Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement
JeffMagnus writes: "MSNBC is reporting that the tentative settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct. A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity." The New York Times appears to be the original source for the settlement stories; there's also an AP article.
And I have reached a tentative first post!
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
It seemed like they would never decide didn't it?
I know it will never be fully resolved though...
in this time of crisis, I believe America should do whatever it can to help it's shattered economy, and I believe dropping all charges against microsoft will do just that.
The Slashdot Effect: A new for
...my rights to FOURTH POST?!?!?!?! I love nigger bitches!
The federal government is prone to change, but at least the states will carry on. If all the states get together and kick Microsoft's ass then what the fed do doesn't matter.
Thank goodness for the union.
Notice that the agreement came just a little bit after XP's launch.
Gee officer (HIC) I wasnt speedin, was I?
Is this a victory or a loss? I don't get it.
forgot that a in "reched" lol. guess i should have clicked preview
The attorneys generals from the states that sued Microsoft for antitrust violations were weighing whether to sign onto the deal
This is the critical point. The feds have backed off because they received instructions from the White House (read Bush) to do so. However, the states may decide to persue this on their own.
It's not over yet.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Well they are the justice department, not the destroy microsoft department.
Do you think three people could really keep track of all of microsoft's activity for the next five years?
They better get some help. It's the little things people miss that gets me. Who's gonna help them?
I think it is the consumer's responsibility to take action--why else do you think it's taken so long to get this far? Because they're so big, and so few people are acting!
Or perhaps that was the worm wriggling off the hook ...
Does this agreement change anything? What's going to happen to Microsoft and its monopoly in the coming years?
As much as I dislike some of their tactics, I never wanted the justice dept to 'destroy' or break up Microsoft.
But I do believe that fines should have been levied for some of their actions and tactics, possibly with some kind of regulations put in place to make sure they don't abuse their near-monopoly.
This ruling doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
An industry trade group that has been critical of Microsoft's business practices accused the Bush administration of "selling out" by seeking weak penalties.
Americans let's remember this when it's time to vote again in a few years. Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale. He's too close to the business and too far from the people. Finally, he doesn't understand the issues.
This isn't meant to be flamebait. Heck, I voted for him (sorry about that). I'm just saying it would be foolish to fail to consider that he instructed to courts to back down when it's time to vote again.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
the damn bootloader or the 'trade secret' license.
Damn.
Cyano.
This is ridiculous. This is precisely the remedy formulated after the last DOJ action. Billmer and Co. are going to make a mockery of this in its implementation. You can be sure only ISVs already fully onboard the MS train will get a glimpse of the code, after signing bulletproof NDAs.
illegitimii non ingravare
I nominate Jon Katz for the pannel!
Maskirovka
And anyway Ballmer's a flake. Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers? I wonder how many people left that engagement converted from MS to, well, anything else!
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
My first reaction to the remedies in the story: The least that could have happened was some sort of prohibition against any future leveraging with Windows. Way too light. These remedies don't even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft's comments that they "wouldn't accept any prohibitions against bundling new features into windows" seem to indicate that they will continue their predatory business practices in the future.
The feds are really bending over and mooing on this one, cash whores that they are. Look on the bright side, though: They could've offerred to pay MS' lawyers fees too.
Who did what now?
There isn't really there to take Microsoft's place.
Just my $0.02 worth
-mrbkap
Huh? So let me get this straight: if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, the deal will be extended so that Microsoft can violate them for two more years. ??? Tough on crime we are today, ain't we?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Bill wiped his ass with the last one.
I can't really tell if this will make it easier for people to get information about the S Office file formats.
In my mind, when the various open source office suites can read and write MS Office fluently, then there will be a real choice on the business desktop. Open Office can hold a conversation, but it isn't fluent.
It also doesn't say anything about Java. One of the specific findings was that MS was anticompetitive by deceiving developers with its embraced and extended Java. I think they should be forced to include a Java VM in their browser.
Anyone know how many patents M$ has? Funny, don't hear much on that.
The current proposal makes me want to vomit. It will not solve the problems which still exist unchecked to this day. I can only hope the states themselves reject a slap on the wrist solution.
Idiot. You deserve it. The NYT is not about to get slashdotted. In fact, they should sue you for reposting that without their permission.
For those of you who didn't know what he was talking about:
Ballmer Screaming
and
Developers, developers, developers, developers: the Ultimate Remix
Kinda funny that I found both of these browsing http://homepages.mac.com
How telling is it that this happens on Halloween, under a full moon?
I was going to sue your ass, but I got high.
I was gonna with a little bit of class, but then I got high. They got my whole damn tax base, and I know why: because I got high, because I got high, because I got high!
(And I'm stoned as a motherfucker!)
Guess the DOJ needs to stop having socials with the DEA...
Karma whorin' since 1999
...all the "sign out" buttons on Hotmail have just transformed into XP-looking ".net sign out" buttons.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Don't forget that this is just a settlement with the federal government. About half the states have been very unhappy with how the US DoJ handled its case and have split with it and the other states in order to continue pushing forward. This isn't done yet, although unfortunately the chances are very slim of it going anywhere else with just the states involved.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
both are defined as such.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Come on, guys, you see what this means:
instead of having to bribe the government, now Microsoft just has to bribe three "experts". Big win.
As long as computer manufacturers can't ship a dual boot system with Windows on it (with no "price incentive" to ship single boot), the DOJ has failed.
"Microsoft officials also have warned they wouldn't accept any broad prohibitions against bundling new features into Windows."
Since when does the party found guilty in a criminal case get to set terms on the sentence? This is crap!
"Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing."
Again, this is crap! Like every other product on the planet, more features should cost more or the same and the only discounts should be based on quantity.
What Tentative Settlement, who is to be bribed and how big the bribe is will be.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Didn't we have one of those already? And wasn't a huge part of the case that Microsoft blatantly disregarded any of the terms of that consent decree?
There's something rotten in Denmark.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
That we only have agreed to this, to buy time so that our scientists can develop technology to destroy this evil entity once and for all.
Linus
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
As if it matters what the price is. For sale is for sale.
What does this mean ?
From the AP story (paraphrased):
-Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
A very reasonable restriction but is this a penalty? No.
-Banning restrictive contracts but allow financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
Gee, that's what I thought they were doing before the trial. Bill said "you can do it our way or you can't do it at all". Instead he'll say "you can do it our way or pay more". As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice between paying one price for something or paying more for the same thing, which is the typical consumer going to pick? PC vendors have a choice of doing it Microsoft way or coming up with a great song and dance routine to make the exact same box running the exact same software appear to be worth more money. Is this a penalty? Hell no!
-Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows source for its Internet browser, but not Windows.
Huh? Who the hell wants the source to IE? What good is it going to do since Microsoft already illegally monopolized the market? Is this a penalty?
Found guilty by the trial court with that verdict upheld by the appeals court I ask for the last time, where's the penalty?
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Americans let's remember this when it's time to vote again in a few years.
Elections can be fixed. Like the last one.
What you need is to get some folks on the Supreme Court. Apparently they choose the presidents these days...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Get real folks, Microsoft is more powerful than ever. This only solidifies their empire. They are the world's most powerful corporation by a long shot, and they have almost a complete stranglehold over the consumer computing experience.
For consumers, its boiled down to two choices - AOL or Microsoft. Take your pick, everyone else is chump change at this point.
Once Bush had 'won' the election, I knew this was the eventual outcome of US v. Microsoft. I never had a doubt that the DOJ would back off and Microsoft would get off scott-free. Bush strongly hinted that this would be the case even during the campaign.
Do I fault Bush? Only to a point. He's only representing his donors and constituency (big business), so he's doing as predicted. I blame the American public that voted for him far more. Those of you who voted for Bush, remember that this is what you wanted. If you didn't know that Republicans tend to side with big business over small business or consumer and individual rights, then you should read a little more before voting.
Remember your vote when you see cases like these or when Supreme Court justices get nominated. Not that I don't have anything to thank him for. Thanks to the big tax cut (which may drive the gov't back into deficit) he's going to make me even more well-off than I already am. That still won't get me to vote for him though.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
"Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale."
So you can't remeber all the way back to '96 and the Buddhist Monks? Or the White House coffees? Or renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? Or the donations from the Chinese military, Or the money from the Lippo group? Or the money from Loral Aerospace or the ....
"he instructed to courts to back down"
The president can't instruct the courts to do anything. You obviously han't mastered basic civics. Given that I'll take your up for sale comment as drivel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hope that any settlement addresses (and prevents) the restrictive license provisions that prevent OEMs selling pre-loaded dual-boot computers.
Being able to buy computers that offer Windows/Linux/BeOS/etc multiboot options will expose many more people to the available alternatives in a much less technically challenging fashion, i.e. without the need to repartition their disks and do an OS install (or 2).
Does anyone think it is a coincidence that on the day that the US reports first time negative growth, after 8 years of being fueled on booming technology The gov't strikes a deal with the largest Technology maker? Lets face it, Microsoft means jobs, they have a large market share and almost every software company in the nation writes software for its products. Think about how many hi tech upper middle class jobs that represents.
I think ANY president would do the same thing given the circumstances.
Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The DOJ thing did a very important thing - it showed that Microsoft is fallable, and made IT people all over the globe question why they were using Microsoft's products, and what it really meant for their customers and businesses. Now they are demanding Microsoft actually adhere to industry standards, so they can choose something else if it's a better fit. That is what a Free Market should be.
It made companies brave enough to piss of Microsoft by trying out alternatives. The IT industry is once again interested in investigating other solutions, some of which Microsoft can't destroy or bury through anything else but providing value per $ spent on thier products.
I'm happy - I'm Microsoft's customer again, not thier biatch-yesman-mouthpeice to my companys upper management. I have a choice again - and more choices coming with each passing day, when new code gets posted on myriad CVS servers across the Internet. More choices coming with companies that were heartened enough by the DOJ case to actually develop new, great products that don't require Windows and in some cases directly compete with Windows.
Roll up your sleeves, people, and get back to work. We are the competition.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
If the States are serious about their desire to actually do something about the monopoly they should issue a fiat to their administative structures that they should defenistrate their offices immediately. Thus they would not only save their citizens the mega bundles of dough currently being syphoned off into the M$ protection racket, but also create a market which was sufficiently competitive to ensure the invention & innovation so neccessary to foster the creation of high quality software products is nurtured. All it needs is a minute modicum of innate morality and intestinal fortitude from the elected represtentatives.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know I don't.
From the way the NYTimes article is worded, sounds like only major corporations will have access to the technical documentation. Independant projects like Samba wouldn't be included.
No deals with OEMs is great, but I'm SURE they'll still do it...all it takes is one guy with a suitcase full of $100s.
What a worthless trial that was. Thanks Bush. Fucking asshole. Oh well, maybe the terrorists will get him. Or Gates.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
+MONDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+MONDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+TUESDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+TUESDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+WEDNESDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+WEDNESDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+THURSDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+THURSDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+FRIDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+FRIDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+SATURDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: I will not suck any more dick ever again.
+SATURDAY EVENING+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
+SUNDAY MORNING+
Cmdr Taco: Today is the Lord's day.
+SUNDAY AFTERNOON+
Cmdr Taco: *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
Have you ever even seen a copy of the Cnstitution, let alone read it?
There are going to be many posters in here clinging to the absurd fantasy that the state of Iowa is going to put MS out of business where the feds couldn't and wouldn't.
Be real folks.
...spent more time and money going after Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden.
Judge Jackson kept massaging the definition of "Personal Computer" until it made MS a monopoly (what, a Mac's not a PC? Linux is not an OS?). If I were BG & Co I would never cave. I'd close up shop, Atlas Shrugged style before settling in any fashion. But, that's just me. Maybe this is BG's contribution to prevent the country from being distracted and inconvenienced in time of war.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So this was the "big event" all those folks in Afghanistan were talking about.
I probably will get modded down for this but here is something
:)] know, Microsoft released on August 27th 2001 yet another MS IE upgrade, Internet Explorer 6.0 Final [build 6.00.2600.0000] 32-bit for Windows 98/NT4/2000/ME.
:(
:)
.MOV format), even if you have installed the Apple QTM Codecs, Movie Player, Pic Viewer + Plugins Standard Edition 5.02 32-bit for Windows 9x/NT4/2000/XP [9.3 MB, free] (current as of this writing). Oops! All you see is a browser/plugin (ActiveX) error message and/or a "not found" graphic pic instead, and that darn movie won't play. :(
:) First goes...
:)
/C
:)
:)
:)]
:)"
/CMDCONS
:)
."
:(
As you may [or may not
MS IE 6.0 Features.
See also my "WINDOWS 9x/NT/2000/ME/XP INTERNET EXPLORER (IE) 4/5/6 ESSENTIAL FREE FIXES".
Windows XP Final (RTM Gold) users: do NOT install this MS IE 6.0 release, because this MS OS includes its own MS IE 6.0 build!
Windows 98, 98 SE, NT4, 2000 and ME (ANY version) users: it is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to install MS IE 6.0, because it fixes lots of BUGs/security vulnerabilities/risks from previous builds!
Windows 95, 95a OSR1 and 95 B/C OSR2 (ANY version) users: you MUST install MS IE 5.5 SP2 [build 5.51.4807.2300] 32-bit for Windows 95/98/NT4/2000/ME, the LAST MS IE release compatible with these MS OSes, because MS IE 6.0 does NOT support them!
MS IE 5.5 SP2 BUGs/security vulnerabilities/risks fixes.
BTW: Both MS IE 5.5 SP2 and 6.0 (ALL builds) "feature" the same BUG, introduced "by design" according to Microsoft, and detailed below together with its FIXes!
... And now that you have installed IE 5.5 SP2 or are using WinXP + IE 6.0, all is well, or at least it seems like it is, and you probably congratulate yourself for swatting swarms of Microsoft BUGs, or/and brag to all your friends/coworkers that you own the coolest MS OS to date.
NOT quite [:(]: that is until you try to view ANY Internet based Quick Time Movie (QTM) flic (usually in
But wait, there are 2 FIXes.
Apple QTM FIX [applies to ALL Windows 9x/NT4/2000/ME/XP users]:
Go to this Apple QTM ActiveX Check page, to install the small QTM ActiveX Plugin OCX fix. This is done automatically if any release of MS IE 5.xx or 6.xx is detected.
More info.
But there is still another BUG "alive" in your "shiny" new browser: BOTH MS IE 5.5 SP2 and 6.0 (ALL builds) also REMOVED support for ALL Netscape style browser plugins (Netscape proprietary technology that allows compatible browsers to use small "plug-ins" for various purposes, i.e. to play/view audio/music/animations/movies in different 3rd party formats) that are NOT ActiveX enabled, otherwise available if using MS IE 5.5 SP1 [build 5.50.4522.1800] 32-bit for Windows 9x/NT4/2000/ME, or ANY other OLDER MS IE release.
... This is where the second FIX comes in.
My FIX [applies to ALL Windows 9x/NT4/2000/ME/XP users, and works with both MS IE 5.5 SP2 and 6.0 (ANY build)]:
Do this at your own risk!
Download this MS IE 5.5 SP1 patch [2.08 MB, free] for your particular language, which among other patched MS IE files includes a fix for MSHTML.DLL [build 5.50.4616.200], a newer version than the one installed by MS IE 5.5 SP1 Setup, but older than the ones from MS IE 5.5 SP2 and 6.0.
For details about this MS IE patch go to this MS TechNet page.
More info @ MSKB.
Do NOT run the executable, instead extract all files from Q299618.EXE, by running this command line from the Start menu -> Run... box:
Q299618.EXE
into the (preferably empty) folder of your choice, by typing in a path name in the dialog box that follows.
Delete all extracted files except MSHTML.DLL, which will be used here to replace yours, located in C:\Windows\System (Win95/98/ME) or C:\Winnt\System32 (WinNT4/2000/XP).
Default setup folders were used in these examples, please change if different on your computer(s).
Win95/98/ME users ONLY: I included here IEBUGFIX.INF [1 KB, zipped: download it and then decompress it with PowerArchiver 2001 (no nag shareware) or any other similar unzipping tool], an INFormation file which automates the installation of this FIX. To make it work properly, you need to follow these steps EXACTLY:
Rename the extracted MSHTML.DLL file to MSHTML.OLD, by running this command at any DOS prompt (from the directory where the DLL file resides):
REN MSHTML.DLL MSHTML.OLD
Make sure both MSHTML.OLD and IEBUGFIX.INF reside into the SAME folder.
Now open Windows Explorer -> highlight IEBUGFIX.INF -> right-click on it -> select Install and wait a few seconds until your mouse cursor reverts back to normal, while Windows is copying the files in the background.
Restart Windows so the FIX can take effect.
If for any reason you wish to uninstall this FIX: open Control Panel -> open Add/Remove Programs -> scroll down to "FIX Netscape Plugins in MS IE 6.0 and 5.5 SP2" -> highlight it -> click the Add/Remove button -> restart Windows -> done.
What this FIX actually does:
Install:
MSHTML.OLD is copied to C:\Windows\System and IEBUGFIX.INF is copied to C:\Windows\Inf. When you restart Windows afterwards, Wininit.exe reads the Wininit.ini file created by the FIX in C:\Windows, and renames your newer MSHTML.DLL to MSHTML.ORI, and MSHTML.OLD to MSHTML.DLL.
Mow MS IE is using the older but functional DLL.
Uninstall:
MSHTML.DLL is renamed back to MSHTML.OLD, MSHTML.ORI is renamed back to MSHTML.DLL, and MSHTML.OLD and IEBUGFIX.INF are deleted.
Now MS IE is using your original DLL. [back to square 1
ALL remaining steps below refer ONLY to WinNT4/2000/XP users, who need to do this manually:
Backup your current MSHTML.DLL file from C:\Winnt\System32 to a safe location BEFORE replacing it!
SOLUTION [Thank you Captain SiskoX (cptsiskox@hotmail.com)!]:
"Install the WRC (Windows Recovery Console) tool. Then boot to the command prompt and replace MSHTML.DLL along with the WFP (Windows File Protection) backup copy from the command line, reboot, and it would have nothing else to "restore" except that copy.
FYI [Thank you Pierre Szwarc (pierre.szwarc@laposte.net)!]:
"The DOS prompt won't help if you have Win2000/XP installed on an NTFS partition. Workaround: download Inuse.exe [790 KB, free], part of Windows 2000 Resource Kit tools.
Inuse.exe lets you replace system files from within the running OS, i.e. from Service Packs and Hot Fixes. The actual replacement takes place at the next reboot."
UPDATE [Thank you Pierre Szwarc (pierre.szwarc@laposte.net)!]:
"The Maintenance Console (see WRC above) can be run directly from the Win2000 Setup CD or can be installed on the hard disk.
To run it from the CD, you must boot from the CD first, and then select the Repair path to get to the screen from which you can select "Repair using console".
Win2000 Maintenance (Recovery) Console (WRC) hard disk installation:
Login as an administrator.
Open a command prompt.
Change directory to \I386 on the Win2000 Setup CD (or to a copy of that directory on your hard disk, if you made one).
Run this command:
WINNT32
WRC will be installed in the C:\Cmdcons directory.
NOTE: WRC is FAT specific. If converting your boot drive/partition (C) from FAT16 or FAT32 to NTFS you MUST reinstall WRC! More info.
From now on the Maintenance Console will be added as an extra option to the Win2000 multiboot menu. To be able to use it you must change the boot menu's default selection delay to more than zero seconds [:)]: System Properties -> Advanced tab -> Startup and Recovery button.
The WRC install process is described in the Getting Started Win2000 booklet.
The Maintenance Console is a (secure) character mode only boot tool with limited capabilities, and can be used for copying, deleting or renaming system files, creating or deleting partitions, performing advanced disk scanning etc.
To be able to navigate outside of the \Winnt (%systemroot%) directory and copy files to/from a removable drive, you must enable the appropriate Recovery Console policy from: Administrative Tools -> Local Security Settings (the policy name is self explanatory).
Then, once booted into the console, you will have to explicitly change an environment variable (run the HELP command at the console prompt for details). The environment variable change has to be done EVERY time you start the console (variable names are also self explanatory)!
BTW: The Windows File Protection (WFP) default backup location is the \Winnt\System32\Dllcache directory."
Now move your extracted MSHTML.DLL file to C:\Winnt\System32: see Captain's SOLUTION and Pierre's FYI + UPDATE above to learn how to rename your current MSHTML.DLL first, and then replace it with the extracted one.
Finally, reboot Windows NT4/2000/XP.
Done.
From now on enjoy your restored MS IE compatibility with ALL current (and future) Netscape style browser plugins, just as you used to.
IE 6.0 FIX BUGs:
"After applying the MS IE 6.0 bug fix I cannot fill out forms at my online banking web page anymore."
[Thank you Wayne (reddoh@dingoblue.net.au)!]
"After applying the MS IE 6.0 bug fix IE systematically crashes when clicking boxes such as Real-Time Stock Quotes on http://www.news.com/
[Thank you Francois (frdsm@usa.net)!]
After replacing the original MS IE 6.0 MSHTML.DLL with the older one (as detailed above), the About box (which can be brought up by clicking Help -> About Internet Explorer from the File menu) pops up this error message instead of displaying the normal About credits window [:(]:
"An error has occured in this dialog.
Error 96:
Unspecified error."
NOTE: It is recommended to install the Apple QTM ActiveX Plugin Patch anyway, in case you decide to upgrade your MS IE build in the future, because it is likely that Microsoft will not bring back Netscape and/or QTM plugin support to upcoming Internet Explorer releases.
It is also likely that some 3rd party Netscape-only style plugin developers will add MS IE ActiveX compatibility to their future releases, but I wouldn't count on that.
Microsoft should be punished for their misdeeds by being fined billions and billions of dollars. (I like to call it the Sagan treatment.) This will send a message to the shareholders to make sure that they don't break the law anymore and suffer further punishment, and have the delightful side effect of severely reducing Microsoft's ability to buy near-monopolys in related fields such as cable tv, etc., as well as putting a lot of money into the government coffers to allow the meeting of expenses such as part of the cost of fighting a war without having to increase taxes or federal debt quite as soon or as much.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ask any one nerd (myself included) what transgressions Microsoft is guilty of and they could go on for hours. And that's just from surfing the web in their spare time.
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
hmmmm.... So Windoze + Windows media player + IE6.0 + MSN = $129.00 [discount]
Windoze without anything else = $999.00 ["full" price]
This will generate *loads* of competition - NOT!
Bah. The whole antitrust thing in just a distraction from the real issue - closed vs open. Sure, it would have been nice to see M$ take a pounding, but it will be even more satisfying to watch them loose their place of prominence without government interference. Concentrate on the new Nimda worm that is spreading through the net. Concentrate on holding M$ spokedrones responsible for the lies they spread - such as the comment today on how software is handled in RedHat vs Windows. That is where ground can be made.
Correct me if I am wrong but can't Microsoft
satisfy this requirement just by leaving Windows
98SE or Windows 2000 on the market? Microsoft
could even be gracious and continue to supply
patches to these versions for awhile longer than
they now plan to. Mounting compatibility gaps would make these versions less and less usable, particularly if Microsoft made a conscious decision to discontinue and replace some of their own internal standards instead of extending them.
I don't exactly call IBM and their $1 billion budget "a scattered group of people".
Because, fool, legally, they do have a monopoly. The Findings of Fact were upheld.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Ever notice the little quotes at the bottom of Slashdot?
When I finished reading to the bottom of these comments, this is the quote that came up :
Perhaps the biggest disappointments were the ones you expected anyway.
...
Can I be Wiccan and Christian too?
NO. Wicca is it's own religion with separate ideals and values, just as Christianity is it's own religion. In fact, there are values in each religion that conflict, which make it impossible to be both. If you do not feel that you want to stop being Christian, then take a look at why it is that you are so interested in practicing other religions. If it is simply for interest sake, then there is nothing wrong with learning about other religions. The difference comes when you are practicing other religions. If you feel that you are not happy with Christianity any more, then you may need some time to decide why it is that you are feeling this way. Maybe you feel that something is missing, however you may discover that a deeper knowledge of Christianity gives you what you need. Basically, if you are comfortable and believe in the Christian faith, then there should be no reason for you to leave it.
Did you think they would rip all of this apart to save companies like VA Linux and Novell?
This has got to be the scariest story I've heard this Halloween.
Evidently Microsoft manage to "Trick" us all by providing "Treats" to the right politicians.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
First, read this.
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
With comments such as:
"this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile"
makes you wonder.
Coincidentally, this was announced three years to the day after the leaking of Microsoft's plans to "de-commoditize" the open protocols that make up the internet. Fate must be winking at Bill.
If I do something that's illegal (hold-up a petrol station, for example) and I get caught, I get some sort of a penalty. If I told the judge, "OK, I'll promise not to do it again", he would still toss me into jail for a while because I DID IN FACT COMMIT A CRIME and therefore should be punished for it.
Microsoft has been found guilty of committing a crime as well. Now it appears they will get away with simply promising not to do it again. But where is the punishment for the crime that they have already committed? I don't see it anywhere in this settlement.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
What's so interesting about the source of for IE? I can't think of much.
.NET and Passport.
The keyword for selecting the source codes to open is intercompatibility. IE follows open standards reasonably well, and any of it's own web standards are open (or otherwise no one could write html for IE), so it's not so much of a problem, not at least yet.
The most important source code would be for Office, especially for its file format, and also for the data structures (i.e. headers). Office is the most important source of the infamous Application Barrier mentioned in the Fact of Findings.
Other pieces would be other file formats, such as those handled by Media Player.
Another yet more useful would be requirement that any hardware drivers must be opened. This might be somewhat more difficult to get as it would require that also other companies than Microsoft open their drivers. It could be formulated in a way that Microsoft must require that any hardware drivers be licensed with an open license (with "open" I don't mean Open Source but a minimal source license that allows reading the code to attain intercompatibility).
And of course,
Folks,
:-)
I personally thought long ago that the settlement of US v. Microsoft would involve Microsoft offering Plain Jane versions of Windows that allows an end user or OEM to install their own additional software.
As such, my prediction has become reality. Don't be surprised that we may see an AOL Plus Pack for the Plain Jane Windows XP Home Edition that includes Netscape 6.x (using final Mozilla 1.0 code), Real Network's Real One media player, AOL IM or ICQ, and so on. And this add-on pack will include full support for RoadRunner cable modems, too.
Please don't slap my hand! Outch! Ha ha! Back to being a monopoly!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
M$ usually offers companies/universities 5-year contract of mandatory purchase of their products, after the victims received letters from BSA accusing of their license violation.
My universities was replacing SUN workstations with NT workstations til we found out the hidden contract they've with M$. *SIGH*
Dual booting isn't hard. For average Joe, or grandma and grandpa, they can launch win by default. Or, if they are smart, make a customized linux for cheap, and support only that...can you say, no more BSOD's?
Seriously, the other day a guy told me that someone got into his computer and changed the time on him, and it reported it on the screen when he first booted. Daylight savings...izn't it wonderful?
Think: this person would never notice no windows. Call it DellOS and let it run basic Dell apps (email, mp3, etc.) and linux programs...some would never notice the difference. others would love it...linux. The rest could always change the default back to win.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
You just gotta love the settlement terms!
Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Microsoft can do anything it wants, as long as it also offers a lobotimized version too...
Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features...
Microsoft can't force people to buy the version they want to push...
but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
but the lobotimized version can cost twice the price!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the part that actually does something:
Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software
A yup... that'll fix 'em it will! No more worries about dirty tricks from Microsoft, yeehaw!
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
mailto: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Voice your concerns. Anyone up to write a generic letter that everyone can individually mail in?
While I know this is a 'tentative' agreement, and that what we say on slashdot here makes little to no difference in the case's eyes (after all, do they read this board?), I come up with one question.
Where do we go to state how ticked off we are at this agreement?
Perhaps someone can share an insight into a mail address, an email, some sort of way to feed public opinion into this public case. After all, is the Fed not representing the people in this case? If the people are disatisfied, should their "champion" (and I use that term very loosely) not strive harder to make right what has been PROVEN and UPHELD as the truth?
Insight is appreciated. Addresses are better. Let's let our representative in this case know just what we think of their settlement.
The main feature of this ruling is that MS must open up some of the code for IE; this seems fair enough since the whole case was about the abuse of their monoply to push IE.
.NET. Is there any mention of this in the ruling? If there isn't, then the ruling is basically providing a 'level playing field' for last years battle ...
However, MSs strategy now for the internet is based around
Incidentally, what's the point of the bit about disallowing MS from stopping PC makers from bundling other peoples s/w? Surely this is illegal anyway, so ruling on it is a bit pointless?
So, Microsoft broke the law, fact established by two courts.
When you break the law you go to PRISON. Period.
Instead, the "punishment" is to vaguely ensure that they don't break the law anymore ?
From the NYT article:
"Under the settlement proposal, Microsoft would be required to make that information available in a "secure facility," where representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified could study the Windows programming code and ask questions."
"Carrying out the technology-sharing provision remains one of the sticking points in the settlement talks. The government wants to make sure it is effective, while Microsoft wants to make sure it can protect its intellectual property."
This sounds a little dodgy in terms of open source programmers being allowed a peek for compatibility purposes. And if the code they write then reveals a Microsoft "secret" what happens?
If you don't think letting Microsoft get totally off for free, or the same thing they were let off with in 1995 which did zero good then,
I suggest you call your own state attorney general and tell them not to give into this federal get-out-of-jail free card...
CALL THEM THURSDAY MORNING FIRST THING AND TELL THEM!!
Here is a site with the phone numbers for most all of the states aj offices..
http://www.naag.org/about/aglist.cfm
Here are the 18 states still involved as complantants in the case..
Connecticut, Iowa and New York have generally been viewed as the three states championing the case. Also involved are California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Also call California and New York because they have the most power and have been the 2 most outspoken against the results of this case so far..and call IOWA because Tom Miller the IOWA AG is the spokesman for all the 18 states involved.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Man you guys are cynical. Isn't it possible that the feds and states will make sure to put real, competent, neutral people on this advisory panel? If so, they will be able to see to it that the spirit of the sanctions are carried out, so that simply "changing the wording" won't be enough to get MS by anymore.
-Brian
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
The law doesn't mean a thing. Well, not really. The law means a lot, but only to little people. Those with expired tags ("And maybe perhaps could we check inside your vehicle, sir"). Those with less insurance than they need ("You should have opted for the 'Act of God -- but only under duress' clause, sir..."). Those who can't afford a lawyer ("One will be provided for you should you not be able to afford one"). Families with sudden tax burdens ("Actually, it's guilty until proven innocent in a non-jury trial, sir -- get out of your house immediately"). For large corporations and individuals, the law doesn't mean shit.
The law is what you've paid for. It's not what is right, or true, or just... or even what's wrong. It's what's been paid for. It's been this way ever since we've had governments. PoliSci 101: Those with power wield it primarily in order to gain more. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I had to say it. And in a capitalist society, power is money. Therfore, money is politics. Like I said, back to day one of class and nothing new. This is just the most astonishing example of money making government we've seen recently. It's a Morgan or Hearst-like thing.
And since the I have the soapbox out, here's some advice: Fuck Microsoft. They're petty, awful people and I feel that one day soon other people will find it in their best interest not to bet their careers on them.
I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, and stongly against any spurious government interdiction in the free market. But I'm also a realist and realize that there has to be some form of interaction. Shoddy products can be dangerous, after all. But the real power is held by the people: The people that buy stuff for IT departments. I beseech them to look at alternatives to MS prodcuts. They will likely save money (and their jobs) in the long term.
Again, all this is so old it's cliched. But that makes it no less true. Although it's so late in the story du jour that nobody will every see this, so it's all one hand clapping....
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Man, what is it going to take to get a job on that three person panel? What a cush job that will be and I bet it pays well. I, too, can be a puppet!
This is great! It means Microsoft only has to buy off 3 people.
Dozings.com -- Its kinda funny... If you're as crazy as me.
They've hired a power lawyer to get more for all their trouble. We can expect them to contest this settlement, in it's current form, I think.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
You don't have to be smart to get a degree from Harvard or Princeton or Yale. If you are rich that will suffice. Lots of actors and actresses have degrees from Yale, Harvard, princeton etc. All it takes is money.
War is necrophilia.
...let's hope the EU actually has some...
Yes they do so deserve both liberty and safety, and away from the pages of pithy quotations, they have both.
The solution is very simple.
Enforce open publication of file-formats as a requirement of their use in government.
Thus if microsoft wants to maintain government contracts must publish format specs.
This will prevent most of their attempts to stifle competition in office apps and actually encourage the economy.
I don't care what other people do so long as I am free to use what I want and they can use whatever they want.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
Spittle flecked vomit spewed at random in anti microsoft pro linux posts working to a crescendo of abuse and self masturbatory crap.
Meanwhile windows XP continues to sell and more and more people are realising for the first time MS have produced an OS that will truly give the alternatives a run for their money.
And in years to come when people try and work out why linux failed they will wonder what would have happened if Linux and open source had stopped looking over their shoulders and worrying about MS and actually developed a REAL alternative.
There's a nice big grassy area in front of the Capitol building. Only a couple lanes of street separate the grass from the Capitol This grassy area is large, level, well compacted and suitable for tanks and troop carriers, but it will also work just as well for tractors, SUVs cars and trucks and legion hordes of pissed off citizens who're mad as hell and have decided that they just will not take being fucked by their government anymore. Once they have reached a point of irritation where what pisses them off has sufficient power to actually distract them more than momentarily, sufficient power to crowd out thoughts of what's on TV tonight and those recurring daydreams of the perfect living room suite, then they may finally step off that curb into the street to tell the world about it. Immediately they will begin to feel relief. A weighted riot baton can feel like a masseur's hand. However, until that point arrives they must persevere with the cold comfort of Everybody Loves Raymond and fantasies of ensconcing themselves in velvet or leather recliners.
There's a colossal cascade of white marble steps that flow down from the Capitol's portico. White marble makes for a high contrast background against which your expression of displeasure can hardly be overlooked by television cameras. Red is a color that can really "pop" on a white background under all sorts of lighting. There on the steps is as wide a canvas for you to express your displeasure as can be found anywhere in North America. You may have to furnish the red pigment from your personal supply like brave people did in Genoa and Seattle, but if you wait for corporate sponsorship of your art you will die without ever being heard.
I'd like to join you there. But since you and other people are still talking about writing letters to tell distant frauds and functionaries how pissed off you are, I can tell you aren't very serious or very pissed off yet.
The only letter that can change the present corrupt state of affairs in America is a Frank Booth Love Letter.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
I find it ironic that MSNBC was the news source submitted to get news about Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Corporate control of the means of production is consolidating and omni-present.
Basically, government get's free XP licenses and Micro$oft can continue with monopoly... Nice..
:)
It's a good thing we have good laws, that allow
crime to continue, with little bribes, remides me
of Russia
And I suppose you had broadband way back in 1995, didn't you?
It was real nice DLing 10MB with 28©8 bps© Why would I do that when the MS alternative came with the CD?
What do you mean, Bush is backing down on Microsoft? Don't you watch the TV? He's been on almost everyday saying how he's going to get rid of the evil-do-ers.
Well it looks like the rise of corporatism in the USA has reached it's logical conclusion. Everything is for sale including the government, it's departments, congress, senate and the supreme courts. Pity the writers of the constitution couldn't forsee how moneygrubbing and unprincipled their successors would become,
No but, yeah but, no but...
We (American consumers) needed Microsoft to get the book thrown at them. And they didn't even get a slap on the wrist. We'll now have to wait for Microsoft's licensing and costs to become intolerable for real change to happen. They've take a big step towards this with their XP licensing scheme. I'm supprised companies ever put up with the 10 connection limit on non professional server enterprise whatever versions of their software. Can office 2000 read a native office XP file? How many times to they intend to render past versions of office useless without adding any useful features?
OK, Don't really care about all the political crap, all the big money crap, all the technical crap.....
I'm Joe Consumer, where does this put me and what I can buy and use?
How does it all entrap me?
Does anyone know or even care?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you can't afford the nine buck for Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, you can always read the original article on which it is based (online). The points are unassailable, demonstrated by the fact that no GOP apologist has be able to refute it. They can't -- facts are facts. The best they can muster is to roll their eyes and whine "Get over it."
No. We won't "get over it" just to placate a clutch of putrid rightwing shysters. After attempting to villify Clinton for damn near a decade, they paid no attention to those of us who said: "He won the election, get over it." (Isn't irony ironic?) How it must gall these intellectual munkins to have their pseudo-patrotic blustering exposed as simple partisan braying. They judge everyone else's patriotism by the size of the flag they wave, yet they have no problem wiping their asses with the constitution as long as it benefits their candidate. Shrub cannot realistically be removed from office, but we can make sure he's a one-termer and is always followed by a footnote tagging him as "illegitimate".
Shrub was not elected, he was coronated. We had a coup d'etat. The supreme court handed him the election by stopping the recount, instead of sending it back to the state (as they should have). They didn't do that because Bush would have lost. Absolute worst case scenario, it would have been thrown into the House -- which is EXACTLY what the constitution provides for.
If you REALLY doubt this, ask yourself the following question: Can you imagine, in your wildest carck-induced dreams, that the Supreme Court would have stopped the election if it had benefitted Al Gore?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a very different quote from what I've read elsewhere. Notably, the other versions all read something like "broad prohibitions" or "mass prohibitions". In that context, Microsoft's position is entirely justified; there is no reason they should have to accept restrictions that aren't specific in both intent and scope, any more than there is for anyone else.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Shrub: "This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe, but they won't be safe ... bwhahhaha-ha!!!
forever." Oh, that's right -- he was speaking "metaphorically"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What's going on? Clicked on the URL in /.'s new design (http://jobs.osdn.com/), wondered about all those .asp inside, finally went to netcraft.com and it tells me:
/.) how this is possible?
The site jobs.osdn.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
Wow, this really sounds like "Open Source Development Network", the stats show of course constant rebooting, whatelse would be expected from this setup.
Moderators may mod my post down as they like, but I would really like to know (Rob or someone else from
Michael
...for about $3 million dollars (illegally of course). They were forced to return all of it back to our enemy. In return for the $3 million, Communist China got some of our best secrets of how to launch nukes.
But hey, your idiotic claim the Bush sold out to Microsoft would be much worse if it was true. After all, being muked by technology that Clinton sold is not nearly as bad as people willingly buying Windows XP.
Get up the good 'ol Left Wing Lunacy!!!!
It just runs on a different system of values than the minority number of voters believes. To most people in the US, money means morals. Most people look at Bill Gates and see that he's worth billions of dollars after starting from the normal life that most people have. That leads people to believe that he must be the smartest best guy in the world and that he should never be accused of doing anything wrong. Everyone wants to be in his position.
No the justice system isn't corrupt. We're just in a disagreement in if fair competition or the biggest dollar sign should lead the correct moral path.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I have a Master's Degree from Harvard. The pedagogy was not impressive; the faculty is mostly self-interested and seems to 'tolerate' having students, but doesn't much like them. The story at Harvard is that the business school is mostly just a country club for the old boys' network. Bush, being very wealthy through no effort on his own part, was able to buy his way in and through Harvard Business School. It's done frequently. It is privilege and networking, not good ideas, intelligence or hard work, that matters most there.
Granted, Asia does not have any ongoing anti-trust proceedings yet AFAIK, but Europe is continuously looking into starting an anti-trust trial against Microsoft.
I have a strong feeling that the EU will get their butts in gear, realizing that they need to finish the job that Clinton could not finish.
If MS loses large parts of Europe, or is forced to start doing business differently there, then that will really hurt their bottom line and their public image (except in the states. there, the republicans will rant about "those snotty, arrogant europeans that are passing anti-competitive legislation").
Stop the brainwash
The most significant element in the settlement proposal, industry executives said, is the requirement that Microsoft share the technical information needed for other software or hardware products to work smoothly with Windows.
Think a little about this one. We all know that protocols, api libraries, and other interoperable standards are the real battle here. Go back and read the halloween documents if you've forgotton..
If this penalty was enforced properly (along with the additional requirement that MS comply with all protocols and standards and do not attempt to create their own incompatible ones), Microsoft would rapidly lose any advantages due to gaming incompatibility (DirectX), web standards, the .Net fiasco, Wine incompatibilities etc. etc.
Very soon, people would be free to choose Linux and other operating systems *knowing* that they *will* be able to run all their old applications, they *will* be able to browse and interact with the web without problems, they *will* be able to buy the latest games without having to keep a Win9x partition on their PCs.
This is the real battle. It only remains to be seen whether this proposed penalty is actually implemented. If it is not, any other likely action is unlikely to have any real effect.
This way when MS is crushed under Tux's iron heel there can be no cries from the MS fanboy's that the reason MS fell is because of government intervention. MS will have fallen because Linux competed with them and cleaned their clock.
In the end this will make our victory all the more sweet.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
The tentative deal would end Microsoft?s practice of forbidding computer makers from selling PCs preloaded with software from the company?s competitors
They already agreed to that with XP. You can include other apps, but you then have to make MS apps more promenint(sp?).
The deal would also reportedly allow Microsoft to add new software to Windows ? as it has with Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and Windows Media Player ? but would force the company to offer a separate version of Windows without those additions.
Will these "limited" versions be sold for a discount? If not, then it is very unlikely that they will sell more than 10 of them.
The settlement would also reportedly force Microsoft to reveal some of its underlying computer code to other companies.(My emphasis)
Who decides which "companies" can see the code? I do business as a company. Can I see the code?
This sounds like a joke settlement and I hope that the states attorneys general don't go along with it. We need a resolution with some real teeth.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Yeah, after the earlier consent decree in 1995 I think we can all rest easily knowing that our government has vigorously pursued the case against abusive monopolists.
The terms are probably just as likely as the terms of the earlier decree to correct bad behavior.
Senior executives of Microsoft have been seen shaking and shivering in their boots at the prospects of this new decree.
Oops, my mistake - they had smiles on their faces. They were laughing.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Twas a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury and
signifying nothing.
[Insert pithy quote here]
They bullied their way to the top. While I think it's important to keep the economy moving, we have a duty to small software providers like the one I work for to make sure that Microsoft feels the sting of their mistakes at some level.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system...
... OK, enough Monty Python references.
The agreement would reportedly force the software company to end restrictive deals with computer makers, release some of the software code for Internet Explorer, and offer versions of Windows with and without added features such as MSN Messenger.
Hey, that's pretty cool! It's about time they outlawed Microsoft's policy of retailers selling their souls to the Devil... er... Bill Gates. Those contracts are a ridiculous plight on the computer world. Maybe now we'll be able to tell our not-so-computer-literate friends and relatives that for their next computer they can just hop on over to Best Buy or somewhere and pick up a PC with Mandrake or RedHat instead of Windows XP 2.3 SP 5 rel 2 ver 8. Well, in reality, that's probably really far off...
I wonder exactly what portions of code they have to release for internet explorer... I doubt they'll let go of anything all too relative.
With or without MSN... now seriously, do you think Microsoft will just let that happen? I'm sure you'll have to specifically ask for a non MSN computer, and each store will probably have 0 of them, but when you request it they'll go uninstall it. Of course the first time you log onto your computer you'll see a little message pop up: "wouldn't you like to send messages to your friends as well as shop at several convenient online stores, well here's the only way to do that: MSN!"
And now for something completely different...
The tentative deal calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct, The New York Times and Washington Post reported on their Web sites Wednesday evening, citing anonymous sources. According to those sources, the deal included the possibility of a two-year extension if the company violates the terms of the agreement. To try to ensure enforcement, a three-member advisory committee of independent experts would be established, The Times reported.
OK, great idea, but three people? This to me is just another indication that the people in charge of righting Microsoft's many wrongs really have a limited or nonexistant knowlege of the actual subject. Microsoft's wide range of products and services and practices of leveraging monopolies are so complex, convoluded, and "sneaky" that you would need at least a dozen people working full time so have a minimal understanding of it all. They would need an OS expert, internet expert, networking expert, database expert, Office expert, ISP expert, messaging expert, etc... Three people, especially if they're lawyers, really isn't enough.
~ now you know
Microsoft is just lucky that DOD didn't
sue them for fraud when
MS would demand that every DOD system
upgrade to the next version of MS-DOS every
three or four months in the early nineties.
MS would put malicious code that checked for
version numbers and then demand that the users
upgrade for a lot of money.
If you just went in and edited with the DEBUG
utility and changed the version number that
they looked for in the machine code, the
stuff would work fine.
It was fraud clear and simple. Microsoft
did this and they are just lucky that noone
who could do anything about this ever found
out. They sold the same crap to DOD over and
over again.
So don't say that the government doesn't have
an interest in seeing a solution.
Microsoft is a money mongering sleeze bag
patent and copyright holding company.
They steal everything and break anything
that isn't theres.
It costs more for their licenses than
a system should cost.
muddle headed foolishness!
What about bond and debt holders? They have
a stack in a company that supercedes the
shareholders. Or, how about contratual support
agreements? A company is also liable for these.
I agree that microsoft should be fined to the max,
but it would also be good if they broke the
OS into pieces and let us choose vendors for
the various pieces. The OS is arbitrarily constructed without any concern of good software engineering practices. The lawyers and patent mongers write the software. Unless the OS is
made into something else any 'settlement' is
a red herring and MS wins.
The rest of us loose. Oh, we'll be able to
buy from them and watch their videos if we
agree to pay them subscription.
But they are sleeze bags, so why would I want to
read or view their content. I would rather
through my computer away than get any
news or information from those money mongering
theives
They are getting a slap on the wrist again. I can't beleive this crap.
"-- Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
-- Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
-- Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software, but not the blueprints to Windows."
What a joke! This is just like any other time they get penalized. This won't stop them, and we will have to go through this process all over again.
How about a spell checker for slashdot, or even more impressive, a spell checker for strings in C-Code? Use lint! -DG
Who wants to bet me that the non-bundled version of Windows will cost more and not be available to OEMs for pre-installed PCs?
You imply that Microsoft had a monopoly in 1995 but doesn't now partly on the basis that people can use Linux and open source software. However, in 1995 Microsoft had a smaller share of the market than it does now. Apple had a much larger market share in 1995 than now and OS/2 was still a (minor) player back then.
So if I understand your argument correctly Microsoft is more of a monopoly now than it was then if you're going by marketshare.
Furthermore, the fact that Linux is a viable competitor is not good from a capitalistic standpoint. Basically the lesson being taught by Linux is that the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give away your stuff for free. And even though Linux gives away its stuff for free it still can barely compete with Microsoft. On the desktop, Linux's marketshare makes Apple's marketshare look great and Apple has a pathetic desktop marketshare. This, to me, is a sign that Microsoft's monopoly is more powerful now than it was in 1995.
(Disclosure: I'm both a Linux and an OS X user.)
The secret part is that MS will open all the backdoors to the CIA so that they can track Osama bin Laden's email, ICQ logs, bank transactions, etc. That way, the spooks don't need to trouble themselves with say, getting a Swiss bank's permission to examine transactions. They can just waltz right in and have a look anytime they want. The Swiss bank won't even know. Call it patriotism. Microsoft's little contribution to the war on Terrorism.
J# is a java conversion tool to .Net code.
Now would be a good time to politely remind
the Attorney Generals of the various States
and remind them to fight this slap on the
wrist injustice being perpetrated for the
benefit of Ashcroft's campaign contributer:
Microsoft. For example, Ashcroftâ(TM)s Victory Committee last year received $10,000 in corporate soft money from Microsoft Corporation.
>As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice
>between paying one price for something or paying
>more for the same thing, which is the typical
>consumer going to pick?
So by your flawed logic, everyone in the United States uses Linux as their operating system since after all, it's much cheaper than buying a copy of Windows. What's more, all of those people also went out and bought AMD processors, which offer not only a much better price/performance ratio but offer better performance per clock than Intel processors. Funny though, I don't see any numbers that support those facts.
The fact is, no one buys these processors because no one HEARS anything about them. The reason no one hears anything about them is because they are stifled. Microsoft has agreements with every OEM they deal with requiring operating system exclusivity. You aren't allowed to have any other OS readilly accessible on a computer shipped with Windows. Research has shown that it's only a tiny slice of the consumer pie that will go out of their way to install these alternative operating systems... and even when they make the decision to do so, more often than not it requires repartitioning of the hard drive, meaning the user has to start from scratch. Not a very attractive option to someone who is just becoming computer literate.
AMD has taken the silent route for a very good reason... to keep prices low. Anyone who knows anything knows that AMD now produces a superior product when compared directly to Intel's identical line of processors. This, however, hasn't made enough of a difference to consumers, thanks to the Intel marketing machine. Instead AMD is starting to do very intelligent things... like the elimination of clock indicators. This bought them free press, the cheapest kind of advertising there is. AMD is also doing their "road show", giving away free processors in 20+ major cities. Things like these increase word-of-mouth, but allow AMD to keep expenses low, so they can make a cheaper product. They need to KEEP their products cheaper than Intel, or most of their advantage over Intel will disappear.
So please, dispense with the "cheaper = more popular" mode of thinking. It is NOT always the case that the superior product is more popular, nor that the cheaper one will be purchased more. In AMD's case, where they have both a superior AND cheaper product, they still fall far behind Intel in sales.
The new antitrust policy is inspired by a successful program from the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's called "catch and release."
OJ gets away with murdering his ex-wife and now MS gets away with murdering their competitors. This should not come unexpected in the good old United States of America, Inc. Land of the guilty poor and the innoncent rich.
Says who? Sun?
Since MS couldn't lure people to their Java-alike called C#, they are now trying for another Java-alike called J#.
bullshit. C# hasn't even been released yet. you can get a beta of Visual Studio .Net, but MS hasn't released the final version yet. let me restate that - the shit isn't even available in stores yet. none but the brave few who've installed the VS.NET beta have even seen C#. it certainly hasn't failed, and from what i've heard, it might just be a damn fine language.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
That'll save ourselves a lot of trouble and "revitalize our economy".
...what Microsoft really wants.
Most of us who make our living from copyrighted material do not protect it by restricting access. We enforce it by going after those who pirate it. MS has more resources for this than most of us, and we do fine.
Restricting access is the refuge preferred by those who steal the IP of others, by those whose code is embarrassing when viewed by true professionals, and by those who seek commercial advantage by including secret APIs in their operating systems.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
>Not true, you say? You don't think that
.NET developement circles. NS 4.7 locks up for me from the start, and most pages on the site give NS 4.7 no more than black displays.
.NET code in Moz/NS/OmniWeb when you're only going to net 10% or less more customers. You're going to make a new system in .NET instead.
>Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE?
Okay, that's going to be a tough one. Even if MS beats out TCP/IP (and I just don't see that happening), they've still got AOL to fight with.
On the other hand...
>You think any web pages created with Microsoft
>Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
That's already happened. Try looking at a site that uses ASP.NET like:
http://www.dotnetjunkies.com/
... in NS 4.7. These people have appeared on MS Developer's Network and are power players in
That's not a big deal to me by itself, but these [and those this site represents -- I feel this one is representative] are the guys MS wants _teaching_ newbies how to program. The less professional sites (including some of the more deeply hidden pages on dotnetjunkies) don't even render in Mozilla well. People don't test cross platform and cross browser because they're not taught to.
The problem occurs when programmers test only in IE because they know more than 90% of their clients/customers will have access to IE.* It's simply not worth the work bothering to test new
The extension of the MS monopoly to the server-side is on the way -- not because programmers are given tools that, by definition, lock out non-MS or non-IE tools, but because it's so much easier to ignore non-MS tools and assume your clients have IE anyhow. MS even provides built-in "separate but [hardly] equal" controls that mimic on Moz what they do quite handily on IE. "Our site even works on Mozilla -- we know because MS tells us so."
MS can support standards and, as long as it's still easier to do it on Windows first, lazy programmers are still going to do Windows only.
* Think how many people have one form of IE or another -- Mac IE is a very nice browser that comes pre-installed with an icon on Mac OS X's Dock. Think of IE Mac as "mini-Windows" -- and therefore another brick in the foundation for server-side, possibly antitrust-like practices.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Pretty close to control given that the users actually express a strong desire for outlook at almost every occasion. And to get this app really smokin needs exchange server. I have tried playing around with hooking outlook up to boxes with shared imap and ftp uploads for freebusy etc. Its a crock in comparison to the outlook/exchange combo.
Don't get me wrong - I would rather be able to offer a choice to my users when they come a crumbling but there isn't really one at the moment. Hence the beefing about the barriers to entry for this market etc.
To be fair, this is partly the open source movement's fault (as a collective) in not evangelising about the need for parity with exchange to be a priority rather than fiddling with outlook/explorer/browsery clones. The crowd at openoffice.org have taken up the baton but its gonna be another year or two
Competition is the key - even when monopolies get slapped they are still monopolies of the mind for some time afterwards
That's the most unbelievably idiotic thesis I've ever heard. Essentially, you're saying that the Clinton administration wanted Microsoft active politically... even if any moron could see that the benefit would most likely go to the opposing party?
Of course Microsoft is giving some dough to both sides... But make no mistake. Microsoft knew that (even if they did contribute) the Gore campaign was not where their bread was buttered. A ten year old child could tell you that the Republican party was a better prospect for a large business looking to avoid gov't intervention.
And yet the Clinton administration made an enemy of an extremely wealthy corporation just so they could get them to fund the political opposition? That's inane.
Maybe the DOJ was actually doing something right, even though it was politically dangerous. Maybe two courts of varying ideologies have essentially agreed that Microsoft is a monopoly, and abuses that power. Of course, you could ignore all that and just make stuff up...
Microsoft's monopolistic market power is based on its leverage of the Windows/Office platform and revenue streams. Therefore, the best resolution to the antitrust case is one which increases competition by reducing the ability of Microsoft to leverage the platform and revenue or otherwise invade the privacy of the customer as a result of the foregoing. Here is my proposed consent decree: 1.).Net Framework: Microsoft must open source (BSD license) the .Net framework including any modifications thereof or successors thereto. This will permit two things: a.) relatively rapid porting of the framework to alternative operating systems while eliminating potential inconsistencies due to multiple framework development efforts (i.e. freeing resources devoted to the redundant Mono framework) and b.) platform independent applications (i.e. applications written exclusively to the .Net platform should be capable of running on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc. a la Java). Microsoft would be bound by decree to certain source and object code publishing and documentation requirements a la Sun's voluntary efforts related to OpenOffice.org.
2.)Incorporation of Nonessential Functionality in Products: Microsoft must offer a simple means of avoiding the installation of or removing the following functionality post-installation: a.) all applications or network-based services not integral to the proper operation and maintenance of the Windows operating system (i.e. explorer, movie maker, photo editor, imaging software, media player, messenger, games, MSN Explorer plus whatever .NET services evolves into); b.) any network authentication source; c.) any advertising or sponsorship links. Related to this, Microsoft must not require the use of any network based service to use its desktop applications (i.e. why is Passport required to open my Money 2002 file?). Microsoft must further x.) permit third parties to utilize an API facilitating equivalent functionality for authentication and provision of services to the Windows platform/Microsoft desktop application as that used by Microsoft for .NET services; y.) give users the ability to chose any third party provider; and z.) simplify that choice by listing alternative providers with 2% or more of the market for any given class of network service where this list is sorted by market share.
3.)Privacy Management: Microsoft must not distribute any information it gathers about its customers/users to any third party without the explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent of that user. Microsoft must provide a simple, secure method for any customer/user to view all information that Microsoft has gathered with respect to that user and permit the customer/user to delete any or all of such information. Microsoft must use its "best efforts" to secure such information from accidental divulgence to third parties. Absent explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent, Microsoft must demonstrate that it does not utilize internally or distribute certain user information including contacts, calendar, and financial information except as absolutely essential to the provision of that service.
4.)Pricing/Marketing Restrictions: Microsoft must offer standardized, openly published pricing to any customer for a given volume of products. Microsoft must not enter into any agreement which would have the contractual or de facto result of exclusivity for Microsoft.
5.)Compatibility with Other Office Programs: Microsoft must offer the OpenOffice XML file filters for the following Microsoft Office versions: 97, 2000 and XP via a download from its Office support website and must bundle these filters as one of the default supported file formats in any future Office version or any service pack for an existing Office version. Further, Microsoft must publish the file formats for the following desktop applications: Office including FrontPage and Publisher, Visio, Project, and Money including the current version, two past generations, and all future versions (three months prior to commercial release of a product utilizing the new format). The DOJ would reserve the right to add to this list of products.
6.)Open Source Device Drivers: Except to the extent that such incorporates third party copyrights, Microsoft must release the technical specifications and open-source (BSD license) its source code, to every extent possible, for all devices and peripherals supported by the current version of Windows (i.e. scanners, printers, sound cards, video cards, hard drives, USB devices, controller cards and chips). Program management for this effort will be similar to the open source .NET framework program. With respect to third party copyrights, Microsoft must use its best efforts to obtain a BSD license for such copyright so as to permit full disclosure and incorporation of that code in third party operating systems.
I will put my money on two courts to determine this, not danheskett and his unique reading of the law.
Gee... how about giving China most favored trade status? How about giving China the Olympics? Real nice. How about in this time of war, Bush going over to China to hobnob with those communist bastards? As if we need his support? How about letting China back into world trade? Very nice, indeed. And that was all Bush.
I'm not condoning the way the Clinton/Gore handled China, but Bush hasn't done any better. Last I checked, the United States will still be participating in the Olympics. In a country that probably has more human rights violations than anyone else combined.
Bush is equally guilty, if not more so. He claims to be on a higher-plane... morally speaking. But then never stops kissing the ass of the biggest communist nation on earth.
Very nice, indeed.
If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft is not above the law, so why does they have to agree to the governments terms? The government should be able to set any terms they feel is necessary and then force Microsoft to obey. As long as Microsoft has to conceed to the terms then they will make sure the terms won't really hurt them such as the OEM agreements, do you really think that changing the OEM agreements will affect Microsofts monopoly? No!
Microsoft needs to open up their file formats and communication protocols so other products can play nice with Microsoft products which will foster competition since it will allow rival product makers the ability to work with Microsoft products and then consumers will be able to choose a product based on if they like it, not just be forced to choose Microsoft all the time. Also, opening up their file formats is not a significant hit to their intelletual property as they might suggest, but it is one of the corner stones of their monopoly so they probably won't give it up without a big fight.
Opening up a completely well-documented Windows API would be nice for projects like WINE, but I really doubt Microsoft will do it. I also don't think they should open their source code to office or windows, but just the file formats would be enough to actually give consumers choice.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
...signifying nothing.
* Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Full OEM version: $30
Stripped OEM version: $80
Profit margin from each system $60
If your losing money on each system, you'll never make it up on volume.
* Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
How does this differ one iota from how MS cornered the market? Put MS-DOS on on all of your systems and get a price break equal to your profit margin. Install even a single copy of DR-DOS, and you pay full price. The month after MS implemented the policy, DR-DOS sales tanked!
* Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software, but not the blueprints to Windows.
So everything is now defined as being part of Windows, and IE is now just an interface to some system libraries. Hate it for all those out there who wanted to actually display pages written by FrontPage on an alternative OS.
This has got to be one of the biggest paper tigers since Reagan's immigration bill in the 80's, the reason you now have to 'prove' you're American or have a VISA to work here. Illegal immigrants can produce a photocopy of a drivers liscense and the Human Resource drone at the cleaning company checks off on the form. These rememedies, whether you agree MS is guilty or not, are full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
J++ was a pretty good environment. It was only ever considered a joke by those who supported Sun's "me-too" bid for the monopoly throne.
Would you be willing to serve on the joke this committee will be? All they can do is recommend that the "punishment" be extended for two more years.
I tend to be a libertarian, but I also feel that if you are going to have a monopoly, that it should be a part of the government. That the government is the natural home of all "natural monopolies". And that it has no business creating artificial monopolies.
This decision seems to combine the worse aspects of both monopoly and government. They become legally recognized as a monopoly (their punishment is this oversight board, which can't do anything). But they escape the limitations that have been placed on government (to such extent as they are still extant).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Anyone asked how many jobs the donation of money to the airlines is going to save? I'd sue like a number on this.
Some random financial facts about Microsoft, compared against the biggest company in the world (by revenue) Exxon Mobil. Scary Stuff:
Basically, even though Microsoft has approx 1/10th the revenues of each of the top 3 corporations in the world (the others are Wal-Mart and GM) it has approx half the profits they do.
In June 2000 Microsoft's pre tax profit margin was 60.2%. After taxes it was 41.0%. Seeing as Bill Gates owns 13.3% of Microsoft, every dollar spent on a Microsoft Product -- actually let's make it every $100 because $1 won't buy anything MS sells. For every $100 you spend on a MS product, Bill Gates gets on average $5.33.
There are sites that try to try to put is wealth in perspective. This is the google cached version (don't wanna melt the poor guy's server) but it's pretty much up to date.
Hmmm...this doesn't seem the answer to a current issue.
XP is out and about. But, as you well know it may
not become fully mainstream until the holiday season
when people buy new computers as gifts.
It would be nice to see an organized effort against this evil of an OS. Actually pick a day for continuous campaign of phone calls, e-mails, and media coverage.
For the sake of security, the vitality of independent ISPs, and software developers, I believe it is necessary to force an injunction against the Passport/MSN nightmare of a eXPerience.
Anyone in on the idea?
"..In exchange, the government agrees to a 150+ member panel of "lobbyists" from Microsoft which will approve or disaprove of the actions of Congress, and have control over tens of millions of dollars of congressional income. This is similar to the program already in place, but now the ammount of money has been increased by an undisclosed ammount."
---------
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft has been found guilty of committing a crime as well. Now it appears they will get away with simply promising not to do it again.
Nope, they promised that they won't do it again for 5 more years, and if they do, then the 5 years becomes 7.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... just because of 'dance monkeyboy!'
I'm convinced Balmer can help me line up a good crack or crystal method connect up in Seattle.
So maybe instead they should have submitted the article from the AOL/TW site... cnn.com?
/ in dex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/11/01/microsoft.ap
Now that the American DoJ(Department of Jokes) has predictably rolled over and stuck their collective high heels in the air, one can only hope that the EU will come down on Microsoft like a ton of bricks.
This settlement will only encourage Microsoft to act illegally, just as the last consent agreement did.
Definitely a nudge nudge wink wink settlement and it only furthers the world wide contempt felt by most folks outside the US for US institutions. If Microsoft wasn't a US company they would be in the stocks long before now and we'd all be pelting Ballmer and Gates with rotten fruit.
Humbug.
I've seen that erroneous statement made all over this thread. This is not a sentence being handed down from a court. This is an attempt to reach a settlement between MS and the DoJ, as ordered by a court. That is, it is a negotiation. If memory serves, there is even a court-appointed mediator (Eric Green?) to help to proceedings along.
What Microsoft need to remember is that if they fail to reach such a settlement, or if the terms of the settlement are not accepted by the court, then the court may impose another penalty instead, and probably one MS would like far less. If I were them, I'd be putting the arrogance on hold, lest the court feel that they've "got away with it" in the settlement they've achieved, and impose a more restrictive/damaging alternative penalty.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Anyone ever tried using E-Trade's latest incarnation with Netscape on a Macintosh? It won't fly. Period. It just sits there with a mostly-blank page, trying to figure out what to to do this with this "netscape" thing.
IMNSHO, until Gill Bates is put into a cell with a 330-lb guy named "Bubba", who takes an unnatural liking to the terminus of Gill's alimentary canal, and calls Gill "Mary", justice has not been served.
You really haven't been following this case have you?
In 1995 you say there was no credible threat to the MS desktop monopoly. Wrong! There was a federal trial over this exact issue. Netscape and the Internet were the threat to the desktop paradigm and Microsoft's deathgrip on it. The browser + middleware, MS realized belatedly, threatened to make their control of the desktop irrelevant. That's why Netscape had to die.
MS has a monopoly on DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEMS, whether that means win9x or "A SUCCESSOR SYSTEM". That has been a fact central to the latest case and now has been upheld as a fact on appeal.
The legal term monopoly does not mean and has never been legally construed in US antitrust jurisprudence to mean that the monopolist has the only possible choice in a given market segment. It doesn't matter if Linux has 2% if Microsoft has the power to initimidate desktop application and hardware vendors from providing support to it. And since you're unnaturally concerned about absolutes, Microsoft has a 100% monopoly on preloaded operating systems for PCs in the brick and mortar retail channel.
Where the fuck have you been all this time D? Billg's anus can't be that interesting.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
All true.
I find it interesting the way The Two Parties(tm) hang onto their power. I've noticed that very few people I ever hear vote a particular way do so because they are incredibly fond of the party they're voting for, but more often because they HATE the "other" party...at least, the more vocal ones seem to. It often seems like The Two Parties rally their minions by warning them what horrible, unspeakable evils will be perpetrated by That Other Party if they are allowed to win...
Personally, I find the choice between the two "big" parties to be nothing more than a choice between which set of corporations gets to write your laws - Big Oil(tm) or the MPAA. (Or, to bring at least a marginal note of relevance to this story back into it - Microsoft or the MPAA.)
I tend towards a libertarian perspective, myself, but personally, I'd rather see people vote for the (American) "Green" party (about as opposite as you can get from libertarianism without going all the way to the "peace and freedom" [socialist] party) than either of "The Two Parties(tm)" that are currently entrenched...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It constantly amazes me how people on /. are willing to make statements implying that Microsoft has 'bought' polititians etc.
Where is the evidence? Just because you despise Microsoft doesn't mean you should impugn the integrity of the people at the DOJ.
Its that kind of ranting that will kill any hope the Linux community ever has of being taken seriously.
The source is immaterial if the facts are correct. Address yourself to those. You won't (of course). You can't. You'll wave it off with a self-indignant snort pretending that it isn't worth your time. Republicans are so predictable when they're confronted with facts.
And for those imagining this is off topic -- we would not be in this position, we would not have the DoJ gutted by a simpleton who lost an election to a dead guy if we had a legitimate election.
A company with a monopoly product has a product that all customers have to use if they want to survive. A company with a monopoly product should not abuse their existing monopoly, and they should not extend their existing monopoly into other areas.
Abusing their existing monopoly. Exclusive licenses should not be allowed. Any license that has a clause that is equivalent to "if (exclusive) then ..." should not be allowed. This is easy. This isn't being enforced! Why?
Extending existing monopoly. It means that anything that the company delivers that depends on their monopoly has to interact with that through a public interface that they don't control. I don't know if such a rule would speed up progress or slow it down. I know I finish projects much faster when I'm allowed to change all the code involved, rather than coordinating several groups plus an interface committee. Hum. Well, this rule isn't being enforce either.
Why is the US agreeing to this?
From the headline:
A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity
One posters suggestion:
Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Paul Allen.
My two cents:
OhMyGOD let this come to pass. The The Three Stooges references are too good to pass up.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Oh for a (+1, Flamebait) moderation ... LOL
I looked this ruling over, yawned, and then got back to more important things. If you think this is the end of the world, then let me clue you in.
Your freedom and liberty are your responsibility. You don't get them from Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Debian, RMS, or ESR. You don't get them from John Ashcroft, Janet Reno, George Bush, or Bill Clinton. You don't get them from the DOJ, DOD, IRS or USPO. You don't get them from the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. Liberty is something innate that you are born with.
As a free human being, you need to exercise your freedom or it will atrophy. I don't use Microsoft products because I am a free man and have chosen of my own free will not to use them. I know other free men who have chosen of their own free will to use Microsoft products. They are no less free than me.
Microsoft has never infringed upon my liberty. They have never held a gun to my head and forced me to use any of their products. They have never coerced me in any way. I could sit back like the rest of you and whine that choosing an alternate operating system is inconvenient, but I'm smarter than that. I know that the best things in life are NOT convenient. You have to work at them.
Could this ruling mean that Microsoft will remain a monopoly? Yes. But so what? It won't bother me in the least bit. They were a monopoly yesterday and I was using Linux yesterday. They will be a monopoly tomorrow and I will still be using Linux tomorrow.
Nobody is going to make you use Windows. If you end up using Windows it is because you chose to use it of your own free will. The only way Microsoft can get any power over you is if you choose to let them. Stop looking to the DOJ as your savior! You are already free so get out there and start acting like it!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No need to break up Microsoft. No need to take money from them. No need to force them to give up all of their intellectual property by forcing them to open source their products. These solutions are either too extreme or they just wouldn't help the situation. However, forced FREE and OPEN documentation would absolutely solve the problem. KOffice would quickly become MSOffice compatible. WINE would work correctly %100 of the time. Visual Basic apps could be compiled for Linux. Konquerer would be able to correctly render net sites made for IE. All we need is documentation... no fighting, no breaking, no stealing... just documentation.
Man, what a crappy page. But it did render okay on my NS 4.76 (Win98).
sulli
RTFJ.
you shall be visited by three ghosts named "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish".
"Tis the season of Tux the penguin, fa la la la la, la la la laaaaa"
To hell with Karma and consequences...I'm having fun.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
You think that one up all by yourself? Yer mom oughta be proud! (though not as proud as she was when she deep throated me and swallowed my whole load)
> Civilian casualties are an unavoidable and truly
> regrettable outcome of nearly any military
> operation
I believe that this whole military operation, esp. the bombing, was avoidable.
Folks, There is no way that a good lawyer who has won on all counts that matter would make a deal this good for the other side unless they were induced. I won't spout off here as it's rather pointless. Let's just say this makes the DOJ look like a joke. And if the courts sign off they are as well. 'Nuff said.
The fact is this deal if agreed to makes MSFT stronger than it was before. There is nothing in this deal that would force them to change behavior or prohibit them from "embracing and extending" anything they like and putting it out there for free to kill competitors. Nothing would change except that they would become even bolder. Period, end.
All I can further add that from a VC perspective it is pretty much going to be game over for anything that doesn't pass the "will Microsoft buy you" filter. Why? Because no VC in their right mind is going to risk having a multi-million dollar deal killed by seeing the sweat and blood of the newco's latest and greatest show up in an MS announcment as the next great thing they've "innovated". This leaves the field open for IP attorneys to have a freaking feast of copyright and patent cases to drag in front of the courts to try to block MSFT from "embracing" them. But no VC is going to waste his time hoping that they can win. Not when the DOJ has proven they will roll over, and that the courts may be just as likely to favor them in the future on the basis of the precedent this deal sets.
slap! slap! slap! slap! slap!
Bad corporation! Bad Bill! You've been very, very naughty, and I'm very disappointed in you!
No go to your room, young man, and promise me that you'll never, ever do it again!
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Any settlement that Microsoft are willing to agree on has to be a sell out. If you remember the laughable proposals for settlement that Microsoft made during the original case, you can see how little they were willing to offer.
I must say I'm quite disgusted. I was looking forward to the courts to ending the secret restrictive agreement Microsoft has with the PC manufacturers. I think if this ruling were carried out Linux would completely take off. Imagine if you could order a PC with any operating system you like, only if you order Linux it is $100 cheaper than the Windows. I lot of people just want the cheapest thing possible, so they would ask themselves, why do I need this Windows thing? Linux does everything I need.
You may think that it already is possible to do this, but I have recently tried to buy a PC in Ireland and I didn't find one single manufacture anywhere that offered a Linux PC at a good price (Dell offered it on only their top of the range PCs, and don't even quote any price). In fact I don't think there is any PC manufacturer anywhere in the world that can offer a Linux PC that will be $100 cheaper than the cheapest Windows PC. $100 dollars is what I reckon Microsoft charge the OEM under special agreement. (Maybe you can do it by buying the parts, but I am not a PC technician.).
I called the California AG office and after 30 min. on hold I got to speak with an intern(!). She told me they only accepted feedback in writing. BUT, she said email was printed out and treated the same as a posted letter.
Please note this was only for the California office.
Microsoft legal dramas always seem to playout
when they are overshadowed by other events.
If you think they lost some of the shine from their image during the Jackson trial, imagine if
it hadn't been eclipsed by Monica and all that
impeachment nonsense.
Then even more people would no what a bunch of
assholes MS really are.
>Anyone know how many patents M$ has?
>Funny, don't hear much on that.
I saw a few just the other day. Patents on, for instance, using an HTML file to format a filemanager window display, and patents on making a file that's nothing but a URL shortcut (symlink). [Yes I know that konqueror and gnome do that too; not sure what's up with that.]
You can search yourself at
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
woo hoo!!! results, just the recent patents:
------------- snip -----------------
Searching 1996-2001...
Results of Search in 1996-2001 db for:
AN/Microsoft: 1748 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 1748
PAT. NO. Title
1 6,311,323 Computer programming language statement building and information tool
2 6,311,228 Method and architecture for simplified communications with HID devices
3 6,311,216 Method, computer program product, and system for client-side deterministic routing and URL lookup into a distributed cache of URLS
4 6,311,209 Methods for performing client-hosted application sessions in distributed processing systems
5 6,311,142 Methods for designing pop-up cards, and cards produced thereby
6 6,311,058 System for delivering data content over a low bit rate transmission channel
7 6,308,274 Least privilege via restricted tokens
8 6,308,273 Method and system of security location discrimination
9 6,308,266 System and method for enabling different grades of cryptography strength in a product
10 6,308,222 Transcoding of audio data
- - - snip - - -
Marketing-driven companies end up over-marketing their products. Engineering-driven companies end up over-engineering
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In addition to contacting your state's Attorney General, I recommend sharing your thoughts directly with the DoJ's Antitrust Division:
From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm:
If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Impress them with your eloquence. That's how democracy works.