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.
Notice that the agreement came just a little bit after XP's launch.
forgot that a in "reched" lol. guess i should have clicked preview
Well the article says that Microsoft is in talks with the states as well.
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
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
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
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
LOL. I know it's a typo, but somehow reched seems rather more descriptive than reached.
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.
Yep. And if enough of them pull out, like South Carolina did, then it won't matter what the rest decide.
I'm still convinced that MS got the SC Attorney General to pull out by promising him a huge campaign contribution for his upcoming run for Governor.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
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...
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.
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 ====
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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.
These days?? What kind of foolish / alarmist and wrong statement is these.
One election was in legal question. The supreme court, falling all laws and legal procedure cleared up the matter. If you can point out what was illegal, or how the Supremem Court "picked" the President (if you recall, Bush was always in the ballot lead--nothing has changed), I'd be very interested.
Scott
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.
Elections can be fixed. Like the last one.
I thought the last election was broken, not fixed.
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 $100s.
What a worthless trial that was. Thanks Bush. Fucking asshole. Oh well, maybe the terrorists will get him. Or Gates.
Have you ever even seen a copy of the Cnstitution, let alone read it?
...spent more time and money going after Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden.
Judge Jackson kept massaging the definition of "Personal Computer" until it made MS a monopoly (what, a Mac's not a PC? Linux is not an OS?). If I were BG & Co I would never cave. I'd close up shop, Atlas Shrugged style before settling in any fashion. But, that's just me. Maybe this is BG's contribution to prevent the country from being distracted and inconvenienced in time of war.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft should be punished for their misdeeds by being fined billions and billions of dollars. (I like to call it the Sagan treatment.) This will send a message to the shareholders to make sure that they don't break the law anymore and suffer further punishment, and have the delightful side effect of severely reducing Microsoft's ability to buy near-monopolys in related fields such as cable tv, etc., as well as putting a lot of money into the government coffers to allow the meeting of expenses such as part of the cost of fighting a war without having to increase taxes or federal debt quite as soon or as much.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ask any one nerd (myself included) what transgressions Microsoft is guilty of and they could go on for hours. And that's just from surfing the web in their spare time.
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
Bah. The whole antitrust thing in just a distraction from the real issue - closed vs open. Sure, it would have been nice to see M$ 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.
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.
...
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?
One of the articles linked here states that there would be a procedural problem if the states attempted to carry on after the judge has approved the settlement. So there is no guarantee that it would proceed even if the states wanted it to.
You can bet that MS would work that angle for everything it was worth if the situation arose. They don't need to worrry about losing or even about attempting to win if they can manage the situation such that they can stay out of court in the first place. "Business as usual" then.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
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.
Send mail to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov and complain
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...
>should do whatever it can to help it's
>shattered economy, and I believe dropping
>all charges against microsoft will
>do just that.
Yeah,
Let's build an economy on a backbone of criminal and otherwise unethical behavior!
Wait a minnit! This is the Bush administration... That's what almost half of you selfish bastards voted for!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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...'
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.
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.
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?
2 simple words, fuck you. Microsoft has devastated the industry. I strongly believe that the current tech downturn was caused by Microsoft's evil ways. If there was true competition, do you think that M$'s stock would be still floating up where it is while virtually every other tech company is tanking? think long and hard about it.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One election was in legal question. The supreme court, falling all laws and legal procedure cleared up the matter.
At what point did it what was a matter relating to some parts of one US state become a matter for the US federal government? Did the Florida supreme court request a ruling. Was there a constitutional ammendment. postdating the 10th, which grants such jurisdiction?
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
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
That could be an interesting point, if it were not wrong. MS is in trouble because people are not willing to spend tons of money on new hardware and upgrades to keep up with the lates&greatest MS marketing hype.
businesses are very reluctant to upgrade, and the majority haven't even upgraded to ME/2000 from 98/NT, let alone to XP. the same holds true for office XP.
i think you have to realize that the economy is in bad shape because people are scared. they don't want to buy stuff in insecure times.
just an opinion...
meneer de koekepeer
>What you need is to get some folks on the Supreme Court.
SC Justices aren't elected though, are they?
I'm pretty sure they are nominated by the pres and confirmed by congress, no? I remember Clarence Thomas being nominated by Bush sr. and the drawn-out confirmation hearings in 1991. (Anita Hill?)
Are any of the justices due to retire during Bush's current term? Who are the front-runner candidates for a Bush SC nomination?
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]
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
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.
>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."
I think you mean well, but letting M$ do what they want like they have for the past decade or so will bring us down further. My company can barely afford the windows 2000 licenses we had to buy, and we will NEVER buy XP because we can't afford it, and ofcourse we don't have a reason to.... that is, unless these bastards make it so we have to. Meaning, that only the latest OS will support their new programs and what not. This is why we NEED the government to keep them in line.
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.
...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.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that was a joke or a troll (or both)... What a bunch o' dullards.
Michael J. Fox, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland, Jason Priestly, William Shatner, James Doohan, Rich Little, Keanu Reeves, Christopher Plumber, Martin Short, Dan Ackroyd, Mike Myers, Lorne Greene, Jim Carrey, Neve Campbell, Pamela Anderson Lee, Margot Kidder, Catherine O'Hara, Nelly Furtado, Celine Dion, Corey Hart, Bryan Adams, The Guess Who, The Tragically Hip, The BareNaked Ladies, BTO, Shania Twain, Paul Anka, Alanis Morissette, April Wine, Jacques Villeneuve, Bret and Owen Hart, Nancy Greene, Wayne Gretzky, Peter Jennings, Elizabeth Arden, Margaret Atwood, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Sam Goldwin, James Cameron, David Cronenberg
And then there's:
Acrylics, air-conditioned vehicles, dental mirrors, electric cooking range, electric wheelchair, foghorn, green plastic garbage bags, IMAX, insulin, machine gun tracer bullets, paint roller, pablum, Puzz-3d, Pictionary, Trivial Pursuit, the pacemaker, newsprint, STOL aircraft, Superman, Yachtzee, the zipper, basketball... and, of course, ginger ale
Oh, just in case you're not aware of it, half of your exports head for the Great White North. So your economy is fairly dependant on ours."I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
so you're the ones responsible for William Shatner?!?!?!??!
You BASTARDS!!!
Yeah, I really hesitated about listing that one. But it was probably one of those "flamed if you do, flamed if you don't" kind of things.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
...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
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.
And while we're at it, let's stop investigating the mob's protection rackets - any business is good for the economy now, even if its illegal, predatory, and actually destroys more than it creates.
What's amazing is that a even Reagan-appointed judge had the blunt honesty to call this company what it is, a thuggish criminal enterprise, and somehow our government isn't going to punish them. If anyone else caused the economic harm this company had, was found guilty of all counts except one, would the Ashcroft DOJ not appeal a sentence?
I'm at a loss for words.
Let us pretend now that Microsoft had never entered the Internet arena. We have AOL and Netscape basically doing battle. Netscape would ultimately lose because their business model only consists of giving away their flagship product while making money on a portal and a web server. Yahoo would have (and did) kill Netscape (and tons of other's) portals. And we know Netscape couldn't hold their own against Apache, so they can't compete there either. So basically they have no income and are dead in the water. Posterboy for the "New Economy" goes down the drain and starts to raise market hysteria. Investors would soon figure out that they were throwing money into a landfill regardless of Microsoft. Infact, if there was any reason whatsoever to have faith in the "New Economy" it was _because of_ Microsoft. Microsoft stood strong while the dot-coms fell down like dominos.
There is a far greater evil that damaged the economy than Microsoft: greed. The Silly Con Valley gold rush was driven purely by greed. Moronic MBAs rushing to IPO on a non-existant business all while buying pool tables and fucking scooters--using VC money. VC should be VG for Very Greedy. They saw what happened to Netscape's IPO and wanted to get a little action so they invested in every dot-com name under the sun. They got burnt bad, but probably not as bad as Joe Bob home investor who bought $10k worth of dot-com stock _on margin_ from the E-Trade account they recently opened. Tell me now, how does Microsoft do _that_ kind of evil? It's beyond me.
Dijkstra Considered Dead
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
The economic downturn was caused by an excess of easy money (see Alan Greenspan, Fed, Printing Money) leading to malinvestment; the downturn is the liquidation of the malinvestment. That malinvestment can be euphemistically called The Dot-com Frenzy. Here's an article to that effect.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
> Netscape would ultimately lose because their
> business model only consists of giving away their
> flagship product while making money on a portal
> and a web server.
Not necessarily. They could have gotten into the ISP business. AOL's content, aka superportal, would then go up against Netscape's standard browser.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
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
> I'm still convinced that MS got the SC Attorney
> General to pull out by promising him a huge
> campaign contribution for his upcoming run for
> Governor.
As opposed to the attornies general of the other states who seek to be (re)elected because they beat up on Microsoft, whose "ruining your life."
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
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.
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
Well, the electoral college from a state must be directly elected by the population. The state may not put up arbitrarily silliness and call it a fair, democratic election. That impacts the citizens of that state on a federal issue, which is a federal concern, and it affects the rest of the states and the federal government itself.
Gore could not have won Florida without counting double-punched ballots and other crap that clearly could not be done legally, and the best he could hope for was to cause Florida to become disenfranchised due to the delay, and win that way. That is not some kind of pleasant situation, either.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
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)
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)
> 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
>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
Nope. AOL had about a 15 year head start on infrastructure. No way Netscape could compete with that.
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.