Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massachusetts Holds Out On MS Case

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the finding-what-the-market-will-bear dept.

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.

139 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Amen to that.... by jea6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .... i'ts refreshing to see that the states won't punk out like the Bush Administration did.

    --

    sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    1. Re:Amen to that.... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

    2. Re:Amen to that.... by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Amen to that.... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Well, even if breakup were out (and I don't see anything that outright forbids a breakup, just that the specific version of said remedy that Jackson wrote up has been tossed out because of its author), Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth.

      Or maybe the corporation could just be seized and dissolved, all its assets made property of the government (for physical stuff) or public domain (for intellectual property). Now, that would send a message, one that the Bush administration would have a hard time overturning - especially if the Supreme Court backed up the seizure. It'd help if it was spun to the public as "you get free Windows from now on": sure, the more knowledgable people (like most Slashdot readers) would know the further implications, including down sides, but most Americans would selectively perceive only that their neighborhood computer vendor could now sell computers for cheap, and given them a bunch of choices for what comes on it (even though they may well wind up picking what they already do: the option to perceive and ignore bad choices has inherent value, to them).

    4. Re:Amen to that.... by Decimal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats it. Breakup is out. Its not going to happen. The appealate court said in pretty much plain english that it would never happen. That only leaves two options. A fine is useless. What else do you expect to be done short of a breakup?

      Not even a two-way breakup would really help. The companies still have the same leadership and thus the same tactics. What needs to be done in cases like this is throw the leadership out and replace them with people at the bottom. Or even offer the positions to leadership from other companies deemed non-competitive that Microsoft squeezed out of the OS market. If Bill Gates were to find out that he could lose ownership of his own company and indeed even be barred from entering Microsoft headquarters and owning Microsoft stock he'd unbundle software from Windows so fast you could see the bits fly.

      Sound harsh? That's exactly what the leadership at Microsoft did to owners of other companies with their tactics. They kicked the competition out market. In turn, the court should kick them out of their own company.

      Of course, they won't. But they should.

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    5. Re:Amen to that.... by schon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What else do you expect to be done short of a breakup?

      The perfect remedy would be to force full disclosure from MS.

      That is: All API's and file formats need to be accessible by the general public at least three months before it's released. No need to break them up, or to force them to reveal their source code. As any large company, they're already documenting their API's and file formats internally, so it's no extra work on their part.

      Historically, MS has used it's monopoly to hinder competition - this will eliminate that ability, and level the playing field completely - MS is free to "innovate" whatever it wants, it just has to give everybody fair notice beforehand.

      If MS uses an undocumented API function, they're in breach of federal law, and are subject to something harsh - maybe a complete seizure of all income until the three month period has elapsed, or $1 Million fine per unit shipped per day (this will "encourage" them to play along.)

    6. Re:Amen to that.... by bwt · · Score: 2

      c. And that the remedy was not in line with the findings of fact or law

      That's just wrong.

      Since they threw out the remedy for bias, they never reached the merits of Jackson's proposed remedy. They cannot rule on an issue that is not before them, and they remanded for a new remedy after "vacating" not "reversing" on the remedy.

      All of the states and joined the DOJ in saying that they would not push for a breakup. There would be no reason for them to do this if it was a mandate from the Appeals Court.

    7. Re:Amen to that.... by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    8. Re:Amen to that.... by Reckless+Visionary · · Score: 2
      is there any viable way for the DOJ to interfere with the states' case?

      Yep, they can stop paying for it. State attorney generals are going to have a hard time justifying the huge costs of continuing this legislation in a recession. Up until now, the Feds have been footing most of the bill.

      --
      I think I'll stop here.
    9. Re:Amen to that.... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "Microsoft could be fined, oh, say, its entire net worth."

      Which would then be overturned in the SCOTUS as being a completely unreasonable punishment for whatever crime was commited.

      It's amazing how completely out of touch with reality people are.

    10. Re:Amen to that.... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Really? Prove that the company has demonstrated it has no intention of ever obeying the law when such interferes with its profits. Prove that the company has demonstrated, in Jackson's courtroom if nowhere else (and there's plenty of "else"), utter and sincere contempt for the courts and the law. Prove that it really has inflicted damages at least equalling its net worth.

      That's all doable, though I'll admit the last one is not a cakewalk like the first to. That said, if all that is proved in front of the SCOTUS, even they might well uphold the punishment.

    11. Re:Amen to that.... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      I see panic. I see chaos. And I see third parties offering up those services of Microsoft that were of any benefit, for instance providing technical support that is actually better than Microsoft's even though the providers theoretically have less internal knowledge of MS product.

      I also see a bunch of lawyers realizing that they can't get away with blaming the computer vendor for their mistakes so much. Perhaps those who view business as "who can I sue" instead of "provide value to the customer" will find their jobs that much more difficult...but I see that as a good thing.

      As for actual harm coming from such an act? I see lots of pontification, lots of angry and confused people of great self importance. But for the people who actually have to work with the stuff, I don't see that much of an immediate change, and what little there would be, would be positive.

      In short: yes, I have thought about this. IMHO, it could be an immediate benefit from the moment it goes into force.

    12. Re:Amen to that.... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Well I think I've already proven, by your own words, that you have an utter contempt for the US justice system.

      That's enough for today.

    13. Re:Amen to that.... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Last I checked, "contempt for the law" wasn't, by itself, a crime (though it might cast into doubt toothless agreements to follow the law in the future, when one has violated it in the past and stands to benefit from further similar violations). "Contempt of court" was. I respect the courts that try to determine the law, even if I sometimes disagree with their conclusions. Microsoft was, among other things, demonstrating contempt for the court itself in its testimony to Jackson - which is part of what set him off.

    14. Re:Amen to that.... by Flower · · Score: 2
      A few paltry hundred million or even a few billion so it can freely continue to leverage its monopoly into the fledgling web services market?

      Hell, let the investors tank MS stock. I could buy low and by the time the next anti-trust suit hit the courts I could sell and retire early.

      As others have said, 36+ billion in cash; no debt; any penalty would be paid over a period of years allowing MS numerous ways to finance the payment. A quite frankly rewarding anti-trust settlement. I would fire any investor that was so short-sighted as to reccommend selling MS stock under those circumstances.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    15. Re:Amen to that.... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      But that's ok because Judge Jackson clearly demonstrated contempt of his own court by talking to the media.

      The basic point being that in and of itself showing contempt for the law isn't a crime. You just said so yourself, yet in your previous post you claimed that we should dismantle Microsoft because of this imaginary crime.

      Hell I'd have contempt for the court too if I they were being driven by politics rather than reason, as was the Microsoft case.

  2. go figure. by mikeee · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a MA resident, I'm pleased by the principled action of my State's officials. That's just about a first.

    For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...

  3. Hmm.. by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 2, Funny

    It'll be interesting to see what the next version of MS XP World Encyclopedia 3000 has to say about Massachusetts..

    --
    Starsucks
    1. Re:Hmm.. by pagsz · · Score: 2

      Probably be defined as: "Communist state that refuses to accept Microsoft's prowess in free market."

      --
      -- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
  4. Last Days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether or not the states hold out on the case, let's be honest with ourselves -- nothing except a massive increase in consumer intelligence and responsibility will save us from complete domination from Redmond.

    Let's look at ways to provide consumers with better options. For example, Mandrake 8.0 Powerpack edition comes with a number of games. 3 of these, including the enticing TuxRacer, crash my machine on startup.

    Until we can have a simple Linux install (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that doesn't come with any broken components (which they've flubbed), the regular consumer won't switch

  5. I wonder... by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how quickly MS could enforce a "this product not for sale in MA" rule on their distributors & retailers...

    ...and I wonder how quickly said legislators would U-turn after having irate retailers and/or citizens pester them...

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:I wonder... by jeffy124 · · Score: 2

      wont happen. MS pushes their products in school environments (like my own school, except for the CS dept). There are too many schools up there for them to do that. MIT, Harvard, Boston College, Boston University, and many others

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    2. Re:I wonder... by YuppieScum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not "not for use" but "not for sale"...

      By denying sale in the state, they effectively circumvent the local legislators - and by encouraging out-of-state vendors to sell to people in MA they "prove" the market demands their products... very much a win-win if they can pull it off...

      Not that I'm saying this would be a good thing, of course...

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    3. Re:I wonder... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? "Not for sale in MA"...well, gee, I guess they'll just have to sell boxen preloaded with Linux, maybe with Wine already set up so the customers can run most Windows apps.

      I think they know it'd backfire just that badly. But I wouldn't bet my life on Microsoft's intelligence...

    4. Re:I wonder... by _xeno_ · · Score: 2
      Are you kidding me? I live in MA, and most Massachusetters already buy their software in New Hampshire to avoid sales tax anyway!

      I don't see what difference "not for sale in MA" would do anyway... :)

      (I get all my computer stuff in Nashua, NH - town of malls RIGHT NEXT to the MA-NH border... :))

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  6. good by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:good by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:good by jeffy124 · · Score: 2

      i wasnt being sarcastic - sorry if I came off like that. Europe wont take their anti-trust case as lightly as the US suddenly is.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    3. Re:good by Derwen · · Score: 2
      Of course, MS still has to face Europe, and we all know how rough and tough they are gonna be.

      I assume that this is sarcasm in light of the track record of one EU country's leader.
      However some European countries are flying the flag for Free Software and open standards :-)

      - Derwen

      --
      http://fsfeurope.org/
    4. Re:good by Derwen · · Score: 2
      i wasnt being sarcastic - sorry if I came off like that. Europe wont take their anti-trust case as lightly as the US suddenly is.

      That's OK :-)
      Despite my comments on Prime Minister Blair the European Union as a whole looks likely to stand a lot firmer than President Bush.
      However if Microsoft were a French company, well, who could say what the EU would do then?

      - Derwen

      --
      http://fsfeurope.org/
  7. Either that, or... by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

    Either has a pair, or looking to see who is good for the largest "campaign contribution"... seems like the Oracle/Sun alliance is winning for now.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Call your attorney general by mpsmps · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Call your attorney general by singularity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Contact information for Kentucky can be found at http://www.law.state.ky.us/office/contact.htm. The phone number is (502) 696-5300.

      They are closed right now (4:30 Eastern), but I would urge you to call tomorrow.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
  10. Citizens of NC, please respond. by mjh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    1. Re:Citizens of NC, please respond. by Decimal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a copy of the email that I sent to our AG last Friday.

      Did you take the time to write it out and snail mail it, too? Otherwise you can be almost certain that it won't recieve more than a glance to make sure it's not a death threat. Expect a form letter reply, or email, at the very most if that's the case.

      (Want to really get noticed? Sprinkle some powdered sugar into the envelope. Of course, you may not like the kind of attention they give you...)

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  11. History repeats itself - and Massachusetts gets it by dillon_rinker · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. The best read ... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the whole Micrsoft Monopoly crap, I think the most insightful thing I've read is this article.

    The last paragraph says it all particularly well.

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    1. Re:The best read ... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Thanks! That is the best article on the proposed settlement!

      -Paul Komarek

  14. It's a bad deal to begin with by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not usually one who sides against Microsoft or roots for the government in this case, but the solution was completely useless and didn't do anything to remedy the actual problem that exists in the Windows space.

    A good solution would be to restrict Microsoft in those actions that they were using to crush competitors: exclusive and restrictive contracts with hardware manufacturers. Restricting MS from entering into these contracts would be a simple and effective method of freeing up the market place for other operating systems and bundled software. It would effectively eliminate their monopoly leverage point without taking away their de facto monopoly.

    Microsoft wouldn't need to release their business plans 5 years into the future, and they would be encouraged to keep their software current in order to remain competitive with other products that could possibly be bundled by OEMs.

    Dancin Santa

    1. Re:It's a bad deal to begin with by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    2. Re:It's a bad deal to begin with by sheldon · · Score: 2

      So basically you agree with the settlement, you just have not read the settlement so you don't realize it?

      Maybe you should go read the section titled Prohibited Conduct. Pay attention to subsection A and G.

  15. Consumers never had a choice by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Pack in Linux instead of windows with every PC sold and users will be using Linux.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  16. Re:Political Reality strikes. by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

    This whole thing is about politics. And politics is all about money... I'd love to see a real breakdown of "campaign contribution" sources on both sides of the arguement.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  17. new remedy proposed by cbowland · · Score: 5, Funny

    This might be an acceptable remedy for all parties

    --

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
    Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"? by Orne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you look at politics, always trace the money trail.

    Why are some of the states not "signing on"? Perhaps they, like many of SlashDot's audience, are unhappy that Microsoft won't be paying out as much cash as hoped...

    States like Massachusetts depend a lot on tax money. Like it or not, it's a by-product of their liberal government style, big promises means big governement costs, and like businesses, government always passes its costs on to its "consumers", i.e. taxpayers. But, raising taxes is not "in vogue", so they are constantly scrambling to find other cash sources to pump their constituents full of pay-ou... err, entitlements.

    Here we have Microsoft, the ultimate Tech cash cow, and they did a BAD thing, so naturally our government stepped to punish them. We cheer that the government recognized that they were acting against market forces, but government is cheering for new-found cash...

    Compare this to the government's recent lawsuit on Big Tobacco. They lost, the people won, right? The corporations were forced to pay millions for bad advertisements, and that money was supposed to go to the states for education, right? Where did that money go? Studies show at most 10% of the states have actually created anti-smoking programs with the money, everyone else threw it into the "general fund" so they could pad their pet projects.

    Don't be surprised that some states are "holding out", just understand that they aren't doing it for the reasons you think.

    1. Re:Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"? by pagsz · · Score: 2

      While I'm not naive enough to believe that political motivations are pure, I don't quite see the lure of money in this one. In this proposed settlement (from the DOJ website) there is no mention of monetary fines. Now, if money were the only reason Mass. was holding out, wouldn't the other 17 states go "Oh, shit, we can make money off this? Why the hell are we signing this agreement?"

      That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.

      Proud to be an American from Massachusetts,

      --
      -- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
  20. Write the Attorney General in your state now. by fanatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Troll

      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.

      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.
    2. Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. by flatrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For someone with a username of fanatic, you seem to have actually spent some time comming up possible solutions, rather than just rants. I do have some comments on your solutions, which I've posted below.

      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.

      I think this is in the proposed settlement. I saw something about 3 outside auditors. They need to be there, since if you can't verify that the settlement is being implemented, then it isn't an effective solution.

      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.

      There would need to be provisions for bug and security fixes, so they could be implemented in less than 90 days, but this issue could likely be worked out as long as this can be monitored by a third party for compliance.

      3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).

      The trick part with this one will be internal APIs. Windows, like other OSs, uses internal APIs that are not intended to be exported to application or even driver developers. Hiding these APIs allows changes to be made to Windows without breaking outside developers code. These APIs exist so the the internal parts of the OS can communicate in a structured way, and are not meant for use by outside developers. Other people using those APIs would likely result in software breaking everytime Microsoft changed some inner working of Windows. There have already been enough examples of developers using functions that Microsoft did not consider to be part of a public API, and then the developers complaining whe Microsoft changed the API. The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.

      4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.

      I'm not sure the OEMs would like that very much. I think that they should have to share the details of such agreements with independent auditors, but OEMs don't want competitors to know details like what kind of volumes they are buying, or planning to buy from Microsoft. An alternate solution of having Microsoft have a fixed volume pricing schedule for all OEMs might be a more reasonable solution, though it wouldn't really be fair to void the current agreements Microsoft has made with OEMs (fair to the OEMs that is).

      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.

      I agree that OEMs should have the choice of selling "dual-boot" systems. I'm not sure that a lot of them will choose to do so because of increased support costs, but they should have the choice.
      The one problem I do see is that OEMs will sometimes bundle crappy software (because it was cheap). Microsoft should have some right to insist that it be obvious to the trained eye that the software isn't part of Windows. Microsoft does have a brand name to protect, and they should only have to suffer for the failures of their software. Otherwise they will have little encouragement to improve the quality of their own software. Their software is in need of some quality improvements, but they have been making some progress, and I would like to see that continue.

      6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.

      I agree that Microsoft shouldn't be able to disallow the use of software based on it's licensing.

      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.

      This is simply the prohibition of free speech. I can't support this remedy. Microsoft, and especially the people who make up Microsoft, have the right to speek their mind, and lobby for ligislation. Free speech is a constitutional right, and our government shouldn't even attempt to take that right away from anyone as a condition of a settlement in a civil case.

    3. Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. by fanatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    4. Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      You don't have to tell me about coal operators. I'm from eastern Kentucky, originally, I saw the neglect of Dow, Ashland Oil, and all the coal companies first hand. That's one of the main reasons I left - ever notice how everyone in the Ohio/Kanawha valleys seems to die of cancer?

      You have the right idea, though (but who the hell says it was a troll??)

  21. Re:It depends on the state leaders by pagsz · · Score: 2

    Well, the way it is right now, the Democrat states (and the ones more likely to reject the deal) are the Northeast (New England, New York) and California. These are also ares that are more heavily populated (and, to my knowledge) more tech-oriented. However, there does seem to be a chink in the armor: New York is planning to sign the agreement with some added restrictions on Microsoft, a source close to the deliberations said Monday. New York officials have been in touch with Microsoft and Justice Department lawyers, the source said.

    Also, the article mentioned that if the coalition breaks, tbe remaining states can either go on themselves or force the hand of the other states.

    You're right, it all comes down to the leaders. If other states join Massachusetts and hold out, they may be able to get a better deal done.

    On October 30, two interesting things happened: My Karma surpassed my IQ; and I got the +1 Bonus,

    --
    -- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
  22. Re:NY state previously said it would persue this by jeffy124 · · Score: 2

    i think you are correct. I do recall NY taking their own stance after some of MS's recent tactics that work against some companies in NY like Kodak or IBM.

    as for my Europe comment: I'm talking about how the EU wont take this case as lightly as Bush's administration suddenly is.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  23. _de jure_ monopoly by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2

    Actually it's a de jure monopoly now.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  24. Mass. is a Commonwealth! by flez · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...not a state. Get it right.

    (no, it doesn't really matter)

  25. Re:way to go by dlkf · · Score: 2

    That way, MS will see its cash reserves depleted

    I read somewhere recently that MS has upwards of $30 billion in cash reserves. Losing %60 of that would hurt, but would do nothing to change their behavior. Besides, they would never pay it out in a lump sum anyway. They would work something to pay it out over 5-10 years minimum. In the end, you would need something on the order of the tobacco settlement to really hurt MS financially and I doubt that will ever happen.

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Interesting commentary by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting commentary from macfixit.com on Microsoft's aggressiveness ever since the breakup remedy was thrown out:

    In recent weeks, we have seen Microsoft remove its support for Netscape extensions, forcing Apple to scramble to revise its QuickTime plug-in so that it would work with the Windows version of Explorer (and making us wonder if this also had something to do with Microsoft's desire to push its own Media Player format). At the same time, it omitted Java support from Window's Explorer [see previous item]. Then there is XP's reduced support for the MP3 format (again in favor of Microsoft's own alternative), plus the countless ways XP coerces you to MS-approved web sites [see this item]. Add to all of this the recent controversy over MS blocking access to MSN by web browsers other than Explorer (see next item). We could go on. But you get the point. Yes, it certainly appears that Microsoft has been humbled by this lawsuit.

    My take on the court case all along...

    Microsoft's defense: "No, Your Honor, we're not responsible for murdering the victim! We only pointed the gun towards him and pulled the trigger -- it was his fault that he wasn't strong enough to deal with that! Besides, he was someday eventually going to die anyway! And there's no point in punishing us now, since he's already dead."

    DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."

    1. Re:Interesting commentary by sheldon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Interesting commentary by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Yep. But it's a 4 year old JVM from '97. Sun has refused to allow Microsoft to maintain or update it such that it's compliant with anything newer.

      The point was, the complaints about this issue were FUD, pure and simple. It's a case of Sun claiming victory in the battle, but losing the war and then whining about it.

    3. Re:Interesting commentary by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Funny
      DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."

      No no- you mean:

      DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never t... no... no, we're going to punish you by saying publically that it would be nice if everybody was nice, not implying that YOU aren't nice or anything, okay?"

      "Here- have another gun."

    4. Re:Interesting commentary by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Sorry. Whenever I think of those whiny bastards over at Sun my blood boils.

      I'll try to be more positive in the future.

    5. Re:Interesting commentary by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Ahh, allow me to repeat my point.

      FUD may very well be subjective.

      But the objective fact is that Windows XP does not have reduced support for MP3's.

      Your argument was based off a series of claims, with a conclusion that because all of these claims were true then this was the result. I merely pointed out that not just one but many of your claims were factually incorrect, from a purely objective viewpoint. Even if you only agreed with one of the claims being incorrect, you cannot therefore conclude that the sum of those claims arrives at the same conclusion. Unless you are being subjective, that is.

      The problem is, and the reason why the statement is FUD, is because, in fact, all of the claims have to be taken from a purely subjective point of view in order to arrive at the conclusion suggested.

      I guess the point is. Don't try to be objective by being subjective.

  28. I think you're missing the point... by Sam+Gibson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Neural Nets in Python
    1. Re:I think you're missing the point... by donutello · · Score: 2

      You obviously have no clue about how the criminal justice system works.

      The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal. Even in criminal law you have plea bargains where the defendant will plead guilty to the crime in exchange for a favorable sentence. Law enforcement gets to save the cost of a trial as well as avoid the uncertainty of being unable to prove the case.

      It's the same situation here: The DoJ wants to save the cost of the trial and avoid the risk. It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free. Here they're cutting a deal.

      So while you in your narrow mind have already found MS guilty and decided on the sentence, other people go by things like facts, evidence, what you can prove, etc.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    2. Re:I think you're missing the point... by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Um, the facts aren't contested. Almost all of Jackson's Findings of Fact were upheld, and well they should be as they were thoroughly realistic.

      I'm afraid me in my narrow mind, as well as a full en banc panel of the Court of Appeals, have all found MS guilty. There just isn't going to be a sentence because our government is corrupt and stupid, meaning that the only chance of not effectively being dominated by Microsoft forever is to resort to terrorism. That really sucks. Aren't we trying to fight a war on terrorism? What possible good can there be about showing the government is corrupt and useless and will not protect its own people? It's as good as saying, "if you don't want Microsoft to rule you, YOU fight them". Forget law, forget economic leverage: you have to fight them yourself, against the vast spectrum of dirty tricks and extortionist behaviors they've reduced to business as usual. Fight them _alone_. Have fun! Curl up and die!

      If I was given to praying for things, I would pray that our government does not hand us Americans and the rest of the world this Bill of goods. It's seriously well established that you can't compete with Microsoft using anything resembling normal, healthy business practices. They're just too vicious and will do anything, and they want total control- if you play nice, they steamroller you. The only reason there _is_ any choice at all out there is because humans can be contrary- and even this could be flattened in future years. It could be _illegal_ to not use Microsoft for everything, and there will be people still taking MS's side even at that extreme.

      I want somebody _appropriate_ to take _appropriate_ action about this. If it's left to ill-funded, desperate individuals, those individuals will be _forced_ into terrorism: either sending anthrax to MS employees (this has already happened!) or tearing hell out of MS's technical infrastructure and laying waste to MS customers while MS yawns and does nothing.

      The only counter to terrorism is justice- throwing out justice in this situation is a painfully bad idea. Do they think this is a game? Have they been drinking MS koolaid and secretly believe the best kind of market is one where you can only get one thing and there's no competition? That there is no employer but Microsoft, no wealth but Microsoft, and having Microsoft keep all the money is the best thing for the country and the economy?

      Christ! Furrfu!

      Sorry: since the news of the proposed settlement I haven't been as patient with tripe-minded pedantic MS apologists as I ought to be :P

    3. Re:I think you're missing the point... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2

      The key difference is that the defendant here hasn't been found "guilty" beyond all appeal. ... It's _possible_ that if they fought the case, the previous ruling might get overturned and MS let off scot free.

      What are you talking about? The trial is over. The only reason the courts are still involved is to hand down a new sentence (or, more properly, a new remedy). Microsoft already appealed to both the Appellate and Supreme Courts. The worst Microsoft could do at this point is appeal the new remedy, which would only revert them to the same state they are in now (guilty, but unpunished).

      Please enlighten me as to how Microsoft has the right to appeal either the findings or verdict after already doing so.

    4. Re:I think you're missing the point... by Datafage · · Score: 2

      Ok, let Microsoft say what it thinks is a fair punishment. If this is less than what the court gives, ignore it.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

  29. slow to respond by n-baxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I sent an email to each of the State's Attorneys General indicating that I was opposed to the new settelment agreement and that I urged them not to sign. I sent the letter on Thursday, and aside form a couple of automatic replys, Florida was the only state to get back to me with a real answer. While it may have been an MS form letter, it at least addressed the issues, and didn't just tell me that they had recieved my email. I know email doesn't always get read in government, but I was pleased to see that Florida is taking a different approach. I'm including my mail and their response here.

    ME:
    Greetings,
    I am a not resident of Florida, but I wanted to send my
    support for your case against Microsoft. I think that
    the proposed settlement does not go far enough, and
    that harsher restrictions need to be made against
    Microsoft, and that particular attention needs to be
    brought to bear on the newly released Operating
    System, Windows XP. Please accept my support of your
    work thusfar on this case, and continue to do the good
    work you have been doing. Your work is much
    appreciated in the technical community.

    Nate Baxley



    THEM:
    Thank you for taking the time to email the Florida Attorney General's Office regarding our involvement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. As you may be aware, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently upheld a federal trial court's finding that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly.

    One of the many duties of the Florida Attorney General's Office is to enforce Florida's consumer protection laws, which require us to protect the consuming public and legitimate businesses from those who engage in "unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices" in commerce. (Section 501.202(2), Florida Statutes) The Attorney General is also authorized to bring actions to protect consumers against violations of state and federal antitrust laws.

    In accordance with our statutory duties and the recent Court of Appeals decision, we are currently working with the federal government and other states to reach an acceptable settlement to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations. Our overriding goal in this effort is to restore healthy competition to the marketplace so that Microsoft can no longer use its clout to illegally impose its will on consumers and would-be competitors. The trial court has given all sides until today to reach a resolution with a mediator. If no settlement can be reached at that time, we will prepare for a trial that would start next March. We remain hopeful that a settlement can be reached, and will do everything we can to find a resolution that protects the interests of Florida consumers.

    Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated and will be considered as we enter the remedy phase of United States v. Microsoft. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.

    --

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT
    1. Re:slow to respond by n-baxley · · Score: 2

      Just thought I'd update this with a letter that I recieved from the North Carolina AG. It's below:

      Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:37:24 -0500
      From: "Susan Moore" smmoore@mail.jus.state.nc.us
      To: XXXX
      Subject: Microsoft

      Dear Mr. Baxley:
      Thank you for your letter concerning the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I appreciate deeply your opinion on this important matter.

      I have decided that it is in the best interest of North Carolina consumers to enter into a court-approved settlement which would provide more protections for Microsoft?s competitors and therefore more benefits to consumers.

      With this agreement, we have been able to obtain more safeguards to provide more competition with internet service products such as streaming audio and video. In addition, we have provided more protections for non-Windows software manufacturers. Finally, North Carolina and other states have reserved the right to enforce this agreement if Microsoft does not live up to it.

      This has been a very difficult and complicated case. Rapid and ever-changing advances in technology make application of our antitrust laws difficult. Nevertheless, I believe this agreement will help promote more competition and help protect the consumers of North Carolina.

      Thanks again for your input. I hope you will continue to contact me on other issues which are of interest to you.
      Roy Cooper

      --

      THIS SPACE FOR RENT
  30. Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem! by hey! · · Score: 2

    "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty."

    So, some day we will have a software industry that is not dominated by lawsuits, but it won't be by unilateral disarmament.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  31. Re:Such BULLSHIT! by praxim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll sacrifice my karma for this one:

    Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of.

    Mandrake- I haven't used Mandrake, but I've used Slack, Debian (potato and woody), RedHat, and Caldera, and I'll tell you that not one of them is ready for the home desktop.

    Linux in general- Even if the OS came pre-installed on a desktop box, the average home user will most likely not be able to install any new software. If they're lucky enough to find the program they want via Red Carpet, they have to hope that it was put into the proper menu (and why, the user will ask, do I have to have a root password to install this? WTF _is_ a root password, anyway?)
    As a matter of fact, I just upgraded my printconf via RC this weekend and was confused as hell when my printer wouldn't work afterwards. It turns out that my /etc/printcap file was copied to printcap.old. Go ahead and tell your grandmother that she has to go into a shell (a what?) and type this:

    cp /etc/printcap.old /etc/printcap.local
    /etc/init.d/lpd restart

    Just to get her printer working again. It's not going to happen.
    I hate to use these examples, but anyone who thinks that Linux is ready for the average home user that doesn't _want_ to know anything about their computer needs to hop on down to a PC retailer and check out OSX and WinXP. These two OSes are on the right track, or at least far more so than any Linux GUI project to date.

  32. OT -- State funding for Linux in Europe by Derwen · · Score: 2
    OK, sorry for the bad etiquette in replying to my own post but I've just been sent a press release on the subject of government funding which is a good example of European states supporting Linux

    ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
    Subject: kmLinux-2.1.1 - New version of German Linux distribution for schools released
    Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 11:23:35 +0100

    http://www.lernnetz-sh.de/kmLinux
    kmLinux is a complete Linux distribution for schools. It is in development by the Landesbildungsserver Schleswig-Holstein http://www.lernnetz-sh.de (a govermental organization of the Bundesstaat Schleswig-Holstein) in close cooperation with the Verein Freie Software und Bildung e.V. http://fsub.schule.de (Union for Free Software and Education). kmLinux is very simple to install. In a single automatically done installation process not only the operating system will be installed but a lot of useful software and documentation too. The whole system is preconfigured as far as possible.

    kmLinux comes with a new installer which is able to automatically resize an existing windows partition (fat16/32). The software collection is very uptodate: kernel-2.4.12, XFree-4.1.0, KDE-2.2.1 (objprelink), kOffice-1.1, StarOffice-6.0beta, gimp-1.2.2 and Mozilla-0.9.5

    More (german) information you will find on the new kmLinux-Homepage http://www.lernnetz-sh.de/kmLinux . kmLinux is free! Under ftp://fsub.schule.de/pub/fsub/kmLinux you will find a ready to burn iso-image.
    --

    _______________________________________
    Landesbildungsserver Schleswig-Holstein
    Projektleiter OpenSource
    Klaus-Dieter Moeller
    kdmoeller@lernnetz-sh.de

    I did say it was OT, but what the hell - mod me down anyway ;-P

    - Derwen

    --
    http://fsfeurope.org/
  33. 3 cheers for capitalism! by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't want the government to force M$oft to clean up its act.
    I mean, it might work, and then we'd be stuck with this desktop monopoly for the forseeable future.
    I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame.
    But a consent decree, that M$ will of course subvert or ignore as they have all previous such, should be a good thing.
    It'll inspire more people to work towards a better alternative, and better alternatives will encourage non-techies to get off the monopoly teat.
    --Charlie

    PS- Be kind, I forgot my asbestos underwear today.
    --C

    1. Re:3 cheers for capitalism! by prizog · · Score: 2

      "I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame."

      War is Peace
      Freedom is Slavery
      Ignorance is Strength
      Monopolies Create Competition

      --
      Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
  34. Re:way to go by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 2, Informative

    derail the U.S. economy to the tune of several billion dollars a year

    The GDP of the United States is 9.3 trillion dollars. May I inquire how a few billion dollars will derail the economy?

    kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support

    Could that be due to a monopoly in said software field, I wonder?

    put thousands of people out of work

    Now, THAT's a good reason to keep Microsoft around... not!


    You'd think that the antitrust suits against the steel industry, the railroad industry, AT&T, IBM, etc. would teach you something...

    --
    Bush Lies Watch
  35. Re:I think the settlement should be accepted, by Flower · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Minnesota attorney general's number by melquiades · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  38. CA and NY are key by shibut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:CA and NY are key by call+-151 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The contact info for the NYS attorney general Eliot Spitzer is at this link. If you are a New York resident, call and register your concern about going along with the settlement.

      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.
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Obviously... by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, since it's Massachussetts, obviously the well-funded lobbyists from Ximian are exerting some influence here. For as we know, Ximian is an extremely powerful megacorporation -- one of the few software powerhouses big enough to take on Microsoft. They have a lot of highly paid lawyers and lobbyists, and as a result they are very influential towards their state government.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Re:Punish the Crime by sheldon · · Score: 2

    BWaaaahahahaha!

    I can see it now.

    Customer: I don't understand this. I specifically ordered this system with Windows XP to be loaded on it. Why isn't Windows XP on it?

    Dell rep: I'm sorry, but your machine shipped towards the end of the day and we had reached our quota for Windows XP. So we decided to install a substitute operating system.

    Customer: But I didn't want AOL X! I don't even use AOL as my ISP. I can't do anything with this computer now! I'm sending it back!

    Dell rep: Sorry, we don't offer refunds. The choice of your OS has been mandated by the Government. If you don't like it, talk to your State Attorney General.

    Customer: ARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

  43. Re:way to go by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

    Feh. Linux has easily as many human beings supporting its core OS as Microsoft has developers period. (Granted, this doesn't count the loads of third party Windows developers, or the non-developer Windows users, but still...) The economy will keep ticking along just fine even with a several billion dollar a year hit, and those thousands of people can easily find work supporting already deployed Windows applications.

    The only people who will be irreparably damaged will be the top executives and other investors of Microsoft - since Microsoft has already been found guilty, irreparable harm is legally justified - and those who place excessive faith in said company - "excessive faith" of the type that causes ongoing untold damage (such as relying on IIS to be a stable, secure Web server). Hopefully, damage to the latter group would be less than the self-inflicted damage that this action would help stop.

  44. Write letters!! by matty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's much more effective to write letters. I've heard that many politicians mostly ignore email, unless they get a huge volume from unique addresses.

    The hand-written word carries a good deal more influence. Take the time to lick a stamp and mail out a physical letter, and it will carry more weight.

    P.S. I just realized that this post might sound like an insult to mjh. It's not. Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.

    1. Re:Write letters!! by meldroc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
    2. Re:Write letters!! by Reckless+Visionary · · Score: 2
      Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.

      While I agree that this dounds logical, it simply wasn't true in the congressional office I worked in. Emails and letters were tallied and responded to (by letter) in exactly the same manner. Of course only constituent emails and letters with valid addresses in the constituency were counted.

      --
      I think I'll stop here.
    3. Re:Write letters!! by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Yea, if you want it to get incenerated. Fax it, just as professional. None of the hazards.

    4. Re:Write letters!! by mpe · · Score: 2

      It's much more effective to write letters. I've heard that many politicians mostly ignore email, unless they get a huge volume from unique addresses.

      Except that right this now the US postal system is in a mess, with it being quite likely that any mail sent to a politican is first being screened by the FBI.

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Microsoft not out of the woods by matty · · Score: 2

    Not by a long shot.

    Wired has an article about the settlement allowing dual-boots. An addition at the end says that Senator Pat Leahy intends to have Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to review the settlement.

    Also, the EU is still going forward with its investigation

    Finally, Sun is mulling the possibility of a civil lawsuit of its own.

  47. Ximian powerful enough to take on MS?!?!? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    Are you crazy? Ximian doesnt even have 1 billion dollars in the bank. They are a very small company, millions sure, but Microsoft has more like 100 billion.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  48. I think you have it backwards by hey! · · Score: 2

    Having a monopoly is illegal. Once you have the monopoly, exclusive contracts and bundling become illegal.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:I think you have it backwards by PoiBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having a per se monopoly is not illegal, and in some industries a monopolistic market is the only economically viable alternative. For example, because of high fixed costs, electric utilities are granted a government-sponsored monopoly to sell in their respective markets.

      Far more important to regulators is the manner in which the monopoly power was obtained. If I compete in a perfectly fair, competitive manner and my rivals fail only through their own mismanagement or other failure, the monopoly power was obtained legally. If, however, I use anticompetitive behavior such as exclusionary dealing, bundling, and other techniques, then I have obtained monopoly power illegally.

      MS has committed criminal acts and therefore is subject to penalties. One part of any settlement should therefore impose large fines on MS for their past actions. The second issue the final resolution must address is how the monopoly will be regulated in the future.

      In short, any serious resolution must address two issues: punishing them for prior criminal behavior and controlling their monopoly power in the future. Fines alone will not do much against monopoly power, and publishing API and other technical specifications does not impose a real penalty for past behavior.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  49. No. by mikeee · · Score: 2

    Hey, this is the same approach CA is using to push electric cars, so maybe they'll go for it!

    However, you are confused.

    Bundling is not a crime. Exclusive contracts are not a crime. They got in trouble for being a monopoly.

    Exclusive contracts and bundling are a crime if you're a monopoly. Being a monopoly is perfectly legal.

  50. BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready. by Erris · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Go ahead and tell your grandmother that she has to go into a shell (a what?) and type this:
    cp /etc/printcap.old /etc/printcap.local
    /etc/init.d/lpd restart

    Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead? Perhaps granny should just have a backdoored system so that the helpful ISP admin can fix it for her, and everyone else can use her as a warez site? Granny is going to need help, and I'm not going to chase that Windoze crap for her. Man files, text configs and what not that don't change each time M$ needs additional income or wants to break some other program are so much easier.

    Oh yeah, my wife calls the shell "the foot" because Red Hat gave her a button for gnome terminal emulator. She has come to understand the concept of a root account. Forced to do a little for herself, she is getting good at it. Neither of us can make 98 work our printer anymore, but it works just fine under Red Hat. The rest of my machines run Debian. Nothing could be finer or easier. Be gone, Troll.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  51. Re:Punish the Crime by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    They got in trouble for being a monopoly.

    BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's your lovely parting gift.

    MS did not get in trouble for being a monopoly -- that's perfectly legal. They got in trouble for abuse of said monopoly... using their monopoly in the OS space to obtain a second monopoly.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  52. Re:Amen to thaReat.... by dcgaber · · Score: 2, Informative

    In actuality, they reversed breakup not on the merits, but for lack of hearings on remedy (one of two big mistakes that Judge Jackson made). They never took break-up off the table, just required a strong showing in hearings that break-up was justified, something they may have said was difficult, but allowed for.

    Further, Read their rejection of MS' appeal on tying and motion to stay pending Supreme COurt action on Petition for Cert. They specificall said that NO REMEDIES WERE PRECLUDED from their June decision.

  53. Why would they return? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    Did they return windowsXP because XP was new?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  54. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Arandir · · Score: 2

    What is not legal is using monopoly power to gain a competitive advantage.

    I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. Next time I'll use a sledgehammer.

    What bugs me about the antitrust laws is that justice is turned on it's head. The blindfolds have been taken off of Lady Justice, so that she now says "tell me who you are and I will tell you what laws you must follow". Seeking a competitive advantage is a natural, legal, ethical and moral course of action for companies, unless you have been declared a monopoly.

    I am a firm believer that laws should apply to everyone equally. If something is illegal for you, it should also be illegal for your congressman, and if your congressman has a special legal priviledge, then you should have it as well. Likewise, if a action is legal if performed by Sun, IBM, Apple, or the ISP down the street, then it should be also legal for Microsoft.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  55. Re:Punish the Crime by 47PHA60 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that you got it wrong. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly. That is a finding of fact. Being a monopoly is not, by itself, illegal.

    Microsoft was found guilty of illegally mainaining its monopoly status. That is a finding of law, in other words, it's the crime of which they are guilty.

    It is possible to find that my company holds a monopoly in its market, but that I have done nothing illegal to maintain that monopoly. In that case, my company is not guilty. This is not what happened in the MS case.

    The Appeals Court did not, in any way, overturn the findings of fact, nor fault with the findings of law (the verdict). It only overturned the remedy, because the remedy may have come out of personal bias on the part of the judge. The Court did not say that another judge without bias could not find the same remedy appropriate.

    Another example: it is legal for me to bundle products if my company is not a monopoly; it would be difficult to prove that I am using a bundled browser to give my OS an unfair advantage in the market. If I held an OS monopoly, however, it could be proven that my browser has an unfair, unearned advantage because I bundle it with my OS.

    A company with a monopoly must be much more careful about bundling, because the rules that it must follow are different than those for other companies, and bundling, api-hiding, and so forth are tools that MS uses to leverage their OS monopoly to kill competing browsers, media players, or office suites.

    That, to my understanding, is the spirit of the law. There is a reason convicted criminals get up on the stand and apologize at sentencing; they want to get a lighter sentence. MS could have admitted that their actions were in line with Jackson's findings, but it was that refusal to do so (and evidence tampering, and lying in depositions) that made Jackson think that MS had repeatedly put its interests above the law. If he had not granted interviews with the press (a judge is really not supposed to talk with reporters about cases, ever), his ruling might have stood, because it would have been harder to prove bias. In a jury trial, a judge has to keep from laughing and so forth, but with no jury but himself, a judge can snicker when a defendant lies and that alone is not grounds for overturning his findings.

  56. Re:Such BULLSHIT! by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    "Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of."

    Your msg is biased, you refuse to accept any linux thats like windows, However the only linux to actually be useable by the average user must be like windows. DUH!

    Lindows will do just fine, its better than windows, yet it runs windows files, this is what people want, people dont care about GNU or linux, they just want something better than what they have yet still runs their files.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  57. Re: AG contact info for NY and Calif. by call+-151 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The contact info for the NYS attorney general Eliot Spitzer is at this link. If you are a New York resident, call and register your concern about going along with the settlement.

    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.
  58. Also by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    What stops Lindows or another linux from being commandline free? completely gui?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  59. Re:Such BULLSHIT! by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

    You show me just one granny that can configure a printer or install a program under Windoze and I'll show you 10,000 that can't. The whole linux vs. windows debate for the "average" user is a mute point. The "average" user can't use either one properly. We need to sell linux to "average" tech support!

    --
    The Anti-Blog
  60. Re:It depends on the state leaders by n8_f · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How about instead of using the Gallup wording (see bottom of post), using:
    As you may know, last year, a district court judge found that Microsoft was a monopoly and had illegally used its monopoly power to harm competitors. This past Thursday, an appeals court upheld the judge's findings, but ruled the judge had unfair bias in his proposed remedy.

    What do you think the federal government should do now -- [ROTATED: allow Microsoft to go unpunished for its illegal behavior, seek a settlement with Microsoft, or go forward with the case against Microsoft in front of a new judge] -- or don't you have an opinion on this matter?
    I'm guessing the result of that poll would be quite different. I think the Gallup wording was biased towards Microsoft by omitting that MICROSOFT WAS CONVICTED OF ABUSING MONOPOLY POWER! Say what you will, the fact is they were found guilty and the appeals court upheld those findings. To let them off now would be to make a mockery of our justice system. What is the point in convicting people if there are no consequences to being convicted?

    The original wording for the Gallup poll was:
    As you may know, last year, a district court judge ruled that Microsoft should be split into two companies. This past Thursday, an appeals court overturned the ruling and ordered the whole case sent to a different judge, because the original judge had been biased against Microsoft.

    What do you think the federal government should do now -- [ROTATED: drop the case against Microsoft altogether, seek a settlement with Microsoft, or go forward with the case against Microsoft in front of a new judge] -- or don?t you have an opinion on this matter?
  61. IE and JVM by melquiades · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:IE and JVM by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Where's my check?

      I would have to say that you are the one who is logically bankrupt if you can't imagine why someone might disagree with you.

  62. Sounds Right to Me by krmt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're right, that there's no reason for MS not to include a JVM in their system. It wouldn't be that hard to retrofit their old VM, and remove the offending parts, or just not call it a JVM and simply include it as is. The fact is, .net is their attack on the whole Java platform, and by not including a JVM at all they're heavily leaning their favor towards .net. Not that I blame them necessarily, but in all reality a JVM is a critical part of the modern web browser (which they claim is a critical part of the modern OS) and as such, it should be included.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    1. Re:Sounds Right to Me by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I don't believe the claim that JVM is a critical part of the modern web browser.

      Now Flash... that I can see. I encounter far more(by a factor of 100x) flash enabled web sites than sites using Java.

      Sun should either pay Microsoft to bundle their JVM, or Sun should start a marketing campaign to encourage people to download and install their JVM. If it's really that important of an issue, I'm sure Sun would be more than willing to address it with action instead of whining.

  63. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  64. Maybe Not... by krmt · · Score: 2

    They may not have a billion dollars, but they have a billion stuffed monkeys! Their cuteness will eradicate all!

    Touch the monkey...

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  65. Re:BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready. by Tachys · · Score: 2

    Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead?

    I wouldn't ever have to have to tell her how to hack her binary registry

  66. In an unrelated story... by Lonath · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Business Software Alliance announced that it is beginning an investigation into possible software license violations within Massachussetts State government offices. The BSA was supposedly tipped off by a former employee who spoke about "rampant IP and copyright violations at all levels of government." The BSA has withheld judgement on this subject, but "will be performing a full audit of all licenses and computers in the government's possession."

    --
    Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
  67. Great until monetary reality strikes by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    Folks,

    While the State of Massachusetts think they can take on Microsoft on its own, I think they may have to rethink the whole idea when reality hits: the state may not have the financial resources to continue the case on its own.

    Remember, the DoJ hired a good number of private lawyers at US$300 to US$500 per hour costs to assist on US v. Microsoft--because it can afford to. Are the states willing to foot that type of bill--especially when these lawyers will probably need many hundreds of hours to work on the case? Several commentators on C|Net have expressed much doubt that individual states to going to do this, because the state's citizens may consider this expenditure a major waste of government money.

  68. But can CA and NY afford the case? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    shibut,

    I think both California and New York will sign off in the agreement with this reason: they cannot afford to continue the case on its own.

    Remember, with the California economy in the dumps and New York hard hit by the effects of 9/11, these two states may not have the financial resources to continue the legal case against Microsoft. Not when you have to hire lawyers at US$300-US$500/hour and they having to work many hundreds of hours on the case--legal costs that will quickly run into the many millions of US dollars in short order.

    The Department of Justice is big enough that DoJ could afford these high-priced attorneys to assist DoJ's own lawyers; without DoJ support, the individual states don't have the money to continue the case.

    1. Re:But can CA and NY afford the case? by thogard · · Score: 2

      How about the large software development base in Utah? Remember Novel and Word Perfect? At one time they were both in the top 10 largest compaines paying taxes in Utah.

      MS (thanks in part to the large number of good schools in the state) has has a large number of software startups. Many of them went on to do things that were bundled with Windows and are now no more.

      How about Microware in Iowa. One time the size of M$ but with stable products. They happen to be be growing but aren't in the same business they had been in which would put them in the cross hairs of M$. They do make software for set top boxes and thats clearly an area that M$ is using its traditional methods to get into.

      How about Datastorm in Missouri. Once M$ bundled a comms package they lost all their business. Ever look into the details of them including hyperterm? No one in the industry had a choice and M$ used their monopoly to their advantage.

      I'm sure other people could supply quite a list of compaines that were rolled over my M$.

      The M$ monopoly is costing jobs all over the US (and the world).

    2. Re:But can CA and NY afford the case? by leviramsey · · Score: 2
      MS (thanks in part to the large number of good schools in the state) has has a large number of software startups. Many of them went on to do things that were bundled with Windows and are now no more.


      Mississippi has good schools? What crack are you smoking?



      Or are you talking about Massachusetts, which has the postal abbreviation MA?



      Then again, for boat registrations, Massachusetts' code is MS...

  69. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    "Seeking a competitive advantage is a natural, legal, ethical and moral course of action for companies, unless you have been declared a monopoly. "

    You must have weird sense of ethics and morals. I can think of no religion which advocates seeking a competitive advantage. I take that back satanism does.

    Alas most business people tend to abandon their moral and ethical upbringing the minute they form a business and live a life of satanism. They start worshipping money and the mindless accumulation thereof and try to cloak in some some moral imperitive even though their religion warns them against a life of chasing money.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  70. It could have been fixed but it won't ever be. by thogard · · Score: 2

    Right now there is only one company selling operating systems (keep in mind that every one else is in the hardware game, owned by M$ or just selling media).

    The only way to stop this is to force that company into two or more parts (since they have two or more OS's). According to judge Jackson, this is the worst case since Standard Oil. Remember what happend there? The company was chopped into 20 small sections that each had to compete with themselves. Its why you can buy fuel from someone other than Standard Oil. I think that MS should be chopped into several smaller compaines based on their producs such as MS Word, MS Excel, MS XP, MS ME, Wince. The others such as the games can get thrown in with the rest or its own games company. The hardware section must not go to a company involved with the OS. I don't think the courts or the justace deptarment (or state's AG) undstand how deep the MS monopoly goes until they propose a settlement that fixes the core problems and I don't think they will. The only settlement proposals I have seen will do nothing to allow new compaines to compete aginst the now strong MS product lines and there aren't many of the old compaines left to try.

  71. Perhaps, but by einhverfr · · Score: 2

    Keep in mind that the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ does not involve any punitive actions. Microsoft is free to profit from its illegal gains. I think a heavy fine isn't only useful, but necessary -- especially if the fine is paid to the companies who were hurt, and they use it to compete against Microsoft.

    Look at Caldera. They made a lot of money by buying DR-DOS, then suing MS, and then selling DR-DOS to Lineo.... Look where it got them-- lots of money and no market.

    Throwing money at competitors of Microsoft may hurt them more than help. This settlement is dangerous to EVERYBODY because it opens up a possible easy way to get money from Microsoft. This hurts Microsoft, but could hurt many plaintifs as well. This current "tag, you're guilty" settlement really does nothing to mitigate the liability that Microsoft has acrued because of its monopoly status. A breakup would be FAR less damaging in the long run...

    But on the bright side, it may allow future competitors an edge...

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  72. Re: VA Attorney General by segfault7375 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you live in Virginia (and many geeks do) your AG is Randolph Beales. Here is the contact information for his office:

    Snail Mail:
    Office of the Attorney General
    900 East Main Street
    Richmond, VA 23219

    Website:
    http://www.oag.state.va.us/

    Phone:
    (804)786-2071
    (804) 371-8946 TDD

    Email:
    mail@oag.state.va.us

    Cheers,
    Segfault

  73. Contact the DoJ via Email by Kaya · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  74. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Arandir · · Score: 2

    There is a special class of laws for corporations that everyone else doesn't have to follow.

    My point is that I want objective law. If there is to be a class of law that applies to corporate entities, then that law should be uniformly applied to all corporate entities regardless of size.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  75. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Arandir · · Score: 2

    Competition is not evil. Take a foot race for example (check the writings of Saint Paul for more on competitive foot races). It is not evil to train for the race. It is not evil to try to be faster than the other guy. It is not evil to fail to slow down when you are winning. And it is not evil to win.

    What *is* evil is to deliberately hinder the other racers. Tripping your opponent is evil. Slipping exlax into his gatorade is evil. Greasing his baton is evil.

    A competitive advantage does not have to be something negative imposed on your competitor. If there is something that will improve your business performance without hindering your competitors, there is nothing immoral about using it as an advantage.

    I don't know of any religion that says, fast people should not compete in the 100 meter, strong people should not compete in greco-roman wresting, and tall people should not compete in basketball.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  76. One quibble by YuppieScum · · Score: 2

    There were selling something which was like Java

    Just a minot quibble, but the were not selling it, they were giving it away...

    I'm not saying this was right, just pursuing accuracy...

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  77. Re:It depends on the state leaders by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
    Do you have any idea how damning a 17% unfavorable opinion is, or how pathetic a 60% favorable opinion is? That's not normal.

    The _normal_ response to such inquiries is basically a nodding of the head and 'fine, fine'... How do you like Ford? *nod* 'fine, fine'... How do you like Pepsi, Nestle, Craftsman? *nod, nod* 'oh, they're fine...'

    You have a lot to learn about marketing and opinion polling. Read that as "forty percent of people polled didn't nod their heads and blandly like Microsoft". Forty percent. That's a huge amount of animosity, and it is well and fairly earned over the course of many years- in spite of continual, loud, desperate PR offensives the whole time.

  78. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    "I don't know of any religion that says, fast people should not compete in the 100 meter, strong people should not compete in greco-roman wresting, and tall people should not compete in basketball."

    We are not talking about a foot race. Nor are we talking about competition in the abstract sense. What we are talking about is abandoning your sense of right and wrong and being influenced by money.

    The top 4 religions (christianity, islam, judaism, and budhism) all advocate a life of simplicity and charity. None of them advocates a life dedicated to accumulation of money and all of them warn that wealth is not compatible with moral behaviour. How many times did Christ speak out against accumulation of wealth?

    Only satanism advocates that the act of accumulation of wealth and power is a virtue and not a sin.

    BTW I guess you agree that MS is evil because they "deliberately hinder other racers". Even according to your definition of evil they are immoral.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  79. My thoughts on the settlement-- Don't like it by einhverfr · · Score: 2

    Most of you know me from my Linux Advocacy posts... Won't it surprise you to see me defend Microsoft here ;) Yet, I cannot defend this settlement which really has the potential to do a world of hurt to everybody.

    Microsoft touts the DoJ signing off on this settlement as a great victory. However, it is not that simple. They would be admitting to guilt (try appealing a settlement in order to get the major remaining pieces of the Findings of Fact reversed) while there are many emboldened opponents which would love to get some cash off of Microsoft's misfortune.

    Look at Caldera today. Theiy face delisting ($0.23 cents per share), and they made sizable abbount of their money off their settlement with Microsoft. However, rather than concentrate on building their Business (by increasing the numbers of their customers), they chose to get some cash off Microsoft by buying DR DOS, suing MSFT and sellign DR-DOS to Lineo as soon as it was settled. That left Caldera in a situation with money, but few customers. Sort of like Anazon. And it is hard to build a business when capital and clientele are too imballanced one way or the other.

    If this settlement were to come through, it could therefore hurt Microsoft's competitors as much as Microsoft. Although Microsoft could become immobilized due to their liability, suit-happy competitors could quickly dig their own graves. This is NOT good for anyone. Even pragmatic competitors who do not want to sue may be dragged down in the market if they are publically owned.

    We need a settlement which imposes real restrictions on Microsoft but avoid relying on the lawsuits as law-enforcement. Or a judgement giving us this. This settlement is basically "You are guilty. We will monitor you, and you will agree to keep up the good work" agreement which will damage everyone involved way too much.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  80. XP MP3 : Play - yes; rip - well... by Samrobb · · Score: 2

    Yep. It plays MP3's just fine. However, if you want to create MP3's, you need to purchase or download additional software.

    Compare that with the fact that XP will allow you to rip CD tracks to WMA files without additional software, and it looks an awful lot like MS is doing their best to use their operating system monopoly to promote a completely seperate proprietary technology (WMA) at the expense of a competitor (MP3).

    Which just happens to be what the whole DOJ hearings were supposed to be about.

    --
    "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  81. Re:Such BULLSHIT! by mpe · · Score: 2

    You show me just one granny that can configure a printer or install a program under Windoze and I'll show you 10,000 that can't. The whole linux vs. windows debate for the "average" user is a mute point.

    As is "ease of installation", since average users don't install operating systems...

    The "average" user can't use either one properly. We need to sell linux to "average" tech support!

    Or more likely computer illiterate managers, who like to make decisions around a brandname, which they'd never get away with in any other area.

  82. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    Although Buddhism is the belief system I most respect, I have a feeling that Hindus outnumber the Buddhists.

    Also, how much do you make a year, and would you like to share some of it with me? I make very little money. We wouldn't want that accumulation of wealth hindering your ascent into grace, now would we?

  83. Re:WHAT! by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    Yes, it is. Now are you going to back up your statement, or just keep us guessing?

  84. Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    I make a ton of money when compared to you but a pittance when compared to Bill Gates. Alas I am an atheist and don't believe in god. So for me I have no qualms making money and hoarding to myself.

    --

    War is necrophilia.