Slashdot Mirror
MS Settlement: Six States (And Samba) Say "Stop!"
Masem writes "The BBC is reporting that because 6 states have refused to agree to the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ, Microsoft is conceeding that a settlement adjustment will not be possible, opening the door for Judge Kollar-Kotelly to begin rapid remedy hearings. There is a slim chance that negotiations might happen before the end of business today (Tuesday) that will allow the settlement to go after several refinements over the last few nights, but few expect any success. While Judge Kollar-Kotelly is promising to resolve the issue as fast as possible, legal experts are projecting a drawn out battle, with the additional time no longer on Microsoft's side. No word on which states were on which side, beyond MA being very much against the settlement and IL being for it." Besides the states, the Samba team has its own objections, below.
Jeremy Allison and Andrew Tridgell of the Samba team have posted a brief analysis of what the current settlement proposal would mean to that project. (Thanks, jdfox.) Considering that Samba is one of the most important links between open and closed software, it's worth mulling over.
The Samba team should get this statement transformed into legal-brief-ese and submit it to the judge in the case. This (plus the DMCA/SSSCA gotcha's hidden elsewhere in the proposed settlement) hits the core of the weakness of the proposed settlement.
sPh
The geek community has been quick to organize protests in favor of Dmitry Skylarov -- why not protest the DoJ caving to Microsoft. Even people who *like* Microsoft products have been saying that they don't like the corporate behavior of MS.
Ashcroft and Bush are far too eager to let them off easy. I think that Microsoft should get much more severe punishment for the damage they've inflicted on the computing industry. I don't think breaking them up is the answer, but neither is letting them go about business as usual.
Most of the items that Microsoft and the DoJ negotiated in the end were little more than a list of things that Microsoft should be doing anyway. It's not punishment, merely requiring Microsoft to follow the law...
Some penalties I'd like to see:
1. Require open standards. No more proprietary protocols or file formats. All have to be published by the time Microsoft releases a product to the public.
2. Divest MSN, and X-Box divisions.
3. A fine of no less than 25% of Microsoft's yearly income. Not profit, income.
Why aren't people gathered around the country to protest this obvious miscarriage of justice?
Maybe it's just me, but reading through the Samba project's analysis I didn't get the same sense of urgency that the Slashdot article gave. As I understand it, the Samba project would be no worse off if the settlement went through. They would simply not benefit from the settlement. IANAL, but it seems to me that a non-related third party to the legal action has no "right", if you will, to profit from the settlement. That's between the DoJ, the States Attorneys, and Microsoft (and potentially AOL/Netscape, Sun, and Oracle, as they were the ones that greased the pockets that got this started in the first place).
If the settlement doesn't hinder Samba any more than they currently are, I don't see where they have grounds to object to it simply because it doesn't help them either. (hint: anti-trust legislation is supposed to be designed to protect the consumer, not a monopoly's competitors. Samba's the latter, not the former. We've bastardized those laws to the point where they're just legal protection for companies that can no longer compete in a market. There's nothing illegal with going out of business.)
Does anyone else feel that possibly the one of the reasons that there are only six states is because state legislators are just not knowledgable enough of the software to see exactly what Microsoft(tm) is doing? Do people feel that there is a possibly of those six states convincing other states - ala "12 Angry Men"?
1) Microsoft must fully open the APIs and protocols to all interested parties, including rival software manufacturers and those who would set up emulation or compatibility layers (this would include WINE and Samba). It would seem to me that this should be considered the responsibility of anyone who makes an OS for general consumption. (Note that this would not require them to open up their source code.)
2) Microsoft should be prohibited from restricting equipment manufacturers from altering the software or reconfiguring the computer, such as installing rival software running on Windows or setting up a dual-boot with Linux.
Anything that doesn't do at least this much, in my view, will not make any difference whatsoever.
This settlement undermines respect for the law.
,"How can we help?" They respond, "Shut up and buy stuff, this country isn't about YOU anymore."
It is obvious that Microsoft paid off politicians. The Bush administration has proven over and over again to be little more than a clearinghouse for corporate criminals - give Bush enough cash and out pops a (huge) tax break, or a pesky environmental regulation is disposed of...
It's like the government is about who has the money. It isn't about US anymore. Like this war - we say
If this is the principle they're supposed to be acting upon, I'd really hope none of them are acting to principle. Anti-trust legislation is about protecting consumers, not competitors. In the process of protecting consumers, it may be necessary to protect competitors of the monopolist to some degree, but that should not be their first and foremost goal.
With the deal off, who knows what will happen. But I found Dave Winre's thoughts startling. He put all the pieces in place and basically says 'Its possible' Possible that Microsoft really can control the Internet at will and nobody can stop them. Doesn't mean they will or even that it is likely - but the potential is looming more and more each day.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
And the Samba team brief would of course have to start with a discussion of what Samba is and what its position/market share is in regards to Microsoft. Having a better-known name (dare I say RMS, or Linus?) sign on wouldn't hurt.
sPh
As an IT professional, I struggle with the daily problem solving of getting software to work in a Microsoft dominated environment. It amazes me the level of disservice this giant provides to its customers. Yet this settlement takes the cake.
I'm sick of designing databases to see an application crash because Microsoft didn't anticipate an empty result. I'm sick of hearing they're aware of their bugs, but do not fix their application, and would rather you upgrade to their next version at your expense. I'm sick of them misrepresenting their proprietary formats or protocols as "standards."
I'm amazed how they get away with treating their own customers and partners as adversaries. I hope Ralph Nader follows the "content discrimination" scent to this perpetrator. While competitors like Sun and IBM have embraced "pluralism," in a world where many platforms harmoniously cohabit the planet, Microsoft still serves no one but themselves.
The new television campaign brings to mind customers placed on catapults... Sure they can feel the rush of flying when using Microsoft's XP to mix sound, take pictures, and edit video, just like we do on Macs and Linux, but when they find themselves locked in to Bill's software with the support's freshness dating expiring in three years, forced to upgrade or perish... that landing's going to be brutal!
Yet the settlement is another example of lethal idiocy... The double-talk makes very few concessions to ending Microsoft's disservice to the customer, and totally omits the original issue of antitrust. If our federal government is "of like mind" to this lobotomized shell game, may God help us all!
It's ironic how Microsoft got its beginning by writing BASIC for every personal computer in the late 70's. But once Windows got going, they must have asked themselves, "Empower the USER?!? -- What were we thinking!?!" Now their operating system no longer gives you a way to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and write your own applications. BASIC, the debugger, even the DOS-prompt is eliminated. Here's where we want you to go today.
It's been decades since I've seen Bill's name on a piece of software, and the only innovation I've seen from Microsoft is new ways to write licenses. There was even a paper on Microsoft's own web site how some of its programmers discovered new ways that programming languages compared to the legalese of conditional clauses in writing license agreements! Call it 'freedom to inundate.'
Now the economy is certainly a good thing to keep healthy. But I'm pissed that I see sidestepping the lack of punishment (i.e. fines) for their habitual unlawful and unethical behavior, all done for the good of the economy. What a great thing that employees and shareholders of Microsoft should not have to feel the burden which has been shouldered by so many others.
Maybe misters Gates, Ashcroft and Spitzer would like to bring back indentured servitude, since that would reduce unemployment.
Here's hoping the Finding of Guilt, in regard to monopolistic behavior, gives Microsoft's foes enough ammo to slap them around in court for a few years and for significant monetary damages, since clearly some politicals are dropping the ball for the good of the economy.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's interesting that Slashdot focuses on the six states that decided to continue litigation.
Normally I agree that Slashdot is too biased. However, in this case, they focused on the most newsworthy aspect of this development. Prior to today, the government had settled with Microsoft. It is not news when 6 states AGREE or want to continue negotiating, as much as it is news that 6 states will NOT settle.
"And like that
The main thing, I think, that would break MicroSoft's monopoly would be if it looked plausible that using MicroSoft products might soon become impossible. If people thought that, for example, Passport might get shut down in such a way that, suddenly, XP systems would just stop working, centralized services and buying from a monopoly would, by itself, become a significant deterent.
I think that the most effective settlement would be something like the existing one, with an extra clause that, if MicroSoft violates the terms at any point, all of their assets will be divided among their competitors.
Really, the terms of the settlement don't matter much. Nobody seriously expects MicroSoft to abide by them, and nothing seems likely to happen when they violate them. If there was a specified, negotiated, and fatal penalty for violating the agreement, the customers and investors would have to bet that MicroSoft would actually obey the law. Suddenly, going with MicroSoft would be a major risk, rather than a pretty safe bet, which would greatly change the business prospects.
I hate to tell you, but I suspect most people find software litigation at least as dull as water rights or highway funding.
"I believe that the cult of the particular brings only death - for it bases order on likeness." St.-Exupery
Bill gates was quoted as saying the settlement was "fair and reasonable" -- If you heard any other convicted criminal say that their sentence was "fair and reasonable" wouldn't you wonder if it really was? And this is not a civil suit.
And -that- is exactly why microsoft dislikes open-sourcing.
MS is in the game of finding the next big moneymaking niche and buying it out ahead of time. That's always been a moneymaker for them before, and it will continue to be... as long as there are companies developing those potential future killer-apps for them to buy out.
I think a real big fear for them is that the next one will come out of an open source project, leaving them no way to take over.
Or I could be just spouting, like everyone else. =) Time will tell, as always.
A problem with the US justice system: you have to examine only the case at hand for the time at hand. IOW, if I kill somebody while on bail, that can't be used as evidence at the first trial. Similarly, MS shafting people now has no bearing on the events of ca. 5 years ago.
It gets really weird when you consider that the 'penalty' can take later actions into account. Or at least it seems that way. Not sure about the law.
But, if what a poster said yesterday is correct, it doesn't matter. The EU can take XP into account, Win2002, or whatever. (And contrary to the belief of some, especially in Redmond, the European market DOES matter. As does the Chinese market. And the Indian market, etc, etc, etc. The US is still the biggest fish in the pond. But if all those middle sized fish pulled in the same direction, the big fish would have no choice but to follow. And here's another hint: the US ain't gettin' smaller, but China (and others) are getting bigger.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...writes someone who doesn't even know the correct sex of the judge, let alone the random selection process.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The U.S. government is the world's largest consumer of software. If they require government agencies to buy something other than microsoft software, they can more than adequately punish microsoft and attack their monopoly status without having to further drag this through the court system.
For god's sakes, stop talking and show your displeasure! Don't buy XP! Throw it in the Seattle bay! Don't tell your IT dept to invest in MS stuff. If solaris, linux, etc. works better, invest in it! What we don't need is the government in the free market, like a bull in china shop. you'll regret it when the internet is gov't controlled, and any violation of the DMCA or others is prosecuted.
The REAL remedy to a company gone mad is to exercise your power: don't buy their stuff. They will have no money to use. There are tons of companies that have OS suites to rival microsoft. Buy the best one. The market regulates itself. You are the power, without the consumer, Microsoft does not exist. Boycott! Boycott!
PS: there are other companies which are just as destructive as MS, such as Oracle. any DBA will tell you Oracle stinks, but every DB boss recommends a purchase. attention need be paid here.
> this judge specifically was hand picked by microsoft for either his stupidity or willful deafness or obedience to his superiors.
[sigh], you don't even know who the judge is, do you?..
Like what issues?
The settlement allows OEM's to:
1. Replace all MS "middleware" including IE, WMP, MSN, Windows Messenger, etc. That settles the "tying issue".
It doesn't settle the tying issue in any real way. There are valid concerns that Microsoft can access Windows APIs in ways that aren't shared with third parties. Certainly the 'integration' that Microsoft touts heavily isn't available to third parties. Finally, I'm pretty sure that this proposed settlement doesn't provide for the replacement of IE on a system, only the installation of Navigator (for instance) alongside IE.
2. License other OS's and dual boot them on a per-machine basis.. That settles the "unfair pricing issue".
Sure, as long as the IHVs trust the settlement and are willing to incur Microsoft's wrath in the short term. Wonder what'll happen to them after five years? ;-)
3. Force MS to open, under NDA, protocols to allow 3rd party products to interoperate successfully. That solves the "unfair and hidden protocols issue".
Uh huh. Who's going to enforce this? What about after five years?
So whats the big deal? What issues arent addressed is the better question? With those things in place you could really make XP a nice OS - strip out IE, WMP and replace with Mozilla/Winamp.
What about Product Activation and Passport? The proposed settlement doesn't address either of those two abominations. It also does nothing to prevent Microsoft from going down the 'software lease' path, where Microsoft gets to decide when you upgrade, and how much it'll cost. Not paying will not be an option (unless you make the smart move and migrate to a different platform).
What else is there left to understand? This will give people more choice (pre-installed Linux dual botting with Windows), allow more 3rd party software (replacements for IE/WMP/OE/WM), and allow OEMS more flexibility and give them fair pricing.
The OEM pricing approach seems like an improvement, but the rest of it is way too wimpy. What, for instance, is to stop Microsoft from continuing to leverage it's operating system dominance into office software suites?
What else do you want? How does that not address the trial points? In fact, this is actually 100's better than a breakup which would have kept things how they were but with two MS's - one with Windows and one with Office and other apps.
The original breakup plan didn't go far enough for me. I wanted four divisions: OS, software development tools, application software and server software. Now that might make a difference.
There won't be a healthy software industry without several vital, strong OS offerings. Linux and MacOS X have potential, but they need a little more fertile soil to really start growing the way they should.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I happen to agree that divesting XBox and certain other parts is irrelevant to anything in the case. However, open APIs are quite relevant, as these are the main obstacle to open interoperability in the OS market. Microsoft HAS a monopoly, and HAS abused it. That much was proven by the DOJ. There need to be viable remedies proposed, not just another stupid consent decree with holes big enough to drive a truck through, AGAIN! We tried that route last time. It didn't work at all. Why should we try the same thing that didn't work before? If you're going to make a decree, you need to make damn sure they won't be able to ignore it, and that it will accomplish the goal of ensuring competition in the relevant market(s).
The major remedies I would propose are the publication of prices for OEMs, and regulations to prevent Microsoft from interfering with OEMs that want to add software and/or change the system configuration in any way that doesn't violate existing copyright or trademark laws. This should remove Microsoft's ability to strongarm OEMs.
Second, I would propose that all protocols, file formats, and APIs be fully documented and that that documentation be made publicly available in a timely manner whenever there are changes to any of the above. Since Microsoft's formats and OS are the defacto standard now in many cases, this should allow competition in both the OS and applications arenas (which is definitely justified given Microsoft's stance, and the DOJ's seeming capitulation, that they should be allowed to incorporate anything and everything into the OS if they so choose).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That's what the remedy should be accomplishing, but you and others keep throwing up objections that Microsoft shouldn't be prohibited from doing what others are able to do, despite the fact that anti-trust law specifically allows such actions for the very purpose of removing monopoly power from the offending corporation.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
My bet is that if MS had to develop IE from scratch Netscape would still be in the game.
If Netscape had a browser that was as good as IE it would still be in the game. Bob Cringley has a good article about how Microsoft's competitors complain more about Microsoft than competing with them.
It represents the midpoint between the pro-MSFT administration and MSFT in terms of the proven violations and egregious behaviour of MSFT.
The state attorney generals should take this as a bargaining stake - treat it as typical politics, where the President proposes something ludicrous, the House passes something more ludicrous, and the Senate passes something reasonable. Then negotiate it to something close to reasonable.
Because it is NOT a final document, merely an offer. It does NOT have to be accepted, and should not be.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I don't know if you've been following the news today, if you have you might have caught the fact that the FBI were prevented from investigating the Bin Laden family and other Saudi terrorist suspects by the very government you are now asking to save you from Microsoft, heres the BBC Newsnight link. If you watch the video (assuming it's the same as was aired earlier tonight on the BBC) you'll note the business links between the Bushes and the Saudis, and this is the BBC, not some conspiracy nut. Forget any notion you have that the US is a democracy, it's a plutocracy, as I'm sure has been mentioned on /. many times before. Unfortunately these sorts of things usually end badly, like in revolutions, assasinations and that sort of thing, my advice is keep away from US politicians as their greed and lust for power is the equivalent of painting nice shiney bulleyes on themselves.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
> 1. Require open standards. No more proprietary
.NET etcetc..
.NET - the stuff is based on SOAP, which is technically XML (oh, cool!), but really just a method to call Microsoft APIs.
> protocols or file formats. All have to be
> published by the time Microsoft releases a
> product to the public.
You assume that those formats are declartive (i.e. based on data). This is a sane assumption, but Microsoft is not sane.
Microsoft could create procedural data formats (i.e. program code, call APIs, e.g. 'load ActiveX with ID xyz and call its function foobar()'). Yes, if those APIs are open, too, it would be possible to create a competing implementation for them as well, but you'd end up writing another Windows, MS Office, MSIE,
In other words, to open an MS Word document, you'd not just need an RTF reader, but also WINE, Ximian's Mono and similar emulations for MS Word; MSIE etc..
Needless to say, that's ineffective.
In fact, I think that Microsoft tries to do just that with the Web using
Imagine webpages that don't use JavaScript, but VBScript calling Windows API functions. Good night browsing via Linux.
If I were to formulate the rules, I'd require Microsoft to support generally accepted standards (read IETF etc.) only. Or at least, let some independant and rational ("pit-bull") group ratify the standards that Microsoft wants to use. Or something like that.
1) Voting by itself is not the solution.
An informed electorate, knowledgeable of the candidates, issues, positions, and track record is essential. This is difficult because campaigns and news coverage rarely deal with real issues and debates are structured to make them into merely dual press conferences. Would you rather more uninformed people dilute your (presumably informed) vote? Standardized voters guides for all elections may be a solution.
2) Candidates often bear little real difference.
I believe most registered non-voters are apathetic because they see the outcome to make little if any difference. A binding none-of-the-above option at the polls may be a solution, allowing voters to reject both candidates and demand new ones in another election might help alleviate this apathy.
3) Contributions should be limited.
Corporations do not vote, so they influenece elections via monetary contributions. This money is used for propaganda which drowns out attempts for impartial news coverage. There has been much talk (by corporations and the politicians they own) that limiting contributions limits their 1st Ammendent rights to free speech. Money is not speech. Funding ad campaigns for toads is blatent manipulation of the electorate. Soft money should be eliminated, contributions should have small caps, and accepting payola should be an enforced jailable felony. This would restore confidence in our representatives, and probably bring more voters out of their understandable apathy.
BTW: I vote.
"You have liberated me from thought."