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.
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:
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."
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.
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,"
>>forcing them to open their API's
>I just dont agree with you on that. No competitor, ever, regardless of market position, should ever ever ever be forced to actually assist
>the competition in hurting themselves.
As otherwise mentioned, an API is supposed to be an interface point, where different parties can interoperate. Microsoft is the master of the Oxymoronic API, where they want the appearance of interoperation, and enough to grow markets, yet reserve the ultimate rewards for themselves.
As for precedent on being "forced to open APIs", there are two most noteworthy:
1) The telephone system, including but not limited to those lovely RJ11 and RJ45 jacks we all use. IIUC, much more than just physical connectors was opened with that judgement.
2) The System/360 I/O Channel, to allow Plug Compatible Manufacturers to really make things to plug into those mainframe channels.
>It would be absurd to suggest that Standard Oil should have given away its oil to competitors because of its monopoly position. Its just as
No, but take a look at any pump, with its three buttons for 87, 89, and 93 Octane. That's part of the equivalent of an API for gasoline. It's the reason you can drive up to ANY gas pump, not just a Standard Oil subsidiary, and have reasonable confidence of driving away again without eating out your engine's innards.
>absurd to suggest that MS give away its property - intellectual as it may be - to their competitors. The API's belong to MS - they were
>developed, refined, tested (hahaha.. well obstentibly}, and maintained by MS. To force them to give that away is simply wrong in all sense of
>the word.
Once again, one must understand the political sense of what an API is. One must also understand that when one wishes to become the STANDARD of the industry, there are additional rules to play by.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.