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 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
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
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.
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