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

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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: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 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.)