Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rejects Microsoft Appeal
Geoff writes "I assume you've gotten a few zillion of these already, but since I don't see it on the front page yet, the Supreme Court has rejected Microsoft's appeal of the antitrust verdict." It should be noted that this was expected.
This is certainly good news!
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all." St. Oran
This will have little effect on the current case.
If nothing else, there is a current wave of feeling in the business community (at least if I read all the executives I know correctly) that breaking up Microsoft or imposing stiff penalties on them is innapropriate because it would hurt the already weakened economy.
Hopefully, the new judge in the case is a little more intelligent than people who routinely listen to and beleive marketing research.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What? The Government actually works?? I love the legal system...
But wait, what does this really mean? Microsoft will continue on its merry way... Whats the punishment? Or are we still arguing over what the charges are...???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
the Supreme Court also ruled that Satan is evil.
Of course they rejected it. Thank you very much Chief Justice Obvious!
to the LEGION OF DOOM!
Lex Luthur has been said to be quite sympathic of the corporation's plight.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
This seems like good news, but what, if anything, does this mean to the current findings of anti-competitive practices and what penalties will they be forced (if any) to pay. Seems to me that the jucicial system is willing to say that M$ is bad, but what are they doing to try and rectify the situation. Will they:
:-).
1) Force M$ to open the Windows source, 2) Force M$ to had the source to a couple of other companies to try and force competition with a set group of compatibility standards, 3) Change their minds and break the company up into an OS company and an application company, 4) Provide yet another solution, 5) Slap them on the wrist and tell them "Don't do this anymore"
M$ has so much history regarding their threat to competition, that the time has come to stop talking and start actually doing something to them. Maybe we need someone like Milo (Antitrust) to come along and bring them down... so to speak
Microsoft: Who do you want to sell your domestic policy to today?
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Your comment doesnt have much to do with MS being a monopoly. XP -> IS - a great product. As solid as NT (yeah yeah while not as good as linux, this is certainly a huge leap for a HOME marketed OS from MS) and a bunch of new features. Multiple logins is incredibly useful, there is built in firewalling on the nics, which is much easier to set up than in linux.
This ruling means most of Judge Jackson's findings of facts are upheld. It means that Microsoft broke the law. And it means that Bill Gates and the people in Seattle were, quite simply wrong.
But it doesn't mean a thing in terms of Microsoft's behavior, right now. Here comes Windows XP, clearly with Microsoft having set their sites on Real, Inc. Now we'll have to see what sort of a deal Bill can buy from the Bush administration.
Quite frankly I'm surprised that the Bush administration is arguing for oversight, rather than breakup. Fox watching the chickens? I hope not.
No matter what it is. Sure, this isn't major news, but at least the Supreme Court has the wisdom to see how Microsoft was conducting business was wrong.
Now, I figure it's back to the lower courts to see what kind of penalty is recommended.
Most likely, it won't fit the crime.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
This is the question I have been pondering for a long time now. There is no doubt that msft hurts other companies by integrating the best ideas in to the OS itself, but that must be a plus for the consumer. Yes, they will pay more for things they do 'not' need but I have found myself using most of the features in XP and I know I don't want to give them up. Integration with the OS is the key to their success, and you can not argue that you can do less with windows now than in the past. Anything that is gaining momentum towards universal acceptance like music and web browing belongs in the OS so the functionality can be extended across the board. Just look at all the places embedded ie is showing up for instance. Maybe they have put a lot of companies out of buisness, and maybe they need to open up more of their interfaces to spurt new ideas, but a breakup? I would be pissed. Despite what anyone says about microsoft stealing ideas, the best artists steal. In fact, linux is a unix clone. There is no reason not to use a good idea, in fact it should be the norm. It might even help the linux crowd after examining each programmers idea of the perfect interface. I don't think I could imagine something other than a monopoly controlling the operating system market. We don't need two or three different logic systems, one is complex enough.
PS: I did use linux for four years on the desktop and have given up hope in that arena.
He already sent his ruling...
Our apathy and turning a blind eye to the business practices of MS has put MS where it is today and allowed them to almost freely abuse their power. IMHO it's basically a "hey, you did it to yourselves" kind of ruling.
(half tongue in cheek)
I've scoured the DOJ website and the wire services but can't find any response from the DOJ. Granted this is overshadowed by other issues they're focusing on atthe moment but surely they have a response... Anyone wnow what or where it is?
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I imagine God would have to recuse Himself on the grounds of conflict of interest, considering that Microsoft owns his primary competitor.
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
REDMOND, October 21, 2001 -- Microsoft annouced today their new "Microsoft Court XP" software. The software settles legal claims using Microsoft Law XP technology, the company's new standard for legal systems. According to Microsoft's press release, the software is capable of establishing legal precedent, providing checks and balances against the "other three branches of government", and also "upholding the supreme law of the land."
The software, which will be bundled with all new pressings of Windows XP, is Microsoft's bid for entry in the competitive court market. Entry will prove difficult, but a Microsoft spokesperson expressed optimism. "We are confident that our innovative concept can compete. Just think about it: checks and balances, like, who'd come up with that shit? Innovation, baby! Can't touch this!"
According to the company's web site, Microsoft Law XP will be released under a "shared source" model in which selected plaintiffs and defendents using Microsoft Court will be allow to view the laws under which they are being tried, but not to modify or redistribute them. "We wanted to draw on the best of both worlds," said Microsoft spokesperson Craig Mundie. "We like the collaborative aspect of the Democratic model, but feel that its viral transmission of rights to all citizens constitutes a real threat to the intellectual assets of businesses."
Some critics charge that the release, which follows closely on the Supreme Court's rebuke of Microsoft on October 9, is an anti-competitive move by Microsoft, and an attempt to use monopoly power to take over the market for legal systems.
"This is more M$ FUD," said one post moderated +4 (Insightful) on Slashdot, "They're bundling this software with their OS, and the software keep reassociating itself with the 'legal action' file type. Sure, all the p0w3r u53rz will work around it, but most of those inept peons we call the public will file a suit, and end up using their software without even realizing they had an option."
Mundie vigorously denied these allegations, calling them "the unreasonable accusations of a vocal minority."
"I just want to emphasize Microsoft Law is an open standard," said Mundie.
A source at Microsoft, on condition of anonymity, told reporters, "All your law are belong to us."
Microsoft kills it's competition. How can that help the consumer. It is now beginning to see it's customers as competitors.
The real question is how much damage can it do before it self-destructs? We've been asking that question since the '80s.
sed 's/commun/terror/g' mccarthy > bush; sed 's/terror/saddam/g' bush > bush_wacked
This is like a bug that keeps bugging you and just won't die. Get the case overwith already, this is getting annoying.
I'm always reminded of a quote from the simpsons in cases like this - "If I don't see it it's not illegal".
The best liars are those who are too stupid to know that what they are telling you is complete b/s - what percentage of MS sales staff have ever even tried *n?x, therefore don't know any better?
So what remedies would accomplish these goals? (Assuming the third is also a goal?)
Now what does this accomplish? It doesn't force MS to give up their precious source code. It makes anyone free to compete with MS. MS can't complain -- they must play by different rules since they have the monopoly over the standards -- so they should document them. Just as the phone company should open up the plug-and-electrical-spec format for third party telephone equipment. Conversely, MS is free to compete with anyone else who chooses to compete with them. If MS can build a better office suite than joe blow, then great, they should win in the market. They should just not win because of their monopoly. They should sink or swim based on the merit of their product. But in doing so, they can't prevent others from competing.
Based on the remedies I describe above, others could build office suites, file servers, and Win32 programs on equal footing with MS. Who wins now comes down to product merit and marketing. But not strictly due to monopoly control.
Similarly to MS not having to give up their valuable impleentations of these specs, it is expensive for others to create interoperable implementations in order to compete.
These arguments all would make sense to the court.
(of course, it's hard to compete with free implementations. heh, heh.)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
According to section 107 of the Security Systems Standards And Certification act, Microsoft (as the the most likely company to make the software to support the law) will have their good old monopoly like stranglehold on the market. It is unfortunate, but with the "Take any of my rights, just protect me!" attidtude inspired by recent events, this law has a pretty good shot at making it through if people don't say something about.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
About a year and a half ago, I read a piece regarding Intel's soon to be launched 64-bit processor. An Intel engineer/marketing person(?) said that they were simply waiting for Microsoft to launch their Win64 Operating System.
At the time, the Linux kernel and at least a few other operating systems were ready to go on the new IA-64 processor. Unfortunately, it didn't get launched. I believe that if Intel had launched the CPU then many of us would be posting to Slashdot with a 64-bit Linux/*BSD or other OS. As quick as possible Microsoft would then have released their Win64! product, which would have been buggy and filled with BSODs. After a few months patches would be released and things would begin to stabilize.
Instead, we are still here sitting on our 32-bit systems waiting for the day when we can have true 64-bit power for our desktops. I for one, would love to see the 3D worlds that could be created with such a system. The amount of RAM that could be supported, the hard drive sizes and the impressive speed at which 3D renderings could be done would be beyond impressive.
So, is Microsoft hurting the consumer? You could say that. I am a consumer, I would love to have my hands on an Intel IA-64 or an AMD Sledgehammer processor. In a way Microsoft is hurting me by keeping the 64-bit technology outside of my grasp. Of course, I could buy a "Developer's" workstation, only thing is, I don't have that kind of money.
Then there is the idea of choice. I should be able to choose which components I want to run on the operating system I run. Of course, this option should be a choice available for power users. What if I want to rid my system of using Explorer for file management? What if I wanted to completly remove Internet Explorer? There are to many What-if's to put in here. Suffice to say, if Windows had more customizable features/services, similiar to Linux many people would be happier with the OS.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Why is this not modded up to +5, insightful? Wake up!
Microsoft's integration on the OS level is just being used to leverage an advantage. Applauding their supposed innovation ingores the obvious problems of single providers. Let's take music as an example.
If we assumed that Microsoft would integrate music into their OS, then no other company would be foolish enough to create a music solution. It would crash and burn before the might of Microsoft. (There is the possibility that many companies might attempt to be bought out by Microsoft... but this is a different issue.)
Now with only Microsoft as a provider, we are hindered by one development path. No one will innovate because there is no profit in innovation if Microsoft can simply copy what you have with an army of programmers.
The end result is a single attempt at a solution where everyone must use Microsofts results regardless of merit.
Contrast this to a system where the OS level is simply a layer and a music solution could be created by anyone and you see quickly that competition would give a better result. With many developers taking risks for the possiblity of profit, variety results in a better population of products. Eventually a winner emerges. Nothing had to change in the OS to make this happen... it's already in place with a seperation of OS and applications.
Integration could easily be made possible for all developers, but this bites into Microsofts profits. They wont open integration to other developers because it's a huge advantage for their own products.
I hope this explains it well enough.
This is important, people!
It means that the last door on this ruling has now closed for good (well, as much as anything closes for good in the legal system). That opens up two critical items.
First, the case that is now before the new judge is no longer contaminated by any doubt about the facts. MS, which might have been taking a delaying tactic in hopes of still getting the facts overturned, has lost that hope. That doesn't mean they won't delay as much as possible, but it does mean that they're now limited. As long as there was a possibility of overturning the findings of facts, they could spin delays to their hearts content. If a settlement was imposed, an injunction would almost certianly have been granted while the findings of fact were still in question. That finding is no longer in legitimate question, so that avenue is gone.
Second, and probably more important in the long term, the solidification of the findings of fact opens the door for damage suits against MS. IMHO it was not a co-incidence that MS settled with DR shortly after the initial finding. But there are many more suits pending, and some of the plaintiffs have no reason to hold back.
Err, as far as I can tell, all Microsoft is doing is pissing off customers. Some are even considering leaving the Microsoft desktop...
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Lest we forget the European union. They could also greatly change things.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
What does it mean that the SC didn't comment?
They believe their decision is practically self-evident, requiring no comment?
They don't want to get into this can-o-worms?
Other?
Yeah, that fits.
IANAL, but from the occasional TV drivel I've caught, I've picked up on one important part of legal stratagy:
Settlments have a place before the ruling, right? I mean... The DOJ won, that's just been re-re-clarified again (redundancy intended). When a party is found guilty, what would possibly possess the prosecution to settle for a lower penalty? If Microsoft DOES end up with a slap on the wrist, it's going the be the definitive large scale failure of a "blind" justice system.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
I wouldn't expect a 14 year old M$ hater to know anything about high finance after all.
Could you please repeat that one ?
/NT is not "solid"
.NET and the best way Bill has to F*$k a few billion people at the same time (so maybe next version will be called "PendOver" or "MS Gang with a Bang" 8p )
1
NT only has so many patches you could remove the OS and the patchs will hold the machine running.
2 / Multiple login exists since Win3.11 (sigh, best MS OS ever 8)
3 / Linux isn't meant to be easy to use. It is meant to be set up and forgot for a few years (or until HDD suicides)and still work the same.
To mix different supposition you approched, may I remind you that the longuest standing NT station lasts for 180 jours before self collapsing (a server with Nt on it, no connections, wait 6 month and it dies of sheer boredom 8)
4 / Firewalling the Nics. Ohh, you mean hiding the Mac Adress? Gosh, what will they invent next.
XP IS a great backdoor to my HDD, a very good introduction to
Yes I want to play MP3 and No I don't want to use Media Player
Yes I want to play DivX and No, I don't want WMP to tell me about bad (unofficial) codec, or lose sound synchro)
Yes I want to still use my PII 350. So I stick to 98 and wait for a driver for my M3309 DvD card under Linux.
Then I will swat 98 and be a happy Linuxer !
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
I was just thinking that Microsoft is very akin to a mafia operation. Everyone knows they are guilty as sin, but somehow, they never pay for their crimes.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Linux is King.
Microsoft is "Queen".
Oh, please! *laughs*
Unix is not the panacea. It's not going to save the world.
Microsoft may not be the answer, but Unix is even less the answer.
Microsoft has lost their last hope of delaying a judgement. They have, with out a doubt, been convicted of being a destructive monopoly.
This means they have no choice but to play nice with the current judge. If they try the kind of tricks they used in the trial Bill could wind up in jail. This also means that in any future suit filed against Microsoft they will go into court with Microsoft having to prove they weren't doing any of the things they did to get convicted the first time. This puts Microsoft at a HUGE disadvantage in court.
This leads to the possibility that Microsoft will be placed under judicial supervision to ensure they do not repeat any of their crimes. How would you like it if Microsoft was forced to release complete details of all interfaces and be forced to make all net interface definitions public for 6 months before they could release an product that implements them? Happened to the US phone companies. It could happen to Microsoft.
Don't underestimate the importance of this ruling.
Stonewolf
- Please try to keep posts on topic.
- Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
- Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
- Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
- Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
w00t!The Sun Rose This Morning.
In a stunning reversal following the darkness of the previous night, Sol (the sun) rose as scheduled over all major cities of the world.
When asked to comment on this development, one Slashdot poster said: "Yes, I expected this, but it still is an important develoment and must be placed on the front page.". This poster was immediately modded (+4, insightful).
More on this story as it develops.
Looks like Microsoft has their claws tightened around Yahoo's throat too... the Reuters link is here
Check any of the archived polls at cnn, they will all tell you that about 70% of the public feels MS should not be broken up. Just remember slashdot is a fringe group of people with similar thinking. I don't see what a breakup would accomplish anyhow. So you have the IE people and OS people in different buildings in different locations, how does that solve anything?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This has NOTHING to do with MS' stock falling.
It has everything to do with the loss in confidence in the dot-bombs, which then led to a loss in confidence in the tech stocks. Please take note: Most of the technology infrastructure of the world, let alone of this country doesn't run on MS products- it runs on things like Unix/Linux, OS/MVS. OS/400, etc. Funny that most of the tech stocks have more to do with that stuff than MS.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Displaced
Redmond refugees have begun to migrate back to Redmond.
The Juice is still loose!
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
Ya lets hope s/he is as smart as Slashdot.
Now can we get the new judge overseeing the remedy phase to put a breakup back on the table? And maybe spank Microsoft a bit for the crud they're pulling with Windows XP? We want justice, dammit!
--R.J.
Monopoly XP T-shirts!
I'll settle for having her be as smart as Judge Jackson.
--R.J.
Monopoly XP T-shirts!
The problem is that the majority of the world, i.e. your grandma with her new Compaq, don't see why Microsoft having a monopoly is a big deal. They DON'T CARE about what OS is on their PC, as long as it runs and emails their photos of their grandchildren and does their taxes without having to pay an accountant. Windows does that, so they're happy.
I'd go so far to say that, to them, competition in OSes is a BAD thing, because they might have to learn something different. In general, people hate to learn, as all of you tech support and TA folks know.
Let me emphasize this: We, meaning power users and geeks, are the ONLY people who care about this!!!
Until the rest of the world knows a) what an OS is and b) why it's good to have more of them, will the M$ case mean anything. Until then it's a political liability for the feds, as they risk a populist backlash because "they made the computer harder to use".
- Josh
Didn't Bill bought out the Legion of Doom three years ago? I mean, just look at Steve Ballmer -- it's obvious he's the victim of one of the Scarecrow's failed experiments...
--R.J.
Monopoly XP T-shirts!
If the republicans can buy the Supreme Court as they did when throwing the Y2K presidental election, then MicroSoft certainly should be able to do the same thing.
No matter what the Supremes may say, SSSCA and W3C RAND have the essential effect of cementing Microsoft's monopoly and removing the only effective competition the marketplace has produced in the past 5 years.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think you should re-read the previous posting.
He clearly said that many people think going after Microsoft is not so wise considering the situation of the tech market...
People like Dell and HP hope that Microsoft will get XP out ASAP. They hope that it's increased demand on memory and CPU will force people to buy new PCs. They are more worried about their income now, than about the restriction Microsoft was putting on OEMs.
You could also say that the US citizens are worried about penalysing one of the most successful US companies.
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
In the election campaign last year, it didn't really matter wether Gush or Bore won.
They were both clueless ninnies.
Just in different ways.
they have been found guilty. their appeal has been denied. where's the penalty already? or will post-trial debates continue for another decade while microsoft continues to release software that secures their monopoly. btw, how's XP sales doing?
The New York Times - no registration needed
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
which ones? CTRL-ALT-DEL?
Troll you are!
there's no place like ~
Vladinator reporting in. (anon - sorry, but my karma is at 0, and I want to keep getting mod points.)
Nice picture of Bill there. Spare me.
-m
http://www.invisik.com
Although I have always disliked MS for it's illegal business practices, there are far bigger reasons why this is especially important in this decade.
In the next few years, the basic methods used to pipe IP around and assuure digital rights will be implemented and deployed.
I have to admit, I am one of those crazy people who hoped that the internet would create a much more sane way of producing and distributing media, one that would eventually weaken the major corps that currently control the audio and video space (bertelsmann, vivendi, etc.)
Yet dominance of a single entity in software infrastructure makes it (structurally) easy for other monopolies to join in or meld with that infrastructure.
The idea of BMG and Microsoft teaming up on digital rights, with no competition, is an unpleasant thought. Regualr consumers, artists, midlevel producers, alternative producers...all left in the cold unless they want to play with (and pay) this media giant.
The court decision opens the door to serious conduct remedies, including "fast track" government/legal action (without a trial) when future complaints are made.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
REUTERS
After the rejection of Microsoft's appeal in the historic antitrust trial, the case was sent back to lower courts for rememdy solutions. Lower court judge Bete Shitekopf brought down the heavy hand of the law. "I decided after much deliberation and consultation that the only fair thing to do would be to force Microsoft to give away copies of Windows XP and Office XP to anyone who wanted one. This clearly is the only solution to help consumers hurt by this monopoly."
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
I'm not an Itanium fan, because very long instruction word machines require a near-omniscient optimizing compiler to find enough concurrency in the code to keep the hardware busy. (Smart people are, at this moment, beating their heads against the wall on that problem. Assuming, of course, that the HP compiler team didn't get laid off.) Respected CPU architecture designers have looked at the thing and groaned. It's viewed as a move by Intel to move the industry from an open CPU architecture to a proprietary one over which Intel has a monopoly. Intel has enough patents on the Itanium to prevent cloning. The architecture is so wierd that it requires lots of new inventions to make it work, so Intel can get strong intellectual property rights by going this route. (By comparison, the AMD Sledgehammer 64-bit architecture is a straightforward extension of IA-32, minus some of the cruft.)
But if you want an Itanium machine, you can get one. Although, unusually for Dell, the Dell product page doesn't mention price or have a "Buy" button, so Dell isn't serious about selling it.
Its rather rediculous to compare Apple to Microsoft as Microsoft does not make computers. Apple builds cd and dvd burners in their computers. Why should they have to buy software from Roxio or anyone else when they can use their own?
If Microsoft make their own computers nobody would care about IE or WMP.
And incedently, iTunes was bought from Cassidy & Green, it used to be Soundjam.
I think things that aren't part of the OS (media players, web browsers, instant messengers) should not ship with the default install.
I think Microsoft should be pretty much allowed to ship what they like with the retail box version of Windows. It's the OEM licenses that are the key, and ANY application should be permitted to be removed from the default lineup if the OEM desires.
That simple effect removes any ability for Microsoft to push their own apps on their monopoly platform and forces them to compete with other application retailers for OEM shippings.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
One of the nastiest consequences of M$s monopoly is that they have agreements prohibiting OEMs from installing other OSs than MS ones on computers they ship (stictly speaking, they can install them, but they're not allowed to be a boot option).
Surely this is one of the biggest obstacles to competitiveness, and one which the open source community should be fighting most?
After all, it'd make a massive difference if PCs came with a Linux boot option...
From John Ashcroft:
"Sorry, we've been pretty busy lately locking up arabs and then holding them as political prisoners without charging them or providing them legal counsel. We've got almost 600 already! Wait, did I say 'political prisoners?' I meant 'detainees.' What, there's a case against MicroSoft? I'll call Clarence right away and see if we can't get that taken care of *wink* *wink*."
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
At that time, Microsoft made a significant portion of its earnings (like 10%) buying and selling Microsoft stock. When Ballmer made his announcement, the stock immediately dropped several points. Microsoft buys. A few days later, the market forgets, and its back where it was before. Microsoft sells, pocketing a hefty pile of money. Follow vaporware product announcements and other market-manipulating crap they do, and watch Microsoft make billions because they KNOW which direction their stock will go on any given day.
You were suckered, my friend.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
While I find the content of this thread interesting, I don't see the point of evoking racial slurs in the subject line. What's up with that? Completely uncalled for, that's what.
God i hate having to feed the trolls but...
I believe my point was that you have to have experienced the alternatives to actually understand if your product is good or bad, simply saying product X is great because of feature Y is an empty gesture because you can't appreciate why it makes product X great.
If they understood their competitors better they might be able to find a meaningful reason why their feature is better, or equally they might find that feature Y is actually crappy and really shouldn't be promoted.
I agree that forcing MS to open their APIs/formats/protocols is the best solution for now. But I'm a little puzzled as to how the government could force that without having to establish a complete interface oversight committee that would be heavily overworked.
One wild idea I've had, though, is to try to use the customer community as the oversight committee: establish a bounty for anyone who finds an undocumented interface being used by MS. It could work something like this:
I see a few advantages to this:
Does this sound like it might work, or is it just silly dreaming?
No, I didn't expect them to decline to review the case. What was expected was Slashdot screwing up the headline (along with Yahoo tm and Slashdotters, aside from sheldon, claiming victory for the SC ruling correctly for once.
Count me as a troll or redundant. I don't care. At least I can read past the headline.
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
Co0gIA1lbmRzdHJlYW0NZW5kb2JqDTUgMCBvYmoNPDwNL1R5cG UgL1hPYmplY3QNL1N1YnR5cGUg
0 ID cNL0JpdHNQZXJDb21wb25lbnQg
s dG VyIC9MWldEZWNvZGUNPj4Nc3Ry
x WM xKOQ2LR6QxuNSWRSeQR2SSiRyO
G UU 6kVCh02iz+qVerVmq1Gt1KmVqc
9 3e p3y82u/YHB4K64a4YvG3+x4jHV
a S2 7K77a9a3Y67dYzX63cYDe6vibv
L y8 7w+Tkd71+L2+rr+74/Dl+b3/b5
N ZW 5kb2JqDTYgMCBvYmoNPDwNL1R5
J bT UNL1dpZHRoIDU5Mw0vSGVpZ2h0
y ID AgUg0vTGVuZ3RoIDMwNg0vRmls
D QO EQuEwWFQ6IQyGQeIRSGxOHxeIx
z uY x+WTyZzmXT6iUKgTqe0ak0elUG
y 02 231+3WC5XG52O7Xa2XSyWq8XK9
O Z/ MZrFZbM5fTYXU0/RaXUaHVbDWa
X zn 6fldTo8Ds7Xt9jp7fu+Dv7nx8L
u s/ cCPu/kCo0gIA1lbmRzdHJlYW0N
1 Yn R5cGUgL0ltYWdlDS9OYW1lIC9J
w b2 5lbnQgOA0vQ29sb3JTcGFjZSA4
N Pj 4Nc3RyZWFtDQqAAAAwIAQSCQOD
Q R2 SSiRyOMSmYS+ZSuaS2VTaTTWbz
V qV VyoVuo1WwzmvWWxWar2exWC02y
f GY LEXnG4fDYvJXnLYTHZfC4PMxO+
U 1b bR/E6fAca78jFaPTaTN53m8fmc
h AI gIJBMHBIKBULBcDAwDAMtSDIJA
k HR E1QOA6DwPhAEIRBGEgShME4UBS
f iA 2AbiCHQhCGtgBCIF4LQ9LsSQ/C
C aH wnCeKAoiYKQiAuKYqCgKiEAcGg
w gb cNq3iDIK3LaOE2MyJk3C6KE4M1
N OS AwIG9iag08PA0vVHlwZSAvWE9i
k dG ggNTkzDS9IZWlnaHQgNw0vQml0
v TG VuZ3RoIDE0MzANL0ZpbHRlciAv
M Fh UOiEIAACAYEAQFAwHBAJBQLBgN
g Cs xh8NAMsCIhEQIhsCmMxm8HiMQq
q NU ukMtFxq1svVYvNyuV8vdVwN1ud
Q rF gtBAjBYGFwvGAOBAxGQzGg1G0q
v vO a0HayMrBZGGZHJBJJVrmIIJYTJ
Q M/ ztwLAkFu7B0AwbB8JwGgohCeIQ
k EI tg4Lgup4ggvCsBULASL4QhGtgK
C op hy/EGTShgdCQMqyLfBcTDMG75s
U FU hSVFUm+lL0zAlNTUyVOScuYACE
j KK OwcjuAg8AEp6ijyPT8swBQJh4F
L0ltYWdlDS9OYW1lIC9JbTQNL1dpZHRoIDU5Mw0vSGVpZ2h
OA0vQ29sb3JTcGFjZSAyIDAgUg0vTGVuZ3RoIDMwNg0vRml
ZWFtDQqAAAAwIAQSCQODQOEQuEwWFQ6IQyGQeIRSGxOHxeI
MSmYS+ZSuaS2VTaTTWbzuYx+WTyZzmXT6iUKgTqe0ak0elU
V6lzSxWWu1uw2iVWasVy02231+3WC5XG52O7Xa2XSyWq8XK
DJZDCZOz4/A5XN4fPTnOZ/MZrFZbM5fTYXU0/RaXUaHVbDW
jb/j7zk8ng8Tm5Th53aXzn6fldTo8Ds7Xt9jp7fu+Dv7nx8
/j65H0/rRvY/L0PO6EBus/cCPu/kCo0gIA1lbmRzdHJlYW0
cGUgL1hPYmplY3QNL1N1YnR5cGUgL0ltYWdlDS9OYW1lIC9
IDcNL0JpdHNQZXJDb21wb25lbnQgOA0vQ29sb3JTcGFjZSA
dGVyIC9MWldEZWNvZGUNPj4Nc3RyZWFtDQqAAAAwIAQSCQO
WMxKOQ2LR6QxuNSWRSeQR2SSiRyOMSmYS+ZSuaS2VTaTTWb
UU6kVCh02iz+qVerVmq1Gt1KmVqcV6lzSxWWu1uw2iVWasV
3ep3y82u/YHB4K64a4YvG3+x4jHVDJZDCZOz4/A5XN4fPTn
S27K77a9a3Y67dYzX63cYDe6vibvjb/j7zk8ng8Tm5Th53a
y87w+Tkd71+L2+rr+74/Dl+b3/b5/j65H0/rRvY/L0PO6EB
ZW5kb2JqDTcgMCBvYmoNPDwNL1R5cGUgL1hPYmplY3QNL1N
bTYNL1dpZHRoIDU5Mw0vSGVpZ2h0IDcNL0JpdHNQZXJDb21
IDAgUg0vTGVuZ3RoIDU0Mg0vRmlsdGVyIC9MWldEZWNvZGU
QOEQuEwWFQ6IQyGQeIRSGxOHxeIxWMxKOQ2LR6QxuNSWRSe
uYx+WTyZzmXT6iUKgTqe0akwoBAKf0ukU+g1Ki0elVOaVic
qW2UWi33G11a51+7WOmQW9X2h3C/V263ioXLA4C3X3DYm/3
ZTPaLI6XP3wBgDU6GBasBAPYbDVakBarXgOm7MAbfV7HabL
/qdOs9bH9Hq9nkAQCgYDgja6ryXwA7UBgkFAsGAAGA0HA8C
0B4NgG4QBQEzTnQc5TiuwzjtwpBrtOvC8IwyzEJQtCcOwq7
EgVBEFYWBaFwXhgAYYhkGYaBqGwbgsHAch0HYeAYAQZB6Hw
8IQ5DboRDMEzwfEDrTFMsRzHM02y+sYACKIwjiQBQkiUJYm
qis2ABAqK4aiw2wZiy1bVC0JwttgoAYggLgui8BCYN1DE4K
TlXrIVUtVbWDYCyV45NjLCgIDWVuZHN0cmVhbQ1lbmRvYmo
amVjdA0vU3VidHlwZSAvSW1hZ2UNL05hbWUgL0ltNw0vV2l
c1BlckNvbXBvbmVudCA4DS9Db2xvclNwYWNlIDEwIDAgUg0
TFpXRGVjb2RlDT4+DXN0cmVhbQ0KgAAAMCAEEgkDg0DhELh
BwKBQPCARAQSCYUgYVBYWC4YCsFCoZDQbDgVBQdDwcggcD4
FEqVDhkMqcPDgjEglBomE4ECsIoIoCocDgOsdLh9BoIAtdZ
9w2Dq+CxOEv2HwGLyGFyWNxmOxWXwmPzGRymcy2VwcTFILF
goIG44HIluAAHQ7Hg9Co+H4joUFIBB3+OnhCIZEpV8oIqIt
gWCIcz4nJs3vGIyeHDhO+eehto+md+r+s+/UBM2/7uQBA8D
hCgKIThQFAFAMKQpioDgEAEKorCUK4sBKsgThCLItJiAACB
hGMAkBK5MLKwAASrVCi/oKAARjCMQxjIm6GAQJoRC+FD3MC
6s4EBqCgfAoLwHJ4tz9gqFAzicNADjSE8IsGoIGrPKsJSnC
KQgDUNY2DaB4qAWHQ3DeAgHgeJQ4AMF44jkGqFAqBA5joOs
Perhaps the Justice department will sentence the MS marketing department to community service.
It seems to me that the military might be able to use their specific and special expertise in a certain Middle Eastern country or two. (Let the propaganda war commence.)
Just a thought.
As long as Microsoft has any patents or copyrights that they could commingle with their products, they can fend off any obligation for true interoperability.
I.e., with Samba, they might document their protocols, but hold onto their patent for (really bad) password hashing and use that to exact licensing fees to interoperate with Microsoft servers.
Or, with Word, they can document that you need to use some kind of ActiveX technology (monikers? ActiveX ClassID's?) to do document embedding. And yes, you can be free to support this file format as long as you happen to be reading the file on a platform that supports ActiveX and the Win32 API on an IA32 Instruction Set compatible system to execute the ActiveX components needed.
There are so many ways that software can be designed and structured that Microsoft will always be able to entangle things in a way that will spoil the intent of open file formats and open protocols, and which will require massive oversight.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Did you ever go to school in Lyons, Oregon?
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I used to be a great proponent of breaking up MS, but after reviewing anti-trust action history I don't think it'd amount to a hill of beans. MS (in all of its various parts) would still go about acting as a single company, violating more laws and generating more court cases along the way. And after our last presidential election I've pretty much lost faith in the court system anyway.
Rather, I hope the U.S. government does nothing more than let MS off with a stern warning. Why? Because *Microsoft is it's own worst enemy*. Just take a look at the pricing scheme for Windows XP, the silly anti-piracy activation scheme, and the attempt to lock everyone into using certain MS-approved media formats. All of these things *piss people off*. If Microsoft thinks it can get away with this crap then it will continue to piss people off even more as time goes by.
The more people that get pissed off, the more around the fringes that dump MS and move to Linux. As the annoyances wear on this fringe gets bigger and bigger until...eventually the hundredth monkey is reached. And MS finds itself in a world of hurt as even those who've put up with it's crap for years jump ship, eroding away all but the staunchest of user bases.
Let MS do the dirty deeds. They may turn a profit in the short run, but in the long they'll do more to destroy themselves than any anti-trust action ever could. MS, like the RIAA and others, has already provent that it can't adapt; let it flail against the asteroid until it hits ground zero.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
There are also the state AG people! This will continue even if the Fed gives up. This will continue even if the Fed cuts a deal. The states are also plaintifs -- and not all of them are Republican...
I really don't think that breaking up Microsoft is the answer. It won't do anything.
Microsoft needs to be criminally punished. A company break up into an applications and windows division is pointless, not to mention that it won't work.
I used to support Microsoft in the trial, but ever since the other guy took over for Bill Gates, they have just gone too far.
Microsoft needs to be criminally punished with fines, not break-ups.
Actually, I think this is probably the best solution, from all of: the market's POV, competitor's POV, Bill Gate's POV, and Bush's POV. However, don't break M$ up into systems and apps! Instead, force M$ to donate all existing code to the public domain (they don't have to publish it, it's just that, if you get a copy of it, you can re-distriute that.) Split M$ up into two companies, with the following restrictions:
At the end of 5 years, the court will review the situation. If the court finds that there is a strong probability that, if these restrictions are relaxed, Micros~1 and Micros~2 will successfully return to predatory, monopolistic practices, the court will extend these sanctions for another 5 years. Repeat as needed.
-- End of Conditions --
These conditions are, in fact, best for M$'s customers. Since the total of the two companies' market shares will be ~ 90%, and the maximum of either will be set at 50%, both companies will have market shares varying between 40% and 50%. Both companies, of course, will have strong incentives to be the 50% company. This is the solution to the M$ monopoly--force M$ to compete against itself.
Note that, if one company withdraws from the desktop market, that leaves 40% of that market open to completely non-M$ solutions. So, if Micros~2 stays in the desktop OS market, it provides Micros~1 with a powerful foe to compete with; if Micros~2 leaves, it creates a vacuum for non-M$ companies to fill. So, either way, the mechanism is set up for M$ to permanently (more or less) lose its monopoly. This, of course, forces Micros~1 and/or Micros~2 to compete, which is good for competitors.
This solution is also, for the same reasons, good for M$'s competitors. If both Micros~1 and Micros~2 stay in a market, the competitors merely have to compete with a weakened version of M$ with no more than 50% market share; if one or both companies leave a market, competitors merely have to fill a vacuum.
This solution is better for Bill Gates than any other serious solution, because it allows Bill Gates's combined possetions in the two companies to equal 100% market share (a real monopoly), if his companies prove they are realy worth 50% market share apiece. In other words, if all that M$ has been saying about innovation is true, Bill Gates will win under this situation. If not, he'll just have to find some programmers to match his marketers.
Finally, this is the best solution for Bush. Bush can accurately claim that with this solution that he has: eliminated the possibility of monopoly abuses by M$, and at the same time protected and encouraged innovation, even proprietary innovation! Surely this is a position that he cannot gain any other way; however, it is also a most admirable position.
That's why I'm in favor of a breakup.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman