Slashdot Mirror
Continuing Twists In Microsoft, Intel Cases
An Anonymous Coward writes: "New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer have threatened to pursue their own sanctions against Microsoft if they conclude that the Justice department isn't being tough enough. Amongst other things, they demand that Windows XP "receive close scrutiny in arriving at a judicially ordered remedy. Go NY!"" NaughtyusMaximus points us to this message at Anandtech about Via reacting to Intel's patent-infringement suit by turning around and suing Intel -- for patent infringement -- in Taiwan and the U.S.. Via is also countersuing Intel in England.
Rejection of Windows XP by IT departments and consumers worldwide for its odious licensing, configuration tracking and content protection will be punishment enough!
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
I've said all along that the only viable remedies here are behavioral, and they must include, at a minimum, forcing MS to use one pricing schedule for licensing products to any OEM, forcing them to open their API's, and forcing them to give up control over how OEM's can configure and set up Windows. Even that combination probably isn't enough, but it's the bare minimum that I would want to live with.
What are they going to do? Spank them?
Only the federal government has the power to enforce actions like breaking them up. NY state may slap a fine but ms does not have to pay it. The constitution clearly states that only the state of Washington, or the federal government can slap a fine on MS because state powers can only regulate their own states. It will be a cold day in hell before the state of Washington investigates them. The federal government is paid off by Microsoft so they can only slap them on the wrist if anything. In other words ms won. Only a true breakup will end their dominance. They have shown in the past to not follow or respect the law. Just look at the bundling case with Windows95. Basically the DOJ investigated Microsoft's pricing with various OEM's. Ms promised to clear the situation out. Instead Microsoft wrote a more repressive one and labeled it a "trade secret" to prevent the DOj from reading it. The new one is rumored to have a clause that states that if the DOJ requests information about Microsoft, and then they must contact Microsoft's headquarters. In other words Ms has a heads up from OEM's to destroy and obstruct justice so the doj wont find anything. Actions like these and the dragging on with the windows98/Ie case show that ms will never give in and only a breakup can free the industry.
In other words were fucked. Not meaning to be a pessimist here but the UE and the states are quite powerless. The only thing they can do is ban sales of ms products in their states or in Europe. They wont and can't do this. If businesses and individuals couldn't buy a computer at all (remember that windows is required), then they will be so much public outcry will reverse the case.
http://saveie6.com/
Now, IANAL, but...
;-). But can you imagine the implications a separate vendor (like, say, Adobe) would have if they had to concern themselves with 30 or 50 different versions of their software based on the different "sanctions" adopted by each state?
I recall having seen a documentary (really, it was a documentary) on the evolution of the pornography business in the 70's and 80's. One of the laws that this documentary said saved the industry was the ruling that actors couldn't be tried in different states simultaneously for breaking decency laws. Essentially, the court ruled that doing so would make the ruling of the courts in the decency cases a moot point, since it would bankrupt the stars and studios being sued.
I wonder if this ruling would apply to to MS. Obviously, they'd have no problem defending themselves simultaneously in all 50 states, but I think it might set a dangerous precedent if every single state is allowed to impose different "sanctions" on a company.
Everyone knows about "California Emissions" vehicles, but can you imagine what would happen if every single state had a different emissions standard for vehicles sold in their state? Now picture that with a software vendor. MS can't bundle explorer in Texas, Michigan, New York, and Florida. They can't allow VB scripting by default in Wyoming, Delaware, or Oregon. Washington would, of course, make no sanctions
I'm certainly not saying that I condone MS' practice, or that the world is better off with their dominance. I just think that it opens the floodgates for problems when individual states can make different claims.
Hopefully the Europeans will have some sense and pull a GE/Honeywell on MS.
On the other hand, the $309 BILLION dollars that are currently tied up in MSFT stock might be well-applied to investing in other companies, providing them with much-needed capital to innovate and grow.
Unfortunately, there is no way to make that money available to others. For every seller, a buyer: while the market cap can expand and shrink by the whim of the investor, the money is pretty much permanently unavailable to other companies.
Which is a shame. Spreading the investments around might have been helpful. Might fund some competition, f'rinstance.
Although, come to think of it, most of the MS shares are actually employee stock options, created out of thin air and used by MS as a means of (a) avoiding paying cash to employees and (b) dodging taxation [indeed, paying employees with stock creates tax *refunds* (as if MS needs a refund!)].
I think it's arguable that employee stock options are valueless, until such time as the employee gets lucky enough to find someone willing to fork over some coin. Until that point, the stocks don't actually represent money unavailable to other companies...
Disclaimer: These are idle late-night speculations, and are subject to correction by folk with far more investing knowledge than I!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
What annoys me, and probably our friends in NY and CA, and is being heavily downplayed by the press, is that the DOJ is also dropping persuing the tying of IE into WinXX. IMO, this is the most important information here, and it drastically would affect XP as well given that an IM and media player is also built into the system. While I know the appeals court said that the case as given wasn't strong enough for this particular charge to carry through, it certainly didn't say that it wasn't false either. Fortunately, it looks like NY and CA see it this was as well, as well as the EU commission.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
If you read Slashdot, you are probably in the enviable position of being "in the know" about technology, but we are but a small percent of the people who represent Microsoft's user base. Let's take a look at two groups of them shall we:
1) People like my mom. She's till using a Pentium 100 with 32 MBs of RAM and a 33.6K modem. All she cares about is that she can read her email and "why does it say there is no dialtone when there clearly is one?" She doesn't care about Microsoft's computer practices. All she wants to be able to do is use her computer.
2) Sure there are IT specialists who are in the know about alternative operating systems, but do they represent the people they support? What about the secretaries who use the computer with Windows telephony products? How about the Graphic designer who is fluent in Page Maker and Photoshop? Are they going to want to take time out of their day to learn an OS? I worked for a networking company, and I remember how much of a hassle it was to migrate from GroupWise to Outlook, or even Windows 98 to Windows 2000. We did a multimillion dollar install at a church once with full remote administration capability, and the most amount of time we spent on support was from frustrated users who couldn't use their old screensavers anymore.
Folks, these people don't care about MS, they don't care that they are a monolopy. Furthermore, most of these people can't separate the concept of the operating system from the computer. The idea of a PC without Windows is unnatural to them. And these are the people to whom microsoft sells all those client licenses and home licenses. It doesn't matter how bad Microsoft gets, as long as they provide the user with a familiar and comfortable computing experience, they will probably always be on top. It would take a MASSIVE PR campaign to convince people otherwise, but it still probably wouldn't work even if you're pushing a superior product or philosophy.
Remember the OS/2 Warp campaign?
I'm all for letting the punishment fit the crime, but this is not the solution. That's reminiscent of the government telling us that all operating systems have to support digital copy protection mechanisms. I'm not thrilled by the microsoft's behavior, but I don't think it's logically consistent to have the government tell MS what to do with its API when it suits me and bitch about the very same thing when it doesn't...
Plus, do you really want the government handing down technology decisions like this? Just look at some of the other idiotic technology-related government mandates... DMCA, anybody? Awarding a patent for one-click shopping? etc etc....
Oh yeah, go donate to the EFF...
-sd
Microsoft has done an outstanding job of image projection. When "Joe Sixpack" thinks of, say, automobiles, he knows he has a choice: Honda, Chevrolet, Ford, Nissan, etc. When he thinks of computers, does he know anything except "Windows"? (Maybe "Apple", but that's all.)
Secondly, if there was only one car maker, people would, as you say, get tired of mediocrity and look for alternatives, because they'd have a definite gauge: the tires keep blowing out, the brakes always squeek, etc. But people don't have the same gauges with PC's. Locked up? I did something wrong. Too slow? Time to buy a new PC. I doubt anyone ever blames the OS at all (if they even know what an OS is.) No gauge=no demand for change. Scary...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Why was the dot-com crash such a bad thing? It, as you mentioned in the beginnning of your post (and pretty much ignored later in favor of throwing out borg and interest rate references) most of the dot-com companies were built on a bubble of a bad idea. Some were bought out and most floundered.
But did they deserve to be in business if they couldn't make a profit? My answer is no.
You can blame it all you want on the DOJ trial and interest rates, but when your entire business plan rests on being profitable enough to survive until one company buys you out, then you've got some bigger issues there.
The Valley is considered America's number one profit center and economy driver, and when nearly all of said area is beholden to a single company from afar, you have to question whether or not this is a good thing. Obviously, many people think not. Netscape/Sun/Other Java people were trying to change that.
Java was not going to be a replacement for MS-DOS or whatever else. JavaOS, while much hyped back in the day, turned out to be shit, and most anyone could have guessed it. Java needs an OS under it, the difference is that the OS doesn't have to be Windows any more. While this was aimed straight at Windows' heart, Microsoft was able to leverage their power unfairly in ways that Netscape was totally incapable of doing. This is why they were found guilty in the trial. I don't disagree that they should have provided a free competing product to deal with the threat. I do also acknowledge that they used their near infinite power over the desktop computing landscape, in everything from licenses to integration to proprietary extensions, to compete unfairly with Netscape and Java.
When a company has this much power, and can stamp out anyone who poses a threat this easily, it is time for it to be dealt with. The brightest, biggest, and best companies in computing, all unified behind java, couldn't beat Microsoft. And you want to tell me this is a "bogus issue"?
No company should hold this much power. No company should ever think "What is good for us is good for America," which is exactly what Microsoft has gotten to thinking. No country should hold them most important and vibrant sector of America's economy entirely within its thrall.
You want to blame the DOJ trial for the dot-com crash which was bound to happen anyway. I say the DOJ trial put things in perspective. The whole thing really started when Netscape itself was the darling of the stock market, and then everything internet would be huge, riding on Netscape's coattails. Microsoft killed this vision with Netscape, putting a cold, hard dose of reality in those VC's eyes. The dot-com bubble needed to burst, and Microsoft needs to be regulated.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The problem is that MS has been subject to sanctions before -- weak, ineffectual sanctions. I think the question is really given their past history are any sanctions an effective agent for change? Judge Jackson dealt with MS in prior cases, and he realized the answer to that question was NO! That is why he decided for a breakup. This is what is going to happen: (1) Sanctions imposed such as no MSN icon on the desktop. (2) MS changes the name of MSN or buys 90% of Earthlink and then puts a different icon on the desktop. (3) Two years from now MS is taken back to court for violating sanctions with their new icon, starting the whole vicious cycle over again. How is it even possible for sanctions to be effective? They absolutely did not work for Windows 95! The DOJ just totally caved.
If I don't like Ford, I can buy a Chevy, or GM. Even the models within each line varies based on my requirements. The tools and parts are relatively standard and easily allow aftermarket/consumer changes.
Microsoft allows none of this. When you get a MS OS, there are no standard tools for changing the way Windows works. Your choice of OS is whatever MS decides to dictate today. Right now it's ME and 2000. In two months it'll be ME and XP. There are no other choices.
A better analogy for your car would be this:
Ford is the only car manufacturer. If you want to repair your car, you can only do so at the dealer. If you want to fix it yourself, you have to buy the tools and parts from the dealer. Want a radio? If you buy one from Circuit City, every time you start your engine, your radio has a chance of blowing up. If it doesn't blow up, you'll get a prerecorded message from your car saying the radio is not authorized and may cause damage to your car. I'll leave the fuel type, gas mileage, and safety factors to your imagination.
Ford has no monopoly on cars. If they did, we'd be complaining. We're not. There is actual choice in the automotive industry. Want to buy a Dell without paying for MS? Try it. You can't. Want to follow the terms of the Microsoft EULA and try to get your money back? Good luck. Sure you can build your own PC. You can also build your own car.
Linux dominates in the web development arena).
In exactly what area? Mind you, I'm talking about development, not web serving. I should also mention before going into my rant here that I would dearly love your statement to hold up. Typing this from a FreeBSD desktop now.
Exactly which Linux application is a suitable replacement for Dreamweaver, FrontPage, or even GoLive? Which Linux app supports syntax hi-lighting half as well as HomeSite or JEdit(available on Linux as well)? How about graphics support comparable to Photoshop, Imageready, or Fireworks? Any FTP clients out there that match up feature and stability wise to FTP Voyager or even Dreamweaver's file manager?
To date I've seen attempts at trying to implement portions of the above, but none that are production quality kind of apps. Perhaps I'm gonna get slammed down to troll for stating this, but as someone who does web development I just don't see any truly compelling applications on the *nix side of the house. In my mind, this is FAR more critical for the future of *nix on the desktop then any office suite, Quicken or Outlook clone.
The market right now doesn't need another platform for the "average" user. It desperately needs one for those who look to publish, create, and develop web content. So long as better apps for this are available for Microsoft's platform, none of the efforts going into the *nix desktop will effect market share one bit. Not even the justice department can make that happen.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
i want microsoft to be free to rip, er, i mean innovate sun microsystems a new one like they did netscape, ibm, apple, and all the other happy campers. its sorta fun hearing all of them bitching in court: 'waaaa waaaa we can't compete. big bad microsoft beat us up at the playground.' lol.
Microsoft has been around for quite a while, developing operating system after operating system, and now here they are, resident, in a majority of society's mind, as the only way to go. Of course, it hasn't always been in such a prestine position...
You see, it all started with Windows Version 1, just an attempt at an operating system for the newly spreading PC ideal, alas, Version 1 was far from a hit. Version 2 followed right in the footsteps of Version 1. Despite the initial failures, however, Version 3.0 was developed for another attempt to win the PC populus, which wasn't even much at the time, but its popularity was borderline. Then came Windows 3.1, which turned out to be a great deal more popular than its predecessors. Next, as an addition to Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11 was developed, a Windows environment for Work Groups! As soon as 3.11 was developed, it was not soon after that Windows 95 was in the making, and when 95 reared its head, the idea of such a simple-to-use GUI in a more flexible environment than what Macintosh offered had spread through the minds of the spreading PC user society. By the time Windows 95 emerged, Windows had pried the minds of hundreds of PC users, and from there, Windows became the only way to go for the average computer user. Its simple point and click environment offered such amazing flexibility to the user it was astounding, thus urging the development of Windows 98, the upgrade to 95, and 2000, the upgrade to Windows NT 4.0.
Windows had to work its way up just like anything else, but it was more successful because it offered a simple user-environment to the average user without that user having to learn a great deal about computers. Dah... move dah mouse, George... There wasn't a multitude of commands or macros one had to learn to get around the OS--I mean come on, the average user even has trouble locating files they just downloaded or installed. Microsoft's popularity is simple to see, and its degradation over time is actually expected: think about the first time you meet a beautiful girl or guy, what's on your mind? Giving it your all and attempting to be the dearest angel, just to make a good impression, right? Well, this lasts for about four weeks or so, the so-called Honeymoon phase, but after those first few weeks elapse, you start becoming more slack and comfortable, doing things you could never see yourself doing in the beginning. And when you move in together, oh! That's when shit really starts to fly! But this is beside the point. So, now here Microsoft is, owning 75% [just a guestimation] of the PC world, producing far-from-optimized code, and bundling neat, miscellaneous things into their distros for the users that made Microsoft so big to begin with! It was the average PC user who brought MS to such levels of grandeur, so why shouldn't MS bundle the programs it does? It's not just an operating system, it's a source of usability for millions of average PC users.
Don't get me wrong, I use as little MS products as I can [Litestep], but we have to keep in mind how MS got to where they are, and do what they do. Now, this is just my opinion, as far as it may be from accepted, but I'm just allowing for some passiveness in the case of Microsoft, even though I don't advocate it as being a great operating system.
nature is ancient, stop your rumbling, stop your rushing, and admire it once in a while
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"I won't use the services!" you say? Well why use the MS software under licence either? The govt doesn't need to step in, people just need to excercise thier economic right NOT to buy something.
Oh, you can't play your games without an MS product? Tough, thats call free market, to get the benifit you want you pay the cost that the person offering that benifit charges. If its too much don't pay.
I agree that MS shouldn't be allowed to make illegal contracts with OEM's (that will be stopped in the remedy) and they shouldn't be allowed to do any of the illegal stuff with pricing (which is stopped by the lawsuit as well). I don't think that the contents of the OS should be limited in any way. Maybe its sucks that you have to buy Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer as part of the OS but that should be MS's right to decide. Its your right to decide if you want to pay the price to get those things.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
By the way I was able to reproduce photoshop functionality much more using gimp when I tried developing under linux. But I suspect that is because I don't do a lot of graphics work and I don't use either tool to its full capability.
I think web design is one area linux could seek to offer advantages, but not until it's able to offer designers advanced and relatively intuitive tools we will probably stick with whatever we're using. I don't see myself as the "average" user, but I'm neither a programmer nor a hacker and while I don't mind typing ./configure make once in a while, I have neither the time nor the inclination to learn new command and keystroke set (as well as a whole new way of explaining each) for every minor task I need to accomplish.
Lisp programmers could probably develop a set of emacs extensions that make it as easy to use and friendly as bbedit as an html editor. Perhaps nedit could turn out as something like that. (perhaps it already has - I have not played with it for a few months). I am willing to bet that there are a fair number of HTML coders and web designers using proprietary bloatware who would much prefer for intellectual reasons to be using open source tools if they were available.
By the way, I did not mean to imply that I consider BBEdit "proprietary bloatware" - quite the contrary. It's not free as in speech or beer but it is well worth the cost, and the support offered by its developers is amazing. In my opinion, they could open source the program and easily charge exactly what they charge now for support alone and not lose a penny (and probably gain many more paying customers). But I digress....
Mostly what I've seen so far is a complete lack of any real understanding of the legal realities facing the DOJ at this time. Try reading the decisions of the courts and you will see that the DOJ's options are limited. Thus the state Attorney Generals agree with the DOJ approach (if not all the details).
First of all, someone needs to explain what breaking up Microsoft would accomplish. If the OS is isolated in a separate company I can't think of any of the current bad behavior of Microsoft that is restricted unless you also have conduct restrictions. Second and more important for the DOJ, the Appeals Court clearly signalled that a break-up is a punishment of last resort and would take a very high level of proof. In other words, a Microsoft break-up will take extensive court hears to pursue, will guarantee another tedious, time consuming appeal and the Appeals Court would be very likely to overturn the break-up order again.
As for bundling other products with the OS, the Appeals Court also clearly stated that this issue needs more proof before it could be allowed as a claim. The DOJ was looking at extensive hearings and a difficult issue to prove. (Anyone who is interested in actually knowing why, there are about 15 pages in the Appeals Court decision explaining the tying issue.) So again, the DOJ was looking at a great deal of time and money to try to prove something that would very likely not stand up on appeal since the Appeals Court has already indicated scepticism on this issue.
On the other hand, conduct restrictions are going to be relatively quick to formulate and get through court proceedings because there is very little additional to prove. Microsoft has already been proven to be a monopoly. And certain anti-competitive behavior has already been proven. The DOJ needs only to fashion conduct restrictions that fit the proven bad behavior. Since license issues were involved in the already proven illegal activity of Microsoft, the license would seem like the natural place to restrict Microsoft's behavior.
And the key to controlling Microsoft is to go after the license. The license is the tool that Microsoft uses to punish and reward the hardware companies. Consider fot instance that Jean-Louis Gassee said that one of the primary reasons for the failure of the BeOS (from a marketing point of view) was that he could not get OEM's to install it on new PC's even if he gave the OS to them at no cost. The only reason: Microsoft license restrictions. It is also worth noting that Steve Ballmer said that the temporary conduct restrictions in Judge Jacksons original order were, from Microsoft's point of view, almost as draconian as a break-up order. Quite a lot of these conduct restrictions involved the license.
An additional benefit to pursuing license restriction is this. Licenses are contracts. Contracts are something that courts understand quite well. Courts generally don't like most conduct restrictions because then they have to monitor them and it takes their time. But of all the conduct restrictions, license restrictions would be most appealing because its in writing and its something the court understands.
So, to summarize, here is the implied DOJ thinking based on the Appeals Court decision and the DOJ's written statement:
1. A break-up will require extensive proceedings, will be difficult to prove and will probably not be approved by the court or would be reversed on appeal.
2. This may not be the best case in which to prove product bundling that is detrimental to the consumer and the Appeals court has indicated scepticism on this issue.
3. Since the appeals court has already reviewed and agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that certain licensing practices were anti-competitive, the DOJ can seek remedies on this subject with almost no additional evidentiary hearings. Licenses will be in writing and therefore, the most appealing to the courts that will have to administer the restrictions.
So what is it people would want really? A symbolic break-up of Microsoft that would take years to get done after all appeals, etc. and would probably accomplish nothing. Or a real solution that is a positive for all consumers and can be accomplished in a few months. Plus, nothing is really given up. Because of the obvious issues in XP, DOJ can pursue bundling and other issues any time they chose (that is, any time they don't like Microsoft's behavior!)
Consider this, if the original restrictions of Judge Jackson were imposed we could now be purchasing machines that have a desktop free of Microsoft software and links and whatever software the hardware vendor chooses. Oh yeah, you could probably buy a machine that dual boots Windows and Linux. Sound like a good plan to me!!
If WinXP was JUST an OS, I would agree with you. However, MS has been found to be guilty of using their monopoly position in operating systems to protect themselves from competition, and to force their products on consumers in place of competitors' products. The instrument they use is the OS, and WinXP is a continuation of the things they have been found guilty of. In order to force MS to play nice, it may be necessary to make MS change WinXP before they ship it. If the govt. cannot do this, then anti-trust law has absolutely no teeth in this area.