Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settlement Comments
GreyPoopon writes: "I'm sure somebody has already sent this in, but what the heck. According to Excite, it looks like a summary of the comments on the Microsoft settlement only show 5 of the 47 released by the Justice Department in support of the settlement. Does this mean that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will rely on only these 47 to make her decision?" The comments that the DOJ describes as "major" are now published; the procedure the DOJ wants to follow for publishing all of the 30,000 comments received is contained in a court filing. (The Federal Register, if you don't know, is a dead-tree, daily publication of the doings of the U.S. Federal Government. The Department of Justice is arguing that there are simply too many comments to publish on paper, despite the legal requirement to do so.)
Read all about it at the link below...
The sheer amount of comments, interest in the case and outdated dead-tree publishing philosophy of the Federal Registar has got me thinking.
:-)
Perhaps it is time for the Government to create, adopt or otherwise standadize a system to allow registered voters to discuss and debate on current issues and policies.
Something like Slashdot, but the people who run the show would be our elected politicans instead of our current dictatorship
That's not what I meant.
Does this mean that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will rely on only these 47 to make her decision?
It might help sway her against the settlement, but a two-thirds majority overall is a fairly strong case for vacating the settlement.
Any way you crack it, the public has shown that the settlement was inappropriate given the charges.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
All the DoJ is saying is that 90%+ of the comments were via email, if they can recieve comments via an electronic medium, why can they not re-publish them via the same electronic medium?
So it'll save $4m not to publish these in the Federal Register? It's good to see officials looking to save public money like that. But I wonder, if it's seen to be sufficient in this case to publish only the index in dead-tree form and to supply the full texts online and on CD-ROMs, whether a precedent will be set for the comments on all such cases to be published in this way. The consequent savings would presumably be non-trivial.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
It appears that one of the five representative comments in favor of the settlement is from Ayn Rand whackos.
The fact that a majority of the opinions are against the settlement is really a testament to common sense.
I don't want to make myself out to be a MS-basher. That would be hypocritical, since I use MS products in my job as a programmer and at home (mostly for gaming). But even someone who is adamantly pro-MS would have to acknowledge MS's unfair use of it's size and power to not just compete with others in MS's markets, but to crush them.
I used to argue that MS hasn't done anything any other company hasn't done or wanted to do. With the exception that no other company has been in quite a parallel set of circumstances, I still more or less believe that. But MS has become so large and powerful that the decisions those in power make do indeed hinder competition. When MS decides to "embrace and extend" something (like, say, a communication protocol), sure, it protects their business - which is a basic drive of all businesses. But that kind of manuveur by MS just hurts the industry as a whole as manufacturers scramble to make MS-compliant hardware and software developers scramble to implement MS-compatible solutions. And we all do the same dance again when MS Protocol X is revised with (typically buggy) version N.0
It's good to see that the people who aren't agreeing with the settlement are excersizing basic business logic.
My sigs always suck.
from: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00033650.htm
Too bad guys, you're gonna die. Not the first and not the last.
"The Department of Justice is arguing that there are simply too many comments to publish on paper, despite the legal requirement to do so.)"
:)
Naah, the real reason is who wants to see a printed version of the goat sex dude 600 times?
Although, what ever floats your boat
Sent from your iPad.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00028788.htm
Liberty.
I'll be offering them free space on my server so that they can publish it there.
There more data going over the internet in an hour then there's data contained in the library of congress.
What's 30000 comments? My PDA can probably hold that.
Granted this is a couple orders of magnitude smaller in scale, but the Canadian government published all the more than 700 "Canadian DMCA" comments it got, even the one from The Edifying Fellowship of Ook.
You can't post anti MS comments by using MS FrontPage to publish.
Hopefully the DOJ doesn't use FrontPage to publish.
They did take into account comments from non-US citizens. Paul Johnson is from Britain.
Just how much "justice" M$ has bought...
I'd guess about 80% less than the silicon valley cartels have bought.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
sPh
I found it slightly amusing that Sony's reply descented due to the "common licensing" provision. Basically they wanted to make sure their preferential licensing, and their ability to extend *their* monopolistic tendancies was not affected by the ruling...
I assume what they wrote did not make the final cut, but judging from what I read, most of the comments from people were of an equal caliber of what these gentlemen write.
I was happy to see all those compelling arguments.
the Judge is going to have a very hard time.
I was unhappy however to see certain groups coming out for MS.....I know the ACT is an MS group so I was not suprised, but I did not know that compTIA was pro MS.
I also was not excited to see a comment about how the turrney act is for the good of the consumer and not the good of the competitor, especialy since so many MS competitors wrote in.
well, we shall see I guess
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Anyone else find it rather odd that supporting opinions from the Associate for Competative Technology and the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism? Maybe not. But then they also were both formed in 1998. Call that a coincidence. Also, the Computing Technology Industry Association was formed in 2000 (as far as I can tell).
I didn't bother searching for the other two opinions for the settlement. Here's hoping that the judge can read between the lines here. Lord knows I can't figure out just who is the main contributer to these organizations.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me - Linux Today has been running advertisements for Windows XP for a couple of weeks now, as well, and of course, months ago "Linux" magazine got a lot of grief for running Microsoft advertisements...
They're everywhere! Everywhere, I tell you! I was wondering why the black helicopters flying overhead had the colorful MSN logo painted on them lately...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
If I understand this correctly, the DOJ still intends to post all 47 + 15,000 + 7,500 comments on the Web, and publish them on CD, and index them in the dead tree Federal Register. (They're clever enough not to publish e-mail addresses, to the disappointment of spammers everywhere.)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Why does everything have to be so damned complicated? The lawyer speak is definitely tremendous in these proceedings. I actually tried to read a few of them...mainly Novell's and Redhat's, but I couldn't because it was so watered down that I couldn't see into the underlying message of Bill is devil, Microsoft is hell, and we are tired of burning!
Man, could you imagine what it would have been like if these responses were written using common everyday english?
I can dream I guess....
Sent from your iPad.
Gee, all this $$$ for lawyers goes on forever while they decide whether to slap them or the wrist with a wet noodle or sentence them 20 hail mary's.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I just read most of the letters that are on the webaise... Granted I only read the first few paragraphs or skimmed them to get the jist.. either yay or nay. It's interesting on what they selected as the most important or convincing. You can obviously see who is in microsoft's back pocket, who would boring as hell at a party (I.E a lawyer anyways) and who is actually insightful.
Every letter that is in normal english, isn't trying to be superior or twist the english language into a mess of convolution is an excellent insight into what the public pulse is on this issue. Every letter that looks like a legal draft or you need a 4th year degree in law or political science should be thrown out and burned.
Kudos to those that chose to be honest and framk with the court and didnt try to tell the court what they already knew... (Cripes one letter went over the entire trial and findings and probably included what the judges and lawyers ate for lunch.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sony argues that in the past, they have added language which would strengthen their claim to it's intellectual property.
Now that Microsoft is renegotiating with Sony, MS claims that in order to be compliant with the settlement, they cannot accept Sony's modifications of the license. -which only strengthens Microsoft's ability to extend it's monopoly.
and here I thought that was one of the safest proposals of the settlement!!
An interesting assertion in the KDE League comment: US Antitrust law protects international parties from local business if it harms the American Consumer. If this is the case, shouldn't international parties have been given the right to comment?
"In addition, many Open Source developers live in other countries, making it extremely difficult for them to obtain any redress through the courts. (Here it is important to bear in mind that while these developers live in other countries, their software is freely available to American consumers, and hence any harm visited upon these international developers results in direct harm to the American consumers which the Antitrust Laws are designed to protect.)"
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
It's fun to read some of the pro-MS propoganda^H^H^H^H comments. For example:
COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY refering to the settlement: ...However, it is carefully crafted to ensure that Windows will remain available to consumers as a reliable operating platform.
Hmmm. I thought the court case was to prevent Microsoft from engaging in anticompetitive practices. I didn't think that keeping windows as a reliable operating platform was part of the court case. If anything, allowing for some competition *WOULD* make Windows into a reliable operating platform.
I've read some of the letters, and it's sort of sad to be reminded of all the companies which Microsoft has unfairly crushed OS/2, BeOS, DR-Dos and others, have all fallen, regardless of user support or quality, and the festering, rotting corpses of these products and in many cases, the companies which created them, are a macabre reminder of why Microsoft must be stopped.
...
...Like I said. Sad.
It's been a long time.
There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights.
Are there any more that I'm missing?
Finding God in a Dog
From the comment solicitation page:
(emphasis DOJ's).
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
After the initial shock of not seeing my comments appear in the final 47 (all listed in entirety: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-major.htm), I noticed some of what the individuals (as opposed to companies) that wrote in really do have great comments.
t c-00002572.htm):
Here's an example from Mark Alexander, pseudo-randomly chosen b/c he's the first individual listed (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/m
Mark: 4) The primary beneficiary of the settlement, other than Microsoft, is the OEM rather than the consumer.
Me: Great point. I spent much of my comment saying OEMs should have the right to bundle Java VMs or dual booting machines without penalty. How does giving OEMs the *right* to do this ultimately ensure something positive for the consumer? I don't know that it does. This wasn't just a good comment for the settlement, but even for other comment writers like myself.
Mark: IV - D: Coverage for OEM should not be limited to just the largest volume 20, but should include all the smaller OEM who by nature of their size have less of a bargaining position with Microsoft to begin with and as a group represent a large portion of licenses sold.
Me: Another great point. I'd allowed the presentation of the settlement in the media to greatly influence what I wrote and never bothered to break the whole thing down line by line. Talk about your misinformed and underinformed public (aka "me"). Let's face it, Mark did his homework. I didn't realize smaller OEMs didn't receive similar/the same protections.
Anyhow, I find the individual responses to be quite interesting, moreso than, say, RealNetwork's response which was obviously put together by "real" lawyers (Can't imagine being able to say "IAAL!"). Take a look. Whoever sifted through did very well.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Personally, I'm glad there weren't any listed from anonymous cowards:
"W00t! F1r5t c0mment!"
Nice to see a bunch from individual techies in the 47, though.
" We stand today on the threshold of writing the rules of competition in the digital age. We have two options. One option involves one dominant company controlling the computer desktop facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a gatekeeper to 95 percent of all personal computer users. The other model is the flowering of innovation and new products that resulted from the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly nearly 20 years ago. From cell phones to faxes, from long-distance price wars to the development of the Internet itself, the end of the telephone monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and services that benefit millions of consumers everyday. We should insist on nothing less in this case."
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI
I didn't vote for this guy as one of my senators, but I'm thinking seriously about voting for him the next time he comes up for re-election. I like the way he thinks. He hit the nail right on the head.
I'm disappointed that the only "major" responses are mostly from corporations or lawyers. Perhaps this case will introduce a new section in high school English -
"How to respond to a proposed settlement against Microsoft".
I'm sure this isn't the last one we'll need to protest...
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
Am I the only one who get tired of the MS case already? Is there a way to fast track this, get settled (whatever the outcome) and get over this as soon as possible?
Sure, there are parties who would like to drag on, like lawyers, MS, politicians in the MS camp, MS lobbyists.
But as the case drags on, the big loosers are: American citizens whose tax money is used to prosecute the case, Europeans (for the same reasons, as they are also in the same situation), citizens of the whole world who end up paying more for PC softwares as MS continues its bullying tactics with its monopoly, other software companies that get crushed by MS bullying tactics, employees of those crashed companies, potential companies/project that are afraid to get in MS's way... and the list goes on.
There's not even an injunction that itemizes what MS _can't_ do while the case is in prosecution. So, MS keeps doing the same thing.
By the time the case is over (in 10 years? 20? 30?), the economic (and probably competitive, hopefully) landscape will be very different, and the whole argument of the case probably won't make sense anymore. People would probably have forgotten the purpose of the prosecution already.
And during all these times, almost everyone is loosing big, except those who benefit from the drag.
While reading some of the comments, it was interesting to notice that the Computing Technology Industry Association made it obvious that they formatted their document using WordPerfect9 and that if there were any problems "downloading or formatting this file" they would be happy to provide it in another format.
This case was supposed to be about how MS has damaged public interest. So now that the public has been given a chance to speak, who is it but corporation that are brought out into the spotlight....
What's wrong with this picture?
I just scanned through the documents on the site and, though I may have missed something in the legalese, this is what I saw.
The responses by Joseph Bast and the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism support the settlement but seemingly on the grounds that antitrust is a bad or obselete thing. Therefore, these seem to assert that the settlement is good because it is an ineffective remedy.
The responses by CompTIA and Nicholas S. Economides seem to support the settlement but still allow for some form of antitrust.
The response by John V. Tunney appears to be a clarification of the procedure that bears his name and has little to say about the settlement.
So, I see only two that support the settlement as a remedy. Have I missed something?
In fact, Tunney slams Microsoft, if indirectly.
Part of the Tunney act, besides the public commentary, is that the defendant has to disclose any lobbying associated with the case. Microsoft argued that this didn't include lobbying of the Executive branch. Former senator Tunney's letter mostly explains that it (obviously) covers that as well as legislative or judicial lobbying.
Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;
Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it."
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
First: Only the major comments are receiving any attention. Only corporations and funded organizations are able to devote the time and resources required to prepare a reply worty of attention. I haven't seen any numbers but I wonder how many individuals are considered in the 47 major comments. Could they take into account a random selection of other opinions? This would allow for minimal goat sex, but a chance for the average Joe with two lines to say get heard.
Second: The DOJ is the one doing the sorting. Isn't this their proposal being commented on? Isn't it in their best interest to limit the number of responses? Why bother sending in comments if the DOJ gets to remove them? Again a random selection of other comments would help. You'ld get a better idea of the true number of people for and against the proposal.
That said, (step down from soap box) I'm glad to hear that the opposition to the agreement seems to have been able to have their say. I'm also very glad that this is a system that allows for public comments on a hot topic. It could have been settled behind closed doors without any knowledge of the proceedings much less any influence on the outcome.
Eben Moglen is the FSF's lawyer, and his comment (which made the cut: it's one of the 47) is the official FSF proposal.
Your list overlaps mine a bit.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I thought Nader's comments on how the settlement could affect Free Software were really interesting:
Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the "authenticity and viability of its business," while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights system and the future of research and development.
It seems odd that Microsoft would be allowed to choose to withold secrets based on how viable they thought the other business would be. In other words, they could say (and they have said) "Linux is not a viable/authentic business", and then they would no longer be required to share information with them.
It shouldn't be up to Microsoft to decide who their competitors are, anyway.
-Mike
So, 30000 comments via email. I wonder if 29000 of them were from hotmail addresses. And if so, I'll be we know where THEY came from, eh?
Are the folks at RedHat really Slashdot trolls in their spare time? From their comment:
"Open source and free software is distinct from traditional (proprietary) software in that it is produced by a generally voluntary, collaborative process, and accompanied by a license that pants users the right to..."
A CTLR-F failed to find references to Natalie Portman or Grits, but maybe they were only on the cover sheet of the fax.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
That government document was available in PDF and WordPerfect. For a government that's arguing that MS has a monopoly, you'd think they'd publish in the format that most of the industry is forced to use, Word, rather than implying there are other practical exchange formats (WP). :-) They should provide it in StarOffice SDC and AbiWord formats, too.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Their first complaint about the settlement is "there is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too many opportunities to undermine the free software movement."
Exactly. Most of the other comments that oppose the settlement, including the nine litigating states, think that Microsoft should be forced to continue to develop Office for Mac, and some want to force Microsoft to develop Office for Linux and other unices. What they don't seem to understand is that that will simply move Microsoft's most important monopoly from operating systems to office suites (i.e. applications). In fact, this would do Microsoft a huge favor. It is becoming more and more clear that consumers will not be so dependent upon using the same operating system as everyone else. Instead, what most people care about is the ability to share Word files. If the centerpiece of the remedy is to force Microsoft to develop Office for all competing operating systems, no one will be freed from essentially forced use of Microsoft products; we will simply be freed from forced use of Microsoft operating systems.
What Microsoft needs to do is exactly what Nader proposes: open up their file formats so that competitors can produce software that can read and write Office files as well as Office itself.
Nader is also the only commenter that I saw (I've only looked at four or five of the comments, and haven't read all of any of them, given the length) who recognized the strength that the PFJ gives to Microsoft by allowing them to exclude developers whose "business viability" is not certified by Microsoft, i.e. open source and other not-for-profit developers.
May Nader continue to watch out for consumers' interests (but may he try to effect change in the Democratic party through the primaries and other methods rather than by throwing the presidential election).
I was suprised not to see any comments from either The Electronic Frontier Foundation or The Electronic Privacy Information Center with comments on the debate. Why didn't these normally active groups submit an opinion?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
when did we get the RIGHT to acquire and possess? i always thought life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were our rights.
Those rights are not ever given in the U.S. Constitution (from which I assume you're trying to quote). They're assumed to be preexistant. As you point out, the third one isn't mentioned even in the preamble; however, it was included in the rough drafts, and removed for PR reasons (no, I'm serious -- check your history). Whether they're named or not, the rights are not considered something which is given to us; rather, they are innate; and property was considered one of the fundamental rights (consider the amendment which mentions privacy in one's own home; how can you have privacy in your home if you do not have a home?).
how can you use the words moral and capitalism in the same sentence without a punchline?
Capitalism is the least moral form of economy, with the exception of all other forms of economy.
Okay, that WAS a punch line. Let me try again.
Capitalism provides a framework against which moral judgements can be made. All of the other economic systems which have been proposed have failed to do so; most of them have instead provided absolute declarations of morality, without any means of checking.
This means to me that capitalism doesn't contain a science of morality; it doesn't make declarations like "stealing is bad". Instead, it predicts what happens when people do specific things (including stealing in all its different forms).
Randian economics isn't capitalism, by the way; it's capitalism plus a specific set of ethical principles (most of which I happen to find abhorrent and silly, since I do not subscribe to the principle that might makes right).
-Billy
This guy not only has cred, but picks apart the RPFJ AND shows where and how the loopholes should be fixed.
Well worth the read.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
You could argue that capitalism is moral in that competition and market forces work to supply people with an optimal set of goods and services for an optimal cost.
Well, let's at least use some precision. Capitialism is an -attempt- at a method of supplying optimal goods at optimal cost. It is an approximation of an (impossible to determine) ideal; a heuristic if you will. Other than that, I will agree.
Still, the center is exactly wrong about Microsoft. There abuse of monopoly power is what abridges the rights of others to participate in a market economy.
Indeed. Surely the Center wouldn't argue that the government should drop all currently engaged cases involving theft, would it? After all, a thief is merely exersizing the right to aquire and posess, and who is the government to interfere? But thievery is damaging, and thus we restrict the freedom of the thief to steal for the sake of the freedom of others. That is precisely what is going on here. The rights of one are being restricted to prevent the rights of many.
But since the center obviously understands this principle (else they'd be dedicated to the abolition of prisons, the greatest limiter of rights in our country), I have to wonder either why they don't see it applying in this case or, more specificially, what they have to gain by failing to see it?
The enemies of Democracy are
:-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
People are qualified to address what affects them. E.g., the settlement says Microsoft can keep authentication protocols and algorithms secret, but you've replaced your flaky Windows file servers with Samba, then you're going to have a well-informed opinion on the settlement. Even if you aren't a developer, you can read the position paper by the Samba team and reasonably interpret how their problems will limit your ability to use Samba instead of Windows in the future.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I seem to recall Rand validating the rights of corporations. For example, Taggart Transcontinentel seems to be a corporation, and Rand presents government regulation of their railroad operations as an intolerable intrusion. Although I don't think Rand really understood what a corporation is - I think she used corporations as simple proxies for powerful individuals. Thus Rearden Steel == Henry Rearden.
Here, verbatim, are the comments I e-mailed in on the proposed settlement. They go quite a bit beyond even Judge Jackson's proposals...
To all it may concern,
I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad deal for computer users, for the computer industry, and for the nation as a whole. It does nothing to address Microsoft's predatory and monopolistic tactics, nothing to address the fact that it's blithely broken previous consent decrees and defied court orders, and nothing to provide relief for companies and consumers who have been harmed by these practices. It should be rejected and far more stringent financial and structural penalties imposed.
Despite their slogan, Microsoft has achieved it's current position not by "innovation" or hard work so much as by imitation (Apple) or outright theft (Stack Technologies) of the innovations of others. It used strong-arm tactics, sharp practice and predatory pricing to establish it's monopoly in operating systems, then illegally used that same monopoly to grab equally compelling strangleholds on other areas of the software industry. At best Microsoft is a sandlot bully, threatening others with its monopoly power to get its own way. At worse it's a third world dictator, knowing it's above the law (witness its boldfaced violation of its first consent decree, and how it lied, repeatedly, in court) with the firm knowledge that it's too powerful to be punished.
A company truly dedicated to innovation would not wait two years to address the myriad security vulnerabilities of Windows and Outlook. If a different component on Ford trucks were to blow up and be recalled every week, Ford would be out of business very quickly indeed. If Microsoft did not wield such monopoly power, it would not be able to get away with selling such defective products.
Microsoft has proven again and again that consent decrees are entirely inadequate to stop its predatory practices. Only harsh, structural and lasting penalties will be able break it's monopoly power and return real competition to the markets it illegally dominates.
For penalties which would truly address Microsoft's monopoly power, punish it for past transgressions, and provide real relief to the victims of it's illegal actions, I propose the following:
1. Microsoft should be levied a $10 billion fine. Half of this money should be earmarked for the DOJ and state attorneys general to pay for the cost of prosecuting Microsoft, and to pay the cost of future oversight and enforcement, and half should be returned to the consumers and companies harmed by Microsoft's predatory practices.
2. The source code for all Microsoft products released through 1999 should be released in their entirety and made available to the public to be used by anyone to create their own versions of Windows, Office, etc. without paying royalties to Microsoft. This would also provide relief from Microsoft's monopolistic practice of using "embrace and extend," i.e., making it's products intentionally incompatible with established computing standards for the sole purpose of using it's illegal monopoly to erect barriers to competition. With the source code readily available, it would be a simple matter both to engineer compatibility to Microsoft's "enhancements," and to recompile Microsoft programs to adhere to open computing standards.
3. All the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to all shipping Microsoft products should be published and made freely available. This would prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive tactic of leveraging it's Windows monopoly through the use "secret" APIs in Windows that only Microsoft programmers can use to enhance their other product lines.
4. Microsoft should be split into no less than four separate companies: One responsible for Windows, a second for Office, a third for Internet Explorer, Back Office, Outlook, and all it's other Internet-related software, and a fourth for everything else (X-Box, WebTV, etc.). However, source code for all of Microsoft's currently shipping products should be distributed to each of these companies, with each having the ability to reuse or sublicense such code. This would create many competing products in segments of the market previously dominated by Microsoft, to the great benefit of consumers. These companies would also be barred from merging with each other or sharing directors for at least ten years.
5. The above companies would have one year to plug all known security holes in Windows and Outlook. After that period, they would be made financially liable for any economic damage such vulnerabilities in their software cost customers who had all current security patches installed but were still victimized by hackers or viruses.
6. The MS Office spinoff would be required to produce simultaneous versions of Office for the most recent release of Mac OS and Linux, at price parity with the Windows version, for a period of five years.
7. A government oversight board would be created with the authority to unilaterally impose fines, order remedies, change contracts, and release source code in order to implement the judgement.
This is a very radical remedy, and one I do not suggest lightly. In fact, I consider myself to be a Libertarian, one who believe that government should remain small and interfere in the free market only under the direst circumstances. However, one fundamental precondition for a free market is that those competing in it must obey the rule of law. Microsoft has shown, again and again, that it is willing to break and flout the law for it's own benefit, and to maintain it's illegal monopoly power. If Microsoft's earlier predatory practices had been curbed or punished when the first occurred, the government would not be faced with these vexing antitrust issues. But now that it has reached this point, serious structural remedies are the only solution. Microsoft has proven time and time again that it will not stop abusing it's monopoly power. It's now up to the courts eliminate that monopoly.
- Lawrence Person, Austin, Texas; Science Fiction Writer
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Thanks for point that out. I'll be sure to read these now, at least until I vomit. ;-)
-Paul Komarek
One interesting statement from the article: In addition to handing over the Windows code, the states that have not settled had also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to help provide impartial opinions on complex technical issues raised by the case.
Kollar-Kotelly said there was too little time to find the right person for that role.
At least they are finally realizing that there are many things that they don't know about what is going on, and want to bring an expert in. Too bad the judge doesn't feel the same way.
What?
Ooops, 'The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism' appears to be confused on the issue of the right to acquire and possess property versus the right to prevent others from acquireing and possessing property.
Of course, Objectivists always get all confused about this, which makes them sortof a loony fringe of Libertarianism. Most libertarians, I think, agree that the right to move ones fist ends at someone elses nose, but the Objectivists have some serious problems with this concept.
Antitrust cases arent about those who want to acquire property. Antitrust cases are about those who want to prevent others from doing the same.