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.
WHy doesnt the government just stick with their original ideas and go with the original punishment instead of having to brainstorm new ones that are just plain too cheap.. their new ideas for punishment seems like a slap on the wrist compared to what the original idea would have cost microsoft.. SUre they would have lost money but at least there'd be more of a basis of competition after the conclusion of a splitup..
Now seems to me that the government is getting its foot in the mouth because they're trying to impose more stupid laws, DCMA isnt doing much, MPAA is being a lecherous bulldog, and now they're trying to figure out how to make a law thats fair? shouldnt they just work on repealing their laws that arent working.. they should have enough experience in repealing their dumb laws like Prohibition back in the 40's.. ( it was the 40's right? )
Anybody ever stop to think that maybe if MS is allowed to continue their usual behavior without punishment, that it won't be long until the rest of the market (the joe sixpacks who don't read /.) eventually get tired enough of them that a real demand for alternatives will begin grow and help fuel a rebound in the econmomy for software development?
Enforced openness. Require MS to publish details of all windows APIs, network protocols, and file formats. Have strict limits placed on replacing, or breaking compatibility with, any existing instance of the above categories.
GW in the white house and the economy going into the crapper. I think that they'll go easy on Microsoft in part hoping that their stock rebounding might revive Nasdaq.
just my 2c
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
News.com said...
"Although many legal experts were not surprised to see the Bush administration relenting on a position strongly advocated by Clinton trustbusters, the apparent support of the state attorneys general for that move did catch them off guard. "
While popping over the pond to www.theregister.co.uk gives you a bit different view.
"Although the DoJ's statement last week was seen in some areas as the Bush administration letting Microsoft off, as yet there's no justification for such an intepretation. Unless the powers that be in the DoJ are lying (which is of course is possible), then they are simply trying to speed up the imposition of adequate and achievable remedies, while abandoning the tricky, dubious and legally lengthy ones. A Microsoft break-up always seemed a dubious and probably unworkable solution, and there was a fair bit of justification to Microsoft's claims that it would have destroyed the company. You and we might think that'd be richly deserved and a good thing for the industry anyway, but the US legal process is only supposed to be stopping Microsoft abusing its monopoly position."
While GWB may be an easy target these days, I'll take Wall Street's reaction to what the DoJ did as better insight - stock prices dropped rather than jumped when they said they were going to do some behavior modification rather than just break them into two baby bills. You really think the DoJ is going to call off the dogs and let them off easy? Buy stock. I for one think they are going to get it in the ass and am grateful to have jumped out when it hit the 70's....
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Interesting strategy Via's pursuing...
while I'm sure it will just end in Intel and Via
coming to a mutal licensing agreement, if it does
actually go to court(s), Via's pursuing it in
three separate avenues, and if they win in just
one of them, they've hurt intel severely.
I'm sure Intel is quite reliant on sales and
resources those three (US, England, Thailand).
On the other hand, if Intel wins, it's of relatively
less inconvience for VIA, they
just have to retool some things in their chipset
(where Intel's patents are laying claim),
but if Via wins in just one place, Intel
would have to retool the P4 itself, thanks
to the S3 patents. A much bigger job.
<begin semiunrelated rant>
Sigh. Why don't they just merge,
then get bought up by AOL/TW,
and then have complete vertical integration.
Next up: company script!
</the rant shall never end>
-Slackergod
Let OEMs have the same rights of resale that consumers have. That is, let them modify Windows in any way they see fit, while at the same time forcing MS to license Windows at the same cost to all OEM's under the same license. Add to that, not allowing them to help supplement shelving and advertising or any other costs that OEM's occur if they stick to MS's version of Windows.
Then you will IMMEDIATELY see competition in the market as companies dump WMP for Real, Quicktime or home brewed solution.
Burn Hollywood Burn
As far as I see it, when S3 got the rights for future Intel patents for 10 years a few years ago, it was part of a cross-licensing deal with Intel where Intel got some or all of the rights to use Exponential patents in their own products.
Now Intel is saying that one way of the deal is duff now that S3 belongs to VIA. So VIA are now saying that the other way in the deal is duff. I.e., Intel now do not have the rights to use the old Exponential patents.
IF those patents are used in the P4/i845/P4 FSB in any way (as they might be, Exponential as about extremely fast, but low IPC (PowerPC) processors in their time, reminds me of a certain P4 processor!) then VIA can basically grip Intel's balls.
To futher evidence this, it would take Intel a couple of years to incorporate Exponential technology in a processor. The P4 is the obvious choice for the first Intel CPU to have Exponential patents in it.
Exponential had high clocks PowerPCs (533MHz when Pentiums were at 200MHz and PowerPCs at 250MHz). However the 533MHz Exponential PPC barely outperformed the 250MHz PPC, and was a lot hotter to boot. Exponential never got their act together though, so products were never released.
S3 bought Exponential's IP after they went to the great chip-maker in the sky. S3 did a cross-licensing deal with Intel. S3 were subsumed by VIA. Intel say the licences they gave away in the deal are now void. Logically, the licences they gained are now void as well (barring strange/one-way licensing terms, Intel are so much bigger than S3)!
If Intel is going to punch below the belt, then VIA might as well too.
Intel will not want a court to uphold VIA's claims. That could mean VIA licensing this technology back to Intel for an awful lot of money. Like $50 a processor and chipset if they wanted. Intel would have to pay up, or scrap the P4, i845, i850 and any other P4 chipsets or variants. Possibly even a product recall if VIA got really nasty. Of course, Intel would refuse to ever license anything to VIA ever again, but would VIA care if they were getting $50 a CPU from Intel, and the market swung towards non-patent encumbered technology such as AMD and VIA processors whilst Intel frantically took 1 year to redesign the P4 without the infringing technology?
The above paragraph's occurences will not happen of course. Intel and VIA will re-crosslicense the technologies, say sorry to each other, and Intel can then tell its other licensees that it tried its best, but VIA have a valid license.
They will still hate each other though. and none of the above is guaranteed to be correct. speculation, okay?
Everyone is coming down on the feds for not pursuing a breakup. Why?
What possible good would it do anyone out there if Microsoft were broken up onto two Baby Bill's?
Do you really think MicrosoftOne will stop offering deals for exclusive contracts just because they can't through Office into the package?
Do you really think MicrosoftTwo will open up the Office File formats just because they don't work down the hall from the OS guys anymore?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
People have been using flawed operating systems too long. I think they see what they percieve as "the best" to being as close as you can get to perfect. They settle for flaws because "what else is there?" People may ask for more, but given the choice of "just dealing with it" and switching to other operating systems they perceive as inferior, I tend to think they will continue to deal with problems. After all, if they didn't think Windows was superior in some way, they probably wouldn't use it. Even if they are too novice to install Linux, they have another easy, plug and play solution - Macintosh. Because of this, I don't think people use Windows out of ignorance, but preference.
How do you change someone's preferences? Make your OS appeal to their needs (simplicity & compatibility) or do more promotion. Microsoft does a helluva lot of promotion. Who here doesn't think the average Windows user prefers simplicity over stability and security? At the Help Desk where I work, people complain regularly about how their computer locks up constantly, but they continue to use Windows 9x.
I tend to prefer Windows because of its efficient GUI and driver support (although not perfect by any means), I'm smart enough not to leave it wide open for hackers (as best as I can, anyway), and Windows 2000 has proven incredibly stable for me. I also enjoy my Linux machine for reasons Microsoft has yet to provide (IMO, Linux dominates in the web development arena).
There is no one-size-fits-all OS.
Yes yes, MS did dirty deeds and need to be punished, but why do new features (and I'm not talking about the driver blocking sort) get them in trouble? I mean, look at Mac OS X. It has so many features I'm almost ready to convert! Why do normal features even come up as an issue?
What is the status of the European Union's inquiry into antitrust or other concerns regarding Microsoft and its products?
A ruling by the EU against Microsoft could be significant, and affect Microsoft's products within the US. For instance, while the US did not oppose the merger, the EU ruled against the merger between GE and Honeywell. And, as a result, GE and Honeywell did not merge.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Pay royalties to spyglass for every single copy of windows 98 sold(and possibly 2000). There was one clear fact made by this whole damn trial: IE was essentially *part* of the O.S., which microsoft insisted. Now, the agreement between MS and Spyglass was that spyglass would get royalties for every copy of IE they sold, something that MS thought they would get away with if they went ahead and gave it away for free. Of course, since they have now insisted that IE is a *piece* of the Operating System, Spyglass *is* entitled to a *piece* of the earnings from Win98 as well. Of course, if spyglass is dead, this point is moot. Does anyone know how spyglass is doing?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
"Microsoft, before their anti-trust case, had almost no presence in Washington," Arizona Sen. John McCain told The Chronicle editorial board earlier this year. "Now, I almost don't know a lobbyist who's not on their payroll."
During the last election campaign, Microsoft employees gave more than $50, 000 to the Bush campaign, while the company and its workers gave $500,000 in unlimited, soft money donations to the Republican National Committee for use in Bush's battle against Democrat Al Gore. Gore did not receive any money from Microsoft, according to election commission records.
According to data supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees also donated $22,500 to Bush's recount effort, and a Microsoft executive gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inauguration Committee.
Quoted from the SF Chronicle
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They keep them closed and describe just in part and just to someone so they would selectively decide, which ISV's products will work better on their OS and which will work slower or with more problems or won't be that much compatible through their line of OSes. Does in your opinion has Microsoft a right to decide on this? Do you think they have even right to artifically create such situation when different competing companies have uneven conditions?
In case they are abusing such closed API to enter other markets, like Web browser market, Multimedia Viewer Market, Office Suite market. (It ain't done if Lotus still works....) Then its from the legal stand point abuse of monopoly powers and this is illegal, not having the monopoly, but abusing it and leveraging the monopoly into further markets.
To make long story short, they are bloody thieves and ought to hang on next tree.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Via's argument against Intel is based on a license agreement between Intel and S3 (which Via now owns) to cross-license certain technology.
Intel used certain S3 technology in the design of the P4 and chipsets (what I don't know), and in exchange, S3 got rights to make P4 chipsets.
Intel is trying to have it BOTH WAYS in claiming that Via, thru it's purchase of S3, does not have the right to make P4 chipsets, while still claiming to have a license for the S3 tech they are using.
I honestly don't see how that argument will fly, Intel clearly filed their lawsuit purely for harassment purposes, to harm Via's product release and name, and to delay it reaching the market (at a time Intel is apparently unprepared to release a DDR chipset of their own).
And the stupid thing is, having a DDR chipset for the P4 out now can only HELP Intel. Looks like the people who have been in charge over there in Santa Clara thru the Caminogate and RAMBUS fiasco are still in charge.
Intel's action can only help AMD further erode their marketshare.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
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).
c ourt=dc&navby=case&no=005212A). 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.
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 18 pages in the Appeals Court decision explaining the tying issue http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
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 containing 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!!
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?
;-)
You mention Europe, yet your view is so US-centric. Software vendors like Adobe that sell all over the world already have to deal with that. There are countries that do not allow shrink-wrap licenses for example, or countries that do not allow "licensing" of software at all. E.g. you buy it, you own it, you have many rights that cannot be taken from you by the software vendor.
Now if it wasn't for the fact that software in other countries is often translated to other languages, you could actually re-import and use the same stuff with a more relaxed license (and possibly cheaper?).
Maybe it's time to learn a little spanish or german, eh?
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
A big corporation to go down easily. They have lots of money to fight, even if it is obvious that they are the ones who are wrong and are going to loose someday. I am pointing at you Microsoft
Actually they'll probably go down very easily if the right methods are used. The right methods are to actually treat Microsoft as a criminal organisation.