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.
Quoth Tom Reilly, my new hero:
"In an earlier interview with the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts attorney-general Tom Reilly said the deal was "full of loopholes and does little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition".
Thank you for the sound bite, Mr Reilly: the DoJ has handed Microsoft a "license to kill".
My question is this: 6 states oppose the settlement, 6 states are undecided (want more money), and 6 states are for it (we're already paid off). Of these three groups, are any of them actually interested in protecting their businesses from this predatory monopoly? Is anyone truly acting on principle?
In an era where it's easy to be cynical, it would be a wonderful thing to be able to believe in people like Tom Reilly.
Why does the department of justice keep insisting that things are dealt with quickly? This is the first time in history where an antitrust trial has been mostly upheld by some of the most respected courts in the nation and suddenly being settled. The doj had this thing pretty much in the bag and all of a sudden we don't want to deal with it anymore? Come on this is getting rediculous. At this point maybe the judge will stand up and do what is right. If one of us was found guilty of a crime they wouldn't suddenly be persuaded to settle the case!
You can also try the following stories.
t ml
m l (Reg Required)
l
www.msnbc.com/news/652977.asp
money.cnn.com/2001/11/06/technology/microsoft/
www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,316946-412,00.sh
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38145,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/business/06CND-SOFT.ht
canoe.ca/MoneyMicrosoft/nov6_msfttwothirds-ap.htm
I disagree -- Samba is arguably the single most often used piece of "middleware" (under the MS/DoJ settlement nomenclature) that would be affected by this settlement. I can't think of anything else even in the same category possessing the same level of usefulness as Samba. I've seen much speculation over the last couple of years that says Microsoft would be delighted to have a means to get rid of Samba; this might just be it.
Therefore I believe it's extremely important for any discussions to include Samba.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
The lesson MS has learned (as well as most other obscenely large corps) is that with enough money and enough lawyers, anything is possible.
Also, let's be clear on exactly what the problem is: It's not the OS per se, but the fact that they're bundling all this drek along with it and is forcing it onto the OEM's. The problem is the use of its (reluctantly stated) legal monopoly on operating systems to force others out of other, non-OS markets. Think of the last time your Windows machine was marketed with Navigator, Corel's office suite or StarOffice, etc.
Microsoft's OS won in the OS market because they, at first, made it more attractive. Same as VHS over the technical superiority of Beta. Nowadays, there's nothing consumer that's in Beta (and even professional Beta machines are getting the boot). Very little consumer hardware is not in Windows.
You've got a point, XP is a case of arrogance to the nth degree. However, the settlement mentioned was a virtual slap on the wrist made with a feather instead of a ruler. One of the three people that would oversee MS's books and code would be a Microsoft designee, the second would need Microsoft's approval as well as the (fill in the blank). They couldn't share information with the outside world. To boot, it only would last a maximum of 7 years. To a corporation as pervasive as MS, seven years is nil.
It's amazing what campaign contributions will buy you nowadays.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Disallow MS from buying any tech companies or any technology product for the next 7 years.
This would foster competition. When MS buys a company or product such as Visio, Powerpoint, IE, SQL server, etc. they remove the competition and get ahead start against anyone else that might be in that market. They use their huge pile of cash that they have acquired by being a monopoly to squelch any upstart and recover from any bad decision (such as initially ignoring the rise of the internet) . The best an upstart can hope for is being bought out.
I can't see how MS would find this too disagreeable as they often like to think of themselves as Innovators, so innovate and compete.
My bet is that if MS had to develop IE from scratch Netscape would still be in the game. Look at the products they develop from scratch such as IIS! A buggy insecure product that will take another 4 years to mature. If Apache was a commercial product they would have bought it long ago and we would all be using MS Apache.
Well it is probabably good you are not a lawyer :)
All anti-trust cases are federal cases, it is a federal statute, and one of the few issues that has original jurisdiction in a federal court. If a State, private company, individual, or Fed govt wants to bring suit on anti-trust, it is a federal matter.
Now just because the Bush DoJ (and I did vote for the man) sold out, and gave MS a deal replete with so many loopholes that you could drive a truck through, additionally exempting them from anti-trust laws, additionally refusing to do what the Court of Appeals asked for in a remedy (for the fruits of their illegal conduct to be destroyed, you know the same court that everyone who refuses to read the opinion of says precluded break-up, but in fact did nothing of that nature), then States SHOULD STAND UP.
After all, these State A.G.s did not get millions of dollars from MS in contributions (yes, the GOP recieved around 2 million last year, and the same fundraisers who took the checks are also now working in DoJ as Ashcroft's top luitenants, Also see the Wash. Post article talking about how a top MS lawyer regularly consulted with DoJ anti-trust chief Charles James (he was James' mentor))
But I am not cynical, just hoping the states stay vigalant.
Oh, that is why the States do not need to capitulate to the DoJ decision
Yes, I'm going to contact the attorney general of my state immediately and let him know how I feel. But even though I vote in every election, my own voice is cheapened and weakened by the huge numbers of people who don't. Why should an elected official listen to me, rather than a contributor, when the overwhelming statistical odds are that I am among the huge pool of incorrigible non-voters who have surrendered all power over their government's actions? Even if I announce that he/she's "got" or "lost" my vote next time, odds are that's not true.
I know, I know, this is another one of my "granny knows what's good for you kids" rants. But think about it, please. What if next election there were an 80% or 90% turnout? You could actually fire your state's attorney general for sucking up to MS and taking this ridiculous settlement! Imagine that. Are you so absolutely sure that voting would have no impact? Are you so positive that you won't even bother to try it, thereby guaranteeing business as usual? Probably (sigh).
I have a new idea, which I'm going to practice starting with the next local election. Our state's ballots have little square tear-off tabs. They don't show who you voted for, just the fact that you cast a ballot. I'm going to save mine and scan them, so that I have a permanent record of every election I've voted in, which can be printed out and mailed, or sent as an email attachment. Thus, when I contact an elected representative to express my opinion, it will be accompanied by a concrete "voting record" -- evidence that I care enough to back my opinion up with my vote.
If this practice became widespread, it might be quite effective, not only in empowering communications between technologically-informed citizens and the government, but in exerting some peer pressure against the huge non-voting majority. Like, if voters carried their voting records around all the time, then if someone was really whining about how the government never listens to us, we could all whip out our voting records and say "let's see yours." It could become shameful to protest government action without a voting record to throw down when one's bluff is called; shameful enough that Americans actually start exercising the democratic rights we purport to stand up for. Ok, I'm a dreamer, but I'll keep trying. I believe in a democratically elected government, for Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and . . . what the heck, maybe even the USA for a change.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.