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."

Comments

Re:Battle stations!

[ascii spork]

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.

Violation of system of checks and balances?

[erlkonig]

It seems like Bush, as the head of the
administrative branch, is in no position to
give -any- orders to the judicial branch.

Dude, why isn't my Micro$oft stock skyrocketing?

[ostawookiee]

eh?

Many DID see this comming

[Ratteau]

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.

So much for being "tough on crime"

[werdna]

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."

Re:lost vote

[SmileyBen]

But this *is* the single issue that everyone disagrees with Bush on. They disagree that he cops out of Kyoto because big business doesn't want it, that he cuts taxes because the millionaires want it, that he lets criminals off because Microsoft wants it.

Explain how this is a *different* policy, not another instance of the same policy so many hate?

Re:Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

See earlier reply.

Also, the DOJ isn't going for a "slap on the wrist" -- according to the
actual articles, they're focusing their efforts on getting the important
restrictions out there NOW instead of trying for the huge complicated
(and IMHO unnecessary) breakup which would take about a decade to enact. I
think it's fantastic that they're pushing for uniform OEM pricing for
Windows as their top priority. That means that MS can no longer say, "Hey
Dell, if you distribute QuickTime or otherwise piss us off, we'll increase
the price you have to pay for Windows. Take MSN Messenger off the desktop?
We'll increase the price of Windows. Dual-boot Linux? Oh, you'd better
believe we'll raise the price of Windows."

Consumers

[lavaforge]

I find it interesting that the document released by the DOJ continually remarked about how it's actions were intended to "benefit consumers," or "aid consumers," or "relieve consumers."

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...

Re:Thank God

[einhverfr]

Sorry to respond to a troll (see my sig and do an internet search for references to "The Barkto incident"). Also, IANAL.

We don't have to depend on Linux now. Especially considering its outrageous cost ownership - even compared to Microsoft products - as explained below.

Actually, we won't have to depend on Windows. See, the court has helt that Microsoft has "market power" in the distinct operating system industry and that this position poses an inherent danger to the foundations of our economic system. Accordingly, per the case law surrounding the Sherman and Clayton acts, we hold companies with market power to a higher level of responsibility because of the damage they can do to our country.

This is fundamentally a bad position for Microsoft to be in and it harms their ability to continue to provide software at compelling values-- as long as there is any doubt about their attempts to control the market, they could be sued for their actions.

If Microsoft was broken up, there would be two monopolies which would be far more agile because they would not have to protect eachother. The IDC was predicting that if Microsoft was broken up, it would be the end of competition in the Office Suite market, for example, because Office would more easily be ported to Linux and used to destroy the markets for StarOffice, etc.

I also celebrate this decision, being the right one, but I see the consequenses very differenty.

well, some things look good

[StandardDeviant]

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.

I kind of like the idea

[Mr T]

Of beating a single Microsoft and not 2 or 3 little government broken up MickySofts... Linux and all that is good is still making headway, MS is strong and it won't be easy but we can't be stopped.

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.

Re:Guys, you're missing the point.

[warpeightbot]

The point is not that Bush is letting Microsoft off the hook

And neither will the likes of McNeally, Case, et al. They've just been waiting for a clear indication of exactly who it is they need to sue. Remember, "Microsoft is a monopoly" is now a matter of case law; now that it is clear that there is only going to be one Microsoft instead of two or three or six, they can turn the legal beagles loose without fear of having to do it all over again, or being told "no, you can't do that."

I figured this would happen; called it several months ago. But just like in the case of a certain football player some time ago, the damage has been done, and despite the lack of a serious criminal punishment, in both cases everybody knows what happened. In the one case, a certain induhvidual will never have a girlfriend with brains again, and in the other... well, we'll have to wait and see, but it should be an interesting ride.

--
Sooner or later, in light of all this, you're going to need a Linux guru

Re:exactly

[Private Essayist]

"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."

How naive do you think we are? Of course they are lying. Candidate Bush stated during his campaign that he didn't think the government should be after Microsoft. Now that he's the boss, do you really think the Department of Justice is so stupid as to go against what the White House wants? Do you really think there were NO secret conversations, off the record, to get Justice to back off?

Bush is behind this, for that's the way the government works.

Re:lost vote

[digrieze]

Excuse me folks, but you're missing the real bad actor in this story. President Bush didn't have much (if anything) to do with this decision (despite the incorrect statement in the opening message, read the news stories), and the DOJ was painted into the same corner (very few options). When Judge Jackson decided DURING THE TRIAL to get his 15 minutes of fame and rail his venom against Gates he shot the whole case in the foot. Not only did he place his judgement in question, but now no judge is going to want to be associated with that piece of paper in the remotest sense! The DOJ is trying to get the best out of a bad situation, if you don't like it, blame Jackson running his mouth when he should have been writing legal opinions and letting them stand! (I guess he was jelous of Judge Ito)

Re:exactly

[Noer]

Another possibility - those who made the decision may not have been TOLD by Ashcroft or Bush to make that decision, but may have been otherwise pressured (indirectly) by them to make that decision. Merely saying that "Bush is buddies with Bill" was probably enough to change the DoJ's strategy, without constituting a direct order.

Wait...

[Balinares]

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...

Strike a Point for the Bush Man!

[Skip666Kent]

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!

How about a remedy that actually helps?

[gblues]

Breaking up the company doesn't get rid of the monopoly. It just breaks it up into several monopolies (see: Ma Bell vs. Baby Bells). Want to get rid of Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop? Require Microsoft to publish complete file specifications for all of its files and interfaces, including (but not limited to):

• 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...

[FroMan]

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...

I did not post what is in the message body

[Brian Knotts]

In the parent comment, I had posted a comment about President Bush and slashdot bias. The excellent slashcode rendered into what you see above.

Re:I did not post what is in the message body

[RacerX69]

Hmmmm...
Except for the very last line about OpenNIC, that was my post about another article today about the funniest joke search by the British. Guess the slashdot database really got screwed up.

Too bad it ended up here, obviously Offtopic for this thread.

Will restrictions work as a remedy?

[hillct]

One of the provisions of the proposed restrictions from judge jackson's original ruling, which the DOJ is going to model their restrictive remedy after was:

barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up startup screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards.

The question is, does this 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?

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

Re:Explain to me something

[cybrthng]

Your on crack.

Try removing konquerer from KDE, you can't. You would be ripping out Kparts and then your kmail would blow up and knews would barf and your KFM would be a pathetic filemanager instead of a powerfull object manager (for whichever type of objects kparts supports be it news, ftp, http whatnot).

I'm sorry, but the internet has become a part of the PC revolution and a part of the Operating system. Rip TCPIP out of linux, make it an installable module and then rip httpd/ftp/nntp support out of KDE and make it a seperate module and then you can preach about the lesser of the evils.

Until then, this is utter nonsense. Microsoft wasn't busted because of its browser, it was because of its OEM price locking and fixing of contracts, but ANYONE could have done that had they tried and marketed themselves to be able to do it.

Nonsense..

I don't even claim what microsoft did as far as BUSINESS PRACTICES are concerned was remotely right, but they sure as hell hit the nail on the head with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. You can't get much better then that.

Before you totally wig out...

[Ethelred Unraed]

...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

Delegation of Authority

[vfs]

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.

NOT exactly

[Brand X]

From the LA Times article:

WASHINGTON -- Reversing a Clinton-era legal strategy, the Bush administration announced today it will no longer seek the breakup of Microsoft and wants to end the historic antitrust case against the software maker as quickly as possible.

...

During a ceremony on the White House lawn, President Bush declined to comment directly on the case but told reporters: "During the course of the campaign and throughout my administration I have made it abundantly clear that on issues relating to lawsuits -- to ongoing lawsuits -- that I expect the Justice Department to handle that in a way that brings honor and thought to the process.

"I respect and hold our attorney general in high esteem and I honor the work that he's done and I'm going to leave it at that," Bush said.

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.

Alternate remedies

[Alien54]

Justice is the most important point here. Microsoft should not benefit from it's illegal conduct.

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"

You get what you pay for

[arfy]

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.