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.
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.
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
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.
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?