Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Settlement: Six States (And Samba) Say "Stop!"

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the reading-the-fine-print dept.

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.

43 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Samba team should brief this and submit to judge by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. Protests by xonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Protests by Reid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Protests by loosifer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

    4. Re:Protests by MadAhab · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  3. Public Comment Period by MarkX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. Tom Reilly by Slash+Privacy+Watch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Tom Reilly by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Why Quickly? by grubby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  6. More links by fava · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  7. Re:this isn't necessarily good by archen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  8. Samba project not hurt, but not helped by Osty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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

    2. Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped by EisPick · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
    3. Re:Samba project not hurt, but not helped by MrResistor · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  9. Bravo for the States! by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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!

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  10. California rejects proposal, too. by reuel · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    [place clever signature here]
  11. Effective remedies by shanek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  12. Wow! Federalism in Action!! by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 5, Informative
    (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...

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  13. Re:Six states? Wow. Samba? OH PLEASE SHOOT ME NOW. by timbck2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  14. Microsoft.. learn a lesson? by d.valued · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Microsoft.. learn a lesson? by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  15. Force MS to innovate. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Force MS to innovate. by rela · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  16. Paying off politicians by snarfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  17. Re:IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot... by dcgaber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  18. Contact info for all State AGs in this case by melquiades · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  19. Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

  20. Free to Inundate! by twisty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'

  21. The BIG SELLOUT by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ``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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  22. Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg by sphealey · · Score: 5, Informative
    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

  23. Re:Slashdot headlines by tswinzig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ... he's gone."
  24. Your brother by matty · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  25. The real remedy: scare the customers by iabervon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  26. Dull Things by kels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    "I believe that the cult of the particular brings only death - for it bases order on likeness." St.-Exupery
  27. Re:this isn't necessarily good by ahde · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. U.S. shouldn't punish with law, but with purchases by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:Again? by maeglin · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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...

  31. Re:IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot... by sheldon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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

  32. Real technopolitics = talk + votes by raresilk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    No, no, no. This is not a sig.
  33. Re:Samba team should brief this and submit to judg by quinto2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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