Massachusetts Holds Out On MS Case

Cubase de Pilsen writes: "Massachusetts' attorney general said his state would not sign on to a proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft because it does not protect competing software makers." Several other state AGs as well are angling for more restrictions on Microsoft, but some are prepared to sign on to the current version of the settlement.

Comments

Amen to that....

[jea6]

.... i'ts refreshing to see that the states won't punk out like the Bush Administration did.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

It was expected that most would not. Still, depending on just how far the feds punk out...is there any viable way for the DOJ to interfere with the states' case? Say, harrass the attorney generals or bury their staffs under paperwork?

It's also of note that the judge has to sign off on the deal being "in the public interest". If she comes to the conclusion that Microsoft has a demonstrated history of violating and/or ignoring conduct remedies, therefore a pure conduct remedy will probably be treated likewise, therefore such a remedy is equivalent to no remedy, and the lack of a remedy is not in the public interest...

Re:Amen to that....

[The Smith]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- 10th Amendment

This is one of the few good things about the US legal system -- even if the federal govenment is paid off, the individual states are under no obligation to follow.

Re:Amen to that....

[jeffy124]

actually, the appeal courts ruled that Judge Jackson's comments to the media indicated a bias against MS, hence they threw out his version of a breakup remedy. The appeal court didnt explicitly rule out that a breakup was the proper rememdy, just that Jackson appeared biased in his judgement and that nullified his proposed remedy. It was the Justice Dept that formally ruled out breakup a few weeks ago.

Re:Amen to that....

[Brian Kendig]

A fine is useless.

Not if the fine is large enough. How much do you think Microsoft's illegal activities have hurt its competitors? Can you put a dollar value on that? I'll bet its competitors can, and I'll bet it won't be trivial.

Keep in mind that the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ does not involve any punitive actions. Microsoft is free to profit from its illegal gains. I think a heavy fine isn't only useful, but necessary -- especially if the fine is paid to the companies who were hurt, and they use it to compete against Microsoft.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

Well, even if breakup were out (and I don't see anything that outright forbids a breakup, just that the specific version of said remedy that Jackson wrote up has been tossed out because of its author), Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth.

Or maybe the corporation could just be seized and dissolved, all its assets made property of the government (for physical stuff) or public domain (for intellectual property). Now, that would send a message, one that the Bush administration would have a hard time overturning - especially if the Supreme Court backed up the seizure. It'd help if it was spun to the public as "you get free Windows from now on": sure, the more knowledgable people (like most Slashdot readers) would know the further implications, including down sides, but most Americans would selectively perceive only that their neighborhood computer vendor could now sell computers for cheap, and given them a bunch of choices for what comes on it (even though they may well wind up picking what they already do: the option to perceive and ignore bad choices has inherent value, to them).

Re:Amen to that....

[Decimal]

Thats it. Breakup is out. Its not going to happen. The appealate court said in pretty much plain english that it would never happen. That only leaves two options. A fine is useless. What else do you expect to be done short of a breakup?

Not even a two-way breakup would really help. The companies still have the same leadership and thus the same tactics. What needs to be done in cases like this is throw the leadership out and replace them with people at the bottom. Or even offer the positions to leadership from other companies deemed non-competitive that Microsoft squeezed out of the OS market. If Bill Gates were to find out that he could lose ownership of his own company and indeed even be barred from entering Microsoft headquarters and owning Microsoft stock he'd unbundle software from Windows so fast you could see the bits fly.

Sound harsh? That's exactly what the leadership at Microsoft did to owners of other companies with their tactics. They kicked the competition out market. In turn, the court should kick them out of their own company.

Of course, they won't. But they should.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL bought Netscape for $4.2B - dotcom inflated, and lots of stock instead of cash, but let's take that as a market valuation.

Could MS afford a $40B fine? Well, maybe, but that's still a huge chunk of change.

Re:Amen to that....

[schon]

What else do you expect to be done short of a breakup?

The perfect remedy would be to force full disclosure from MS.

That is: All API's and file formats need to be accessible by the general public at least three months before it's released. No need to break them up, or to force them to reveal their source code. As any large company, they're already documenting their API's and file formats internally, so it's no extra work on their part.

Historically, MS has used it's monopoly to hinder competition - this will eliminate that ability, and level the playing field completely - MS is free to "innovate" whatever it wants, it just has to give everybody fair notice beforehand.

If MS uses an undocumented API function, they're in breach of federal law, and are subject to something harsh - maybe a complete seizure of all income until the three month period has elapsed, or $1 Million fine per unit shipped per day (this will "encourage" them to play along.)

Re:Amen to that....

[bwt]

c. And that the remedy was not in line with the findings of fact or law

That's just wrong.

Since they threw out the remedy for bias, they never reached the merits of Jackson's proposed remedy. They cannot rule on an issue that is not before them, and they remanded for a new remedy after "vacating" not "reversing" on the remedy.

All of the states and joined the DOJ in saying that they would not push for a breakup. There would be no reason for them to do this if it was a mandate from the Appeals Court.

Re:Amen to that....

[jeffy124]

sooner or later (i hope) the /. editors will post a review i wrote about a book that covers this case up through last January. I didnt mention this in the review, but the book mentions that Judge Jackson belief is that MS would be a lot better shape if Bill Gates had finished Harvard.

Going along with your leadership comments and what was in the book, it's my belief that Gates runs the company head to toe, rubbing off on his top execs, and collectively causing the problems that the company has had with the FTC and DOJ for the past 5-10 years.

my belief is that tossing out the leaders wont do anything, and it would make DoJ look bad. Assesing a fine that encompasses all of MS's gains that came as a result of their violation of the Sherman Act is a minimum (the current settlement lets MS off the hook financially), imposing guidelines on how the company should behave in the market concerning contracts (a consent decree of sorts), and mandating those leaders to take classes in business and legal ethics.

Re:Amen to that....

[Reckless Visionary]

is there any viable way for the DOJ to interfere with the states' case?

Yep, they can stop paying for it. State attorney generals are going to have a hard time justifying the huge costs of continuing this legislation in a recession. Up until now, the Feds have been footing most of the bill.

Re:Amen to that....

[aka-ed]

The only competitors that are affected by this (in the scope of the trial, that is) is Netscape

And all companies that profited, or stood to profit, by Netscape's plug-in architecture, Real Networks being the most significant.

Re:Amen to that....

[sheldon]

"Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth."

Which would then be overturned in the SCOTUS as being a completely unreasonable punishment for whatever crime was commited.

It's amazing how completely out of touch with reality people are.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess what I was getting at was that the government wouldn't have the balls to levy that sort of fine -- the stockmarket and every lobbyist in America would shit.

I'm with you about the tobacco lawsuit bullshit, but don't forget the prime political motivators behind this antitrust suit (Silicon Valley companies) would see any sort of acceptable fine to be pointless.

Re:Amen to that....

[pyrrho]

I understand why a fine would seem useless to you. However, I think the fine is the main thing missing. Yes, many would like harsher limitations, but these limitations are essentially "enough rope to hang themselves" and that is the standard courts often follow... another change. The courts are more patient, and another chance to show intent and willingness to understand the spirit of the agreement justifies a breakup if that should become nec. No court is going to break Microsoft up for five years of behavior, MS needs more rope to hang itself.

(yes, I know the behavior goes back more than that, but the court has really only judged on post '95 issues)

But the fine, I think the fine is nec. and should be earmarked specifically in use policing Microsoft. A $500 Million dollar fine to be used to pay for the policing of microsoft, as discretionary funds for the new Microsoft oversight commitee.

I think furthermore that if this settlment does go through, the effort should be put into making sure the commitee of three is not staffed by pro-microsoft forces. I say we need one Lessig/Gillmore on there (I'd vote a Stallman on there, but lets be realistic.)

Re:Amen to that....

[Romeozulu]

While it's true that MS has enough cash to pay just about any fine, it's stock price will get hit bad. Any fine paid is going to be charged against it earnings/share, and that's what Wall Street looks at. I think a few hundrend million dollar fine would work wonders.

RZ

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but "flamebait" is not part of the English language. It is a slang term, and thus open to interpretation.

Re:Amen to that....

[MaxVlast]

Uhhh...surely you're joking. Do you realize what wholesale chaos would ensue in the industry immedeatly thereafter? That's about the daffiest thing I've read in ages.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

Really? Prove that the company has demonstrated it has no intention of ever obeying the law when such interferes with its profits. Prove that the company has demonstrated, in Jackson's courtroom if nowhere else (and there's plenty of "else"), utter and sincere contempt for the courts and the law. Prove that it really has inflicted damages at least equalling its net worth.

That's all doable, though I'll admit the last one is not a cakewalk like the first to. That said, if all that is proved in front of the SCOTUS, even they might well uphold the punishment.

Re:Amen to that....

[Sj0]

After long consideration, I've decided that the only remedy which would have lasting impact would be the following:

1)Send tanks and bombers to redmond to "convince" Microsoft to behave.
2)If Microsoft continues to misbehave, destroy a smaller building, thereby making everybody on the microsoft campus wet themselves.
3)If Microsoft continues to misbehave after wetting themselves, send in some black ops troops to retrieve any data which may be useable (such as the full source for any MS products?) then take the compound out.
:)

then watch the rest of the industry wet themselves and play nice.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

I see panic. I see chaos. And I see third parties offering up those services of Microsoft that were of any benefit, for instance providing technical support that is actually better than Microsoft's even though the providers theoretically have less internal knowledge of MS product.

I also see a bunch of lawyers realizing that they can't get away with blaming the computer vendor for their mistakes so much. Perhaps those who view business as "who can I sue" instead of "provide value to the customer" will find their jobs that much more difficult...but I see that as a good thing.

As for actual harm coming from such an act? I see lots of pontification, lots of angry and confused people of great self importance. But for the people who actually have to work with the stuff, I don't see that much of an immediate change, and what little there would be, would be positive.

In short: yes, I have thought about this. IMHO, it could be an immediate benefit from the moment it goes into force.

Re:Amen to that....

[sheldon]

Well I think I've already proven, by your own words, that you have an utter contempt for the US justice system.

That's enough for today.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think I've already proven, by your own words, that you have an utter contempt for the US justice system.

And that should be a bad thing, because?

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just because it hasn't been done, nothing says it can't be done. And nothing says it would be a bad thing either.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the fines are recurring, Wall Street would be smart enough to see through that. It's not like MSFT pays dividends. In fact, their stock would probably go up because the government monkey was finally off their back.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

Last I checked, "contempt for the law" wasn't, by itself, a crime (though it might cast into doubt toothless agreements to follow the law in the future, when one has violated it in the past and stands to benefit from further similar violations). "Contempt of court" was. I respect the courts that try to determine the law, even if I sometimes disagree with their conclusions. Microsoft was, among other things, demonstrating contempt for the court itself in its testimony to Jackson - which is part of what set him off.

Re:Amen to that....

[Prior Restraint]

...Real Networks being the most significant.

My vote would be for Sun. (JVM)

Re:Amen to that....

[Flower]

A few paltry hundred million or even a few billion so it can freely continue to leverage its monopoly into the fledgling web services market?

Hell, let the investors tank MS stock. I could buy low and by the time the next anti-trust suit hit the courts I could sell and retire early.

As others have said, 36+ billion in cash; no debt; any penalty would be paid over a period of years allowing MS numerous ways to finance the payment. A quite frankly rewarding anti-trust settlement. I would fire any investor that was so short-sighted as to reccommend selling MS stock under those circumstances.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't (just) that the administration called it off... there was also the little matter of the Appeals Court reversing Jackson's decision, which basically ruled out any large punitive rulings on this case.

Furthermore, I doubt the states care that much about antitrust. They're just eager to be bought off the case by Microsoft.

Re:Amen to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

The appeal court didnt explicitly rule out that a breakup was the proper rememdy, just that Jackson appeared biased in his judgement and that nullified his proposed remedy. It was the Justice Dept that formally ruled out breakup a few weeks ago.

You would think differently if you got your information from a reputable newspaper, rather than "IANAL" posts on slashdot.

Re:Amen to that....

[sheldon]

But that's ok because Judge Jackson clearly demonstrated contempt of his own court by talking to the media.

The basic point being that in and of itself showing contempt for the law isn't a crime. You just said so yourself, yet in your previous post you claimed that we should dismantle Microsoft because of this imaginary crime.

Hell I'd have contempt for the court too if I they were being driven by politics rather than reason, as was the Microsoft case.

Re:Amen to that....

[blur00]

If you'd care to check the economic "facts", we're not in a recession, thanks. We cannot be in a recession until at least after the 2002 1st Quarter results are posted, at the earliest.

Re:Amen to that....

[Winged Cat]

Contempt of the law isn't a crime per se. But it does cast doubt on one's willingness to follow a conduct remedy when the only enforcement provision is to lengthen said remedy, and when one has demonstrated willingness to completely ignore similar conduct remedies.

Re:Amen to that....

[aka-ed]

Good point. Trustbusters may have an easier time following the dots with Real's potential loss of revenue, though -- media delivery is the potential goldmine they're all familiar with.

Re:Amen to that....

[dup_account]

The same voters that think that MS is good for industry etc also think that christian prayer should be mandatory in schools, Harry Potter teaches witch crash and satanic rituals, and that DCMA is good for consumers.... My point being, people (myself included) are a bunch of morons.

If you consider that MS has not added anything (other than .NET to extend the monopoly) that is really innovative into IE (copying Netscape doesn't count) in a really long time, or that IE hasn't really progress since Netscape disappeared (mozilla is now pushing them to improve a little (which is why MS IE 6 looks similar to mozilla.....)) you have to wonder if MS IE endevor has really been good for consumers. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's better.

I also don't think the monopoly case is REALLY just about Netscape vs IE. If you look at the settlement for example, the DOJ seemed to think that is was about the lack of freedom for hardware retailers that wanted to include MS Win with their hardware, and about whether hardware vendors should have more control over what the people see when they turn on the computer....

Mass state logo:

[PieceMaker]

The Don Quixote State!

way to go

[Tassach]

Nice to finally see a politician who actually has a pair.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

and I suppose that makes it okay.

"I've owned slaves all my life, but I feel bad about it, so everything is A-OK!" -Thomas Jefferson

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

And fathered several children to his slaves.

No proof of that. Just conjecture and maybe wishful thinking.

Re:way to go

[chris_mahan]

I hope the nineteen states can hold out to a billion dollar payoff each.

That way, MS will see its cash reserves depleted, and will perhaps stop plastering so many XP ads all over magazines and billboards.

Also, that might derail the XBox marketing campain.

Also, that would put MS in a bind over EU fines.

That would really hurt if you ask me.

Oh, and their stock would do a spectacular dive, methinks. (all reservations avout forward-looking statements apply)

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

I am collaring My new slave on the 17th of November.

She is eager for it to be so. It's nice to be entering a relationship with a woman wanting to be my sex slave. And believe me, I will honor her wish and treat her well.

Of course, this is BDSM lifestyle slavery. Much nicer, in my opinion.

Re:way to go

[dlkf]

That way, MS will see its cash reserves depleted

I read somewhere recently that MS has upwards of $30 billion in cash reserves. Losing %60 of that would hurt, but would do nothing to change their behavior. Besides, they would never pay it out in a lump sum anyway. They would work something to pay it out over 5-10 years minimum. In the end, you would need something on the order of the tobacco settlement to really hurt MS financially and I doubt that will ever happen.

Re:way to go

[zangdesign]

So you want to tank THE major desktop software company in the U.S.

... derail the U.S. economy to the tune of several billion dollars a year ...

... kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support ...

... put thousands of people out of work ...

For what? Some misguided notion of a social agenda that accomplishes God only knows what ...

You, sir, are a danger to society. Not because of your ideas, but because you would actually put them to use and quite possibly irreparably damage the lives of thousands just because you are disgruntled.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

sources please?

Unattributable statistics are pretty meaningless.

"Actually, 85% of the settlement went to public health initiatives" (Everyone can play this game, choose a number!)

Re:way to go

[Ivan Raikov]

derail the U.S. economy to the tune of several billion dollars a year

The GDP of the United States is 9.3 trillion dollars. May I inquire how a few billion dollars will derail the economy?

kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support

Could that be due to a monopoly in said software field, I wonder?

put thousands of people out of work

Now, THAT's a good reason to keep Microsoft around... not!


You'd think that the antitrust suits against the steel industry, the railroad industry, AT&T, IBM, etc. would teach you something...

Re:way to go

[chris_mahan]

You, sir, are a danger to society. Not because of your ideas, but because you would actually put them to use and quite possibly irreparably damage the lives of thousands just because you are disgruntled.

It is not only legal but encouraged to have ideas in this country.

Putting people out of work? It's called capitalism.

Oh, and God just fell off his throne... Oh, wait, my bad, he didn't.

Being disgruntled? that's okay too. I do something constructive about it, instead of sulking.

Answering trolls? Exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

Re:way to go

[chris_mahan]

The thing is that to most americans, $19B looks like a lot of money, and if you fine MS $19B, that will mean that they had done something bad, bad enough to warrant $19B in punitive damages.

Ultimately, the "hurt" would come from the damage to the company's image.

Granted the $19B would not put MS out of business, and that's not what we want.

Re:way to go

[Ivan Raikov]

...many places would decay into a hellish pit of despair very rapidly.

Well, I think that's quite an exaggeration -- many places would probably have to outsource their IT work, until their own personnel gets trained in whatever fits their needs best. If they have become so dependent on Microsoft, that they cannot change to any other platform, then they have become inflexible and uncompetitive themselves.
In a dynamic, unregulated capitalist economy such inflexibility is suicide -- economy regulated by Microsoft is just as bad as an economy regulated by the government.

Re:way to go

[Winged Cat]

Feh. Linux has easily as many human beings supporting its core OS as Microsoft has developers period. (Granted, this doesn't count the loads of third party Windows developers, or the non-developer Windows users, but still...) The economy will keep ticking along just fine even with a several billion dollar a year hit, and those thousands of people can easily find work supporting already deployed Windows applications.

The only people who will be irreparably damaged will be the top executives and other investors of Microsoft - since Microsoft has already been found guilty, irreparable harm is legally justified - and those who place excessive faith in said company - "excessive faith" of the type that causes ongoing untold damage (such as relying on IIS to be a stable, secure Web server). Hopefully, damage to the latter group would be less than the self-inflicted damage that this action would help stop.

Re:way to go

[marick]

This comment implies that Massachusetts hasn't been spending their money appropriately wrt the tobacco settlement. In fact, Massachusetts has been one of the better states in this regard.

According to The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids" report on the spending of the settlement, Massachusetts is spending $43.1 million dollars a year, well within the range of the CDC's recommended funding levels. Massachusetts is 4th in ranking, in fact. And Massachusetts has had a tobacco-prevention program in place since before the settlement (1993, I believe). Please, don't paint all of New England with the same brush!

Check out this chart for the source of my information.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

"... kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support ... "

How DID the IT Industry ever survive running Windows 2000, NT, 98, 95, and 3.1?!? In the 2 weeks that XP has been out, I've already forgotten and can't even begin to imagine how horrible it was. Fortunately, MS's pricesheets help me forget those days.

Thank you almighty Bill for giving us the great XP release! Only 0.5% of the computing population uses it, but without it we'd be certainly headed for economic destruction!

Re:way to go

[reflective recursion]

Initially, yes. The whole market might get hurt. But MS is back on the upswing. The stock is a solid buy from most tipsters. In fact, this page [yahoo.com] shows how out of 28 brokers who are regurarly surveyed by Yahoo, 8 put MS as a buy, 14 as a buy/hold, 4 as a hold, and 0 as a sell.

Either because they own MSFT (buy), or they are planning on buying it (hold). You won't find a broker which says "sell" because their clients (i.e. Joe your nextdoor neighbor) could just happen to like that certain company and want to sink, er, invest $100k into it. Who would turn down that commission..

IMO, Microsoft probably will continue to make money (which translates into stock prices going up). I do see them having issues with selling Windows though. For one thing, they seem to be having a bit of a problem getting release momentum going. They have a huge marketting campaign with WindowsXP, but with Win2k/ME recently released, I don't think it will sell like they hope. They have a huge risk going with .NET and Passport. They are very likely to scare off a portion of their customer base in more than a few different ways. One "scare" factor is security. Another factor is the subscription model they choose. Is MS turning Windows into one big MS Bob? We will soon find out. In the meantime, MS will continue to grow, but at a much slower pace than the Win3.1 and Win95 era. A good number of people still use Win9x and need a reason to upgrade (i.e. Killer App). .NET won't become a killer app until bandwidth increases dramatically, which could take many years.

From watching commercials during World Series game 7, it appears as if XBox will be one of MS' main cash cows for a few years.

Re:way to go

[chris_mahan]

It has in the web server business.

One of the most important things about Code Red and Nimda is that news agencies told the genreal public that these viruses/worms would not affect the general public, only those who run web server. Well, the AOL Grandma does not run a web server.

Either BlueCross or BlueShield of CA (I forget which) is ditching their IIS5/ASP architecture in favor of Sun's Java Enterprise server over security concerns. They're probably not the only ones.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the latest virus outbreaks have hurt MS -- I've heard of three businesses moving off of ASP in the last couple months (and I'm primarily an ASP droog, so that hurts!). Long term, 'web services' and NET are going to be a tough sell if your webserver is banned in a percentage of businesses.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it gets worse ... In CA the 'prevention' isn't the usual bunch of ads that says "Hey Kids! Smoking is bad for you!", it's a bunch of propaganda that says "Hey Adults (err, I mean Kids)! Tobacco Companies are Evil!".

Re:way to go

[aka-ed]

Code Red, Nimbda, all that - the news people have reported that it has caused "billions in damage". That hasnt hurt MS one bit. What makes you think a little fine would?

Public perception does not see MS as responsible for the acts of "cyberterrorists." Frankly, I myself am a bit reluctant to lay full responsibility for every exploit of an OS at the feet of its publisher.

Re:way to go

[homer_ca]

"The best thing about MS is that its products create hundreds and thousands of high-paid, well trained professionals to support and admin the sytems and products."

That may have been the case since NT4.0 was so buggy and unpredictable. But I really think MS's long term goal is to turn computer professionals into low-paid click monkeys. How many NT sysadmins do any troubleshooting more complex than uninstall/reinstall, reboot, install service pack/hotfix/updated driver?

Re:way to go

[homer_ca]

"Just like in the Tobacco lawsuits they will take the settlement, spend it on unrelated items and move on to the next target."

Well live by the sword, die by the sword. Do you know what LA is spending its tobacco settlement money on? To pay off lawsuits from the LAPD Rampart scandal.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

You base your argument on a number you made up and the best ass covering research you can do proves that you are full of shit.

90%? 80%? 70%? 50%? 25%? Not even close. The entire New England region spent less than 5% of the settlements on those initiatives?

The article you quote does not address the "New England region" and the average number they come up with is 40% higher than the number you just made up. God you are an idiot.

Re:way to go

[invenustus]

Putting people out of work? It's called capitalism.

Okay, if I follow this thread correctly, you're from the camp that favors governments' fining the pants off Microsoft. And then you chalk the consequences of said government intervention up to capitalism? You can't regulate and then blame the results on a lack of regulation. Well, actually you can - most politicians make a living off it - that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Re:way to go

[melanarchy]

Actually you are wrong; Massachusetts spent 90% of it's tabaco settelment dollars on anti-smoking legislation and advertising.

Goto http://getoutraged.org a website set up by the state to go along with a state wide billboard campaign.

Cynicism is great but you are quite wrong in this area. On top of that what evidence do you have that any state would be looking for money in this?

Did it ever occur to you that there are hundreds of major tech companies in MA that compete with Microsoft that would stand to benefit from harsher punishments to MS? Probably not.

Although you may be right that it is not due to testicles but rather economics that MA is holding out, your reasoning behind these economics is flawed.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

yay MS Yay..ra, ra!!
Fuk us fuk us good!

Re:way to go

[Compact Dick]

how much of the money they won from Tobacco lawsuits really went to what they claimed it was for (ie public health, stop smoking campaigns, cover costs of medical treatment, etc)? 90%? 80%? 70%? 50%? 25%? Not even close. The entire New England region spent less than 5% of the settlements on those initiatives? The rest went to lawyers, to fund more/different programs, and finance more debt.

So the RIAA's been giving them business tips? How shocking.

Re:way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Massachusetts may be doing this out of principle. They were, after all, the primary reason Windows 95 shipped with the Trace "Easy Access" features (a.k.a. the Accessibility Control Panel). They pursued this issue because of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (which, by the way, has gotten MUCH stronger -- I am surprised there is not more news about that here). Accessibility (to persons with disabilities), or the rather the initial lack of it, is one of the larger reasons Windows shipped so late that year.

Re:way to go

[dup_account]

This is the economics of a monopoly. Make a high barrier to entry...

I don't think it would kill MS, but it might give them a shake up.... Keep doing bad things and someone will smack you with a stick...... vs Keep doing things and shrub will reward you by eliminating the only obstacle to your monopoly.....

We can hope more states hold out

[fractalus]

If more states hold out, stronger restrictions may end up being imposed anyway, and perhaps it will become clear to the DoJ that settling wasn't the right thing to do. (Stop laughing. Some of us would like to hang on to at least a shred of hope.)

Re:We can hope more states hold out

[Osty]

If more states hold out, stronger restrictions may end up being imposed anyway, and perhaps it will become clear to the DoJ that settling wasn't the right thing to do.

Sorry, but that can't happen. In the real world, when two parties settle a legal suit, the plaintiff may not bring suit against the defendant again for the same issue. It's called double jeopardy, and it's not allowed. Thus, the DoJ has settled (or at the very least shown intent to settle, which will translate into actually settling soon enough). They cannot back out because they changed their minds later, and they cannot decide to impose more restrictions (unless of course both parties agree to more restrictions, but what kind of fool would do that?). The states attorneys may be able to impose restrictions within their own jurisdictions, but they don't even have a majority of the contiguous states behind them. The rest of the country, and most of the rest of the world (excepting perhaps the EU) would still be an open market to MS, restricted only to the DoJ's settlement restrictions.

Re:We can hope more states hold out

[Anonymous Coward]

In the real world, when two parties settle a legal suit, the plaintiff may not bring suit against the defendant again for the same issue. It's called double jeopardy, and it's not allowed.

Unless of course, if MS keeps up the behavior that got them in hot water in the first place - and by the looks of things, they are.

It's true that you can't be convicted twice for the same murder, but if you keep killing people...

Re:We can hope more states hold out

[Osty]

Unless of course, if MS keeps up the behavior that got them in hot water in the first place - and by the looks of things, they are.

That's where the "for the same issue" part would kick in. If Microsoft were to be litigated against again, it would be for a different infraction. It may very well be the same type of infraction, but the action itself would be different. The current suit, in actuality, was solely about bundling IE with Windows in an attempt to create a monopoly in a different market by leveraging a current monopoly. The issue with OEMs was only brought in due to the requirement that OEMs install IE (or not uninstall IE). That opened the can of worms wrt OEM licensing. Another suit that addresses OEM licensing would be brought about from a different issue, as the bundling of IE has already been tried. (And, btw, the bundling charge was cleared by the Appellate Court, so it doesn't really matter any more. Bundling was ruled as perfectly fine and legal, which is why as much as people may bitch, XP was not forced to decouple any of its current bundling. As part of the settlement agreement, Microsoft has chosen to offer versions of XP without as much bundling, but had they gone to a legal conclusion of the trial rather than a settlement, there would be no basis in law to disallow bundling based on the appellate court decision.)

go figure.

[mikeee]

As a MA resident, I'm pleased by the principled action of my State's officials. That's just about a first.

For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

Re:go figure.

[Debillitatus]

For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

And I think he's still in public office, being president of the UMass system (the kid brother, that is)... the older one is still on the run from the FBI.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, more than that Massachusetts has given us a President who won an election through the organized crime and corrupt union cronies that his Dad knew.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

And was the only state to vote against Nixon in 1972. Reds, the lots of them.

Re:go figure.

[The Man]

For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

Nothing wrong with that. Just look at Nevada... Oscar Goodman is mayor of Las Vegas. Usually the mafia does a much better job of governing than a bunch of bleeding-heart do-gooders with family money and axes to grind.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

like thats any different than texas that won an election through organized oil cartels, corporate welfare and populated has a VP thats a defense crony?

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions? That's nothing compared to the papist machinations.

Re:go figure.

[PieceMaker]

And was the only state to vote against Nixon in 1972.

Oh, you mean that President who got us out of Vietnam? He was a jerk, wasn't he. Not like that other President who buried us deeply IN Vietnam -- LBJ.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

And one of your US Senators, a Mister Kennedy, if I'm not mistaken, is the son of a former bootlegger. Which is pretty much the equivalent of a mafia boss.

Re:go figure.

[pherris]

mikeee said:
For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

James J. "Whitey" Bulger:
- Massachusetts' Most Wanted
- FBI Most Wanted

William M. Bulger, President, University of Massachusetts
- President Bulger's Biography

pherris

Re:go figure.

[shanek]

Isn't MA the state that has a ballot initiative this year to repeal the state's Income Tax? There must be some people there with sense, Ted Kennedy notwithstanding.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

LBJ may have buried us in it but god-forbid that anyone remember who PUT us there - JFK

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon was a jerk. He was a fucking moron who abused his power and lied to the people. Any way you put it, he was a horrible president.

I'm sorry to say this, but you are a horrible citizen. To blindly see things along republican/democrat lines is one of the worst things you can do. "Oh, sure, Nixon was bad, but LBJ did that! That means Nixon was a good president!" Nixon eventually got us out of Vietnam. Good. He also put more troops in. He did that after he said he was going to take them out. He is a fucking liar - I'm not even going to bring up Watergate.

You, and people like you, are bad for this country. GTFO.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget he drove off a bridge and left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. No charges ever filed thanks to daddy...

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Nixon was quite a good President. His most significant achievement was the opening of China to capitalism and trade. Slowly but surely that country is moving towards a market economy and the freedom and liberties quietly hidden therein. Check out the The Tiananmen Papers for an account of the schism occuring in the Chinese communist government.

Re:go figure.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing but a bunch of liberal socialists in Massachusetts. What else would you expect. Liberals what nothing but a free hand-out.

Re:go figure.

[PieceMaker]

Actually, you are the one in error here. You have grossly misread my posting and I think it is almost certainly because you "blindly see things along republican/democrat lines"!

It is a given that Nixon is a jerk. It is almost an immutable mantra. He is virtually always painted in near-Hitleresque terms as a man with no redeeming qualities. And yet he did have some. He got us out of Vietnam and he opened up China. I dared to point that out in a lighthearted way. I also threw in Dem vs. Rep angle because the post I was responding to headed down that path.

Now you fault Nixon for, among other things, putting more troops into Vietnam. Then I surely expect you to have the same contempt for Kennedy and LBJ, and indeed a great deal of contempt for LBJ who vastly escalated our involvement there. And, since abusing power and lying to the people is the deepest sin from which no politician can be redeemed, I imagine you must rank Clinton about equal to Nixen, right?

Nixon was indeed very wrong to lie to us and deceive us and he deserved to be run out of office for it. But there are more shades than black and white and he was not all black. Give the man credit where it is due.

Hmm..

[ShaniaTwain]

It'll be interesting to see what the next version of MS XP World Encyclopedia 3000 has to say about Massachusetts..

Re:Hmm..

[pagsz]

Probably be defined as: "Communist state that refuses to accept Microsoft's prowess in free market."

Last Days

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not the states hold out on the case, let's be honest with ourselves -- nothing except a massive increase in consumer intelligence and responsibility will save us from complete domination from Redmond.

Let's look at ways to provide consumers with better options. For example, Mandrake 8.0 Powerpack edition comes with a number of games. 3 of these, including the enticing TuxRacer, crash my machine on startup.

Until we can have a simple Linux install (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that doesn't come with any broken components (which they've flubbed), the regular consumer won't switch

Re:Last Days

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Let's see Win2K comes with an IIS seerver that is broken, outlook that is broken, and a plethora of other items that SP1 and SP2 fix.

NOTHING comes out of the box without problems, unfortunately Linux programmers have an affinity of writing things to be incompatable by always requiring the bleeding edge libs to ensure that users cannot use the program only the "leet"

Re:Last Days

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> Whether or not the states hold out on the
> case, let's be honest with ourselves --
> nothing except a massive increase in
> consumer intelligence and responsibility
> will save us from complete domination from
> Redmond.

Well, that might save us, if ordinary consumers were up to the occasion. Unfortunately, it is only "geeks", computer gurus, and power users who bother to keep informed of the issues.

The ordinary consumer can wander down to their mall, and check out those pretty computers made by a company with a real brand name that means something. "Hey, it runs Office (:b) and most of our favorite games! Have you ever seen Quicken look so gorgeous? What's that? I can make my own DVDs of my home movies?!? And there's this pod thingie that plays 1000 songs and has a battery life of 10 hours? Woohoo!"

You know, there is a reason why Apple wears black while most of the PC industry is trying on red. ;)

> Let's look at ways to provide consumers
> with better options. For example, Mandrake
> 8.0 Powerpack edition comes with a
> number of games. 3 of these, including the
> enticing TuxRacer, crash my machine on
> startup.

I'll have to try the OS X port of TuxRacer sometime. I've been too busy playing the Sims, Tropico, and Cocoa Mines lately.

> Until we can have a simple Linux install
> (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that
> doesn't come with any broken components
> (which they've flubbed), the regular
> consumer won't switch

That isn't an issue, as most regular consumers don't install operating systems much anymore. They tend to buy them on the computer. The main challenges to Linux on the desktop are the lack of familiar, branded, boxed commercial applications on the shelves at places like CompUSA (most of the boxes on the shelves are distros, not Quicken or other familiar aps), and lack of branded PCs running Linux at the same stores. If a company like IBM would ever put a PC running Linux in a store that also carried Quicken for Linux, etc., (and accompanied it with a big marketing campaign that actually gave a consumer a reason to want to buy one), Linux would be a desktop contender. That's not all that needs to be done, but it would be a good start.

Until then, OS X and Apple will take on Microsoft on the consumer desktop. Linux can hold the server market and possibly tackle the enterprise desktop.

Watch IBM's Eclipse. I think it is nothing less than a blow aimed right at Microsoft. If successful, it should greatly increase the number of Linux applications, especially for the enterprise. I do wish IBM would ask Apple to join the party and add OS X support to Eclipse (Darwin is open source too). Both companies would benefit from such a deal.

OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.

Re:Last Days

[dup_account]

I regularily use things that don't need bleeding edge libs. Maybe the latest alpha/beta KDE or Gnome require these, but most stuff doesn't. I believe that this tale needs to go the way of the "linux is hard to install so it sucks and will die a slow painful death" agrument....

I wonder...

[YuppieScum]

I wonder how quickly MS could enforce a "this product not for sale in MA" rule on their distributors & retailers...

...and I wonder how quickly said legislators would U-turn after having irate retailers and/or citizens pester them...

Re:I wonder...

[jeffy124]

wont happen. MS pushes their products in school environments (like my own school, except for the CS dept). There are too many schools up there for them to do that. MIT, Harvard, Boston College, Boston University, and many others

Re:I wonder...

[YuppieScum]

Not "not for use" but "not for sale"...

By denying sale in the state, they effectively circumvent the local legislators - and by encouraging out-of-state vendors to sell to people in MA they "prove" the market demands their products... very much a win-win if they can pull it off...

Not that I'm saying this would be a good thing, of course...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem to me that MS could still GIVE away product if they thought that Mass schools were that important and they still wouldn't have to have a business presence inside the state. It would be interesting to see the Mass AG prosecute that as anti-competitive. Sounds like the Linux distribution model...

More realistically, these schools really aren't that important in the overall scheme of things.

Re:I wonder...

[Winged Cat]

Are you kidding? "Not for sale in MA"...well, gee, I guess they'll just have to sell boxen preloaded with Linux, maybe with Wine already set up so the customers can run most Windows apps.

I think they know it'd backfire just that badly. But I wouldn't bet my life on Microsoft's intelligence...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

And living in a state without MS products would be bad because...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see that happen, though it won't. MS actually has offices in MA, as do many large technology companies. If they were to somehow cut out an entire state (not feasible, but I'm pretending) they'd would have to take a MASSIVE hit in their sales.

reshippie - posting from kiosk at school.

Re:I wonder...

[feed_me_cereal]

if microsoft would/could do such a thing, I think that the government of MA wouldn't u-turn but rather violently attack. M$ dosn't have quite that much power... I hope...

Re:I wonder...

[_xeno_]

Are you kidding me? I live in MA, and most Massachusetters already buy their software in New Hampshire to avoid sales tax anyway!

I don't see what difference "not for sale in MA" would do anyway... :)

(I get all my computer stuff in Nashua, NH - town of malls RIGHT NEXT to the MA-NH border... :))

Re:I wonder...

[Zspdude]

I wish! If MS ostracized everyone who took offense to their business tactics, maybe we'd see a lot less of the blue screen of death... Given that the state government has already taken this much of a stance, I'm not sure how easily they'd buckle.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft would be sued in less than 2 seconds.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe... Yesterday I was in the MIT computer lab. There's a bunch of year-old Dell boxes with Windows 98 liscence stickers and "made for Windows" stickers on them, all running Linux-Athena. I'm told that many of the MIT AI lab toilets have those missing "made for WIndows" stickers on them. MIT is for now mostly a UNIX shop, but several departments (at least Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering) have a lot of Windows machines. If it was all of a sudden harder to get Windows in MA, the whole campus would go Un*x.

Rumor has it that MIT Information Systems has almost gotten Windows to work properly in the MIT Athena (mostly kerberos and AFS) environment.

I'm pretty sure BU and BC are Winows campuses. I'm not sure about Harvard, but I would guess they're mostly a Windows campus as well. <rant> They baby their students too much. 91% of students graduating with honors is a joke. I get the impression that Harvard admits bright students, buut doesn't challenge them enough. I've been thuroughly underwhelmed by Harvard students in general. </rant>

UMASS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what you get when you once belonged to the UMASS-DEBATE team.

good

[jeffy124]

good for Mass to do that. I read that Sun was considering their own civil suit against MS if the current proposed settlement became reality. Not that that would do anything useful, IMO. Of course, MS still has to face Europe, and we all know how rough and tough they are gonna be.

Re:good

[Phanatic1a]

Don't knock Europe in this regard. They might not be very good at defending Chezchoslovakia against invasion, but they have the capability to be far, far harsher to MS than the US has ever been.

First off all, it's a trade commission issue over there, not a years-long court case. They can even use Jackson's original FOF as evidence, and expand the scope of the ruling to consider MS's more recent behavior that the US court case was unable to consider. Then, they can just make a decision, and implement it. And, they've already figured out what .NET is supposed to do, and they don't like it one bit. Heck, WSJ had some EU drafts a week or so ago, and the EU was talking about fining MS 2 billion dollars/year unless they unbundle Media Player, and stopped using their OSes to promote MSN.

EU Trade Law Fun Fact: Under some circumstances, bundling is just flat-out illegal. If you have Product A and B, you are allowed to bundle them, but if you do, you also have to make them available as separate products, and you can't charge drastically more for the separates. The French are making noises about going after MS for bundling DOS 7 with Win95, and under French trade law, that bundling actually constitutes fraud and actual executives actually do actual jail time for that kind of thing in France.

Another consideration for Europe is that MS is overwhelmingly American in structure. About 90% of their structure exists purely in the US, and their profits therefore go mainly to feeding the US economy, and not Europe. It'll be a lot easier for the EU to dick MS than it would be for them to screw with GM or Ford.

Re:good

[jeffy124]

i wasnt being sarcastic - sorry if I came off like that. Europe wont take their anti-trust case as lightly as the US suddenly is.

Re:good

[Derwen]

Of course, MS still has to face Europe, and we all know how rough and tough they are gonna be.

I assume that this is sarcasm in light of the track record of one EU country's leader.
However some European countries are flying the flag for Free Software and open standards :-)

- Derwen

Re:good

[Derwen]

i wasnt being sarcastic - sorry if I came off like that. Europe wont take their anti-trust case as lightly as the US suddenly is.

That's OK :-)
Despite my comments on Prime Minister Blair the European Union as a whole looks likely to stand a lot firmer than President Bush.
However if Microsoft were a French company, well, who could say what the EU would do then?

- Derwen

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder where M$ makes most of their profit though.
Definitely not EU right?

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, WSJ had some EU drafts a week or so ago, and the EU was talking about fining MS 2 billion dollars/year unless they unbundle Media Player...

Is US$2B/yr a lot for Microsoft? I don't know much about Gates' wealth but from what I've heard that doesn't sound like much money for Gates to pay out of his own pocket. Is there a chance that amount would come down during bargaining?

The fine you mention doesn't seem to have anything to do with long-term strategies for ameliorationreleasing specifications on file formats & APIs the rest of the world could use to increase interoperability with Microsoft products, making sure MS doesn't adopt new protocols before Europe has had a chance to implement what from discovery.

I'd love to see some country do to Microsoft what the US is too corrupt to do but a lone fine doesn't sound very promising to me.

Re:good

[Kierthos]

Okay, it may not be a lot of cash for Bill Gates (although I can't see anyone, no matter how rich, being exceptionally pleased about a two billion dollar a year fine), but if such a fine was put into place for as long as MS refuses to play by the EU rules, it would have an impact on MS.

In simplest terms, that's 2 billion a year that they could spend on other things. And it would have at least a minor impact on their stock, at least after the fine was announced. Finally, who is to say that the EU would stop there? Couldn't they continue to fine MS for numerous other reasons?

Kierthos

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, it may not be a lot of cash for Bill Gates (although I can't see anyone, no matter how rich, being exceptionally pleased about a two billion dollar a year fine), but if such a fine was put into place for as long as MS refuses to play by the EU rules, it would have an impact on MS.

How do you know it would? If Microsoft can make enough money every year to cover the fine (plus more to call profit) the fine has failed as a punishment.

I think Microsoft has enough money that it would pay the fine every year so it can continue to illegally leverage its monopoly in the EU. This would be the price of doing business in the EU and the stock price would reflect that because investors would recognize the fine as trivial for Microsoft.

As for not seeing how anyone no matter how rich is not being pleased to pay the finenobody cares about the pleasure level involved. Society cares if the fine is paid and whether it was sufficient to get Microsoft to change their illegal ways. I doubt a fine alone would do that because MS has so much money,

Finally, a fine as the sole punishment doesn't help to restore a marketplace built on winning by competing better. Microsoft is not forced to reveal secret protocols, APIs, etc. Microsoft is not prevented from making secret protocols, APIs, etc. to replace those that have been exposed. I think Microsoft would continue on as they have been, $2B less than before.

Political Reality strikes.

[Anton Anatopopov]

This whole thing is about politics.

Areas with a strong software development base will have powerful lobbyists promoting the anti-Microsoft agenda.

No doubt in seattle there was pressure not to get involved in the lawsuit.

Re:Political Reality strikes.

[YuppieScum]

This whole thing is about politics. And politics is all about money... I'd love to see a real breakdown of "campaign contribution" sources on both sides of the arguement.

Re:Political Reality strikes.

[pigeonhed]

Ummm. Lets see MS employees over 40,000 people in the State of Washington with Total Employement Taxes in excess of 100 million. What could you buy with 100 million. They had better have weight in the State of Washington and the City of Seattle otherwise it is time to move.

I am not for the business practices of MS. That said Business that contribute to the society around them should have a "hometown" advantage. I live in VIrginia and although I am not a big supporter of AOL there tax money does make the roads I drive on alittle better. :-)

ah Illinois

[Anonymous Coward]

land of lincoln? No, land of the clueless, my home state:


In Illinois, Attorney General Jim Ryan said he is inclined to sign the agreement

"I am pleased that the Microsoft case appears headed for resolution and that Illinois consumers will have gained a freer and more competitive marketplace as a result," Ryan said.

Re:ah Illinois

[Scott Lockwood]

And to think - I was going to vote for that asshole.

Either that, or...

[YuppieScum]

Either has a pair, or looking to see who is good for the largest "campaign contribution"... seems like the Oracle/Sun alliance is winning for now.

Don't forget to write to your state A.G.

[BurritoWarrior]

http://www.firstgov.gov/state_gov/state.html is a listing of all state government home pages. Write them now and urge them not to go along with the USDOJ settlement.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Call your attorney general

[mpsmps]

I did (Jim Ryan of Illinois 217-782-1090). I talked for about 5 minutes with a women there whose job was tallying constituent input. She said that *every single call* she had received was against the deal. Because these are elected officials, a concerted (unanimous?) message from their constituency could have a big effect.

Re:Call your attorney general

[Anonymous Coward]

did she say how many calls the AG was receiving about the settlement?

Re:Call your attorney general

[mpsmps]

Unfortunately, no. I hope she wasn't just referring to me! Actually, I got the feeling that there had been a number of them, but the phone clearly wasn't ringing off the hook.

Another interesting aside is that she was very explicit that she was willing to protect my anonymity (not that I felt the need), repeatedly volunteering in advance that I did not need to disclose my name. Perhaps some earlier callers were so scared that Microsoft would retaliate against them that they wanted to remain anonymous.

Re:Call your attorney general

[singularity]

Contact information for Kentucky can be found at http://www.law.state.ky.us/office/contact.htm. The phone number is (502) 696-5300.

They are closed right now (4:30 Eastern), but I would urge you to call tomorrow.

Re:Call your attorney general

[arban]

Yes, do so (shame on me for not doing so). But I would think it would be a good idea to specifically mention which side of the fence you sit. Are you against the deal because it is too strict? or does it not go far enough?

I probably know what most /.ers would answer, but that does not mean that they do.

Citizens of NC, please respond.

[mjh]

It appears that the Atty General of NC is still on the fence about this one. Here's a copy of the email that I sent to our AG last Friday. Let's see if we can get him to act.

To: agjus@mail.jus.state.nc.us
Subject: Please pursue stiffer penalties for Microsoft

Dear Mr. Roy Cooper:

I am a citizen of North Carolina, residing in Charlotte (see my address below). I am writing to you today to urge you to object to the settlement offered between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft, and to continue to pursue more effective remedy in the case.

Considering Microsoft's history of ignoring consent decrees, I hope that you will agree that another consent decree should be held highly skeptical as an effective remedy. The fact that Microsoft violated a 1995 consent was part of what prompted the current antitrust proceedings. How effective can the same remedy be, when its prior violations helped to protect and extend Microsoft's illegal monopoly?

Microsoft has recently released Windows XP, a computer operating system with the explicit goal of extending their monopoly reach into web services. This is a clear violation of antitrust law, and a clear demonstration that Microsoft intends to completely ignore remedial actions to reinstall competition into the computer software market.

As a citizen of North Carolina, I urge you to reject the current settlement and pursue an effective remedy to restore competition in the computer operating systems market, and prevent Microsoft from extending their illegal monopoly into other computer software markets.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXXXX XX
Charlotte, NC XXXXX

Let's take advantage of this oppurtunity to express our opinions on what our state representatives should do.

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has recently released Windows XP, a computer operating system with the explicit goal of extending their monopoly reach into web services

Mind if I tap on your tone arm? You're stuck in a groove and playing the same crap over and over.

That's the same thing you all were saying about Windows 98.

How come Microsoft doesn't already 0wn the web?

Could it be that you're Chicken Little, and the sky just ain't gonna fall?

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a minor problem in your letter, in that you don't actually support any of your claims. You simply state :

"Microsoft has recently released Windows XP, a computer operating system with the explicit goal of extending their monopoly reach into web services. This is a clear violation of antitrust law, and a clear demonstration that Microsoft intends to completely ignore remedial actions to reinstall competition into the computer software market. "

but you do nothing to support that argument. How is it the explicit goal of XP to create a monopoly on web services. It seems like XP's explicit goal was to finally kill off the win9x kernal. XP is a client side product installed from a cd. How is it going to completely monopolize web services. Had this been the release of .NET server your assertion might have a tad bit of credibility, but you would still need to provide proof that it somehow keeps any other corperation from producing a web service. You should also establish how this violates antitrust laws. Just stating something is so does not in fact make that the case (I am not saying that Microsoft is not in fact hurting competition with XP, mearly that you need to establish that they are). I think you need to seriously think out your letter a bit more before sending it in. As it stands now, I doubt your AG will pay it a moments attention.

Not meant to be a flame, just a bit of advice,
-WG

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[mjh]

you do nothing to support that argument.

Totally true. But all I'm interested in doing is getting the attention of NC's Atty General. I'm interested in declaring my point of view, and telling him what I want done. I'm not trying to win the war here. That's already been done by someone more competant than I.

I'm just a cheerleader for the AG to tell him how at least one of his constituents feels, and urging him to act appropriately.

Thanks for the feedback.

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[Decimal]

Here's a copy of the email that I sent to our AG last Friday.

Did you take the time to write it out and snail mail it, too? Otherwise you can be almost certain that it won't recieve more than a glance to make sure it's not a death threat. Expect a form letter reply, or email, at the very most if that's the case.

(Want to really get noticed? Sprinkle some powdered sugar into the envelope. Of course, you may not like the kind of attention they give you...)

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[BAKup]

You know, it would suck if you worked in a factory that used flour

Re:Citizens of NC, please respond.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dickhead

It depends on the state leaders

[Lumpy]

Right now with George W. towing the Microsoft line (Republican = reward big business) the republican states will do whatever the republican party says for them to do, and right now that is sign this hand slap for microsoft. The non republican states are hopefully not going to buckle under the peer-pressure from the white house and senate. and the non democrat or republican states? I hope they do something loud and ballzy.. (How about outlawing Microsoft products? that would get someone's attention! although it wont be enforcable or anything but an "example")

What states refuse to sign it and hold strong are the ones to keep an eye on... they at least have some common sense and cant be bought for too cheap of a price.

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[pagsz]

Well, the way it is right now, the Democrat states (and the ones more likely to reject the deal) are the Northeast (New England, New York) and California. These are also ares that are more heavily populated (and, to my knowledge) more tech-oriented. However, there does seem to be a chink in the armor: New York is planning to sign the agreement with some added restrictions on Microsoft, a source close to the deliberations said Monday. New York officials have been in touch with Microsoft and Justice Department lawyers, the source said.

Also, the article mentioned that if the coalition breaks, tbe remaining states can either go on themselves or force the hand of the other states.

You're right, it all comes down to the leaders. If other states join Massachusetts and hold out, they may be able to get a better deal done.

On October 30, two interesting things happened: My Karma surpassed my IQ; and I got the +1 Bonus,

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

74% of US citizens dont know how many states we have.
62% of Us citizens cannot tell you the number of stripes on the US flag (without looking and counting)

57% of US citizens cannot tell you who their senator or state representqative is.

and 86% of all americans cannot reciet the bill of rights or tell you what amendment is what.

Americans are really stupid sheep.. no wonder MS and AOL have a noose around their balls...

it's easy to control a mass of stupid people..

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

57% of US citizens cannot tell you who their senator or state representqative is.

and 86% of all americans cannot reciet the bill of rights or tell you what amendment is what.

I'd bet 90% of Americans could spell "representative" and "recite".

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice astroturf you hack. That poll was worded in such a way people would be in favor of poisoning puppies!

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[n8_f]

How about instead of using the Gallup wording (see bottom of post), using:

As you may know, last year, a district court judge found that Microsoft was a monopoly and had illegally used its monopoly power to harm competitors. This past Thursday, an appeals court upheld the judge's findings, but ruled the judge had unfair bias in his proposed remedy.

What do you think the federal government should do now -- [ROTATED: allow Microsoft to go unpunished for its illegal behavior, seek a settlement with Microsoft, or go forward with the case against Microsoft in front of a new judge] -- or don't you have an opinion on this matter?

I'm guessing the result of that poll would be quite different. I think the Gallup wording was biased towards Microsoft by omitting that MICROSOFT WAS CONVICTED OF ABUSING MONOPOLY POWER! Say what you will, the fact is they were found guilty and the appeals court upheld those findings. To let them off now would be to make a mockery of our justice system. What is the point in convicting people if there are no consequences to being convicted?

The original wording for the Gallup poll was:

As you may know, last year, a district court judge ruled that Microsoft should be split into two companies. This past Thursday, an appeals court overturned the ruling and ordered the whole case sent to a different judge, because the original judge had been biased against Microsoft.

What do you think the federal government should do now -- [ROTATED: drop the case against Microsoft altogether, seek a settlement with Microsoft, or go forward with the case against Microsoft in front of a new judge] -- or don?t you have an opinion on this matter?

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet 90% of Americans could spell "representative" and "recite".

I'd be surprised if that many Americans even knew the alphabet let alone could spell.

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

Gallup (and the rest) conduct polls because someone pays them to do it. What, did you think they just liked seeing their name in the paper?

There's no poll against MS because there's no one willing to pay for one. MS, on the other hand, has the media savvy and financial resources to push every last means of influence out there they can think of. The side effect of this poll (beyond merely framing the circumstances as "MS vs. Goliath") are to show America that the majority supports MS. Any sociologist will tell you that people are influenced by what is perceived to be popular opinion.

I'd love to find out who commissioned the MS poll.

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got yer pole right here heh heh.

Re:It depends on the state leaders

[Chris Johnson]

Do you have any idea how damning a 17% unfavorable opinion is, or how pathetic a 60% favorable opinion is? That's not normal.

The _normal_ response to such inquiries is basically a nodding of the head and 'fine, fine'... How do you like Ford? *nod* 'fine, fine'... How do you like Pepsi, Nestle, Craftsman? *nod, nod* 'oh, they're fine...'

You have a lot to learn about marketing and opinion polling. Read that as "forty percent of people polled didn't nod their heads and blandly like Microsoft". Forty percent. That's a huge amount of animosity, and it is well and fairly earned over the course of many years- in spite of continual, loud, desperate PR offensives the whole time.

Actually, i think the settlement is good

[HanzoSan]

Well at least the part saying multiple OS's can be installed on one machine, and Microsoft can do nothing.

You are right though, we have to make sure theres absolutely nothing Microsoft can do to get back at these companies.

Once this happens then will we see Linux, Lindows and other OS's installed by default on computers or installed with Windows.

Re:Actually, i think the settlement is good

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well at least the part saying multiple OS's can be installed on one machine, and Microsoft can do nothing.
> You are right though, we have to make sure theres absolutely nothing Microsoft can do to get back at these companies.

You mean besides raising the OEM's price for Office, or putting that OEM at the Very End of the list of OEMs who get advance copies of a new OS version so said OEM doesn't have as well-debugged a system to sell?

There are plenty of things Microsoft can do - it was only limited to not doing one thing: using the price of the OS as a weapon. Nothing was said about any of the other available weapons.

History repeats itself - and Massachusetts gets it

[dillon_rinker]

In 1994, the feds signed a consent decree with Microsoft. This agreement did not alter MS's behavior, but it did give Microsoft unprecedented levels of information about the PC industry that NO ONE ELSE had access to. This gave them a strategic advantage that is still unmatched. This was the sole outcome of the 1994 consent devree.

Pre-1994, MS licensed their software based on how many units an OEM sold. Sell 100,000 PCs, pay for 100,000 licenses, even if 1,000 of those PCs has DR DOS on them. The consent decree outlawed this practice. Microsoft then (and now) licensed their software based on model lines. Sell 100,000 Model 50s, pay for 100,000 licenses. OEMs could sell PCs with other OSs without paying the licensing fee, as long as the PCs were in a model line that did not EVER have MS software installed. Naturally, such model lines were rare.

Pre-1994, Microsoft knew exactly how many PCs were sold by each OEM. Post-1994, they knew how many PCs were sold within each model line at each OEM. They could analyze pricing, advertising, hardware and software loads offered in each model line and determine what the public bought and how much they paid.

No one else can match this level of intelligence. No one else knows what people use their PCs for to the degree of detail that Microsoft knows. This resulted directly from the 1994 consent decree. I'm waiting to see what advantage MS will gain from this one. I'm glad at least one state AG gets it; without stringent behavioral guidelines, MS will alter their behavior in exactly the wrong direction.

at least Quixote had cojones

[Frothy Walrus]

god bless the Massachusetts dems. i am in a minority of /.ers, in that i can respect my elected leaders. they really have it quite together; my past letters of concern to the Reps and Senators have each come back with the reply i wanted to hear.

aside from liquor stores not being open on Sunday, i like this state. :)

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

We're happy for you.

Please stay in Taxachussets, though, and don't tread on us.

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

> aside from liquor stores not being open on
> Sunday, i like this state. :)

I miss those lazy Sunday drives from Amherst to the Montague packy for pre-Simpsons beer.

See, they allow stores within 25 or so miles of the NH border to be open on Sundays so the state wouldn't lose sales tax of those driving to NH to buy booze...nice drive, too, through the countryside of western Mass.

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Ted Kennedy. He's someone to be proud of. He get blasted on martinis and kill any more young chicks lately?

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

*ahem* Massachusetts liquor stores are open on Sunday -- if you're within 25 miles of the New Hampshire border.

Blue laws are outdated and silly, and based on nothing more than religious beliefs ("on the seventh day God rested blablabla"). Separation of church and state does not exist.

cheers,
TF

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[thetechweenie]

I'm glad to see your happy. Even though I always vote, I don't seem to have any Mass reps that I'm proud of. I really dislike Mass's reps, but I do have to admit, I was happy that last time I wrote them, someone replied. If we actually pursue this, I can just immagine, "Click Here to download SP1" All Mass Resident click here "Massachusetts Users". We will have to download 4 different parts of the same SP...

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to hear that you too respect Gov. Swift

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

Please advise on your state of origin so that we all can make obnoxious comments about your states' politicians. Thank you.

Re:at least Quixote had cojones

[Anonymous Coward]

Mass(achusetts) is a bite cathelic for my tastes. And yes, I post anonymously because I am afraid of religious people....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I think the settlement should be accepted,

[HanzoSan]

Here is why. If we keep pushing for a stronger settlement, we may end up with a weaker one.

I want to know what ideas you all can come up with for a stronger one.

Then see if Microsoft actually would accept it.

Re:I think the settlement should be accepted,

[Maditude]

I want to know what ideas you all can come up with for a stronger one.

I think the best suggestion that I've come across is this one:

Force microsoft to open up their API, both for networking protocols *and* office documents.

Re:I think the settlement should be accepted,

[Flower]

If the DOJ is going to punk out after winning the case, the least I expect from the deal is to have MS pay all legal costs for the US and the States. That way, we as taxpayers have lost zip on the deal. It's the very first thing I thought of when I saw the settlement.

Considering MS has $39 billion in cash I don't even see this as being punative. If my AG doesn't hold out for that I want him removed.

Personally, I hope this dies during the proceedings for the Tunney Act. This reeks of politics and selling out. Yeah, ditch the original legal team and put a bunch of newbies on the case; get the decision almost entirely re-affirmed on appeal then abandon key areas of the fight. Finally (as if), meekly agree to a toothless settlement that isn't even nearly as strong as one that was rejected. A settlement where the monopolist makes the rules and some puppet advisory board gets to pretend that they can enforce the agreement. All for the grossly mistaken assuption that if we leave this convicted monopoly alone the decimated tech sector will bounce back.

Yeah, just give me another tax refund so I can go buy a copy of WinXP. At least then my Passport information will be safe. :P

Re:I think the settlement should be accepted,

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea is appropriate only in civil cases.

The best read ...

[Jace of Fuse!]

On the whole Micrsoft Monopoly crap, I think the most insightful thing I've read is this article.

The last paragraph says it all particularly well.

Re:The best read ...

[Paul Komarek]

Thanks! That is the best article on the proposed settlement!

-Paul Komarek

Re:The best read ...

[curunir]

This could just as easily be modded as "Interesting" depending on how cynical you are.

It's a bad deal to begin with

[Dancin_Santa]

I'm not usually one who sides against Microsoft or roots for the government in this case, but the solution was completely useless and didn't do anything to remedy the actual problem that exists in the Windows space.

A good solution would be to restrict Microsoft in those actions that they were using to crush competitors: exclusive and restrictive contracts with hardware manufacturers. Restricting MS from entering into these contracts would be a simple and effective method of freeing up the market place for other operating systems and bundled software. It would effectively eliminate their monopoly leverage point without taking away their de facto monopoly.

Microsoft wouldn't need to release their business plans 5 years into the future, and they would be encouraged to keep their software current in order to remain competitive with other products that could possibly be bundled by OEMs.

Dancin Santa

Re:It's a bad deal to begin with

[Happy Monkey]

I'm in favor of:

A) Document all APIs, protocols, file formats, etc. This would seem to be the primary use of an operating system, and it would dramatically increase competition.

and/or:

b) Eliminate licensing altogether, and move them back to the standard copyright: No copying for distribution. You can make seventy-five copies and store them in your attic if you own a legitimate copy, but you can't compete with MS (for profit or for free) with their own software.

Re:It's a bad deal to begin with

[Dancin_Santa]

I'm not sure solution A would work out. MS claims it already documents all Win32 APIs on MSDN and even under such a remedy any APIs that they kept secret could simply be explained away as internal OS functions that are not meant to be used by developers.

Solution B is a good step, but it doesn't do anything to remedy or prevent Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power. Their monopoly doesn't come from their (ab)use of copyright, but from their ability to restrict OEMs from installing non-MS operating systems and software on their hardware.

Dancin Santa

Re:It's a bad deal to begin with

[sheldon]

So basically you agree with the settlement, you just have not read the settlement so you don't realize it?

Maybe you should go read the section titled Prohibited Conduct. Pay attention to subsection A and G.

Re:It's a bad deal to begin with

[Happy Monkey]

That's a license restriction.

Re:It's a bad deal to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

You got me. I had assumed the article would have mentioned something as fundamentally important as that, though. I should have RTFS.

D.S.

Re:How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, does the Kennedy family hold a lot of MS stock or something ?

Politics baby!

[Macaw2000]

Let's have a looksee at the two big holdouts:

California -- Constituents include Sun and Oracle
New York -- Constituents include America Online

Got to give the EU credit too.

[GISboy]

The EU said that Microsoft may have used illegal practices to extend its dominance in personal computers into server markets.


Nooo... Ya think?

Ok, I'll admit to flagellating between impressed and suspicious of Microsoft's server products XP. They are both usable and succeptable in just about all definitions of the terms.

As I look around the room, I've got an NT box between my legs (no comments, pls) and 2 redhat server to my left and in back of me and a 2000 server and soon to be SQL box...dominant,no, but encroaching.

I dunno, all server platforms have their place, but the leveraging vs merit and proven ability still disturbs me when considering a majority of Microsoft's products.

And this from someone who as been described as "the most moral person I know, but the least ethical" by his own mother.
Most back handed compliment I've ever had in my life that I take to mean, I know a snake when I see one and will try to protect others from said snake. (meaning my ethics ~= Microsoft's at times, ouch, that hurts to say).

I think in some respects the DOJ was tripped at the finish line...but I think the EU may just be the one to break the tape and show the U.S. how it should be done.

Here's hoping, anyway.

Re:Got to give the EU credit too.

[Zico]

Nooo... Ya think?

Cute sarcasm, but your post was basically a lot of hot air which never gave a single example of Microsoft using illegal practices to extend its dominance in personal computers into server markets. How were you forced to use NT, 2000, or SQL Server?

Re:Got to give the EU credit too.

[GISboy]

Ah, excellent question.

I read my post again and you are correct, in part, about the hot air.

I would have elaborated, however, I had to take care of a corrupted user account on an NT domain being run by a SAMBA server. Redhat 6.X distro that was set up very well, but has its quirks, as do some of the NT boxes.

So, as I said, you are correct that I did not support my argument. I apologise and wish I could have edited the comment for later, but hit submit instead. Rather stupid of me, I suppose.

The answer to your question is:
The campus I work at is moving to Oracle.
My boss said to get it, despite my minor protests that support for Microsoft's SQL server has been/will be dropped on campus.

The GIS apps we use:
a) work only with Microsoft's browser's scripting
b) the SQL server I am building in the future only works (if I remember correctly) with Microsoft's SQL server (or works best with, I'd have to re-read the documentation, again).

I suppose forced is rather strong and inaccurate.
Steered like a piece of cattle is a little more apropos. (Moo?)

Man, I hate you...sheeshe...forcing me to *think for myself* it's so...*difficult* sometimes!
(sheepish grin...that was slightly sarcastic, too, wasn't it? I gotta stop doing that).

As far as not giving examples in my own case, thanks for calling me on it.

But, no example of Microsoft leveraging its dominant market positing, erecting barriers to entry, seemingly inhibiting competition at every turn, creating contracts that lock out competitors, the "bootloader incident", the "extensions incident" and a host of other things brought up (and left out of the trial)?

All I can say is you play an excellent devil's advocate or have no knowledge of what the trial was all about.

Cheers, Zico, you gave me a much needed "mental excercise".

For some odd reason I kept thinking of the phrase I heard in a training seminar: "common sense is seldom common practice".
I give myself as an example of a unix geek running an NT lab and the DOJ snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at the last second.

It all makes perfect sense when you keep that phrase in mind.

Respectfully,

GISboy

Consumers never had a choice

[HanzoSan]

Pack in Linux instead of windows with every PC sold and users will be using Linux.

Re:Consumers never had a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Pack in Linux instead of windows, and the customer return line will have to be expanded out into the parking lot.

For the short period before the Retail outlets stop selling anything Linux at all.

Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right J., vote with your wallet. Don't buy ANY more payper liesense crud from those convicted felons.

Does anyone think that 'our' lamo gov't. is NOT also a hostage of the FraUDuleNT kingdumb?

new remedy proposed

[cbowland]

This might be an acceptable remedy for all parties

umm... maybe not

[on by by on by on by]

Until we can have a simple Linux install (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that doesn't come with any broken components (which they've flubbed), the regular consumer won't switch

you probably don't want to hear this, but when Linux has a simple, fully-operational install, the regular consumer still won't use it.

if all you care about is www, mp3, AIM, and maybe word processing and gaming, Windows will still be the clear choice. Linux might be stable as a rock, but the Open Source software developers are going to have to raise the bar a lot higher to convince 15-year-old Sally Rottencrotch from Cumshot, IL to deinstall the OS that came with the computer, and switch to a "better" OS.

Re:umm... maybe not

[maddman75]

if all you care about is www, mp3, AIM, and maybe word processing and gaming, Windows will still be the clear choice. Linux might be stable as a rock, but the Open Source software developers are going to have to raise the bar a lot higher to convince 15-year-old Sally Rottencrotch from Cumshot, IL to deinstall the OS that came with the computer, and switch to a "better" OS.

So you agree that the monopoly should be destroyed? After all, with Konquerer, xmms, everbuddy, staroffice, and transgaming, you can do all that on Linux. If Sally could buy the computer preinstalled and pre configured all the better. If the OEMs weren't locked into deals signed in blood they could even offer the Linux box cheaper. This has nothing to do with the quality of Linux, it has to do with MS illegally choking off competition.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

way to personal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, some of you are taking this way to personal. This is just Texas Style Business. Shoot, I have no doubt that GWB was paid in the 10's of Millions for this. Perhaps even 100's. While I am not sure how much Ashcroft was paid off, I am sure that it was also large. Just don't take it personal. M$ does have the $ for a reason. And GWB did get to office, by hook or by crook. :)

Re:way to personal

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope; Just a Texan who knows how bush and ashcroft operates. Just like any other texan

Settlement is GOOD

[HanzoSan]

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48119,00.htm l

WASHINGTON -- Alternatives to the Windows operating system will get a boost under the proposed settlement agreement between Microsoft and the Justice Department.
The 60-KB deal , which must be approved by a federal judge, says Microsoft may not "retaliate" against a computer maker for cozying up to software firms that compete with the world's most-famous antitrust defendant.

In particular, computer makers such as Dell (DELL), Compaq (CPQ) and IBM (IBM ) will be allowed to ship boxes that include "both a Windows operating system product and a non-Microsoft operating system, or will boot with more than one operating system."

If there is sufficient market demand -- and such demand may never emerge for desktop machines -- computer makers will be free to ship computers with, for instance, Windows and Linux installed.

Any aggrieved computer manufacturer can take its complaint to a three-person oversight committee, which can hear anonymous complaints.

Software developers also will have more freedom to experiment with non-Windows operating systems. The agreement says that Microsoft (MSFT ) may not take action against a developer for creating, promoting or supporting "any software that competes with Microsoft platform software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft platform software."

Even Jamie Love, who works for the Ralph Nader-founded Consumer Project on Technology and uses Linux, found something nice to say: "There is lots to like about the proposed agreement." Love added, however, that he reserves final judgment until he can examine the agreement for possible loopholes.

More Microsoft: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) wants Microsoft to know that Washington isn't done with it yet.

In a statement on Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman pledged multiple hearings to explore whether the proposed settlement met with his approval.

Leahy said: "We will want to examine whether competitors have adequate opportunities to provide those products, and computer manufacturers have the freedom to configure their machines as they think best and whether the remedies are sufficiently adaptable to the constantly changing competitive environment of the Internet and computer industries."

An aide to Leahy said that Microsoft lobbyists briefed the committee staff Friday about the details of the settlement.

A spokesman for the House Judiciary committee, which shares oversight responsibility for the Justice Department, would not comment on its plans.

Taxman: Not many Washingtonians are paying attention right about now, but a federal ban on some Internet taxes quietly expired a week ago.

The Senate never voted for a two-year extension -- as clouds of anthrax spores wafted through the Hart office building, legislators may have had other things on their minds -- even though the House of Representatives did.

The biggest obstacle in the Senate was Bryon Dorgan (D-North Dakota), who placed a "hold" on the bill. That prompted one group opposed to Internet taxes, the Center for Individual Freedom, to run a newspaper ad blaming Dorgan for the delay.

This week, the Senate inched closer to approving an extension of the moratorium.

Proponents of collecting additional taxes, such as Dorgan, had hoped for a broader bill that would move in that direction. But since the moratorium expired, the Senate appears more likely to vote on a straightforward two-year extension.

What a difference: Two years ago, Free Republic founder Jim Robinson was busy writing a screed linking then-candidate George W. Bush with drug-running and the CIA.

Now he's become the president's top cheerleader -- and is busy deleting posts to the conservative community's message boards that apparently are too critical of Dubya and the war effort.

"Lots of grumbling lately about deleted posts. Well, my friends, the simple truth is the game has changed. We are now at war," Robinson wrote this week.

To Robinson, "This is not the time to raise doubts about our leaders. This is not the time to raise conspiracy theories. This is not the time to second-guess our intelligence agencies. This is war."

Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"?

[Orne]

When you look at politics, always trace the money trail.

Why are some of the states not "signing on"? Perhaps they, like many of SlashDot's audience, are unhappy that Microsoft won't be paying out as much cash as hoped...

States like Massachusetts depend a lot on tax money. Like it or not, it's a by-product of their liberal government style, big promises means big governement costs, and like businesses, government always passes its costs on to its "consumers", i.e. taxpayers. But, raising taxes is not "in vogue", so they are constantly scrambling to find other cash sources to pump their constituents full of pay-ou... err, entitlements.

Here we have Microsoft, the ultimate Tech cash cow, and they did a BAD thing, so naturally our government stepped to punish them. We cheer that the government recognized that they were acting against market forces, but government is cheering for new-found cash...

Compare this to the government's recent lawsuit on Big Tobacco. They lost, the people won, right? The corporations were forced to pay millions for bad advertisements, and that money was supposed to go to the states for education, right? Where did that money go? Studies show at most 10% of the states have actually created anti-smoking programs with the money, everyone else threw it into the "general fund" so they could pad their pet projects.

Don't be surprised that some states are "holding out", just understand that they aren't doing it for the reasons you think.

Re:Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"?

[pagsz]

While I'm not naive enough to believe that political motivations are pure, I don't quite see the lure of money in this one. In this proposed settlement (from the DOJ website) there is no mention of monetary fines. Now, if money were the only reason Mass. was holding out, wouldn't the other 17 states go "Oh, shit, we can make money off this? Why the hell are we signing this agreement?"

That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.

Proud to be an American from Massachusetts,

Re:Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"?

[ClosedSource]

It's more likely that tech companies in these states have been significant contributors to the attorneys general political campaigns. The money has already been received.

NY state previously said it would persue this

[Alrocket]

"Of course, MS still has to face Europe, and we all know how rough and tough they are gonna be."

Just wondering if you meant that as irony or at face value: personally I think that Europe won't be the easy push over that the US (or more particularly GW's administration) has been.

Also, before September 11th happened, I remember reading an article where NY state and some other heavy hitters said that they would step up to the plate and persue the case if the DoJ did what they've just done. I hope that despite the terrible attrocity, that NY will still lead the way in this cause.

Anyone got any links to articles from around Sept 4th or so when that was mentioned?

btw there's some good info on differing international laws on antitrust over at: http://www.hg.org/antitrust.html

Al.

Re:NY state previously said it would persue this

[jeffy124]

i think you are correct. I do recall NY taking their own stance after some of MS's recent tactics that work against some companies in NY like Kodak or IBM.

as for my Europe comment: I'm talking about how the EU wont take this case as lightly as Bush's administration suddenly is.

Re:NY state previously said it would persue this

[Alrocket]

jeffy: I thought you were being quite sarcastic, glad to see you're not ;)

BTW have you noticed how hard it is to find the news articles related to that New York announcement. IIRC it was about 10 - 15 states, and the announcement was around Sept 4th. Google, AV, CNET, etc all fail to turn up results.

Re:NY state previously said it would persue this

[Anonymous Coward]

NY needs to step up to the Red Cross and other charities for not doing what they said they would do witht the money for Sept. 11 first.

Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[fanatic]

Here is a list of states suing microsoft (courtesy of Microsoft's "freedom to Innovate Network"):

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin

Here's what I sent to the Attorney General in my state:

"
I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:

1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.

2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.

3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).

4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.

5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.

6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.
"

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[kin_korn_karn]

Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.

Corporations that meddle in governmental affairs should be treated like the felons they are.

1) Felons lose the right to vote. Corporations should lose the right to lobby. Make it a criminal offense for anyone involved in government to be associated in their official capacity with a worker from that company or under that company's umbrella. It would be nearly unenforcable (more wine, Mr. Rumsfeld? Now let me tell you about our new missile system...) in all but the most blatant situations, though.

2) Felons, once convicted, always have the 'mark' on their record, which is ultimately the worst punishment. One thing that would be nice to see, if not entirely constitutional, is for the SEC to 'mark' a company as having not played fairly, and adding a fee to any equity deals, or even capping the price of publicly traded share of the stock. The SEC is who lets these companies get so big, they need to start taking responsibility.

3) Take a cue from Megan's Law. Have companies convicted of monopoly abuse be forced to carry notices on their products or wherever their products are sold, "This company has been found guilty of unfair practices by the US Dept. of Justice". But still, let them be sold. The American way is to let them compete, but also for the people to be informed.

4) Have the FCC place decrees that keep the companies from advertising in broadcast media, or have their ads be censored for a period of X years. Convicts submit to this, businesses can to.

A corporation lives and dies by its goodwill; when you start taking that away, then they'll really get scared. And when you take away their freedom to screw consumers, they fall in line rather quickly.

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[flatrock]

For someone with a username of fanatic, you seem to have actually spent some time comming up possible solutions, rather than just rants. I do have some comments on your solutions, which I've posted below.

1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.

I think this is in the proposed settlement. I saw something about 3 outside auditors. They need to be there, since if you can't verify that the settlement is being implemented, then it isn't an effective solution.

2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.

There would need to be provisions for bug and security fixes, so they could be implemented in less than 90 days, but this issue could likely be worked out as long as this can be monitored by a third party for compliance.

3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).

The trick part with this one will be internal APIs. Windows, like other OSs, uses internal APIs that are not intended to be exported to application or even driver developers. Hiding these APIs allows changes to be made to Windows without breaking outside developers code. These APIs exist so the the internal parts of the OS can communicate in a structured way, and are not meant for use by outside developers. Other people using those APIs would likely result in software breaking everytime Microsoft changed some inner working of Windows. There have already been enough examples of developers using functions that Microsoft did not consider to be part of a public API, and then the developers complaining whe Microsoft changed the API. The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.

4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.

I'm not sure the OEMs would like that very much. I think that they should have to share the details of such agreements with independent auditors, but OEMs don't want competitors to know details like what kind of volumes they are buying, or planning to buy from Microsoft. An alternate solution of having Microsoft have a fixed volume pricing schedule for all OEMs might be a more reasonable solution, though it wouldn't really be fair to void the current agreements Microsoft has made with OEMs (fair to the OEMs that is).

5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.

I agree that OEMs should have the choice of selling "dual-boot" systems. I'm not sure that a lot of them will choose to do so because of increased support costs, but they should have the choice.
The one problem I do see is that OEMs will sometimes bundle crappy software (because it was cheap). Microsoft should have some right to insist that it be obvious to the trained eye that the software isn't part of Windows. Microsoft does have a brand name to protect, and they should only have to suffer for the failures of their software. Otherwise they will have little encouragement to improve the quality of their own software. Their software is in need of some quality improvements, but they have been making some progress, and I would like to see that continue.

6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.

I agree that Microsoft shouldn't be able to disallow the use of software based on it's licensing.

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.

This is simply the prohibition of free speech. I can't support this remedy. Microsoft, and especially the people who make up Microsoft, have the right to speek their mind, and lobby for ligislation. Free speech is a constitutional right, and our government shouldn't even attempt to take that right away from anyone as a condition of a settlement in a civil case.

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[fanatic]

For someone with a username of fanatic, you seem to have actually spent some time comming up possible solutions,

Most of these (or maybe all) are not original with me, just given as an example.

I saw something about 3 outside auditors.

Not sure that's enough. Plus, whoever it is will have to have some technical savvy. Many auditors lack that.

The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.

The problem is that MS is notorious for having undocumented API calls that give them advantage. If it's callable from a program, it gets documented, I'd say. If it hurts MS, so much the better. They are guilty until proven innocent.

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes....

This is simply the prohibition of free speech.

Yes it is. Individuals who are convicted felons lose the right to vote and to bear arms. This is a reasonable prohibition for a corporation which is a convicted felon. MS has proven time and again that they have no business influencing the legislative system. They have behaved in bad faith so often, it clearly is part of the corporate culture. (And while I'm at it, just what is Bill Gates's problem, anyhow. He's already the richest and one of the most powerful men on earth. Why is he willing to lie, cheat, steal for more? Are the jokes about the name of his company true?)

I do agree that some of my points need work and you had some good suggestions - I'm not trying to be belligerent. But MS is BAD and they need to be slapped down HARD. And if it costs them some or most of their stock value or market share, well, that's actually a good thing. (Guess I'm a fanatic after all.)

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[aethera]

Let's add something for the corporations like Monsanto, Dow, and most every coal operator in West Virginia....

If someone dies through your negligence, especially if you knew of the hazard, the highest up superior who knew of the problem does the jail time for manslaughter/murder.

If you think this is harsh... read here .

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[hemul]

"the Attorney General in your state now."

satisfied?

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[Saib0t]

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.

This is simply the prohibition of free speech. I can't support this remedy. Microsoft, and especially the people who make up Microsoft, have the right to speek their mind, and lobby for ligislation. Free speech is a constitutional right, and our government shouldn't even attempt to take that right away from anyone as a condition of a settlement in a civil case.

One part of sentence that really ticks me off is "the right to lobby for registration". You know how that is called? Corruption... I think NOBODY should have the right to lobby. And if you think donations should be allowed, then restrict it to persons, not organisations, no corporations.

Corruption runs rampant in many countries, but the USA is the only one I know where it is legal. What good did it do to the USA? The only benefit is in the pockets of the politicians [and the corporations], certainly not the general public...

Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now.

[kin_korn_karn]

You don't have to tell me about coal operators. I'm from eastern Kentucky, originally, I saw the neglect of Dow, Ashland Oil, and all the coal companies first hand. That's one of the main reasons I left - ever notice how everyone in the Ohio/Kanawha valleys seems to die of cancer?

You have the right idea, though (but who the hell says it was a troll??)

Karma Whore

[TACD]

The proposed final judgement can be found here.

Also, the BBC is running this story.

Aside from all that, it is good to see that someone has realised what an atrocity the previous judgement would have been. Finding a balance will be tricky, agreed; but what they were running with before just wasn't it.

Can someone answer a question...

[rela]

Are the cases by the states being played out in federal court as part of the DOJ suit? What I'm driving at is that if they continue on, will their results have juristiction only over their state or over the whole nation?

This is actually SAD!!

[ioman1]

This is great news. At least there is a ray of hope. The sad thing is that even if Microsoft loses, consumers lose as well because there is no good alternative OS out there for the :average" computer user. Me? Personally i would be just fine with this, I have my Linux baby!

Re:This is actually SAD!!

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no good alternative OS out there for the :average" computer user

Huh? Let's see, there's MacOS X. It's stable, easy to use, powerful, plenty of software, innovative. I think that there are a lot of people out there ranging from know-nothing to power user who would do just fine moving over to MacOS X.

For those who don't want that there are still other alternatives, such as the many flavors of Linux. Not to mention that without Microsoft leaning on the market you are sure to have a bunch of operating systems blossom that have been having trouble breaking out from under Microsoft's heavy hand.

- Graff

Re:Could Slashdot be racist?

[Archanagor]

Go play with yourself.

IDIOT!

_de jure_ monopoly

[MenTaLguY]

Actually it's a de jure monopoly now.

Mass. is a Commonwealth!

[flez]

...not a state. Get it right.

(no, it doesn't really matter)

Re:Mass. is a Commonwealth!

[starphish]

It is a State. Read.....from Dictionary.com

commonwealth
n.
1. The people of a nation or state; the body politic.
2. A nation or state governed by the people; a republic.
3. Commonwealth
a. Used to refer to some U.S. states, namely,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia.
b. Used to refer to a self-governing,
autonomous political unit voluntarily
associated with the United States, namely,
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MA owns

[Gropo]

who would've figured... Jane Swift (acting governor) is a bigger 'publican shill than Dubya could ever be...

Re:MA owns

[Anonymous Coward]

CPU's what? That is, Central Processing Unit's what? Looks like you missed a word...since there's an apostrophe you must have intended "CPU's" to be possessive, but there's no object to possess. On the other hand, if you actually meant multiple central processing units, you made a typo because that's spelled "CPUs". You don't say "I have several central processing unit's" do you? Didn't think so.

Can someone clarify something for me?

[rela]

The cases the states might possibly split off would be still in federal courts, right? So the decisions would still have national effect?

Such BULLSHIT!

[HanzoSan]

Lindows http://www.lindows.com is an alternative.
Beos http://www.beos.com is an alternative
Linux Mandrake(Well in the future it may be an alternative)

Lets see, Linux has has all the office apps, Linux lets you on the internet, Linux lets you play games.

90 percent of all users only use their computer to surf the web and to play games. Guess what, Linux does both.

Sure linux is more complicated, but thats why there will be hybrids and dumb downed linux's for people who dont want to learn commandline.

Use Linux Mandrake or Lindows then tell me theres no desktop alternative.

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[praxim]

I'll sacrifice my karma for this one:

Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of.

Mandrake- I haven't used Mandrake, but I've used Slack, Debian (potato and woody), RedHat, and Caldera, and I'll tell you that not one of them is ready for the home desktop.

Linux in general- Even if the OS came pre-installed on a desktop box, the average home user will most likely not be able to install any new software. If they're lucky enough to find the program they want via Red Carpet, they have to hope that it was put into the proper menu (and why, the user will ask, do I have to have a root password to install this? WTF _is_ a root password, anyway?)
As a matter of fact, I just upgraded my printconf via RC this weekend and was confused as hell when my printer wouldn't work afterwards. It turns out that my /etc/printcap file was copied to printcap.old. Go ahead and tell your grandmother that she has to go into a shell (a what?) and type this:

cp /etc/printcap.old /etc/printcap.local
/etc/init.d/lpd restart

Just to get her printer working again. It's not going to happen.
I hate to use these examples, but anyone who thinks that Linux is ready for the average home user that doesn't _want_ to know anything about their computer needs to hop on down to a PC retailer and check out OSX and WinXP. These two OSes are on the right track, or at least far more so than any Linux GUI project to date.

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[HanzoSan]

"Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of."

Your msg is biased, you refuse to accept any linux thats like windows, However the only linux to actually be useable by the average user must be like windows. DUH!

Lindows will do just fine, its better than windows, yet it runs windows files, this is what people want, people dont care about GNU or linux, they just want something better than what they have yet still runs their files.

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume Lindows exists -- it does not, it is vapor. And you are a multiposting troll.

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[Christianfreak]

You show me just one granny that can configure a printer or install a program under Windoze and I'll show you 10,000 that can't. The whole linux vs. windows debate for the "average" user is a mute point. The "average" user can't use either one properly. We need to sell linux to "average" tech support!

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[alexburke]

mov ayb, btu

Wouldn't that be EQU?

Re:Such BULLSHIT!

[mpe]

You show me just one granny that can configure a printer or install a program under Windoze and I'll show you 10,000 that can't. The whole linux vs. windows debate for the "average" user is a mute point.

As is "ease of installation", since average users don't install operating systems...

The "average" user can't use either one properly. We need to sell linux to "average" tech support!

Or more likely computer illiterate managers, who like to make decisions around a brandname, which they'd never get away with in any other area.

Interesting commentary

[Brian Kendig]

Interesting commentary from macfixit.com on Microsoft's aggressiveness ever since the breakup remedy was thrown out:

In recent weeks, we have seen Microsoft remove its support for Netscape extensions, forcing Apple to scramble to revise its QuickTime plug-in so that it would work with the Windows version of Explorer (and making us wonder if this also had something to do with Microsoft's desire to push its own Media Player format). At the same time, it omitted Java support from Window's Explorer [see previous item]. Then there is XP's reduced support for the MP3 format (again in favor of Microsoft's own alternative), plus the countless ways XP coerces you to MS-approved web sites [see this item]. Add to all of this the recent controversy over MS blocking access to MSN by web browsers other than Explorer (see next item). We could go on. But you get the point. Yes, it certainly appears that Microsoft has been humbled by this lawsuit.

My take on the court case all along...

Microsoft's defense: "No, Your Honor, we're not responsible for murdering the victim! We only pointed the gun towards him and pulled the trigger -- it was his fault that he wasn't strong enough to deal with that! Besides, he was someday eventually going to die anyway! And there's no point in punishing us now, since he's already dead."

DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."

Re:Interesting commentary

[sheldon]

Well now that we've had the FUD. Let's dish out a dose of reality, shall we?

XP doesn't have reduced support for MP3. It plays MP3s just fine, just like it has ever since Media Player came out. In fact it has enhanced support for MP3 over previous versions because you can buy a $10 plugin that'll let you encode in that format.

If you don't agree... Prove it. Show me an older version of Media Player which had better support for MP3 than what ships with XP.

Answer: You can't, because you are spreading FUD.

Just like the Netscape plugin issue, the JVM issue, etc. FUD FUD FUD.

Re:Interesting commentary

[aspillai]

Actually, IE 6.0 doesn't come with a Java VM. If you want to run an applet, you must download a JRE from Sun.

Re:Interesting commentary

[Yosho]

I believe he was referring to the fact that Microsoft is being forced to remove the JVM, but many people are spreading the FUD that they're removing it just so they can push .NET. Or something like that.

Re:Interesting commentary

[sheldon]

Yep. But it's a 4 year old JVM from '97. Sun has refused to allow Microsoft to maintain or update it such that it's compliant with anything newer.

The point was, the complaints about this issue were FUD, pure and simple. It's a case of Sun claiming victory in the battle, but losing the war and then whining about it.

Re:Interesting commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheldon, please concentrate on the POSTIVE
aspects of computing, not the negative. You're being a little NEGATIVE there, aren't you?

Re:Interesting commentary

[Chris Johnson]

DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."

No no- you mean:

DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never t... no... no, we're going to punish you by saying publically that it would be nice if everybody was nice, not implying that YOU aren't nice or anything, okay?"

"Here- have another gun."

Re:Interesting commentary

[Zog]

Fear, Uncertainty, and Disorder are based on subjective topics.

Subjective being something taken with respect to one's bias. Objective being a statement of the facts.

In recent weeks, we have seen Microsoft remove its support for Netscape extensions, forcing Apple to scramble to revise its QuickTime plug-in so that it would work with the Windows version of Explorer (and making us wonder if this also had something to do with Microsoft's desire to push its own Media Player format). At the same time, it omitted Java support from Window's Explorer [see previous item]. Then there is XP's reduced support for the MP3 format (again in favor of Microsoft's own alternative), plus the countless ways XP coerces you to MS-approved web sites [see this item]. Add to all of this the recent controversy over MS blocking access to MSN by web browsers other than Explorer (see next item). We could go on. But you get the point. Yes, it certainly appears that Microsoft has been humbled by this lawsuit.

That's pretty objective (exception given for the sarcasm at the end of it, of course - one can't state one's opinions without the opinion part). On the other hand, you say:

XP doesn't have reduced support for MP3. It plays MP3s just fine, just like it has ever since Media Player came out. In fact it has enhanced support for MP3 over previous versions because you can buy a $10 plugin that'll let you encode in that format.

If you don't agree... Prove it. Show me an older version of Media Player which had better support for MP3 than what ships with XP.

Your argument is a bit far from the topic - instead of correcting, you're criticizing part of a quote which isn't really at the heart of the argument - it's about Microsoft's aggressiveness against competition, not XP and its features. The deel with XP doing cool stuff with MP3's be completely true (and I'm avoiding arguing over whether it is or not), but it's not the base of the argument.

If it seems a bit harsh, please don't take offense - it's been a long day, and I'm trying to be objective.

Re:Interesting commentary

[sheldon]

Sorry. Whenever I think of those whiny bastards over at Sun my blood boils.

I'll try to be more positive in the future.

Re:Interesting commentary

[sheldon]

Ahh, allow me to repeat my point.

FUD may very well be subjective.

But the objective fact is that Windows XP does not have reduced support for MP3's.

Your argument was based off a series of claims, with a conclusion that because all of these claims were true then this was the result. I merely pointed out that not just one but many of your claims were factually incorrect, from a purely objective viewpoint. Even if you only agreed with one of the claims being incorrect, you cannot therefore conclude that the sum of those claims arrives at the same conclusion. Unless you are being subjective, that is.

The problem is, and the reason why the statement is FUD, is because, in fact, all of the claims have to be taken from a purely subjective point of view in order to arrive at the conclusion suggested.

I guess the point is. Don't try to be objective by being subjective.

Taxachusetts?

[alkali]

The Tax Foundation, a conservative research group, reports that Massachusetts ranked 39th out of 50 states in 2001 in state and local tax burden as a percentage of income.

(The commonwealth ranks higher in total tax burden -- i.e., federal and state taxes combined -- because it has a lot of people in high federal income tax brackets, but it still doesn't make the top 10.)

Re:Taxachusetts?

[dup_account]

Hear Hear
Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Is that enough words now?

I think you're missing the point...

[Sam Gibson]

This case shouldn't be about what MS will accept. This is a legal procedure; you don't ask a guilty defendant what sentance they think is fair.

-Sam

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[donutello]

You obviously have no clue about how the criminal justice system works.

The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal. Even in criminal law you have plea bargains where the defendant will plead guilty to the crime in exchange for a favorable sentence. Law enforcement gets to save the cost of a trial as well as avoid the uncertainty of being unable to prove the case.

It's the same situation here: The DoJ wants to save the cost of the trial and avoid the risk. It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free. Here they're cutting a deal.

So while you in your narrow mind have already found MS guilty and decided on the sentence, other people go by things like facts, evidence, what you can prove, etc.

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[Chris Johnson]

Um, the facts aren't contested. Almost all of Jackson's Findings of Fact were upheld, and well they should be as they were thoroughly realistic.

I'm afraid me in my narrow mind, as well as a full en banc panel of the Court of Appeals, have all found MS guilty. There just isn't going to be a sentence because our government is corrupt and stupid, meaning that the only chance of not effectively being dominated by Microsoft forever is to resort to terrorism. That really sucks. Aren't we trying to fight a war on terrorism? What possible good can there be about showing the government is corrupt and useless and will not protect its own people? It's as good as saying, "if you don't want Microsoft to rule you, YOU fight them". Forget law, forget economic leverage: you have to fight them yourself, against the vast spectrum of dirty tricks and extortionist behaviors they've reduced to business as usual. Fight them _alone_. Have fun! Curl up and die!

If I was given to praying for things, I would pray that our government does not hand us Americans and the rest of the world this Bill of goods. It's seriously well established that you can't compete with Microsoft using anything resembling normal, healthy business practices. They're just too vicious and will do anything, and they want total control- if you play nice, they steamroller you. The only reason there _is_ any choice at all out there is because humans can be contrary- and even this could be flattened in future years. It could be _illegal_ to not use Microsoft for everything, and there will be people still taking MS's side even at that extreme.

I want somebody _appropriate_ to take _appropriate_ action about this. If it's left to ill-funded, desperate individuals, those individuals will be _forced_ into terrorism: either sending anthrax to MS employees (this has already happened!) or tearing hell out of MS's technical infrastructure and laying waste to MS customers while MS yawns and does nothing.

The only counter to terrorism is justice- throwing out justice in this situation is a painfully bad idea. Do they think this is a game? Have they been drinking MS koolaid and secretly believe the best kind of market is one where you can only get one thing and there's no competition? That there is no employer but Microsoft, no wealth but Microsoft, and having Microsoft keep all the money is the best thing for the country and the economy?

Christ! Furrfu!

Sorry: since the news of the proposed settlement I haven't been as patient with tripe-minded pedantic MS apologists as I ought to be :P

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[Prior Restraint]

The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal. ... It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free.

What are you talking about? The trial is over. The only reason the courts are still involved is to hand down a new sentence (or, more properly, a new remedy). Microsoft already appealed to both the Appellate and Supreme Courts. The worst Microsoft could do at this point is appeal the new remedy, which would only revert them to the same state they are in now (guilty, but unpunished).

Please enlighten me as to how Microsoft has the right to appeal either the findings or verdict after already doing so.

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[COAngler]

This case shouldn't be about what MS will accept. This is a legal procedure; you don't ask a guilty defendant what sentance they think is fair.

Actually, in Colorado our judges do. It's not generally subject to bargaining. However, every defendant is given an opportunity to address the court to explain what sentence he feels is appropriate and why.

And that's a good thing, IMHO. Our judicial system is what's called an adversarial system. That means that each side pleads their own case with the judge serving mainly as a referee. Such a system is a farce if the defendant isn't given an opportunity. That's why defendants have the right to compel the appearance of witnesses-the same subpoena power as prosecutors. That's why defendants have the right to examine evidence against them and to present evidence in their favor. And that's why defendants are allowed to address the court at sentencing.

Granted, the sentencing speech is usually so much bullshit: "Your honor, I know I shouldn't have smacked the shit out of my wife. I need help with anger management and alcohol management" and that sort of bullshit that insults the intelligence of the judge, both lawyers, the arresting officers, and pretty much everyone else. However, sometimes there's actually some valid and useful information given that leads judges to go easier than they would have, had they remained ignorant.

Granted, we have a victim's rights amendment whcih gives victims (or their families' in homicide cases) the right to also address the court at sentencing, for certain (violent) crimes. In those cases, defendants who don't want to have their nuts stapled to the wall generally don't bother to give speeches.

But anyway, yes, defendants are asked. We can't be the only state that does that.

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[J. J. Ramsey]

"The worst Microsoft could do at this point is appeal
the new remedy, which would only revert them to the
same state they are in now (guilty, but unpunished)."

Ah, this is the rub. MS can drag its feet, if not indefinitely, then long enough to potentially make any DOJ decision irrelevant. This leaves the DOJ with a choice: do something to MS *now* to partially rein them in--which means the punishment must be palatable enough for MS to be willing to cooperate--or aim for a tougher penalty which would be enacted after MS had done its damage.

Re:I think you're missing the point...

[Datafage]

Ok, let Microsoft say what it thinks is a fair punishment. If this is less than what the court gives, ignore it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Slashdot is still racist

[rela]

PS this is NOT a joke!!!!!! I find that VERY hard to believe.

slow to respond

[n-baxley]

I sent an email to each of the State's Attorneys General indicating that I was opposed to the new settelment agreement and that I urged them not to sign. I sent the letter on Thursday, and aside form a couple of automatic replys, Florida was the only state to get back to me with a real answer. While it may have been an MS form letter, it at least addressed the issues, and didn't just tell me that they had recieved my email. I know email doesn't always get read in government, but I was pleased to see that Florida is taking a different approach. I'm including my mail and their response here.

ME:
Greetings,
I am a not resident of Florida, but I wanted to send my
support for your case against Microsoft. I think that
the proposed settlement does not go far enough, and
that harsher restrictions need to be made against
Microsoft, and that particular attention needs to be
brought to bear on the newly released Operating
System, Windows XP. Please accept my support of your
work thusfar on this case, and continue to do the good
work you have been doing. Your work is much
appreciated in the technical community.

Nate Baxley



THEM:
Thank you for taking the time to email the Florida Attorney General's Office regarding our involvement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. As you may be aware, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently upheld a federal trial court's finding that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly.

One of the many duties of the Florida Attorney General's Office is to enforce Florida's consumer protection laws, which require us to protect the consuming public and legitimate businesses from those who engage in "unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices" in commerce. (Section 501.202(2), Florida Statutes) The Attorney General is also authorized to bring actions to protect consumers against violations of state and federal antitrust laws.

In accordance with our statutory duties and the recent Court of Appeals decision, we are currently working with the federal government and other states to reach an acceptable settlement to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations. Our overriding goal in this effort is to restore healthy competition to the marketplace so that Microsoft can no longer use its clout to illegally impose its will on consumers and would-be competitors. The trial court has given all sides until today to reach a resolution with a mediator. If no settlement can be reached at that time, we will prepare for a trial that would start next March. We remain hopeful that a settlement can be reached, and will do everything we can to find a resolution that protects the interests of Florida consumers.

Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated and will be considered as we enter the remedy phase of United States v. Microsoft. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.

Re:slow to respond

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, myself and about 35 others in my office have sent them letters of disgust over the political harrassment they have caused Microsoft, and have requested that they drop the case immediately and issue a formal appology for the baseless case that was brought. They should also pay microsoft for the expenses they have incurred defending themselves against such nonsense. In addition, we have been writing handwritten letters (they get more attention) to all the states involved and the DOJ. I am absolutely disgusted by the insinuation that tech people know anything about business - you are trying to destroy a successful business that pays taxes, employs some of the best in your industry, and competes fairly EVERY day. You are essentially putting yourself out of work and with the further push for opensource attempting to destroy the software business. You would do well to notice that the companies supporting opensource successfully (and making decent profits) are the hardware companies such as Sun and IBM - they have taken your cause because they want to debase the market for software (it hurts microsoft) - they don't care and will destroy it as long as they can continue to sell hardware and profit. Unfortunately for you, it means that you will be looking for work unless you work for them already. This case is about competitors who cannot make it in the market because of their own ineptness. Sorry, but markets don't work that way.

Re:slow to respond

[n-baxley]

Just thought I'd update this with a letter that I recieved from the North Carolina AG. It's below:

Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:37:24 -0500
From: "Susan Moore" smmoore@mail.jus.state.nc.us
To: XXXX
Subject: Microsoft

Dear Mr. Baxley:
Thank you for your letter concerning the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I appreciate deeply your opinion on this important matter.

I have decided that it is in the best interest of North Carolina consumers to enter into a court-approved settlement which would provide more protections for Microsoft?s competitors and therefore more benefits to consumers.

With this agreement, we have been able to obtain more safeguards to provide more competition with internet service products such as streaming audio and video. In addition, we have provided more protections for non-Windows software manufacturers. Finally, North Carolina and other states have reserved the right to enforce this agreement if Microsoft does not live up to it.

This has been a very difficult and complicated case. Rapid and ever-changing advances in technology make application of our antitrust laws difficult. Nevertheless, I believe this agreement will help promote more competition and help protect the consumers of North Carolina.

Thanks again for your input. I hope you will continue to contact me on other issues which are of interest to you.
Roy Cooper

And from where do ...

[Joseppi Blauinski]

... Anonymous Cowards come? Uranus?

Amen

[Anonymous Coward]

someone has the peace of mind to hold out...Democrats must be running the state....

Tech in Mass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the Rt. 128 strip o' tech has taken a beating over the latest decade (bye DEC I mean Digital...I'll miss those VMS memory dumps when my Pascal program crashed), I wonder if the state government is doing this because of the multitude of high-tech companies in the greater Boston area.

and this is new and different, how?

[Anonymous Coward]

this happens ALL THE TIME! I don't see how this is funny or new... whiney, hypocritical bigots do just this every day. Look at all the black and only black crap out there... Jet, NAACP, UNCF, etc... that is blatantly racist. So, you are just another joke in the quagmire of liberal stupidity

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem!

[hey!]

"By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty."

So, some day we will have a software industry that is not dominated by lawsuits, but it won't be by unilateral disarmament.

Won't take much to change Mass. vote

[dbretton]

Sen. Kennedy: Ere-ah, this 'ere settlement is an outrage! Massachusetts will never agree to such a piece of this 'ere-ah gahbahge!

Kennedy Aide:(whisper) Sir, Mr. Gates sent you this case of Chivas Regal as a gift.

Sen. Kennedy: Where's my pen?

OT -- State funding for Linux in Europe

[Derwen]

OK, sorry for the bad etiquette in replying to my own post but I've just been sent a press release on the subject of government funding which is a good example of European states supporting Linux

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: kmLinux-2.1.1 - New version of German Linux distribution for schools released
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 11:23:35 +0100

http://www.lernnetz-sh.de/kmLinux
kmLinux is a complete Linux distribution for schools. It is in development by the Landesbildungsserver Schleswig-Holstein http://www.lernnetz-sh.de (a govermental organization of the Bundesstaat Schleswig-Holstein) in close cooperation with the Verein Freie Software und Bildung e.V. http://fsub.schule.de (Union for Free Software and Education). kmLinux is very simple to install. In a single automatically done installation process not only the operating system will be installed but a lot of useful software and documentation too. The whole system is preconfigured as far as possible.

kmLinux comes with a new installer which is able to automatically resize an existing windows partition (fat16/32). The software collection is very uptodate: kernel-2.4.12, XFree-4.1.0, KDE-2.2.1 (objprelink), kOffice-1.1, StarOffice-6.0beta, gimp-1.2.2 and Mozilla-0.9.5

More (german) information you will find on the new kmLinux-Homepage http://www.lernnetz-sh.de/kmLinux . kmLinux is free! Under ftp://fsub.schule.de/pub/fsub/kmLinux you will find a ready to burn iso-image.
--

_______________________________________
Landesbildungsserver Schleswig-Holstein
Projektleiter OpenSource
Klaus-Dieter Moeller
kdmoeller@lernnetz-sh.de

I did say it was OT, but what the hell - mod me down anyway ;-P

- Derwen

3 cheers for capitalism!

[Medievalist]

I don't want the government to force M$oft to clean up its act.
I mean, it might work, and then we'd be stuck with this desktop monopoly for the forseeable future.
I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame.
But a consent decree, that M$ will of course subvert or ignore as they have all previous such, should be a good thing.
It'll inspire more people to work towards a better alternative, and better alternatives will encourage non-techies to get off the monopoly teat.
--Charlie

PS- Be kind, I forgot my asbestos underwear today.
--C

Re:3 cheers for capitalism!

[prizog]

"I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame."

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Monopolies Create Competition

Re:3 cheers for capitalism!

[Medievalist]

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Monopolies Create Competition

false tautology / noun passively equated to noun
false tautology / noun passively equated to noun
false tautology / noun passively equated to noun
non-sequitur / plural noun, active verb, noun

Hey, given the current political climate, shouldn't you have added "Revenge is Justice"?
Orwell would probably be darkly amused.
I recommend to you the book "The Evolution of Useful Things".

--C

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Minnesota attorney general's number

[melquiades]

Yes, call!!

If you're in Minnesota, your attorney general is Mike Hatch. His office is 651-296-3353. The person who answered was very courteous, and happy to hear my opinion.

Re:Minnesota attorney general's number

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better to write him at:
102 State Capital Building
75 Constitution Ave
St. Paul, MN 55155

Pete...

CA and NY are key

[shibut]

Since the 2 big states are leading the effort, it is key that they NOT sign off on this. In particular, I think it is CA that hired that famous litigation attorney. Also, since silicon valley is in CA a refusal to sign by CA is particularly telling.

I believe that if this drags on a little longer, unlike before, this will be a plus. The reason is that I've heard many economists on the government side hoping that XP will revive the economy as win98 did in 98. I think XP is not living up to that bill at the moment and in a month or 2 this will become apparent even to the DC big honchos. At that point restricting M$ won't quite look like shooting the economy in the foot...

Re:CA and NY are key

[call -151]

The contact info for the NYS attorney general Eliot Spitzer is at this link. If you are a New York resident, call and register your concern about going along with the settlement.

If you are a Californian, the contact info is here for California attorney general Bill Lockyer- you can phone (800) 952-5225 from inside California.

Punish the Crime

[Arandir]

What has always bugged me about the kneejerk slashdot suggestions for retaliation, and the current fed proposal for Microsoft, is that the punishments do not fit the crime. Certainly the settlement does not. But neither does breaking up Microsoft or fining them billions.

The basic problem is that no one understand just what crime Microsoft committed. Bundling is not a crime. Exclusive contracts are not a crime. They got in trouble for being a monopoly. Regulating OEM contracts will not cause Microsoft to cease being a monopoly. Breaking them up will only cause multiple monopolies to emerge.

The punishment MUST fit the crime. And since the crime is being a monopoly, the only sensible punishment is to remove their monopoly status. This is problematic, however, since Microsoft did not gain their monopoly in the same way that Pacific Bell, PG&E or SoCal Edison did (through exclusive government charter). Instead they gained their monopoly because people chose to buy their products.

The solution is simple, but harsh. Determine the market share that defines monopolyhood in the software industry, and prevent Microsoft from ever exceeding it. Quotas in other words. This will require armed policemen standing around at Fry's and CompUSA forcibly preventing consumers from purchasing Windows if the quota has been exceeded that day. DOJ inspecters need to patrol OEM facilities, inspecting each unit that leaves to ensure they don't have an excess of MSOffice.

The only way we can get our freedom back is through direct government regulation of the consumer. We gave the consumer the right to purchase their own software and that failed miserably because they chose to purchase Microsoft products. We must now make their choices for them so that they can be free.

Without these stringent measures Microsoft will continue its monopoly status.

Re:Punish the Crime

[sheldon]

BWaaaahahahaha!

I can see it now.

Customer: I don't understand this. I specifically ordered this system with Windows XP to be loaded on it. Why isn't Windows XP on it?

Dell rep: I'm sorry, but your machine shipped towards the end of the day and we had reached our quota for Windows XP. So we decided to install a substitute operating system.

Customer: But I didn't want AOL X! I don't even use AOL as my ISP. I can't do anything with this computer now! I'm sending it back!

Dell rep: Sorry, we don't offer refunds. The choice of your OS has been mandated by the Government. If you don't like it, talk to your State Attorney General.

Customer: ARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Re:Punish the Crime

[Amazing Quantum Man]

They got in trouble for being a monopoly.

BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's your lovely parting gift.

MS did not get in trouble for being a monopoly -- that's perfectly legal. They got in trouble for abuse of said monopoly... using their monopoly in the OS space to obtain a second monopoly.

Re:Punish the Crime

[47PHA60]

I think that you got it wrong. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly. That is a finding of fact. Being a monopoly is not, by itself, illegal.

Microsoft was found guilty of illegally mainaining its monopoly status. That is a finding of law, in other words, it's the crime of which they are guilty.

It is possible to find that my company holds a monopoly in its market, but that I have done nothing illegal to maintain that monopoly. In that case, my company is not guilty. This is not what happened in the MS case.

The Appeals Court did not, in any way, overturn the findings of fact, nor fault with the findings of law (the verdict). It only overturned the remedy, because the remedy may have come out of personal bias on the part of the judge. The Court did not say that another judge without bias could not find the same remedy appropriate.

Another example: it is legal for me to bundle products if my company is not a monopoly; it would be difficult to prove that I am using a bundled browser to give my OS an unfair advantage in the market. If I held an OS monopoly, however, it could be proven that my browser has an unfair, unearned advantage because I bundle it with my OS.

A company with a monopoly must be much more careful about bundling, because the rules that it must follow are different than those for other companies, and bundling, api-hiding, and so forth are tools that MS uses to leverage their OS monopoly to kill competing browsers, media players, or office suites.

That, to my understanding, is the spirit of the law. There is a reason convicted criminals get up on the stand and apologize at sentencing; they want to get a lighter sentence. MS could have admitted that their actions were in line with Jackson's findings, but it was that refusal to do so (and evidence tampering, and lying in depositions) that made Jackson think that MS had repeatedly put its interests above the law. If he had not granted interviews with the press (a judge is really not supposed to talk with reporters about cases, ever), his ruling might have stood, because it would have been harder to prove bias. In a jury trial, a judge has to keep from laughing and so forth, but with no jury but himself, a judge can snicker when a defendant lies and that alone is not grounds for overturning his findings.

Re:Punish the Crime

[fajoli]

Being a monopoly is not a crime! Using the power of a monopoly is a crime.

Analogy: Being white is not a crime. Using the power of being white in a business setting is a crime (ie. harrassment, discriminatory hiring, etc.)

Punish the actions as the law allows in antitrust cases: treble damages. Let a jury decide damages.

Re:Punish the Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

> The only way we can get our freedom back is through direct government regulation of the consumer. We gave the consumer the right to purchase their own software and that failed miserably because they chose to purchase Microsoft products. We must now make their choices for them so that they can be free.

ROTFL! Do you not see how incredibly patronizing, condescending and DUMB this sounds?!? Change "Microsoft" to "Apple" and attribute it to an MS exec, and how well would that play?

Re:Punish the Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the District Court did overturn part of the findings of law. They said Judge Jackson did not use the proper standard in ruling the bundling issue. Without re-reading the ruling, I believe the District Court raised the level of burden for the bundling issue.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Obviously...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Well, since it's Massachussetts, obviously the well-funded lobbyists from Ximian are exerting some influence here. For as we know, Ximian is an extremely powerful megacorporation -- one of the few software powerhouses big enough to take on Microsoft. They have a lot of highly paid lawyers and lobbyists, and as a result they are very influential towards their state government.

Re:Obviously...

[ainsoph]

ummm.. really? link?

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

ainsoph, HanzoSan... did either of you two schmucks take note of the 'Funny 3' right up at the top of the message?

MA AG's site is Windows BASED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone noticed that the MA Attorney General's web site is running Windows NT and IIS 4.0?

And his email is being read by someone on a Windows box, running an Office 2000?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Amen to thaReat....

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the finding. They ruled on all three things.

Write letters!!

[matty]

It's much more effective to write letters. I've heard that many politicians mostly ignore email, unless they get a huge volume from unique addresses.

The hand-written word carries a good deal more influence. Take the time to lick a stamp and mail out a physical letter, and it will carry more weight.

P.S. I just realized that this post might sound like an insult to mjh. It's not. Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.

Re:Write letters!!

[meldroc]

Given all the paranoia surrounding snail-mail these days, politicians & their staffs might not want to read much mail.

In these days, email just might get more attention.

Re:Write letters!!

[Reckless Visionary]

Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.

While I agree that this dounds logical, it simply wasn't true in the congressional office I worked in. Emails and letters were tallied and responded to (by letter) in exactly the same manner. Of course only constituent emails and letters with valid addresses in the constituency were counted.

Re:Write letters!!

[MindStalker]

Yea, if you want it to get incenerated. Fax it, just as professional. None of the hazards.

Re:Write letters!!

[mother_superius]

Or send it by every both to be sure. Hell, how about more: fax, phone, anything else you can think of.

Re:Write letters!!

[mpe]

It's much more effective to write letters. I've heard that many politicians mostly ignore email, unless they get a huge volume from unique addresses.

Except that right this now the US postal system is in a mess, with it being quite likely that any mail sent to a politican is first being screened by the FBI.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

the ho's

[WildBeast]

Seems to me like the government whores are indirectly asking for more money.

dream on

[Erris]

Well at least the part saying multiple OS's can be installed on one machine, and Microsoft can do nothing.

Nothing? Right. Like using NTFS and then stupid laws to make sure that no one but M$ can read/write the file system? Like having a virus scan delete the alternate OS or the bootloader? Dude, M$ can make trouble anywhere it is used.

The good news is that people are starting to understand that M$ is the root of their computer problems. Get away from it for a while and you forget just how BAD it was. People around me talk about reformating their hard drives once every two months and starting all over again like they have to. Gahhh! All I have to tell them is that I've got PC's that run stable until the power fails. They know something is wrong and that things have been getting worse not better.

World Wide M$ Boycott Gains Support

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is responding to the Bush/Gates "partnership". We've received email from folks all over the world, stating that they would not purchase M$ products, under ANY circumstances.

So, maybe the pandering of our corrupt "elected representatives" could backfire? Contact "your" elected representatives? What a joke. Do you think they would jeopardize their M$ stock/bribes, etc...., to respond affirmatively to you impoverished whiners?

"Vote" with your wallet. ITs important.

Windows pricing...

[bama_shine]

I would have been satisfied if the settlement force MS to sell their OSes to everyone at the same price.

But it doesn't even do that!

Re:Windows pricing...

[homer_ca]

I think it is part of the settlement, but there's always ways to hide discounts and payments. Like a "promotional partnership" where MS subsidizes an OEM's advertising expenses if they bundle MS software and exclude non-MS software.

Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Moogoo]

Being a monopoly is legal. What is not legal is using monopoly power to gain a competitive advantage. So, while exclusive contracts are not a crime for other companies, they are for Microsoft because it wields monopoly power.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Arandir]

What is not legal is using monopoly power to gain a competitive advantage.

I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. Next time I'll use a sledgehammer.

What bugs me about the antitrust laws is that justice is turned on it's head. The blindfolds have been taken off of Lady Justice, so that she now says "tell me who you are and I will tell you what laws you must follow". Seeking a competitive advantage is a natural, legal, ethical and moral course of action for companies, unless you have been declared a monopoly.

I am a firm believer that laws should apply to everyone equally. If something is illegal for you, it should also be illegal for your congressman, and if your congressman has a special legal priviledge, then you should have it as well. Likewise, if a action is legal if performed by Sun, IBM, Apple, or the ISP down the street, then it should be also legal for Microsoft.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[tburkhol]

I am a firm believer that laws should apply to everyone equally.

Perhaps you haven't thought this zero-tolerance like policy through. My six year old nephew should definitely not be allowed to drive a car, regardless of whether he can pass the test. Members of our armed services should likewise not be subject to jail time for killing enemy soliders.

These concepts apply to businesses, too: (in the US) very small businesses don't have to maintain exact racial diversity, or even ADA accessibility. The lawmakers recognize that these requirements would be too stifling to small businesses. Likewise, there are special rules for very big businesses, such as your electricity provider not being allowed to bundle phone service, and the post office not being allowed to refuse letters to MailBoxes-R-Us.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that companies are not in the class of everyone defined by the constitution. Companies get their priviledges from the states through a charter. There is a special class of laws for corporations that everyone else doesn't have to follow.

Would you like the corporate income tax to be applied equally against you?

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight! Let's march on Washington and demand our franking rights and the right to issue executive orders!

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Malcontent]

"Seeking a competitive advantage is a natural, legal, ethical and moral course of action for companies, unless you have been declared a monopoly. "

You must have weird sense of ethics and morals. I can think of no religion which advocates seeking a competitive advantage. I take that back satanism does.

Alas most business people tend to abandon their moral and ethical upbringing the minute they form a business and live a life of satanism. They start worshipping money and the mindless accumulation thereof and try to cloak in some some moral imperitive even though their religion warns them against a life of chasing money.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

> You must have weird sense of ethics and morals. I can think of no religion which advocates seeking a competitive advantage. I take that back satanism does.

And you have a wierd sense of argument to automatically equate ethics/morals == religion when it can certainly mean civil ethics/morals as well. You weakened your whole post with that tack.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Arandir]

There is a special class of laws for corporations that everyone else doesn't have to follow.

My point is that I want objective law. If there is to be a class of law that applies to corporate entities, then that law should be uniformly applied to all corporate entities regardless of size.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Arandir]

Competition is not evil. Take a foot race for example (check the writings of Saint Paul for more on competitive foot races). It is not evil to train for the race. It is not evil to try to be faster than the other guy. It is not evil to fail to slow down when you are winning. And it is not evil to win.

What *is* evil is to deliberately hinder the other racers. Tripping your opponent is evil. Slipping exlax into his gatorade is evil. Greasing his baton is evil.

A competitive advantage does not have to be something negative imposed on your competitor. If there is something that will improve your business performance without hindering your competitors, there is nothing immoral about using it as an advantage.

I don't know of any religion that says, fast people should not compete in the 100 meter, strong people should not compete in greco-roman wresting, and tall people should not compete in basketball.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

If something is illegal for you, it should also be illegal for your congressman, and if your congressman has a special legal priviledge, then you should have it as well.

For instance. We should not be allowed to abuse our law-making powers to create laws beneficial to ourselves (oh wait, we have no lawmaking powers). But then, according to you, we should.
Yes, the standard response is "that's what we elected him for". But my *point* is that a congressman has priveledges we don't, even if they were given to him by us.

Microsoft was given a monopoly by the people, but it shouldn't be allowed to abuse that power. It's a power that no other OS company has, and so while the same laws should apply to them, other companies aren't in a position where it *would* apply.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

When exactly did microsoft become a monopoly? Was it when they were sued by Sun and AOL (and the DOJ by proxy)?

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Malcontent]

"I don't know of any religion that says, fast people should not compete in the 100 meter, strong people should not compete in greco-roman wresting, and tall people should not compete in basketball."

We are not talking about a foot race. Nor are we talking about competition in the abstract sense. What we are talking about is abandoning your sense of right and wrong and being influenced by money.

The top 4 religions (christianity, islam, judaism, and budhism) all advocate a life of simplicity and charity. None of them advocates a life dedicated to accumulation of money and all of them warn that wealth is not compatible with moral behaviour. How many times did Christ speak out against accumulation of wealth?

Only satanism advocates that the act of accumulation of wealth and power is a virtue and not a sin.

BTW I guess you agree that MS is evil because they "deliberately hinder other racers". Even according to your definition of evil they are immoral.

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[underpaidISPtech]

Although Buddhism is the belief system I most respect, I have a feeling that Hindus outnumber the Buddhists.

Also, how much do you make a year, and would you like to share some of it with me? I make very little money. We wouldn't want that accumulation of wealth hindering your ascent into grace, now would we?

Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime.

[Malcontent]

I make a ton of money when compared to you but a pittance when compared to Bill Gates. Alas I am an atheist and don't believe in god. So for me I have no qualms making money and hoarding to myself.

Microsoft not out of the woods

[matty]

Not by a long shot.

Wired has an article about the settlement allowing dual-boots. An addition at the end says that Senator Pat Leahy intends to have Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to review the settlement.

Also, the EU is still going forward with its investigation

Finally, Sun is mulling the possibility of a civil lawsuit of its own.

Public Comment Period

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the proposed settlement, there will be a public comment period. From the settlement:
---
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.
---

For god sake, send in your comments! Mine run something like this:

1) Microsoft must offer all of its products at the same price to any customer that purchases over 1000 copies per year. Microsoft may offer another fixed price for single copies.

2) Microsoft shall not be allowed to enter into any market development programs of any kind that discriminate between volume customers.

3) Microsoft must document all of the API's, file formats, and protocols for all of its products.

4) Microsoft must license all of its API's, file formats, and protocols for all of its products under royalty free and non-discriminatory terms.

5) Microsoft may not retaliate against any customer or ISV that choses to sell or support a non-Microsoft platform.

6) Microsoft must bundle a conformant JVM will all of its operating system products.

7) Microsoft must bundle a Mozilla based browser with all of its operating systems products.

These remedies will remain in effect until such time that Microsoft has less than 75% of the desktop operating system market.API, file format, and protocol licences entered into during the remedy period must be continued under royalty free and non-discriminatory basis.

Re:Public Comment Period

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, what a nutcase.

Microsoft NEEDS people like you involved on the other side, so the whole thing can be tossed out of court.

Re:Public Comment Period

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Ohhh, yeah. Send in any protesting comments to the same group that just punted in the first place.

Yep, that'll do it. I'll send in my comments right now! I'm SURE they'll be regarded as thoughtfully as the past years' legal procedings have been.

Ximian powerful enough to take on MS?!?!?

[HanzoSan]

Are you crazy? Ximian doesnt even have 1 billion dollars in the bank. They are a very small company, millions sure, but Microsoft has more like 100 billion.

Re:Ximian powerful enough to take on MS?!?!?

[snoozerdss]

Why make billions? when we can make millions!

I think you have it backwards

[hey!]

Having a monopoly is illegal. Once you have the monopoly, exclusive contracts and bundling become illegal.

Re:I think you have it backwards

[Osty]

Having a monopoly is illegal. Once you have the monopoly, exclusive contracts and bundling become illegal.

Having a monopoly IS NOT ILLEGAL. In many cases, it's actually desired. What is illegal is using exclusive contracts to unfairly protect your monopoly (having exclusive contracts in and of itself is not illegal, either, monopoly or not). And just to bring the point home, bundling is not illegal either. In fact, that was the one part that the appellate court threw out -- that Microsoft had acted illegally in bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. It's not illegal, the appellate court said so, and the Supreme Court refused to take the case.

Now, what is illegal is using your monopoly position to move into other markets. For instance, if Microsoft used Windows to build its office suite monopoly (it did not, as Office is available for the Macintosh as well. Thus, there was never any contention about a monopoly in that market space becuase nothing illegal happened). And as far as the browser market goes, when Microsoft began bundling IE (win98 time frame), the browser market was no longer valuable, monetarily. Netscape was giving their browser away free for personal and educational use, so do you really think anybody was actually buying a copy? Netscape simply could not compete. That's not illegal. That's economics.

Re:I think you have it backwards

[PoiBoy]

Having a per se monopoly is not illegal, and in some industries a monopolistic market is the only economically viable alternative. For example, because of high fixed costs, electric utilities are granted a government-sponsored monopoly to sell in their respective markets.

Far more important to regulators is the manner in which the monopoly power was obtained. If I compete in a perfectly fair, competitive manner and my rivals fail only through their own mismanagement or other failure, the monopoly power was obtained legally. If, however, I use anticompetitive behavior such as exclusionary dealing, bundling, and other techniques, then I have obtained monopoly power illegally.

MS has committed criminal acts and therefore is subject to penalties. One part of any settlement should therefore impose large fines on MS for their past actions. The second issue the final resolution must address is how the monopoly will be regulated in the future.

In short, any serious resolution must address two issues: punishing them for prior criminal behavior and controlling their monopoly power in the future. Fines alone will not do much against monopoly power, and publishing API and other technical specifications does not impose a real penalty for past behavior.

No.

[mikeee]

Hey, this is the same approach CA is using to push electric cars, so maybe they'll go for it!

However, you are confused.

Bundling is not a crime. Exclusive contracts are not a crime. They got in trouble for being a monopoly.

Exclusive contracts and bundling are a crime if you're a monopoly. Being a monopoly is perfectly legal.

Re:Slashdot is Racist!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawsuit? Sho-nuff!

Of course, threatening a lawsuit and then not following through is against the law too.

BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready.

[Erris]

Go ahead and tell your grandmother that she has to go into a shell (a what?) and type this:
cp /etc/printcap.old /etc/printcap.local
/etc/init.d/lpd restart

Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead? Perhaps granny should just have a backdoored system so that the helpful ISP admin can fix it for her, and everyone else can use her as a warez site? Granny is going to need help, and I'm not going to chase that Windoze crap for her. Man files, text configs and what not that don't change each time M$ needs additional income or wants to break some other program are so much easier.

Oh yeah, my wife calls the shell "the foot" because Red Hat gave her a button for gnome terminal emulator. She has come to understand the concept of a root account. Forced to do a little for herself, she is getting good at it. Neither of us can make 98 work our printer anymore, but it works just fine under Red Hat. The rest of my machines run Debian. Nothing could be finer or easier. Be gone, Troll.

Another Five Year Plan from DOJ and States

[Anonymous Coward]

NYS Attorney General says that he's happy because this means the end of uncertainty [in the economy]. Gee, the last time I checked, Capitalism was entirely about risk ( 90% of all start-ups fail, stock market crashes, government screws up, monopolies run amock...). I guess that the DOJ, all states but Mass., and "Republican" White House are rolling out the Red Carpet on M$ next 5 year plan....

I guess I had better go out and buy me a copy of Win XP because my Unix admin skills are worth less and less every year because of the M$ weenie management who love viruses and other malware.

Yes, I'm bashing M$ because it affects my employment possibilities. I think that their products are OK for the average joe, but not for business. And I actually like Unix whereas I do not suffer fools and M$ very well.

Go ahead and mod me down for speaking the truth....

Re:Another Five Year Plan from DOJ and States

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, people like you have been threatened since the beginning of the PC market.

I remember those days. The surly white-coated computer operators in the 'machine room.' Mere mortals had to formally request a job be run. Their data/program card decks had to be passed through that window with the counter. They were NEVER EVER allowed actual physical access to the computer.

You're just the latest version of those fsckers. You LOST, dude. Power to the people.

MS has an office in MASS?

[Anonymous Coward]

OT for sure, but doesn't/didn't Microsoft have an office in Mass...near Waltham?

Anybody what it does or if it would have any influence here?

Re:Amen to thaReat....

[dcgaber]

In actuality, they reversed breakup not on the merits, but for lack of hearings on remedy (one of two big mistakes that Judge Jackson made). They never took break-up off the table, just required a strong showing in hearings that break-up was justified, something they may have said was difficult, but allowed for.

Further, Read their rejection of MS' appeal on tying and motion to stay pending Supreme COurt action on Petition for Cert. They specificall said that NO REMEDIES WERE PRECLUDED from their June decision.

Why would they return?

[HanzoSan]

Did they return windowsXP because XP was new?

I already posted this!

[HanzoSan]

Why are you getting a 2 and me a 1 when i posted this a long time ago?

Re:I already posted this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...looks like you did get a 2, what are you complaining about?

Besides, he got a 2 because his karma is high enough that he auto-posts at 2. You must be in the same boat since (as I already mentioned) you auto-posted at 2 also.

Quit being such a damn whiner.

Re: AG contact info for NY and Calif.

[call -151]

The contact info for the NYS attorney general Eliot Spitzer is at this link. If you are a New York resident, call and register your concern about going along with the settlement.

If you are a Californian, the contact info is here for California attorney general Bill Lockyer- you can call toll-free (800) 952-5225 inside California.

Given that MS has a history of astroturfing again and again pretending to have a grass-roots movement in its support, it would be a good idea to express bona fide concern about how fair the settlement is at a time when it might make some difference.

Also

[HanzoSan]

What stops Lindows or another linux from being commandline free? completely gui?

Re:Also

[praxim]

Nothing, until the situation I described above happens and one must have at least _some_ knowledge of what's going on under the hood to fix it...

holding out on MS

[Hooya]

wouldn't the first step to holding out on MS be to first stop using their product in their own offices? I mean, Largo has successfully implemented Linux on their desktops. The government, i bet, is a big 'consumer' of MS products. If the government used linux, that should remedy things that lawsuits couldn't.

Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad its the consumers you're supposed to protect, not other fucking companies.

I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ BUT.

[mesach]

I think it's funny how you reluctantly post anything remotely good newsworthy for Microsoft like the release of a new OS or anything like that, But when they are in the new for something like this... it's posted almost immediately? Why are you so hypocritical???

I see in the tagline for slashdot its "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.' and while I understand its primarily an open source forum I don't see where it has anything to do with Microsoft bashing? Once again it boils down to a matter that *iux and m$ os' are just tools and its all news no matter who makes it there...

Go ahead flame me all you want... moderate me down for having an opinion that is different that that of yours, make fun of me because I have spelling or grammar errors (which by the way if that's all you can do is pathetic). You must realize that I care as much about your opinion as you do about mine.

Quote from you website ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pulled Linux stuff off site. I decided I want to focus on postive aspects of computing use, not negative."

From your website, Sheldon.
Looks like your the one with the 'tude.

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's because most enlightened techies don't like Microsoft. Maybe there are some valid reasons for that. Duh.

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[Anonymous Coward]

speaking as an "enlightened techie" I'm with the first poster. I like Microsoft, I also like linux, maybe I'm not in the norm. But i read slashdot for cool tech news not to see the latest technique on how to effectively put down microsoft. That and coupled with the fact that you ended your response with "duh" lets us all know that you must not be an enlightened anything.

New York

[Snibor Eoj]

From the article:
New York is planning to sign the agreement with some added restrictions on Microsoft, a source close to the deliberations said Monday.

Oh good. After two months, I at last have legitimate reasons to be embarrassed to be a New Yorker again.

+1 funny!

[3am]

my favorite line:

We must now make their choices for them so that they can be free.

that's beautiful. hilarious post.

IE and JVM

[melquiades]

I believe he was referring to the fact that Microsoft is being forced to remove the JVM

As I understand it, this is not quite right. Microsoft is not being forced to remove a JVM because they never had one in the first place. There were selling something which was like Java, and largely compatible with it, but broke the standard in a number of respects. So the thing that came with IE was not Java, but Microsoft was calling it "Java" anyway. Since that's Sun's trademark, Sun demanded they stop.

I don't think anybody is stopping them from bundling Sun's JVM, or even their own implementation of a true JVM which implements Sun's Java standards. Help me out, folks, am I wrong here?

Re:IE and JVM

[3am]

Help me out, folks, am I wrong here?

nope, you're right.

microsoft lost a case to Sun, and were poor losers. i have to give credit to their spin teams for being able to get /. posters on their side, though.

Re:IE and JVM

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I remember, Microsoft's JVM was as compatible as Sun's, only faster (Sun got caught rigging a test to say otherwise). Microsoft also included some Window's only extensions as well. At least part of the lawsuit was about these extensions. The contract was not clear about whether Microsoft was allowed to do that and the judge agreed with Sun.

Re:IE and JVM

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit to their spin teams? Naaahhhh. If I were a 9000 pound convicted monopoly with 30B+ in cash. I would have thousands of morally & ethically bankrupt, paid astroturfers( probably 25k/yr+bonus would be starting) working for me day and night. Oh Wait!!!. That is exactly what some of the posters on /. are!!

Re:IE and JVM

[sheldon]

Where's my check?

I would have to say that you are the one who is logically bankrupt if you can't imagine why someone might disagree with you.

gramr natsi

[peanutbadr]

"Several other state AGs as well are angling for more restrictions on Microsoft, but some are prepared to sign on to the current version of the settlement. "

That should be AsG instead of AGs.

Thanks.

LOL I wish I had mod points.

[Yam-Koo]

That's the best "lie to the newbies" post I've seen in a long time lol. :) :)

BTW, I'm not making fun of Ximian, I love the guys. :)

Re:Limit advertising budget

[codepunk]

Ok lets take your idea just a little further. A good solution is to place a advertising cap on them. They have gained monopoly status through creative marketing tactics, so to eliminate this just place a advertising cap on them.

Maryland Attorney General Contact Information ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How to Contact the AG's Office

Mailing Address:
Office of the Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone:
(410) 576-6300
1 (888) 743-0023 toll-free
TDD: (410) 576-6372
E-mail:
OAG@oag.state.md.us

Public Information Office
Media only: (410) 576-6357

Consumer Protection Division
consumer@oag.state.md.us
(410) 528-8662 Consumer complaint hotline
(410) 528-1840 Medical billing complaints
1-877-261-8807 Health plan decision appeals

Branch Offices:
(301) 722-2000 Cumberland
(301) 694-1071 Frederick
(301) 791-4780 Hagerstown
(410) 543-6620 Salisbury

Securities Division
securities@oag.state.md.us
(410) 576-6360

Webmaster
webmaster@oag.state.md.us

Sounds Right to Me

[krmt]

I think you're right, that there's no reason for MS not to include a JVM in their system. It wouldn't be that hard to retrofit their old VM, and remove the offending parts, or just not call it a JVM and simply include it as is. The fact is, .net is their attack on the whole Java platform, and by not including a JVM at all they're heavily leaning their favor towards .net. Not that I blame them necessarily, but in all reality a JVM is a critical part of the modern web browser (which they claim is a critical part of the modern OS) and as such, it should be included.

Re:Sounds Right to Me

[sheldon]

I don't believe the claim that JVM is a critical part of the modern web browser.

Now Flash... that I can see. I encounter far more(by a factor of 100x) flash enabled web sites than sites using Java.

Sun should either pay Microsoft to bundle their JVM, or Sun should start a marketing campaign to encourage people to download and install their JVM. If it's really that important of an issue, I'm sure Sun would be more than willing to address it with action instead of whining.

Re:History repeats itself - and Massachusetts gets

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm glad at least one state AG gets it; without stringent behavioral guidelines, MS will alter their behavior in exactly the wrong direction."

It's ironic but the only people who can punish MS now are the terrorists.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Maybe Not...

[krmt]

They may not have a billion dollars, but they have a billion stuffed monkeys! Their cuteness will eradicate all!

Touch the monkey...

Re:BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready.

[Tachys]

Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead?

I wouldn't ever have to have to tell her how to hack her binary registry

In an unrelated story...

[Lonath]

The Business Software Alliance announced that it is beginning an investigation into possible software license violations within Massachussetts State government offices. The BSA was supposedly tipped off by a former employee who spoke about "rampant IP and copyright violations at all levels of government." The BSA has withheld judgement on this subject, but "will be performing a full audit of all licenses and computers in the government's possession."

Utah General Attorney contact info.

[arthurh3535]

Capitol Office:
Utah State Attorney General
Room 236,
State Capitol Building,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Telephone: (801)-538-9600

FAX:(801)-538-1121

Administration Office:
Utah State Attorney General
Administration Office
160 East 300 South,6th Fl.
Heber Wells Building,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Telephone:(801)-366-0300

FAX:(801)-366-0221

Attorney General Public Information, call:
(801) 366-0260
Toll Free for Utah: (800) 244-4636

Contact the Attorney General by Email uag@att.state.ut.us

Great until monetary reality strikes

[MtViewGuy]

Folks,

While the State of Massachusetts think they can take on Microsoft on its own, I think they may have to rethink the whole idea when reality hits: the state may not have the financial resources to continue the case on its own.

Remember, the DoJ hired a good number of private lawyers at US$300 to US$500 per hour costs to assist on US v. Microsoft--because it can afford to. Are the states willing to foot that type of bill--especially when these lawyers will probably need many hundreds of hours to work on the case? Several commentators on C|Net have expressed much doubt that individual states to going to do this, because the state's citizens may consider this expenditure a major waste of government money.

Re:Great until monetary reality strikes

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers are having a hard time thanks to the economy too.

But can CA and NY afford the case?

[MtViewGuy]

shibut,

I think both California and New York will sign off in the agreement with this reason: they cannot afford to continue the case on its own.

Remember, with the California economy in the dumps and New York hard hit by the effects of 9/11, these two states may not have the financial resources to continue the legal case against Microsoft. Not when you have to hire lawyers at US$300-US$500/hour and they having to work many hundreds of hours on the case--legal costs that will quickly run into the many millions of US dollars in short order.

The Department of Justice is big enough that DoJ could afford these high-priced attorneys to assist DoJ's own lawyers; without DoJ support, the individual states don't have the money to continue the case.

Re:But can CA and NY afford the case?

[thogard]

How much of the California economic problem is related to software and how much of it is a direct result of monopoly that M$ has? If you write a letter and are looking for a job in the computer field, make sure you point this out.

From what I can tell, M$ has killed some of the large tax bases in CA, UT and MS.

Re:But can CA and NY afford the case?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How much of the California economic problem is related to software and how much of it is a direct result of monopoly that M$ has? If you write a letter and are looking for a job in the computer field, make sure you point this out.

Point what out? You've asked questions, not given examples. Without the answers your questions will be disregarded as argumentative or FUDing.

"Where's the BEEF?!?" - examples, please, of sufficient size to warrant a LARGE lawsuit.

Re:But can CA and NY afford the case?

[thogard]

How about the large software development base in Utah? Remember Novel and Word Perfect? At one time they were both in the top 10 largest compaines paying taxes in Utah.

MS (thanks in part to the large number of good schools in the state) has has a large number of software startups. Many of them went on to do things that were bundled with Windows and are now no more.

How about Microware in Iowa. One time the size of M$ but with stable products. They happen to be be growing but aren't in the same business they had been in which would put them in the cross hairs of M$. They do make software for set top boxes and thats clearly an area that M$ is using its traditional methods to get into.

How about Datastorm in Missouri. Once M$ bundled a comms package they lost all their business. Ever look into the details of them including hyperterm? No one in the industry had a choice and M$ used their monopoly to their advantage.

I'm sure other people could supply quite a list of compaines that were rolled over my M$.

The M$ monopoly is costing jobs all over the US (and the world).

Re:But can CA and NY afford the case?

[leviramsey]

MS (thanks in part to the large number of good schools in the state) has has a large number of software startups. Many of them went on to do things that were bundled with Windows and are now no more.

Mississippi has good schools? What crack are you smoking?

Or are you talking about Massachusetts, which has the postal abbreviation MA?

Then again, for boat registrations, Massachusetts' code is MS...

I wish I could...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I live in Washington State.

What's the rent in MA like?

stop buying

[ostrich2]

I can't help wonder what programs these states use on their desktops. If you really wanted to hurt MS, why not stop feeding their monopoly? Didn't Largo, FL switch to KDE? Any news from that locale?

It could have been fixed but it won't ever be.

[thogard]

Right now there is only one company selling operating systems (keep in mind that every one else is in the hardware game, owned by M$ or just selling media).

The only way to stop this is to force that company into two or more parts (since they have two or more OS's). According to judge Jackson, this is the worst case since Standard Oil. Remember what happend there? The company was chopped into 20 small sections that each had to compete with themselves. Its why you can buy fuel from someone other than Standard Oil. I think that MS should be chopped into several smaller compaines based on their producs such as MS Word, MS Excel, MS XP, MS ME, Wince. The others such as the games can get thrown in with the rest or its own games company. The hardware section must not go to a company involved with the OS. I don't think the courts or the justace deptarment (or state's AG) undstand how deep the MS monopoly goes until they propose a settlement that fixes the core problems and I don't think they will. The only settlement proposals I have seen will do nothing to allow new compaines to compete aginst the now strong MS product lines and there aren't many of the old compaines left to try.

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[Anonymous Coward]

> Once again it boils down to a matter that *iux and m$ os' are just tools and its all news no matter who makes it there...

Except in one case the toolmaker is doing all that they can do (some of it legitimately) to choke off any competition in any market they want to play in. So, due to this toolmaker I may not be able to use a technically better tool from another source.

So, we HATE this toolmaker for deliberately, with malice aforethought, preventing us from having the opportunity to have widely available alternatives. It's not a fair fight, not by any means, and MANY of us resent this quite a bit.

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[rela]

Go ahead flame me all you want... moderate me down for having an opinion that is different that that of yours, make fun of me because I have spelling or grammar errors (which by the way if that's all you can do is pathetic). You must realize that I care as much about your opinion as you do about mine.

Out of curiosity, if you don't care about the opinions of people on Slashdot, why are you trying so hard to make the point that you don't care? Moreover, why are you reading it at all?

C'mon and laugh with me, 'cause in the end this is all just a complex game humanity plays with itself. =)

Perhaps, but

[einhverfr]

Keep in mind that the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ does not involve any punitive actions. Microsoft is free to profit from its illegal gains. I think a heavy fine isn't only useful, but necessary -- especially if the fine is paid to the companies who were hurt, and they use it to compete against Microsoft.

Look at Caldera. They made a lot of money by buying DR-DOS, then suing MS, and then selling DR-DOS to Lineo.... Look where it got them-- lots of money and no market.

Throwing money at competitors of Microsoft may hurt them more than help. This settlement is dangerous to EVERYBODY because it opens up a possible easy way to get money from Microsoft. This hurts Microsoft, but could hurt many plaintifs as well. This current "tag, you're guilty" settlement really does nothing to mitigate the liability that Microsoft has acrued because of its monopoly status. A breakup would be FAR less damaging in the long run...

But on the bright side, it may allow future competitors an edge...

Re: VA Attorney General

[segfault7375]

If you live in Virginia (and many geeks do) your AG is Randolph Beales. Here is the contact information for his office:

Snail Mail:
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219

Website:
http://www.oag.state.va.us/

Phone:
(804)786-2071
(804) 371-8946 TDD

Email:
mail@oag.state.va.us

Cheers,
Segfault

Astroturfing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, Mickeysoft must be paying overtime for you
astroturfers. In reality, NOBODY give a flip about MSFT. Everybody is against them! Moderaters, where's the Troll points for this chump? Ouch,no, not me, the guy I'm replying to.

Contact the DoJ via Email

[Kaya]

In addition to contacting your state's Attorney General, I recommend sharing your thoughts directly with the DoJ's Antitrust Division:

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm:

If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov

Impress them with your eloquence. That's how democracy works.

One quibble

[YuppieScum]

There were selling something which was like Java

Just a minot quibble, but the were not selling it, they were giving it away...

I'm not saying this was right, just pursuing accuracy...

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[killthiskid]

As a wise man once said:

"All things man does are in folly."

Ok, no "Score +1 Bonus" for this post.

Oh, and while I'm at it:

Me too, me too!

another remedy proposed

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we let MS conduct business as usual but Billy boy has to get a lobotomy. I think this might be the only truly just remedy and it would certainly do wonders to curtail the aggresive behavior.

WHAT!

[zigzag]

"...hoping that XP will revive the economy as win98 did in 98."

That's ridiculous.

Re:WHAT!

[underpaidISPtech]

Yes, it is. Now are you going to back up your statement, or just keep us guessing?

bill gates owns the u.s.

[Anonymous Coward]

The politicians are ALL CORRUPT. This isn't a democracy, it's a yard sale.

Winbloze is damn near being mandated as the only acceptable OS, in the name of preventing cyber-terrorism. Meanwhile, we have a fleet of navy ships just waiting to bluescreen.

My thoughts on the settlement-- Don't like it

[einhverfr]

Most of you know me from my Linux Advocacy posts... Won't it surprise you to see me defend Microsoft here ;) Yet, I cannot defend this settlement which really has the potential to do a world of hurt to everybody.

Microsoft touts the DoJ signing off on this settlement as a great victory. However, it is not that simple. They would be admitting to guilt (try appealing a settlement in order to get the major remaining pieces of the Findings of Fact reversed) while there are many emboldened opponents which would love to get some cash off of Microsoft's misfortune.

Look at Caldera today. Theiy face delisting ($0.23 cents per share), and they made sizable abbount of their money off their settlement with Microsoft. However, rather than concentrate on building their Business (by increasing the numbers of their customers), they chose to get some cash off Microsoft by buying DR DOS, suing MSFT and sellign DR-DOS to Lineo as soon as it was settled. That left Caldera in a situation with money, but few customers. Sort of like Anazon. And it is hard to build a business when capital and clientele are too imballanced one way or the other.

If this settlement were to come through, it could therefore hurt Microsoft's competitors as much as Microsoft. Although Microsoft could become immobilized due to their liability, suit-happy competitors could quickly dig their own graves. This is NOT good for anyone. Even pragmatic competitors who do not want to sue may be dragged down in the market if they are publically owned.

We need a settlement which imposes real restrictions on Microsoft but avoid relying on the lawsuits as law-enforcement. Or a judgement giving us this. This settlement is basically "You are guilty. We will monitor you, and you will agree to keep up the good work" agreement which will damage everyone involved way too much.

XP MP3 : Play - yes; rip - well...

[Samrobb]

Yep. It plays MP3's just fine. However, if you want to create MP3's, you need to purchase or download additional software.

Compare that with the fact that XP will allow you to rip CD tracks to WMA files without additional software, and it looks an awful lot like MS is doing their best to use their operating system monopoly to promote a completely seperate proprietary technology (WMA) at the expense of a competitor (MP3).

Which just happens to be what the whole DOJ hearings were supposed to be about.

one problem with that

[Anonymous Coward]

apple is more expensive. joe sixpack will see a price tag of $500-$1000 less on the "normal" computers that everyone else uses. (if every one else uses this, it must be the better kind right?) it does not matter if it crashes 3 times a day. average consumers are used to rebooting. after all big brother ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H microsoft told us that crashes and viruses are just part of life and theres nothing we can do about it...

Re:Slashdot is Racist!!!!!! - get off the crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when could you tell by text that someone was white or black? Its people like you who go searching for racism, saying u where rejected simply because the color of your skin?? Come on.. It was probably they had recieved the submission x number of times, and decided it was worth posting.. Grow up

Stipulation for MA Signoff

[LittleGuy]

Bill Gates must serve as the nanny for Jane Swift's twins.

land of the massholes

[Anonymous Coward]

wicked cool

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[MisterQueue]

I think it's funny how you reluctantly post anything remotely good newsworthy for Microsoft like the release of a new OS or anything like that,
But when they are in the new for something like this... it's posted almost immediately? Why are you so hypocritical???

I suppose if you consider the release of XP a Good Thing (since I assume that's what you're talking about.) And just to clarify your misconceptions, I seem to remember that there was an article posted about XP's release. If the discussions about the release turns ugly, that's not /. 's fault, it is the community's point of view in and of itself. Not that majority makes rhyme or reason of course, but if that's the way the wind blows so be it. One comes here, I would hope with the intention of participating in an open discussion with those who have similar interests albeit different opinions. Anyway, I've gotten off on a tangent, but point being, instead of complaining about the choice of topics or discussion, start some meaningful "pro-m$" discussion if you like, it is your right as a community member to do so.

Nothing is gained by whining and flaming your intended audience.

-Q

call your call/write attorney general (ohio's here

[Anonymous Coward]

write and call.

if calling, give your name and address/phone so they know you are a resident.

get your's at:

http://www.firstgov.gov/state_gov/state.html

ohio's is:

Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery
State Office Tower
30 E. Broad Street
17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-3428

(614) 466-4320

There's more about this here

[FrankBough]

The BBC have an updated reported on this issue today (2001/11/06) here.

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[rela]

-- Keep doing the same things, and you keep getting the same results. CHANGE, DAMN IT!

Hahahaha!!

Nice sig. =)

Re:I know none of you slashdotters Care about M$ B

[mesach]

actually I wasnt referring to XP, i cant remember exactly what it was that microsoft did, but taco posted it and in the post he put something to the fact that he was inundated with email about why it wasnt posted so he thought he had to post it to shut everyone up... basically

[ot] Re:3 cheers for capitalism!

[prizog]

"Monopoly is Competition" maybe works better.

Talking about monopolies and competition together is not a non-sequitur.

And I like "Revenge is Justice" :)

What is that book about?

Re:[ot] Re:3 cheers for capitalism!

[Medievalist]

You're right, making it "Monopoly is Competition" removes the non-sequitur.

The book is a thorough debunking of the famous aphorism "form follows function". By following the history of common items such as wheelbarrows, forks, paper clips, and the zipper, the author shows that innovation is a response to perceived deficiencies in previously existing usage, said usage generally being predicated on existing (sub-optimal) form.

It's a bit overlong, but worth reading. Lots of interesting history and some worthwhile cross-cultural comparisons.
--Charlie