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 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
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.
[BZZZZZZZ] Wrong... tell 'em what they're going home with Don Pardo.
So you're telling me that the tech market in the last 5 years has been technically sound and the ONLY thing that made them collapse was Microsoft? I think you may need to brush up on how the market works. Sure, bellweather stocks influence smaller stocks, but if a smaller stock is FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND it will survive.
So it wasn't the irrational exuberance of the telecom industry that fucked up Cisco, Lucent, et al, it was the gov't action against Microsoft? So it wasn't the fact that many pure dot.com companies were generating NO revenue that wasn't their downfall, it was the gov't action against Microsoft?
Nice troll. No clue.
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."
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.
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has hurt consumers both directly and indirectly.
Firstly, and most easily quantified, is the cost people pay for the operating system. Somewhere buried in the analysis that was floating about at the time of the trial, were the figures which showed that per-unit profits were not only high, but increasing over time. The argument is that this would not be sustainable in a competitive environment. In this situation, the only people benefitting were those with stock or some other interest in Microsoft.
Secondly, past introduced incompatibilities have inconvenienced or cost consumers. Such things as the DR-DOS debacle, or the incompatibility of 'standard' Microsoft file formats, or even the apropriation of file name extensions have put pressure on consumers to go the whole Microsoft way. This costs more money (or encourages copyright violation!), wastes time and is generally unhelpful.
Thirdly, the efforts which Microsoft have engaged in have slowed or stopped competition on a number of fronts. This has had an indirect effect on consumers through lack of options and alternatives. The situation with OS/2 springs to mind.
One can trawl the archives for more quantitative data, and other ways in which this situation has hurt consumers.
Another class of people hurt are developers, systems administrators and the like. Windows has never played nice in a mixed environment, and on occasion has been downright nasty. Mix that with the stability problems that have plagued many Windows versions, the lack of emphasis on security and so on, and it's a nightmare from a support point of view.
Oh! And then there are Macro viruses, Outlook-propogated viruses, and so on. A whole bunch of daft security decisions that have very much hurt consumers. Why would people stick with such virus-prone software? Monopoly perhaps?
I've been modded down before for being anti-Microsoft, but honestly, this is all based on personal experience and that information which has come to light through the anti-trust trials. This isn't malicious slander, it's simply true.
First off, Microsoft kills off competition. You will never quite find out how the consumers could have benefitted, because Microsoft has eliminated possible new advances that could have competed with them.
But more than anything, we are now seeing the most obvious, direct, and "see, they are clearly a monopoly" harm: raised prices. It's even worse than just raised prices; it's clear that the advances in Windows and Office are really slowing down, so Microsoft is essentially forcing you to pay more for less. Microsoft is simply milking its customers, and even threatening them to audit them if they don't move to the new program.
If that isn't consumer harm, then I don't know what is.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
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.
And why don't you ask laid off tech workers why management thought everybody in the company, including the janitor, required a cell phone and Palm? Or how about companies with no business model? Or how about "Oh yeah, we're a computer manufacturer but we're special because we install linux on our machines." Yeah, that's going to save them from the razor-thin profit margins that plague all the other well established big names out there. But it certainly didn't stop investors from pushing the IPO price up so high that it would take 20 years of growth before shareholders saw a return.
But, of course, because investors created a new vocabulary and started using buzzwords like "eyeballs" to explain the vaulted "New Economy" every insane investment they threw money at was going to make people rich. 150 years of economic history and lessons (tulips anyone?) could be thrown out the window because this new industry is digital.
But of course you are right, MS is just so big (bigger than IBM even! Not.) that picking on them is just going to throw the market into chaos.
Please. Get a refund on your next version of Office and go buy a clue.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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
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