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The sheer amount of comments, interest in the case and outdated dead-tree publishing philosophy of the Federal Registar has got me thinking.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.
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?
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.
Your logic would be true, if the comments were a random sampling of all the people involved (in this case, all computer professionals, or consumers - in other words, almost every educated adult in the country).
However, since comments were voluntary, and there is a considerable amount of emotion in the arena, the sample is guaranteed not to be random.
It could be that MS tried to form a grassroots campaign (In fact, this did happen)
It could be that Sun and Oracle and Netscape tried to form a grassroots campaign, along with slashdot and the OSS movement (In fact, this did happen)
One side having more people who could write a convincing argument doesnn't have a big effect. You have no idea in what proportions the original 30000 messages were. It could be 30000-46 messages that said "Microsoft should be let off the hook" and 46 messages that went into detail as to other methods.
Further, the popular opinion doesn't (or shouldn't) rule, the actual facts in the case should.
Note, I am not saying that MS is in the right, or that they are in the wrong, just that your argument doesn't work out the way you want it to.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00028788.htm
Liberty.
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.
"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
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
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.
" 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.
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.