Cringely On Microsoft Settlement

sandalwood writes: "Robert X Cringley has a new article about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. He includes information on where to write to make your views known (the 'proposed Final Judgement' accepts comments from the public for a period of 60 days after it's been published)."

Comments

Microsoft should be treated like IBM was.

[Hobart]

A darned good idea (imho) would be to force Microsoft to publish their APIs, and restrict them from anti-competitive practices. IBM was doing this 20 years ago in the mainframe world and the European Union slapped them down hard for it.

It's mentioned in this article on gnu.org, but one of the links to the settlement details (the most important part) is broken, the new location for ibm1984ec.html is here.

Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was.

[wfrp01]

You don't really want to know Microsoft API's, unless you are writing code to interoperate with Microsoft software. This is detrimental to Microsoft in the same way compelling Microsoft to install their software at thousands of elementary schools is detrimental to Microsoft. It just encourages people to use more Microsoft products.

Better to demand they publish their file formats and networking protocols.

Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was.

[Hobart]

I mentioned in my previous reply that I wasn't comprehensive enough in what I said there. I agree with you that they should have to publish formats / etc to keep out the unfair barrier to entry on other platforms.

However I must disagree that MS Media Player, IE, and Passport are illegal efforts. I am wholly in favor of monetarily penalizing the living daylights out of the bastards to account for unfair business practices. But a lot of Microsoft's software is where it is because it really is better than the competition.

What CODEC did the pirates, who could choose any one they want to swap pirate video, choose to use? Quicktime Sorenson? RealMedia? No, Media Player.

Taken to the ludicrous extreme, you could construe Microsoft's "illegal product tying" of WordPad / Calc / Paint / CHKDSK as unfair competition against Wordperfect / Mathematica / Photoshop / Norton Disk Doctor.

Hate Microsoft for the right reasons. The decent software they write isn't one of them. (wooo, will I ever be modded down for this one.)

Re:Microsoft should be treated like IBM was.

[sakusha]

Now you're treating the issue like Microsoft defines it, which is the same blindness that lost them the Antitrust lawsuit in the first place. It's not a matter "freedom to innovate" or of whether bundling apps like IE or WMP is illegal, it is a matter of those products benefitting from previous illegal anticompetitive actions. For example, MS clearly took illegal action against Apple on media players (the "knife the baby" incident). It is only fair that they get their baby knifed in return.

Not a chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC due to paranoia 8S

MSFT is lobbying HARD on this to get this settlement through cause they know they will come out smelling like roses in the end, but with the growing awareness of the language of the settlement, it seems highly unlikely that it will breeze through. If enough people like /.'ers comment to the DoJ (read, take action and not just wish you could) about this it will crash and burn like a corrupt copy of Windows 95. Read the Article, it does have some instructions at on where to go from here for the commonfolk. Also, a non-partisan board is a Good Thing(tm) in this whole mess.

Then again, I am just preaching to the choir on this, right?

Am I to understand...

[toupsie]

That Microsoft says in the trial that open source packages such as Linux, BSD, Apache, Sendmail and Perl are proof that it has no monopoly in the software industry. However if there is injury to the industry found by the Justice Dept. and the courts in the Microsoft case, that these open source products are not considered injured by that monopoly.

Is this legal FUD practiced by both sides of this case?

My solution? Require Microsoft to develop its own technology without outside help for 5 years. They can't acquire technology, buy companies or lease patents. See how long they last...

Not a troll, but useless

[brunes69]

The parent to this is NOT a troll, but his comments, though valid, are useless. I am thoughouly convinced that not only do none of the slashdot editors read any of the comments posted to the stories (otherwise they woluld have to take notice to the many duplicate story postings we point out), but they don't even frequent their own site. The story duplication is getting insanely ridiculous. For every duplicate story, a good one gets rejected. How can we get THROUGH to these guys? PAY ATTENTION TO THE SITE YOU WORK FOR! God, and people want me to pay for a subscription for this???

Re:Not a troll, but useless

[Decimal]

A red flag should go off when a Slashdot poster, or comment acceptor chooses a text with a link identical to one in an earlier story within a certain time period. Sort of a "Warning: Are you sure this hasn't been posted before? Check the story below to be sure this isn't a duplicate." message.

Yes, even the kings of slashdot could benefit from idiot-proof software.

Re:Not a troll, but useless

[edhall]

If you don't like the way the editors run the site, start your own. If you can do it better than the Slashdot folks, maybe people will switch to using your site instead.

You'll get "Slashdotted" to oblivion in a minute if you even tried; Slashdot puts serious iron behind their site, well beyond the reach of an upstart competitor. Part of the reason is Slashcode itself -- dynamically generating each page in PERL from database queries may be flexible, but it chews CPU for breakfast. Although there are some PHP messageboards around that do better, you'll still need a lot of grunt for the database server. And that's not even considering the bandwidth required (expensive!) to put up a busy message board, especially one constantly hit by first-post robots and the like. And then there are all the half-brained DoS attacks that board kiddies will throw at you.

In brief, someone would need a corporate parent like Shashdot has to have even a chance at competing. No hobbyist on a cable modem has a chance. Not even a smalltime entrepreneur with a few servers in a colo has much of a chance unless they can come up with a much more efficient way of generating the pages while preserving the features Slashcode provides. (And they'd need a very tolerant, well-connected ISP, besides.)

No, Slashdot can continue its decline for a long time before a real competitor emerges. That competitor probably already exists, in relative obscurity. With luck it will have grown to the point that it can take the load when it starts getting popular, and will have achieved some of the credibility and community that Slashdot had and is slowly squandering.

-Ed

A Representative's take

[Sarcasmooo!]

Thought some people might wanna see one of the many related links I have scattered around from rejected stories and junk:

Rep. Ed Markey's letter to John Ashcroft (pdf) in opposition to the settlement.

Re:Time to watch our backs

[brunes69]

Up until the last paragraph, this was a very intelligent comment. Then all of a sudden you start promoting virii and DDOS attacks??? This makes you sound like an immature teenager.

How about instead of breaking the law, and making Open Source hackers look like thugs in the process, we design our own micropayment system, BSD license it, and offer it up as a vastly more secure and powerful solution that passport? Or would that me to "non-31337" for you?

Apple's supplemental brief...

[J.C.B.]

read about it here.

I saw this today and it had a very interesting tidbit of information. In the settlement, Microsoft is valuing the software part at $840 million. Apple contends that actual cost of that software would be more like $1 million and only 5%-6% of the value of the settlement would be able to be used to buy non-Microsoft technology.

Re:Huh, I always thought..

[krmt]

I bet that they do read the site, but they have some hidden agenda against PBS.

PBS IT Guy 1: Oh no! Slashdot linked to us again!

PBS IT Guy 2: Those bastards! The last Slashdot effect nearly killed us! What'll we do boss?

PBS IT Guy 1: We pray they realize it's a duplicate story son. We pray...

CmdrTaco: Good Evening Gentlemen etc etc etc

What I wrote:

[Ian Bicking]

Please, write in with your own thoughts and concerns on the settlement: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov -- this settlement is supposed to be in support of the American People, not business interests. Microsoft was found guilty of harming American consumers, don't let the government forget that it's consumers that need redress, not businesses. I don't really know how the process works, but simply writing in a very short, well-reasoned comment is probably quite beneficial if you don't want to write something longer. Here's what I wrote:

------------
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Micosoft Settlement

The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to Microsoft's main competitor: Free and Open Source Software ("Free" defined as "without restriction" not "free of cost").

This software is created largely by individuals in informal and generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant movement, and provides great potential benefits for American consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software *the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they speficially discriminated against by the settlement.

Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release information: namely, "viable businesses", with Microsoft being able to interpret that as they wish.

I am personally involved in many projects that have the potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.

Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a commercial organization.

It is essential that the API information be made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers.

It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so many times in the past.

It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private period to resolve security issues before making them public, all aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of their system. However, they should not need to be private about their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has existed.

III(J)(2), Maybe. III(D), No Way

[hbo]

Section III(J)(2) reads:

(No provision of this Final Judgement shall ...) Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.

So, that does indeed seem to give MS the right to stonewall Free Software projects like Samba, but only on security APIs. However, section III (D) reads:

D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.

And "ISV" is defined in VI (I) as:

"ISV" means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged in the development or marketing of software products.

The 'or' doesn't seem to leave much room for MS to define who the section applies to.

Oh great idea there.

[Hobart]

Perhaps frequent DDoS attacks on Passport-compliant web sites are in order. ... we need to do something, so that Microsoft does not use Passport to take the internet away from us.

Wonderful idea there. (cough). How about we offer up something as good or better ? Private corporations dominating a space through de facto standards happen because nobody else has stepped up with a Free (as in speech) solution that's better. Some cases to take into consideration:

• Bus architectures
  • 16-bit ISA took off because anyone could build to the IBM PC published spec (essentially free-as-in-beer).
  • Then Microchannel flubbed it (must license from IBM).
  (Unfortunate footnote -- for 32-bit slots, VESA came along, and was destroyed by Intel's PCI when they slaughtered their competition in the PC chipset market.)
• Email specs
  • X.500 and X.400 were [are] big bulky specs that you need to buy a copy of from ISO
  • DNS and SMTP / RFC822 are specified for free in RFC's and everyone is welcome to use them. X.400/500 email transfer across organizations is rather archaic now.
• Document Formatting
  • EDI was a closed (if well written IMHO) spec, which I believe requires a license from IBM to use.
  • XML is a freely available spec, and is largely eradicating EDI's hold in the market.

So instead of proposing that people DDoS Passport sites, maybe we need to make ubiquitous a better solution that's published and freely implementable. Microsoft did lose out on the browser encryption fight (shttp vs https) and SSLeay / OpenSSL provided free reference implementations that let people use encryption without having to play with the big monopolies (um, except for Verisign). We can come up with a system that delivers Passport / .NET's functionality too.

Re:Time to watch our backs

[Tony Shepps]

Microsoft plans to offer Passport up as a system to facilitate micropayments. They are targeting the owners of the many unprofitable information sites that are being propped up by venture capital (and pathetically meager ad revenues) today. This will force users to use Passport and pay for the information they receive off the web, with Microsoft taking a cut every time. Microsoft will become the largest middleman in the world, and multinational banks will look on in envy.

Micropayments? Getting a cut of internet sales? Sites being propped up by venture capital? Money being made from "internet wallets"?

It all sounds soooo "late 1999", doesn't it? Which is approximately when the business plan for Passport was turning this dumb wallet into a replacement for the operating system as a means to survive.

Forward to today. The hot model is site subscription with premiums. The internet is facing skepticism as only 3% believe it is an important information source. There IS no venture capital money - forget about propping anything up. The only sites that are seen as viable are those with a strong business model oriented around actually making money - not giving bits of money up to other vendors, when your competition is busy leaving the net altogether.

Remember the Amazon vs B&N vs Borders war? Try borders.com now. Amazon doesn't want Passport if it's the only Internet vendor that anyone uses -- Passort can only do them harm. Neither will any of the Yahoo Stores. If the size of the whole pie is smaller, the worth of a slice of that pie is diminished as well, y'know?

Getting in bed with MS is not like getting a Visa merchant account to handle payments. Along with your customers' financial data, MS could have access to their personal information, buying habits, etc. This means that the competitors of any MS partner will avoid signing up, no matter what. I'm not talking about Borland, here; I'm talking about AOL Time Warner, Sony, Sears, Visa/MC themselves, and many others that aren't rolling off the tip of my tongue.

Dominating the software world is one thing; dominating the rest of the world is entirely another.

Most companies have barged cluelessly into the net and it has hurt them. I don't see why MS's hard right turn into the net should not give them a few fits as well. And they're hardly omnipotent - as your "Bob" example should point out.

DOJ should just be honest; US will agree

[ChicagoFan]

The thing is that if the DOJ just came out and admitted, "We're letting Microsoft off the hook completely in exchange for them giving us the ability to spy on terrorists for national security reasons.", most Americans would be all for it. The DOJ shouldn't be hiding this fact; they should be advertising it as a feature. That will win them all the public support they could want.

Perhaps the DOJ needs to borrow Microsoft's PR spin doctor folks.

&lt /cynic >

ChicagoFan

Re:Who needs APIs?

[coyote-san]

The thing about the latest generation of intellectual property laws is that they could still prevent people from using that information.

Prime example: CSS and the ways to break it. According to some interpretations of the law, if you can write the code yourself you can use it, but you can't provide a library for others to use or use a library written by others.

This is completely contrary to the reason why IP laws were created in the first place, of course, but IP laws haven't served the public interest for some time now.

force them to open/license their W32 API

[DABANSHEE]

As part of the enforcement/settlement a trust, funded by MS, should be created that's overseen by an independent board.

MS must then release all its OS source to this board. Then the board should finance Win32 API (including Active X & Direct X) ports to the other X86 OSes, such as BeOS, Linux, Sco/Caldera Unix, BSD, OS/2, Solaris, QNX, etc. So those OSes could be compatible with W32 apps without emulation (a la WINE 'n Odin)

Also MS must not be allowed to release any of its application software (Office, Works, Encarta, 'Empires', etc) untill they bring out native BeOS, OS/2, Mac & Linux ports of those apps (the Linux port must be designed for transparent recompiling to other nixes, such as Caldera Unix, Solaris 'n QNX). They must be tested by the previously mentioned trustee before release.

To avoid claims that this would make thing too complicated for stockists & retailers, make MS retail all ports of each application together in the same box - like BeOS 'retail' has both the X86 & PPC ports bundled together, or like the way Claris works had both the Mac Classic & W16 ports bundled together (with 'Mac & Windows compatible' printed on the box) or like the way the new Gobe office suite has both the BeOS, W32 & Linux ports bundled together complete with a cross port license. MS could then have 'compatible with Windows, Macintosh, OS/2, BeOS & Linux' stickers on their boxed applications, so its spelled out to the customers that they can be used with all 4 of those OSes.

I bet within a year MS would have developed a development API for itself for developing applications that transparently port them across to X86 W32, X86 OS/2, X86 BeOS, X86 Linux & the PPC Mac.

God can you imagine how Gates 'n co would react if the court came out with a judgement like this.....LOL

My Letter

[hbo]

I am a Computer Systems Administrator with 16 years professional
experience. I write with concern over the revised proposed Final
Judgment of United States v. Microsoft. In particular, I am concerned
with the language of section III(J)(2) of the revised proposed final
Judgment which reads:

"(No provision of this Final Judgment shall:...) Prevent Microsoft
from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus
technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person
or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual
property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping
product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer
program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to
third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and
ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for
use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to
proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms
identified in this paragraph."

Some background regarding my experience with Microsoft software will help
to clarify my concerns with this language.

For the first five years of my career, I used first the VMS, then the
Unix operating systems exclusively. Microsoft's DOS and Windows
operating systems were not considered by most of my customers
(Scientists and graduate students at the Physics Department of UCSB)
to be suitable for their purposes. In 1991, I got a new job at a
commercial company, Octel Communications in Milpitas California,
supporting their engineers. At Octel, Microsoft's dominance of the
market for PC operating systems was well under way. The engineers
mostly used Unix (Sun's version) but the rest of the company used DOS
and Windows 3.11. For me, as a Unix Systems Administrator, this posed
an immediate problem. The Windows systems were networked together
using a Microsoft protocol called SMB. The details of this protocol
were partly available, and partly kept secret (or at least not
published) by Microsoft. This meant that resources on the Windows
network, such as disks and printers, were unavailable to users on the
Unix network, and vice-versa. This was sub-optimal in a number of
ways. It led to situations in which workgroups would have two
printers, on each for Windows and Unix. Files would be shared using
floppy disks. Searching for a solution, I found a wonderful software
package on the Internet called Samba. This software, written by clever
programmer in Australia, named Andrew Tridgell, implemented
communications between the incompatible Unix and Windows worlds. Using
Samba, I could make my Unix computers and disks available to Windows
users. I could also make Windows printers available to Unix
users. Getting at Windows files from Unix was less well supported, but
it was possible. This was OK because at that time the Windows boxes
tended to be desktop machines, whereas the Unix computers were
generally larger server boxes. This meant most of the disk space we
wanted to share was on Unix, and Samba let us do that very well.

Two points about Samba are relevant in my concern over the language cited
in my first paragraph. First, since the SMB protocol in use on Windows 3.11
differed in important details from the various published specifications,
Andrew Tridgell had to "reverse engineer" the protocol. (When he started
he didn't even know there were any published specs. By the time he got
his hands on them, he had implemented enough on his own to know that certain
details were wrong or missing.) This may have been due to a desire by
Microsoft to keep the details of their implementation secret or commercial
advantage. Most Finance departments in industry look askance at duplicating
resources like printers across an entire organization. At Octel, there
was pressure from Finance to consolidate the computing platforms in use
due to the added expense. Since Finance used Windows, that was the platform
they wanted to standardize on. The second point about Samba is it was developed
by volunteers, and given away for free on the Internet. This model of software
distribution is now more familiar, (It goes by various labels, depending on
who is describing it and on what software license is in use. "Free Software"
and "Open Source Software" are two popular labels. Based on its license, the
former is the proper label for Samba.) but it was novel in the commercial
world in 1991.

Which brings me finally back to the language of Section III(J)(2) of
the revised proposed final Judgment reproduced above. One of the
several criteria for which "No provision of this Final judgment
shall ... Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license ..." for its
security related APIs to a "person or entity" is that the entity " meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business..." (d).
The problem with this clause as it relates to the current discussion is that
Samba, as related above, does not have a "viable business." Samba is
given away for free by volunteers. It is nonetheless a critical piece of
software in ensuring that computers running Microsoft's OS "play nice" with
rival Operating Systems. If Microsoft is allowed, at its sole discretion,
to withhold APIs from entities it deems to not have a "viable business,"
there is a real danger Microsoft will do so for projects, like Samba,
that tend to soften the power of Microsoft's monopoly in the market for
PC operating systems. The quoted section limits this clause to APIs
".. related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license
enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party
intellectual property protection mechanisms." However this limitation doesn't
rescue Samba, which must use "authentication/authorization security" mechanisms
to access resources on networks running Microsoft's software.

Based on this concern, I strongly urge you to amend the language in the
Final Judgment to place the decision in the hands of the Technical Committee
set up under section IV (B) of the Final Judgment, rather than Microsoft's

Thank you for your attention,

Typcial MS BS

[SnapperHead]

Recently, I was told to seek out and find a decent computer for my cousin for a Christmas present. After searching around, I found that Dell had the best systems.

To make a long story short, I was told by the person taking my order that I am required to purchase a copy of Windows XP with the new system. I told him that I wasn't going to put Windows on that machine, it would be a Linux only system. The guy didn't really care. If I wanted them to pre-install a copy of Red Hat, they would charge me quite a bit. Mainly, becuase I would need to buy a higher up machine. Either way, I already own (Haven't used in years) a copy of Windows 98. Why should I buy required to buy another copy when I already own a copy (older yes, but it would work if I had to) of Windows. I am being charged $200 for a OEM version of XP. If I removed Windows XP, and install another OS, then decied to go back to XP. (Not like I would) I would have to call Dell for an authorization number. I am not sure how true it is, but it pisses me off to say the least.

I think this should be apart of the settlement as well. If I don't want an OS installed, or there custom software. I shouldn't have to pay for it. The computer comes with a few other applications that I have no choice but to pay for. Most of which, is MS products. Why do I have to pay for a copy of MS Office, when I would use Star Office if anything at all.

Thats like buying a TV (just a normal TV) and having the salesmen tell me I am required to purchase a cable hookup on the spot. I have no choice, other then not buying the TV.

Once I got the computer, its littered with stickers giving disclamiers and license numbers for all the MS products I didn't even want. On the side of the computer is a lable with the XP license number AND a warenty number. Which, I can't remove or I loose the warenty. Which, IMO, is complete BS. Don't mind me, I am just sick and tired of dealing with MS these days. I want to run something else, and keep getting backed into the wall. Yes, I could have build the computer for her. But, my family just wanted to buy it right off the bat, and not worry about fixing it them selfs. (More like me fixing it :) When it comes to laptops, your SOL. Windows or no computer.

Something seriously needs to be done.