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.
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!
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
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.
"Terms of the prospective settlement were closely guarded, and people close to the negotiations cautioned that precise language was still being worked out even between Microsoft and the Justice Department."
which means absolutely nothing has been worked out. We all knew a deal would eventually be worked out, but without specifics it's still quite up in the air.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surpised if the Justice Dept. found the recent "concessions" by Microsoft (allowing icons of Internet Explorer to be removed; allowing the user to easily change the default browser on the Start Menu) to be enough. This was the same Justice Department, after all, that "demonstrated" how it could remove Internet Explorer by deleting the icon from the desktop.
Watch for more tomfoolery...
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
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
the ideals of youth give way to stark realities.
.net, Gates grand scheme to own the internet, he doesn't know what a passport is and he probably dosen't care about software licenses. All Bush cares about his the economy, and all the other crap going on. Lets face it - this is a BAD time to try and break up the largest software company in the world.
Bush didn't sell out to MS - he just saw a bigger picture. IF MS got blugened, broken apart, fined, etc. that would mean problems with every software developer in the nation who writes apps for MS. If MS can't keep upgrading OS's - software companies can't keep upgrading applications. Everyone loses money and jobs. End of story
Political arguments on slashdot are usually stilted to liberal Neuromancer cum Utopian technologists (at least, mine are!) Bush doesn't care about
Jesse Wolfe Sr. Manager Systems Integration
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.
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.
Wow how ridiculus is this argument. To suggest that the clinton white house went after MS because they didn't pay is just silly. Did they go after any other businesses that didn't pay them? You have absolutely zero evidence that this was the reason they "pursued them vigorously". Guess what it's their job to pursue them vigorously. Just like it was the Bush justice depts job to pursue the case vigorously. It's the job of every prosecutor to do every thing in their power to get a conviction and to send the offender to jail. Prosecutors work for us (the public) and not the defendent (the criminal). Too bad Ashcroft decided that donations were more important then the rule of law and that the interest of the public didn't amount to hill of beans.
Please point to one piece of paper (and not some republicans opinion) or one shred of evidence that this suit was started because MS did not fork over the money.
"This is purely a case for behavioural rememedies. Futhermore most people at large and most legal types would probably tell that if held today, those hearings that led the finding of fact would fall strongly in the corner of MS. The market isnt the same today as in 1995, mostly because of Linux and other Free Software projects."
More nonsense.
First of all it does not matter what the market is like today. they are on trial and have been found guilty of breaking the law. You can't argue that the circumstances are different now and that the law should let you go (unless you are the riches man in the world of course).
Besides circumstances are not really different. MS still has a monopoly, it still abuses that monopoly, it still bundles, it still uses monopoly products to gain monopolies in other markets. XP is a prime example of this. The entire purpose of XP is to get people signed up on passport, using MSN, using MS media formats etc. It has nothing to do with being an OS and everything to do with delivering advertising to windows users.
And even if we were to buy your ridiculus arguments how does a consent degree enforce behavioural rememedies. Bill Gates has already shit on the last remedy and Ballmer is getting ready to piss on this one as we speak. This punishment is a joke and everybody knows that. The justice system in this country is corrupt beyond belief.
The end result of this case will be formal acknowledgement that Bill Gates is officially above the law.
War is necrophilia.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First of all it does not matter what the market is like today. they are on trial and have been found guilty of breaking the law.
Also was not at least part of the reason for this trial that they broke their "probation" from previously being found guilty. If a regular person did this they probably wouldn't even get a second trial.
But here is where the idea of corporations as "people" breaks down fundermentaly.
I trust the point is clear. Even in hard, nasty, brutish, and short competitions there have to be some ground rules, or society just goes back to the prehistoric concept of "whoever can kill the most men and rape the most women wins". Which is how it often is in the animal kingdom, but I thought we had agreed as human beings to try to do better than that?
Much of what Microsoft did was fair competition. Novell, for example, shot itself in the foot. But Microsoft also slipped little Christmas presents into Windows and Office service packs that deliberatly broke standards Novell had set for the whole industry (and from which Microsoft had taken benefit) for 10 years. That was not legitimate competition.
Similarly, threatening to withold Windows licenses from manufactuers who wanted to put Netscape on the desktop was not fair competition, when Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows.
So let's not be so brutish, eh?
sPh
...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