Slashdot Mirror
MS Settlement: Six States (And Samba) Say "Stop!"
Masem writes "The BBC is reporting that because 6 states have refused to agree to the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ, Microsoft is conceeding that a settlement adjustment will not be possible, opening the door for Judge Kollar-Kotelly to begin rapid remedy hearings. There is a slim chance that negotiations might happen before the end of business today (Tuesday) that will allow the settlement to go after several refinements over the last few nights, but few expect any success. While Judge Kollar-Kotelly is promising to resolve the issue as fast as possible, legal experts are projecting a drawn out battle, with the additional time no longer on Microsoft's side. No word on which states were on which side, beyond MA being very much against the settlement and IL being for it." Besides the states, the Samba team has its own objections, below.
Jeremy Allison and Andrew Tridgell of the Samba team have posted a brief analysis of what the current settlement proposal would mean to that project. (Thanks, jdfox.) Considering that Samba is one of the most important links between open and closed software, it's worth mulling over.
The Samba team should get this statement transformed into legal-brief-ese and submit it to the judge in the case. This (plus the DMCA/SSSCA gotcha's hidden elsewhere in the proposed settlement) hits the core of the weakness of the proposed settlement.
sPh
This an interesting quote from TheStreet.com
"Under the 1974 Tunney Act, designed to make sure settlements with the government are in the public interest, a proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register and undergo a 60-day public comment period before gaining approval. At the end of that period, the government has 30 days to respond to those comments. The court then determines whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest."
So the community needs to get organized and be prepared to speak to the settlement and why it is or isn't in the public interest.
MarkX
Quoth Tom Reilly, my new hero:
"In an earlier interview with the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts attorney-general Tom Reilly said the deal was "full of loopholes and does little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition".
Thank you for the sound bite, Mr Reilly: the DoJ has handed Microsoft a "license to kill".
My question is this: 6 states oppose the settlement, 6 states are undecided (want more money), and 6 states are for it (we're already paid off). Of these three groups, are any of them actually interested in protecting their businesses from this predatory monopoly? Is anyone truly acting on principle?
In an era where it's easy to be cynical, it would be a wonderful thing to be able to believe in people like Tom Reilly.
Why does the department of justice keep insisting that things are dealt with quickly? This is the first time in history where an antitrust trial has been mostly upheld by some of the most respected courts in the nation and suddenly being settled. The doj had this thing pretty much in the bag and all of a sudden we don't want to deal with it anymore? Come on this is getting rediculous. At this point maybe the judge will stand up and do what is right. If one of us was found guilty of a crime they wouldn't suddenly be persuaded to settle the case!
You can also try the following stories.
t ml
m l (Reg Required)
l
www.msnbc.com/news/652977.asp
money.cnn.com/2001/11/06/technology/microsoft/
www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,316946-412,00.sh
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38145,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/business/06CND-SOFT.ht
canoe.ca/MoneyMicrosoft/nov6_msfttwothirds-ap.htm
Maybe it's just me, but reading through the Samba project's analysis I didn't get the same sense of urgency that the Slashdot article gave. As I understand it, the Samba project would be no worse off if the settlement went through. They would simply not benefit from the settlement. IANAL, but it seems to me that a non-related third party to the legal action has no "right", if you will, to profit from the settlement. That's between the DoJ, the States Attorneys, and Microsoft (and potentially AOL/Netscape, Sun, and Oracle, as they were the ones that greased the pockets that got this started in the first place).
If the settlement doesn't hinder Samba any more than they currently are, I don't see where they have grounds to object to it simply because it doesn't help them either. (hint: anti-trust legislation is supposed to be designed to protect the consumer, not a monopoly's competitors. Samba's the latter, not the former. We've bastardized those laws to the point where they're just legal protection for companies that can no longer compete in a market. There's nothing illegal with going out of business.)
The San Jose Mercury reported this morning that California has indicated that it would reject the proposed settlement as well.
[place clever signature here]
1) Microsoft must fully open the APIs and protocols to all interested parties, including rival software manufacturers and those who would set up emulation or compatibility layers (this would include WINE and Samba). It would seem to me that this should be considered the responsibility of anyone who makes an OS for general consumption. (Note that this would not require them to open up their source code.)
2) Microsoft should be prohibited from restricting equipment manufacturers from altering the software or reconfiguring the computer, such as installing rival software running on Windows or setting up a dual-boot with Linux.
Anything that doesn't do at least this much, in my view, will not make any difference whatsoever.
Remember in high school, when they explained the concept of States Rights and how the states were reserved certain rights and the Feds others? It always got me how many dull things these addressed - water rights, highway funding, etc. The only thing I could recall where it intersected in really relevant issues was Civil Rights back in the '60s (and then, several of the states were wearing the Black Hats).
So, it's kind of neat to see Federalism jump back, with individual states acting as a check on the authority of the Federal govt (at least in areas where their rights and responsibilities overlap). Regardless of which way you think the rulings should go, it's kind of cool to see this somewhat bizarre feature of our government in action.
Man, it kind of makes me wish I had an EMAIL of my old Civics teacher...
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
I disagree -- Samba is arguably the single most often used piece of "middleware" (under the MS/DoJ settlement nomenclature) that would be affected by this settlement. I can't think of anything else even in the same category possessing the same level of usefulness as Samba. I've seen much speculation over the last couple of years that says Microsoft would be delighted to have a means to get rid of Samba; this might just be it.
Therefore I believe it's extremely important for any discussions to include Samba.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
The lesson MS has learned (as well as most other obscenely large corps) is that with enough money and enough lawyers, anything is possible.
Also, let's be clear on exactly what the problem is: It's not the OS per se, but the fact that they're bundling all this drek along with it and is forcing it onto the OEM's. The problem is the use of its (reluctantly stated) legal monopoly on operating systems to force others out of other, non-OS markets. Think of the last time your Windows machine was marketed with Navigator, Corel's office suite or StarOffice, etc.
Microsoft's OS won in the OS market because they, at first, made it more attractive. Same as VHS over the technical superiority of Beta. Nowadays, there's nothing consumer that's in Beta (and even professional Beta machines are getting the boot). Very little consumer hardware is not in Windows.
You've got a point, XP is a case of arrogance to the nth degree. However, the settlement mentioned was a virtual slap on the wrist made with a feather instead of a ruler. One of the three people that would oversee MS's books and code would be a Microsoft designee, the second would need Microsoft's approval as well as the (fill in the blank). They couldn't share information with the outside world. To boot, it only would last a maximum of 7 years. To a corporation as pervasive as MS, seven years is nil.
It's amazing what campaign contributions will buy you nowadays.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Disallow MS from buying any tech companies or any technology product for the next 7 years.
This would foster competition. When MS buys a company or product such as Visio, Powerpoint, IE, SQL server, etc. they remove the competition and get ahead start against anyone else that might be in that market. They use their huge pile of cash that they have acquired by being a monopoly to squelch any upstart and recover from any bad decision (such as initially ignoring the rise of the internet) . The best an upstart can hope for is being bought out.
I can't see how MS would find this too disagreeable as they often like to think of themselves as Innovators, so innovate and compete.
My bet is that if MS had to develop IE from scratch Netscape would still be in the game. Look at the products they develop from scratch such as IIS! A buggy insecure product that will take another 4 years to mature. If Apache was a commercial product they would have bought it long ago and we would all be using MS Apache.
This settlement undermines respect for the law.
,"How can we help?" They respond, "Shut up and buy stuff, this country isn't about YOU anymore."
It is obvious that Microsoft paid off politicians. The Bush administration has proven over and over again to be little more than a clearinghouse for corporate criminals - give Bush enough cash and out pops a (huge) tax break, or a pesky environmental regulation is disposed of...
It's like the government is about who has the money. It isn't about US anymore. Like this war - we say
Well it is probabably good you are not a lawyer :)
All anti-trust cases are federal cases, it is a federal statute, and one of the few issues that has original jurisdiction in a federal court. If a State, private company, individual, or Fed govt wants to bring suit on anti-trust, it is a federal matter.
Now just because the Bush DoJ (and I did vote for the man) sold out, and gave MS a deal replete with so many loopholes that you could drive a truck through, additionally exempting them from anti-trust laws, additionally refusing to do what the Court of Appeals asked for in a remedy (for the fruits of their illegal conduct to be destroyed, you know the same court that everyone who refuses to read the opinion of says precluded break-up, but in fact did nothing of that nature), then States SHOULD STAND UP.
After all, these State A.G.s did not get millions of dollars from MS in contributions (yes, the GOP recieved around 2 million last year, and the same fundraisers who took the checks are also now working in DoJ as Ashcroft's top luitenants, Also see the Wash. Post article talking about how a top MS lawyer regularly consulted with DoJ anti-trust chief Charles James (he was James' mentor))
But I am not cynical, just hoping the states stay vigalant.
Oh, that is why the States do not need to capitulate to the DoJ decision
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
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.'
The Samba team is clearly an interested party to this case so their brief might actually be considered.
sPh
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?
I hate to tell you, but I suspect most people find software litigation at least as dull as water rights or highway funding.
"I believe that the cult of the particular brings only death - for it bases order on likeness." St.-Exupery
Bill gates was quoted as saying the settlement was "fair and reasonable" -- If you heard any other convicted criminal say that their sentence was "fair and reasonable" wouldn't you wonder if it really was? And this is not a civil suit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
"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...
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.