or Gore. Or for that matter, whoever it was that the LP fielded.
Even as much as that is true, I still can't help but feel betrayed. What in the hell is going on? Either the Bush administration believes that M$ isn't guilty of inumerable crimes (impossible?), or that the crimes are so petty that punishment this severe isn't merited (again impossible?). Those are the only 2 possibilities that give Bush any excuse at all, and if they are the explanation for this, then we are all in trouble, because he is an utter retard.
The less benign explanations are that A) Bush is literally being bribed, B) is indirectly being bribed, or C) he is an evil fuck making sure that only the elite are allowed to go into business (and then only safely, if they are on "his side" whatever that is). Since the benign explanations are bullshit, is there any hope?
There were 13 comments on this story ("Bush [Administration] Stops Microsoft Breakup") and 1 on another story that we suspect may have had their metadata mixed up somehow. I believe some of them were actually (intended to be?) posted to other stories and they wound up here instead. They were definitely replies to other comments and we had to make them at the "root level." But I believe the rest of their metadata was correct: user id, subject, points, etc.
If anyone who posted one of these comments or otherwise knows for a fact that our metadata is wrong -- at worst we might show them posted by the wrong user, that would be bad -- please email me and I will correct things as best I can.
Sorry about this, but our first reaction is to try to save comments when at all possible in the case of DB corruption, and we all figured it would be better to leave them up, possibly with wrong metadata, than to delete them.
These are the 14 comments: 2259183 2259165 2259166 2259170 2259171 2259174 2259175 2259178 2259181 2259182 2259185 2259186 2259188 2259191
(Please note, discussion of Slashdot downtime is pretty clearly offtopic, so don't be surprised if you reply to this and get modded down as such. Feel free to mod me down. Hm, maybe we need a user-created discussion about our downtime so there's someplace it won't be offtopic...)
The decision by the Bush administration reverses the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft. The BBC article is the place to find it. IMHO the BBC tends to have better coverage than most other news outlets. I'll believe them way before I belive something I read on CNN or CNet.
In some ways this would be like FDR addressing congress on December 8, 1941, "Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
We will therefore abandon Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of our bases in the Pacific and leave it to the japanese as a reward for their initiative and innovative spirit, but leave them with a stern warning not to invade Texas."
What this translates to:
May bundle and give products which are the sole source of income, and thus drive out of business, no more than 35 companies per year.
May not bundle and provide free of cost any of the following: oil, natural gas, lumber, minerals or mineral ores.
May not give more than $500 M^H^H^H^H^H$1 billion per annum to the Republican Party, conservative think tanks, and special shadowy organizations which shall remain nameless.
May not give more than $10.00 per annum to any parties other than those affiliated with the Republican Party, unless they have a popular, but nutty candidate which is competing in an upcoming election and may draw away votes from a party which will be remain nameless.
The Microsoft CEO may not spend more than 3 consecutive nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.
May not include less than 64,000 bugs per major release.
Will release a special W. version of Word with a spell checker which forbids use of words over 7 letters or 2 syllables in length.
Microsft products shall be distributed to all enemies of the USA, free of cost, so that we shall know of their weaknesses.
Should Microsoft be found in violation of any* of these conditions, the CEO will be sent to bed without dessert and grounded to his multimillion dollar mansion for one week of his choosing.
* Excepting the oil and gas provisions, under which punishment shall consist of the Microsoft CEO briefly discovering the resting place of James Hoffa, Sr.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm the guy that reamed the goatse.cx dude. I'm here to tell you that it's time to bend over. Squeeeeeeeeeeeel like a pig! Gates 0wNz j00 all.
In my above post, I forgot to point out the two contributions Microsoft made to the "Ashcroft Victory Cmte Non-Federal" on 12/31/1999 and 06/30/2000 found in OpenSecrets.org's database [opensecrets.org].
You all have a choice. You can sit in front of your monitor like dumbshit numbnuts cracking stupid ass jokes on Slashdot...OR...you can use the power of the so called "Slashdot Effect" to try and make a difference. This effect has been known to literally bring servers to their knees, why not put it to good use. Email president@whitehouse.gov and let him know what you think about his moves regarding the DOJ/Microsoft case. Otherwise sit on your ass, continue to crack stupid jokes and watch your internet and software freedoms disappear.
As for yoy Microsoft supporters...GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
Soup Over Lunch.
Guess the Justice Department got scared of MS sending the BSA after them, too...
Here is what I know to be true.
Microsoft will release Windows XP on time, with all of the features it alone intends to incorporate. There will be some slight cosmetic changes meant to give the misleading impression that the Bush Justice Dep't was able to reach some sort of deal with Gates et.al. It will be an almost bald-faced lie that nobody in the non-slashdot world will give a second thought to.
In truth, XP will be within approximation exactly what Microsoft intended it to be, its crowbar to begin leveraging their control of the individual PC desktop into dominance of the internet's protocols themselves and thus the server market. Microsoft will attempt to become the IBM of the 21st century, with all of the attendant lethargy, intransigence, and dictatorial control of what may and may not be done with the equipment that old dinosaur used to have. This'll be explained as the best of all possible outcomes for the consumer because it introduces "consistent standards for the protection of intellectual property and the security of personal data."
----------
Their ploy, most likely, will work. You see, I really think that there's not enough appreciation on Slashdot for the crushing masses of people who never, ever think about free software, open standards, or whether or not there are whatever sorts of privacy or antitrust issues involved with XP. They just want to use their computers to do stuff, and if XP makes it easier for them to do things online, work with video, etc, then they will use it even if installing it's a pain in the ass. And it looks all neat and new, too. For them, Linux is geek stuff. They know that Windows is "the only real OS". They've been using Windows and are quite comfortable with it, warts and all. All their friends use it. They don't want to mess with their computers all the time or have to find out what free program is available to do X, Y, or Z. They're just not at all curious about it as we are.
And MS, with a crack marketing dep't, knows all of this and more about their consumers. Linux can't even make a decent distro for idiots yet, nevermind that relatively prodigious learning curve. Linux has its market, sure, but so far it's not even on the same map as Windows & MS's efforts, and I speak as a complete advocate of open OSes. We MUST be honest with ourselves about the extent of permeation Windows enjoys and not fool ourselves with fantasies about how a government that only reflects the aforementioned popular disinterest is gigon to do anything real, anything solid, to stop the big bad company from making & selling its product.
Excuse my rant.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
It might be more complicated than it looks.
I'm not sure I understand the DOJ announcement, but doesn't it say it wants to take action immediately? If I understand it right, it claims a break-up would take too long.
In short, they want to punish Microsoft effectively before XP hits the shelves.
Oh, geeze, I really hope I read that right... It might actually be a good thing, you know...
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
For those who react to this news with righteous indignation over the Bush Administration's 'clear' act of 'selling out' to $$$ from Microsoft, please read the article. The Wired article in particular contains the following tidbits:
That would include restrictions such as: Microsoft can't give discounts to hardware or software developers in exchange for promoting or distributing other company products, and state and federal government lawyers may come onto Microsoft's campus to "inspect and copy" any document or file they find relevant.
Microsoft would also have to monitor all changes it makes to all versions of Windows and track any alterations that would slow down or "degrade the performance of" any third-party application such as Internet browsers, e-mail client software, multimedia viewing software, instant messaging software and voice recognition software.
Hardly favoured treatment for someone supposedly 'in bed' with the B Administration. This sets a precident that will be a lot more useful in the long run than simply 'busting up' Microsoft for the Internet Explorer issue.
This decision rocks!
**>>BELCH
Read the DOJ text itself. Not ONCE does it mention Bush, or the Bush Administration. Typical Bush-bias by the slashdot community.
Get your facts straight before you point a finger.
Breaking up MS wouldn't have solved the problem anyway. There would just be two companies with monopolies, and the company with Office would have no incentive to support more platforms, as it would cost enormous amounts of money to port the applications.
A real solution would be passing a law that all commercial Word Processing/Spreadsheet/Presentation applications(Office Apps) regardless of manufacturer, would have to support a standard format defined by a standards body. The standard would be freely available. The standard must also be the default and natively supported format. The penalty to MS would be that they are forced to release their current Office file formats to this standards body to be the baseline for the standard.
Any and all companies (including MS) would not be prevented from extended the formats or developing something new. However, their products must support the standard first. For the user to use the proprietary formats the user would be forced to manually chose a different file format. Like selecting ".rtf" instead of ".doc" is now. Practically, no one would do it, and anyone acheiving a monopoly on file formats would effectively be blocked.
This would spur an enormous amount of competition in the office/productivity software space. And we would be guarenteed that StarOffice, KOffice, WordPerfect, and the like, could become 100% compatible.
We can only hope that Microsoft is found guilty of violating anti-trust laws for its monopoly on quality flight simulators for Windows running on Intel-based desktop microcomputers, so that the DoJ can deliver the righteous smackdown for such evil business practices. What's next for Microsoft if left unchecked? Domination of some other niche segment of society, like fuel pumps for Volvo engines (diesel only, of course)? You wanna talk about a monopoly, look at the U.S. Postal service. Those guys deliver almost ALL of our mail! Poor little FedEx and UPS can't compete against a 30-something cent stamp! And what about breeders of carrier pigeons, and smoke signal artisans? Sure, their techniques are more expensive and harder to use, but don't they get a chance, too? We can't expect them to actually respond to what customers want, or stop charging outrageous fees for difficult-to-use products. We should split the USPS up instead. Punish them for their efficiency and the unbelievable hubris they exibited by trying to be successful. I mean, this is America, land of tightly controlled and needlessly regulated opportunity. I myself want government to get involved as often as possible in the dealings of business, especially if a product is unfairly underpriced, or is bundled with too much free (AIB) stuff. Who wants cheap stuff that regular people can actually use? Not me, and not America! Go get 'em DOJ!
(close-sarcasted for the humor impaired)
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I HAVE FUCKING HAD IT!!
.net?
I REFUSE AND I MEAN REALLY REFUSE TO BE SUBJECT TO MICROSOFT! MICROSOFT HAS SHOWN THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT AND THEY CAN BUY WHOMEVER THEY WANT IN THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN! PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING!
HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE BEFORE LINUX IS OUTLAWED? MICROSOFT CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN! JUST FILL OUT A CHECK TO G.W. ALL IN THE NAME OF EDUCATING AND INFORMING OF COUSRE.
This pisses me off alot more then Decss vs MPAA. Sorry to type in all caps and be really emotional but I feel like I am absolutely powerless
and my most valued piece of equipment, my hobby, and my career will be rented out and controlled by Microsoft and the mpaa. They will no longer be owned. Why can't I play a dvd movie on my Linux box? What if I take some photo's on a digital cmaera and decide to print them. Will I have to pay Microsoft a printing fee wether I use winXP or not? I really wonder what is the license agreemnt to print digital photo's from XP is? This is just another example and since the split is not going to happen, Microsoft will monopolize the photo industry now. It will not stop their. If they take over yet another market microsoft could make even more money. I know lets charge customers for every transaction sold over the net from serverlets written with
What will happen when Microsoft patents file sharing, smb, or.net and who knows what else? Did you know Microsoft owns a patent on css? How could Linux compete?
Face it Linux is going to die really soon if this power from Redmond is not controlled. They are viscious unhuman animals. It will not die from innovation but from clever legal and political maneuvers. Microsoft knows the strengths and weaknesses of opensource and they know we are broke and will take advantage of it. What do you think MS V.P. Murray meant when he said "The government, is encouraging open source. We need to educate the government in the evils of it?"? He said he was only referring to governmentally funded software but I do not believe him. Of course he is not going to admit the truth. Look at the halloween documents from www.gnu.org? Patents is their main strategy. With checks to the patent office they can actually buy them. He also said that there is a wall between the operating systems group and the applications group at Microsoft 10 years earlier. We all know he was being honest. right?
Microsoft has shown they will try to win tooth and nail at any cost in order to crush competition. They will try patenting and using more forceful EULA's banning Linux from corporations.
The guys with big pockets own American and the world and there is nothing we can do. They own %97 of the world's wealth so we can't outlobby them or out buy them. Writing letters to senators and congressmen wont help either. Campaign finance reform won't work becaus your asking politicians to change a system that got them elected. In other words we are screwed.
I will look at other job options and keep my computer for windows based games. I just will no longer seek employment with these kind of attitudes prevailant in the industry. If Linux dies a legal and not a technical death then I encourage all who are reading this to quit as well. By staying in your job, Microsoft wins. You are rewarding Microsoft for their sleazy and illegal business practices and putting dollars in the wallet for it. I am just so disgusted right now its unbelievable.
Excuse while I go vomit.
http://saveie6.com/
They are going to have a better chance to push through realistic remedies rather than a huge one that doesn't make sense and would take 4-6 years to push through the courts and
Just set them so they don't go back to begining and start repeating history. MS is in for some tough time ahead. Sooner or later the economy problems will catch up with them, as they seem to be slowly crawling up the food chain. (first dot bombs, second bandwidth/hardware, traditional software companies.. brick and morter... etc etc. Soon enough it will crawl back up to MS and bite em!)
- Office files (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc)
- Internet files/protocols (ActiveX, etc)
- Registry files
- Win32 driver API
- Win32 API
In addition to opening the files/protocols, MS would be require to grant irrevocable patent licenses for any patented software routines needed to read/write any of the above files/protocols.With public specifications, there's no excuse for a lack of competition. The playing field is levelled, so to speak.
Nathan
Who cares, Linux, Alan, ... etc are not going to stop working on the kernel. All the software we use is not going anywhere. Microsoft will continue their normal operation. The world will not end. Who really gives a rip what happens to MS. I don't use Linux because I was waiting for MS to be broken up. I don't use open source software because I was just waiting for until MS comes out with better stuff for me to use. Why doesn't everyone just grow up. Its not an us vs. them. MS is a competitor, but thats great. So is Sun, SGI, and every other software company out there. We deal with it.
Here's a thought, how would MS being borken up help open source?
Nothing to see here, go on your merry way...
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
I have yet to understand why most slashdotters, a group of above-average intelligence, can be so stubborn and mule-headed about political issues.
Microsoft is not off the hook. The DoJ merely came to the conclusion that a breakup of MS would solve NOTHING. Do any of you really think that would have made a difference, or did you just see it as a way to stick it to Big Bad Bill?
This whole tying-the-browser-to-the-OS thing was BS from the get-go. No one was stopping anybody from downloading and installing Netscape or any other browser. I actually thought it was rather USEFUL that a browser was preinstalled so that I could go out and download Netscape!
Regarding the political stuff, don't get any happy thoughts about Clinton starting this suit to protect the consumer. As if he cared about the consumers - the same ones he screwed by enthusiastically signing the DMCA? This whole thing was class warfare from the get-go. The bottom 50% loves it when the guy at the top at the food chain gets pie in his face, don't they? So Slick Willie bolsters his poll numbers by going after MS for some trumped-up crap and gets full cooperation from their competitors, of course. Just try to be honest with yourselves here.
Look, sure MS is evil. XP is full evidence that they're evil. So don't upgrade. You know what happens to products that screw the user? They don't sell. Look at DIVX. That sure didn't go far. XP is the OS equivalent of DIVX, from what I've read so far. Let the market do its thing.
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
Shit Out of Luck.
...that MS acted illegally. How much more indication do you need?
Hm, maybe we need a user-created discussion about our downtime so there's someplace it won't be offtopic...
Maybe you need a real database that backs out transactions when they fuck up, instead of just hosing everything.
Oh, and a "sorry, database problem" banner to throw up instead of letting the site come half-ass up when it's being recovered.
Think about it for a moment. M$ finally thinks it has won, and that nobody is able to stop them (Muhahahah). While this maybe true, it most definitely will make M$ more bold, and isn't this exactly what we want?
Think about it. A embolden M$ is more likely to think that it can (and more importantly will) get away with its Monopoly (TM ParkerBros), and proceed to enslave the corporate world. This will do two things, make Linux (TM Linus Torvolds) more popular, and secondly (and more importantly), allow new charges of monopolistic behavior against M$?
The core of the US case against M$ was the stupidest level of incompetance (browser wars?) I have ever seen. Judge Jackson was the only one in the courtroom to see the true implications of the M$ Monopoly (TM ParkerBros). The US Justice Dept. was completely clueless and out of touch with the real issues in the case.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There is only one law in jungle
If you have money, power, and influence
You can buy, bend, or change all the other laws.
(From the Wired article)
Microsoft can't give discounts to hardware or software developers in exchange for promoting or distributing other company products.
State and federal government lawyers may come onto Microsoft's campus to "inspect and copy" any document or file they find relevant.
Microsoft would also have to monitor all changes it makes to all versions of Windows and track any alterations that would slow down or "degrade the performance of" any third-party application such as Internet browsers, e-mail client software, multimedia viewing software, instant messaging software and voice recognition software."
This is much more effective than simply breaking up the company.
**>>BELCH
Sanity returns once again to the government. Maybe now we (the free software community) can all get back to the business of beating Microsoft in the marketplace, instead of running to daddy DOJ whenever we want him to beat someone up.
[ home ]
Oh, very simple, actually. Go re-read the remedy suggested by Judge Jackson. The break-up was only part of it. The most important part, wildly underlooked, was that all technical communications between the different parts of Microsoft would be made public. In short, there would be a Microsoft-OS part that would make the core OS, and the rest of Microsoft, that does IE and the Media Player and everything, couldn't commingle its proprietary apps into the OS without the very way they are commingled becoming public.
It was a smart ruling. Judge Jackson did an immensely good job of understanding the problems at stake.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Microsoft has nothing to do with any kinda of recession or recovery of the economy. So many people think that if M$ would get split, that there would be this huge downfall of economic opportunites.
bullocks!
If you really wanna see something that would affect a recession/non-recession then look at an industry much bigger and farther reaching than the computer industry - the auto industry. Remember the bail out of Chrystler in the 80's? Look around you. The auto industry is many time bigger than M$ and will be for quite some time, maybe forever.
Anyway, I don't give M$ that much credit. In the end they'll be their own downfall. Economically, we as a society will not be able to support upgrading software that does pretty much nothing new and, despite popular belief and marketing hype, is not particularly innovative at all, every year or so. When that is finally realized, then they'll end up like a Borland or maybe even Lotus.
That will be a good day. Just like how it was when it all started. This, I feel, will be the natural evolution of things.
In the parent comment, I had posted a comment about President Bush and slashdot bias. The excellent slashcode rendered into what you see above.
This whole thing has been a colossal waste of taxpayers money.
We should let corporations do whatever they damn well please with no adverse consequences whatsoever. Brilliant. The problem is that Microsoft has done the same damn thing several times. They got off with a slap on the wrist the first time around. Now it's gonna happen again. Where is the remedy to keep them from doing it again?!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Heh. I want to call the Democrats the DFL party, but I guess that's a Minnesota thing.
Anyway, I realize it's easier if you can pigeon hole decisions into a political landscape. But you really can't with this Microsoft trial.
The DOJ case was brought forth by the Clinton Justice department, true. It's also no secret that many Microsoft competitors contribute heavily to the Democrats. Most notably is Larry Ellison who gave multiple millions to the Democrats in the Florida public relations campaign.
On the other hand another Microsoft competitor who has complained fiercely is Novell, which exists in Utah and is championed by Senator Hatch.
Also on the DOJ side are two very notable Highly Republican partisans by name of Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr.
I don't agree with the DOJ case, and I'm a very partisan Democrat. Yet on the other hand my boss and many of his friends are highly Republican and they do disagree with the case.
Yet I encounter numerous persons in newsgroups who are clearly right-wing extremists who are very anti-Microsoft.
I realize these are a lot of random anecdotes and facts, but the point is there really is no trend of Republicans being for Microsoft and Democrats being against Microsoft. It's all over the board.
When it was announced that MS would not be broken up, MS's share price soared ... The Nasdaq also rose dramatically.
Sorry, but this is plain wrong. MS stock rose slightly briefly, then fell back 2 per cent. The Nasdaq slumped by over 2 per cent. I agree with your sentiment, but the market is a lot more complex than you intimate.
Instead of a "user-created discussion", how about posting an article under the Slashdot topic, so that discussion of such WILL be on topic?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
bush has made it clear that he has the interests of corporations at the forefront of his agenda. I still think he is better then Gore though...
I see a lot of posts saying this. Better in what aspect -- pro-life, pro-immigration, against gay marriage, just what do you agree with him more on?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
There was another provision -to require a standard and consistant licensing price schedule- which obliquely touches on this issue, but none that address it directly; just as in the trial it's being ignored. Particularly troubling is the suggestion that the DOJ will model their proposed remedy on the restrictions proposed by Judge jackson in so far as those restrictions to business practices were relevant when they were originally proposed but the landscape has changed drastically sice then. Microsoft has moved on from the battle for the desktop, to the battle for the net, and if the restrictions do not relate to practices associated with the new battleground, then they will be on no value at all.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
A piece of factual information is flamebait? You suck.
The only way that this wasn't Bush's decision is if all the stories about Cheney really running the country are true. The decision may well have been issued and executed by Ashcroft and his cronies, but Bush is his boss, and can fire him if he makes decisions with which he disagrees.
It's not like Ashcroft is some gunslinging maverick who doesn't toe the party line- he does what Bush wants, or he is replaced by someone who will.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
The pole over on CNN indicates about 2:1 in favor of dropping the case. I think people are scared that any multiplicity of Microsofts will simply cause incompatability. Most slashdotters realize how much better an OS can be, but most other people do not. All they see is the repeated promises of software writers which have, historically, been dissapointing. Finally, after decades of promise, computing platforms for ordinary people are stabilizing and software is, generally, working. We all know things could be better and want change, but the average user is content with stability - even a stability which means users have to reboot daily. What I think slashdotters do not realize is that the average person using a computer just wants to get a relativly simple task done - word processing, printing, scanning, writing email, reading email, etc.
Cheers,
Greg
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Why is Bush putting his nose into MS business? ..um.. *persuade* Jeb Bush, the FL legislature, and the Supreme Court to elect a president which MS knew could be manipulated to drop the case against MS.
How's this for a conspiracy theory: MS used its significant financial resources to
Doesn't "MS bought the Supreme Court" provide a better explanation of their ruling on the presidential election? After all, it is widely criticised by legal experts on either side of the political spectrum as "bad law".
looks like monica wasn't the only one on her knees to get favors from the oral...i mean oval office. it wouldn't surprise me to see a photo in the news with george w. smiling and bill gates brushing his teeth.
yeah i said it! BILL GATES SUCKED GEORGE W.'S DICK! and prolly bought him a big bag of coke so president nose candy would let his business crimes slide.
The whole breakup scare was a farce anyway. Oh no, now I'll have 2 giant corporations. What a penalty. At least this way (and granted this is information gleaned from quick and digital sources, and how much can we trust those) Microsoft will have some sort of accountability. Also I think it's good to keep the company together. The split was more of a slick PR maneuver than an actual solution.
hmm
Funny. When the ruling from Judge Jackson first came out, there were droves of people here on Slashdot who were complaining that breaking MS into 2 (or more) companies would do nothing to curb their monopolistic behavior. The argument went something like: the smaller companies would continue to exercise the monopoly for the particular domain that they operate in.
Now that the DoJ says that they are going to pursue a different penalty, even going so far as to check out the current situation in industry to customize something that will have teeth, do we hear Slashdot members applauding the decision? No! Instead, we're hearing people complaining that the Bush Administration is butting in, being pro-Microsoft, and blocking what is now hailed as one of the best ways to stop MS.
You can't have it both ways, people.
Personally, I applaud what the DoJ is doing. I think we're on the road to finding a solution that will actually make a difference. Time will tell.
Hmmmm... How has a free, or free'er market ever stifled the ecconomy of any country?
(Don't use Russia as your *lame* example; Their markets haven't been freed, just switched from one corrupt system to another).
What's bothered me is that nearly every linux distribution includes one or more web browsers. Recently they also include spreadsheets, graphic manipulation (gimp), and soon they'll all include word processors similar to MS Word and email/calendar/contact magangement similar to MS Outlook.
It seems quite dangerous to establish a legal precedent against including a popular application with the "operating system". At the rate things are going, in a few years a Linux distribution will probably come with work-a-like replacements for every major proprietary application.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
As a separate, off topic post, I would like to refute your TCO claims.
The IDC and Netcraft have both commented on an important trend where many large and small companies are moving from proprietary Unix and, to a lesser extent, Netware to Linux and NT/2000 based solutions. As such, Microsoft's marketshare has risen slightly and Linux's market share has exploded. The basic reason is that most versions of UNIX are proprietary and tied to a hardware market, and for this reason, sales are low. Sales are also comparitively low for Netware and that OS cannot share the developer load with a workstation market. Because the software industry is captive to a very steep economy of scale. (Don't believe me? Price out one of those RS-6000 workstations!) At the same time, Microsoft and Linux are both able to distribute the cost of development more, and as such, able to deliver a better value.
The industry is not driven by the question of "Is it good?" Particularly in hard times, it is driven by the question of "Is it good enough?" If a piece of software is good enough and is a better value, it wins out in the long run (see DOS vs MacOS vs Amiga OS). Microsoft became very successful by inventing the idea of distributing the cost of development by sellign to multiple vendors, and this idea is further "embraced and extended" in the open source movement which distributes this cost by distributing the development itself. In this way, an open source operating system will never be tied to hardware sales even the way Windows is today, so it will, forever remain affordable.
My personal experience has been that NT and 2000 have been more trouble to impliment, support, and secure than Linux or FreeBSD. They often run on otherwise obsolete hardware (a market where Microsoft, for business reasons, chooses not to compete), providing useful network services, such as DNS, SMTP, and POP3. It is easier to learn to administrate well (rather than merely competently), and it is easier to properly and securely automate.
Another factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Over the last year, I have seen 4 crashes of my Linux servers which were not resolved by a reboot(I administrate 6 Linux servers, several of which are also workstations) and as many crashes on the two non-dedicated NT and 2000 servers I have worked with. The average time to fix the Linux crashes was 15 minutes, and almost every crash was caused by human error in the installation or upgrade of new software, such as Tomcat on Apache, etc. OTOH, the NT and 2000 machines not only had to be rebooted twice as often buteach fix that this did not resolve required much more troubleshooting. On one occasion, the reinstallation of network services caused registry corruption and the entire system had to be restored! How is that for lack of maintenance?
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
What, exactly does this have to do with Linux and Microsoft? Yes, I too have noticed that Linux is slightly less stable than other Unices, but it is FAR more stable than anything Microsoft has released (including Windows 2000). If you are only concerned with stability go with FreeBSD which currently accoutns for most of the servers with the longest uptime according to Netcraft. But FreeBSD is not without its own problems-- it has less hardware support and no framebuffer device so that not all Linux games run in it... But who needs a framebuffer or that new video card on a web server?
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
Only when someone who doesn't know what they are doing tries to run e2fsck with the drive mounted... And to Linux's credit, the program displays a wonderfully dire warning message if you try this.
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I won't say what comes to mind here. NT-based OSs are extremely hard to learn well, IMO. OTOH, My parents, who were lost when trying to use Windows 95 are using Red Hat 6.1 with Ximian Gnome and love it! That is a learning curve for you!
I won't feed this troll anymore, so if you are sincere and wish to debate this subject with me, please email me.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
A lot of you seem to be up in arms over the claim that this decision was "instructed" by the Bush administration, even by W himself. Now it's true that he probably did not do the groundwork leading up to this, but it's almost a certainty that he was asked for approval at some point, and he may have have been nudging it in this direction for quite a while.
The President is held responsible for the major decisions of the executive branch, by the media and the voters, and it really should be that way. After all, he's the boss; and as we all know, the boss can't do all the work, but he does have to lead, and those who do the grunt work do have to seek his approval on high-level, sensitive matters.
The M$ case was an issue in last year's election, and it will likely still be pending when next year's congressional elections roll around. Maybe even in 2004 for the next presidential election; and in any case, history will judge the W admininstration in part on the way it handles the M$ case.
So you can bet that before the DOJ committed to this decision, they ran an executive summary past the Prez for his approval. And he said yes, or nodded his head, or gave a wink, or whatever. If he had said no, it wouldn't have happened. The whole thing may have taken five minutes, but the fact remains that George W. Bush is ultimately responsible for the decision not to seek the breakup of Microsoft.
In fact, I'll bet he did a little more than that. He was probaby briefed occasionally on the progress of the case, and he probably gave a few hints as to his preferences. He probably didn't have to say much, but just a few words would be enough to dramatically influence the direction of the DOJ's efforts; becauses the drudges at Justice are none too likely to put a decision on his desk that they think will displease him. And already in last year's campaign, his statement that he "prefers innovation, not litigation" gave a crystal-clear indication of his opinions.
I'm sure W is quite pleased with this news. All in a day's work.
This trial would of been over months and months ago if they had made the suit on business practices. Focusing on IE was BS there is nothing wrong moving parts of the browser to the OS. Just ask Linus he has parts of a web server in the kernal now with TUX. Giving away IE had nothing to do with it, Netscape did that first. They didn't charge for old versions or beta of current versions. Play with words if you like but Netscape started the whole world of giving away browsers.
Bottom line MS would be under scantions now if the DOJ lawsuit had been strictly on business practices.
the PC that can't boot anything but Windows? (How will they do this?)
Regardless of the fine print on this decision, I expect MS to spin it as a victory. Most notably, when the Appeals Court overturned the penalty while upholding the verdict, MS went out with the trumpets. Furthermore, their ACTIONS went along with what their WORDS were saying. It appears that they really believed that they had won the appeal.
So no matter what conduct remedies will be, what do you think their actions are going to be, now?
My remedies:
Open up file formats of monopoly-scale products.
Open up protocols of monopoly-scale products.
Open up contract details for monopoly-scale products.
Actually, don't think anything is going to work in the US. It's up to the rest of the world to make up for our ethical laziness.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If you want somone to blame, dont look at george jr. We all know he is a puppet. try looking at george Sr..
Note George Jr has spent just under 42% of his time in office on vacation..
This was displayed in response to an article on the MS breakup; an anonymous coward somehow went from 0 to -1 with 3 offtopic mods? In an message that the "code" attached to the wrong article?
This is mis-threaded, too. Again 4, offtopic mods pulled it down to -1; even posting at 2, could someone explain to me how this is even possible?
Between this and seeing the "code" here inexplicably bleed 20+ karma points out of my UID without any of my posts actually being modded.... fuggit.
So I'm looking forward to finally releasing the security bug I discovered in Slashcode this weekend (RFPolicy and all that) and then never coming back here to see that they didn't report on flaws in their own system.
Enough of this Alfred E. Neumann "What? Me journalist?" tripe.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Um, no.
Even if that were true -- which it isn't, despite what their PR staff tries to tell us -- that would be a sign that our system is even more fucked up than it actually is.
Too late, WinXP Professional Corporate Edition (the version that doesn't need to be activated, ever) has been making the rounds on Usenet since last week.
*This page intentionally left pointless*
...keep in mind two things.
1. MS still has the Findings of Fact hanging around its neck -- read: civil suits from Sun, Netscape/AOL, just about anybody who wants to bring an antitrust case. Remember, AT&T was broken up after a civil suit by MCI way-back-when in the early 80s, not because of the Feds initiating the action.
2. The conduct remedies are not yet set in stone, just based on Jackson's final judgement minus the breakup (which was pretty harsh already) and not necessarily limited to that. It would be interesting, for example, if one of the remedies were to force MS to take Windows XP from the market...and that is strongly implied in both the BBC and CNNfn articles.
So MS has dodged the breakup bullet, but OTOH the breakup as specified -- AppsCo and SystemsCo (or whatever the heck the stupid names were) -- would have just created two monopolies where only one existed before, and with both still having the same kick-'em-when-they're-down culture of MS. If you ask me, that would have been worse than the current situation.
And XP may yet be barred from the market (at least for a while) -- and later come to market sans Messenger, Hailstorm, Passport and so on. Maybe. *fingers crossed*
Of course, IANAL and all that.
So there is a silver lining...well, maybe a mercury lining. Oh, whatever.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
So, after what...years? of arguing, the solution to the M$ problem is to figure out a better solution.
It seems to me this wishy-washy behavior is just the start of simply letting the entire monopoly thing go unpunished.
I'll be fair, its a decently sound theory to say the reason this is happening is to not hurt the economy anymore, but isn't that the reason the trial happened anyway? To prevent one company from having such a large economic presence as to be immune to the law? To singlehandedly drive or slow the economy?
is it terribly unreasonable to expect someone to make a decision and then follow through?
First, Bush's name is not even mentioned in the CNN article, as many people have pointed out. There is a FOX article that says Bush intentionally STAYED OUT OF THE DECISION, and the BBC article says the Bush ADMINISTRATION. All evidence I have read that Bush made the decision is pure subjecture. You people have no evidence that Bush made the call, but you're sure willing to blame him. The only "evidence" is in the articles and none that I have read said Bush made the decision. The Fox article DOES say he intentionally STAYED OUT of it and left Ashcroft to make the decisions. So if you're gonna be pissed at anyone, but pissed at Ashcroft. You could be pissed at Bush for appointing Ashcroft, but if that's the case you need to focus your anger more. Don't blame the man for something he didn't do.
Secondly, how many people really thought A) The breakup would happen and B) that it would solve anything? Do you people REALLY think the gov't would be able to stop MS? From the start of the case, I had a feeling it wouldn't effect anything and it looks like it won't. MS is too slimy in and out of the courtroom to be brought down. They're masters at coming out on top. The public was against a breakup and sanctions will work as well as they did before. This has been a waste of taxpayer money. I would like to see MS brought down, but I don't think the gov't can/will do it regardless of who is in office.
I honestly don't know what the solution is, but something must be done. Unfortunately, I'm at a complete loss as to a plan of action.
Khyron
Well,
... WinXP all flavors, All versions of Office, whatever else they have a monopoly in, Internet Explorer?) Have an independent third party confirm that it is accurate as of the date that it is released. Any third party knowledge that is part of the above products that Microsoft licensed is treated as though Microsoft owned all patents and copyrights to it.
If you want something that will penalize Microsoft, require a minimum of government oversight, and actually help the economy here's my suggestion:
Step 1.
Require Microsoft to publish the source code and API of all Microsoft products that Microsoft has a monopoly with. (DOS, Win1.x, Win2.x, Win3.x,
Step 2.
Revoke ALL licenses, EULAs, copyrights, and patents that Microsoft holds and prohibit Microsoft from being granted any new patents or copyrights for X years (5, 10 ?).
Step 3.
Provide free support for all government (Federal and State) agencies, public libraries, and public educational institutes, for the same X years as in step 2.
Step 4.
Have Microsoft pay the full cost of prosecuting the case against Microsoft.
That's it.
Step 1 Opens up the playing field. Lets everyone see what's going on and either make their programs compatible, or sell a Win clone. Microsoft doesn't have to provide support unless you have purchased a product from them, except for the exceptions in step 3. Sure Microsoft will probably change the formats the very next day, so what. Everything that people have now, and have had in the past can be made compatible. Step 2 insures that Windows clones can exist, and that even if they do change things it's legal to reverse engineer the changes. Since they have spent so much time bulling people (audits, restrictive licensing, tying) remove their ability to sue, arrest, or otherwise bully OEM's and customers alike. Step 3 makes sure that they provide "community service" to repay "the people". Step 4 is their fine.
If Microsoft "truly" innovates then they should be able to survive. They still have their war chest, the source code for things like their games and Xbox (though they don't have any patent or copyright protection, so sinking Mono will be kind of tough), better keep those as trade secrets for now. Best of all we don't have to rely on the government policing Microsoft.
Microsoft gets to make restitution for it's crimes, remedies some of the damage it has done in the past, and is prevented from doing the same thing for X years.
I don't think it's going to happen, but I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised.
someone247356
(just my $0.02 Canadian, before taxes)
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
We're mewling, because aany conduct remedy Microsoft would abide by, amounts to some low level manager writing up form letter apologies to Netscape and Apple. Oops, let me correct that, they wouldn't abide by that either, the letters would be worded in legalese such that there would be no apology at all.
Microsoft has been put under conduct remedies before, and each time has been found guilty of not abiding by them. They have a history of ignoring this stuff, like some lowlife on probation who continues to shoot up, etc.
The only remedy that has a shot of working, is breaking Microsoft up into not 2 companies, but rather into at least 19 companies. These would consist of...
3 companies, all of which share the rights to dos and the windows 95/98 kernel.
3 companies, that share the rights to windows nt.
4 companies that share M$ office and sql server.
3 companies sharing msie, and all their related internet software (IIS, some of the backoffice suite, etc)
2 companies that share rights to their software development tools.
1 company owning rights to all their game software.
1 company owning rights to all their hardware, from the xbox to ms mouse.
1 company owning all msn assets.
1 company owning all media assets, the msnbc stuff, etc.
Also, it would be a good idea, for the remedy to include a provision forcing all senior management to retire, and become passive stockholders at most. I would like to see, not that it would happen, that reparations would also be forced, amounting to about $20 billion, half of which would go to whatever remnants of the companies M$ squashed, Novell, Be, Netscape, Apple, etc. The other would be issued as refunds to consumers and corporate licensing victims.
Now, while there is no way to repair the damage they have done, that would go a short ways in righting some of it. I might be a bit extreme, but anyone that suggests anything less than a breakup is sadly misinformed.
In a surprising move today, President Bush agreed to repay significant campaign contributions to Bill Gates by "calling off the dogs at Justice." Other surprising news includes the continuation of the Federal income tax, scientists discovering that humans still die, and that politicians tend to be corrupt!
~~~
In reaction to the news, large holders of MSFT stock were delighted by today's announcement.
"This is exactly the kind of relief from burdensome regulation and government oversight that we had decried so often in the past," said one Bush advisor.
"It shows the kind of cooperation that you can get. That government and industry can work together for all Americans that pay taxes," said the President, arriving back after a recent 24 day vacation.
At Microsoft's Redmond, Washing headquarters, a teary-eyed Steve Ballmer could barely whisper his joy at the occasion of the news that the feds at discontinued their pursuit to break up the software giant.
"I'd like to thank everyone out there that supported us. It just goes to show that the American way is working, that we really do have the best government that money can buy." said Steve, wiping away tears.
"Protecting our right to innovate has been vindicated by the government of the United States of Amerika. We're heartened," said Bill Gates at a conference on Bridging the Digital Divide in Haiti. Gates refused to answer questions that he was negotiating to buy Haiti in the event of an unfavorable treatment from U.S. courts in the landmark anti-trust trial.
"The President of Haiti and I have reached an understanding that his police force can cooperate fully with the BSA in an effort to prevent software piracy, which, as you can easily see, has led to the ruination of this once-proud nation."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Where is a crazed assassin when you need 'em?
With a special game called find Bill's hidden treasure.
won't need blindfolds
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of how breaking Microsoft up will hurt the entire U.S. economy or even a segment of it. I just keep hearing it'll be bad for the economy and nobody says why. Where are the evidence and facts that could be used to deduce future market performance from something that hasn't happened?
I'm interested in how exactly that works...
There is a Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Presumably, a large block of TBS's shares are held by Time/Warner.
I would be very suprised if Ted Turner himself had zero influence over political donations made by TBS.
I was hoping I could find some information on shareholding and whatnot on turner.com's site, but it's pretty content-free. I suppose I should consider the source.
j.
You have to understand something here: As the president, Bush is named responsible for the actions of all those underneath him, whether he made the decision personally or not.
It is quite likely that this same decision would have been made even had Gore or Nader been made president, at which time you'd be reading, "The Nader administration..." and you'd wonder, "What? Nader would NEVER do anything like that."
Of course he wouldn't. But being president means delegating authority to others, who then make the decisions. You then get blamed for their bad decisions.
[Off-topic rant: This is the major reason why I couldn't support Gore. It seemed to me, through various incidents during his campaign, that he had chosen to surround himself with people who were not very competent, no matter how intelligent he himself was. Bush, despite the perception that he's not very intelligent, has a knack for surrounding himself with very intelligent and competent people. Because of the size of the Executive branch of the US gov't., the ability of a man to surround himself with the best and brightest -- people to make him look good -- is far, far more important than that individual's capabilities in itself. In the end, the president becomes an effigy of himself that's then hung, burned, and shat upon by the public at large anyhow; in this way, the position protects the people who do the actual legwork of diplomacy and policy-making. It's a waste of the talents of a talented individual to make him or her president; he or she can do much greater things as a cabinet member. Why do you think Powell hasn't run for President yet? It's because in his current position he can do more to change the world, and he doesn't have a bigass bulls-eye on his back. In other words, in the US Executive branch, it's much better to have a buffoon surrounded by good puppeteers than a brilliant man surrounded by fools.]
Bush promised the American people alot of things. Lets take a look at a few.
1) A vote for Bush is a vote for GOD. Unless money can be made by drug companys.
2) A vote for Bush is a vote for lower taxes. So lets piss away any money our country has saved and give it back to the people who don't really need a couple hundred bucks.
3) A vote for Bush is a vote for education reform. Unless you spent all the budget surplus on a tax refund.
4) A vote for Bush is a vote for Health Care reform. Unless ( see #3 ).
5) A vote for Bush is a vote for a regular guy. Thats if regular guys come from billion dollar familys that control Oil and Drug companys that are only interested in lowering liablitys, raising prices, and squeezing every penny out of other countrys that can afford life saving drugs.
Now Microsoft gets off the hook.
What did you guys expect?
Okay this system of government we have kinda sucks. We get a choice of the lesser of two evils and are expected to be happy with the out come.
The thing to remember is that Republican's get there money from BIG corperations.
As a final insult to most of the people that thought Bush would be a good president when he could not even get a B in college.
You are all idiots! Your vote for GOD was a farse and you should have your voting rights taken away for that coming from that position.
And for you idiots that voted because of the promise of a check in the mail. Well your even bigger idiots! I would personally like to thank you for pissing away any chance we as a nation had of education, social security reform and keeping this country out of debt.
Now all thats left to do is wait for our freedoms to be taken away in the wake of the coming american corperate republic.
Our only chance now is Jessie Ventura in 2004.
Oh and I'm not a democrate you Saltine Style republicans fools.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
comment 2259181 was attributed to me, but that is not the message I sent. It is my sig, though... weird.. that would seem to indicate that the form data got mixed up in transit.
I think this is because the DB hosed right I was submitting a comment.
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Excellent idea. I've created one here: http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=display&uid=&id
Mind posting some details there, Jamie, or in the journal of the first guy to make the move if I'm not the first one? That'd get the discussion started, hopefully...
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Okay, Slashdot readers, let me explain something to you. As a member of the Executive branch of the US Federal Government, I apparently have some insight that others of you don't.
In the world of government, there is a magical thing called 'Delegation of Authority'. You see, without the concept of Delegation of Authority, absolutely NOTHING could possibly be accomplished in the world of modern government. There is no fathomable, feasible, logical, REASONABLE way that a man with as much responsibility and power as George W. Bush could possibly handle each and every aspect of the minutia and day-to-day operations of an organization like the federal government. That is why authority is DELEGATED. Yes, you heard me right, AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED (for those of you that are really slick, you will note that responsibility is NEVER delegated).
So what does this mean' It means that when you are the president, you can't possibly stick your nose into every detail of operations and politics. It isn't possible. Even if people wanted to, you CANNOT MICROMANAGE THE US GOVERNMENT. It is simply too large. There cannot be far-reaching conspiracies of men in blue suits behind closed doors that are secretly plotting every detail of your life and working their hardest to oppress you and your way of life. Even if they wanted to, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE.
Did President Bush personally instruct the DOJ to reverse their policy? No. Does Bush have some 'secret agenda' to restore Microsoft to its former glory? No. Did not John Ashcroft himself have something to do with it? Maybe. It's not like these people aren't busy, folks. They have a government to run. They don't have the time to screw with your lives and make things hard on you. That happens through carelessness, neglect, and bad decisions. It happens because of NOT trying, because of a lack of effort on the parts of lawmakers and politicians. Not because they hate you.
Now, after all of that, does this mean that Bush is responsible for the decision?
Yes.
I was just wondering... If George W. Bush != Bush Administration, would that imply that Bill Gates != Microsoft?
Yet, anything said against Microsoft here on Slashdot is taken directly against Bill Gates.
So here's my point: George W. Bush is the head administrator of the Bush Administration. He's in charge. So, if something as big as this did not pass on his desk at the White House, something is wrong. And I'm not even saying that the decision is right or wrong. I'm just stating that it's clearly something that the president whould be aware of before it was announced.
Just my 2 cents,
Bradasch
Per the NY Times article discussed above, Ashcroft didn't make this decision.
However, you are right to point the finger at Ashcroft in the sense that as the head of the DOJ, he is responsible for decisions made by those to whom he has delegated his authority.
Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Use the above email address. Write to them explaining how we feel. There was a quote at the end of the BBC article that struck me, "The DoJ will ask the court for a period of discovery to investigate developments in the industry since the trial concluded, and evaluate whether additional conduct-related provisions are necessary." To me, this is the worst news out of all three articles and the announcement itself. Use the email address to explain why further action is needed. We're running out of chances to be heard. I also want to point out that the articles linked to only said the DoJ is no longer asking for a breakup, but the judge can still issue a breakup order if she decides to. So perhaps we should also email her office too.
Now you might speculate that they're taking the quote out of context, or that there might be another implication to what he said (or almost didn't say), but to only go from one source and ignore all others is clearly very poor investigation.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
It doesn't say anyplace in either article that "The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration to cease its drive to break up Microsoft" (from Slashdot description). That provocative statement screams violation of checks and balances, so I went and read the two articles with interest. The Slashdot description may be the Real Truth, but there are no supporting references provided with it. So the reporter screwed up here, and ought to try a little harder (or maybe a little less hard) next time.
The picture of Bill in the Wired.com article should be "Eeexcellent, Smithers. It's all going according to plan."
From CNN:
o so ft/
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/09/06/technology/micr
"Instead, it said it wants to investigate developments in the industry since the trial concluded and evaluate whether additional conduct-related provisions are necessary, especially in the absence of a breakup."
Actually, this is one of the few issues where BushGore differed by more than a hair's witdth. Whereas Dubya was using the phrase "we shouldn't restrict innovation" in his speeches, Gore campaigned in favor of antitrust action in the software industry while visiting Redmond. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:
Let me repeat -- Gore said this at the heart of Microsoft's campus, to their faces, while asking for their votes. He may be an arrogant exaggerating tight-ass, but he's got some big brass balls.
Of course, Microsoft probably would have gotten a breakup thrown out on appeal either way, but at least the DoJ wouldn't have rolled over like this. When they appointed Charles James as head of DoJ antitrust division, Dubya's handlers knew exactly what they were doing.
the battle between Intel and AMD only came about because of demand. no demand= no product and no r&d. gamers built this demand. (thought id point this out... :)
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
I'm sure pBush is "strategerizing" this will reinvigorate the tech sector of the economy. Problem is, as I see it, the PC sector is down because of the Microsoft monopoly. No real competition _does_ stiffle innovation of new products, which spurs the growth of the PC technology. Sure there are alternatives to Windows and/or MS Office, but when a PC is pre-loaded with Microsoft (aka the Microsoft tax), why would someone want something free like Netscape Navigator, Star Office, or Linux .... I think you know where this is going.
Monopolies control innovation (think Big Brother).
This Hoover's capsule says TBS is a subsidiary of AOL/TW - I think Time Warner bought it outright. Generally, "Inc." is used for private companies (Although Sun Microsystems, Inc. is a notable exception) and "Corp." is used for public companies. Although Turner did manage the division under Time Warner, This article at Forbes says he lost control with the merger with AOL.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
Like any of these liberal nigs that host /. would vote for Bush in the first place. They'll use anything to get their way...
Taco is a Biyatch and Michael is his pimp!
The appeals court only assigned a new judge to determine the penalty, they didn't say she could not issue a breakup. The judge can still issue a breakup order if she decides to, the DoJ just stopped asking her to.
It's great to fly off the handle about what you THINK is going on....Why don't you read the stories to find out what they're REALLY doing? This is from CNN: "Instead, it said it wants to investigate developments in the industry since the trial concluded and evaluate whether additional conduct-related provisions are necessary, especially in the absence of a breakup." click here for the full story
Ray of hope? For what?
Microsoft is being slammed royally and in real time, rather than the nebulous affair that was looking to be drawn out over the next ten years.
I agree with others, tho', that this (parent) posting has no business being labeled 'flamebait'.
Everyone is welcome to their own (wrong) opinions...
; )
**>>BELCH
IP law is about creating monopolies. Microsoft abused their IP monopoly so the remedy should be to take away their IP. Specifically, all their code implementing their interfaces should go into the public domain as "reference implementations".
who put a bug up the moderators ass?? this is one of the fisrt posts to the thread and it's obviously not flaimbait.
Normal procedure is for a company and its investors to HOLD OFF on major business plans when it faces serious legal trouble that could change the fundamental way they do business.
Instead the US GOVERNMENT is waiting so that whomever the powers may be have the time they need to make their billions.
What other types of criminals get away with this type of thing?
That does it. I'm gonna be a cannabis farmer. They can't toss me in jail until i've made my first 10 Million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
MC
Has someone created a Babelfish translator for English to George Bush? If they haven't, they should.
Despite the wild speculation about under the counter agreements between Bush and everyone else else who owns a big biz. The republican party is generally capitalist pig suckling. He's really just walking the party line on this one. And one I wish I hadn't voted for him on.
Although I will give him one particular line of defence. If the microsoft illegally used monopoly was constitutionally split up as is gaurenteed by (actually I think its an amendment) then a large portion of the market would collapse under the weight of its fall.
Remember the market is filled with pointy hairs who like money. They could give a rats butt about how poorly MS software works (unless it crashes while they're making a bid) 75% of traders still consider MS the mainstay. If the US market tumbles any further we could be stuck in a recession alot longer. Which isn't really good for anyone.
Anyway, this is probably where Bush is coming from. It's a win-win for the replublican line. Keep the economy nose above water and get some money from a large monopoly as well.
Duhprey
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
I've got a great plan...
/.'ers out there can take their $$$ from Mr' Bush's ill-advised "tax rebate to the American People(TM)", send those monies to the Open Source Movement of your choice (Patrick Volderking's getting MINE!), and beat Microsoft at its own game. Who needs politicians when you have each other?
all
Money wins again. WRONG!!! Geeks win again!!!
-PONA-
+that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
CM
Don't have a reference handy, unfortunately. I first heard of it from David Boies, when he was hired in relation to the Napster/RIAA debacle. He figured that if Napster could show RIAA was acting in violation of antitrust law--difficult, but possible--then they could get all those copyrights turned over to the public domain, and Napster would be home free.
:)
The law predates the twentieth century, apparently, having been passed very late in the 1800s. Almost everyone had forgotten about it or overlooked it until Boies found it while doing research into converting copyrighted works into public-domain works. The law has, to the best of my knowledge, never been tested in court.
The law is filled with all sorts of landmines like that--laws passed over a hundred years ago which everyone has forgotten about, up until the point someone points the law out and you discover you just had your balls cut off by a rusty spoon. That's why I'm so deeply suspicious of the law, myself.
...and Open Source in general. With the Bush administration letting MS off this easily after being accused of being a monopoly, what do you think this tells other major corporations? Big businesses will be a lot less worried about getting into trouble when attacking smaller businesses. Bush doesn't want to protect small businesses, he wants to support Big Business.
As for Linux running into hard times. MS is going to have more freedom to attack Linux now. Do you think the Bush administration is going to support Linux against MS? No way, Linux doesn't make any money, it's against the Bush administrations ideals. Other Open Source projects better watch out for any commercial competition. It's open season on the little guys now.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
An MS breakup would cripple our economy? If our economy is that dependent on MS, then they have a more massive monopoly than I had ever imagined. If what you say is true, then I not only want a MS breakup, I want the company entirely dissolved. If any company can make or break an entire nation, that company has waaaaay to much power.
Only about 3 of those 14 were ontopic posts contributing to a discussion. Pathetic how low the quality of discussion has gotten in the last couple of years.
This is probably the only time I am going to post here.. so I am not going to bother creating an ID
It seems that none of the posters here understand how the court systems work. There are three branches of government within the US governmental system. Neither the thrice should be dependant upon each other. That means each has complete authority in its own area. They are as follows:
President -Executive
Congress -Legislative
Justice Dept/Court system -Judicial
This is to prevent a 'run-away' government. Congress can suggest laws, but can not sign them directly into law. The president can sign bills into law, but can not create the law. The Judicial branch can determine if the laws are legal, and can potentially invalidate the law(Its happened before)
What this means is the court system thought of this one themselves. I just wish that U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson would have kept his mouth shut. That opened up the door for appeal. You can't appeal just because you want to. Basically, when U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson opened up his mouth, he left the Appeals Court little room for maneuvering. They didn't want to look like they were biased (because of Jackson's run-away mouth), but the also didn't want to overturn a valid ruling.
Mod this sucker down.
Get real people I find it amazing that there are all these Libertarians out there wanting to break up MS.
The liberatarian party is for free enterprise.
The MS breakup flies in the face of free trade, and competition. MS is and should be free to bundle any software package it want's with its OS. It's a simple economics of scale.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Update: 09/06 15:21 PM GMT by M:
:-)
Oh yeah, great, another North American does his best to violate the 24 hour clock!
The breakup wasn't a particularly good solution anyway. Rather than having one company with a monopoly on 3 sections of market, we'd have had 3 companies each with a monopoly on one section of market. Not much of an improvement.
What they should have done was have some kind of vertical separation and created >=2 OS companies, >=2 office/business software companies, >=2 browser companies, etc, etc. At least then there would have been some competition.
Oops. I guess somebody got metamodded wrong :/
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
Given that the appeals court found that the judge overseeing the MS trial was biased, this is not surprising, regardless of the administration in office
okay so the whole stem cell thingy was tough, being a unificator it's hard to come to terms with cell division.
phew. i need some down time at the ranch.
okay, now about campaign promises, Karl, i'm not a divisioneer! breaking up is hard too due! i do know that my brows're gettin furroughlated just thinking about it. my daddy says monobrows bad, bushy brows good. Karl? do you see what i am saying?
Don't forget that is was the electoral college that got him in! In the popular vote, it was clearly not a majority, and it doesn't have to be under the constitution.
Also, if you want to technical, only 535 people voted for the president. Not even close to half.
Always be wary of odd-numbered Star Trek movies, and even-numbered Microsoft Service Packs. More often than not, you will regret the experience.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
and it pretty much sucks. Don't tell me what I do and do not use. I love how it renames any file I double click to open with it to the 8dot3 convention, so I have to rename it every time I want to save. And that blazing speed.....
I have been actively seeking alternatives in OS and office products for approximately 2 years now, and they all still suck. Apparently most of the rest of the world agrees with me on that too.
I even tried AtheOS the other night - Colonel Panic shows up every time I boot. He's almost as bad as General Protection Fault (who never seems to show up on 98SE, imagine that!).
There are other penalties that could make Microsoft wish it had been broken up.
The basic idea is that Microsoft should not benefit or profit from the proceeds of their illegal acts.
Therefore, one possible solution could be:
1) the equivalent of a jail term
- Microsoft should not release any new software or any revision or update to their operating system software in any way for an extended period of time. Occasional patches may be issued so long as they are standalone, issued for no cost, and can fit on a single standard format floppy disk. (1.44) megabytes
- The period of time that this prohibition should be in force should at least equal the period of time that they have had profit from their illegal acts (5 to 10 years), if not more. The purpose of this is to inhibit their dominance of the market as it was achieved by illegal acts, and return the conditions as much as possible to what it was when Microsoft committed the illegal acts.
- If Windows XP is not released to market, then the penalty can be reduced slightly (3 to 5 years).
- There should be a very substantial fine to remove any profits that they have accrued as a result of their illegal activity.
Again, the idea is to remove any profit or gain that resulted from their illegal acts.2) Another alternate solution is to require that all operating system software releases must meet the approval in advance from a government commission comprised of a large number of industry experts. This includes any software integrated into the operating system, and any software intended to replace the operating system. Maybe three from each state in involved in the law suits, plus three from the Federal Government. With a quorum of 2/3 needed to vote. Again from a 5 or Ten year period.
With each of these, if this means that .NET is put on hold, then tough. It is meant to be a penalty. Similar to if you when to jail for several years.
Of course, criminals routinely protest that the jail sentences are unfair, and that they are mis-understood. This should not inhibit the administration of Justice.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using 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"
Okay, in my slightly humble opinion, MS isn't exactly a monopoly. I do have problems with their business practices and the way they bundle their various application software, but there are other options in operating systems out there if you have the gumption to learn them.
MS took something that was often too expensive and too cryptic for the average person and made it more available. Apple made (and still makes) a good product, but it was out of the price range for most folks. Working with a computer was the stuff of science fiction and was seen as something only a true genius was able to do. MS put lines of code and connected them to bright, colorful, shiny buttons and flashy pictures anyone could understand. It made dumb chicks (like me) or people with too much on their plates to learn how to actually work with raw code (also like me) able to take advantage of the growing popularity of computers and the internet.
As for their business practices, I don't approve of the way their operating system is installed on almost any computer system you buy. I may not be a geek, but I have many friends who are and who would rather use one of the various flavors of Linux. It irks them, rightfully so, that they can't get a system without Windows. Unless I'm mistaken, and I could be, this seems to be due to the liscensing agreements between MS and the PC companies. You should be able to get a system with nothing but the info and drivers for the hardware or with the operating system of your choice installed if that is your desire. There's no real reason why should have to pay the "MicroSoft Tax".
As for GW telling Ashcroft to drop the push for dividing up MS, that's probably not what happened. Contrary to what people want to believe, the President doesn't have time to micromanage everything his people do. If he's smart, he picks people who can do their jobs without his looking over their shoulders and just checks in from time to time to make sure they're not going power hungry.
Just three years ago a Microsoft exec told my (then) manager:
"We are going to eliminate all non-microsoft programming by 2003"
I think they might pull it off.
Between embedded XP and the favoritism shown to MS by governments and corporations, I don't see how they can be stopped. Ethics doesn't work, the law doesn't work, the slow speed of government is ineffective in dealing with the information economy.
I've just about had it, too...I've got two other possible careers in the works, neither of which is "tech heavy" (little or no computer use required) so I'm thankful for that!
Hopefully, after some time off FT programming and just enjoying life for a bit, I'll be able to devote some time to improving Linux.
I'd love to work on a decent "Security Control Panel" -- things like PortSentry, Nmap, Satan, Tripwire all controlled and configured by one GUI. That would be a fun project.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
With a 17" monitor and a THREE BUTTON SCROLL WHEEL MOUSE!!!! AIGIGGHGHGHHH!!!!
Apples do OK in low-end and high-end portables, and some oof the high-end workstations become competative, but the iMacs are a joke and they have no mid-range products. Towers start at $1600. Forget that.
Here is the all-in-one post to sum up all the others:
1) Bush is evil
2) Microsoft is evil
3) Gore would have been just as evil
4) Clinton was/was not evil
5) Bush 1 was evil
6) Ashcroft is evil
7) Bill Gates is truly absolutely evil
8) Corporations are evil
9) Government is evil
10) The American People are Evil [tm]
11) We at Slashdot are somehow pro-government anti-liberty libertarians, more or less.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The head of the X-Box project has claimed that it will not be possible to boot Linux on it. Now everyone here knows that will be taken as a challenge. We can expect at least Linux and NetBSD to boot it within a year of it's introduction. Of course, it would be a much longer road to fully support it's hardware.
This boast that the X-Box will only be capable of running it's pack-in OS seems to mean that steps have been taken lock down the environment as much as possible. It's true that it is being marketed as a console rather than a PC but it seems like a ThinkNIC on steroids to me.
If Microsoft can get out of this with a wristslap then locking down commodity PCs does seem like a plausible step. They've already shown their ability to strongarm OEMs.
The sad part is now you can see how the American Gov is above plain basic justice...
Worse still, it demonstrates that m$ is above the law...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I know this was intended to be funny, but of course you realize that Microsoft gives pretty much equal amounts of money to both parties. Do you really think they would give money to only one party and take the chance that they are left without influence if they lose? Get a grip.
Perhaps the court will use the example the DOJ set in the Sklyarov case.
Adobe files complaint, DOJ charges/arrests, Adobe withdraws complaint, DOJ continues and scares away techs from every other country, US becomes 3rd rate tech power (not that our tech infrastructure isn't already 3rd rate).
Maybe the courts will decide that the breakup is the best option. (I know... a | dream) But wouldn't it be cool to see 2 MS corps? Microsoft XP (X-tra Profit) and Microsoft LP (Lesser Profit) not to be confused with Windows NT (Not Today) which should not be confused with Windows NTNTE (Not Today, Not Tomorrow Either)
Amen, brother. Also note that the "correction" was quietly inlined instead of an appended update. Show some respect!
This sig intentionally left blank.
This is a move in the right direction - if we want Microsoft to keep producing quality products, we CAN'T let them break up. In fact, we should force them to absorb other companies. The only reason third party products crash on Windows so often is that they don't have Microsofts internal experts working the bugs out.
The funny thing is that this action, which MSFT believes to be in its favor, will almost certainly cause Europe to pick up the bat dropped by the US government and whack MSFT even harder.
MSFT may be able to influence the US government, especially through very large contribs to GWBush (I park my car next to The Ruins sometimes, I'm not naive), but they have little or no influence on the EU, which has the total and absolute power to dissolve MSFT into two companies.
"But wait!", you say, "Europe can't do that to an American company!" Silly person, you fail to understand that as a condition of doing business in Europe, the EU may require that MSFT split in two or three parts. No split, no sales.
This is the lesson that many US multinationals have been learning over the past few months - sometimes it's better to have your friends whack you over the head (US penalties) than to let your enemies do it instead (EU penalties).
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The way to hit Microsoft hard is not to break it up rather it is take away its leverage without having too much government involvement. The solution is to
(1) open up the API and allow companies to sue if some undisclosed API is found and force MS to take any product off the shelves that has that undisclosed API. That would level the playing field and keep the government involvement at a minimum.
(2) Also not having OEMs have these aggreements were they can not add value to Windows, but rather must install an untouched Windows OS with no third party applications.
(3) And one price for Windows to all OEMs.
(4) And finally some fine levied against MS would be appropriate since they did "play dirty" with Netscape.
Those 4 items would be my punishment (in order of importance).
Yeah, for my money, i've started accepting that many slashdot "news" articles (and i use that term sparingly) are PURE RUMOR and/or SLANDER.
E.G. it doesn't pay to read the slashdot headlines AT ALL. You have to read the actual source, and figure out what's going on yourself. 9/10 times the author didn't, so in effect, having an indpendent news outlet is NO BETTER than having a corporate controlled, Pepsi-oriented news outlet: the "facts" are just as factual.
Sorry slashdot, welcome to mediocrity.
"What thou shalt not, I shalt did!" -Bart Simpson
With over 600 comments made on the story, no one will ever read this one. Now I can reveal my plans for world domination... and now Microsoft can help me. Muhahaha...
The Justice Dept. was obviously hoping that the courts would let them off the hook, and enable them to avoid displaying obvious favoritism toward a big supporter of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the courts upheld the most serious counts of Clinton Justice Dept.'s antitrust suit. Facing the dismaying prospect of a victory, the Bush Justice Dept had no choice but to back down on the most serious charges.
To avoid the appearance of a complete capitulation, Microsoft is once again being ordered not to engage in the sort of behavior that Microsoft previously agreed not to engage in--an agreement whose violation triggered the most recent antitrust action.
"All right, young man, I'm serious this time! I'll warn you just *one* more time to stop cutting off your little sister's fingers...."
Did any of you bother to read Jacksons recomendations. Illeagle bundling, give me a break. Who cares? This is just one issue that the MS controled press focuses on to confuse the public. Most people don't understand why this is a problem, and in reality it is a minor point in comparison with the bs that MS puts in their licencing agreements and the games they play with the APIs that they allow their partners and costumers see. ( Company A starts to support Linux, and with the next service pack, their software suddenly starts acting kinda slow because the APIs that they are permited to use have been deoptimised. This happens often.) Jacksons original recomendations address just such issues. Basicly all this new emphisis does is make things harder for the MS Ministry of Lies and Propagand.
That would make a great T-Shirt :)
Bill... a big cross... and Uncle Sam with a mallet and a handful of railroad spikes...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This is what I wrote. What will you write?
Dear Fools In Charge,
I am outraged beyond belief that you have ordered the DOJ to stop break up attempts of Microsoft.
Not only have you sold your soul to the corporations that put you into the White Hosue, namely OIL COMPANIES, you have now become the biggest puppet to the most vile corporation in America.
Not only did I not vote for you in the past election, I am now going to go out of my way to raise public sentiment against you and your party - for all time.
Microsoft is incredibly in violation of anti-trust laws and regularly trods on the "consumer" in favor of their wallets. Even if Microsoft did *NOT* have a monopoly (which they do), their practices would be found illegal by any intelligent human being aware of the law. Which sadly to say, neither of you seem to be.
Ordering the DOJ to stop attempts to break up Microsoft is like saying to the world: We don't care what our laws are, if you pad our pockets enough, it's OK to break any you don't like!
I hope you and your party lose horribly in the coming elections for next 100 years, and I hope I'm there to dance with glee at each loss.
You disgust me.
Send your mail to president@whitehouse.gov and vice.president@whitehouse.gov. Then send it to your senators, representatives, and state attorney generals. Express your outrange and demand an accounting of this violation of checks and balances!
But this doesn't require the states attorneys general offices to drop their antitrust suits. Any one state could still ask the US District Court to break Microsoft up. The Federal Trade Commission is independent of the DOJ and it could also act. Moreover, the European Union has begun to investigate Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
The bottom line remains, however, that the only alternative for the next few years to the Microsoft monopoly will be open source and/or free software.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
All those who didn't see this coming from a million miles away when Bush was appointed president raise their hands..
...anyone...
...anyone..???
If he wanted to be politically safe on stem cells, he wouldn't have made a whole big deal out of it -- it's not like that many people cared or even knew about the issue before they went on and on about how agonizing the decision was, eh?
'sides, how happy people feel about their pocketbooks will probably be the main factor in whether or not he's re-elected, anyhow, assuming that he's not caught with an intern or managing to save Kuwait in Desert Storm II: Smackin' Saddam S'more.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
How would a break-up of Microsoft lead to a recession? Wouldn't the people who were going to buy Windows or Office still do so? Why would it matter that they were now 2 different companies?
If it did have the affect of eventually introducing more competition, prices for these types of products would go down, companies that had to buy these product would be able to pay less, and their ratio of profits to cost, i.e. productivity, would go up. This is good for the economy!
we are fucked
If you go to http://biz.yahoo.com/t/m/msft.html you will see that in the last two months Bill gates has sold several hundred million dollars worth of Microsoft stock... It kind of makes you wonder how many people he had to bribe to get the government to stop pursual of this case...?
The answers to how this happened are right in front of us, just go have a look at the Insider Trading Data...
By that way of reasoning, Bush makes every single decision the federal government makes. That must be millions of them a day.
Now I see why he needded that vacation...
Hint, XP isn't going to be the tonic to get the tech sector back on its feet. MS isn't the be all and end all of the stock market. And even if a sushi chef of a judge diced MS into a ton of Baby Bills you wouldn't get a recession.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
So many of you sound like funking communists right now It makes me want to puke! Bush had little to do with this and microsoft WILL STILL BE PUNISHED! Redistribution of wealth is always bad and tax cuts are always good! Yes the surplus shrank thats waht happens when you cut taxes, the fact that there ever was a surplus indicates that that the previous admin was being both immoral and socialistic. This is a GOOD THING joe public will think all is well for MS and will buy some stock and bost the economy all the while MS still loses there ability to twist the OEM's arms. We the OSS ppl can finally get a foot hold.
As seen on Dave Farber's most excellent "IP" mailing list:
. as p
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26
Briefly, the above URL leads to an article that details MSFT's political contributions during the last presidential campaign and elsewhere. You can decide for yourself how reliable the source is.
Is it ironic that this decision comes the day after Bush meets with the President of Mexico yesterday. Isn't Mexico looking to purchase millions of dollars in computers and software and trying to decide whether to go with Windows or Linux. I think that article was here on Slashdot within the past few days...
http://www.askthevoid.com
Take a second to jump off the MS/Republican campaign finance bashing. The fact is MS gave over $1 million to BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats in the last election. Check it out here: Top soft money donators during the 99-00 election cycle. While I do think it's likely that the Democrats would have handled this differently than the Republicans, there is no way that these donations were the sole reason or even a significant reason for MS getting off the hook in this way.
The fact is that big corporations tend to give lots of money to both parties so that both parties will find that company in good favor - take a look at how many times Time Warner, SBC, and other big companies show up on the list. And you know each of those companies has gotten favors from the government as they lobby for deregulation and merge into bigger monopolistic entities.
Money is everywhere in DC - it only gets your foot in the door. You gotta play the political game if you want all the benefits from your donations. Maybe a generous donation to the GOP helped the DoJ "decide" it was time to speed up the trial. The DoJ isn't backing off though - remember, MS is still guilty of being a monopoly and that will be seen to the end.
Cross yer fingers everyone. It isn't over yet...
t
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
If it weren't for Microsoft....who would post to /.? I mean, MS seems to get alot of airtime around here.
/. is the mole?
I think its a plot to keep all the open sourcers busy commenting and reading and preventing them from coding.
Following that line of thinking it seems that MS has infiltrated deep into the open sorce community. Which leads me to the question....so who at
Troubling very troubling indeed.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
From opensecrets.org:
"During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft contributed more than $4.7 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties--almost three times what the company contributed during the previous three election cycles combined. More than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans."
You get what you pay for, eh? Or, in this case, a lot more -- an excellent return on investment.
And Bush was the guy that was going to bring honor and integrity back to the White House? Not bloody likely.
Alternatively -- perhaps any sufficiently complex system may experience down-time -- especially after a major upgrade. Life is good if it is infrequent and non-repeated. This is when the SA's earn their pay.
So, with all the people here screaming at Bush for halting the Microsoft breakup, can we start screaming at Clinton for all the fiascos of his administration's Justice Department?
How quickly we forget Ruby Ridge, Waco, Chi-com monks, and Elian Gonzalez.
This confirms my fears that the new administration would drop the ball on this prosecution. A structural remedy seems to be the only viable remedy. We had the consent decree a few years back but we all know how well *that* worked.
I think that there is a possible structural remedy short of a complete breakup. Though I doubt that this will ever be pursued, I'll outline my "fantasy" remedy here:
1. Microsoft would be required to spin off all operating systems development into a separate company, which I'll hypothetically name Windows Operating System Corporation (WOSC). Gates, Ballmer, and other MS insiders would not be permitted to own shares in WOSC. WOSC insiders would not be permitted to own shares in MS.
2. Microsoft would be forbidden to pursue operating systems development. However, they would be permitted to market operating systems as aggressively as they wish, but they would have to license the operating systems for distribution from WOSC. They could own trademarks such as "Microsoft Windows", etc., but they would not own trademarks for the "generic" version of the OSes. This would be similar to the "Linux" vs. "Red Hat Linux" trademarks.
3. WOSC would be required to license its operating systems to other companies wishing to distribute it, under non-discriminatory terms. This would prevent WOSC from automatically becoming a monopoly in addition to MS, a feature that simply splitting MS lacks.
4. Microsoft could request WOSC to add any enhancements or bundling of features and applications that they want in the OS. In doing so, however, they would forfeit control of those features to WOSC.
I can't imagine a lesser remedy that would still have enough teeth to prevent further abuses by MS. I don't consider this a breakup, at least in the usual sense: MS would still be able to play in both the applications and operating systems markets. They would just be required to do so with a level playing field.
1. This does not get M$ off the hook. There are 18 state attorney generals who are also plaintiffs here. ALL OF THEM must agree to any deal with the Redmond monster. This has been a big problem in past settlement negotiations (thank God!).
It only takes one state AG to keep the ball rolling here. True, it will be hard without the DoJ to help.
2. President Bush ABSOLUTELY made this decision. He appointed Ashcroft and he owns him. Remember how Ashcroft was down in FL disrupting the recount? AG was his payoff. Also remember Bush is the head of the executive branch of the US government, and the DoJ is part of this branch. Bush was talking about letting M$ off before he was even elected.
Bush is a political whore and the big corps. of the USA are his Johns.
The EU is made up of many different countries -- and if MS can influence the members then the EU will give them a pass or else disolve itself (not that it is too solid now).
But there's a world of difference between indirect influence and direct instruction, which Michael claims.
I actually agree with this statement. When a president wants to take credit for an action, she will directly instruct her inferiors. When she wants to avoid blame, she will not announce her direct culpability.
Bryguy
ps- I'm sure someone will complain about my use of the feminine preferred. My statement applies to any hypothetical president, and all our female presidents so far have been hypothetical
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Maybe Bush had M$ stocks, and needs the money for the next election?
You don't hardcode high penalties for a specific party in a treaty! If we had passed that, we would pay out the nose for every little violation. Even for you in your POS 1986 Honda, which you still drive even though it pollutes twice as much as my 1995 Buick. Meanwhile you eat veggies and spout "environmentalist" rhetoric.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Let's see if they can really do it. If by this time next year, Dell, Gateway, etc. are free to put any software on the machines they sell, I will be very happy the Feds decided not to waste any more time on now hoplessly obsolete issues. What M$ does with it's platform makes absolutely no difference if people are free to do what they want on alternate platforms. If the DOJ pushes through, and makes stick, regs and laws on anitcompetitive behavior for vendors M$'s unfair power and advantages will vanish like last years .DOC format.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Don't look here to the UK for a shining example of honour. M$ are pretty much camped in 10 Downing Street, and Blair appeared on TV showing off WinXP (another src). All government services are due to be online 2005 but will only be accessibly by Microsoft browsers. The Register has good articles here and here. Makes me sick. Especially as we used to have a thriving computer business of our own (Acorn) which the government did nothing to help whilst it was killed off by M$ anti-competative practices. When will the UK government realise that 'IT' is not solely churning out secretaries that can use Word but to give encouragement to those that might become programmers or other similarly skilled professions instead of holding them back. Sorry to turn this post even more UK-centric, but we could mitigate some of Blair's damage if WE LET THE TEACHERS CHOOSE WHAT OS THEY WANT TO USE (instead of easily bought LEA officials). Oh and paying extra for teachers with industry experience so for a change the teacher knows more about IT than the pupils.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Maybe stop focusing on microsoft, and start to realize just how much of the media is now owned by AOL/Time-warner. And you wonder why cases like 2600's are not getting reported.
i think my callback script that terrorizes users that are code-red positive is enough-I'm an organ
donor too.
It looks like that Microsoft got enough money to buy our new President. So soon they can ask for a nuclear strike on countries that illegally use their software.
> Hint, XP isn't going to be the tonic to get the tech sector back on its feet. MS isn't the be all and end all of the stock market.
> And even if a sushi chef of a judge diced MS into a ton of Baby Bills you wouldn't get a recession.
Pundits keep saying that the tech sector will recover once Windows XP is released . . . only that ain't gonna happen.
Why? There isn't anything in XP that will make a user happy with either Windows NT or Win 2000 want to upgrade. Yes, there's a few bug fixes, but most of the stuff that has changed either (a) locks the user into depending more on MS; or (b) encroaches on her/his fair use rights to the software. And this has been pointed out not only in the computer press, but in such media outlets like CNBC.
And I suspect the Shrub knows this. This is why his underlings are trying to walk away from this suit as fast as they can. Otherwise, another rich buddy of the Shrub may suffer some financial hurt -- which he doesn't want to see.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
So now world is safe, Microsoft can once again rule the market without hinderence. For it is written in the great software book "ONE OPERATING SYSTEM SHALL BIND THEM ALL". Repent! all you nay sayers.....Bend every knee to the unstoppible, full support to lord any master Bill Gates.
First the Compaq/HP deal, now this..
This is where libertarianism breaks down. 'Free market' is not a steady state, it requires considerable outside effort to maintain. The steady-state of capitalism is that someone wins and competition ends.
Market competition is good initially, but eventually a company gains enough momentum that they can, through brute force and leverage, dominate and eliminate competition. More realistically there are usually a few companies that remain. Once a field is cut down to a few mega-corporations they have more to lose by cut-throat competition than they would gain. So we get the inevitable industry organizations in order to squelch any new competitors and control the situation to benefit the big dogs.
Where you end up is a few ruthless and extremely powerful organizations in control of your politics and economics... not entirely dis-similar to the Soviet system.
Say it with me: Regulation is your friend.
As if the Democrats are any less big-business than the Republicans.
.000000001% threw all political analysts in a foaming rage.
Two party democracy is an absolute and total joke.
Nader was in the race this year and his
Republicans and democrats are exactly the same.
I wonder what they'll make em' do this time.
So...my question is, when will the government officialy be giving controll of the country to corperations?
I think this is a legitimate decision on their part, since Windows in some form or another runs on all government computers (minus a few thousand Linux boxen in the DoD, and all of the Apple PowerBooks on the West Wing).
I also think that this will have some clear and distinct effect on the market share of Windows and other Microsoft products in the future, but I'm not sure which way it will go. It could go up, if people think "Oh, now that it's in the hands of the government, it must be stable and OK" (that's not stable as in not crashing stable, but stable as in the company's future). It could also go down, if people see this as the government trying to get more control (which they are).
Seeing as how there's at least one precedent set for this type of thing so far (Bell), I think everyone challenging the constitutionality of this should go read up on their American history.
reading the post before responding...
The question being asked appears to have been: Are remedies other than breaking up the company, sufficient? The answer being suggested is NO. The poster was not suggesting government controlled software design (although one of the respondants was).
Or perhaps we should just ignore the troll...
> discussion of Slashdot downtime is pretty
> clearly offtopic, so don't be surprised if
> you reply to this and get modded down
Meaning you won't allow a discussion of slashdot's flaws - that's censorship!
Sorry 'bout that.
Reserve your judgement until you see an inefective wrist slap instead of reasonable judgements. Reasonable restrictions on MS dirty and market forces will make you happier much faster than an unregulated MS or an unrestricted MSOS company. Know anyone that really wants XP? I don't.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well look at it this way, Microsoft makes contributions to bushes party. Any you
did not expect Bush to be on microsoft's corner. In this world the mega corps run
the government and Its all in who you know
my 2 cents plus 2 more
Had to get that off my chest...now, as to your comment about Reno having had "balls"...
Goodness knows Reno avoided doing her actual job when it came to investigating Gore.
Now that would have taken true courage, since, unlike with other scandals she did hand over to Ken Starr, there was plenty of credible evidence of criminal behavior on hand!
(And to think I started out as a fan of Janet Reno, even through the Waco debacle and her testimony! Sure, I like to give people a chance to do a job well, but she fairly quickly blasted through the floor of my expectations, such as they were....)
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
I don't know how you see the EU, but you clearly don't see it as an EU-citizen. The EU-senate is a bunch of corrupted ex-politicians, and money ($$$ or E's) is all what matters. The EU and the US often have small strugles about trade and enviroment, but on the whole both unions are corrupted to the bone.
The chance that the EU will ever punish microsoft is a day i am hoping for, but that day is far away, and, likewise, democracy is nowhere to be found in the EU...
This sig is intentionally left blank
Response from executives at rival Hewlett Packard has been that of shock and dismay given their recent $25 billion acquisition of Compaq. "We could have gotten so much more for so much less!" an unidentified executive is quoted as saying. HP executives are said to be exploring the possibility of acquiring a portion of Vice President Dick Cheney.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
And to help the economy ... we should put everybody else out of business, right?
By showing that a monopoly like microsoft can get away with something like this because of their propoganda telling us that it would hurt the economy if they were broken up, The govt. is telling every other company that they might as well not bother trying to compete.
Competition is what drives prices lower and pays employes more to make better products and that is what helps the economy.
NOT letting a money hungry monopoly get away with stifiling other innovation and competition to the point that their "competitors" are going out of business.
"Land of opportunity"
What a joke.
It's the land of lobbying and paying off officials to get above the law, and ruin other peoples dreams!
Help the economy my ass, this is govt. payoff BS!
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
After graduating with a B.S. in C.S. in 1997, I knew I could never work for Microsoft. I find their products inferior, and their business practices disgusting. Add in the pile of companies they have "aquired" technology from or run into the ground through the use of thier monopoly (Netscape, Lotus, WordPerfect, etc) and I'm left with the sinking feeling that if you fight them, you loose. Not because they're better or smarter, but because they have the resources of a giant monopoly to back them up.
Think about it people, if MSN in the early days had to do something novel like, uh, show a _PROFIT_, there's no way they could have contended with AOL. But, with tons of monopoly money they just stuck around and got to screw up as much as they wanted and loose as much money as they wanted untill they got in a position to get it right. Any other company? Not enough backing, no way in hell it could be pulled off.
How about WinCE (or, "wince" the derigotory term and being what a user does when interacting with it)? Come on people, Apple gave up on Newton and they had better R&D concepts, developer support experience, the whole nine yards. Palm still has a good majority (barely), but if WinCE wasn't backed with piles and piles of monopoly money; enough to screw up time after time in the market (clam-shell keyboards?? Multiple CPU's?? Color WAY too soon??) they would be long dead.
And how about a favorite: IE. Yeah this one really pisses me off. Web browsers are not trivial applications. MS threw a metric assload of people at building IE (still do, I'm sure) that they couldn't have afforded to pay AND give away if not for all of the monopoly money. What's worse is that Netscape used to sell Navigator and could have made a profit. The web browser was the "next killer app" in & around 1995. I'd think MS stockholders would be furious for having Bill & Co. put a bullet in what could have been the next application space to make money in if they would have competed for the dollars instead of dumping inferior crap on the market and pulling license nasties untill the programmers could figure out how to write a browser.
I would love to see just one of these entities have to survive on it's own. They'd have dot-bombed faster than anything on the books. And that's the sad part; the nice fallback monopolies lets MS slowly crush anything they want to.
At the rate things are going, it looks like anyone programming will eventually be doing it for the MS monopoly machine, one way or another. Either having to use thier "tools" and target thier OS in order to make a buck, then praying that MS doesn't decide they want to get into your space.
Other companies don't have this level of screw up luxury; multiple failure isn't an option.
Too bad all of the hard-working honest programmers and tech visionaries don't have the luxury of a few do-overs. Imagine how much brighter the computing landscape would be.
I think I'll go puke now too.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Sorry guys, it's my fault.
I voted for Bush, and I live in Florida.
I just had no idea he'd so something so... stupid!
I guess that's something that only Harvard Business School could teach someone!
Even if the current US president wasn't involved, i bet a few "Dead presidents" had some say in the matter...
When it comes to Technology, Europe is already in the Darkages, can you imagine how bad things would be if Microsoft completely pulled out of Europe.
There was a reason why Americans left Europe and why North America is so much better of a place to live. No wonder why Americans are more foward thinkers than Euros.
If European companies want to lose money, jobs, and American technology, then so be it. What would be next? Electricity?
Obi Europe! You're our only hope!
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Why is it that slashdotters usually lean towards libertarianism, except when it comes to Microsoft and anti-trust?
You hate Microsoft so much that you want big government to dictate not only MS business practices, but the very structure of their company. If this was a website run by the DNC or something I wouldn't be so surprised, but coming from a bunch of libertarian leaning types, it is hypocrisy at its finest.
Here's a link from Harvard:l he .htm
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/newsclips/001219_wil
It's not a "list", but somehow I think Harvard would know if he weren't actually in the '69 graduating class.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
welcome to the club
How ironic is it that the banner at the top of the page as I read this comment was an ad for MySQL....
The Republicans stand for individuality and minimizing government. This coincides with a belief that competing businesses can produce higher quality goods and services faster than the government, government-sponsored monopolies (utilities), or highly-regulated oligopolies could.
Salon
Cnet
The Economist
Washington Post
National Post (Includes trial timeline)
NY Times
Globe and Mail
and heh.. MSNBC
state have been browsing the web and happened upon Slashdot...
.. did the election software run on windows? :)
In theory you're right. In reality GWB only can go in and rectify the most egregious deviations from his principles. There just isn't time to do much else than trust the people you appointed and deal with the everyday crises that pop up.
All I think you could correctly say is that GWB isn't opposed to this, not that he strongly agrees with it.
While the M$ trial is a pretty big deal in the nerd world, it's still a second rate issue in the big political scene.
None of you will remember any of this...
What is a Linux distribution? A bundle of third-party operating system, utilities, applications, etc. For the most part, the only programs in a Linux distro that are owned/created by the distributor are relatively minor utilities - rpm, apt-get, diskdrake, etc. And often you'll find more than one instance of a particular application. Take web browsers - some distros include lynx, mozilla, Netscape 4.x, w3get, etc. etc. etc. Or user interfaces - KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, plus more window managers than most people know what to do with. Unless AOL starts shipping a Linux distro (and hell promptly freezes over), you'll never be able to accuse a distro of unfair bundling.
If you want Windows, you have to buy Microsoft Windows. If you want Linux, you can get Red Hat, Debian, Suse, Mandrake, Slackware, and dozens upon dozens of other distributions in many different forms - downloaded off the net, purchased from a place like CheapBytes, or a boxed set directly from the distributor - and it's your choice which distribution you get, and (for most of them) what price you pay for it (if any).
So, as I see it, the precedent being set isn't that "bundling is bad". It's that "forced bundling, contractual blocking of competitive products, and lack of consumer choice of whether to buy Windows or not with a new PC" is bad. Linux distros offer choice, which means competition, which (usually) means that the consumer wins.
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
The popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org recently posted this very topical analysis of Microsoft and their business practices, which explains in some detail the history of Microsoft and some of the controversy surrounding it. I found it to be fairly balanced and impartial, in the general style of popular news and discussion site Adequacy.Org. Although the article was written before today's recent news about the anti-trust case, it certainly sheds a lot of light on the issues surrounding the case.
Would you damned Linux shills READ??? Nowhere is it said that the president told them to do this. For God's sake, your all supposed to be so damned smart, a little reading comprehension wouldn't hurt you all!
I understand the arguement that people give for regulation on real-world, tangible products: Cars flip over and kill people when engineered improperly. But there is no safety issue with software. The only issues are security and quality. When bad security results, companies change software. if software is hard to use, cumbersome, un-intuitive, well, companies change software. I don't see why we're punishing microsoft.
I don't buy "bundling" as an arguement. Companies offer , in software and in other products, extra features that make life easier, cheaper, faster, etc. They also offer things that will contribute to repeat sales, like coupons. All microsoft is doing is giving a browser that points to MSN to everyone, for free. No one is suing linux distro's for bundling other software with it. hell, mandrake came out with so many little features they stuck them on 4 cds!
Personally I'm against anti-trust. I'm always against the government bothering people who have found a way to make money without resorting to force.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Was I asleep when Bush took over the judicial branch of the government?
Any suggestions for protesting this that
doesn't just involve waiting 3 more years to
vote this shmuck out of office?
Finally some sense. Maybe now thet will stop the witch hunt.
gee, shucks, since the original poster framed it this way;
"The question is, does this (the procedural remedies suggested by the DOJ and imposed by Jackson) go to allowing PC vendors to bundle additional operating systems like Linux with new PCs without the penalties that are now part of the Microsoft Bootloader License [byte.com]?"
the byte.com article, linked by the original poster, states clearly, that the DOJ decided to ignore the "bootloader" issue in the current case (a BIG mistake IMHO), so the bootloader issue was NEVER introduced at trial. It will be very hard (nearly impossible) to introduce it now without reopening much or all of the existing findings to further litigation (that's the way our legal system works)
FURTHER, in case you've been living in Elbonia and/or don't understand M$ OS architecture, the ENTIRE thrust of their FS, LOADER AND EXEC is to NOT SUPPORT interoperability with anything but M$ architecture...why do you think they own 90% of the desktop market...their good looks and charm?
so, presuming that the original poster that i responded to meant what he/she said about multi-booting....
...THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE MULTI-BOOTING WITH ***data interoperability*** on M$ ARCHITECTURES IS THROUGH ****substantial redesign****
TRUE, you could force a "Chinese Menu" screen solution (not really completely within the current trial scope, BTW), but how does that help the "monopoly" problem?
...if the average desktop user can't seemlessly and invisible interchange DATA between her multi-booted OS...guess which one they're gonna pick, the one with 3-6% market share amongst geeks like us, or the one with 93% market share amongst home users and businesses?????
Now, just WHO do you think would have to control the necessary architectural changes to M$ OS????
Bubsy F*****G Berkley?
BTW, you might have the stones to not post AC, if you want to be taken seriously, unless taking cheap shots is ALL you're about
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
There are a number of other ways they could be punished, including:
1. Forbid bundling of applications like the browser, media player, firewall, etc with Windows. Make them sell them separately and not give them away for free.
2. Require all future MS Office file formats be published.
3. Force them to sell the source for all future operating systems to other companies that could sell their own compatible versions.
4. Limit how much profit they can make like many utilities' profits currently are regulated.
5. Allow OEMs to change the Windows desktop and install any apps as they see fit.
6. Force a standard price and terms for licensing Windows to all resellers.
Slashdot's database was hosed from sometime around 7 AM EDT
:)...
Sorry, but in lieu of this thread, I just HAVE to troll
If you had been running MSSQL server this would be a non-issue.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
$16M in political contributions [Common Cause] by Microsoft in the last four years obviously didn't go to waste. Time Magazine and the BBC also have good (although a little dated) articles on the size and scope of Microsoft's intense lobbying effort since the antitrust trial started.
"Fragile economy"? Ahahahahahaha. This economy is not fragile. What's unemployment at, 5%? That's probably a high guess, actually. I remember being told in high-school economics class (and I'm talking five years ago, not twenty-five) that 5% was as low as you could ever possibly see due to friction in the job market, and that 5% was pretty damned good. Now, unemployment climbs up to 5% and everybody runs around like the sky is falling. Sure, things are worse than they were two years ago, but they're a hell of a lot better than they have been at almost any other point in history.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
... that the entire economy could revolve around a single corporation. The downfall of Microsoft could only help the economy. To suggest that killing (to use the violent terminology geeks are so famous for in the software design world) Microsoft is killing the US economy is downright preposterous. Take, for example, Sony corporation. While based in Japan, its US assets siginificantly exceed those of Microsoft. Microsoft only looks gigantic because Bill Gates happens to be the man who holds the world records for gaining, losing, and posessing the most money. That's only because he owns 30% of Microsoft's stock.
--
euphoria
I really want to know why Not Breaking Up Microsoft is a bad thing.
Obviously the DOJ Finally realized that the worse thing they could do is break up Microsoft.
For example, they were talking about breaking up MS into a Windows division and an Office Division. If they would have done that, then all they would have done is break up the one big monopoly and split it up into 2 Big monopolies which would put them in the same boat two to three years from now fighting two Microsoft's over monopolistic practices.
Keep in mind that the DOJ is still on the MS case, they have only ruled out the Breakup because they realized that it was just not the logical way to deal with the Windows Monopoly.
The Best remedy that they could choose to breakup the Windows monopoly is to force them to open source everything in current and future Versions of Windows and allow it to be freely downloadable. This takes the Windows Monopoly out of Microsoft's Hands because anyone now can make changes to the Windows Kernel and software and sell their version as a Windows Distrubution (Much like Linux is done now)
Once you take the Windows Monopoly out of Microsoft's Hands and allow other companies to make Windows Distributions, you will get a more competitive marketplace for Operating Systems, more Choices, Less Bullying, Higher quality software overall, and a much higher quality operating system than you could ever get with just MS supplying the OS code.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
"MAKE them eat their own dog food" so to speak.
Minor points like:
hotmail, yeah windows2k is the front end (window-dressing, if you will) but the heavy lifting is still done by BSD..no?
Their cd creation, compiling, storage etc is done by various *nix's (not subject to viruses, like the OS it is compiling, storing and burning).
Keep them from buying/partnering/sabot^H^H^H^H embracing others technology and "getting other peoples ideas", ONLY to integrate it into
the next version of windows".
HELL, that is what brought them back into court for this go 'round in the first place.
THAT is where their MONOPOLY lies!! THEFT of OTHER PPLS PROPERTY/IP/Code/actual innovative ideas! (stack electronics, spyglass s/w, Novell's DR DOS, these and a slew of other names ring a bell?).
No more PRELOADS, restrictive agreements, different pricing for different OEM's.
If they are not a monopoly, as they have repeated over and over, then take away the monopoly "powers" and FORCE them to stand on their own merits, and the merits of their own OS/apps/etc.
and have slashdotters monitor their entire network for any non MS os, and fine the hell out of them if they break/bend even the slightest rule.
As soon as the last *nix box leaves the compound, I give it a month before it all comes crashing down/BSOD'ing or falls to codered IV.
THAT would be JUSTICE, my friends.
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
In North Korea, where nearly every citizen runs Linux or some other "free" operating system on their home computer, and Microsoft has no established presence, poverty is high. Citizens often "disappear" for speaking out against the government. Quality of life is one of the lowest on the earth.
right, that's gonna happen, let's face it the last 5 presidents have been nothing but corporate slaves doing exactly what anyone with money wanted. This is the case in a "democracy" where all the media is controlled by large corporations, mainly thanks to the fcc. Once the fcc is bought we live in a corporate fascism like the soviet days of the pravda, i haven't seen any skylarov news on TV, and i have 1000 channels. i think the only answer at this point is the thomas jefferson answer : Revolution every 25 years!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Let's put it this way, at least we know now who is paying bush...
n1tr0g3n's dictionary:
pun-dit: see computer professional, industry expert, end-user.
computer professional: see moron, MCSE, Microsoft Partner, Bill Gates.
MS donate a billion dollars to the FSF?
But denegrating Slashdot is always on topic. Hahahahahah! I'll bet that's the last time you'll keep database servers on a comet in the middle of this solar system. Or was it a solar flare this time? Hmmm?
Go ahead MOD ME DOWN! I CAN TAKE IT! HAHAHAHAHA!
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
They shouldn't have paid ISPs, OEMs, etc. to NOT distribute Netscape. They should have allowed OEMs to bundle whatever software they wanted, etc, etc, etc, etc...
I agree with you though, bundling IE was not a bad thing. What was wrong though, was the way they forced Netscape out of the market.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
When ONE company controls the OS, they can use -- and have used -- that leverage to persuade or force us to use their office software, internet browser, media player, you name it, until competitors (whose products were often the original innovators in their categories) have been driven out of business.
They MUST be broken up in order to make them stop. So far, over a decade of attempts to control their predatory behavior has been a complete failure. They are stronger than ever, and as long as they are allowed to control the OS AND compete in other software markets, they will continue relentlessly "bundling" everything they can into Windows and attempting to drive every other software company out of business.
From the BBC Article:
"This company performed an illegal operation but they will not be shut down."
I thought it was only their OS's that did that.
got a post out of you, didn't it?
There's a swiss bank account of a billion or so with G.W. Bush's name on it.
Courtesy of Bill gates and Microsoft.
Ya think????
Slashdotters had better pray that the Bush administration goes further. All this litigation is not going to open up the market. It's going to continue to weight it down. I'm sick and tired of the Federal government doing what is best for consumers when consumers can and will make their own choices. I don't care what so-called market Microsoft is supposed to have a monopoly in. This lawsuit was just a favor by the Clinton Ju$tice dept. for Microsoft's competitors. And now the entire industry is paying for it.
Check the CNN story. The state attorneys general are apparently going along with this:
We'll see what the EU regulators will do.
HAHA!
I am glad to hear MICROSOFT is NOT being broken up.
I am not an advocate to anything!
I think this whole war of evangelism is quite stupid!
So what if Microsoft bundles IE with its OS.
One could just as well complain about Microsoft's bundling of Solitaire because of other companies making commercial Solitaire suites!
!!!!!STUPID EVANGELISTS!!!!!
Even the Politburo concurs with Process of Elimination http://process-of-elimination.net
Comment #2259182 is my message, but for another article about the search for the funniest joke in the world. Weird thing is that it added someone else's sig to the end. I guess things really got scrabbled today.
well, i presume that you're supporting M$, because every major poll has shown that around 70% (running average, very rough) of the American public DO NOT support the breakup of M$..
throughout the period of this antitrust trial, this public support in the major media's polls (CNN, Zogby, ABCNews, NYT, et al. when they have polled on this question, which isn't that often) has ranged between 60-80% of the American public supporting M$ in this, and many question the G's role in antitrust as a whole
i presume most of these people have had trouble finding the "Any" key, and while i would dearly love them on the jury of any trial i was subject to...
i sure wouldn't want them making technology policy for my company or my country...ever watch PPV Wrestling????
you want these folk driving major public policy, eh?
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
It's funny how defending oneself is seen as threatening. If I lock my door, am I threatening you?
No, it is not funny, and it is not about locking your door. It really show how much (or how little in this case) you know about a topic when you use analogies like that. Instead of oversimplifying the situation, try thinking about being in the position of another country, like Pakistan, for example. And assuming they have ICBM's, how scared do you think they are that an aggressive superpower like the United States (the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon on another country) can now fire ICBM's at them at will, with no fear of a counterattack because they can defend against ICBM's.
Do you think they will just happily sit around with the USA basically pointing a gun to their head for all intents and purposes saying "Oh don't worry, I would never pull the trigger. Just don't go to war with India, or don't allow such and such to become president, and don't buy Pepsi products blah blah blah". Or do you think perhaps that it is more likely that they will attempt to balance themselves with the United States causing a new arms race with unpredictable consequences possibly disasterous for the entire planet?
And statistics don't lie? haha. Remember this cliche: "There are 3 kinds of lies in the world... lies, damned lies, and statistics." Well, just remember that everything is "provable" by statistics.
Maybe Bill Gates promised Bush he'd give an electric chair with a windows interface so he can execute prisoners with the click of a mouse button...
(sorry, your execution will be poste-poned due to a blue screen on our electric chair).
just a thought!
Note that this original comment was NOT mine and was caused by this morning's meltdown of the comments system.
.NET and XP are probably going to trigger it, too.
What I had said was that It was a predictable outcome. It's good to know that for the right price, government can still be bought. No worries, though, Microsoft will implode upon the mass of its own arrogance.
"This company performed an illegal operation but they will not be shut down," complained Scott Harshbarger of the citizen lobbying group Common Cause. From the story @ the age.
smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to
I have to reconsider this. A single state attorney general probably couldn't break up Microsoft. What's worse, though, is what I read in an article on BBC (no link, sorry), that 18 of the AG's are already supporting the Bush Admin. I guess it's either EU or open source/free software.
The original subject line was, "but less and less," which served as a good quip against the subject line at the beginning of the thread. But the "lameness" filter caught me. I feel uplifted.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
A lot more people are aware of this than you would think...
l y+ triple+damages+intellectual+property
http://www.google.com/search?q=Microsoft+monopo
What kind of movie Star Wars be if it ended with the Empire being broken up into civilian and military branches and the Rebels being given some say in how the Death Star was run?
Bush is protecting our Freedom to Whoop Microsoft's Ass by protecting Microsoft's "Freedom to Innovate."
"When the DOJ announced that they would allow Microsoft to stay united, the relief was palpable. Both the operating system side and the applications and consumer products side gazed into one another's eyes and sighed. Sources close to Microsoft say that the make-up sex was unbelievable."
l ay=20010907&id=400
full story:
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?disp
OK thanks for that explanation. It's real good they (and huge oil companies, arms manufacturers etc.) give *equally* to "both" parties. That make's it more ethical I guess.
Luckily Americans have agreed to reduce the "choice" of parties = 2 or influence could get expensive to buy ... Of course the third viable choice for more and more Americans (a group that is getting closer and closer to constituting the majority) is to simply not vote at all.
Of course just because you don't vote doesn't mean you don't *pay* for the election in reduced tax revenues (contributions are deductions of course) and constant mind-numbing uninformative sound bites from campaign ads on TV and unintelligent pundits of the likes of Rush Limbaugh or whoever his current equivalent is ...
Of course the media will uncover a potential candidate's every single instance of oral sex and teenage masturbation before they even bother to criticize or intelligently discuss campaign finance. And why is that? Because the ads that are bought and paid for ... uhh, well gues who gets the money?
Slashdot should take political ads next campaign - a bit of perl could tailor the personal attack ads per constituency based on the guesstimate geographical location of the incoming IP connection. Just be sure to give 10% of the dough to open source projects.
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of how breaking Microsoft up will hurt the entire U.S. economy or even a segment of it.
Because people think that it will. That's the way that our economy works -- it's fear-based. (Or euphoria-based[1], as the case might be.)
-Waldo
[1] See 1999.
...is the reason that the DOJ gave up because w/o MSFT they could not keep tabs on the judges internet usage (or keystrokes?).
Moose.
HEH! I amuse me.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Sorry for being a carma whore:
s tory_id=773106
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
Well, I for one, having worked in technical support know exactly how clueless most users are about Windows and any alternatives they might have. Case in point: When asked what version of windows a customer is using when they call tech support, I swear fully 50% don't even know! I would say about 25% of that 50% don't even understand the question. And then there's the Mac people that answer "Yes" when asked "Are you running Windows 98?" It's not that they think that Windows is "The only real OS," it's that they don't know what an OS is. They don't even think about these things. It never even occurs to them to question whether Windows is a good thing or not, or whether they have a choice. They walked into a computer store one day and asked to buy a computer, and that's what they were sold.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear that Microsoft was taking advantage of these poor saps out of spite because the marketing team once worked in front line tech support.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
"Microsoft is being slammed royally and in real time, rather than the nebulous affair that was looking to be drawn out over the next ten years."
So its better to get __a_bit_of_justice__ now, rather than fair justice later, is that what you think ?
It is the courts responsibility to deliver swift and fair justice, if it taked too long, then it is the courts failing.
The DoJ should be criticising the courts for not being capable of delivering justice in what they see as a fair timeframe.
Next time they may as well say, lets not prosecute them at all, because we have to all get dressed up and go to court, lots of paperwork etc...
There is no excuse for the DoJ not seeking to get the court to implement full justice.
Thank god.
....the sky is the limit. Lets face it, Bill Gates did bring computers to the world in the form they are today. Not Linux, Not SGI, Not IBM, Not Xerox....ok maybe Packard Bell :)
We live in the best country in the world..yes that's right the best country in the world.
Sometimes we do things backwards. Sometimes we are uptight, but you know what it works out in the end.
No place else on earth do you have an opportunity to because rich.
No place else on earth do you have the opportunity to do whatever you want if you set your mind to it.
Other contries seem to like to force you to take care of those who are to lazy to take care of themselves...This is not what America is about.
If you can develop an operating system and get it in the hands of the masses then you deserve the riches that come with it
The DoJ should have never been in the case to begin with. Some self rightous companies felt they could not get what they wanted out of MS so they went to the government and tried to get MS pushed around a bit. I know folks would like to think that MS got want they wanted all the time, but thats not the truth. Companies like AOL, Netscape, SUN and Oracle went the there folks in Washington with cash in hand looking to get MS taken down a notch or two. MS wasn't playing ball and they got pushed around in court for a while. It is true they did pull some stunts in court, but the judge was biased plain and simple it was NOT A FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial.
I would hate to see MS broken up. While stop a good thing. Lots of people are making money, lots of decent products are coming out. They produce a nice development environment and a decent platform. When I choose a desktop 9 out of 10 people choose Windows...why because it is easier to you use. Unfortunatly some socialists out there think that because you write software you should give it away. May I point out that as a business plan the Open Source model is not working out. Redhat so far has not been a steller success....they only employ 750+ folks. IBM is just spending money on Linux not making money and the same goes for Dell, Compaq and many other Linux companies out there.
Lots of poeple want Linux to be supported by companies, but when it comes down to paying for it...*cough*cough* how dare you ask us to pay for a license. I see it all the time.
Come on folks the case was sketchy at best. The pursuit of justice was not why MS was taken to court, it was more of a business decision of other companies seeking to line there own pockets. Congratulations to MS on weathering the storm. You think Bush just woke up and said lets get rid of this pesky little thing. Do you think that people working at MS are criminals...come on think about it. Lots of smart people went through and thought about it and it was a bad idea, not matter how many Linux zealots would like to see MS broken up.
I work in a large company and deal or have dealt closely with many vendors...let me list them..
compaq
dell
MS
SUN
tripwire
ssh
vertias
hp
legato
IBM
VAlinux
compaq
3com
...and more
Guess who I found to be the most supportive and helpfull when really asking for serious help....MS!
While some of you get on your high horse and say well it should be free, and how dare you charge me for software. The fact remains they do a lot or research and development and produce a good product.
/down from podium/
Ok... Slashdot completely nuked my post, I'm sorry. (with a very MS like
unknown error message)
Here is the original:
Ok, as a bit of a change from the usual (and boring) MS/Bush flaming that we
will see here how about this.
WHO CARES!!
I'm constantly amazed by people who gleefully anounce to the world that they
haven't used a Microsoft product in years,
simultaneously acting like a bunch of frightened children whenever MS does
ANYTHING
CNN Anouncer: And today Microsoft anounced that Bill Gates took a
dump.
Slashdotter:The world is being taken over by EVIL corporations!! I
don't actually use any of their software, but because other people do it's
the end!! We need the government to come and save us from MS!!
Damn, you people sound like a bunch of frightened women. I certainly don't
see Linux going away anytime soon, and Redhat, Mandrake, Ximian, (especially)
Debian etc. all were founded and started under the 'MS Monopoly' and continue
to grow. If you people would just concentrate on promoting your own
software, and show it's advantages over MS (instead of praying for them to
just go away so you never have to do things like improve useability of your
software) then maybe you could actually beat them.
And onto my final rant, I'll paraphrase Mulder from an old X-Files episode:
"You can't just call up the devil and expect him to behave"
The same US government that you want to use as a mafia thug to break
Microsoft's knees is the exact same government that's prosecuting Dmitri and
doing all the DMCA stuff you don't like. You really like the government
strong-arming people when you don't like them, but then when they turn around
and attack you (duh) you bitch about it endlessly........ no wonder.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
It doesn't surprise me to see a criminal defending other criminals and trying to make seem anything that may be considered as a bad action like the worst of the crimes.
We all know microsoft is harming almost everybody, but this is actually the way capitalism works.
Jamie, could you tell me why michael changed the title of the article to cover his ass yet made no effort to tell people that he made a major and bias mistake.
This takes some credibility away from all of the comments saying that it has little to do with Bush.
I would just like to see someone justify this either here or on the actual comment.
Your BUSH smells!
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
The NY Times reports "Administration officials said today's decision was made by Charles A. James, the new head of the Justice Department's antitrust division. A senior antitrust official at the Justice Department said that Mr. James had recently briefed Attorney General John Ashcroft and top White House officials on the decision, but said that neither the White House nor the attorney general played a role in formulating it. "
Believe it or not, I actually think this is a good thing. The Feds have no business telling a private company how to conduct its business. Much as I hate Microsoft's OS and apps, the market has decided that it likes them. Sooner or later the market's appetite for bloatware will pass and so will Microsoft.
Slashdot needs to stick to technology reporting and stay away from politics - many of the readers and writers are embarrassingly misinformed. Far too many people are ready to parrot liberal sound bites rather than think and form opinions for themselves. If I want biased reporting I'll watch CNN, CBS or any of the other major networks.
I'm personally more concerned about Bush's plan to grant amnesty/citizenship to the illegal aliens that are currently in the country.
Regardless of Bush's actions, he still (to my knowledge) hasn't embezzled cash, accepted bribes from the Communist Chinese, molested interns or lied under oath.
Its funny how short/selective people's memories are.
This and a myriad of other disasters would not have happened this year if Bush were not President.
That alone justifies laying as much blame as we like on Bush. He's the one who picked an ultra-conservative for attorney general. He's the one who picked cabinet members who favor big businesses (oil, computers, etc.) over people.
In my opinion a good solution would have been a split to three companies:
- Microsoft Office Corporation
- Microsoft Entertainment Corporation
- Microsoft Winwows Corporation
For the Microsoft Winwows Corporation we would need some additional limitations - on bundling software and OEM licensing terms. However, that would have greatly reduced the US economy in favor of global economy (including developing countries) and is thus not an US interest.I hope the guys in EU still remember their plans and restart their case against Microsoft. While waiting for the EU vs. Microsoft case, a good corrective action for governments would be to enforce the use of other software in schools, universities, and government offices.
-- Imperial units must die --
This version of the link works, apparently.
http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=dis play&uid=3167 03
Too lazy to do HTML this morning, cut and paste and then remove the space between the 7 and the 03.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Maybe I'm jaded but I think this is a result of MS learning the game from Novell, Sun, etc.... the game that you MUST "contribute" to the political system -- both parties. You must lobby. You must grease the wheels (totally legal -- not bribery but politics in the US).
MS was almost a non-participant just a few years ago. Since the attack came from the political side (yes, the Justice department under Bill "get me a pretty intern" Clinton was politically motivated and driven by paying constituents) MS had to learn the political game.
MS and Bill Gates are not dumb. They learn fast. They hire smart people. They fight on more than one front at once. They make mistakes but recover and are in it for the long haul.
We have Sun, Novell, Apple, IBM, etc. to blame for this -- and this is scary -- deep pockets are in the political scene now and learned the game from the best.
I just heard on NPR the former head of the Clinton Antitrust division call the DOJ's move "an acknowledgement of reality." Reality in this case being that it would take forever to litigate a breakup of the company when compared to just implementing behaivoral remedies. According to the former Clinton DOJ official focusing the DOJ's resources on behavioral remedies should speed things up quite a bit.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
... or PostgreSQL running on Linux boxen, which would probably be faster and more reliable, not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper.
Sorry troll, no one is going to argue with you that MySQL is better than MSSQL. We're not that stupid.
Hewlett Packard is planning on taking legal action against Microsoft over the inclusion of Calculator in the Windows operating system.
"The inclusion of the calculator application is a deliberate ploy by Microsoft to damage companies that produce calculators. Since the release of Windows, the demand for pocket calculators has dramatically decreased." - PJ Bellmar (HP Marketing)
The case will hopefully force Microsoft to supply the versions of Windows without the calculator application, or provide options for other manufacturers to supply Windows with their own calculator (hardware of software). The case will also explore the possibility of forcing the Microsoft development team to relocate to Azerbajdzjan, and communicate with the outside world using a primitive telegraph apparatus.
On hearing the news, Linux developers jumped around excitedly and grinned a lot.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Stupid linux idiots showing their ignorance again! Once instance of database corruption and any sane administrator would be looking elsewhere.
No, shit! Maybe this site is getting a little big for the POS database its running. As the problems get worse I hope someone will consider a diffrent database.
BTW: A good test of your database is to pull the plug on a couple of machines while they are under load. If they come back up and the database is still in good shape then you have done your job correctly. An even better test is to assure that your web pages don't indicate completion before the transactions have been posted to the database. That way you can guarantee that the users of the site dont get false positives.
That message almost reads like flame-bait. The break up of Microsoft combined with monetary penalties and severe limitations on bundling apps with operating systems would allow the computer industry to flourish, distributing potential market opportunities among companies that, currently, wither and die in M$'s shadow.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Perhaps English is not your native language... I meant to imply that MSSQL is indeed better than MySQL, but that PostgreSQL is better than both. Do you have anything to say about that now that you (hopefully) understand my point?
Hey, I'm old enough to remember the 70's when more people made money. The smaller (tech) sectors of today make cash but but as lot of other sectors are losing it.
I only read
Just like they have in the past they will let Microsoft off with "Don't do this anymore". Of course, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Microsoft is using every pound of its considerable weight in all sorts of illegal ways to crush other companies in a variety of markets.
Sure Microsoft is a great American success story. They have crushed any number of other great American success stories and will continue to crush any number of great American success stories with the unfair advantage that making the OS gives them.
I'm sure the Justice department will come out with some limp wrist settlement that involves letting others play after it no longer makes a difference.
It is rather like an owner of a bank that runs around it blows up all the other banks in town. He is then told not to blow up any more banks. Well, there aren't any more banks anyway so who cares. Since he can't blow up banks anymore he sets up a car dealership and then runs around blowing up those.
Microsoft has benefited hugely by their behavior and just telling them to stop means they reap all the benefits. They would be stupid not to behave just as badly in any new arena that presents itself.
Anti-trust was intended to prevent this kind of behavior and if the Justice department is too much a bunch of pansies to do their job we will all pay the price with poorer and more expensive products (heck, we do today). Products that are designed to achieve the aims of Microsoft rather than improve the lot of the user because they have no competition to make them do otherwise. From what I've seen I think Windows XP and Office will be the first of a wave of Microsoft products that make this abundantly clear.
The white house ought to have a big sign on the front "Government by the highest bidder, apply within".
Sucks.
I seem to recall Eric Raymond predicting that Microsoft would be "relegated to irrelevance within 18 months" about 3 years ago, using many of the same points you do. The reports of Microsoft's death have always been a bit exaggerated.
Microsoft is a heavily diversified company. If they lose one battle -- say, PDAs -- they can easily fall back on the OS, applications, games, the X-box, Ultimate TV, MSN, Hotmail, etc., etc. They sell software, hardware, and Internet services. Most of their divisions turn a profit independently.
In spite of the old "competing against itself" saw, Microsoft has sold something like eight major versions of Office, six major versions of Windows, and three (arguably four) major versions of NT. Companies do buy upgrades eventually.
And what of free software? It has taken a second-place position in the server market and a second-place position in the desktop market. I'm not holding my breath for it to overtake Microsoft in either arena.
--Patrick. Not an apologist, just a realist.
That's insane. Many of those companies were pushed into the toilet, directly or indirectly, by Microsoft. After having left the hen-house unguarded for so long, the attitude seems to be ``not much left in here, just this fox, we'de better protect it in case it goes too.''
The sanest thing to do would be to promptly fine Microsoft a hundred billion dollars, payable in five-billion-dollar annual installments over twenty years, and throw it at the national debt, OSS incubators, net access for the poor, or something else actually useful.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actually, allowing science to limit religion is the dangerous one, since scientists have religious beliefs including Atheism.
Alternatively, passing religious laws and then selectively enforcing them - which history shows happening often - usually results in seven-figure bloodshed (think Crusades, both World Wars, Reign of Terror...).
Cutting taxes I like. Cutting taxes for any reason is a welcome novelty. Any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. Playing favourites with the remains is not such a good idea.
Not at all surprising, if you assume that Big Business 0wns Bush.
Not at all surprising considering that Dubyah is in the pocket of big industry, and that both sides of the cold war were largely funded (directly and indirectly) by the USA for the nett benefit of certain large US corporations (read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler sometime).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing