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.
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.
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
So XYZ Computer Company decided to take this anti-trust thing seriously and offer Netscape on the desktop, eh? No problem - we will just "forget" to renew their Windows license at the end of the year. Nothing deliberate; just an oversight. Of course, since they are no longer a licensee, when they do renew, they will be in a 200% higher price bracket. Sorry about that, but we enforce those rules on everyone. And by the way, the BSA will be around to audit you and your customers next week.
Anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows how these things are done. As did Judge Jackson, which is why he recommneded breakup. Oh well.
sPh
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 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.
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"
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
- 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.I heard (from the VP of sales at Logitech at the time) that MS went to Logitech and said they were interested at branding Logitech mice with MS's logo. Of course, the Logitech guys got dollar-signs in their eyes and put their best sales people on the job.
Six months later, after much negotiation, Logitech had widdled away their price estimates, and it came time for MS to sign the paperwork. The MS rep never showed.
A couple of months later, MS released their first mouse, undercutting Logitech because they knew every detail about Logitech's production costs.
I dunno'. That sounds shadey to me.
PS - I will admit that the MS optical mouse is the best mouse I've ever used.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
...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 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
Woohoo! I hope that means what I think it means!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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
You make a good point about enforceability: any settlement that depends upon executive branch agencies like the DOJ is a "walk" for Microsoft. No executive branch agency in the Bush pro-business-at-any-cost administration will actually enforce the terms of this agreement beyond the bare minimum necessary to avoid gross misconduct.
:-)
Any such settlement agreement must be enforced by a non-executive-branch body. (Perhaps the ITAA would like to help.
Moreover, Microsoft have demonstrated a total disregard for the law, and offering them the benefit of "good faith" is irresponsible. The fact that Microsoft is "powerful" should not prevent the DOJ from imposing proper sanctions and relief on their behaviour - in fact, it argues for a stronger and more enforceable penalty.
There are some major gifts in this agreement. For example, see III(A)(2). Microsoft may not retaliate against OEMs that sell Linux, or that ship PCs with multiple OSes or multi-boot capability, but the language allows Microsoft to retaliate against vendors of OS-less PCs or PCs that do not have Windows on them (e.g., PCs with only Linux installed).
Microsoft can also continue to roll functionality into its OS and kernel, or use proprietary APIs, as long as it does not put the entirety of the "middleware" into the OS. Only "Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors" are covered by the middleware restrictions anyway. IIS, SQL Server, and other enterprise products can continue to use secret kernel-mode APIs to enhance their performance and maintain an unfair advantage for Microsoft middleware over non-Microsoft middleware.
There's a beautiful escape clause in III(H) which allows Microsoft to bypass third-party software (browser, JVM, media player, etc.) if it "fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement... that is necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product."
And there's the spectacular III(J), which allows Microsoft to hide APIs, documentation or "layers of Communications Protocols" if it "would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems." That's rather broad.
As others have no doubt noted, there is no mention of the "embrace and extend" techniques Microsoft uses to take over open protocols under the guise of improved functionality. There's also no mention of tying Microsoft content to Microsoft products distributed with the OS and thereby creating a substantial barrier to entry for third parties (as they are doing now with MSN).
I would love to see a coordinated campaign to fight this settlement agreement. Congress gets very grumpy if executive branch agencies ignore public comments, and many state attorneys-general will have to sign off on the agreement (many of them do not like it, and even a small amount of public disapproval will help them). This means there is something that people everywhere within the US, or who do business in the US, can do to fight this agreement. Please write me at the email address given if you are interested in this effort.
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".
Perhaps you should actually read the anti-trust laws you find so ridiculous. Your sig says "reason, free market capitalism, and individualism" Last time I checked, capitalism depended on customers being free to choose among different vendors, and vendors being free to offer their services. How does allowing a company to restrict trade or commerce (you know, the activities that anti-trust laws are designed to prevent) serve that end? How is your desire for individualism served when a company can restrict what products you have access to? Where is the reason in your position?
Perhaps it is time for you to reconsider either your position or your sig.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
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!
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.
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