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.
Fox News
CNN
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
I agree with the judge in "her belief that a quick resolution to the case is in the best interest of the nation," however...
The hearings would not even start until March of 2002. Given that the legal process is slow (and much for good reason) will Internet time and monopolistic practices render such legal remedies a moot point?
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?
This an interesting quote from TheStreet.com
"Under the 1974 Tunney Act, designed to make sure settlements with the government are in the public interest, a proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register and undergo a 60-day public comment period before gaining approval. At the end of that period, the government has 30 days to respond to those comments. The court then determines whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest."
So the community needs to get organized and be prepared to speak to the settlement and why it is or isn't in the public interest.
MarkX
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
We would hope that a more reasonable interpretation would allow Microsoft to ensure the security of its products, whilst still being forced to fully disclose the fundamental protocols that are needed to create interoperable products.
:)
MS can't even keep security sorted out in a closed source fashion, just imagine the 'sploits if they did disclose some source.
"Microsoft more time to violate antitrust laws. XP shows they haven't learned anything from the proceedings"
What exactly was MS supposed to learn? I think if MS has learned anything, it's that the courts and officials are too technically illiterate to really understand what going on. Unfortunately I think most of these proceedings have proven this.
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.)
The courts have found that Microsoft is a monopolist, and that its abused it's monopoly. The current case doesn't even address any of the numerous issues with Windows XP!
No court has yet done a good job of truly understanding the software industry and it's relationship to OS providers. Microsoft is making a massive attempt to lock the entire software world into it's infrastructure - this is a bad thing from almost any perspective you choose.
So, let's hope the states have the courage and resources to stick with this case and insure real change at Microsoft.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
With the "opening up" of APIs and protocols, how long before what's left is controled by patents?
Samba won't be able to operate because of "security concerns." The embrace and extend done to kerberos won't have to be explained to us. The new protocols will use M$ patents. Do you really think anyone else in the free software world will be able to get by the patent issues? Do you think M$ will *ever* license them to us?
This really sucks. I sure hope the hold-out states can make a difference.
The San Jose Mercury reported this morning that California has indicated that it would reject the proposed settlement as well.
[place clever signature here]
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"?
Microsoft's biggest selling point in the past has been that it was the de facto standard on the desktop. As a sysadmin, I'm glad that Windows has a standard look and feel, because many of my older users didn't grow up with computers and have a hard time working with them anyway. However, as a geek, I see that there is definately a place for Linux, both at home and in the workplace. Despite what Microsoft says, Linux is becoming a player in the desktop and server game, albeit slowly (for now). As Linux gains "market share," interoperability, and open standards will be more important than ever. Many people will have several different platforms. If MS refuses to "play well with others," they may lose some customers. MS boxes will be with us for a while, but working with the guys from Samba may prolong their lifespan.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
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.
Remember in high school, when they explained the concept of States Rights and how the states were reserved certain rights and the Feds others? It always got me how many dull things these addressed - water rights, highway funding, etc. The only thing I could recall where it intersected in really relevant issues was Civil Rights back in the '60s (and then, several of the states were wearing the Black Hats).
So, it's kind of neat to see Federalism jump back, with individual states acting as a check on the authority of the Federal govt (at least in areas where their rights and responsibilities overlap). Regardless of which way you think the rulings should go, it's kind of cool to see this somewhat bizarre feature of our government in action.
Man, it kind of makes me wish I had an EMAIL of my old Civics teacher...
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
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.
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
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
According to this article, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, and New York. have all indicated their approval and West Virginia has joined up with MA in holding off. Doesn't mention the other 4 states though.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Now would be a good time for the attorney generals to hear from the technologically literate. Do you have an opinion on the Microsoft case? Let them know! Here are their names and numbers:
California: Bill Lockyer, 800-952-5225
Connecticut: Richard Blumenthal, 860-808-5318
District of Columbia: Robert Rigsby, 202-727-6248
Florida: Bob Butterworth, 850-487-1963
Illinois: Jim Ryan, 217-782-1090
Iowa: Tom Miller, 515-281-5164
Kansas: Carla J. Stovall, 785-296-2215
Kentucky: A. B. Chandler III, 502-696-5300
Louisiana: Richard Ieyoub, 225-342-7876
Maryland: J. Joseph Curran, Jr., 410-576-6300
Massachusetts: Tom Reilly, 617-727-2200
Michigan: Jennifer M. Granholm, 517-373-1110
Minnesota: Mike Hatch, 651-296-3353
New York: Eliot Spitzer, 518-474-7330 or 716-853-8400 or 212-416-8000
North Carolina: Roy Cooper, 919-716-6400
Ohio: Betty D. Montgomery, 614-466-4320
Utah: Mark Shurtleff, 801-538-1326
West Virginia: Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., 304-558-2021
Wisconsin: James E. Dyle, 608-266-1221
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
There was nothing, nada, zilch in that settlement which restricted XP or .Net and once a settlement has been approved it is game over. Do you really think a three person advisory board would have been able to handle any settlement violation in a timely fashion? Do you really think that developers, be they commercial or OSS, would have the access to MS' "middleware" they needed to compete?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
...Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner message.
5 01.html
http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
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
Yahoo just announced that 3 more states have surrendered (see here). The list of suspected early surrenderers was on Yahoo earlier as: New York (confirmed), Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina and Kentucky. Since then 3 added ones have joined... :-(...
The first two seem fair and reasonable.
The third one is a bit over the edge.
How's this for a remedy/penalty:
Fine Microsoft for every undocumented API that should be disclosed under the agreement.
And finally a bit of regulation that's very much needed:
Full disclosure of contracts concerning sale and bundling Operating Systems. Operating Systems should be considered public infrastructure. There could be a right-to-know involved. More importantly, had the contract disclosure been in place, then Microsofts business practices would have been thoroughly documented at a much earlier stage and the damage could have been lessened.
It is wiser to avoid repeating the damage of the past rather than seeking justice for the wrongs of the past.
Stop the brainwash
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.'
Most of the web pages I visit are designed using microsoft software. I can tell because of all the question marks (netscape) and little boxes (konqueror and opera) that appear where apostophes, comments, etc. should appear. This is because microsoft software uses their proprietary font system to generate certain html characters which cannot be rendered by web-standard browsers using ISO or Unicode compliant systems (see http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/).
There is no technical reason for microsoft to use non-standard characters in ms-generated webpages. The real reason I suspect is that it forces people to use ms browsers if they want to see web pages without errors.
Its a little thing, but it shows one of microsoft's strategies in their blatantly obvious and shameful quest to control the internet.
I fear that MS is betting that with fiscal conservatives in power and a economy going from bad to worse there would be a ton of pressure on the judicial branch to go easy on MS.
Except that branches of the govenment HATE being pressured by other branches. That's a sure fire way to backfire your plan. And idiology doesn't mean squate. Remember, Judge Jackson was considered a conservitive judge, and he hammered MS more than anyone.
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
The Samba team is clearly an interested party to this case so their brief might actually be considered.
sPh
I'd declare certain Windows XP "publicly modifiable". What this means is that resellers should be allowed to repackage it any way they feel like. They could rip out MS add-ons, MS logo, add their own apps without restrictions.
The hope would be that MS would not be able to bundle crap into its OS because it would just get ripped out by resellers. For example, all marketing functionality could be taken out of IE, or substituted with the marketing material by some other high bidder, such as AOL.
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 comment that "time is no longer on [Microsoft's] side" is a good one. In some ways, this might be the best of a bad set of possible outcomes: some restrictions are placed on Microsoft's behavior immediately, the various states continue to pursue the matter, keeping it alive in a US jurisdiction and keeping open the possibility of more meaningful constraints, and Europe is waiting in the wings, watching all of this with the chance for further action if the overall US response is insufficient. One of the problems this whole process faced is the lack of really good possible remedies: breaking up Microsoft (Judge Jackson's remedy) was likely to result in not one but two ruthless monopolists; creating a "US Department of Microsoft" sets a bad precedent for government meddling in the affairs of tech in general; Open Source Windows would simply expose a million-line rat's nest of bad code to hacking; and MS has a long history of ignoring behavioral remedies. So what's the answer? I'm sure I don't know. My favorite was insisting on the granting of free licenses to make derivative works -- i.e., you could wrap anything under, around, or on top of Windows that you pleased. This isn't popular with died-in-the-wool techies, but it would allow Win to morph into something more useful to society. As it is, we are stuck with a 30-year old user interface paradigm, and my biggest fear is that the innovation needed to move us past WIMP just isn't there. But that's another story. S. McGeady (caveat: I testified against Microsoft for the government)
Do you think he would donate his time to the cause to prepare the brief on behalf of the Samba team and submit it for them?
Oh good, I was afraid only some measly states' attorneys general were against it. But to know that we have Samba on our side...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I noticed a distinct difference between the summary on the main page of Slashdot, and that given by the BBC, and what is being reported by other websites and the American television news. The stories linked to from here say it's a 3-way equal split, and "experts" expect a long legal process to decide on a penalty. The more "mainstream" press is saying the settlement is a done deal with (the last count I just heard) only 3 states holding out and going after penalties on their own. Both views are supported by quotes from the attorney generals involved and even the judge herself, so what is the real story?
Is this a case of people only hearing what they want to hear?
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.
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.
I always had the question who could be on the oversight panel.
It couldn't be someone who testified. It couldn't be someone who worked for a competitor (cause what doesn't MS have it's fingers in).
It could have been Linus. He worked for a chip company.
It would have been great. Get paid to be a pain in MS's rear while continuing operating system developement
Bet MS realized that loophole, and decided to go for a new agreement.
Leaving MS to continue the same behavior seriously harms the economy not helps it. Of course harsh restrictions on MS would in the short term hurt but it would cause explosive growth in the industry. Right now a single company receives the earnings of most of the it industry budget and that is a harmful thing. Removing them from power would increase the job market and diversify spending.
Got Code?
The market didn't correct anything with IBM. A 13 year long anti-trust case probably helped a bit. While it didn't end with a win for the government, it did force IBM to stop most of its more egregious abuses.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is merely a fluke.
While I think the south ca. 1860 was a bunch of rotten bastards, they were well within their rights to secede. The federal government was overstepping their bounds (and not just WRT slavery). So, the first Republican president was as dead set against states' rights as any other president (with the possible exception of FDR).
Since that time (and before. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion) there have been numerous cases of the Fed riding roughshod over the states.
FWIW, while DMCA, SSSCA, etc. get all of the press, water rights, highway appropriations, etc. are the bread and butter of governments (federal, state, and local).
All in all, you are right. Like you, I'm very glad to see that some states have remembered that they are sovereign over the federal government. Not only that, but they are doing it for the right reasons (not just to keep 'funny looking people' out of schools). But it won't last. If it weren't for our current state of national unity, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Ashcroft threaten to make it harder for the states to use the resources of the DOJ if they didn't knuckle under to this decision.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I can think of two other valuable lessons learned:
#1. Delete email after 90 days and don't save tape backups.
#2. If your competitors are lining the pockets of politicians, then you should throw even more cash their way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So what remedy would you like? You want Bill to just promise not to do it again? Yeah.. that worked real well last time. Fact is, this is the second major case against them. They lost the first time and ignored the consent decree. They lost the second time, and now we're going to slap them with another consent decree which they will proceed to ignore? How does that make sense?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Darn straight and we should all email/fax letters to our state A.G., State Resprentatives, and Senators.
Get email to the DOJ too:
mailto: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Californians:
mailto: piu@doj.ca.gov
Microsoft doesn't allow consumers to vote with their wallets so we need to get the word out using other means. Pro/Con, get the word out.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Fine Microsoft for every undocumented API that should be disclosed under the agreement.
Under the current wording of the agreement, Microsoft would have a good argument that virtually none of their APIs and Protocols should be disclosed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I disagree - only because EVERY company does this.
And if every company was a convicted abusive monopoly, then I would hope that it would apply to them as well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"Bad company!" "No we aren't" "Yes you are" "No we aren't"... etc, while it's business as usual for microsoft.
Actually it's more like:
DOJ: Bad company!
MS: No we aren't.
DOJ: Yes you are.
MS: No we aren't.
Judge: Yes you are.
MS: Well, maybe, but not that bad.
Appeals Court: Actually, you were, but so was the Judge.
MS: Ah ha!! So the trail was unfair.
Appeals: Well, not quite. You're still bad.
DOJ: We can't tell who's bad anymore.
MS: Definitely not us.
DOJ: Hmm.. You're not? Ok, then. Maybe it's us that's bad?
State AG's: Excuse me?
And here we are...
"After all, these State A.G.s did not get millions of dollars from MS in contributions "
No, but they did receive millions of dollars from MS competitors in contributions.
I think it's interesting how you try to accuse Microsoft of bribery, but ignore all of the money that was contributed that led up to this case. Microsoft only started contributing money to political parties after the fact. They've also given just as much money to the Dems as the GOP.
Go take a look at Larry Ellisons political contribution record. We're talking millions... I can't find a reference now, but I recall it being close to $60mil.
As a matter of fact, I am cynical.
I know that the only reason Mass and California are so unhappy with this settlement is that they have companies in their states that are MS-wannabees who have spent a lot of money on this court case...
The only state that you could possibly claim isn't in this for financial motivation is Iowa, but that's only because Iowa is a technological wasteland.
Steve
From Iowa
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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 lawsuit helped start the tech slide and what you propose would drive us evn lower.
Would you care to back up your little rant with some evidence? I would think that the only company harmed at all by the suit is Microsoft. If anything, it gave other companies some much needed breathing room. I don't see the connection between the tech slide and the anti-trust case. Care to enlighten me?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Shouldn't the language be to the effect of,
Microsoft shall make availible the information inorder to ANY other OS to effectively interoperate with an MS Windows NT/2000 and its sucessors Server/Workstation, for the basis of File and information sharing. Specfically related to the ability to transfer files from one platform to the other via, file shares, web access, ftp access, or any other protocol which shall be made available. This shall include the the specifics related to the transfer mechanisims, and the required authentication, and control information to accomplish the transfer...or something to that effect at least.
Sorry if this is redendant at this point I tried to formulate the legalize as fast as possible.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Yeah, and IBM went through a 13 year antitrust case which eventually found them not guilty.
In the end, their business practices did not change, and IBM screwed themselves, lost much market cap, and had to rebuild their company over.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Well, now there's 6 very rich Attourney Generals, or at least they're more wealthy then before this case. It's the perfect scheme too, they reject the plan because they say it's "a slap on the wrist," not enough punishment, but in effect rejecting the plan eliminates any punishment at all... pure genious I tell you, pure genious.
~ now you know
dictionary.com describes several meanings of "moot", including a theoretical debate by law students, or a certain debate of free men, etc. They include the following
Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one
that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence
"The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination."
When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.
Or are you one of those prigs who think the real meaning of "aweful" is "full of awe"?
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Consent decrees are no replacement for ethics. The core problem is that Microsoft as a company is un-ethical. Making them sign a piece of paper that says they are going to play nice isn't going to change a thing. They have no desire to conform to the spirit of the agreement and so will spend lots of money on lawyers to tell them how to violate it without violating the letter of the agreement.
If you are in charge of any organization, the person you are will be seen in how that organziation behaves since it is in many ways an extension of you. Microsoft behaves the way it does because it is an extension of a handful of greedy and power hungry bastards, primarly Bill Gates and Steve Balmer.
I find it amusing that anyone would talk of consent decrees and similar remedies when the core problem is the personality and purpose of the company itself. A consent decree is not going to reform microsoft any more than a prison sentence is going to reform a hardened criminal.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Reply to 1) In the spirit it was offered, this was not to say "praise be to Sun and IBM," but rather to say "Even these guys, prime targets of Big Business, at least 'get it' on the need for pluralism."
Reply to 2) Sure you get tools... if you pay. Even the purchase of Office gives you VBA... for the pricetag of OFFICE.
I'll take the APIs of Linux over Windows any day. I like universal tools and pipe-ability, where Windows continues to attempt crushing the notion of a console.
Nothing irks me more about APIs than Microsoft's peculiar notion of the 'device metaphor.' In OpenGL, you draw a triangle just as you'd expect... feed it three points. In DirectX, it's make a vertex buffer, connect a feedback call, pipe the points into the vertex buffer, initiate a buffer execute, yadda yadda...
Real Operating systems give you the basics of at least writing scripts. (In Linux, a surprising number of 'user-friendly apps' are nothing more than shell or PERL scripts.) When Bill Gates said goodbye to the command prompt, he said goodbye to a lot of programmers.
My public comment will be something along these lines...
United States Department of Justice:
State Attorneys General:
United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly:
I object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe that it will require too much government involvement and its enforcement will be too expensive. I doubt that it will correct the damage done by Microsoft or cause them to reform their behavior.
I propose a simpler, cheaper remedy which will be effective and fair: Revoke some of Microsoft's patents and copyrights. Give them back to their rightful owners or to the public.
This remedy would return the competitive system to its natural state by freeing Microsoft's competitors to produce interoperable products without the threat of lawsuits. It would also strongly deter future anticompetitive acts by entities which value their patent and copyright privileges.
This remedy would be fair because it would both reduce Microsoft's ability to profit from their crimes and seize the assets used as tools to commit those crimes. The value of many of Microsoft's works was created mainly by depriving consumers of any alternative choices. Consumers and computer vendors should be allowed the right to freely duplicate the existing Microsoft works. Those works are inferior to the work which would have been produced in an freely competitive marketplace.
It would be trivial to implement this remedy. The court would simply select an appropriate set of patents and copyrights, declare them void, and refuse to enforce them. The selection could be limited to only those patents and copyrights directly involved in criminal acts, or the court could deny Microsoft all patent and copyright privileges for some period of time.
As a general rule, an anticompetitive monopolist should never be granted extra power to prevent competition through patent and copyright. To the contrary, a market entity's access to legalized monopoly protection should be inversely proportional to its size. This would lead to a stable market of medium sized producers and would maximize competition and innovation.
Finally, I want to suggest that every computing product or service offered for sale, whether from Microsoft or not, should be accompanied by a warranty [see note 1]. The warranty should clearly document the product's input and output, including the type, purpose, and format of all files and network resources used. While this is not currently law, the court should require it of Microsoft from now on.
note 1: Because source code describes exactly what a program does, unobfuscated source code should be considered a sufficient warranty for software products.
Thank you for your good work. I hope you are able to find a fair solution in the best interest of society.
Sincerely,
Dave King
Irving, Texas
------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
CNN is reporting that "Iowa, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Kansas, Utah, Minnesota, and West Virginia - as well as Washington, D.C." are pursuing further litigation.
The latest version of the BCC story says talks between MS and the states continue, even though the deadline set by the judge has passed. Latest count given is 9 states for, 9 against.
Since everyone's skittish about postal mail these days, a fax would probably be the best way to give them your opinion-- conventional wisdom seems to be that a politician will pay more attention to one written missive on paper than 1,000 e-mail messages, the phone-answering lackeys can't muddy your words by playing whisper-down-the-lane, and someone will notice if so many people weigh in with their concerns that the office staff can't keep the fax's paper tray full.
~Philly
What a troll.
The tech slide was caused by people blowing millions of VC on Aeron chairs and hiring rock stars to play at huge parties instead of spending that money hiring people to develop a product.
And if you lost a bunch of money in MS stock during the crash... Good. Serves you right for trying to profit from their illegal actions. Stockholders need to face stiffer penalties for investing in companies they know are breaking the law.
According to opensecrets.org Microsoft gives almost evenly to both political parties. In 2000 they gave 46% of $4,543,276 to the Dems. I'd say they were hedging their bets either way.
I still wouldn't say the DOJ is capitulating because of money. Recent polls have shown that the American people don't really care about Microsoft anymore, and that is why the Government is giving up and settling. Although they supposedly brought this case because MS broke the law, and the Gov't should pursue this kind of thing regardless of politics, if it isn't popular it isn't going to happen no matter who is President.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Does it seem funny to anyone else that the judge is eager to initiate fast-track remedy hearings but they won't start until March 2002? Only in America can something be "expedited" by a process that takes 2 years and won't even start for another 5 months! No wonder Microsoft thinks it can commit murder with impunity.
If judges do understand these issues it's probably a result of some all-expense-paid vacation that lobbying groups in the private sector like to call educational 'seminars', and I like to call 'brainwashing' or 'bribery'. I'm a bit cynical, though.
Is this a case of people only hearing what they want to hear?
While I certainly wouldn't put that sort of thing past the Slashdot editors, it's not the case here. I read the BBC article right after the link was posted above, and then I just now checked it after I saw your post. The article has been changed/updated.
Originally, it said there was a 6/6/6 split over the case, but now it is saying that there is a "breakthrough", with 9 states agreeing to sign on. John Warden, one of the MS lawyers, had originally said that the settlement was dead and that they wouldn't negotiate any further and they would have to continue with the remedy phase of the trial.
That is different now that half the states are on board. With 3-6 more states on the fence (depending on which article you read), this continues to be a fluid situation.
I think it is this fluidity that caused the discrepancy you mention rather than some intentional bias on the part of Slashdot.
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.
Except for those that are state cases. Yes, there are federal anti-trust statutes, but there are also state anti-trust statutes. And it's possible to be guilty under both. In this case, the states had a gentlemen's agreement to follow the federal's lead, but there's no reason that each state's AG couldn't decide to start a whole new trial of there own.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Hmm, yeah, but can you imagine a nominee for Attorney General promising the Senate they will not be too hard on criminal suspects, and give them a chance to police themselves? Funnily enough, this is what the head of the EPA promised with regards to companies which break environmental laws. Why is it corporations that commit crimes need to be treated with compassion, but human beings are not? Oh, yeah, because this is a democracy of the People, and we all know corporations are People, and we are just resources and consumers.
-- Sigs are for losers
Either they're just not up on the times (very likely), or they're trying to spin this (also very likely)....
A little off the topic but has anyone else tried to get to MSN Music using a non-IE browser lately? You will be told to go get IE.
Even though MS is opeing up MSN.com on the face-front, there are still portions of the site that are locked out to non-IE browsers.
I wonder what would have happened to the DOJ's budget next year if they didn't cave in quickly on the MS settlement.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think it is time for Microsoft to exercise their power granted by the EULA, and revoke the licenses of the government to use Microsoft products. How many judges use Internet Explorer or Microsoft Word? How many form letters come from Department of Motor Vehicles via Word?
Click here or here.
That quote is right on, but his actions probably are not.
Exactly, the DoJ inactions and remedies are inconsistent with Ashcroft's words. Worse, they excuse these measures, or lack of, as for the good of the economy, i.e. Restricting or punishing the monopolist hurts the economy, so don't do it.
Today's lesson: You may break the law, as long as you say it's good for consumers the economy.
Bonus: You get to keep your ill-gotten gains and keep on leveraging your monopoly with a mere slap on the wrist.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
California, I'm proud to say, is reported (by my local news -- KNX 1070 -- as being just as strongly against the settlement as is MA.
Good for you Bill Lockyer!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I'm not saying that somebody should strap Bill Gates to an electric chair, not at all.
I'm saying that Microsoft, legally and morally, should be dismantled.
Microsoft is a corporation, which means that they have articles of incorporation. That is, the government has given them a license above and beyond that of a normal person, to be publicly traded and to produce limited liabilities (you can't sue a corporation for more money than it has, but you can sue a person that way and garnish their wages).
Incorporation is not a right, it is a privelege. And when a privelege granted by the government is abused, it can and should be rescinded. It's just like taking a driver's license away from a drunk driver.
A court of law has ruled, and has been backed up by the US Supreme Court, that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. The same courts have also ruled that Microsoft has wilfully ignored court orders--is in fact in contempt of federal courts. IMHO, Microsoft has shown that they believe themselves to be Above the Law.
When a person is given a court order (such as to stay 200 feet away from another person) and intentionally disobeys that order, they show that mere laws cannot stop them. As such, stronger forces are used--they are incarcerated, sentenced to jail.
Microsoft has shown that mere laws and court orders cannot stop them from doing whatever they please. As such, teeth are necessary.
Their articles of inrporation should be rescinded. The corporation has exceeded its lawful charter, and must not have the benefits of that charter.
Think about it. This freezes their stock--you can't trade stock on the open market anymore, how useful are those stock options in pulling in new employees?
Does this trample the rights of the shareholders? No. Their property (the stock, a percentage of Microsoft) cannot be taken away without due process of law. I see tremendous due process here, backed by the supreme court.
--The basis of all love is respect
I believe this is called an amicus brief, or friend of the court brief. They are quite common in cases of wide interest.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Does anybody have a list of who's in, who's out, and who's fence sitting? The news sites I've checked don't have a complete list.
Also, I've mailed and emailed my AG: have you?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Why are all these people designing Web sites with MS software? They've only got a handful of HTML apps... why are so many sites made with so few tools?
Perhaps because they're pretty good?
Imagine if all of your voice conversations were taped, and then used in court. The problem with email is that it's often used for ad-hoc discussions, quite unlike say sending out official memos.
:)
When those discussions can be captured and searched, you obtain a lot of stuff that taken out of context looks incriminating.
Our legal dept has mandated we delete old email as well. Actually IT loves it because it means they don't have to harp about email box quotas and such.
And with a big enough bribe you can make a DIP switch.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I'm sure its been said many times before, but I guess it needs to be said again. There are no hidden API's! So I have to ask, what do people want that's not already being provided?
By the way, I even found help on msdn on a problem that occurs when you copy files to a full Samba volume. That was pretty interesting. Seems like Microsoft has at least some interest in providing interoperability.
Perhaps Microsoft would be more than happy to provide Samba with detailed documentation. I really have to wonder, have they ever asked for it? Or are they just demonizing them for no reason?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
According to CBS News, the "Big Three" are CA, MA, and MN.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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 will definitely be calling Doyle's office tomorrow! I hope he's with the "attackers" rather than the "soothers." It totally makes sense that Illinois would go along with that.. I mean.. it's.. Illinois... </obligitory Illinois Slam>
-- haaz.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right and wrong.
The US antitrust laws are pieces of federal legislation.
However, they allow other parties besides the federal government to bring suit.
Even private companies can sue under the Sherman Act, IIRC.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Well, they are, but in this case their side was the, er, righter one.
As to the rest of it, ROTFLMAO, more please! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It is the ONLY news in this that is interesting or of any importance because those 6 states totally queer any possibility of a settlement. The other states are not interesting or important, they don't affect the outcome, only the 6 holdouts affect the outcome.
Pull your head out of Gate's ass and take a breath of clean oxygenated atmosphere. Monopolies suck, end of story. Monopolies ALWAYS abuse their position, no argument.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Shurely you mean the Department of Internal Politics of State, Health and Information Technology (DIPSHIT)??
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
The problem with this suggestion is that even if Microsoft must publish a detailed document describing the file formats used by each of their products the day they release the product, it won't matter. They'll still have the lead, because they can *implement* before they release the product, and then everyone else will have to try to catch up. Meanwhile businesses will buy the Micro$oft product for fear of not being able to read a client's document.
In order to be able to compete, potential competitors have to have access to Micro$oft's file formats before the products are released.
"Bill Gates is just a white persian cat and a monocle away from being the villain in a James Bond flick."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Don't blame Microsoft, the fact that they know how to play the game better than everyone else should not be frowned upon.
Right, the game of Monopoly. Let's fix the situation up the way it was meant to be, and see how well they play the game of Free Enterprise.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
and no court in the land has convicted him of a crime here.
Beg pardon? Is this some Bullshit "corporate veil" argument? His company has been found guilty, guilty, guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly status.
Weren't the emails urging/plotting Netscape's demise from Bill G?
The fish rots from the head down and this fish is VERY rotten. The fact that this guy lies each and every time he speaks in public on any subject tells me all I need to know. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, he wouldn't have to lie about it.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
I really want to find out if the six states that are willing to continue this case have the money to pursue it to the very end.
I mean, do they have the legal resources within each state's Attorney General offices to pursue the case? With the economic downturn and dealing with threats after the events of 9/11/2001, I have my doubts.
With resources at states' Attorney General already stretched to the limit, they will have to start paying US$300 to US$500 per hour high-power attorneys to assist the case. Are the states willing to pony up several tens of millions of dollars for outside legal assistance to pursue the case through the US District, Federal Appeals and Surpreme Court in Washington, DC, plus the courts in each individual states? Again, I have my doubts, especially this could involve many hundreds of hours of case preparation, case filing and arguing the case before all appropriate courts.
Several C|Net commentators are correct: the six states would like to pursue the case on its own, but the mountain-sized legal cost could mitigate against that.
This discussion reminds me of my favorite Winston Chruchill quote. Somebody corrected him on his ending a sentence with a preposition. He replied:
"That is exactly the sort of errant pedantry up with which I will not put."
Hows this.
1) Forced Open Standards on all M$ apps.
2) Release whatever kneebreaking agreement M$ has with IBM over OS/2 Warp
3) Allow IBM to market Warp as IBM Windows with similiar name scheme (ME/2000/XP etc...)
Yes, this would create confusion for the custom but they would figure it out quickly enough. Now we have a huge competitor with backbone that has an ax to grind.
This is from Declan McCullagh's
Politech mailing list:
"Nine states (NY, Michigan, Ohio, NC, Kentucky, Louisana, Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin) have settled with Microsoft and agreed to a modified version -- details to come -- of the DOJ's agreement inked last week."
Foo. I'm not surprised, considering Jim Doyle... I've been less and less impressed with him following 11 September. I definitely do not support his gubernatorial race now!
-- haaz.
> 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.
Despite the popular impression that Bush is an 'elected king', he doesn't have all that much power.
The correct term is "tyrant"
Supposedly he exercised none in this case (I'll reserve judgement;).
A powerful ruler can often rely on their "minions" to do the "right" thing without needing to overtly tell them. So lack of obvious exercising of power means nothing.
Why on gods green earth would myself and my fellow Oregonians want to invade California? If anything, we'd fortify the border and shoot any of you silly yahoos who tried to come north.
Remember, Oregon has never tried to take anything from California. California, on the other hand, sued Oregon in federal court in an attempt to seize the Rogue River (yes, the *entire* river) because 'Oregon didn't need the water and southern California did'!
The idea of an independent California is not a happy one. An independent California might try to take little things like rivers from Oregon by force....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Samba is a tool created by consumers, for consumers
Alvin Toffler had the concept of the "prosumer", the producer-consumer. He gave as examples the DIY industry where the consumer gets better prices because "some assembly is required". But the consumer needs the tools for the assembly / construction / cooking...
Consumers by definition consume, not create.
Open Source software is another example of prosumers at work. Hence, it's not always so obvious who is a "company" and who is a "consumer".
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu