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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
moo.