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.

Comments

Samba team should brief this and submit to judge

[sphealey]

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

Protests

[xonker]

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?

Re:Protests

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what?! Even some of the people who *dislike* Microsoft products have been saying they don't like the behaviour of the US Government in this case.

disclaimer: I run FreeBSD on all of my machines and push it whenever it's the best tool for the job

Don't blame Microsoft, the fact that they know how to play the game better than everyone else should not be frowned upon. Most of their products are terrible, but they know how to appeal to the masses. They are the businessmen and salesmen that are the ones to look up to. Blame Joe User for not looking for another product, because gawd knows there are plenty of better products out there.

In case you forgot, or weren't born yet, IBM hed much more of a monopoly than MS ever will. You just never hear about it these days because computing was not in the spotlight of the general public back then.

The market righted itself in the past, and it will this time too.

Re:Protests

[BWJones]

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.


The fine you quote will not happen. Besides the litigation of who gets that money would be disgusting.

That said, I like penalty your 1 alot. Like it or not, M$ has shown that standards are important to communication. In addition to your penalty 2, I would like to see M$ create separate application divisions for OS's including Linux, MacOS, Windows and any others that are financially doable. The Mac division is already somewhat separate, and they create some nice stuff even if some features are crippled by M$ corporate. The version for OSX is looking quite nice and should do well. Microsoft knows that their Mac division is quite profitable and this is one of the reasons they have been given quite a bit of room. (so I've been told)

Re:Protests

[Reid]

In case you forgot, or weren't born yet, IBM hed much more of a monopoly than MS ever will. You just never hear about it these days because computing was not in the spotlight of the general public back then. The market righted itself in the past, and it will this time too.

Wasn't IBM under the antitrust gun themselves for many years? Kind of disingenuous to say "the market righted itself" when the government played a large part in fixing that problem.

Re:Protests

[FatRatBastard]

Require open standards? That's like telling Coke they need to open up their formula for their trademark beverage so that Pepsi and RC can compete more fairly.

Actually, not a bad analogy is Coke was convicted of being a monopoly that abused its position to keep Pepsi and RC from producing soda.

Coke play hard, as do Pepsi and anyone in the sugar water business (or any other business). But monopolies are a different beast alltogether (in legal terms). Monopolies can be restricted from doing things that would be legal for a non-monopoly company. Lots of people forget this.

Now, you may disagree that MS is a monopoly; I've heard compelling evidence for both sides. But the judicial branch of the gov't spoke, and (barring some weird ass legal turnaround) they found MS to a) be a monopoly and b) have illegally maintained it. Thus, the penalties they could have imposed on them may not allow them to do certain things that the likes of Apple, Sun, HP, Compaq, et al will still be allowed to do.

Re:Protests

[loosifer]

What Xbox has to do with this is Microsoft using money, mindshare, and connections from their monopoly to attempt to illegally extend their monopoly into the gaming console area, which is exactly what the whole case is about.

Everyone seems to overlook, again and again, that monopolies aren't illegal, it's only when monopolies are leveraged to create new monopolies that they become illegal.

Thus, tying IE to Windows wasn't illegal per se, except that it leveraged one monopoly to create another, which is illegal.

I'm a heckuva lot more worried about .Net, the Xbox, and copy protection right now, though; those are all cases of Microsoft using their monopoly in Office and Windows to leverage into new spaces.

Not to mention using those monopolies to leverage each other...

Re:Protests

[gehrehmee]

How is X-box and Msn currently being owned by MS breaking the law or causing anti-competitive behavior in the desktop operating system market?

At least in the case of MSN, it's a prime example of Microsoft's attempt to expand it's monopoly into unrelated industries.
1) They include Internet Explorer in Windows
2) They force OEM's to not remove it.
3) They force OEM's to not make it less obvious in the desktop
4) They actively attempt to dump their product into the market in such a way as to elminate competition
5) They fake evidince in court to give the idea that removing it is somehow destructive
6) They push MSN at every possible corner in Windows XP in an attempt to improve their ISP services' market share.

I also feel that as MSN is split from MS, Internet explorer should go with it. If left with MSN, it improves the share of other browsers in the Windows market, other browsers that support non-standard platforms. That would force MSN to consider porting Internet Explorer to other platforms as well.

Re:Protests

[benedict]

I hear about it all the time.

One of the things I hear about is that IBM was investigated for antitrust, and that this put a damper on their anticompetitive behavior, and *that's* how the market was righted.

Silly libertarians, always rewriting history.

Re:Protests

[Arandir]

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.

The computer industry is still a new industry, and the market is still evolving its standards. It takes time to come up with a meaningful standard, and it doesn't help any that the technology is improving faster than the defacto standards can keep up.

A government solution in this area is the wrong way to go about. The government is not smart enough to insitute meaningful technological standards, and is not fast enough to keep up with the improving technology. I would love open standards for everything. But I am unwilling to make closed standards illegal. There are other solutions however.

First off, we need to stop singling out Microsoft as the only problem. They are only a small part of it. When you hit a website that doesn't support HTML 4.0 (Konqueror or Mozilla), don't blame Microsoft, blame the webmaster. When you receive a Word document as an email, don't blame Microsoft blame the poster. These are both symptoms of a young industry. The webmaster doesn't know any better than to target specific platforms. The poster doesn't know that word processors are inappropriate for text messaging. No amount of legislation against Microsoft is going to educate these people.

Second, don't use any closed standards yourself. If you're running a website then create it according to the standards. We did a wonderful job of cleaning our own websites of gifs without any government help, so it shouldn't be that hard to get our own homes in order. Dump Visual Basic. Dump FrontPage. Dump Outlook server. Learn HTML/XML, C/C++, PHP, Perl/Python.

Finally, there is indeed something the government can do without mucking up the works. It can require all products it uses to comply with published open standards. It doesn't need to tell anyone else what to do, only itself. As the single largest customer of Microsoft products, it can through its weight around quite a bit without having to arrest anyone.

Re:Protests

[rkent]

2. Divest MSN, and X-Box divisions.

Ahh! No! Don't make them get rid of X-Box! It sucks so bad, it's sure to lead to their eventual downfall if you let 'em keep it!

Re:Protests

[MadAhab]

Actually, Microsoft walked into the area opened up by the antitrust suit and that created a balance in the market, not the market itself, which failed Failed FAILED, as markets periodically do absent oversight. In much the same way sporting contests without referees tend to fall apart now and then; when was the last time you saw a referee-less sporting event where money changed hands? No one has yet moved into a space opened up by antitrust suits against Microsoft; nor are they likely to, since Microsoft's leadership clearly believe they are above the law and can ignore any judgement against them.

Bush's belief in aristocracy before capitalism and money before values and power before technology will ensure that the next generation of change - be it a multi-media WWW or whatever - will be held back for another 20 years while an abusive monopoly tries to get the markets to pay in advance for every niggardly improvement, unless, of course, crushing yet another hopelessly optimistic would-be competitor happens to make some innovation appear to be worth stealing.

Re:Protests

[Arandir]

The Microsoft situation is very similar to the "robber barons" of yesteryear. Both examples show monopolies rising in a brand new industry, and both demonstrated the need for open standards.

All the railroad companies used different rail gauges so that a city couldn't switch railroads even if they wanted to. The funny thing is, the emergence of open rail standards occured WITHOUT government intervention. The customers were pissed royal that they had to switch trains every ten miles because the rail gauges changed. Make a standard gauge and suddenly the monopolies no longer had a lock on the towns. But it wasn't the government that instituted the standard gauge, it was the industry itself.

But there is one crucial difference between the railroad barons and Microsoft. The railroads owned the infrastructure (the tracks). Microsoft doesn't own any infrastructure. They are more akin to a steam engine business providing the trains that run on the rails. Today I can surf the web, read my email, play my games, and a whole bunch other stuff without once having to ask Microsoft for permission or having to use any of their products. Such was not the case 150 years ago with the railroads.

p.s. If your into conspiracy theories, evidence suggests that the railroad monopolies were already hitting the hard times when the feds stepped in, and that it was the railroad barons that got the anti-trust stuff moving so that they could *keep* their monopolies. Looking at the rail industry today, it seems that they were successful.

p.p.s. How come nobody for breaking up Microsoft is for breaking up the local telcos and cablecos? They are much more akin to the railroad barons, since they DO own the infrastructure.

Re:Protests

[radja]

>Don't blame Microsoft, the fact that they know how to play the game better than everyone else should not be frowned upon.

Only as long as they stick to the rules. Like a footballplayer who ALWAYS goes down in the penalty area. Just hoping to get a penalty. Now they've been caught for faking injuries.. They don't play the game better.. they bend the rules of the game.

//rdj

Public Comment Period

[MarkX]

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

Tom Reilly

[Slash Privacy Watch]

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.

Re:Tom Reilly

[Osty]

Of these three groups, are any of them actually interested in protecting their businesses from this predatory monopoly? Is anyone truly acting on principle?

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.

Why Quickly?

[grubby]

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!

Re:Why Quickly?

[remande]

The DOJ is part of the executive branch, so its character changes with the president.

The DOJ didn't investigate Microsoft during Bush I. It started with Clinton. Now that Bush II is in office, he's not persuing antitrust action against Microsoft, so the DOJ is easing off.

The Republican party claims to be pro-big-business. Microsoft is as big business as it gets. Most Republicans aren't big on antitrust legislation at all, because it interferes with a big corporation's right to run unmolested.

The Democrat party claims to be pro-little-guy. Since Microsoft is perceived as trampling over the little guy (forget the users, the Little Guy is Netscape and Sun), Clinton had a vested interest in canning Microsoft.

More links

[fava]

You can also try the following stories.
www.msnbc.com/news/652977.asp

money.cnn.com/2001/11/06/technology/microsoft/

www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,316946-412,00.sht ml

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38145,00.html

www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/business/06CND-SOFT.htm l (Reg Required)

canoe.ca/MoneyMicrosoft/nov6_msfttwothirds-ap.html

MS Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:this isn't necessarily good

[archen]

"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.

Samba project not hurt, but not helped

[Osty]

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.)

Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped

[sphealey]

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.

You need to factor the DMCA, the SSSCA, and language elsewhere in the settlement agreement concerning security, encryption, and "digital rights management". Those factors could easily be combined to allow Microsoft to use the settlement to sue Samba, rather than the other way around.

sPh

Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped

[EisPick]

I can't get to the Samba statement (appears Slashdotted)

Here it is:

Jeremy Allison & Andrew Tridgell: Analysis of the MS Settlement and What It Means for Samba. Nov 6, 2001, 08 :28 UTC (21 Talkback[s]) (10223 reads)
(Other stories by Jeremy Allison & Andrew Tridgell)

The Samba Team would welcome Microsoft documenting its proprietary server protocols. Unfortunately this isn't what the settlement stipulates. The settlement states :

"E. Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the client or server operating system products) with Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its successors installed on a server computer. "

Sounds good for Samba, doesn't it. However, in the "Definition of terms" section it states :

"Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System Product on a client computer and Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its successors running on a server computer and connected via a local area network or a wide area network. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network. Communications Protocol shall not include protocols used to remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its successors. "

If Microsoft is allowed to be the interpreter of this document, then it could be interpreted in a very broad sense to explicitly exclude the SMB/CIFS protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with Windows 2000. They would claim that these protocols are used by Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not be required to be disclosed. In that case, this settlement would not help interoperability with Microsoft file serving one bit, as it would be explicitly excluded.

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.

The holes in this document are large enough for any competent lawyer to drive several large trucks through. I assume the DoJ lawyers didn't get any technical advice on this settlement as the exceptions are cleverly worded to allow Microsoft to attempt to evade any restrictions in previous parts of the document.

Microsoft has very competent lawyers, as this weakly worded settlement by the DoJ shows. It is to be hoped the the European Union investigators are not so easily fooled as the USA.

A secondary problem is the definition of "Reasonable and non-Discriminatory" (RAND) licensing terms. We have already seen how such a term could damage the open implementation of the protocols of the Internet. If applied in the same way here, Open Source/Free Software products would be explicitly excluded.

Regards,

Jeremy Allison,
Andrew Tridgell,
Samba Team.

Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped

[MrResistor]

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.

WRONG!

For Samba to be a competitor it would have to be a company, which it isn't. Even if Samba was a company, or the product of a company, it wouldn't be a competitor.

Samba is a tool created by consumers, for consumers, for the purposes of sharing files and printers in a heterogeneous network using Microsoft's communication protocols and standards (namely SMB and CIFS), which currently have to be reverse-engineered by contributors to the Samba project.

Samba is entirely free, free as in speech, free as in beer. Samba protects the consumer by promoting interoperability in heterogeneous networks.

The Samba team has grounds to object because they are consumers who would like to be able to keep their important files on a single powerful and RELIABLE *nix server rather than clusters of redundant and UNRELIABLE NT servers.

Had you bothered to find out what Samba was before declaring judgement upon them, you would already have known all that.

Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped

[MrResistor]

Interestingly enough, the fact that the Samba team has a separate implementation of SMB and CIFS than the Microsoft implementation, and that it is intended to be used in the same places where Microsoft file sharing would be done, makes Samba a competitor.

Huh? Without Samba my windows boxes can't see a damned thing on my *nix boxes. How does Samba compete with MS if it allows windows to do something it couldn't do before? Competition implies that they are both trying to do the same thing, which isn't true. Samba isn't for installation on windows, and I don't see MS putting out SMB/CIFS implementations for *nix. I admit it's possible that they have, but I've never heard of it.

And of course Samba has a different implementation than MS. It's not like they had access to MS's code...

Doesn't matter if it was created "by consumers, for consumers", by entering that "market" (I'm using that loosely to mean the set of situations and scenarios in which Samba and NT Server provide the same functionality) Samba became a competitor.

Samba is not a competitor because it offers something MS's SMB/CIFS doesn't; interoperability. You could argue that Samba enables competition, and I would agree, but Samba itself is not a competitor. And since any anti-trust remedy should increase competition, shouldn't something that enables that competition be a beneficiary of that remedy, particularly something that is created and maitained by the very consumers whos protection is at issue?

NT unreliability in the area of interest (CIFS/SMB file sharing) is largely hearsay. If you believe otherwise, please cite (independant, unbiased) studies that prove one way or the other.

Well, there was that thing from the Gartner Group a little while back, although it was about using MS for webservers mostly. I don't doubt that MS's implementation of SMB/CIFS is rock solid, but that amounts to dick when it's sadled with the instability of the OS it's running on. In my personal experience, I have never seen an MS server match the reliability of a *nix server, whether they were maitained by myself or anyone else. If you tell me that your NT server goes a month or two between reboots, I'm still going to point to *nix servers with uptimes of several months or even years, and the 2 minutes it takes for you to reboot that NT box could easily cost a couple thousand dollars in lost productivity, and that's for a company that's not even that big.

I spend 50+ hours a week using windows, and I know it a hell of a lot better than I know Linux. My post wasn't about Linux evangelism, it was about why the Samba team has as much right as anyone else to benefit from any judgement against MS. What does it mean to the consumer if MS has to open up it's API's? Nothing, except what groups like Samba are able to do with them.

So what if they're a third party, they're complaints were equally valid for Sun and Oracle. Their assessment of the proposed settlement was accurate.

You're the one who said said anti-trust is supposed to protect the consumer, how would it do that if the only beneficiaries of this action were the companies that origionally complained? If this were simply a civil action, I would agree that the Samba team have no right to complain, but it isn't civil action, it's anti-trust, and anti-trust is supposed to benefit everyone (well, except for the abusive monopoly, of course).

Bravo for the States!

[Glock27]

I find it hard to believe the Feds are willing to give Microsoft a slap on the wrist and then (more or less) let them run roughshod over the rest of the computer industry.

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!

Re:Bravo for the States!

[gmhowell]

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.)

Re:Bravo for the States!

[Glock27]

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!

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!

Re:Bravo for the States!

[re-geeked]

When there's a monopolist, there's a way. MS product activation is an anticompetitive feature because it raises barriers to retaining Windows while changing your original hardware platform, which is at least an opportunity, and often a requirement, to adopt an additional OS platform. Linux may be free, but if I need to pay for an MS OS in order to get enough disk space to run it, would I still consider dual-booting to Linux a free upgrade?

Remember, MS' monopoly is based on a few simple facts:

Windows runs on the dominant PC hardware platform (x86).

The network effect of a large user base makes it hard to interact with others without using (or interoperating with) Windows.

Windows comes pre-installed on almost every x86 system sold.

Product activation, by essentially charging you a tax to upgrade hardware, and by giving you only the choice of cutting yourself off from Windows users, makes it more likely that you'll remain tied to the hardware platform that tied you to Windows in the first place.

It's really the final recognition that Microsoft's monopoly makes it the world's dominant PC hardware vendor, and the OEMs are just subcontractors.

California rejects proposal, too.

[reuel]

The San Jose Mercury reported this morning that California has indicated that it would reject the proposed settlement as well.

Effective remedies

[shanek]

I think that any effective remedy that will stem Microsoft's behavior would include, at a minimum, the following two conditions:

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.

Wow! Federalism in Action!!

[Embedded Geek]

(For US consumption)

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...

Re:Six states? Wow. Samba? OH PLEASE SHOOT ME NOW.

[timbck2]

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.

Microsoft.. learn a lesson?

[d.valued]

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.

Re:Microsoft.. learn a lesson?

[SirSlud]

Not so fast, CapNPeet!

Mr. Anon above me is right, I believe.

Sony wanted to prevent porn studios from releasing their material on BETA. The licencing terms of Beta technology had this stipulation .. no non Sony-sanctionned content, as opposed to the far more openminded JVS who developed VHS (I think).

Since the porn industry is generally on the forefront of technology (think ... streaming video/audio, popups .. they are always the first, because since wetern society is hellbent on making sure they never need to worry about PR or lowest-common-demoninator content delivery methods), they actually have a very interesting 'say' in what technologies receive significant adoption.

In the case of VHS and Beta, since pron was only available on VHS, and the major purchasers (at least back then) of VCRs and Porn was roughly the same demographic (salary earning male?), VHS permetated US homes far faster than Sony ever could have predicted.

Interestingly enough, I think the same thing will happen with MS 15 years down the road. When they get enough control over the net to effectively shut down non-MS sanctionned content (anything midly offensive, witty, anti-MS, whatever), they will essentially end up as their own worst enemy, and the market will drive them out. Well, that is, unless the US gets it together or the EU shows the US how its done.

Re:Microsoft.. learn a lesson?

[Josuah]

Think of the last time your Windows machine was marketed with Navigator, Corel's office suite or StarOffice, etc.

This needs a bit more clarification, I think. The truth is that Windows machines sold by Gateway, Dell, etc. are now only marketed and bundled with software like MS Office, and maybe some Anti-Virus software (non-MS, of course). But the hardware side is different. OEMs market hardware bundles a lot, and the companies that are providing these hardware components are in a much better position than software developers who are trying to get onto the end user's desktop. ATI, Epson, HP, Palm, etc. are bundled with Windows machines on the motherboard, as printers and scanners, and PDAs. Here you see a lot of push for competition in an attempt to attract the consumer. There's no such software push.

For an example of how obvious this is, and how important as well, you only need to take a look at the new Apple stores. Apple is trying very, very hard to get consumers to come in and see what they can do with a Mac, and how it is better than Windows. To that end, their stores feature BOTH hardware and software offerings from a number of different vendors (e.g. Sony hardware, MS hardware, MS software, Apple software, games, Adobe software, Palm hardware). You won't find anything like this from any other OEM, or even from any other dealer/retailer. CompUSA does carry software and hardware in addition to selling Windows machines, but the store, marketing, and the sales force is not organized to try and associate those other software and hardware products with the Windows computer itself.

Force MS to innovate.

[Camel Pilot]

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.

Re:Force MS to innovate.

[rela]

If Apache was a commercial product they would have bought it long ago and we would all be using MS Apache.

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.

Paying off politicians

[snarfer]

This settlement undermines respect for the law.

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 ,"How can we help?" They respond, "Shut up and buy stuff, this country isn't about YOU anymore."

Re:IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot...

[dcgaber]

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

Other states...

[Lxy]

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.

Contact info for all State AGs in this case

[melquiades]

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

Interesting viewpoint

[baptiste]

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.

Ralph Nader and James Love comment

[Anonymous DWord]

...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.

http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov5 01.html

Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg

[sphealey]

You think the judge heard about "samba" -- I mean, other than "south-american dance"? I really doubt it.
And what can be added to the solution agreed upon by the DOJ - some specific technical requirements, like naming ports and protocols? There are no words for that in legalese. :)

I think Judge Jackson's conduct of the original trial (excluding the stupidity of talking to a reporter, which I thought was dumb at the time) shows that lawyers/judges are capable of handling complex/subtle technical issues. That's the job of judges, after all.

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

(partial) list of surrenders & latest developm

[shibut]

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... :-(...

Free to Inundate!

[twisty]

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.'

Re:Free to Inundate!

[greygent]

Nice comment, but there are a few points I feel I must correct.

1.) The only reason Sun is into "pluralism" is out of necessity. They would go under if they didn't. Granted, Solaris is a stellar OS, but Sun the corporation is easily as evil, or even moreso, than Microsoft. Right now, they're just the underdog, so it's an "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

Ask anyone administering a large solaris infrastructure what they think of Sun's openness. Sun also has some bone to pick with Microsoft, so they'll take cheap shots any chance they can get.

2.) I think Microsoft does believe in empowering the user. They may be a bit off-course, though. I still believe Microsoft's development tools are second-to-none, and their API documentation, for the most part is excellent.

Re:Free to Inundate!

[bartle]

I think Microsoft does believe in empowering the user. They may be a bit off-course, though. I still believe Microsoft's development tools are second-to-none, and their API documentation, for the most part is excellent.

Credit where credit is due, Visual Studio is one of the best development environments around. Their online documentation for MFC and the API is also very good. If only this were enough.

The main area I have a problem with is the Windows registry. It's become a source of misery in general, but it also contains thousands of critical keys that Microsoft hasn't documented and has no intention of ever documenting. If you want to write a program that intergrates itself into the OS, you're going to have to spend a lot of time exploring the registry.

Sure, Microsoft makes it easy enough to develop applications for their operating systems. But Microsoft also keeps enough stuff undocumented so that you'll never be able to integrate applications into the OS as closely as they do. This creates an environment where you're free to write all the cool software you want, but Microsoft can at any point write the a similiar app and latch it into their OS. This is why I would love Microsoft to document ALL of their operating system, it would help to level this area of the playing field.

Re:This bad deal could get better or worse

[FatRatBastard]

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.

The BIG SELLOUT

[ackthpt]

``The settlement is fair and reasonable and, most important, is in the best interests of consumers and the economy,'' Gates said in a statement.

``A competitive software industry is vital to our economy, and effective antitrust enforcement is crucial to preserving competition in the constantly changing hi-tech arena,'' Ashcroft said.

``Eliminating uncertainty is going to be good for the economy,'' said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

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.

Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg

[sphealey]

You're probably right - if they really can do this. Can anybody - or even somebody with a specific interest in the outcome of the case - submit such a brief? Is the judge supposed to read it?

I ran this by my brother, who is a technology lawyer who has practiced before the federal court. Anyone can submit a brief to the judge on any case. Whether or not the judge reads it is up to him/her. However, unless it is formatted the "right" way and submitted according to procedure, it will almost certainly be ignored.

The Samba team is clearly an interested party to this case so their brief might actually be considered.

sPh

Re:Slashdot headlines

[tswinzig]

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.

This Might Be The Best Outcome

[gnetwerker]

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)

Your brother

[matty]

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?

samba's support quite a relief

[Trepidity]

Oh good, I was afraid only some measly states' attorneys general were against it. But to know that we have Samba on our side...

The real remedy: scare the customers

[iabervon]

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.

Dull Things

[kels]

It always got me how many dull things these addressed - water rights, highway funding, etc.

I hate to tell you, but I suspect most people find software litigation at least as dull as water rights or highway funding.

Re:this isn't necessarily good

[ahde]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wow! Federalism in Action!!

[gmhowell]

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.

Re:this isn't necessarily good

[sheldon]

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.

Re:Protests ( email state A.G. / Rep / Senator )

[Locutus]

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

U.S. shouldn't punish with law, but with purchases

[Ukab the Great]

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.

Re:Again?

[maeglin]

"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...

Re:IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot...

[sheldon]

"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

Real technopolitics = talk + votes

[raresilk]

Yes, the politicians listen to their contributors far too much. That's clearly why the feds and six state attorney generals have signed on - there's nothing whatsoever in the settlement with a realistic hope of benefiting competition or consumers. But that's our collective fault, because the citizens of the USA consistently don't bother to VOTE!!! Election turnouts below 50%, and even below 20% have become the norm, and this is particularly true in local elections where people like state attorney generals get chosen.

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.

NINE States reject MSFT settlement

[Ear Phantom]

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.

Re:Better idea?

[Danse]

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).

Re:Your point?

[Danse]

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.

Different story from MCP Magazine

[bobdehnhardt]

As I was reading this article, the following showed up in my email, from the MCP mailing list:

In this issue of MCP Magazine News:

** Microsoft, DOJ Reach Settlement

One of the biggest and highest-profile antitrust cases in U.S. history was brought nearly to a close Friday when Microsoft Corp. and the federal government reached a settlement in the four-year old lawsuit. The settlement was praised by Microsoft and the government, but a number of industry analysts said the feds were too lenient on Microsoft.

Far from the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies that the government initially sought, the settlement places some safeguards on several Microsoft practices judged to be anti-competitive. The final resolution hasn't come yet, however. There are still 18 states that have yet to sign on to the settlement, and one has said it won't.

Microsoft Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates, at a press conference announcing the settlement, said it "represents a fair compromise on all sides. We hope the state attorneys general will also agree it's a good settlement."

Regarding some of the restrictions placed on Microsoft, Gates said his company fully intends to comply. "The agreement contains significant rules and regulations on how we develop and license our software, but it allows Microsoft to keep innovating on behalf of consumers."
Changes in Redmond's behavior required by the proposal include:

The company has to disclose server protocols to make sure that Windows desktops don't work better with Microsoft OSs like Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows .NET than they do with competing OSs like Linux or Unix.

For at least five years (with an option to extend the time frame two more years), Microsoft must offer uniform licensing to OEMs. No more special deals for some computer makers over others.

Microsoft is forbidden from entering into exclusive contracts that keep software developers or computer manufacturers from using competing products.

Those and other terms of the settlement didn't satisfy many.

"The reported settlement agreement, stunningly, will not change either Microsoft's business practices nor its software implementations one iota," Ken Wasch, president of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), a trade association for the software and digital content industry, said in a statement.

"Remarkably, the purported settlement appears to be less than the interim remedies ordered by Judge Jackson prior to the unanimous Court of Appeals ruling. And it appears to be weaker than the last offer in the previous round of mediation led by Judge Posner," Wasch said.

Some states are making noises that the settlement doesn't go far enough, and will press ahead with separate litigation. Massachusetts on Monday became the first to confirm that it isn't satisfied, and is moving forward in the courts. So while Redmond is done, at least for now, with Uncle Sam, some of his cousins still want to mix it up with Bill & Co.

Keith Ward

Either they're just not up on the times (very likely), or they're trying to spin this (also very likely)....

Death Penalty

[remande]

I am pro-life...for people. For corporations, however, perhaps there should be a death penalty.

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.

Re:Death Penalty

[tdye]

I wonder how this would work. MSFT is incorporated inthe state of Washington, but their legal problems stem from federal antitrust violations. It would seem to me that the State of Washington would have to revoke their corporate charter as a seperate action heard in state court, and that all other states (and the fed) have to rely on remedies described in antitrust law.

Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg

[quinto2000]

I believe this is called an amicus brief, or friend of the court brief. They are quite common in cases of wide interest.

Dennis Miller said it best..

[jcr]

"Bill Gates is just a white persian cat and a monocle away from being the villain in a James Bond flick."

-jcr

Ah, Slashdot...land of errant pedants

[melquiades]

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."