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.
I am always amazed that people would cheer the government into stopping the release of ANY code, especially something as MUNDANE as an operating system? Can you imagine them forcing Linux from shipping, this place would be in an uproar over how oppressive it is. Just seems ridiculous that you'd support this, no matter how "evil" MS is.
By which I mean the federalism issues raised on all sides. The current administration supposedly believes very strongly in principles of federalism. The current supreme court has come down recently in favor of federalism. So the Federal government will just do its thing and let the states go ahead and do their thing, right?
Unfortunately, no. If there's one thing the current administration believes even more strongly in than federalism is political power to override such matters of principle when a pet interest is implicated. If the feds aren't going to break Microsoft up, you can bet they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that their will isn't obviated by some ragtag liberal states like New York or California (both of which voted for Gore).
It's going to be one hell of a political grudge match ahead. The trenches have already been dug; we'll have to see who's the first to start lobbing chlorine gas.
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
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/
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.
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.
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"
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:
California and New York appear to be responding to a surprising turnabout by the Justice Department, which last week said it would not seek a breakup of Microsoft or retry the claim that the software giant illegally tied together Internet Explorer and Windows 95 and 98...
In other news, federal and state prosecutors have decided to suepend antitrust proceedings against auto manufacturer Ford, Ford has been accused of violating antitrust laws by bundling engines, seats, and wheels with their automobiles. The DOJ originally sought to force the auto manufacturer to sell a stripped-down model minus these key items to allow competitors the opportunity to sell their products to Ford consumers...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Wow, you are so right! I always knew it wasn't because of tens of millions of dollars a month burn rates, business plans seemingly written by optimistic monkies (and not the bright ones), IPOs lauched literally months after the initital funding rounds, with profitability not projected for a decade... No, I'm sure you are absolutly correct about it being the DoJ's fault...
:)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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?
Support: "How can I help you?"
User: "Umm, yeah, I just downloaded this program, but I don't know what to do with it."
Support: "And why are you putting this on your company PC? Do you have root access for this machine? That's like Administrator access, in case you weren't sure."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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."
"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
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,"
RMS: That was my identical twin, Bill!
DOJ: But... I saw a monopoly!
RMS: Oh dear... Bad evil naughty naughty Bill!
DOJ: What?
RMS: He started a monopoly. And we all know there can be only ONE punishment for starting a monopoly! We must have... a SPANKING!
MS Engineers: A spanking! A spanking!
RMS: Yes! You must spank him well and good and after you are done... spank me!
MS Engineers: And us!
RMS: Yes! You must give us all a good spanking! And after the spanking, the oral sex!
DOJ: Well, I guess I could prosecute a BIT longer...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
>>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.
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.