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."
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!
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
It seems like Bush, as the head of the
administrative branch, is in no position to
give -any- orders to the judicial branch.
And you'll notice that no article claims he did. It's just the Slashdot editors abusing their power to stir up resentment and further their political views.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
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
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
"bush adminstration" doing something Shrubya doing it
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.
According to this Washington Post article, Cheney's son-in-law is now running the MS case.
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/
You're absolutely right, the /. Gods changed it without noting the change.
Bucha cowards.
allowing religion to limit science
Huh?
Irresponsibly cutting taxes and using it to blatently curry favor with the Nascar sect of American society.
Your inability to spell indicates a sub-par education, so I'm afraid I have very little faith in your ability to discern a 'responsible' tax cut from an 'irresponsible tax cut'. What any of this has to do with the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing is beyond me at present.
Environmental destruction in favor of short-term corporate gains (Alaska, Kyoto).
Kyoto - a failed piece of hippy junk propaganda.
Alaska - will be just fine, thankyou.
Doing his best to restart the good 'ol cold war (ABM treaty breaking, trying to isolate China).
ABM treaty - I assume you're referring to missile defense. Russia's Buran shuttle project was first initiated (from plans stolen from the US) years back to support their own missile defense system. What China is doing in this regard, no one can know as they are IMPOSSIBLE to monitor. We, in contrast, live in a glass house. So long as anyone has an interest in missile defense, we MUST have an interest in it. Coming in second just won't cut it, I'm afraid. Look at how China's gov't treats their own people before you shed any tears for them.
Let's face it, Bush is too busy doing his best to run the country to bother tipping his hat to every pot-smoking college activist who thinks he's cornered the market on truth and common sense.
**>>BELCH
Apparently, we have three people here that believe the US knows best for the rest of the world. I've always seen a huge irony in this, because it's usually right-wingers who spout this crap, and they're the same ones who say the government shouldn't do this to it's citizens. So it's okay for the US to "know best" for the rest of the world, but not it's own people then? Anyway, Instead of insulting environmentalists(operagost), lets look at this from a view of reason. 100+ countries signed Kyoto. The US did not. More countries pay UN dues. The US does not. Most countries abide by treaties they agree on until both parties agree to end the treaty. Apparently, with the BMDT, we do not. Anyone seeing a few paralells? I think the government likes Microsoft because they have similar attitudes. If a group that's theoretically above you comes to an agreement you don't like... ignore it. If you're a political theorist, this is not the rule of law, it is anarchy. To begin with, it's not at all proven Kyoto would cause any major harm to any part of the economy. However, it is proven that CO2 emissions are not a good thing. Don't give me any crap about that because it's TRUE Ask the vast majority of scientists, and they'll tell you that CO2 emissions are bad. Too many people figure that a little work is too much to do to save the planet from destruction (yes, now I'm babbling environmentalist rhetoric, but it's still just as true.) There's more evidence that CO2 harms the environment than that Kyoto harms the economy. So it makes sense to ratify it! Unless you're being payed off by people totally self-interested (which is usually big buisness in this case)...