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.
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.
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.
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
Ow, my wrist.
324006
...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
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
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"
Paying for software on a subscription system will be about as pleasant as standing outside in a hailstorm. So I guess MS picked a good name.
Constitutionally Correct
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'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.)
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?"
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
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.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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.