Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
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.
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
"
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
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.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
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.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
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?
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.