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.
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 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".
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
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
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
Here are some snippets of the comments from some of the "big guns" who responded. This article was published last week.
I hope they DON'T publish my name. I don't want to be rounded up by Bill Gate's jack-booted SE's after this suit is thrown out, and it's made clear who the "rabble-rousers" were.
In fact, I really hope that they don't find out who I work for, because my company has a relationship with Microsoft (as any software company in today's world really must, if they're to have any chance of long-term surival). They might think that my opinion reflects poorly on my employer.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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
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
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."
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/
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/
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.
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".
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"
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.
From the above link, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9900/9946.pdf (emphasis mine).
For geek dads: Contraction Timer
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."