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...
Linus
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
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
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
Elections can be fixed. Like the last one.
I thought the last election was broken, not fixed.
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.
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?
(In response to mrbkap.)
.Net. Since MS couldn't lure people to their Java-alike called C#, they are now trying for another Java-alike called J#. But that isn't likely to work since people remember what a joke Visual J++ was. If Microsoft can't keep Windows developers, or get .Net developers, it is going to be in trouble.
;)
Microsoft would like the world to believe that the fate of the economy rests on its shoulders. If that were true, MS would not be looking for new and exciting ways to milk money from people (auditing impoverished schools and children's charities, forcing people to pay to keep their software running, etc.) just to keep the company fed. Back in March and April of this year, upgrades of Windows 98 were outselling Windows ME, and Apple's OS X was outselling Windows 2000 upgrades. With all the reasons to hate or fear Windows XP, and all the anger MS's latest license policies are rousing, Microsoft is going to have a tough time selling Windows XP. Add to that the low PC sales (= OS sales) and MS so conveniently trying to overextend itself going for new markets (web services and game consoles), and you get a Microsoft that is weaker than it has been in years. It is ripe for its competition to unseat it, and removing its stranglehold on the market would free up a lot of room for real innovation that would actually spark growth. Microsoft is an ugly, smelly, half rotten weed. It is making the computer industry very sick.
Yes, Apple does make things user friendly (as opposed to MS merely making them user annoying). They have taken that talent, and applied it to an operating system based on an open source version of BSD Unix (plus the Mach kernal and a proprietary user interface). The result is the powerful, but easy to use, OS X. Finally we have a Unix that is as easy to use as Mac has always been, that runs Quicken and the Sims, is as powerful as Unix, and has a Terminal application that the brave can use to access a real Unix shell prompt. The result: Mac users who have never seen a command line before are eagerly rushing to acquire "mastery of the Terminal app", and are posting tips about their favorite cryptic command line like game cheats or easter eggs! OS X is quite capable of filling in Linux's weaknesses on the desktop. OS X makes the Mac a very credible threat to Windows, especially since Apple is the strongest of the desktop computer makers at the moment. Microsoft does not realize the danger here (Shhh, don't tell them).
Linux is nothing to be sneezed at either. It is doing very well against Microsoft on the server side. It is not out of the running on the desktop side either. Linux is a good choice for the enterprise desktop, in cases where commercial apps aren't needed, and MIS has competent people to administer the users' machines. Linux is also good for embedded systems.
Java is supposed to overtake Visual Basic and Visual C++ next year. The success of an OS depends on its developers. If the developers are moving to system independent Java, that weakens Windows and threatens
The alternatives are here now, and ready to roll. Microsoft is either going to have to learn how to compete, or they are going down the tubes, and dragging with them any PC maker stupid enough to not find themselves a better OS. Somehow, I don't see MS learning how to make bug free programs that do what the customer wants any time soon. If I were IBM, I'd start making the rounds of the software companies and get them to start turning out Linux applications.
As for the antitrust trial, this is getting ridiculous. Microsoft has been found guilty of doing nasty, illegal things with their monopoly. Shame. Shame. To even consider "settlement" talks during the penalty stage of a trial is bad enough. Agreeing on the exact same thing that MS violated years ago is idiotic! MS already thinks it is above the law. Letting MS off is going to make it think it is the second coming.
Time to appeal to a higher court: the consumer. Punish Microsoft for their wicked ways by taking your business elsewhere!
Homage to Godzilla, King of Monsters, on the occasion of his 47th birthday this Saturday.
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.
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?
Now the current commercial where a room full of mainframes are replaced by a single box running Linux by IBM, now that is good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, MS didn't pay any taxes. I did, but they didn't.
- Dan I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion