Slashdot Mirror
Feds to Publish Public Comments on MS Settlement
Silas writes: "This AP Article notes that the government is going to be releasing the comments submitted by the public on the Microsoft anti-trust case. Highlight: 'Overall, the department said it received about 7,500 comments from people in favor of the settlement reached by the federal government and nine states, while 15,000 opposed it. Another 7,000 comments were dismissed as opinion, like "I hate Microsoft."' Apparently they have to publish and respond to each one." CNN is carrying the AP wire story as well.
Am I the only one that finds the AP photo just to the left of the article which pictures someone putting a hat on top of Bill Gates' head really hilarious? God it must be nice to be super rich. And here I am putting on my hat in the morning all by myself like a sucker......
I posted to
You mean, all the slashdot stories and everything, and we only got 15,000 responses?
Come on, guys, where is your activistic spirit?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
So, they will repond to my comment?
:)
But, I didn't allow them to send me unsollicitated email!
Well, I guess I will have to sue them!
How many of the 7,500 comments in favor of the settlement came from Microsoft?
/. readers?
And...
How many of the 7,000 "I hate microsoft" comments came from
Anyone?
:)
As much as I hate to admit it, I think I would be interested to read some of the comments that people had to say on this matter. Does anybody know how the CD-ROM's that they speak of in the article could be obtained? This might even be good for my school's library.
"I can do it fast, I can do it well, I can do it cheap. Pick any two." --Unknown
I wonder how many of the comments that were against the settlement were looking for a harsher settlement as opposed to the number of those thinking no action or less action should be taken. At first glance the numbers seem to indicate that twice as many people think there should have been harsher punishment, but the actual content of those comments could be different.
My letter was a 3 page diatribe against Microsoft which most certainly could be summed up in "I Hate Microsoft." I don't think I even mentioned the Settlement until the end :-P
Oh well, hopefully this settlement will be rejected and we all get another chance!
Must remember to talk about the settlement, must remember to talk about the settlement......
That's not what I meant.
I can't help but wonder if Microsoft has somebody hard at work translating Kurt Sibold's open letter to English, declaring those 15,000 critical comments slanderous. :/
So they are throwing out 7500 "against" votes but none of the "pro" votes? Will this "election" also get decided by the supreme court?
And I work here!
Use grep to count all the "fsck microsoft" versus "I hate microsoft" vs. "Leave Microsoft alone!" (return address @microsoft.com)... 8-)
I wonder what percentage of the 7500 in favor of the settlement are Microsoft employees' sisters, or work at companies with Microsoft contracts, or were somehow contacted by Microsoft PR hacks and "encouraged" to write letters. It'd be hilarious to find that 6000 of the letters were all written by some poor intern at Microsoft, using names from the phone book.
314-15-9265
My first reaction was that anti-Microsoft loonies would, by their zealous over-reaction, bile, vitriol, and social incompetence, play right into the hands of Microsoft. Of course, there's a handful of loonies on the pro-Microsoft, or anti-regulation side of the barricades, as well, but for the most part, even though I'm not a part of either of those camps, I suspect that none of their partisans are quite as fanatical about their cause, and so probably appear more reasoned and sensible. However, I'm sure that some loonies on each side posed as loonies on the other, and it all came out in the wash.
Like T.S. Eliot said in The Waste Land, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity".
Another 7,000 comments were dismissed as opinion, like "I hate Microsoft.".
...of this article!
Am I the only one who thinks that very few people sent there comments? My guess is that they're probably all from geeks. I don't think that the rest of the world cares about this subject.
A small number of these submissions are simply advertisements or, in at least one case, pornography.
It also said that all submitters of comments will have their names listed in the Federal Register.
Cool! I'll be famous!
I submitted a comment...did you?
- Bill
Most likely that those 7500 people are just shareholders of MS.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
With the recent evidence of MS actively working to slant figures and polls in their favor, I wonder if the 7,000 "pro" MS comment were nothing more than MS employee statements. But at least with a two to one margin I hope the Feds are paying attention.
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
After careful considering all points of view, we find that a mere slap on the ass for a good job done is in order...oh we also like to annouce that the reelection campagin just recieved a 2 million dollar check from an unknown supporter
If I remember correctly, microsoft has played this game illegally before with alleged grass roots campaigns (having people who dont even exist sending letters to their representatives), fixed online polls to sway public opinion (zdnet), and squashed competition and innovation to make the almighty dollar.
Somehow i fail to belive that those 7000 letters are from real people and just another fabrication from microsoft.
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
About 2,800 of the comments were form letters -- both pro- and anti-Microsoft groups offered their supporters a way to sign on to a prewritten document.
I wonder what percentage of those were pro? I also wonder what percentage of the 7,500 pro were from microsoft.com domains, or from the domains of Microsoft's various hangers-on?
Heh, the first time I smiled when I read about spam:
More than a thousand messages were completely off topic. Some of those were advertisements - known as ``spam,'' - and at least one e-mail contained pornography.
``The United States proposes not to publish such submissions or to provide them as part of its filing to the court,'' Justice lawyers wrote.
Would be fun if their proposal to not publish it is denied. DOJ has to publish porn, *grin*
According to the actual DOJ report:
"7000 do not represent a view in favor or against entry. For example, a significan number of comments contain opinions concering Microsoft generally, eg, 'I hate Microsoft', or concerning thie antitrust case generally, eg, 'this case should never have been brought' but do not state whether they support or oppose entry of the RPGJ"
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
I agree; any comment mechanism this open is bound to be hopelessly skewed. The population responding is self-selected, so is composed of those who have not only the interest but the time to respond. I can't say if this is bad for one side or the other, but certainly defeats the purpose of this as a "poll." Those numbers mean nothing. The content of those messages, on the other hand, could prove very useful to TPTB. Whether five or five hundred people write in opposing the settlement shouldn't matter, but one reply that raises excellent points should. I pity the bureaucrats saddled with the responsibility of reading these messages...
Here is some pretty good commentry by the register.
The first thing I thought when I read this: I bet some bastard sent in the goat sex link. Evil.
Does this mean the government has to publish the porn and the spam in the register along with the legitimate comments?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I hate Microsoft.
Microsoft who? Never heard of them.
Linux=OpenSource=Freedom
This cracked me up :"Some of those were advertisements - known as ``spam,''"
I know I am going to be looking for the Schifman resume.
" - and at least one e-mail contained pornography"
I wonder if they are going to require an 'I am over 18' splash page to view the comments.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
Justice has asked the federal judge handling the case to allow it to publish them online and on CD-ROM.
I'm glad to see this has a good chance of happening. It would definitely be nice to have easy access to the comments. I'm kind of interested in the 90% that were not "substantive," including the "pornography."
The figures don't exactly add up though. The article states it received 30,000 comments and breaks it down into 15k, and 2 7.5k chunks. However, the first part of the article says only 10% was "substantive."
If the numbers are true, I must say I'm actually quite pleased at the turnout. I'm curious as to whether or not the uh... less constructive comments will have any bearing on the decision. The article seems to paint the picture that most of those opposed the settlement. It does make you wonder if Microsoft's "grassroots" efforts are responsible for those comments.
Indeed, during the 60-day public comment period that ended on Jan. 28, the Department of Justice received more than 30,000 submissions, the report said. Of the total submissions -- which included advertisements and, in one case, pornography -- about 7,500 were in favor of the settlement, 15,000 opposed it, and 7,000 did not express a view one way or another, according to the report.
emphasis mine.. good work, send them porn, thet'll teach Microsoft!!!
now all we have to do is find out which goatse.cx link was forwarded on.
So assuming this will be considered a democratic issue: we have 7500 for, 15000 against and 7000 "spoiled ballots".
Can we assume from this that the US government will actually take this to heart and revise the settlement? Hopefully the US government will show what it means to be a proper democracy and not ignore the people in favour of corperate interests.
"The Bush administration encouraged Americans to comment on the proposed settlement via e-mail, rather than fax or hard copy. It got what it wanted -- 90 to 95 percent of them came electronically, the department estimated. "
I wonder how many viruses they got?
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
Reading through the official report and was a little confused at this:
"In addition to its written response to public comments and copies of all the comments
themselves, the United States will submit a motion for entry of the RPFJ and a memorandum in
support."
So, with all the comments against it the US gov is still going to try to get this settlement accepted? Granted the paragraph right before this said that they might make changes, but would the public get to comment on the updated settlement?
There would have been an additional 25000 letters from the Windows User Group.
But they either crashed their computers every 12 minutes writing the letters or got blocked by Office XP's WPA after they replaced their broken network card.
Tim Dorr
Owner/Manger
A Small Orange
I wonder how many of the emails were from Microsoft's domain. I'm sure we will be hearing about a leaked memo from Microsoft instructing all the employees to respond to the court in favor of Microsoft.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
Given that when they actually dug into the responses, less than 50 were really well researched and made significant points about the case. I mean talk about signal to noise ratios.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Here are some snippets of the comments from some of the "big guns" who responded. This article was published last week.
...but I was afraid Microsoft would come to my house and kill me, so I did it as Anonymous Coward :)
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Shouldn't Microsoft already be filing a motion to keep the goverment from publishing all those "Trade secrets?"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This bit from the inquirer is good, had to be editied a bit cause no strike tag is allowed here:
WHO WOULD have predicted early in the case of the Department of Justice (DoJ) versus Microsoft that in 2002 both would not only be paddling the same canoe but spinning the same yarn?
But, good golly Miss Molly, and Holy Pixellation! the unthinkable seems to have happened, with the Dow Jones newswire saying that the Great Vole and the DoJ want a one day hearing to settle the affair.
So much so that they've issued a joint filing to the mediator appointed to clean the Augean stables, hmm, i mean, settle the matter.
"Approximately 19,500 comments express an overall view of the RPFJ but do not contain any further discussion of it."
"Approximately 2,900 of the comments can be characterized as containing a degree of detailed substance concerning the RPFJ."
The report doesn't mention how many of these were in favor and how many were against. Were the pro-settlement comments more substantive than the anti-settlement comments, or the other way around?
(I think the 7,000 who did "not directly express a view in favor or against" just forget to mention the settlement. I wonder how many were pro vs. anto MS)
Are they going to count 'dimpled' CHAD's this time or not? What about pre-natal or pregnanct CHAD's? Any hope for counting the wife-beater or adulterous CHAD's? Inquisitive minds want to know!...
More than a thousand messages were completely off topic. Some of those were advertisements - known as ``spam,'' - and at least one e-mail contained pornography.
Who wants to guess what that "pornography" was?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
and you the fucking communist. Believe in all these social programs to redistribute wealth. I'm sorry but if you haven't noticed, are goverment has been growing into areas it doesn't belong, and our most important expenditure (militray) has been shrinking. What good is all these damn "social" programs without a country left. If you ain't disabled, and your poor, your lazy. Anyways, I went off topic to respond to a dipshit liberal going off topic.
On topic, I think publishing what people think about the case is just plain pointless. Avg personal can't work a vcr let alone understand laws and court decisions and such. The human race as a hole is pretty damn stupid, we only have a small percentage of people that have a bit of sense to them. Anyways, just my $.02
The DOJ would like to propose a new remedy, based on several of the 7,000 "opinions" received during the public comment phase.
Under the terms of the proposed remedy Bill Gates will be required to pose for a photograph, to be published on the World Wide Web at http://goatse.microsoft.com/
A DOJ spokesman said "We really had no clue what these people were asking for when they asked for Microsoft to 'open up their APIs'. But then someone sent us a link to goatse.cx, and all became clear."
Microsofts attorneys were said to be considering the proposal, although an unnamed source pointed out that goatse.sun.com and goatse.oracle.com do not resolve.
"When Steve & Larry open their asses on the web, then Bill might think about it," was the source's opinion.
--
E_NOSIG
if the CDROM will only be released in MSWord format ...
My mother always used to tell me: If you can't find anything nice to say, say something bad about Windows.
Is this how we are going to deal with our laws from now on? Ask the public via polls and opinions as to how to deal with an issue and than use that as a fact to win a case?
I wander how many of those opinions came from people who *really* know what a computer is.
---
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
What the hell... only 15,000 against? Where the hell were you slashdot people on this one? I sent in MY complaints. Did YOU?
If I sent an email saying "I hate Microsoft", this is a comment on Microsoft's business practices. Implicitly it means I want Microsoft dechartered.
If I sent an email saying "Microsoft is evil", this is also a comment on Microsoft's business practices. Implicitly it means I want Microsoft dechartered.
Seems to me a majority of the public probably wants Microsoft dechartered. But the DOJ just doesn't want to admit that. Since they've been paid off.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Only 5 years ago, a great many people would have e-mailed flame after flame to the DOJ against Microsoft; founded not on evidence or logic, but on emotional, personal opinion. But thanks to PR awareness and education in the community, more people can cite specific evidence or examples of Microsoft's illegal behavior, and make rational, well-formed arguments on how Microsoft has damaged innovation, broken published protocols, APIs and standards and how they have illegally leveraged their market position to force out competitors.
Gone, or at least greatly diminished, are the zealots who write "M$ SUCKS!" Instead, people are more educated on the issue and can express their comments with supporting evidence in a calm, rational manner.
Despite these advances and compelling arguments, the US-DOJ still backed down on its position in the antitrust suit; but it can no longer be said that the majority of people who disapprove of Microsoft's business practices are "Anti-MS-Zealots."
DOJ is planning on publishing (on the web/cd/federal register/whatever) the ENTIRE e-mail that they received from people commenting on the case. This means that along with your comment, your e-mail address will be available to anyone who chooses to sort through whatever DOJ ends up releasing. It isn't too much of a stretch to then think of people who decide it's a good idea to send an e-mail to all the folks who spoke against MS or for MS, promoting whatever their cause is.
I won't even think about the poor fools who thought it would be a good idea to include home addresses, phone numbers and other personal information in their signature.
I'm quite sure, though, that the media outlets will pour over these addresses to look for trends like what they did with the screwed up ballots in Florida after the last election....
Personally, I'm just glad that I used an account I barely ever use when I submitted my comment - no need having my work e-mail address published by DOJ!
-Mark
I own shares of MSFT and still want them to be broken up, and wrote the feds against the current settlement. It is definately in the shareholder's interests for a breakup. Just look at how much anyone who owned Ma Bell earned from it and everything it had to spawn from its breakup.
I didn't realize the Govt had to publish the comments!
So what happens if someone sent in the source to DeCss inside their email? Would they have had to publish it?
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Of the 7500 pro-Microsoft responses, how many were from an actual live person?
You are mistaken, the ones that actually came from /. stories where the 7000 comments that said "I hate Microsoft".
15,000 comments?! Wow! Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Blueballs. Penis. Shortcake.
You do the math.
I bet Stile did it. Stile needs no motive.
Stop the brainwash
There are WAY more ant-MS zealots than there were 5 years ago. WAY more.
The general public is not capable of producing "rational, well-formed" arguments about Microsoft because the general public does not have even a simple understanding of corporate law, business practices, or the way companies operate, legal or otherwise. All they know is MS is popular, and they hear people say meaningless things like "Microsoft has damaged innovation", so they hop on the bandwagon to seem smart and cool.
For instance, search around for the phrase "leverage their monopoly". 99% of the time, what the person describes is not leveraging their monopoly at all. People are just horribly ignorant on the subject, so they just toss around catch-phrases to try and make their unfounded point.
Why? Because as so often been pointed out on here, a physical manifestation of opinion is more likely to get attention and a response. I'm looking forward to receiving it, by US mail and come what may, a copy of the letter and the response will be family artifacts.
It feels good to participate in a democracy. I encourage it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Grab the next motherfucker marmaduke who refuses to submit to these pelvic ostentations.
I've stumbled upon a brain fart which melts away your molds!
"- What if your life support system ran under Windows? - "
Their life-support crashed before they could sent their anti-Windows messages.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It's clear that the majority of U. S. of Americans want somebody else running their lives for them, preferably somebody with big fat assloads of cash, apparently. Write a letter? That's ridiculous.
Attention to detail boys... CmdrTaco on Thursday on Thursday... Excellent fp. Well executed.
Un-Widen this page!
Did you send in something? Or did you say "me too" with a form? Or did you say "I should" and didn't.
If you sent one that wasn't a form letter -- you have been part of the process. And believe it or not, got the government to listen to you.
Now, if they will do something about what we said it would be a different story.
Does this count????
...if not...
I hate Microsoft!
not yet diminished and very much alive
I am not surprised at the breakdown of the messages, except that the number of messages rejected as 'opinion' (7,000) sounds rather low if anything. The number of form letters (3,000)also sounds like it on the low side.
I doubt that anyone in the administrationis going to treat the messages as 'votes' [what start a lawsuit to stop them being counted? - Ed]. The number of messages on both sides will have been inflated by 'astroturf' (fake grass roots) campaigns by Microsoft, Sun, AOL etc. Fortunately messages of that type tend to be easier to spot than the people who purchase the campaigns think.
The bulk of the messages will simply repeat each other and standard positions fed to people by the media (including slashdot). I suspect that the 48 'substantive' comments are mainly the briefs written by industry lawyers to support one party or another. I strongly suspect however that it is the case that practically every idea expressed in the 22,000 contributions is covered in the 48 'substantive' contributions. Identifying a small number of contributions that put all the important issues well is a tremendous service to people trying to read the materials.
Taking the feedback as email will have helped sorting to an enormous degree. But a structured forum with some form of moderation could have helped the feedback further, collapsing repetative positions down to one instance and such. The moderation need not have been on the slashdot model in which there is a single pool of moderators, there could be twin panels of moderators representing each side. After all posting troll comments and pornography would do nothing for either side unless they wanted to discredit the dabate.
Finally the cost of publication at $400 a page does not seem unreasonable, it is roughly equivalent to the cost of printing and distributing about 1,000 copies. That is not much more than one per senator, congressman, state AG, party affected and news organization.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Hmmm, not sure how mine was counted. You tell me. Here's what I sent in.
Any company with this much contempt for the laws of our nation should been taught a lesson. Microsoft's monopoly has hurt the development of computing and created an atmosphere where smaller developers simply give up on projects instead of trying to compete with a company willing to do whatever it takes to beat them for no other reason than to beat them. Microsoft produces products that are full of programming errors and poor security that has cost many companies, schools and government offices millions if not billions of dollars. They are not an asset to this country, they are a cancer. And no settlement that adds to Microsoft's monopoly should be considered.
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
? #1 so there is no way to say first post again. Wow.
The law in this case requires the collection and publication of opinions. The judge can do with these opinions whatever she wishes, including disregard them completely.
So, don't get your panties in a twist.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
It looks like AOL does not own CNN anymore.
Or how else can one explain such a paragraph?
"The government's settlement would prevent Microsoft from retaliating against partners for using non-Microsoft products, require the company to disclose some of its software blueprints so software developers can make compatible products and make it easier to remove extra Windows features. "
What a great day - CNN is now owned by MS.
All those pro-Microsoft 7,500 users were probably taking part in the Back Microsoft and win an iPaq contest. (They said it wasn't a bribe, but just a tool to get people involved... Yeah right.) Either that or they were Microsoft employees, friends and family.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
If you read the DOJ memorandum to the court summarizing the public comments, you'll notice that they make the assertion that since they received the comments, there is no requirement for further hearings, and that only the Justice department, Microsoft, and the Settling States should participate in further discussions with the courts. No need for the court to actually allow dissenters to come in and argue the issues.
Amazing example of the finest justice money can buy!
Hey, I resemble that remark.
Remember the people running "loonie-like" thru the streets being chased by the zombies in Night of the Living Dead? They had good reason to be excited, as do people whose paychecks come from would-be MS competitors.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a Microsoft Zombie chant the mantra "The Desktop wars are over, Microsoft won the war", I'd be rich enough to build a house right next door to Mr. Gates himself and I'd fart in his general direction. The attitude that most people who can't or won't accept the status quo (MS dominance) must be loonie is abhorant.
Despite all their efforts, and sleezy courtroom antics, MS was found guilty.
In the wake of Enron, folks are right to be up in arms over what (some of) the big companies are doing to them directly, and indirectly.
Loonies? Look no farther than the Microsoft's boardroom. They are on a powertrip so big, they should be the villains in the next James Bond movie "License to Crash".
Hell, we even get frontpage stories about the latest anime DVDs to come out.
Why should we boycott anime DVDs? Most of the publishers aren't members of the MPAA, and don't pay DVD CCA dues. (The exception being Manga, who generally carries only the really bad stuff anyway) Many anime DVDs don't even use macrovision or encryption, and the North American releases generally aren't region-coded.
I'd say these are the kinds of DVDs we should be buying, to show that we're willing to support companies that don't place ludicrous restrictions on their "intellectual property".
You have an excellent point.
My guess, however, is that most of the dissenters are anti-MS rather than pro-MS, anti-settlement.
Why?
Because it seems unlikely to me that someone would oppose the settlement on the grounds that MS should get a more favorable decision.
Someone arguing that the settlement should be scrapped because it's too harmful to MS would probably have a difficult time justifying it. It seems that the legal situation is try for harsher punishment against MS or not, not try for more lenient punishment or not.
There's probably some who are opposing the settlment in favor of MS, but my guess it's a small minority. There's probably more anti-MS, pro-settlement people.
But that's just my guess. I'm not a lawyer or politician or anything.
Then there were the "me too"s
So you actually had a decnt chance of being included in the comment base if you took the time to actually write an intelligent thoughtful comment. Form letters were tossed as obvious attempts to flood the channel.
It probably winds up being similar to the number of comments in any number of Slash articles, and reading everything above 0.
!5,000 submittals that were not trolls, flamebait, etc, and which actually had some content is probably not that bad.
Heck, you could go for months here at slash before you hit that many.
Just taker a look at alterslash
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
7,500 - Pro Microsoft
15,000 - mAnti-Microsoft
7,000 - CowboyNeal
This page accidentally left blank
I forget what story it was, but I remember seeing a very highly moded comment on a story that encouraged /. readers to at least send an email that said "I hate Microsoft" (yes, I believe that was the exact wording).
Maybe this was the article about the samba developer's web page?... Oh well, someone else can look it up if they want.
The whole point of the Tunney Act is to ensure full disclosure of what is essentially an out-of-court settlement. It's no longer an issue of law, so of course they must ask if the proposed settlement is acceptable to the public.
semi-off topic, but I'd like to point something out.
I was just reading about this on The Register, and I hit a link regarding what the 9 remaining states are preposing.
As usually happens, the article discusses what Microsoft will allow.
To that, I say this: Punish Microsoft. If they resist the punishment, revoke their charter, and heavily fine Microsoft Executives.
A simple ultimatum, isn't it? "You have broken the law. Accept the punishment, or die."
It's been a long time.
Yes, I did send mine. I like the policy of filtering out redundant and irrelevant comments. What is left over should provide some valuable insight as to what exactly people think about this whole thing.
One thing for sure, this whole thing is never dull, just when you think you can see the outcome good or bad, it takes a turn in an unexpected direction. Overall I have good feelings about this. Maybe our system sort of works, just slowly...
Blogging because I can...
Imagine it, they make every comment available, with sender's name. The next day, everybody that posted an anti-MS comment finds their copy of XP stops working. :)
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
I agree, why the heck would we ask them if they are willing to accept the punishment? Should it just be assigned to them and if they don't like it, tough?
Imagine if a person got to choose, or at least had to agree to their own punishment. What do you think people accused of rape, embezzelment murder, or any crime would choose? Of course they want the most lenient sentence available. As does Microsoft.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Only 15000? I know the potential for more is clearly there.
It only took and hour to compose and submit mine. That is not a lot of time.
Anyone have any good ideas for incentives to encourage this sort of thing short of experiencing the consequenses?
Blogging because I can...
If I was in the Justice department, one of my required remedies would be that Bill Gates would have to dress up as Mr. Monopoly whenever he appears in public. This would last as long as Microsoft had the majority of the OS market.
Considering M$ well-documented shenanigans in survey responses, you would think they could do better than 7,500 letters. Even so, it's interesting to see DOJ admit a 2:1 dissent ratio. It would be much higher than 2:1 if you factored out the people who work for M$ and have something to gain by perpetuating the alleged monopoly.
If we were soliciting comment about the war on terrorism, should we count the opinions of the terrorists themselves?
Don't be so quick to assume that all republicans want to make love to Billy G. Even Rush Limbaugh has spoken out against Microsoft, during one show referring to Bill Gates as a "monopolist, threat to national security, and a thief."
Pro business doesn't mean evil, nor does it mean supporting a criminal business.
-- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
From the above link, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9900/9946.pdf (emphasis mine).
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
It's a shame that 1/4 of the people responding did it in opinionated, baseless ways, and had their say thrown out. (I'm assuming most of these were negative :-)
While a 2:1 margin of negative versus positive response to the lame-ass settlement is good to see, it could have been 3:1 if people would have expressed real reasons as to why the settlement was not adequate, rather than ranting.
In any case, a good result.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The Edge Report has posted an interesting article talking about the national security implications of closed source software. While the infiltration of Microsoft by Al Qaeda may have been only a rumor, the article explores a world where this could happen. And guess what? We're living in it. What exactly is in the Microsoft Windows code? Who knows? It closes with a powerful statement: "Closed source software vendors, in the name of National Security: Open your Code!".
http://www.edgereport.com/article.php?sid=135
--
If this is all about legal issues, I say throw away all of the votes and just ask us Floridians. Really, we have already set a precedant.
Considering the size of MSOE you'd might have more luck waiting for another library in the system to get it then borrowing it from them. Catch is you have to wait a few days for transportation. But if it's on CD-ROM I bet it'll be avalivble on the web long before that. Look for links below.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
I urge the Department of Justice to carefully go over every last word of the proposed antitrust settlement against Microsoft, keeping in close mind that Microsoft's many political contributions do *not* entitle it to get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I would love to view the results for many reason reguardless of out come.
Will my comment be posted, was it thrown out as an "I hate MS"?
What was others comments(pros/cons)?
Which side had the most form letters?
How much spam did they get? and what anti-spam actions did they take.
How will they prevent spammers from getting peoples e-mails?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I'd hate to think that my well-reasoned letter got labelled as simply "anti-Microsoft" without notifying me or labelling it as such...
Then only 2 business days for the rest of the workd to see it before the last hearing on March 4th, to last only one day with no outside parties allowed comment, not even the many dissenting states.
So much for respecting the public interest. This process seeks to sweep the whole thing under the rug before the press can even read the comments....
I hope the judge sees this desperation bid as a reflection of how inappropriate the actions of the new Ashcroft justice department are, and finds that the whole settlement is entirely contrary to the public interest.
--Neal
Go IETF!
From the AP article: Given the volume of the comments received, Justice has asked the federal judge handling the case to allow it to publish them online and on CD-ROM.
All you have to do to make extra money is make comments about MS. In the case of Slashdot, every MS article brings in thousands of page views to generate ad revenue. In the case of the government they get to sell CD-ROMs. This must make workers at the Government Printing Office very happy.
I think maybe I should go into business writing s*** about MS. It's the next best thing to being MS.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Anyone else wondering how many of the votes thrown out in Florida were pornographic also? :)
With all due respect, I'd recommend learning the English language before trying to one-up someone in a discussion.
Thanks.
Most likely, many if not all, of the 7000 responses
belong with the 15000. I would not be surprised to see
the DOJ has thrown a large number of them on minor technicalities.
Remember, it was already large, the did not need an 75% opposed which would probably kill the deal
not sure how mine was counted. You tell me.
.. but you fail to mention whether the one that's being considered adds to MS's monopoly or not.
Considering you didn't specifically mention the proposed settlement, I'd guess that your comments would be part of the 7000 that were thrown out.
The only place you say anything about the settlement is this: no settlement that adds to Microsoft's monopoly should be considered
Of course, you did better than me (I'm not an American, so I couldn't even write at all.)
Perhaps the better question is: What percentage of slashdot is in a position to participate, and what percentage of those people did anything.
Kal
Last paragraph suggests the court intends to distill the essence of the public's 15,000 anti-settlement, 7,500 pro-settlement, and 7,000 insubstantiated rants in a one day hearing the week of March 4th:
In light of the extensive comments and briefing that the Court will have before it, the parties believe that a hearing of one day in length will be sufficient to address any issues or areas of concern identified by the Court as appropriate for oral argument, even if a limited number of third parties are included. The United States believes that there is a substantial public interest in prompt resolution of the Tunney Act issues and entry of the RPFJ. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court conduct any Tunney Act hearing as soon as possible following submission of the public comments, the United States' response, and additional written materials, which will be filed by February 27, 2002. Specifically, the parties respectfully request that the Court hold the hearing, its calendar permitting, during the week of March 4, 2002.
So, what we learned from this is, that if too many people comment, the court can't pick any representative voices, and invite them for the oral arguments.
Perhaps Slashdotters might be able to propose to the court a suitable automated comment moderation system wherein volunteers or AI can sort out the mess. Then we'd just need to add a distiller to summarize the highly scored comments.
How large a percentage of valid, well thought out, salient responses to the DMCA Access Control Circumvention Exceptions and UCITA were posted, and then ignored, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of respnoses were against the two?
Now the public responds with overwhelming numbers and goverment wonders why there was no substance to most of our concern? Maybe if you goverment bastards would actually listen to the arguments we present, we'd bother to write them.
This is all just a smokescreen so the government can say, "Oh, these responses from ignorant internet users, we can ignore them, so, obviously, we should just let Microsoft go, because that's what the pulic really wants."
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
They must have had a great filter. Only a 1:29 ratio of spam? Amazing. And only 1 pornography spam? I think they must be making up the numbers as they go along - this seems important. I am usually at 1:1 or 2:1 ratio for spam.
I wrote a two-page well-reasoned response that took the better part of an afternoon. All because of the article slashdot linked to by the WINE guy about a month ago. I also forwarded the info to about 50 of my friends, 2 of which I know responded, 1 of which forwarded on to their friends.
Slashdot was therefore responsible for at least 3 of those 15,000 responses, and at least 1 substantive response.
I'm not saying that we aren't pitiful sometimes as activists. I forget to mail in my donation to the EFF, or do the work on how to run for Congress (and run a mean campaign) that I've been meaning to do for a while. I can't even get my grad school apps together and finish my resume for a new job. On the other hand, I'm also helping to run a volunteer non-profit, trying to keep my web development business afloat in hostile times, doing a website for charity for free, and also trying to speak with friends sometimes. We're all busy. We can do better, but I'd guess most slashdot readers do something. Just not the cohesive efforts that money has bought for the opposition.
Yet.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
So they have to respond to each comment? Does that mean they have to give a response to the judge? Or that they have to mail/email ME a response?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The subject "Hose your grandmother's account" would be filtered out because it does not contain the required subject header.
Of those who said "I hate Microsoft" or "Linux Rulz", these give no constructive comment on either the settlement's comments or what has been excluded. Simply saying "I hate (some company)" may be an ethical statement that you hate them because they sell a product you hate, and is no indication that they are break the law. eg, "I hate Ford", because they sell cars, and I hate cars. This is not a reflection on Ford's business practices.
My comment largely centered on possible antitrust comments in upgrades. For example, there is nothing stopping MS from doing things in "required" upgrades, such as shutting down competitive dual boots [Win2k], applications, &c. Upgrades and retail versions should be subject to the same technical restrictions as OEM versions viz Abiltity to not install assorted middleware, honouring multi-boots, etc.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Actually, according to this article:
The gov't received over 30,000 emails, 2,900 were "substantive", 45 were "major", 2,800 were form letters.
"Only about 10 percent had anything substantive to say, officials said, calling the volume unprecedented."
Typical liberal fuckwit, trying to grasp straws to discount someone's opinion.
Very true. I'll bet that the actual number of people that actually do anything is similar to the ones marketing people throw around. 1 - 2 percent response or something similar.
Blogging because I can...
7,500 in favor of the settlement
15,000 opposed it
7,000 comments were dismissed as opinion
3,000 containing a degree of detailed substance
45 were ``major,'' based on their length and detail.
2,800 form letters
1000+ completely off topic
at least one pornography
I can't wait till they publish on the web - I really want to know how they classified my letter. It definitly should have rated "opposed", and hopefully rated "a degree of detailed substance".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This sounds just like slashdot, maybe someone should have set up a slash site for the someone to "moderate".
"Requirements:
Microsoft Passport (to request the CDROM)
Microsoft Windows 95 or compatible (for the CDROM to install)
Microsoft Word (for reading the full text of comments) "
At the end there's a note regarding duplication of the CDROM:
"All the contents copyright by US-DOJ, and protected under the DMCA."
unfinished: (adj.)
Now we will see who really took a moment to send in something..
Last one in jail is a fascist.
"Requirements:
Microsoft Passport (to request the CDROM)
Microsoft Windows 95 or compatible (for the CDROM to install)
Microsoft Word (for reading the full text of comments)"
At the end there's a note regarding duplication of the CDROM:
"All the contents copyright by US-DOJ and protected under the DMCA"
unfinished: (adj.)
jail time for Mr William Gates.
:)
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
I think that guy's name is Rich Uncle Moneybags.
I saw that on a commercial or something.
It's appropriate for Bill too.
I wonder if Gates sent an e-mail through the company asking the staff to write in with positive comments just like with that poll a while back
I hope that people see that, no matter what their political views are, it is in their best interest to see stringent penalties against Microsoft. ;) ).
While it is obvious why the interventionist left sees the need for the government to act, many on the right are of the opinion that, the free market being 'free', the feds should just get out of Gates' way. Following along in their Reagan-induced trance, they fail to see that the man was actaully contadicting himself when he destroyed anti-trust. When you hold an economic viewpoint so dependent on micro-economics, fair business practices are possibly THE most important thing the the government can regulate and ensure. The vast majority of micro-economic models are based on perfect competition, making it essential for cases such as Microsoft's to be dealt with in the proper manner (Bill Gates being draffed out and whot like the dog he is
Just to let you know that someone from the other side agrees with you.
*Supply-Sided economics rock my world*
I posted my comments regarding how dis-satisfied I was about the whole settlement and about a week later I get an email asking me to fill out an M$ Satisfaction Survey. Now, i don't subscribe to anything M$, I haven't registered anything M$ in years, but I identified my self as not only a personal PC user, but, also an IT professional that is not happy with M$ conduct (and the fact that they might get away with it). So, now I'm wondering how did they find me (unless they already compiled all the comments), and why did I get picked for this survey. Could it be that my company, *not me*, has an enterprise aggreement with them? Are they really concerned about my feelings or is it just recon ? At this point i have no need to respond to the Survey. Here are parts of what I received: "Microsoft is conducting a survey with IT Professionals and would appreciate your involvement. The objectives of the survey are to determine what Microsoft does well, where they fall short, and what can be done to improve the products and services they provide. You have been randomly selected from a database provided by Microsoft to participate in this research. On behalf of Microsoft, we, Total Research - Harris Interactive have posted a private, self-administered survey for you on our website. It is strictly an opinion survey - no salespeople will contact you as a result of this survey. Your individual responses will be kept strictly confidential." I really wonder if they would be asking my opinion if i had responded to the DOJ in the positive instead of the negative? Remember, this came in suspiciously, about a week after I sent my comments to the DOJ.
.So every true.. *sigh*
I wonder if they actually stuck a monkey house on checking the actual content.
So much for respecting the public interest. This process seeks to sweep the whole thing under the rug before the press can even read the comments....
You missed the point of the entire exercise, then. The whole purpose of the public comment period was to permit anyone and everyone who had an opinion as to the substance of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment to express their opinion and justify it by quoting the RPFJ, the various court documents, and for the legally enabled from other authorities. It's spelled out in the Tunney Act...read it.
Based on the summary report, the public has indeed spoken. I know I sent in a 24-page opinion and analysis, both in electronic form and via paper using Federal Express. I know my voice has been heard.
Given the volume of comments, I would not have been surprised at a DoJ request to extend the response period, nor would have I have been surprised at the judge's approval. The surprise was that DoJ said they could do the job in the time required by statute.
You missed a fact: the DoJ has to evalute, summarize, and respond to the comments -- more than just doing a Reader's Digest or worse and then putting the whole thing before the judge.
As for "the press reading the comments" many of the comments had been made public by the authors. This Slashdot article has pointers to news articles written based on those author-publicized comments, so the cat's already out of the bag. If you want to read my comment, just ask -- I'll mail it to you as a PDF.
The District Judge has made it clear she won't brook any more delay in getting this thing finished. I agree. Time to get it over with and behind us, IMHO.
If one side or the other did any serious astroturfing it should be pretty easy to spot once these are published. Simply put them through the various anti-cheating programs that make the headlines around here so often to find out how many of these messages are suspiciously similar.
And if Balmer appears, he has to wear a black and white striped top, a mask, and a bag with 'SWAG' written on it.
I really wanted to submit comments about the settlement, but I knew it would require effort to compose a good comment about it, so I hadn't gotten around to it yet. A recent story reminded me that the deadline was imminent, so I wanted to make it a priority to make sure I didn't forget -- I kept a browser window open to a page about it, so I would not forget to get back to it before the deadline.
Nevertheless, I missed the deadline. Why? Because Mozilla crashed and lost all my open browser windows! I had no idea what pages those windows were open to, so I couldn't recover from the crash. All of that state information was lost forever, including the page that was up to remind me to submit a comment about the proposed Microsoft settlement...
I find it rather ironic that I didn't get to send in a comment about Microsoft crushing Netscape -- because Mozilla crashed! *sigh*
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
In reading the PDF describing the litigants response to the Tunney act filings, it appears they suggest to the judge to disregard the substance of the filings themselves, and just continue with the case, as the filings would only delay the proceedings.
As one of the valid filers, I would hope at least the substanitive filers would at least get a hearing.
I sent an EMail yesterday, asking whether my Comments were among the few which Mr. Ashcroft's underlings will dare to cross-reference in the DOJ response.
If my Comments are ignored, and if I don't find specific answers for every one of the 14 substantial issues in my Comments, I intend to follow up with the Court.
Typical zealot. When faced with the possibility that your argument may not be shared by others you resort to personal attacks and claims that people who have an opposing opinion must be paid.
And you claim to not be a zealot. How cute.