Slashdot Mirror
Talk to the Man Who Wants to Oversee Microsoft
Imagine "campaigning" for a job that doesn't exist, may never exist, and is sure to be full of heartburn for anyone who takes it on. Stephen Satchell is a self-declared candidate for the three-person committee the Feds might appoint to ensure Microsoft's future good behavior. Satch is certainly qualified; he's been online nearly forever, he's worked with computer operating systems darn near as long as computers have had operating systems, and he's certainly not afraid to speak his mind. But even the best-qualified job candidates need to be interviewed before they are chosen, and Satch has consented to have Slashdot readers conduct the initial interview in this hiring process. One question per interviewer, please. We'll email him 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and post his answers next week.
Do you have any special agenda to get across or have anything for/against Microsoft that would make it so you were not impartial in your oversight of any federal rulings? As much as most people hate them this needs to be done in a fair and impartial way. WIll you be able to be fair and impartial?
Do you Gentoo!?
Do you feel that it is possible to have a unified monolithic Microsoft exist in the market without being anti-competetive? Specifically, if the United States government leaves Microsoft as-is (no "break-up") do you feel it is possible to regulate a company that in the past has shown no respect for government intervention?
Of course, certain personalities are more interested in making policy decisions than technology decisions, as well as vice-versa.
Do you plan to stand over Gates and Balmer cracking the anti-trust whip, or do you intend to deal more with the executive board as a whole, saying 'You can't do that' to certain policy decisions.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Why would you want this job?
Guvegrra?
Just one of the standard interview questions, I guess, but I personally would like to see Microsoft working on their "Quality" as opposed to the "Quantity" of software. I wouldn't hate MS so much if I couldn't easily slam their products like I can now. Microsoft OSs don't have good uptimes. Microsoft products have security issues out the wazoo. Microsoft has their hands in everyone's pockets, but they're not trustworthy (as far as quality software goes).
Q: Where do you see Microsoft in 5 years?
Q: What will you change about Microsoft if you were CEO?
What is in place to prevent Microsoft from potentially bribing you or other members of the commitee? Would you turn down 7 figure offers for the good of the computing community?
Do you think other operating systems have a chance to actually compete with microsoft?
What operating system do you use (be honest)?
If you are using Windows, what can other OS's do to make you switch?
If you aren't using Windows, what made you switch?
Has anyone really just asked "One Question Per Post"? I guess these are all related and can be answered all together... sorry.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
... That the only monopolistic practices of Microsoft are those that were publicized by the suits?
For example: Isnt it a monopolistic practice to make the Kerberos Login protocol closed so only Windows workstations can connect to Windows servers??/ Isnt that illegal leveraging into the computing server market?
Anotherone (although maybe immmaginary): Microsoft Passport will be a server side and client side technology. It will implement the server side only in Microsoft web servers and it will probably be imposible (by licencing lock-out) to implement them in a UNIX server. Isnt that illegal monopolistic leveraging into the web server market?
Alex
NO SIG
Are you concerned that tying yourself to Slashdot, a known haven for us *nix freaks that are generally hostile towards Microsoft's actions, will harm your chances of obtaining this position, as it would require that those appointing the position perceive you as "objective" ?
Hell, I declare myself a candidate the job. Send me ten questions and I'll answer them. :)
My understanding is that the proposed committee has one chosen by MS, one by the government, and those two pick the third.
So what's the process to go from "self-declared" to serious contender for one of the slots?
In what areas/functions must Microsoft be resricted in order for it not to violate anti-trust rules in the future?
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Why in the world would you *volunteer* for this no-thanks sort of job? Keep in mind that one-third of the population will think you're doing too much, one-third will think you're not doing enough, and one-third won't care.
Microsoft has continually (especially recently) been forging its way into new markets. First it was new software markets (MS Office, Games, home finance), then its hardware division, and now completely new fields such as console gaming and television. Microsoft's partnership with NBC gives them a hands up on the competition to start with. This fact, along with their corporate muscle and financial backing, could potentially allow them to gain a very solid position in the television industry and others.
What steps would you take to ensure that they do not become a monopoly in more than one industry?
***
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
One reason for Microsoft's monopoly is the proprietarity of their operating system. Conversely, the reason why open source products such as Linux work so well is that the operating system itself is publically available, while companies can use it to make money off of support, documentation, and separate resources which improve the use of Linux (i.e. HardDrake, Red Carpet, etc). This allows an economic model of computing in which competition is possible, and it means that programs written for Linux will work under most distributions, thus taking the software industry out of the hands of a single all-powerful giant.
What would your plans for Microsoft be in this regard? Obviously, having MS open up the Windows source is not a realistic goal, but do you feel that there is any way to establish a set of non-proprietary operating system standards that would re-enable competition in the desktop market?
/* Steve */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
Given their previous disregard for laws and authorities, what processes would you need to see in place to be confident that Microsoft was doing what it told you?
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
In a typical capiltalist world, businesses are kept in check by the market and the government, and can't become monopolies. How do you believe Microsoft surpassed thse checks?
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Microsoft is sure to test their boundaries and see how far the overseers will let them go. How much would Microsoft have to stray from the new regulations before you make some noise? Would you be tough and bring to attention the most minor of infractions? Or would you be more lenient and use your judgement to make sure the intent of the regulations are observed?
There are certain people that would be bad to include. Microsoft zealots or people who are extremely favourable to big business are not good candidates, as they would most likely be willing to let some of MS' possible future transgressions slide.
At the same time, Open Source zealots or Microsoft haters are also poor candidates because they may go towards the other extreme: punishing MS for the slightest problems or trying to dramatically change the way MS operates.
What is needed is a nice symbiosis of the two viewpoints, someone who is well-versed in such matters and isn't afraid to play the Devil's Advocate, so to speak, but is also objective. How do you see yourself on this scale, and if you're more one the side of one extreme, how do you justify your pursuit of this position?
There is no escape from The Muffin.
The fact that MicroSoft has a monopoly seems to be self evident.
I have attempt to introduce other products into my business and have been unable to do so, primarily due to formating errors when viewing MS Office Documents.
How viable an option would it be to, rather than breaking up MS, force them to release just the specs on how their office documents are coded?
This would give users a choice and could allow for some competition.
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
...the masses of America, the Joe Sixpacks, the MCSE's, and the VB developers want you to remember just who it was that brough a GUI to America.
Yep. Remember everyone - it was Xerox, Apple, Commodore, Atari, Sun, SGI...er...just about everyone. But the first consumer-level GUI would be that of the Mac. (Yeah, ProDOS and Lisa were first, but they weren't consumer-level.)
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
At one point there was a proposal to break MS into Operating Systems and Applications. This was an attempt to address the fact that the "OS" part of MS seems to be primarily focused on producing a platform that favors the products produced by the "applications" part of MS - instead of producing the most useful and interoperable operating system. What do think are the prime conflicts of interest within MS and how would you begin to manage them without a break-up?
Mr. Satchell,
I poked around the net a bit trying to do a bit of research about you (Google's cache of your page at fluent-access.com, which seems to be down right now, and the Amazon entry on your book on Linux IP stacks)
What do you think of Ralph Nader's positions on Microsoft, and his qualifications to be on this committee as well?
And what do you think of Richard Stallman's proposal for dealing with them?
o/~ Join us now and share the software
In this job you would not have power to determine the remedy, only to enforce it. Is the remedy clearly defined (and adequate)? How much power do you believe you will truly have, given that MS will surely follow the letter of the remedy, while attempting to foil the intent of it: for instance the portions which only require MS to share interoperation documentation to commericial entities, as opposed to all software developers?
-Adam
"His cook was goosed, as ordered sir."
To break Microsoft's chokehold on the industry will send their stock into a tailspin, cause their R&D cycle to slow, and cause a chaotic move for power in various niches by everyone from giants such as IBM to various smaller companies that most people have never heard of. This will cause ripples (or shockwaves) in everything from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to unemployment figures to the number of dotcoms that show up and fail at trying to corner a niche to the price of new computers.
My question for you, then, is the following: If you do assume a role such that you oversee Microsoft's compliance with federal guidelines, how will you keep the ripple effects caused by your enforcement in check, and how will you justify the ripples that inevitably are created to the American people?
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Microsoft has managed to avoid scrutiny by companies, courts, governments and even users. Many allegations made in the trial, such as "knifing the baby" remarks alleged by Netscape, would simply not be visible, by simply looking at Official Policy Documents. In fact, probably very little actual policy DOES appear in their Official Policy Documents.
In short, you can't hunt ghosts with an electron microscope. You need knowledge of what the right job is, and then you need the tools to do it.
Do you even remotely imagine that this is even possible?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Would you require that some of his magic itenms (e.g. his "Polo Shirt of Thalkettoth, which grants a +5 saving throw against anti-trust litigation") be taken away from him?
Tom.
Oh arse
As I see it, the job of overseeing Microsoft can only succeed if it has a definite goal in mind that involves transforming the company and then relinquishing control. If Microsoft is still overseen by the government in 30 years, while its competitors are free to manage themselves, this will not have been a success.
What things have to take place at Microsoft before it will no longer be a special exception that the government has to personally regulate?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Hypothetical question:
If this committee was already implemented 10 years ago and you were a part of it, what strategies and actions that Microsoft took during this period would you consider monopolistic? Would you change anything, and what alternatives would you suggest?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
How do you think the transition from watching what Microsoft is doing to implementing punishments for bad behavior might actually work?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Where lies in your opinion the boundary between anti-competitive functionality and "improving the users' experience"? .NET Common Language Runtime? Passport? etcetera..
By now, everybody is used to bundling a browser with the OS. But what about video-editing software? The (Sun) Java VM or the
What is your stance on user rights to bought, copyrighted software? Do you feel someone who buys a product can do whatever they want with it, or does the producer (MS) have the right to dictate how their products are used?
What do you see as the future of capitalism in global society? Will ever-larger corporations continue to dominate the world, or is there any merit to the idea of a "free" (both speech and beer) society?
Simple question: how do you regulate what they can do with Windows without hurting their theoretical ability to innovate? Sure they haven't done much innovative work, ever, but who is to say that some new worker won't have a good idea that IS innovative that would get added, but regulation stops it?
Given the abundance of galaxy-sized egos at Microsoft (especially when you start approaching the top), are you at all worried that your ability to deal with these people will be hampered due to plain and simple personality clashes (never mind the natural reticence to even talk to you)? Or are you expecting that your mandate (if and when it comes) will be enough?
It seems that in industries with high costs of initial production and extremly low costs of replication (i.e. Software), there seems to be an unusually large incentive for becoming a monopoly and an unusually powerful advantage in maintaining that monopoly once formed.
Short of open source, what measures need to be taken to in order to insure that one monopoly (Microsoft or another) isn't dethroned simply to be replaced by a different monopoly?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Microsft has been granted the ability to not allow porting of code, or information on how to attach to Windows based servers if there is a concern about the 'security' of the solution. What do you define as a 'security' hole, and how would you apply that to projects such as SAMBA and other NT/Linux interoperability projects? (Wine/Winx, LinWin, etc)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
A new market in which Microsoft does NOT hold a commanding lead (yet) is the handheld market (Palm, Windows CE, etc.)
If you were on the oversight committee, what specific actions or restrictions would you place on Microsoft's behavior in this Marketplace?
As a followup question:
If Microsoft included a "hotsync" capability built into its OS (so that Windows CE handhelds automatically sync with the desktop machine), would you consider that acceptable behavior?
I know this is an American settlement, but do you think Microsofts behaviour should be regulated in the rest of the world as well? How would you go about that?
In Murphy We Turst
competent, fair & trustworthy
One major question remains in my mind....
Say you have a company like microsoft, who rightly or wrongly acts as if it has the political clout to do whatever it wants. You see them do things like break compatibility with competing products (lotus/borland), dump software info a thriving market to starve it's competitors (netscape/qualcomm), deny deserving employees fair and equitable benefits (MS "Temps"), and block competitive access to markets ( Be/Apple ).
Assuming you can come up with a sound remedy for these types of problems, how can you get them to actually stop abusing it's monopoly power when it's monopoly power is the battleaxe it uses to hack at apart it's competitors in various markets, yet you cannot take it from them?
How do you hope do deal with the limitations in the current agreement? If I have this right, you can't speak publicly, and -- far, far more ominous -- you can't testify.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly with Windows and it's strong position with Office, MSN, and Hotmail to force or coerce everyone to use their Passport service. How can you prevent this leveraging of one monopoly to gain another monopoly? Especially given the fact that Microsoft has already gotten away with such leveraging several times before. (Also, can you comment on Microsoft's statement that they want a cut of every Internet trasaction?)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Microsoft can be expected to obstruct the oversight comittee as much as possible. The Microsoft appointed member of the comittee will probably also obstruct the comittee. Not that too much obstruction is needed, since the comittee only has the power to report violations and the current administration does not seem eager to enforce the law. Please explain why you think anyone, and you in particular, can have any affect on Microsoft under these circumstances.
Do you feel that forcing MSFT to make versions of Office for other OS's will help? Office seems to be a key business application that is a barrier to IT departments choosing Linux or even the Mac OS (since its new versions often follow windows versions by a significant amount of time).
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
My questions are:
Under what conditions would you support the release of Microsoft source code?
Which programs would you support the release of source code for? Windows XP? All currently shipping versions of Windows? Explorer? Office? Back Office? Or every single product Microsoft sells?
How would you ensure compliance for the release of Microsoft source code?
Would other programmers/companies/geeks etc. be able to use Microsoft source code for their own projects, or would they only be able to use it engineer backwards compatability with their own programs?
Would computer manufacturers be able to compile and load their own version of Windows NT/XP/Whatever on machines without paying Microsoft?
What sort of license would Microsoft source code be released under? GPL? BSD? GNU? Something else?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I'd be curious about your opinions regarding the breakup of AT&T, and the subsequent behavior/performance of the Baby Bells. Would you be willing to advocate the breakup of Microsoft if it lied to the commission or broke its promises? If not, what would be a suitable punishment? Basically, what are your views of the enforcement of the settlement and the consequences of punishment for failure to abide thereby?
-Styopa
1) b) If you have used other operating systems, (including palmOS) what do you think could be done to make the playing field more even?
2) Do you honestly think that Microsofts monopoly can be controlled?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Who will audit you?
"Piter, too, is dead."
By which I mean to say, do you believe they are guilty of that which the government has claimed they are? Or, conversely, do you feel that the government has over-stepped it's bounds and agressively pursued a company that was merely at the top of its industry because they were the best?
http://saveie6.com/
Please describe your views on economics to the greatest extent possible, and the influences that helped you to form these views.
I would particularly like to know what you think regarding monopolies, artificially created and sustained, or naturally occurring, and how you believe consumers (and the marketplace) are affected by them, and under what circumstances consumers may benefit, or be harmed, by them.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
I myself make a very decent living writing software which runs on non-Microsoft systems. These systems are developed for our clients, and the clients sell services based on these systems to consumers.
We as the developers were not forced to use Microsoft products, our clients were not forced to use Microsoft products, and their customers are not forced to use Microsoft products. Money changed hands many times and Microsoft's involvement in any of it is entirly incidental. A majority of the users run Windows, but a sizable chunk runs on MacOS, and an impressive (but pretty small) amount even use UNIX systems.
I feel we saved considerable time (and money) ignoring Microsoft's products. To me, Microsoft makes it fairly easy for people to use a computer, but their products are certainly not as appealing to us macho developers. In any case, what exactly is the problem here that regulating Microsoft will solve?
It is one thing to be able to observe, quite another to be able to impact the organization. Nothing like being given a job and then not given the appropriate tools to get it done. For example, how will you stay in the "inside-loop" when the upper management will have a vested interest to keey you in the dark? What sort of punitative mechanism needs to be in-place so that your word has some teeth? In short, what sort of authority is needed for this position and how could power sharing be best distributed?