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

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...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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.

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...