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.)

Comments

Slashdot for Government!

[Dino]

The sheer amount of comments, interest in the case and outdated dead-tree publishing philosophy of the Federal Registar has got me thinking.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 :-)

Re:Slashdot for Government!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

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 :-)


And on the floor of the US Senate:

"Mr. President Pro Tem, I would like to point out that many of my constituents are 1337 h4xx0r5 and want the president to post his rear end in a "goatse.cx-ian" manner!

Re:Slashdot for Government!

[swillden]

No, this is not a good idea.

The problem is that under this approach there's no way that the vote can be completely anonymous and uncoerced. It's possible you can secure the transmittal, storage and count of the votes (although as a professional security and cryptography expert, I would say that doing so is beyond our current capabilities), but how do you prevent a man from forcing his wife to vote for his candidate? For that matter, how do you prevent the local union from forcing all of their members to vote in a certain way. If there is any way for a voter to demonstrate conclusively who he or she voted for, there is a way to coerce that voter.

Because of this, it is critical for the integrity of democracy for voting to be done in complete privacy. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this means that voting must be done in a public place, where everyone can see that only one person enters the polling booth at a time.

Common Sense

[Telastyn]

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?

Not surprising, really...

[mystery_bowler]

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.

Re:Probably won't matter

[Gaijin42]

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.

Ha!

[clark625]

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.

And now, the Pro-settlement comments.

[MAXOMENOS]

Most of the comments either state that the settlement won't promote competition (click here or here, or are based on the allegation that some sort of deal was cut (illegally) between MS and the DOJ. The following is a list of for PRO-settlement comments:

1. The Association for Competitive Technology
2. Professor Nicholas S. Economides, Stern School of Business, NYU
3. Computing Technology Industry Association
4. Joseph L. Bast on behalf of the Heartland Institute

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?

Senate Comments

[Random Feature]

" 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...

Supporters of the settlement

[Spoing]

Personally, I have a very long memory. I bet you do too. It's important to realize who is on what side.

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;

1. CompTIA: "The goal of the settlement in this case should not be to penalize Microsoft for past behavior, nor should it be to benefit Microsoft's competitors by forcing Microsoft to license its source code against its will. The settlement should insure that Microsoft does not engage in the actions found unlawful by the Court of Appeals. This consent judgment does just that and therefore it should be approved."

2. The Heartland Institute: "I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement "doesn't go far enough" in restricting Microsoft's freedom to compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-quality goods and services that consumers want."

3. Association for Competitive Technology: CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the RPFJ should be adopted, and the Litigating States' proposals should be rejected."

4. The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism "The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any "monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in which he declares that "because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that responsibility."[vii] As long as this moral monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust will continue to punish successful businesses."

5. Nicholas S. Economides, Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business of New York University: "In my opinion, the RPFJ is a good and fair settlement that achieves the objectives of remedial relief without damaging the software industry. I would urge caution against a deeper intervention in the software industry, where fast technological change and very significant network effects make it very difficult to predict the medium and long run effects of such intervention."

   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."