Slashdot Mirror
More Details of MS/DOJ Deal
There are various news articles out at most major news sites, but they're all based on this press release from the Department of Justice. The actual terms of the settlement will probably become public shortly, so I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to dissect this press release. Just read it for generalities. In sum: for this whole multi-year case, which you will recall started when Microsoft refused to obey its earlier behavior restrictions, we have more behavior restrictions, lasting only five years. And if MS doesn't obey those, they'll ... be in effect longer. Update: 11/02 15:07 GMT by M : Here are the promised terms of the settlement. Now you can dissect them. :) Update: 11/02 15:53 GMT by M : The states are refusing to sign on.
Here is another look at the settlement. I think this view is closer to the truth.
no posts - though this is gettign rettyold hat. THe gov't needs somethign more threatening to fines for corps. (remembering an old thread about applying the death penalty to corps. since they are legal entities)
-shpoffo
I'm not sure about anyone else, but as a long time sysadmin and web monkey, I feel like I've been violated, without the use of lubrication, by the DOJ. This "punishment" is tantamount to Br'er Rabbit getting tossed into the briar patch. The DOJ might as well change it's official title from The Department of Justice to The Micro$soft Department of Justice and Inovation.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
I mean, well you know what I mean.
Duh, I bet those 'Corporatism is good for you' guys will
-a- ignore the post
-b- minimize the post
-c- call the poster a liar
-d- say it's actually a good thing
My other sig is Funny.
The thing is, however, MS is huge. They're so powerful that the DOJ won't be able to enforce their decision very long. MS will do whatever it wants, maybe end up in another law suit, and throw more lawyers at it. But they wouldn't do it if they weren't makeing money...so they'll do it so long as they do. The only thing that will stop MS is a consumer level loss of interest. Office XP, .NET and the new licensing system could do just that.
The settlement says they need to have open server protocols. This is great for SAMBA, and it seems like it would have to include exchange. Maybe Microsoft will go away from everything runs from the network.
At least these two points caught my attention:
Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces- Microsoft will be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used by Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system. This will allow developers to create competing products that will emulate Microsoft's integrated functions.
Disclosure of Server Protocols- The Final Judgment also ensures that other non-Microsoft server software can interoperate with Windows on a PC the same way that Microsoft servers do. This is important because it ensures that Microsoft cannot use its PC operating system monopoly to restrict competition among servers. Server support applications, like middleware, could threaten Microsoft's monopoly.
If I understood correctly, they are forcing MS to open the interface specifications and protocols to others. This would be a Very Good Thing for several open source projects, for example Samba. Although I have some doubts about how effectively will this deal project into reality, this is definitely a step into a good direction.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Since MSFT is no longer one of the more important stocks in the NASDAQ index (I think the index has finally shaken loose :)), is it more likely that they would try to enforce the restrictions?
æeee!
In an industry where things can change dramatically mere months, five years seems like one of the first realistic settlements related to a technology case. Microsoft is already making broad changes to how they intend to obtain revenue with their Hailstorm services, and five years from now, the company is likely to look very little like the entity they are today.
M$ has its hand in the gov, we'll see more and more restrictions ... *cough*notobeyed*cough* yay!
The current posture of the USDOJ with respect to Microsoft reminds me of Robin Williams skit involving British Bobbies (police), and making an arrest? "Stop, or I shall say stop again!"
At first I missed the slash in there, and I thought that Microsoft had bought out the DOJ and changed it's name to MS DOJ. Well at least I can breathe a sigh of relief... for now.
The deal is for five years, but it takes Microsoft around 2 or 3 years to come out with a new version of Winows and other software. So... the deal doesn't seem like it will have much of a lasting effect.
.doc and .xls, don't think for a minute that offices wouldn't switch to something else.
Also, there is a section about disclosure of server protocols, they left out what is the most important part: Document Formats. If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on
from the press release :
...
...
Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces- Microsoft will be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used by Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system. This will allow developers to create competing products that will emulate Microsoft's integrated functions.
Disclosure of Server Protocols- The Final Judgment also ensures that other non-Microsoft server software can interoperate with Windows on a PC the same way that Microsoft servers do. This is important because it ensures that Microsoft cannot use its PC operating system monopoly to restrict competition among servers. Server support applications, like middleware, could threaten Microsoft's monopoly.
Freedom to Install Middleware Software--Computer manufacturers and consumers will be free to substitute competing middleware software on Microsoft's operating system.
Ban on Retaliation--Microsoft will be prohibited from retaliating against computer manufacturers or software developers for supporting or developing certain competing software. This provision will ensure that computer manufacturers and software developers are able to take full advantage of the options granted to them under the proposed Final Judgment without fear of reprisal.
I must say this looks VERY promising
I can't wait to see the microsoft docs for their protocols
Ow, my wrist.
324006
Ban on Exclusive Agreements
According to the text, this should stop the very restrictive OEM-contracts that PC-manufacturers have with MS. Now they are not allowed to deliver a dual-boot system, their contracts specifically forbids them to install anything but MS Operating Systems.
Just an idea, sure it'll be lost in discussion.
Reminds me of a joke about unarmed cops in England: "Stop or I'll yell STOP again!"
That will accomplish a lot.
Microsoft is in the process of slowly imploding. Its .NET stuff is a disaster. Managers are wondering why all the infrastructure developed around COM/MTS have to be thrown out (or kept on life support with interop) and why all the training money spent on VB/COM is now wasted. Corporate America is also questioning more than ever the ever-increasing licensing burden being imposed. Microsoft is so laden with fat there is no way they will be able to survive the economic downturn in its current state.
Left shift 1 for e-mail...
you get what you pay for.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
The wording is very attractive from a layman's
view. It will be interesting to witness the legal
interpretation of the language in this agreement
as Microsoft throws lawyers at it. I certainly hope
it will enhance interoperability with large MS
applications like Exchange and Office... but I get
the feeling MS will avoid providing any
documentation that is useful to outside software
developers. Also, there is nothing to say that MS
can't charge million$ for access to those
specifications.
b
Reading the press release, the gub'ment is all happy about the restrictions on middleware.
Alrighty.
Microsoft rolled them.
Reading this, I can now put as many functions into the OS as I wish (it is not middleware), and I do not need to expose all of them (as they are not middleware). Moreover, I can insert driver layers above that which require "registration" of middleware, so that a new middleware piece has to register with the OS. I can put a function call into the OS, or some intelligence into the driver that recognizes the difference between Microsoft middleware and non-Microsoft middleware.
Moreover, this gives incentive to Microsoft to push lots of stuff into the "kernel" layers.
Microsoft is still in control, and now, they have the backing of the gub'ment.
It wasn't bad enough that NT was a big stinking pile, and W2k was the pile with a chocolate covering... Microsoft now can integrate passport like stuff into the kernel, expose a minimum of functions via "middleware" and say it has complied.
Great freakin work gub'ment. Great freakin work.
You should have broken up the beast when you had the chance. Make 2 companies, an OS company, and an applications company.
But, you blew it.
Thanks a whole helluva lot. My tax dollars at work. Helping Bill and crew .
...achieving prompt,
effective and certain relief for consumers and businesses.
(from the press release)
Prompt? After five years? Is that really prompt?
Effective? about the only thing the justice department has proven itself to be effective at is in lawyering. Short of actually whimpering and running out of the courtroom they have all but thrown in the towel.
Certain? Oh please, the certainty of this settlement can be easily seen reflected in the stock market. If the market had faith that microsoft was being forced to behave fairly, then the competitors to and middleware providers of software to microsoft would be jumping up. Borland, Symantec, Roxio, Corel. But it is not happening, because nodoby is buying the bull. I feel, as the market does, that microsoft will pay no attention to this directive, as it has not paid attention to any other court orders in the past.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
This "deal" is the result of Bush getting into office (I won't go so far as to say he was "elected"). The message went out to Redmond loud and clear that this was a much more monopoly-friendly administration.
Please don't be so naive as to claim that Bush had nothing to do with this. The appointment of Ashcroft, the slashing of the budget to pursue the Microsoft case, and the removal of high-powered, experienced DOJ staff assigned to the case were all done under the Bush administration. They might as well have hung up a "Welcome Microsoft!" banner on the front of the White House.
I must say this looks VERY promising ...
All along it's history, Microsoft has shown us that they are *very* creative in killing the competition. No doubt they will find a way to do whatever they please. (They could always have a go in the book publishing business - a suggested title could be: Creative assassination in the corperate world')
I don't see this working because MS will not be OPENfree, it'll charge lots for developers to get this information. Furthermore, if you are a developer and you do pay, Likely you'll not be allowed to share this info with others, as MS will make themselves the only source for this information.
I think the other thing that's missing is document format disclosure, to allow others to read and use MS office files. IMHO, MS Office has more to do with companies not leaving the windows platform than any other issue.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
This is becoming more and more of a myth.
Whilst UK cops are generally unarmed, armed police are only a radio call away. In airports and other high security locations police are routinely armed.
Actually it's "stop or we'll beat you over the head with a truncheon and if that doesn't work our armed response unit will come round and shoot you". Nowadays you average UK copper is likely to be wearing Kevlar body armour and truncheons exactly the same in style to US cops.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
by emphasizing "middleware" they forgot that MS has new platforms upon which to leverage their monopoly.
.NET service apps), like they leveraged their OS to favor their apps.
Now that IE is ubiquitous, they can leverage the content rendered (i.e.
In talking with the AG office of Utah, they said that even though the appellate court sent the "tying" issue back to the lower court, and the DOJ refused to retry that point: the remedy would reflect a solution to using their monopoly to leverage their applications atop their platforms, no matter what the platform.
I doubt the states are going to settle. The DOJ is out of the case, but the states will continue.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
It would be the death of a thousand cuts if it was sufficiently large (reps from each state) and if MS have to clear all plans with the commission in advance.
Micromanagement from the DOJ, with the IRS as a model, lots of random audits, etc.
One can only hope
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Although it's (allegedly) written into agreements: "thou shalt not (wor)ship any but our OS (signed God)", Windoze is theirs and they can sell it to any OEM for any price they please. Do you not think that OEMs who only ship XP (eXtremely Pricey) might "be able to negotiate" a rather better price for their Windows licenses. All that's changed is that Bill can't write it into the contract. I dare say that pricing is confidential so there wouldn't be an easy way for Honest Ron's PCs to prove that they were paying twice as much for their licenses as Dull Computers because they once shipped a machine with no OS on it.
Score -1: Pessimistic
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Does this mean that M$ will have to open the source to their protocol stacks? If the Halloween documents are true this will be a great advantage to all developers. This will prevent the re-happening of the Novell/Ms problems, and will open NT up the the Samba team! This will be a great time for those of us who use the 2 to work together. I noticed that they tried to stop ppl from using Samba when they released XP 2600. 2000 SP2 worked with Samba 2.2.1a. XP din't. Hmmm.
Anyway, the open protocol scheme is a good idea. This should have been thought of a lot earlier by the DOJ. I believe this will be a great thing for everyone, companys, closed source developers, open source developers, and anyone else who wants to write their own 'samba server'. This will open up competition again, and allow for people like me to have a easier time running M$ software with non-M$ software. A lot of people choose not to run NT for servers, and M$ will punnish them for it in the next release, or update. This won't happen again if this all works out!
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
When I originally heard about this, I thought that five years was a short amount of time. Even more so now that I read the press release.
Okay. Assuming in year 1, Microsoft publishes all of its proprietary protocols. Your company makes a program that goes head-on with something of Microsoft's. (Say, an Exchange server on Solaris, or something.)
You've got a few years to make improvements and get a really reliable and feature-filled product. Microsoft will probably throw a few kinks your way, but that's fine.
What I am wondering is... the start of year 5. I would bet money that Microsoft would go back to something new and proprietary, and my company would be locked out again. So what real incentive do I have to create a competing product that I know won't be around five years from now?
The terms against Microsoft are pretty good, but the five year window really lessens the blow. (Even more so when you know they'll wiggle against those terms all during the five years.) But I don't see it as being a big win for competition. Maybe a small window that a few can get some short-term punches in.
I am reminded of a line by Robin Williams...
Stop, or I'll say stop again....
I'm pretty sure my pastor said in church last week that when the Final Judgement comes Bill Gates will be going to Hell. Something about avarice, gluttony, sloth, etc. Let's hear it for the DoJ recognising who's really in charge here.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
The Feds have settled, its over. Time to move on.
I'm hoping that this'll extend to them. Wouldn't it be delicious to get the inner workings of those boxes? That'd be a big win for everyone.
No, it was Bush's DOJ that dropped their pursuit of a split. Congress hasn't had a damn thing to do with this suit from day one.
And M$ was Dubbya's third-biggest campaign contributor. Don't you think that amounts to buying him?
I'm not happy.
I don't see anything in there that would prevent Microsoft from continuing with their standard practice of disallowing vendors from shipping competing operating systems. It says they must offer the same terms to a significant group of vendors over five years, but it makes no restrictions on what those terms can be.
Abadon all hope ye geeks...for it is writtin in the walls of the microsoft that one operating system shall bind them all
I read somewhere (i think NYTimes) that one area the DoJ was pushing for was to force MS to publish their specs for things like file formats and their other propritary "standards." MS was very resistant to that, as they would about publishing anything prorietary.
Thiking about this, I actually think it would be in MS's better interest to publish those specs. Some of their products are already de facto standards in the business world. Publishing those specs would allow competitors to write competing software (ie- StarOffice) that's compatible more easily, but that would be MS's consequence for abusing a monopoly. But by publishing the spec, that would make MS the "setter of the standard," something that they have always wanted to be.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee, the fix was in.
The biggest problem I can infer from reading the DOJ's press releases is that while MS will have to share protocol and interface information (what about file formats? These are more important to competitors in many cases than protocols) there may not be any restriction on MS supplying these details one month and then modifying them the next, coupled with automatic forced software update in XP to match....once again competing developers may end up in a not very cost-effective game of catch-up. Need to see the details....could be very disappointing.
Netscape's been dead for 3 years. Every time the DOJ finally gets around to hauling Microsoft into court over some transgression, by the time they finally win the case and decide upon a remedy, the wake's over, the funeral's finished, and the body of their competitor has already been buried and left to rot.
It isn't all Microsoft's fault, though. Netscape rolled over and obediently died after the first shot was fired. Does anyone even *use* Netscape anymore? What about WordPerfect? Lotus 1-2-3? Yeah, they all *exist*, but who the hell cares? The thing is, people would probably still use these products if Microsoft hadn't spent years improving their own force-fed offerings whilst litigation was pending. What's the last "innovative", or even the last remotely interesting thing Netscape's done though? Hell, 4.7 is 3 years old, doesn't support half of HTML 3.x, and is just as buggy and unstable as ever. And don't get me started on 6!
Sure, Microsoft's done plenty of bad shit, but, with the exception of the tiny companies, they've had an awful lot of help from their competitors. I don't see this changing any time soon.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I don't see anything in the release that would prevent Microsoft from doing everything you say, and then still yanking the OS license from any OEM who sold dual-boot systems.
The proposed settlement also adds an important enforcement provision that provides for a panel of three independent, on-site, full-time computer experts to assist in enforcing the proposed Final Judgment. These experts will have full access to all of Microsoft's books, records, systems, and personnel, including source code, and will help resolve disputes about Microsoft's compliance with the disclosure provisions in the Final Judgment.
Independent? That means what? They didn't come from the DOJ, and are just another "certified, reputable expert"? (Possibly a MS basher)
full access to systems? AND source code???
Egads man! Independent+full access to source and machines. This would scare me slightly if I was MS. I'm sure they have some unbelievable security. But obviously their would be concern in this case. I'm sure their aren't many MS employees that have this much access.
I understand that access needs to be there for obvious enforcement reasons, but if I was MS, it would just scare the hell outta me (in a security sense).
Can all fish swim?
"And if MS doesn't obey those, they'll ... be in effect longer."
^the get smacked apart into little weak pieces.
8) yeah boy, Justic rings its head upon the little blue punk.
STOP! Or I'll say "STOP!" again!
Looks like Bill, Steve and gang have finally learned the value of contributing heavily to campaign coffers.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does that mean OSS projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice would get access? What constitutes a "software developer?" Are we talking a corporation or does that term carry a broader interpretation? If I make a GPL'd product and the only way I could license the IP was under the GPL or a compatable license would MS be forced to comply? As a developer, what are my "rights?"
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
A corproration lives to maximise the the profit for it's shareholders, as long as breaking the law and ignoring the court's desisions is making more money that it costs it will continue to do so.
There shud be an ultimate penalty if a corporation continues to ignore the law after multiple jugdmends agains it!
The goverment shoud simply impound the company, thus it woud not be to the benefit of the shareholders that a corporation breaks the law.
Afterward the goverment can deside either to likvidate the corporation or to replace the board and top managment and then resell the stocks, both with the income going to the state treasury.
From the press release:
.. well, urm, software? Where along the line did those types of componants somehow become referred to as 'middleware' .. is that just a euphamism for 'applications that get shipped with an os'?
> Broad Scope of Middleware Products- The proposed Final Judgment applies a broad definition of middleware products which is wide ranging and will cover all the technologies that have the potential to be middleware threats to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. It includes browser, e-mail clients, media players, instant messaging software, and future new middleware developments.
Since when is a media player middleware? Or an IM client? Arn't these just pieces of
Being a developer, I'm used to middleware being your glue code between back (business logic) and front (view logic) ends.
"Old man yells at systemd"
...they forced Microsoft to end the clauses they have in their licensing agreements with PC manufacturers prohibiting them from offering for sale PC's with other operating systems installed.
There are numerous cases where if a vendor wishes to sell PC's running Windows, they are prohibited, in their M$ contract, from selling machines (a) without Windows installed or (b) with another OS installed along side Windows i.e. Windows and Windows only on 100% of machines.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
I've seen so many negitive posts about this, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Microsoft is a monopoly and needs to be regulated to some degree. Lets drink our beer and toast to the about face and fight for a better legislation tommorow.
The claim with regard to closing the SMB protocol was that the new password-exchange system (implemented in XP I think) was covered by a method patent. This raises two questions. First, will Microsoft be required to either relinquish this patent or agree not to pursue claims based on this patent (since it's not strictly a patent on a protocol)? Second, What does this mean for Microsoft's other Intellectual Property?
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
In fact, quite the opposite, we're planning to proceed on with plans for a brave GNU world of open/honest communications/commerce, free (as in absent) of MiSleading ?pr? payper liesense billsh!t. Having seen these face scans of the felonious fuddites, we have no choice but to resist to the last byte.
Meanwhile, (in case fud really is dead), check out our big (as in microscopic) web address giveaway. Includes a year's free hosting, for whois able to follow the simple directions.
Finally, please don't try to force us to accept your help/support, on this cite.
Until americans begin receiving bills from Microsoft or their partners for services they can't get anywhere else and at rates they find outrageous, most won't care. There was once a time where all the TV that was available was broadcast for free, now millions are perfectly content to fork over $30+ a month for basic service. With scares over anthrax, threats against suspension bridges in the west, the world series and the ongoing bombing in Afghanistan, not too many people where I work are even aware there are issues with Microsoft, most seem to think the government is going after them because their Big.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This agreement seems like total hogwash to me. If M$ has to open up their protocols, who decides to whom they are opened?
...
If someone wants to write a program that lets server admins make a donkey jump up and down on a client's screen, will M$ let them into their labs to study protocols? I dont think so
So M$ is free to make the "applications barrier to entry" a "developers barrier to entry" instead. No change there. They'll just put up a big sign outside the Redmond Lab: "No Open Source Allowed". Redmond will decide who are "real" developers and who arent, and make pretty damn sure they only let their friends in...
Im not a techie, but: How can they protect their intellectual properties if their code gets included in open source projects?
The only way to ensure full access for every developer, including open source, is to *publish the source code*.
/penhead
So this agreement says they have to document their server protocols - I'll believe that when I see it. But what about the (constantly changing) proprietary file formats used by Word & Office?
.doc files with others and the file conversion is never quite right.
Those formats have become ubiquitous and there can be no competition/innovation in this area unless their formats are COMPLETELY documented so others can write software that use it just as well. There are several other, cheaper, word processors I like but cannot use because I have to exchange
This agreement is pointless and fails to address the most important reasons Microsoft remains a monopoly.
So if Microsoft again doesn't play by the rules, they just get the "punishment" extended.
That's kinda like telling the kid that robs banks that you are going to revoke their allowance.
- Extend and embrace existing protocols and interfaces in order to prevent competitors from entering the market. The Halloween document strategy would be eliminated.
- Threaten OEM's with anticompetitive liscenses. OEM's should now have a lot more control of the desktops of the systems they sell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "Ban on Retaliation" and the "Freedom to Install Middleware Software" provisions give OEM's control of the bootloader as well. This means that we may start seeing some dual boot systems for sale from the likes of HP/Compaq, Gateway, Dell, etc.See the following paragraph. This means that
all they need to do is to insert crypto into
any protocol and then they don't need to provide
any spec of it. DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!! Seems the
DOJ has been fooled again!
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
I have asked you nicely once. Do not make me ask you nicely again.
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Taken from the website [microsoft.com], at the top
5. The United States will publish a notice informing the public of the proposed Final Judgment and public comment period in the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 2001.
6. Members of the public may submit written comments about the proposed Final Judgment to a designated official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a period of 60 days after publication of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
7. Within 30 days after the close of the 60-day public comment period, the United States will file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register any comments it receives and its response to those comments.
So, if we don't like it, we should file a comment. if enough people file comments maybe they will get it that this is unsatisfactory to the populus.
I must say this looks VERY promising ...
/"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
/'g&-l&-blE/ adverb
New moderation option: -1 Gullible
: easily duped or cheated
- gullibility
- gullibly
I think this about sums it up. Micosoft can still screw over developers that are trying to compete with them.
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph."
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
If they don't comply, the restrictions will be in effect longer? What if they still don't comply?
Doesn't matter where they have/don't have a monopoly- if they're using thier monopoly position or resources to move into other markets, it's going to be covered by the setllement. They're using their monopoly status to work their way into the console market (Don't for a second believe that they're not- if they weren't leveraging Win32 to get there, they'd not even be a considered system option...) so it's probably going to be considered part of the whole shebang.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The days of Democrats being for the people and Republicans being for the rich are over.. Both have completely sold out to corp interests.
Furthermore, the grassroots parties that are still somewhat democratic like the Libertarians and Green are so far out there that there's no chance of them ever growing beyond their core whacko contingent.
Who wants to start a new party?
From my admittedly non-expert reading of the settlement, OEMs may develop, use, distribute, sell, and promote alternative operating systems like Linux without fear, but when it comes to shipping said operating systems with a personal computer, the document has this to say:
These terms are terrible for Linux, because it means that the big OEMs will still have to include Windows on every system. It's no better than the bad old days where OEMs were charged a license for every machine shipped, Windows or not.... Because I must be dreaming.
OK, this week we've had the DeCSS ruling AND the MS ruling. What's next? AOL opens up their instant messenger code for real!?!?!
It just got a little bit colder in hell....
Steve
And only fixes conduct from now on. It does nothing to fix what has already happened. It would have been much more useful had it happened a few years ago.
The basic message I guess is that it's okay to be a monopoly as long as you agree to play nice after it's established.
Of course, any measure strong enough to fix the past misconduct would have to be quite draconian in measure.
It gives some insight on Microsoft strategies, though. Notice the part about Microsoft not having to disclose protocols intended only for communication with servers operated by Microsoft. So Microsoft is now free to compel users to use Hailstorm and MSN by using proprietary protocol "enhancements".
...they are in comtempt of court and get hauled back over the coals. The agreement is extended for another two year BUT they also have to face a new trial on contempt charges.
Please get your facts a little straight, michael.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Perhaps this is one place where Bill Clinton could provide an actual service to humanity--take documents like this proposed settlement to him and ask how he'd try to weasel out of them. :-)
So what's your point?
I must say this looks VERY promising ...
I'm sure you meant, "this LOOKS very promising..."
Perhaps this is one of the more important details buried in the fine print. Note that this doesnt seem to include servers, pocket pcs, and set top boxes. Something tells me that this is seriously flawed.
Q. "Personal Computer" means any computer configured so that its primary purpose is for use by one person at a time, that uses a video display and keyboard (whether or not that video display and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible (or successor) microprocessor. Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are examples of products that are not Personal Computers within the meaning of this definition.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
1. MS fought over the language in one sentence that the DOJ, or noone else noticed, that made the entire concent decree totally unenforceable. (something about the vague term "consumer benefit")
2. When the DOJ tried to stop IE/Win98 using the Consent Decree, they were eventually over turned when CLEARLY the Consent Decree was meant to stop MS from bundling, even if the a few words allowed them to wiggle out of it.
3. It took YEARS after this mess to get any form of judgement against MS, when any moron can clearly see they have a 90+% control over the computer market and use that control to run other companies out of business.
So...People should scour the judgement for ANYTHING that could remotely let them wiggle out of any part of the judgement. It's there, I guarantee you. Not only that, NOTHING stops MS from totally ignoring the consent decree because by time the DOJ or anyone else gets around to actually getting a legal judgement, whatever MS did would be irrelevent and irreversible. Any complicated consent decree is crap and is most likely unenforceable (due to the possibility of making "complicated" legal aguements that can tie of the system).
Which is why I would propose the following SIMPLE easy to enforce rules...
1. MS charges all OEMs the SAME price for Windows regardless of who they are.
2. MS should not be allowed to buy any companies, patents, or technologies for at least 5 years.
3. MS should not be allowed to license any additional technologies, patents, source code or ideas for at least 5 years.
4. OEM's should have the right to make any changes to Windows they think their customers want, including but not limited to removing any feature, or technology from Windows and replacing it with their own.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Woohoo! I hope that means what I think it means!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Newsbytes is reporting that the individual states have refused to sign on. And it just may be a 'good thing' in the long run for it to pan out this way. MS will continue it's monopolistic practices, as demonstated by it's XP licensing requirements (what if I don't have an internet connection?), and just maybe will get smacked harder in the future. In the short term , it becomes even more imperative to suppport alternatives, including open source AND Apple (I know, they'd do the same given half a chance...), and do what you can to either
1) steer friends/relatives/employers to these alternatives or
2) convince said friends/relatives/employers to stick with what they have (which shouldn't be too difficult given the current financial conditions.)
Remember, BUY AMERICAN!... except for MS
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Have you noticed how often members of the press refer to Bush as "Mister Bush" and not "President Bush"? Happens all the time. And it cracks me up every time.
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product
.Net Product.
This is great. I hope they allow me to remove Microsoft Product Activation in XP and replace it with PGP. Other products I hate are Microsft MSN Product, Microsoft Passport Product, and Microsoft MyService
That's no moon.
In III.A: Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
Put that together with III.J: J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall... Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria
We've all seen the proposed text of the SSSCA. That says that everything which processes digital information must have security protocols for enforcing digital "rights", i.e. copyrights. Even though signs are promising that the SSSCA per se will go down in flames, it's not too much of a stretch to suppose that some legislation, at some point, will get passed which does define anything capable of processing digital data as capable of illegally copying intellectual property-- since it, of course, is. So, put that together with this loophole up here, and suddenly Microsoft can argue that they don't have to tell anybody absolutely anything about any of their protocols because it would "compromise anti-piracy systems".
Never mind the whole Microsoft "security through obscurity" argument: they're always saying that Windows is more secure because nobody sees its source code, so therefore it's harder to hack into those systems. We know it's bull$#!+, but they argue it a lot. It doesn't take much of a stretch for them to argue that their protocols are more secure if they are hidden... and then they can rest nicely in this loophole right again. They can continue "embrace and extend" monopolistic policies, making their own protocols and keeping them hidden, while claiming to maintain full compliance with this judgement, since after all they're only keeping the stuff hidden for "security reasons."
Microsoft has been slapped with a wet noodle. This is ridiculous.
Foo.
-Rob
What's sorely lacking is judgement for monetary fines. I remember reading something about the EU potentially levying fines of up tp 10% of Micro$uck's stock value (or something like that). The U.S. should have done the same. The judgement prevents them from continuing to do much of the f'ed up stuff they've been doing, but provides no penalty for the past corporate mis-conduct. The DoJ has not enforced justice. I'm VERY dissappointed.
Things like this make this kind of null and void, who's going to decide on whether microsoft needs IE to be the dominant browser for "technical reasons", or MSN Messenger for "technical reason". I think an independant institution should be created to govern technical monopolies.
"Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of general Web browsing), or
that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests them.
... and paid the price.
It would appear that the DOJ is dictating some of the interface engineering that M$ will be doing for the next 5 years or so. I had hopes that the "start button" and the metaphor of the desktop would be replaced before 2005.
AC's cheerfully ignored
It looks like this might do a decent job getting the PC vendors out from under MS's thumb.
It's still backward looking, though. MS will weasel some way of doing the same thing, and then what?
As I read the agreement, it doesn't force MS to publish their protocols. Instead it says that MS must only disclose the middleware and communications protocols to entities with business models that they (MS!!!) determines are viable. I am pretty sure that MS does not consider OpenSource a viable business model.
In their favor, when you do an agreement like this, you don't want to have to cater to every 2-bit business. Open source is not 2-bit but yet is not a viable business in MS' eyes.
The parts of the agreement that I read doesn't say anything about publishing the specs. I assume that the secure facility that MS provides is so they can keep their secrets secret. I assume you have to sign an iron-clad NDA to see the protocols.
Take a look at section III.J, which shields Microsoft from having to disclose any authorization or authentication wire protocols. This loophole would allow Microsoft to maintain the secrecy of their BDC and PDC protocols, thereby locking out Samba. Ditto the III.J terms which require the company to have a 'verifiable business plan', on Microsoft's terms, in order to get release of this information. Likewise, Microsoft is able to force vendors who get access to the API's and protocols not to release them to the public.
All of these terms put together will shield Microsoft from revealing any interoperability information if the protocol in question includes authorization or authentication (which all protocols of significance will do), and will shield Microsoft in any case from having to let the grubby open sourcers get their hands on the info.
Yuck. Microsoft has very good lawyers, indeed.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Also notice sections J.2.b-d. To get API's, documentation, or protocols one needs to:
1. stiputlate that you must have a "reasonable business need", and one must certify "viability if its business".(sorry Open Source software isn't a valid bussiness model)
2.submit your program for microsoft "verification"
(which will probably take 2 years)
Sorry all you open source developers. You can't have any documentation or API's because you are all communist, and have commited the mortal sin of trying to compete with Microsoft.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
>Uniform Licensing Terms- Microsoft will be
>required to license its operating system to key
>computer manufacturers on uniform terms for five
>years. This will further strengthen the ban on
>retaliation.
Also, remember that if a private company (e.g., what's left of Be) decides to sue Microsoft over its tactics, Microsoft can no longer use that "aw, shucks, we're not a monopoly, no sir" defense.
And at the end of the five-year period, if Microsoft reverts to its old tactics ... well, they'll be just as illegal in the future as they are now.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
At the very least, the 18 State Attorneys General who were the original co-plaintiffs should be able to sue for enforcement. Ideally other parties should be able to do likewise (with reasonable provisions to discourage frivolous suits). Enforcement shouldn't be left to the US DOJ.
But then, the settlement would actually have teeth in it. The Redmond Borg would never agree to anything but a toothless settlement.
Fizz
"H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall: ..."
So what this means is that Service Pack 1 for XP will be delayed until 12 Monthes, 1 day from the time this goes into effect.
III C 3
discussing launching of 3rd party software:
"... provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware."
does that mean that 3rd party software is ok so long as it doesn't have a square window?
(or nearly square, it does say similar)
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
Most of what they will fail to document and disclose here is pretty important. I can imagine what MS will claim they cannot share due to 'encryption and authentication systems': the ability to log onto Passport with something other than IE. And then, they want to be able to restrict what you do with the info they are provide.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of general Web browsing), or
that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests them.
I'm pretty sure that everything but IE would fail that ability to 'host a particular ActiveX control', and I can only imagine what their definition of 'reasonably prompt' would be. And as above, if it's related to 'authentication/authorization security', you may be required to submit your code to for approval.
And then, of course, a lot of these sections also relate to DRM and the changes coming once whatever version of the SSS(however many Ss)CA legislation gets passed, eventually.
What I do like :
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
(....)
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
Hopefully we will be seeing some dual boot systems available from OEMs. That will make things a lot easier for some people to even try an alternative OS.
Oh well. With Bush saying before he was elected 'A Bush administration will favor innovation over litigation', this is still better than I expected.
Juln
I'm less sure about this. I know this'll reach a less than receptive audience here, but I've got users that still complain about moving to Word from WordPerfect four YEARS ago.
.doc format. They've still got 90% of the office suite market, so they change over to another format the next day. Freeware suites can't keep up, and Microsoft still wins.
I think the problem might be similar to a situation described by Pendergrast in his excellent book on Coca-cola. The exact formula for Coke is a deeply guarded secret, which makes it interesting to others. Pendergrast asked for a copy, and the Coke exec he was talking to claimed it didn't matter, and said something along the lines of:
"Let's say I give you the formula," handing over a blank sheet of paper. "Now, what do you do with it? You can't possibly compete with our economies of scale, distribution channels, marketing, or name recognition. In effect, you'll be offering a product that allegedly tastes the same as Coke, only at a higher price."
Similar situation here. Let's say MS hands over the
Unless the free suites can both a) keep up with the changes, and b) deliver a better value proposition than Office (remember that support and selling the idea to PHBs is also involved here), delivering those formats won't make any difference.
I hope I'm wrong, but....
ceci n'est pas un sig.
I watched the Justice Department briefing, and I've read the agreement a few times. I've yet to see any indication that any enforceable change is likely to come out of this.
Can anyone out there see a silver lining?
Shouldn't someone post a copy of the goatse.cx picture with "DOJ" tatooed on his ass?
Nope. It seems like "middleware" is a gov't neologism for "applications". Microsoft, that bastion of good will and freedom, will generously allow OEMs to preload non-MS applications for Windows. How kind of MS! I'm sure this will solve the whole crisis.
Let them go, straight to their demise. The more power they have to tax and annoy their users the faster their users will leave. They've alread run off their developers. Now they can run off their users. What are companies going to do when Java and Samba don't work for them? Switch to activeX and IIS with all their security holes? No, they are going to be fed up with it all. The true cost of M$ greed is apparent as more users and companies jump ship and brag about it. Bad practices will undo them and the end is closer than they think.
It's amazing how little people know about alternatives to M$. They are unaware of what it even looks like. "Gee, that looks very windows like", is a comment I get when people at work get a glimps at my laptop, or see pictures from home. It bothers many of them because they were encouraged to buy M$ stock as part of our company's "empowerment". Before I knew that, I made the mistake of answering the question, "Why is M$ stock rising today?", shouted across the cubicles with, "Because people are stupid? I don't know." Oh my, stunned silence. Yet they know, because they suffer.
Linus, BSD, Apple, Sun and the US govrnment won't beat M$, M$ will ruin themselves. The harder they make it for others to develop, "compete" they call it, the more trouble they put their users through, and the more expensive they make it all, the faster they will change or die. I don't think they can change. They have already created a huge potential. As users learn the new path of least resistance, the current trickle of user conversions will become a flood that will make the early 90s adoption of Win3.1 look slow and small.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
So they've been found guilty of violating anti-trust laws. And the punishment is ..... ? BUGGER ALL !
faith_in_humanity--;
Like the title says. I'm sure the second the independant inspectors look at things, Microsoft will be as unwelcome to them as Bagdad was to the UN Inspectors.
Inspector: "Look, we have this document that proves your violating the agreement!"
MS: "No, I'm sorry, that document is copyrighted and protected by patent law. You can't show that to anybody."
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
1. MS charges all OEMs the SAME price for Windows regardless of who they are.
No: MS charges everybody the SAME price for Windows, regardless of whether they're a big OEM, a small OEM planning to replace IE with Netscape or sell dual booting systems, a shrinkwrap retailer, your grandma, or a Satanic cult planning to sacrifice the CD in a microwave.
Anything else leaves wiggle room for Microsoft.
"Well, we sell all our OEMs Windows XP at half price - but we've been talking with Dell about what they do with Windows after we sell it to them, to make sure they're still really an OEM and not an end-user we'd have to raise prices for."
"OEM copies of Windows are half-price - of course, that's for a hard drive image only. If you want a copy of Windows that you could, say, reinstall after repartitioning the drive, then you'll have to pay the full price."
Since Microsoft has a monopoly, competitors (e.g. StarOffice) can only realistically compete if they can read and write Microsoft file formats. Competitors, however, cannot do this reliably if the formats keep changing.
In other words, the DoJ settlement does not do what is necessary to introduce competition into the software-applications market. So, it seems to be a failure.
More Details of MS/DOJ Deal
Posted by michael on Friday November 02, @09:14AM
from the assimilated dept.
Oh, NO!!!!
They've started taking over Slashdot!
Windows has already convinced the masses that no other operating system in the world is capable of letting them write grandma a letter while simultaneously surfing for pOrn.
Linux, an enviable system with a great deal of potential, will not dislodge Microsoft from its dominance on the desktop precisely because it has not disloged it from the minds of the average consumer. Even my IS support staff at work has three choices on their callin support line:
1) PC support
2) Mac support
3) UNIX support
When I called the PC helpdesk recently to get a URL for a site that mirrors the latest Linux binaries, he told me that he couldn't because he worked the *PC* support desk. Never mind that I WAS using a PC; in his mind (and most everyone elses) PCs only run Windows.
The OS folks can code until they are calcified from lack of movement, but until Linux distros actually engage in *advertising and marketing* to consumers, Microsoft will continue to dominate dispite this latest court action (or any future action).
On a separate note, Microsoft probably won't care whether it continues to keep the desktop in the next 5-10 years anyhow. They are trying to become a telco and broadcast company. They have been making that move since 1993 and have only stalled because of the surge in interest in the Internet.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
There was a book about the Coca-cola company published a few years ago. It contains the formula. The formula is no secret--for the reasons that you cite.
One the good side, they took care of the bootloader issue. They almost took care of the API issues, but left some fairly huge loopholes for Microsoft not to publish API functions if:
In other words, API's for IE, Windows Media Player, Windows Moviemaker, Microsoft Firewall, any security software, any digital rights management software. This could be almost anything.
Folks,
All I can say is if you are unhappy with the DOJ ruling, then voice your opinion right now to your state AG. And don't wait, they are likely to sign off on this as of Tuesday. The only thing politicians care about is getting elected. The only thing they fear is the absence of your support. Use your voice. Vote with your feet.
Come on in and get it.. your own presidentail deal.. for a hefty sum you too can commit murder, and whatever crime you want ! endanger this nation ! no worries.. But act quick, this deal is only in effect until the next election (hopefully)
6. Members of the public may submit written comments about the proposed Final Judgment to a designated official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a period of 60 days after publication of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
7. Within 30 days after the close of the 60-day public comment period, the United States will file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register any comments it receives and its response to those comments.
Here's your opportunity to submit intelligent comments about their anti-competitive actions which non/less-technical people will read. (no offense to /., but the Post has a much larger and more diverse readership).
They are required to show it to ISVs, but ISV is defined as a vendor writing programs...for the windows platform! How much use is that for linux programmers?
Did anyone look all the way down to see what the penalties are if Microsoft is found to violate any of these provisions? It basically says that the DOJ can sue them again!
I'm glad to see the states aren't falling for this.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
...Since MS is now prohibited from disallowing system vendors from including other OS's for dual-boot on their Windows boxen.
If the vendors don't include free Linux images for dual boot on their computers, that the user can allow to remain or delete when they first start the box, I'll be suspicious. I'll still suspect that MS is intimidating vendors if some don't opt to bundle in Linux.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
"And at the end of the five-year period, if Microsoft reverts to its old tactics ... well, they'll be just as illegal in the future as they are now."
No visible sign of change in behavior / practice now...how does one measure such a change five years from now (or expect one)?
Middleware, Start Button, Shortcut, Icons (specifically desktop icons in this instance), Service Pack, XP.......
And here are some seemingly contradictory definitions:
So middleware is something doesn't actually come on the windows CD, but a m$ middleware product is the JavaVM,IE,Windows Media player,etc. Don't those all come on the CD?
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
You mean like the kind of relief the Jackson court deemed appropriate? Yeah, that sure hurt M$...
This compromise is toothless. Money talks, and we know who has the most money in the world.
________________
Private Essayist
I hope this has some affect on Ximian's attempt to create a .NET clone. I really hope they are able to make one that doesn't require a passport login.... hmm... I figure MS won't follow any of these rules it agrees to anyway........
Can someone explain to me how you can win the trial, win the appeal, have the Supremes deny cert to the defendant, and then let the perps walk?
Classic case of winning all the battles and losing the war through bad generalship.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
That .sig was stolen from me! I'll sue for "damages"!!!
Not a typewriter
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I think since server protocols will be disclosed, this could mean Ximian's Mono project to create the Open Source equivalent of Microsoft's .Net initiative could became much easier to implement.
:-)
Mind you, this might be really bad news for Sun Microsystems, since both Microsoft and the Open Source crowd will be supporting similar server protocols, which will leave Sun holding the bag.
Ok, I'll translate cheaper=less_expensive, but here's the predictable reactions:
Assume Brand X is the acceptable standard vendor
"Brand Y is less expensive" : "You get what you pay for"
"Brand Y is same price, but better" : "Nobody ever got fired for picking Brand X"
"Brand Y is more expensive, even if better" : "We'll go with Brand X, to save money."
One line arguments will not drive an entrenched standard from a business, but a very well done presentation can get the foot in the door. The problem is getting approval and funding to do such a study. Change, when I've seen it, usually has a patron, one willing to really stand up and fight if it's called for. Darn few of these people and sometimes they're idiots and do more damage than good.
When Microsoft does implode, it'll be because there's no longer any market left for them to grow into. .NET is an effort to redefine the company, because simply selling software that does the job will produce declinging returns. Place M$ as a gatekeeper to commerce, communications, entertainment, business and home and they'll still hit this wall some day.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If it's important, it hasn't crossed my radar. I just installed Slackware 8 on a 486 DX2/50 laptop that I bought for $60. I can see already, this system is going to hold me for another two years easily. It rocks! (Mostly because of the software of course. But a DX2/50 is quite peppy running Linux.) My last system was a 486 Thinkpad and it lasted for two years too. 486 processors are so fast, I love them. But I have to say, if I could get a 486-based PDA or tablet computer instead of this 7-pound laptop and if it had at least a VGA display, I would choose to install Linux on that instead. But that's just me.
There is no doubt that Microsoft owns the Bush administration. All what I read is that this is the best thing for the economy and so on. What about the laws that you and I have to follow every day; don't they have anything to do with this? What a joke! Bush is Gates' new puppet! Lets see how much money the Republican Party has received or will received from Microsoft. This is a total lack of objectivity and lawfulness, and then the rest of us have to be law abiding? Screw Bush and everyone else in his administration!
That's right, all good GNUs, all the time, from now on. That's the way IT is. Thanks for tuning in. Got kode? Publish/collaborate on IT.
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
....which would compromise the security of ... authentication systems"
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation
So they can keep the SMB stuff private.
If this settlement is approved, can we (the people) sue the DOJ for legal malpractice?
The DOJ is supposed to represent the people, right?
Last time I checked, the U.S. government was in the business of protecting individuals rights to behave how they see fit, as long as they don't use physical force.
I guess that's not the case anymore. How much longer until the U.S. government imposes behavior restrictions on me personally? Anti-trust is the most ridiculous notion, it punishes success.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I have some doubts it will work, but I say go for it. Get your parents, kids, friends, bosses and enemies to go for it too.
Since the world is so worried about economic downturns and job losses right now, try to focus on how just slapping MS on the wrist is horrible for the economy.
Other suggestions are welcome. Also, thank your state for not caving. And if your state isn't involved, get them involved.
California won't support the "settlement", at least not immediately. Makes me proud to live here, along with the DeCSS ruling yesterday.
sulli
RTFJ.
Those are the only two words that I can possibly apply to this settlement. As hard as the international IT community have tried to believe that the US DoJ would finally rein in their worst offender, the change of federal government has proven that in the US, Politics is more powerful that Law. If the American Justice system had any respect around the world, it has lost it today because of this settlement to the largest and most pivotal legal case on globalization and comemrcialization in history.
-- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
Knock!Knock!
Hello!
Given the dearth of scathing remarks I'm wondering if anyone is out there?
Maybe most of the posts have appeared before the link to the actual decree but anyone reading the
proposed decree could not possibly think this is "a good thing".
Just a few problems with this decree as I see it.
1. Absolutely no enforceable remedy should MS violate the decree beyond the decree being in force for longer. Whoop-dee-do. So if they violate the decree they get to keep doing it.
2. Nothing that restricts MS from punishing(through higher prices, threats to remove software etc.) anyone who ships PC's without any MS OS.
3. No talk about the "public" only ISV's,IAP's,IHV's,ABC's, . I couldn't give two hoots about these vultures. MS should be forced to provide any and all information to the public not just those that meet some haphazard conditions for being in the "computer biz".
4. Due to the "security" out in section J Microsoft is free to restrict any and all protocols to make it impossible for other products to actually work with their products. They can give out all the API's and protocol information they want but than say "it's all encrypted though and we can't give you any information about the encryption used". Bang! Blown out of the water, don't bother to even show up.
5. Even without the security objection, if I'm reading the decree correctly, the protocol information released needs only to be in connection with how they are used on an MS platform and therefore they need not release enough information to allow a product on a different OS to replace their products.
In other words this decree boils down to "a whole lot of noise, signifying nothing".
I think if Microsoft has to open their server protocols, this means that Ximian's Mono project to develop the Open Source equivalent of the .Net web services framework could become quite a bit easier to implement, since we now can have Windows 2000/XP machines (and definitely Linux workstation machines) log onto Linux servers running Mono with full .Net implementation instead of Windows 2000/2002 servers running the same services.
.Net implementation using Mono. This means the Microsoft/DoJ settlement deal may have just unwittingly tipped the standardization of web services in favor of Microsoft and its Ximian Open Source equivalent. Imagine IBM big iron running Mono under Linux....
Alas, this is bad news for Sun. Sun's own web services initiative could be kiboshed by what amounts to low-cost
MONEY.
Fucking bastards.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I haven't read conditions so....
This backs up something I said in a post in another thread in this topic. Microsoft is very vunerable to 'attack' through it's shareholders. It's almost like a flock of sheep. All you need is a downturn in revenue, combined with several virus attacks or *gasp* viable competition, and it would be like putting a wolf in a bunch of startled sheep. Very Messy.
Help us, Obi Wan Kenobi, you are our only hope.
There is some good news. MS may be prosecuted in Europe, and the states may yet get somewhere. Despite being from the US, I think that Europe has much more common sense. Maybe they'll tackle the issue of what an abusive monopoly should be restrained with. They also seem more open to Linux :-)
Tacked on to the end of this:
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
So right off, this means that Microsoft can continue to do whatever they want with MS-Kerberos and don't have to give out the source code or license the patented parts, because it's an "authentication system". Same goes for Passport. And this is just the beginning, because Microsoft can embed whatever they want into the security, authentication, etc., subsystems, there is no language to prevent this. And they will, they've got a history of doing exactly that, look at how parts of the IE code got mingled with unrelated library files to support Microsoft's IE bundling strategem.
This settlement is worth exactly as much as the 1995 consent decree.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I did a stock lookup on MSFT and found this chronology antitrust activities. Seems a long time, eh?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The line that best summerizes what happened here was "James had been acting real tough until now," said Robert Lande, a University of Baltimore professor of antitrust law who followed the case closely. "But when it comes down to it, Microsoft broke open the champagne when Bush was elected."
Before negotiations even get anywhere the Justice Department announces they will not seek a structural remedy. They bought a get out of jail free card because we talk to each other instead of our representatives.
Now the terms are such that MS need only hold out five years before they are no longer supervised and they can do as they please again. Who will form a business with a five year life span against MS?
Let's say you are willing to. And now MS does not release the information on interfaces as promoised? What will you do? Sue them? Go ahead, can you outlast them in court? They do not need to win they just need to delay and delay and delay. That is how they got this deal.
We can whine and complain and bitch and moan, but the fact is they have $46 billion in cash and a PR machine telling eveyone the economy is doomed if you don't settle now and it is those "technical people" like slashdot readers who are responsible for all the virus and email problems we are seeing today.
Once again, using paper and an a real envelope (or these days a post card or FAX is probably better) Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
Ask the simple question of why we would accept less now than what was being offered months ago? This is a plea bargin for robbery where we agree to do 3 years in jail and at the hearing are asked to promise we won't do it again instead.
It is time to put up or recognize these are the things that will make future open source development nearly impossible. Disagree? Let's go back to passport and hailstorm. Then the presumption sold to our representatives by the MS PR machine and many of the vendors selling security software: closed source is more secure than open source.
Now DMCA stops reverse engineering and Microsoft provides an interface (but not the one they use) which is slower and convoluted. And they change is every quarter, because "their customer's demand innovation". And they release the new version as they announce the changes. Do you think "mom and dad" are going to use open source if they have issues at all?
Microsoft doeso not need to bring out the big guns, they just need to bleed us slowly one change at a time. From their side it is the best of all possible results because they are complying with the courts and are protected from further attacks.
OK, slashdot activists. Those who know what's
going on. Friends of Jamie Love, etc.
I want to know what I can do about this. When
lawmaking is being talked about, I at least know
I can write/call my congress reps.
But when the DOJ is basically caving in, I have no idea what to do.
Help?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The 486 is a good machine for what it does, but the
40Mhz PPC processor in my Tivo (also running Linux)
blows it away in terms of cool (the onscreen processor temperature display normally reads 41C) reliability (it doesn't even have a powerswitch or keyboard).
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
[...]
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
A free software project can't show a business need, and anyway, would have to "submit, at its own expense" to whatever "verification and compliance" Microsoft's anti-oss division felt like inventing that day. This is an effective lock-out for free software for all of the subsystems mentioned. Those cover more than enough for Microsoft to continue extending its monopoly into new areas such as online media, and of course, maintain its existing monopolies.
Need to get around the middleware API disclosure rule? Just tie the new file format to some intellectual property protection mechanism, no problem.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
So when (not if) they violate the terms of this agreement, we go through another 5 year trial, during which MS is unabated, and more companies are forced out of busiess, and more companies with good product ideas say, 'Thanks, but no thanks, I've got a good idea for a product, but I'll never get it past MS'.
Hmmmmm....can't we just take a page from many programming languages which have public and private methods/functions/procedures...
Anything public..is public....anything private is private...
But then again...maybe there needs to be a new type of method definition: "proprietary" which would be like private only available in a seperate file and truly represent a black box type of scenario that would allow some aspects of proprietary algorithems...
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Nope they can charge a licensing fee to actually use their system. What this says is that they will documnet their API's and such. To access it they could charge from what I read.
Microsoft shall not retaliate against OEM's who are or are considering
1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or
So, if a company is going to sell systems that have NO Windows operating systems on them, Microsoft may retaliate. According to this, if you wish for Microsoft to not be allowed to retaliate against you as an OEM, all your systems must come with a Windows license, even if you have the primary boot to another OS.
So what's the deal with that? They still get to force OEM's to sell a Winblows license on each machine or face retaliation. I bet that's why the states won't sign on.
IANAL (blah blah blah) but I believe I read it correctly.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Nice try but that data is useless.. Someone might see the jump in price around the time of the announcement but then you see the same jump in AT&T and AT&T Wireless at about the same time.
You cannot see what investors think until at least 4 days of data have been collected, or there is an insane jump that doesnt track with everything else on the stock exchange.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The government can't stop them, so I'm going to do the only thing I can to help stop microsoft. I will never develop any program for Windows XP, and support for win9x will stop after I finish my current project. Besides the fact that Microsoft will just clone anything for windows which is useful (or are MSN Messager(or was that ICQ?), Media player 8(Or was that WinAMP?),MS compressed folder support(Or was that WinZip?), theme support(or was that Window Blinds?), Internet Explorer(or was that Netscape?), MS Office(or was that wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and Harvard graphics?) , inventive and innovative?), and I'm not going to help them anymore. Starting with my next project (technically the one I'm working on is for DOS anyway), I'm going to investigate alternative operating systems to develop under. Maybe my next game will be for BeOS, or X11, or SkyOS, or AthiOS? I know it will *NOT* be for windows XP.
I urge other developers on this site (I know there are windows developers on here, you aren't *all* using linux!) to do the same. Don't support or develop for a platform which will reward developers who make popular programs with betrayal, and don't sit by while your hard work is assimilated by microsoft.
It's been a long time.
Meanwhile, don't forget to check out our web address giveaway. Includes a year's free linus hosting. Just in case fud really IS dead, & you need someplace to hang your hack when the GNU millennium kicks in.
We don't need any/much help with this cite, but we'll never criticize you for offering IT.
I would rather control it myself, but...
If I don't control it, I would rather have an entity that exists to serve me ("goverment") controlling it than an entity that exists to serve itself ("corporation.")
Yes, I trust the government--I trust them to do their job, and as I am neither dead because of crime, a hostage of a hostile country, or killed because some corp was too cheap to be safe, I think they're doing their job just fine.
i wonder what kind of dance ballmer will do now? perhaps pelvic thrusting...
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
It accomplishes very little. Microsoft pretty much can continue with the status quo. I wonder how much $$ G.W. Bush has in a Swiss bank account thanks to Microsoft. Our only hope now is the states. Let's hopew that Microsoft can't bribe them like they did the Feds!
Thousands of people die everyday. No one says anything about these people. People are murdered every day, people are raped every day no one says anything about these people. I am willing to bet that one person dies every day in either Israel or Palastine yet I have seen any sympathy for these people. Maybe I am just a little cold hearted but when I die I don't want people wallowing in sorrow and making their already hard lives that much worse.
There is an API for reading DOC files, so even though the format is proprietary, the data and formatting can be read.
Did anyone look at the TC terms? I for one would never agree to have three officers who may hire unlimited staff at my expense and whom I have to pay on the payroll of my company. Especially not if I pay them to do their utmost to screw my company over. Sigh. Back to the drawing board.
Are we to be surprised that the Bush administration's DOJ is pushing this insult of a settlement forward considering who was on the drafting committee?
Microsoft --- "Trust us, we will be good."
Bush's DOJ -- "Are you sure? Oh of course you are, lets go get a drink and forget this ever happened."
The States -- "Uh, guys, where are you going? Were not done here...Guys...?"
The states can make as much noise as they want, but once this deal goes though, they will most likely become a splintered group. MS will be able to buy them off at their leisure.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Your tax dollars were at work trying to destroy Bill and crew, and the case certainly didn't help them.
Having read the actual terms, I think this is merely a slap on the wrist for Microsoft. Then again, a slap on the wrist is really all they deserved. The purpose of this case was not so much to punish Microsoft for past wrongs, but to try to ensure that they don't continue to abuse their OS monopoly position.
Remember, having a monopoly is not illegal (it's the goal of every business). The fact that the software industry has a strong tendency toward standardizing on one platform (be it OS or office-suite) isn't the fault of Microsoft. After all WordPerfect had a monopoly in word processors until Microsoft took that over. There is not room in the software market for two competitors generally, because standardization is critical. Employees move from job to job and it costs too much money to keep retraining them on different software systems. Everybody is moving to Microsoft Word because the employees they hire already know it from their last job. It's a snowball effect, and it applies to all aspects of end-user software from the OS to office-applications.
If Microsoft goes by the spirit of the agreement instead of trying to find every little loophole to get around it, then I think justice will be done. Unlike everybody else on this forum, I actually think Microsoft will make an honest effort to follow the spirit of the agreement. Why? Because the agreement really isn't that onerous. Basically what we have here is two primary things:
1) release all the protocols/API's you actually use in your own middleware. Big deal, 99% of the stuff is already public information and the few shortcuts that Microsoft takes in their middleware don't so much prevent others from competing, but are rather more the result of a lazy Microsoft programmer taking a shortcut. Is there anything that Microsoft Word does that another competitor couldn't do if they wanted to? no. The same applies to protocols, all meaningful ones are already documented or accessible through API's.
2)Let OEMs customize Windows a bit more. Again, big deal, so now we can get AOL icons on our desktop instead of MSN icons. If Microsoft see's some third party software making significant in-roads into the OEM market, they will simply make sure their product offering is a better product. Microsoft doesn't really care if OEM's can now ship Netscape pre-installed and remove IE, why? Because only a braindead OEM would do that since IE is so much better. Likewise, what you gonna do, pre-install Corel Office? give me a break, even here in Utah where WordPerfect gave the state government free licenses to their software across the board, they are now switching over to Microsoft products. The fact is, MS products are very good products if not the best out there generally, and their OS market position has little to do with it.
Well, that's all true, but since nothing in the antitrust trial had anything to do with the Office Suite market, we knew that 2 years ago.
This trial was about OEM licencing and bundled middleware.
Good luck getting the Bush DOJ to open a new investigation into the Office Suite market.
Probably it is no surprise that Dan Gillmor is trashing the settlement, but his column is pretty good today. Note also his comment on the DVD case.
sulli
RTFJ.
Your tax dollars at work. This is really appalling.
sulli
RTFJ.
And who in their right mind is going to vote against jobs!
Absolutely -- Read the Wired article -- Silicon Valley movers spent years getting this thing put together.
Note also that Gates left several proposed settlements on the table -- If Microsoft hadn't been up their ass over "the freedom to innovate" and had been putting their tricky lawyers to work, this would have been over years ago under the *Clinton* DOJ.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Not that I am anti M$ or anything but they do have the goverment in their back pocket and as long as every military base every goverment office from the White House down to Mayor's office in Podunk city is running M$ they will have plenty of power.
NO $$$$$$$$$ PENALTIE$? Doesn't our government deserve a couple billion in fines? How are we going to pay for all those cruise missiles and keep those aircraft carriers running?
What does this leave states with? No wonder they're cranky. They wanted/need big cash like with big tobacco! Looks like Microsoft smoked 'em. I suppose even the states voting Republican will want a better deal. All they get is a piece of paper that says, "Don't worry, Microsoft will behave better starting in January, 2002 and we've got of 3 guys watching 'em for 5 years." The only economy this is good for is Microsoft stockholders. Sounds like a single beneficiary solution.
Was the IBM settlement anything like this? Was the US so concerned about the effect on the economy and IBM stock when that was settled?
Ah, but IV.D.4.d makes enforcement a bit harder:
How can an enforcement proceeding establish a pattern of violations if the documentation of those violations is not admitted in the proceeding?
Is this a typical clause for an anti-trust judgement??? Sure sounds fishy to me!
Microsoft can be open and free all it likes with the APIs, because they can control the pace of changes to that standard. If RealPlayer or QuickTime was actually stupid enough to be wholly dependent on MS multimedia APIs, Microsoft could just ServicePac-them to death with changes.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
So if the settlement doesn't force Microsoft to allow others to read and write Word and Excel files, then the monopoly in desktop operating systems is not seriously threatened. Thus the settlement really seems to be a failure.
Are you sure that this works reliably? Do you have a reference?
Couldn't IBM claim to have a viable business plan for which it needs these docs, to use on its open source? They write free software to help them to sell profitable hardware and connect in an open way closed source software. That would be sweet, to see IBM get some serious revenge on MS after all these year!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Read all about it here hahahaha.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Repeated, unenforced sanctions worked against Iraq, didn't it..? Right guys?!
Moo
Imagine if your local power company was a conglomerate that could also compete with your toaster maker company.
Microsoft Power & Light decides to change the voltages to everybody's home every three years, requiring a complete change to all the appliances and home systems. This suits you fine as it drives more toaster sales, so while you question the ethical validity of these changes, the havoc it creates and the incredible costs it imposes on the community, the business model is there- you are on board.
MSP&L tries to enter into the toaster market, but they can't make a toaster as good as you. You think all you have to do is continue to make a better toaster- you poor deluded fool.
MSP&L approaches you and says hey we will force all the homeowners to have a specific plug and voltage for toasters, sign up with us and we can guarantee you your share of the toaster market and we'll get our share. You don't dare refuse because the implied threat is that the proprietary toaster plug can be used to lock you out just as easily as lock you in. The consumers go along because you set the quality standards and if you are on board it must be an okay plug standard, and besides those malfunctioning MSP&L toasters are mighty cheap. Now all of a sudden you are a 'strategic business partner', desperately hoping that MSP&L or an appliance giant will buy you out.
MSP&L has locked you into a standard under their control, but now some MS VP genius decides that toasters are strategic (it's not an appliance, it's ad-revenue!). They mess with the voltages every year so your toasters malfunction and their toasters work until you spend valuable design and retool time 'fixing' your toaster. They create SmarToaster technology that sends email recipes to their toasters to enhance the toaster experience and incidentally deliver ads, actually their real revenue stream in the toaster market. The convection/microwave people are destroying your upper-end toaster market, so you are totally squeezed. Then to finish you off, MSP&L gives toasters (which they finally have kind of working) to everyone during the next voltage change. You are done for.
But hey our government is here for you! The DoJ comes by and says, gosh that's wrong, MSP&L cannot use their power monopoly to squash the toaster market, MSP&L play nice. MSP&L agrees, then builds the NeToaster standard that requires you to use a certified bread or pastry and you can't remove the ads. ActiveOvenLife cries out for justice because they can't impose their own toaster standard on all the households. Now the DoJ says okay MSP&L, play nicer. Don't you feel good ex-toaster guy?
Hmmmm, maybe you should have lobbied for standard electricity settings instead of letting greed get to you, treated the power company as a monopoly utility and allowed everyone to build the best appliances that compete on their merits. Open source electricity standards and government-regulated power? That's just wacky and unAmerican!
The truly frightening thing is that if Microsoft continues to get away with this, the rest of the corporate world will follow suit and we will end up with crazy costs, financial and personal, in all sorts of real life situations like the above.
The excellent railroads, electricity, roads and telecommunications infrastructure that all Americans enjoy did not happen by accident. It was a combination of visionaries, greedy people and governmental community laws that gave us industries and standards that work.
If the Microsoft culture is allowed to dominate computing, then we will experience what our forefathers avoided by stopping railroad magnates or Standard Oil from controlling the lifeblood of our nation. God help us if we have failed to learn those lessons.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
Here's a roadmap for Microsoft to turn this settlement into a
.NET to organizations. If you have
"we win, game over" victory.
1. Modify the savefile routines in M$ applications (such as Office)
to "encrypt" _every_ saved file under a digital rights management
scheme, using Passport for author authentication, or a password
for those who are still clicking the "not yet" button at startup.
It can even be completely transparent to the user. It doesn't have
to be foolproof, just present.
2. Remove, or make useless, any sort of "export" function from these
applications. Sure you might be able to get a 'text only'
file of your PowerPoint presentation, but what good is that?
3. Begin to market, or otherwise state in the documentation, that
the Microsoft file format is a part of a "content protection"
system. Must use that phrase.
Game Over.
The effect:
A. Locks out any StarOffice-type competition using DMCA protections.
Competitors won't even be able to create applications which can
read the file format.
Think about the DeCSS case. You need both a) a right to access
the protected work, AND b) a license (and the technology) to
decrypt it. If you don't have a licensed DVD player, you can't
even play protected DVD's you've created yourself.
In what way is a DVD containing a CSS-protected file different
from a hard/floppy/zip disk containing an MS-protected file?
B. Completely legal, even under the terms of this settlement.
See the Settlement section J.1.a,.
C. Kick-ass marketing angle. All documents are "protected" against
spying eyes (crackers) by the protection system. Even if your
documents are stolen by some god-like cracker (or a dirt-dumb
SirCam virus) they can't be read. At least, thet will be the
selling angle.
D. Encourage the deployment of
to have a corporate "Passport (TM)" infrastructure in order to
"Exchange (TM)" the latest "PowerPoints {TM)" with your workmates,
every business will want a ".NET (TM)".
E. Ensures the continuing purchase of licenses, no matter how high
the license fee gets.
Think about this: How much content-protected copyrighted material
does your business own if "content-protected copyrighted material"
includes every document in a Microsoft format? Every Exchange message,
every PowerPoint chart, every product documentation slide, every
FrontPage web document, every source code file, etc. A business
can't just abandon all of these saved files which happen to be in
a Microsoft-owned format. That would be like erasing every hard
drive and every backup tape, because without the appropriate
Microsoft license you can't access the protected file , and you
have to start over from scratch. Most businesses are much more
addicted to Microsoft products than they are willing to admit.
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
....Microsoft calls a settlement "fair," you can be sure said settlement contains an advantageous (to Microsoft) loophole that their opposition's lawyers have not discovered.
Clearly the government will never stop Microsoft. It will be up to the lone nut who assembles a suitcase nuke in his basement, loads it into his Vista Cruiser, and drives to Redmond.
~Philly
Of course, these divisions that produce decent products are the ones that face real competition. Microsoft had to beat Netscape (and now OmniWeb and Opera) on Mac OS by producing a better browser, instead of by having their browser integrated into the system. (Although IE is now the only browser included with OS X, Netscape still ships with OS 9). Office faces at least some competition from AppleWorks, which is bundled on all consumer Macs (iBooks and iMacs).
Mac consumers did lose interest in Microsoft when they released Word 6 in about 1996. Since then, the Mac Business Unit has been a largely separate entity that is well aware that its products will not sell if they're not top quality, and it shows.
Look at it this way. This is a good thing for the economy *today* and its virtually guaranteed that some states are going to continue to pursue more appropriate remedies. Which means that MS may still get there comeuppance but at a time when the economy and markets are better poised to weather it.
Just trying to be optomistic here. Personally I believe that MS is doomed to eventual failure. They've done too much harm to the industry for it all to be forgotten.
Gates says that letting Microsoft off will help technology companies, but this deal will just help Microsoft walk on their faces. Excuse me, but how is that good for the economy?
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I think those last three bullets should be considered logical ORs. All three don't have to apply.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That's my wrist you just slapped!
(not!) Apparently operating and promoting a criminal monopoly in the United States does not incur much penalty.
The terms of this antitrust agreement (at C|Net) stike me as more of a blowjob than a slap on the wrist. The terms of this agreement do nothing to address the core issues of punitive damages in this "penalty" phase of the trial. Hasn't Microsoft been found to be an illegal monopolist? And even so there is no penalty forthcoming, only what can be described as minor conduct tweaking? Wow.
This deal is also weaker than what was on the table before MS was found guilty. Armed with a 7-0 judge appeals ruling that MS is an illegal monopolist, the DoJ now settles for something even less? [sarcasm] If I didn't have such a high confidence in the current administration, I'd have thought they'd been paid off or something; good thing we know that that can't be the case. [/sarcasm]
We can all be sure that more of the same will now continue. After all, were not similar minor conduct remedies ordered by courts in 1994, etc, only to be ignored by Microsoft? Now these conduct remedies will be... ignored again! And with that scary extension... yet again! Justice prevails in America. So do the undead apparently.
The idea, as is sometimes heard now, that the DoJ should go easy on Microsoft because of the current financial uncertainty does not hold water either. So we should suspend penalties to laws, just so that the economic boat doesn't get rocked? Even if the previous penalty of breaking the company into 2 was applied, this would not substantially change the immediate economic situation. Everyone would still use Windows, it would still come with your Dell, it would still be the de facto stadard for years; it's just that slowly other system choices would gradually appear. How would this be an economic calamity? Even this breakup scenario is now unlikely, after the DoJ unilaterally pulled the IE bundling claim off the table (for what reason, no-one really knows).
I am apalled at what amounts to a near toal capitulation by the Bush Administration's new DoJ attorneys. Mostly, it is the lack of justice that bothers me. I'm glad I'm not a US citizen otherwise I'd also be angry about the millions of taxpayers dollars put into this case over many years, and not even the most minor financial penalty to cover the costs of the case recuperated. If they want any kind of justice, Americans should write their state representatives and attorneys general to make known they do not support the Sates' signing on to this toothless deal. Barring that, it's up to the European Union to reign in the beast now.
"If you would like to send the Antitrust Division your comments on this case, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov"
From: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
=brian
I have used MS products for 20+ years, I have made a good living riding BillG's coat tails, I think the company should be split, and they have been found to be a monoploy.
So what the F%%K does the DOJ think it's doing? This isn't an agreement, it's a legal burp. It basically says that things as they are, are the way they are going to stay.
Every Man and Woman in the DOJ should be fired. The whole darned lot.
MS spent millions defending itself, out of its own deep pockets. The DOJ spend yours and my tax money, millions of dollars, and managed to do what? They used MS-WOrd to type out an agreement that says go about your business as normal.
A first week legal student could blow away most of the "limits" in this agreement, some are not even effective now, and the ink hasn't dried on the signatures (Didn't XP replace 2000 a few days ago?). We have to remember that these documents have to be precise, that means when they mention things in detail there are easy routes round them.
This agreement is pure corruption. Corruption from the highest levels of Government, Heads should role for this.
Ya think I'm angry?
My question: what the hell is the government doing 'negotiating' about anything? What bullshit is this? For crying out loud, you don't see our justice system 'negotiating' terms for convicted criminals when they're people - why do corporations get special treatment?
If our government had any goddamn balls whatsoever it'd simply hand over the judgement to MS and say "this is what you're going to do, criminal scumbags. If you don't like it your entire board of directors and senior management can rot in jail - and we'll STILL take over your company and enforce our edicts."
Our government is a bunch of pussies. And willing, cocksucking pussies at that.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
This "Settlement" makes the $18M we spend on Ken Star et al look like a bargain.
Help fight continental drift.
Parent: "You're grounded. If you don't stay in your room the whole month you'll be grounded for another month."
Child ignores grounding, goes in and out as they please.
End of month, parent: "You didn't stay in your room, you're grounded for another month."
Child still ignores grounding...
All this proves once more that, if you have money, no matter what Americans keep saying about their great country, justice can be your bitch anywhere in the world, including the US.
I just hope that the European Commission has more balls than Ashcroft, although I doubt it. It really spooks me out that the last stronghold against the desktop OS monopoly could be the office of some unaccountable, unelected beaurocrat in Brussels.
All I know is what they taught me in econ101. Monopolies come about because barriers exist to the entry of competitors. In the MS case, some obvious barriers come to mind: Restrictive licensing schemes, proprietary file and disc formats, proprietary API's.
One might ask, why can I run a perl script on anything from Solaris to a good wristwatch, and can't do the same with Visual Basic. Or why can I open a jpeg or play an mp3 on any computer I own, but can't do the same with a Word document or Excel spreadsheet? Why doesn't every PC from Dell come with the latest release of the Java VM? Are there legal impediments to writing a linux (or Solaris, MacOS, etc.) driver to read and write to NTFS? I could go on.
What the courts should have done, and maybe tried to do, is to address these barriers. It looks like it got watered down to the point where it'll never do any good.
Why don't they force MS to make freely available the file formats for Office apps, and the spec for NTFS? I seems clear to me that the public benefit of this would greatly outway MS's freedom to remunerate (themselves).
-chris
-cbare
MS documents what they want. they don't document vital API's that allow 3rd parties to compete with MS products. its the basis of their whole business model. they only want developers to fill in the gaps with 3rd party software until such time as MS has the time to get around to duplicating those products and then driving the 3rd party developer out of business with their usual tactics. MS doesn't want competition in the markets they currently control. the number of markets they control is ever expanding due to their unchecked monopoly powers.
Interesting that several mere rants got mod points instead of a post that points out how you can do something.
That said, some of the analyses above are really helpful and insightful. It'd just be nice to see action as well as words given due notice.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
If the states don't go along with the agreement they are shotting themselves in the foot. They should take what they can and be happy otherwise it will drag on and probably get watered down more. The longer it goes on the less that it matters especially the industry is changing rapidly and MS continues to diversify. Then with the war going on the public in general who don't see how this even effects them in the first place will care less and less. In reality the only people who really care are the McNealy's and Ellison's and AOL-Time Warner's who only want to replace MS with themselves. They only care about Linux/Open Source as a bunch of free protestors for the propaganda war against MS. When they become the new 800 pound gorilla they will tell you to go pound sand. So states take what you can get now and be happy. The alternative is AOL-Time Warner replacing MS as the new bully. I guanantee you'll want Bill Gate back after AOL bends you over.
I just saw the announcement on NBC. Funny, they completely ignored the fact that the states are not signing on, they completely ignored the fact that this "settlement" hasn't been approved yet, they protrayed it as a done deal, show's over, nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you are looking for, you can go about your business, move along.
Then, they had the audacity to say, "Oh, yeah, Microsoft is the MS in MS/NBC..."
www.eFax.com are spammers
Microsoft Chief Executive Bill Gates (news - web sites) said the deal "goes further than we might have wanted," but that it was "fair" to all parties and consumers. Does it mean what MS wanted wasn't fair???
Nobody was trying to destroy Bill and crew. The whole purpose of the prosecution was to reign in a monopoly, that had been abusing its monopoly position, employing predatory practices in its business dealings, "retaliating" against OEMs who went against its desires, and so forth.
...
I am happy that Bill is richer than shit. Thats great. The company has some good people. Some do good things.
None of this absolves them of the fact that the company is a monopoly and has been (in violation of federal law) abusing that position towards its own ends.
My tax dollars were wasted in prosecuting them, as the final outcome does nothing to address the problems that the original prosecution intended to address. I was happy when the Clinton administration pressured Microsoft. The changes that were being originally proposed were reasonable. They would have been better for industry. Choice for consumers would have increased, and competition would be enabled.
Instead, the Bush administration, with its pro big-donor^H^H^H^H^Hbusiness Attorney General, decides, well, shucks... maybe we shouldn't try to stop ole'Billy from doin his deeds.
So, in an amazing flash of brilliance, the gub'ment decides (via Mr Ashcroft) that, hey, we really didn't mean to press this case. Lets shake hands and go home.
Ok. You first spend my money to go force these guys to relinquish their iron grip on the market. That was a good thing, and would have resulted in more choice, more value, higher quality products, etc.
Then, bammo... new administration, cant do anything the way the old administration did things, so turn tail 180 and tell judge... "sorry, we were kidding". So, no structural reforms (e.g. not breaking the company into 2 bits), no business reforms (e.g. no real restrictions on business practices), only relatively meaningless pointlike reforms (e.g. must have open middleware).
Uh. Ok. So all the money I poured in to the federal coffers that went to the dept of Justice was thrown away, and I got no value from it (e.g the markets are now more closed than before, there is less choice than before, and in case you are living in a hole, Microsoft has gotten brutal with its pricing).
So tell me, which portion of this didnt you get? No one was going after Bill or the other bright people working at Microsoft. The gub'ment was going after the illegal practices of a monopolistic organization. It had been attempting to make sure the consumers had choice. Make sure that the playing field was much more level. Then John Ashcroft threw it all away.
That, is a waste of my money.
No destruction of Bill. Fixing a problem. Yet Johnnie baby decided
Won't happen. Microsoft will just claim that any business plan that involves competing with Microsoft is ipso facto nonviable because, after all, Microsoft is a monopoly!
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Gotta love this circus. First the DOJ promises to bring the beast called Microsoft to justice for its "crimes", and now all this time later the case is still dragging on and Microsoft is making the deal sweeter for themselves all the more... and of course our tax dollars are hard at work... aren't they? The proposed terms don't really affect MS at all, they just have to make some concessions that most of us won't ever even notice. Although the whole stripped down version of XP is interesting, since this is actually what MS should have been doing all along, while supplying the extras as add-ons or features in the Plus! packs. I guess we'll all see what happens.
This reminds me of the original proposition of breaking MS into smaller companies that would be independent of each other. That was perfect, lets break up a major minopoly and make a bunch of smaller ones, since MS as a whole is alot less dangerous than its parts. Think about it, MS as a whole often loses direction, but smaller MS's would have an intense focus on their goals. Too bad it didnt happen... MS might have been turned into some truly innovative companies. Oh well sign me up for my copy of Windows LX...
Spelled entirely in lower case, no longer a proper noun, utterly disassociated from the Beast of Redmond, the common name for the device that we all love so much will have become "microsoft"
In whatever form it will evolve into, physically, in the general vernacular it'll be called a "microsoft"
Sad..
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I have successfully converted my 65-year-old, ex-Mormon, accountant father from WordPerfect to StarOffice. Well, WordPerfect is still used, but StarOffice handles Excel and Word formats so well that I haven't had any complaints. Of course, I /did/ have to switch the Excel and Word file types over to StarOffice's control, but later taught my dad how to do that on his own.
... right?
The point being, if a 65 year old accountant can avoid Office, who can't?
Incidentally he's also so fed up with Win that he's considering Linux as a viable alternative for running the entire business - this requiring a great deal more proficiency on my part, but hey, its the thought that counts
If the government will not take our side, I am certain that some people will resort to terrorism.
This does not even have to take the form of sending Anthrax to Microsoft employees (though it might- in some cases- this isn't a game). Before reading this article, I was prepared for it by a cnet article on Passport.
Turns out, a guy out there spent half an hour breaking Passport security, and wrote a little program that gives the attacker complete access to the victim's credit card information, etc etc- the WHOLE passport data collection and write access- just by the victim opening an email in Hotmail.
This guy trotted along to Microsoft, told them of the problem, and chose to not publicise the attack (that's been shown to work) until Microsoft fixed its little booboo.
He _cooperated_ with Microsoft- trying to _help_ them.
Right now, that course of action doesn't hold a lot of weight with me, don't know about you. It seems _treasonous_ to me, in fact: he is cooperating with an entity that is putting the United States substantially at risk and trying to put its balls in a vise on top of that. How long must this go on until we figure out the real situation?
The dark beauty of terrorism is that it doesn't require broad popular support (not that Microsoft is getting broad popular support either- but they have leverage and are ready to use it in malice). I personally have zero interest in Hotmail or Passport, use an older Mac and rebel simply by refusing to deal with all that Microsoft garbage, but I thoroughly understand and support those who are picking at the decayed rotting bits holding Microsoft software together. I can't do that, but more power to those who can- you only need one hole to totally compromise Passport and Microsoft's whole New World Order in the making. Remember that.
And for God's sake stop telling MS about these things! Don't you realise there's a freaking war on? And I do not refer to US vs. (insert middle east country here). We _know_ what _our_ war is about. Is it so much to ask that those who can find chinks in Microsoft's armor cooperate with those who are ready to USE those flaws, and not with the enemy?
I just hope that ONE PERSON reading this gets a clue and is in a position to do damage to MS rather than licking their hand and offering to do their repair work for them. How much are you paying them to do their security work for them while being forbidden to talk to your peers about the problems you found? Quislings!
It isn't all Microsoft's fault, though. Netscape rolled over and obediently died after the first shot was fired. Does anyone even *use* Netscape anymore? What about WordPerfect? Lotus 1-2-3? Yeah, they all *exist*, but who the hell cares
What was Netscape supposed to do once M$ used its financial resources to wipe out any profit they could have made from their products? The irony is that M$ used its monopolistic clout to force Netscape from being installed on new machines, and M$ did not even need to do that to crush Netscape. Similar cases could be made for WordPerfect and Lotus as well.
What's the last "innovative", or even the last remotely interesting thing Netscape's done though?
What was the last innovative thing ANYONE has done with webbrowsers? Mozilla and its children do not have anything special over IE. Netscape killed itself because it couldn't serve fries over the internet with its browser?
Sure, Microsoft's done plenty of bad shit, but, with the exception of the tiny companies, they've had an awful lot of help from their competitors. I don't see this changing any time soon.
The only company that you could make a credible argument to support your theory is Novell. Its not going to change soon because M$ will use its monopoly position on desktop O/S to leverage itself into e-commerce internet services and their platforms. And because they will buy out the executive and legislative branches. And finally they count on people like you to blame the squashed small competitor for not competing hard enough.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I've been trying to say the lines I learned as a kid...things like:
"The land of the free, and the home of the brave"
or...
"...with liberty and justice for all"
...and I just can't keep a straight face while I say those lines. I just start laughing halfway through.
I mean, I'm both a cynic and a dystopian, so I knew historical documents like The Bill of Rights and The Consitution were fairly distant from modern society well before I was born, but I never expected the Bush administration to just set MS free. I mean, lots of republicans beleive in the free market way more than they beleive in "enterprise".
Nevertheless, corporate America must be a little concerned about this. It's rather close to admitting the emperor has no clothes--I kind of figured the rich and powerful would at least make a show of sacrificing MS on the alter of justice to some extent...and later let them off via payoffs and deals in the smoke-filled rooms...but it didn't happen that way. MS has gotten off scot free.
I keep thinking about that eighties song, by the Suburbans, I think..."I know what boys like"...the last line is "...Sucker, hahahaha".
Well, it looks like a lot of anti-coporatists and naysayers about America (in general) are correct. America has become little more than a very successful bannana republic, where truth and justice are not an inalienable right, but a commodity on an auction block, for sale to the highest bidder.
I've always supected as much, but I never expected to be handed proof on a platter...one year, a spoof election, the next year, a spoof penalty. Go figure.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Judge Jackson ordered the company to be split up because, basically, he had come to the conclusion that its senior officers could not be trusted to stick to promises and undertakings they entered into. The appeals court threw out this remedy partly on the grounds that Judge Jackson had allowed his personal dislike for the attitudes of senior MS officials including Mr Gates to affect his decision. Arguably, this was missing the point by several light-years: Microsoft's corporate culture is - at least - hugely influenced by Mr Gates' attitudes and beliefs. It is difficult, for example, to imagine that Mr Balmer would have performed that amazing motivational monkey-dance if Mr Gates was known to be thinking Deep Thoughts about whether the business practices that were appropriate for a small startup company challenging the industry giants were still appropriate for, well, an adjudged monopolist.
Perhaps Mr Gates will be thinking about this in future. The settlement does at least (IV.C) require that the company appoints a Compliance Officer whose duties include briefing senior officers annually about the settlement and the antitrust laws in general (IV.C.3.c), and collecting their signed assents that they understand and will abide by the terms of the settlement (IV.C.3.d - interesting there's no mention of antitrust laws in general in this clause, another example of wriggle-room, perhaps?).
But it's disappointing that the Compliance Officer's mandated activities don't include initiating and running an educational campaign so that all MS staff are informed of the nature and reasons for anti-trust legislation, the reasons that the company was found to be in breach of them, and the general restraints that the legislation imposes on the activities of companies that have significant share of their markets.
To take an example, I work in IT in the financial sector, without any direct contact to my employer's clients. Nevertheless, my work contract contains clauses covering both customer confidentiality and about my obligation to report any financial activities that raise questions about fraud, money-laundering, etc. And I'm regularly reminded of these things by notices on the company intranet, messages passed through line management, and from time to time by printed memos from the chief exec to all staff. Now, if Mr Gates were to head up a similar drive to acquaint all staff with Microsoft's obligations under antitrust, then I might believe that his company was genuinely changing....
The and at the end of bullet ii exists solely for the purpose of eliminating such ambiguity.
And if you're producing a proprietary product that either competes with a Microsoft offering or creates a market in which they might want to compete then in order to get access to the protocols you have to tell them enough about your plans to convince them that they're "viable", which itself will undermine your competitive position.
People seem to be missing the most exciting part - the boot loader! See my editorial here.
-------------
"You would not get a high grade for such a design" -- Andy Tanenbaum on Linus' Linux design.
You're right... I missed that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I just finished reading the proposed consent decree. Here are my observations.
1) This decree is very similar in structure to the consent decree the Baby Bells operated under from 1983 to 1996. This means that it is probably well founded in law an unlikely to be overturned.
2) I was bothered by the duration of the decree. I see now reason why it should automatically expire. I feel that Microsoft should have to go back to court and petition for the removal of the order. And, that they should have to prove that they no longer have monopoly powers before the decree can be removed.
3) I was bothered by the fact that the rank and file of Microsoft does not have to read and sign the decree. I was an employ of a Baby Bell at one time and I remember the psychological effect of having to read and sign that decree each year. Knowing that if you violate the decree you can be held in contempt of a federal court makes sure you check every action you make against that decree.
4) I am very concerned that Microsoft is allowed to require a licensing agreement ant the payment of royalties for the use their protocols. The number one competitor of Microsoft right now is not a corporation that can sign an agreement or pay royalties. The number one competitor of Microsoft is a coalition of volunteers who are building truly free operating systems, applications, and APIs
5) I am very concerned that Microsoft is not required to release information about protocols that they can construe to be used for security. This means that you can implement their protocols but not be able to authenticate to a Microsoft server. And, they can make proprietary changes to the security protocols of already public protocols and not revels those changes.
These exclusions allow Microsoft to abided by the letter of the decree and still absolutely lock out every other operating system from working with Microsoft systems.
6) I understand the court's decision to exclude all Windows system management protocols from public release. But, I believe that the court has been mislead by the seeming reasonableness of this exclusion. This exclusion requires that the master control console of any network that contains Windows must run on a Windows operating system.
Aside from these problems, which are enough to render the decree meaningless, the decree is actually an excellent piece of work.
Stonewolf
At work I have Star Office 5.2 and I can transcribe .xls files just fine from Excel. I don't know, Maybe I'm doing something right.
I just called mine (Jim Ryan of Illinois at 217-782-1090). I talked for about five minutes to a woman in her office who was tallying the responses. She said that *every single response* she had gotten so far was against the proposed settlement. If the AG cares about his constituency, this has got to have an effect. Let's overwhelm them with responses.