Public Comment Period In MS/DOJ Battle

PacketMaster writes: "Somthing that I didn't know, and perhaps many others didn't know is that now this settlement by the federal government and some of the states will go back before the judge and be opened for a 60 day commentary period by the public as required by the Tunney Act (See Sec 5,USC Sec 16). This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter. If some of the major developer groups (i.e. Samba) would put together a well-thought-out and easy-to-read commentary on their concerns, maybe we as a community can affect the process. See the ZDNet article for more information." No forum for public comment is up yet (first, the proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register), but should be in the near future.

Comments

Here's what you can write:

[Zach`]

Here is a list of states suing microsoft (courtesy of Microsoft's "freedom to Innovate Network"):

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin

Here's what I sent to the Attorney General in my state:

"
I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:

1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.

2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.

3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).

4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.

5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.

6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.
"

Re:Here's what you can write:

[magi]

2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason.

This is a very important part. I'd suggest a few additions:
- the clause must include also file formats used in any Microsoft products
- the documents must be made available for free at the Microsoft web site, not just in MSDN nor through some other expensive service or licensing.
- the documentation must be released at least 60 days before the publication of the product, and also 60 days before the publication of any updates.
- Microsoft itself must follow the documentation and not make any unpublished private extensions on top of the published protocols
- the clause must apply also to any security protocols or fileformat encryptions

The fileformat documentation is very important, because they are also "communication protocols" used when communicating content between application instances. This would be especially important for MS Office, as it is strategically essential component of the infamous application barrier. Microsoft has an effective monopoly in Office products, which work properly only in Windows, which is the single most influential factor in creating and maintaining the OS monopoly.

There might still be loopholes for protocols requiring pantented or otherwise closed or proprietary third-party components. Microsoft should be forbidden of using such 3rd-party components to circumvent the requirements.

my simple complaint

[motherhead]

I don't think anyone (with the capacity for thought) thinks Microsoft should be desolved. The ripple effect on the economy and industry would be horrific. I think the major complaint is that it seems that Microsoft is rewarded for bad behavior more often then not. Microsoft needs to be taught to play well with others.

When we talk of monopolies we do not mean that the consumer has no other choice, which is absurd, but rather the consumer is in a position to be lied to and coerced. IBM might have invented FUD, but Microsoft has made an artform and a successful school of marketing based on it. And to make matters worse they direct it not on enterprise level businesses that should know better. But to John Q public, there should be no expectation that john Q should know better.

Some argue that it is just good business, that Microsoft has 85 percent of the Desktop market and should do everything in it's power to maintain it. But that is not the whole story. The same trite crowd that thinks that Microsoft has earned it's position in the market and thinks that it just "out-businessed" the competition would do well to inspect how Microsoft earned that 85%, how it crushed better technologies with it's FUD+Vaporware campaign of the early to middle nineties. And how the badly consumer was cheated.

As the Microsoft apologists argue that Microsoft brought computers to the masses, that windows 95 allowed the blue collar worker a powerful and intuitive OS on inexpensive harware. A counter argument could be made that the competition, if allowed to compete on a playing field that while not level, was fair by the rules of business as established in a post WWII America, would have brought to market more powerful, more intuitive and more accessible technologies.

The horror stories of Netscape and Apple and Stac electronics... etc. etc... are telling, but it is interesting how most companies have dropped the complaints to a large degree because Microsoft is now so monolithic that it is better (more lucritive and "safe") to just cut deals and work with them to bash ones head against them (Read: Apple)

Microsoft became this monolith by stealing, buying, intimidating and coercing. This is not opinion, this is public record and is in the testimony. The reality of Microsoft is that they are now a cornerstone to the technology industry and perhaps even the American economy. Which is sad only in somuch as they will never be forced to atone for the damage they did to innovation and inspiration that the shops they obliterated could have brought to market.

As i type this, there is a talking head on MSNBC, she is talking about airport security, she has just said, "Bill gates could probably come out with a system where a button is pressed and information is brought up on a screen...". Heh, Bill Gates has somehow marketed his name to be synonymous with applied software solutions... That is what the uneducated public thinks, when they think about computers and technology.

Re:Intelligent and Informed, eh?

[namespan]

We do it to annoy the anti-anti-Microsoft drones like yourself, of course. To feed, as it were, the troll. Posting this here is likely to result in a flood of Microsoft attacks based on poor facts or none at all. I mean, with this prophesy on hand, how can we resist? It's almost as appealing as "I know I'm going to get modded down for this".

But you're absolutely right. That's why it's time for slashdotters everywhere to unite and create (and perhaps eventually, when we learn to spell, even present) .... the Microsoft FAQ:

1. Why does Microsoft suck?

The issue could be succinctly summarized in two words: anticompetitive behavior. More expressively: effective anticompetitive behavior. Lots of software companies produce offerings that, for whatever reason, some people just don't like. Lots of software companies would like to behave anticompetitively. But only Microsoft seems to be effective in their drive to make sure nobody is using anything else. For those of us that like to make choices about what software we use, this is profoundly disturbing. Those who have already chosen Microsoft or simply don't care may, of course, find this point of view hard to understand. But Microsoft's business plan is simple: whenever possible, don't give the customer a choice except using their software. And they're pretty good at it.

2. Is there any evidence to support the idea that Microsoft is effectively anticompetitive?

There are several court cases that point to this -- most recently, the findings of fact issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Some consider Jackson biased towards Microsoft and therefore feel that his findings might also be biased. Others feel that perhaps his bias was influenced by Microsoft's behavior during the trial.

3. You're just jealous of their success! You'd tear down anyone who was at the top! This is a classic case of jealousy!

Sorry, you must phrase your question in the form of a, well, question.

4. Um, OK. Isn't this sort of thing likely to be a problem with ANYONE who's at the top of the heap?

Yes. But we don't have a problem with applying these standards to anyone. We'd prefer to see companies compete in terms of the merits of their offerings and marketing skills, rather than their ability to lock up and strong arm distribution channels.

Bottom line: most of us don't have a problem with Microsoft's existence, we just a have a problem with them manipulating OEMs and other corps -- heavy-handedly in some cases and illegally in others -- to place themselves as the exclusive purveyor of software/software services in the world.

The Sherman Act provides for penalties

[greenrd]

Direct quote from the Sherman act:

15 USC S2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Best way to contribute

[Surak]

Ok. The new District Court judge in this case ordered Microsoft, the DOJ and 19 states to enter into settlement talks. In a settlement, the parties basically agree to drop the case and enter into a consent decree (a contract), that would be by entered into the court's documents on the case and signed and ordered by the judge.

It's much better for all concerned to enter into a settlement, because each party will get something that they want, since this is a negotiated contract. And it's better for the court system, because the case will be off the docket and not tying up the court system needlessly.

While Micros~1 and the DOJ agreed some terms for this consent decree, several states still refused to sign off as of yesterday (Tuesday). That was the deadline that the judge gave for the parties to settle before she would continue with the case and enter the penalty phase.

So as of Today (11/7), several states still have not signed off. THat means that the judge will continue into the penalty phase. There will be no deal, no consent decree. The judge will arbitrarily rule what must be done, unless she adopts the consent decree which was written. That is not likely to happen, because several of the plantiffs (the states), refused to sign that consent decree, so that means if she adopts that, those states will either appeal the case or ask that the verdict be set aside, a new judge be assigned (on the basis of bias, most likely) and the case retried. Nobody wants this, so she's likely to write her own ruling.