Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Seeks Dismissal with 9 Dissenting States
zalix writes "Microsoft is seeking a dismissal of the
case brought by the 9 States who have refused to settle. In court papers filed
yesterday Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to
bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek
sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious
constitutional questions," They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"."
ahem... yeah right...
stop windows from being stable...
tsss...
This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform (emphasis mine)
This must be the internal, Microsoft-only version of Windows, then. The only Windows that I use is unstable and cranky as hell.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable [...] platform,"
They have GOT to be joking!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"...destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Someone a little more zealous and a little less polite than me might have pointed out that MS themselves succeded admirably in that pursuit.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Doesn't the constitution also protect us from tyranny? And last I checked, Microsoft wasn't too keen on free speech and thought.
They've committed crimes...
They've been caught...
They've been charged...
They've been tried...
They've been found guilty. Twice.
Someone hang them. Please!
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
So they actually believe their own bullshit
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
/me shakes head, slowly walking in circles.
Does this mean that MS's products are stable and consistent now? Damn, they must be doing good drugs in Redmond. Win2k server is somewhat more stable than WinNT, but nowhere near a unix box.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
...that Microsoft releases these statements just to watch the inevitable flames on message boards like this one.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Can you moderate a press release as -1 Troll?
It hurts when I pee.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
The states "seek to establish themselves as national antitrust policymakers" in a case where they haven't shown any "state-specific injury," the company argued in part.
How can it possibly be that the states have shown no specific cases in their area? I'm sure there are many constituents in this state, or companies, that can demonstrate being harmed by some area of Microsoft actions. The states didn't just all jump on the bandwagon against Microsoft without having any cases themselves, they simply pooled their cases together. And now that the overall case seems to not be happening, they're seeking once again to address their grievances individually by state, b/c they're not happy with the settlement.
I don't see how that's unconstitutional - since the main trial already agreed that MS had a monopoly in the OS market, the states aren't seeking to make federal decisions, only to use them to help their case.
The article is a little sparse, but I don't see this being a solid argument at this point.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Then nobody will have anything to complain about! I know that if Windows were even half as stable and/or secure as they think it is, we wouldn't NEED to seek injunctions. A lot of the whole case agains GargamelSoft is due to there muscling out competitors with inferior products, leaving the consumer to not even know there is an alternative!
Lousy facepalm.
Umm, stable and consistent are NOT words anyone (other than M$ sales reps) would ever use to describe their crapware. To all the states refusing to settle, KEEP PRESSING FORWARD!!! We're behind you all the way!
In the interest of conservation of space, will anyone who simply wishes to make the obvious sarcastic joke about "windows as a stable and consistent development platform" quote please do so as a reply to this comment you are now reading, so the rest of us can just scroll quickly past and ignore the lot of these comments in one block?
Thank you.
It was also reported that a federal judge overseeing the Microsoft antitrust case has dismissed a suit brought by a nonprofit antitrust group claiming that the parties didn't fully disclose communication related to the proposed settlement. See this link
And this...... Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case, as well as one that has not yet occurred. See this link
And finally, a great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!! Good luck!
I assume that "stable and consistent" was referring to their market penetration and not the platform itself.
Okay, we'll take relief in just our 9 states then. The rest of you can suffer.
But I think it is an invalid point, it isn't the Justice department which would be applying the law, it would be the Federal court, which certainly has jurisdiction over the entire country.
With press access to deposition testimony, evidence of patent grabbing agreements with the 20 top PC vendors, Tunney Act comments showing overwhelming opposition, Media Player bundling with that special feature of client-server user media access logging, does amy other last ditch legal manuever makes sense to a corporation perceiving itself on the ropes?
I mean, they've been found guilty of being a Monopoly. Typically companies are destroyed and split into many factions when this happens. Why hasn't it happened to Microsoft yet? They actually think they are invulnerable from having their OS destroyed and spread out to everyone else? Feh!
As an officer of the court aren't the lawyers supposed to try to tell the truth?
Fight Spammers!
The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said.
But they don't sell Internet Explorer. It's not a product. They don't make any money from it. Is Microsoft hereby admitting that IE is source code controlled as a way of manipulating Web standards in order to control the Internet? That they develop the product for free in order to drive competitors underwater?
Very interesting quote.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepeneur'." -George W. Bush
Havent they already done that?...
Microsoft today re-released it's revised version of the second draft of it's DOJ AgreementXP 7.0.9b package.
Under this agreement the states agree to re ammend an future litigation to include future contestment to future settlements of future points of litigation involving but not precluding any agreement in the first place.
In the event of any preclusion of an agreement to be acceptable to both or any parties invlolved are hereby resolved to the point of future litigation pending a court order with at least a 365 day warning pending aprroval of a senate oversight committee.
If these agreements are not met then proceed to Go and do NOT collect $200/month.
Who here can honestly say that if they were in Microsofts position they WOULDNT try this?
Knowing the court system today, it just might happen!
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform," said Microsoft.
Well...the stability and consistency part is questionable already, but I would have to agree that it sure wouldn't help!
-kwishot
""This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,".
Ok can someone please tell me when windows has ever been a stable and consistent development platforom.
The states "seek to establish themselves as national antitrust policymakers" in a case where they haven't shown any "state-specific injury," the company argued in part.
Isn't it "state-specific" enough when its consumer base was adversely affected by Microsoft's actions? Or does have to affect only that state or states in question?
Perhaps the other states didn't have the money or urge to fight Microsoft any further. The states are seeking relief in a Federal Court, and it's their right.
It's a good thing Microsoft thought ahead and occupied all the antitrust specialists in Washington... or didn't you hear? Microsoft preemptively went and hired up a lot of those folks to go and do other things, leaving a vacuum in Washington and elsewhere. Result? The antitrust opposition just didn't have the muscle it needed for the fight.
Only a federal court can make sweeping antitrust rulings. The federal courts have already spoken, so how can a few states go against that ruling?
Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious constitutional questions,"...
MS is at the very least a national monopoly. There should be nothing less than a national remedy. We have a tragedy of the commons situation with only 9 states pursuing the matter doing the work of the other 41.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
I have proof! Just click this link for some hard evidence!
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform"
For the first time in my life, I want to give money to lawyers. Can I start paying California taxes if I'm a Canadian?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Since it's an interstate business, it can't be forced to treat those nine states differently.
Best Slashdot Co
I was too late; by the time my comment was posted, there were already 12 Score:1 comments making said obvious joke.
/. story blurb without attempting to actually reading the linked article would certainly not check the story comments to see if they are making a redundant comment; thus, they would not have noticed my post, and my effort would have been in vain either way.
I am sorry to have wasted y'all's time. It was a valiant effort; If only i had gotten here sooner, perhaps there would have been a *little* less chaff to wade through..
But perhaps not. I imagine anyone who would have rushed to make an obvious comment about a quote in the
Ah well. I must now return to reading comments in which techies and high schoolers whose knowledge of the microsoft case is limited to the summaries you can find in newspapers and with no formal training in law attempt to argue over what the logical moral results of the case should be, and pretend that what is logically moral and what is legal are in some way the same.. Goodbye.
Microsoft and the government have released a new, revised settlement agreement, according to this article at the Washington Post. Changes include removing a provision that apparently would have let Microsoft use hardware patents without compensating the owners (?!), more requirements for API disclosure by MS, and a broadening of the language of the document to make it harder for MS to weasel out of things.
Anyway, thought it might be an interesting read to go along with this story.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete. If ever one questioned whether Microsoft feared free software, this should quell such doubts. They know that as soon as the source is available better products can and probably will be made. And apparently that's competition they can't handle. (Yes, this is toll-like, but I kind of like being a troll sometimes. My next point is hopefully better.
Also, their objection seems ill-founded to me. If they wish to complain that these states shouldn't be able to bring an anti-trust action that has national implications, I'd want to know if they'd objected to the original 18 states being included. That is, wanting to eliminate states from the equation seems to say that the DoJ is the only body that should be taking Microsoft to court, in which case they should have objected to the original 18 states. Taking issue with the inclusion of any states at this point seems like wanting to change the rules you had tacitly accepted after the game has been played for several years.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Since Microsoft's actions do, indeed, affect consumers in every single one of the 50 states, I'd say the non-settling states have a very valid case. One could argue that any potential remedies would have to be limited to the states in question, but we all know that isn't very feasible. ("You mean I have to go to another state to get a computer without Windows preinstalled?!")
And don't forget, the judge hasn't approved the Justice Department's settlement yet. She can still overrule it as being insufficient to remedy Microsoft's conduct, and I hope she does exactly that.
If only Judge Jackson had been a bit more polite with his ruling, we might have a couple Baby Bills instead of having to go through all this...
Does anyone else see this as a "oh no we're in for it" type move from Microsoft?
It seems to me like they have gone into their other lawsuits with a more cocky attitude -- paying whatever fines were imposed without much concern, etc.
Given the quotes cited, however, it would be safe to assume that MS might actually be scared.
It's like when you get home and the dog chewed something up. The dog comes up to you with its tail in between its legs because it knows it screwed up and you're about to be pissed when you get in the other room!
"What are you going to do? Kill Windows?"
Reading this article (and others), I find that M$'s repeated and only justification of their business practices is that changing them now would "undermine its Windows operating system" (from the article).
In other words, to circumvent fairness laws, produce a product that becomes widely distributed. Hopefully, make it so that businesses depend on your product to do their daily work. But make your product somewhat broken. Not broken enough to be unused, just broken enough to be a nuisance. Offer no free support or upgrades. (Call your product Windows.)
Now that you have people using your buggy crap, release an "update" of said software (all the while charging people for this update), and do something illegal with the software. For the sake of argument, lets say you do something ridiculous like integrate your web browser in an attempt to crush the competition's web browsers. (Because your browser never could compete on a level playing field.)
Then, when people try to raise a stink, defiantly state "what are you going to do? Kill Windows? You can't do that! People need Windows!"
Microsoft is not seeking to justify anything.
--
Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
Does anyone else find this amusing (I certainly did):
The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said.
Come on... how many people would miss not having an Internet Explorer 7.0?
We have a tragedy of the commons situation with only 9 states pursuing the matter doing the work of the other 41.
Can you explain this further? (Or someone else more familier with the tragedy of the commons document?)
Just take a look to the longest server uptime list from Netcraft.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said.
It is all so clear now, What would happen is all the bugs would get fixed by OSS developers, and hence microshaft (c) Could not continue to produce anything better? I find that very hard to believe. Having tha
The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said. t many full time coders, and they could not produce an innovative peice of software that they could market to the masses.
I would guess that opening up the source would provide a whole new set of lawsuits. Ranging from hey we didn't know that that api existed and thats why our Office Software sucked. To hey that's my source code I wan't my kickbacks!
just my two cents
Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious constitutional questions."
To which the response should be:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
This should take all of five minutes to resolve.
The hilarious and refreshing adbusters site claims that back in the day when a corporation exceeded its powers or ceased to serve the public interest, its charter was revoked and its very right to exist was nullified
Their main point is that corporate personhood--which grants corporations some rights as individuals--has effectively eroded the rights of real individuals. Since corporations have vast resources to vigorously defend their rights, they exercise more rights than you and I.
I think that we shouldn't fixate on Microsoft; there is a wider problem of corporations becoming too powerful in general. Microsoft is a symptom.
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
That's standard procedure, really. I don't see where it's big news. Big news would be if the dismissal was actually granted.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform"
Wouldn't that require it be a stable platform to begin with? It's like me saying, "Eating this bag of jelly beans will destroy my ability to run the Boston Marathon in 10 minutes, 32 seconds."
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Is this really newsworthy?
The obvious legal tactic when facing any lawsuit is to file a dismissal motion. And, in said dismissal motion, they come up with (make up) any arguments in support of the motion that they can. And said motions are generally denied, and the legal proceedings continue on.
BTW, IANAL
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
Does anyone else think that having IE "open-sourced" might actually be a good thing?
Not because it would hurt Microsoft, but rather so that the open-source community would be able to take hold of it and make it a better program.
You have to admit that IE is much faster than most of the competing browsers, and that it's all around not a half-bad browser.
If the open-source community could take this browser and turn it into something better, that would be awesome.
-kwishot
Do the people who work at MS honestly think their product is good, or do the PR people simply say whatever sounds good? One has to wonder how MS has been able to maintain its code for this long ... the waste of manpower (and womanpower, to be PC) is just staggering! MS should be charged for "draining the nation's intellectual resources."
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform," said Microsoft.
Isn't this like saying they want to keep the illegal practices like bundling stuff to destroy competition or forcing OEM to take the all-and-alone-or-nothing Windows license?
I mean, this comes to me as shocking...
unfinished: (adj.)
Just to further demonstrate MS's lack of stability, security, and so forth:
http://www.liquidwd.freeserve.co.uk/
Only Microsoft is arrogant enough to believe that the survival of Micrsoft is in the national public interest. It's going to hurt M$ if you do bad things to us, like strip down our OS or open-source IE and that would be bad for the country? When is enforcing free and fair markets a bad thing for the country?
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
Perhaps my favorite quote: "[Making Internet Explorer open source would destroy] any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions."
If this goes through, Bill Gates will sit crying in his room for a while before he is struck (not with a rock) but with an incredibly incredible plan. He'll create an entire new computer, using his companies marketing clout to saturate the market with it. If people thought Windows was unusable, wait until they get a load of THIS.
Coming: March 15, 2004. Abacus XP.
SyRuP Fudge. This is also how the MS senior managment team views the proposal.
-- Nobody should take away Microsoft's freedom to innovate, particularly since they haven't used it yet
How is it fair that the government can tell a company what to do with their intellectual property? That sounds like totalitarianism, or communism to me. How can they demand that Microsoft release the IE source code, et. al.? Just think about this for a second. What if they did the exact opposite? What if they tried to force Linux and all the GNU tools to be closed source? What would you think about that? Not like it much? Uh huh. If they forced the code open for IE, it would inevitably lead to intellectual theft of Microsoft... makes you wonder how little time it would take for that code to "somehow accidentally" end up on the desks of Mozilla/Netscrape developers? That's not fair play to me. Sounds more like horseshit.
"Actually holding us repsonsible for the illegal actions that we have been found guilty of should be unconstitutional. You should be happy just to slap us on the wrist like all those other times we got caught breaking the law. Now go away and let us get back to the business of dominating the world."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft is right about this one. I was talking to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said this could technically fall under the clause that states cannot make rules that apply to other states. It's similar to the laws that say if I'm married in one state, I'm married in another. They have to recognize that. Well, it's unconstitutional for Maryland to make laws that would affect Georgia.
This is just what I was told, so I'm going by that. I'm not an expert on the Constitution so I don't know.
They never change their tune, do they? The "stable and consistent" quote is specifically in response to the requirement to strip middleware from the OS. Yes, yes, we've heard it before; there is no OS, it's all completely integrated, yadda yadda. I'm sure many of us are familiar with just how "unstable" (or otherwise) an OS without applications can be. That aside, it seems to me that if distros based on a stripped down OS and middleware from third parties really were to suck as much as Microsoft claims they would, then the principles of the free market would protect their fully featured version. Remember, nobody's asking them to stop selling their "all microsoft, all the way" distro, just to provide a stripped down version as well.
Sure, if they want to give up and let someone else take over the browser market, they can stop investing in IE. They're saying that if they can't play by their rules, they won't play at all. You can sort of see their point: having their IP forcibly open sourced isn't really fair. Well guess what: that's the idea. This is a punishment. Microsoft have been found guilty of using Internet Explorer as a weapon to destroy Netscape. The penalty is to disarm that weapon by making it available to everybody. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a commensurate penalty. I also note that it's not a case of Microsoft giving the source away, just making it available for scrutiny and licensing. Heck, maybe nobody will want to license it after they've seen it.
In case anyone's interested, the actual States' proposal is here. It makes for pretty interesting reading, mandating the distribution of a Java VM with Windows, auctioning the rights to develop Office for other operating systems to a third party, and actually complying with standards, rather than just claiming that being 95% compliant is close enough (e.g. J++ versus Java).
Before you start reading it, remember one thing: Microsoft are guilty. They are convicted monopolists, and they have repeatedly ignored previous behaviour orders. This remedy is meant to punish them, and to help their competitors at their expense. They did the crime, now they have to do the time.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If their stable development platform would be destroyed....then it would be the same as they have destroyed countless other stable development platforms/programs with their monopolistic practices.
Justice isn't about revenge and I realize that. But you can't destroy market segment after market segment and when we finally want to penalize you for it, you whine and say you'll lose. Yeah, that's the whole point. What do they want, a slap on the wrists again? It sounds like it to me. The only constitutional issue I see is if we do nothing. Then we would be allowing an abusive monopoly to become acceptable and a part of our life. And Microsoft (avoid conspiracy theories, this is a simple fact) wants to become of our daily life as much as possible. PCs, internet, cell phones, TV, gaming systems, you name it, Microsoft wants a piece of it. They want to become one of those companies like a power or utility company - completely integrated and absolutely necessary in our life. It's not just horizontal and vertial integration of markets MS is after, but rather, integration of everything. (Making the Bill Gates Borg icon all the more appropriate, I think.) If we let them continue down this course it would be unhealthy for the american (and international) economy. No one company should be so big and have control over as many markets as MS has and wants in the future. I'm not some conspiracy freak or rabid MS-hater, these are simple facts.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform"
! !
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
(let me take a breath and calm down)
...
...
(sputter)
...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
LOL
due to some happenings in the States during the sixties, a hanging is a racial statement... even if it has nothing to do with ethnicity. Hell, you can't even say lynch without someone cocking an eyebrow and thinking you're in the KKK. Sad.
isn't that what netcape said about IE? M$, the typical two-faced corporate giant.
-BBB
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
I'm so scared. I'm going to have nightmares now...
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
They've been found guilty. Twice.
I guess we need 1 more conviction before the 3 strikes law takes effect!
We are not at war with Microsoft. We've never been at was with Microsoft. We are at war with copyright infringers. We've always been at war with copyright infringers.
***
Mundie said Microsoft is aware of the power of licensing pacts, but it is treading lightly for now. "If you stand in our shoes, we get enough flak just trying to get people to register their software," he said.
***
Is that so... Well, maybe people would register their software if they had some assurance that the info would only be used to send patches out. Some of the junk mail MS has sent me is just incredible. I'd bet they're selling the info too.
If a person steals, they pay the price. If they cause, through negligence, lack of beneficence or active malevolence someone to be hurt or have property or rights taken away, then that person is generally held accountable (except when he is of a 'accepted' race, sexual preference, etc that grants him hypocritical superiority over others because someone labled him as 'minority' or 'oppressed'). However, if a company does any of this, they are at worst disolved, but normally just slapped on the wrist. What about the people that made the decisions? Why should they be held any less acountable for their actions simply because they did it in a group. If anything changes because of the group, it should be that they are held MORE accountable. After all, people are stupid and make mistakes... it is just reality. In a group, it is known that through the collective collaberation of everyone, that mistakes 'can' be reduced (unless you use red tape). Sort of a 'two minds are better than one' (except you have more than 2 decision makers normally) Also, since there is specialization, bureacrats (gov't or corporate) claim that you can focus on that task better and use delegation to increase efficiency (in decision making here).
So, these people that make the decisions know that they will at worst be slapped on the wrists a bit, but will (if the company still exists) get a nice severance package and go to another company. Just like with bankruptsy laws... they differ greatly between companies and individuals. As a company person, during a settlement, I can EASILY liquidate aspects of the company or even continue to create more debt and get cars, homes, bonds, etc for myself. As an individual, I am screwed, and will have my stuff taken away from me... even stuff I never bought with borrowed money, AND my credit is fried.
So you are very right that there is a larger problem. You are very right that companies have greater powers than individuals that they claim to be a 'honorary' part themselves. Basically it is a synergistic effect. Because of the greater mass of people, resources, etc ANY group is better than an individual in most every case. Add that now that group gets the added benefit of being labled as an individual for purposes of rights and priveledges, but not responsibilities...you got yourself a problem. The chief problem is lawyers and lawyering. Get rid of that, the problem will be much lessened. Get rid of people that foolishly and sheepishly let themselves be led into thinking some smooth talking politician is for the common man (yet is a life time thief, liar and non working, leeching politician).
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform."
Insert joke here.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
I'll presume you mean "tragedy of the commons."
This is the generic problem that everyone behaving in a self-serving way often results in a less optimal situation for everyone. The name comes from a (midieval?) situation where there was a "commons" where the peasants could graze their animals (I've always heard it as goats).
Anyway, the commons only grows grass so quickly, so if too many goats are grazed, they don't get enough food to be really healthy. Thus, the optimal situation is for everyone to feed the same number goats such that the total number of goats get just enough grass to be healthy
However, if that was the situation, then a peasant could get one more goat and have an overall better situation because that peasant will have n+1 goats that are just a little less healthy than his n goats would have been
While the overall situation has gotten worse, his individual situation has gotten better.
Thus, peasants keep gaining goats until they are so unhealthy that it's not worth it to add a single more goat.
This is one of the reasons government exists. It's really not that much more valuable to go out and add 100ft to a road (unless it's to get it to my house). However, if we all got together and each added 100ft to a road, then we could build an entire system of transportation. One person could abuse this system by not adding his 100ft, and his value would not decrease. Therefore, government forces us to contribute. Of course, people try to "game" the system by not paying "their fair share" (since "fair share" means different things to different people).
This basic problem occurs many times, either as a resource consumption problem (like the commons) or as a resource creation problem (like the roads). So-called "piracy" is another example: people use the resource, whether it be music, games, or books, and do not pay for it in what the creators/distributors believe (or dream) as a "fair" way.
If you recall, the only reason that there is the idea of "intellectual property" is because the government created this legal fiction for purposes of public good. Very similar to the existence of a corporation, actually.
You see, the government grants the special status of a corporation, and the special status of copyright. Given that those are both (useful) legal fictions, it is not unreasonable that the government can take them away or control them when these government created and granted legal fictions get abused.
Noone would stomach the government telling someone that they're not allowed to distribute the source code to their own program. What a person does is up to them (subject to constrains of law at least theoretically designed to keep people from infringing on each others' rights). A person as such has (inalienable) rights, including those of property and freedom of speech. However, a corporation doesn't even exist until the government creates it, and copyright does not exist on its own without the government creating it. Seeing as how both are their creations, is it not unreasonable that the government can direct the uses of its creation to prevent their abuses?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Did you steal that tagline from me or did we both steal it from the same place? :)
Well damn, now I have to think of a new one. Hmmmm.
The question you have to ask you're self is where is a company making there money , that is there product ,not neccesarily what they give away for free. A company can spend alot of time developing something ,(say a an audio codex), and then give away that codex then sell hardware/special software to stream it /some other thing to take advantadge of it in some way.The point is that 90 percent of the work may go into the codex which is given away freely and only ten percent into the thing which makes the money.
.
,'company's products',are the things which make it capital or profit, all other things which the company gives away merly assist this process and in my opinion ie is more of a tool than a product, and it was produced with this aim in mind .
However according to www.dictionary.com i.e is a product.
"\Prod"uct\, n. [L. productus, p. pr. of producere. See Produce.] 1. Anything that is produced, whether as the result of generation, growth, labor, or thought, or by the operation of involuntary causes; as, the products of the season, or of the farm; the products of manufactures; the products of the brain."
It is the purpose of Ie that is called in to question by microsofts comment,"The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions,"",It is a product not intended to make money but to hold other browsers at bay, it is a tool of control for microsoft, if it were open source it would lose value as a tool of control
In my mind a
_________________________________________________
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I guess what Microsoft is really saying is that they don't want to have to make 50 different versions of Windows for sale in each state, and it is unconstitutional to require them too. However, there is a great counter example to this, which is auto manufacturers. They have to make modifications for certain states (CA), but it is legal to move a car from one state to another (used cars or when you move, etc). So maybe Microsoft will be forced to create certain versions for certain states. Of coruse they will complain how this will dirve them into bankrupcy or something. But if a car maker can modify an assembly line with all sorts of parts and expenses to deal with, then Microsoft can cetainly change software, which should be easier than changing around a factory.
Quite frankly at this point, who cares?
You yankees love to linger court crap. Look at OJ and now Yeates [sp?]
I know that our court system is convoluted, but it makes more sense if you understand the reasons for it. Our system is based on the fact that 1)Everyone has the right to representation, and 2)Even criminals have protection under the law, hence laws concerning "double jeopardy" and self incrimination.
Unfortunately, it has evolved into the bloated system you see that basicly comes down to who has the better lawyer.
Every now and then, I find myself agreeing with Shakespear, where the first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. I have to remind myself how dangerous that is. With no one as an advocate for the accused, its a very short step to "guilty until proven innocent"
Good or bad, its that way for a reason. I haven't seen anything better come along.
Just a thought
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Why is the fact that Windows is unable to defend itself against any serious scrutiny an argument for not scrutinizing it? If a member of the scientific community tried to get his or her hypothesis accepted on the grounds of its inability to defend itself against scrutinty, they would (rightly) be laughed out of credibility. Shouldn't we hold a company who clambers after more and more power to a corresponding ammount of responsibility?
`which fortune`
I found a rope that would work. It's of suitable size and strength. Unfortunately it's wrapped around a music CD case and figure out how it was wrapped around the jewl case, unwrap it, and use it for another purpose would violate the DMCA and the RIAA would crawl up my crack. Hope they like the smell.
So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete.
IE is free software. Just ask Netscape.
If ever one questioned whether Microsoft feared free software, this should quell such doubts. They know that as soon as the source is available better products can and probably will be made. And apparently that's competition they can't handle.
No, what they are saying is that they paid for the development of IE and don't want to be forced to give away their intellectual property. They don't want there to be a Linux version because the availability of IE in Windows gives them a market advantage over Linux. Say what you want about IE, but there are many sites, including e-commerce, that don't work correctly under other browsers. I don't care why. It's simply true. I run Opera and have to switch to IE occasionally for that reason. My friends who run Mozilla and Netscape report the same thing.
You need to look past your "open source rulez!" tattoo and think like a business person. Microsoft does not want to invest man-years in a wildly popular software product and then give the source away. That's not surprising, hard to understand, or indicative that they feel technologically inferior to the herd of cats that is the open source movement.
Now, in light of the verdict, the question must be asked if this is a fair remedy. I believe that it is. But it's not enough. I think that all Microsoft data file formats need to be open-source and that any change to a file format must be made public at least six months prior to release of a product (e.g., Office) that uses said format.
P.S. I have 50 Karma points so I don't have to be nice for a while. Mod this down as flamebait or troll if you wish.
As a point of fact, I believe they did play a similar card, when the DOJ tried to push the appeal to the Supreme Court. Microsoft's brief said that it shouldn't go there because the States were a party to the case. To go back and say now that the States have no standing to file suit, after Microsoft has, de facto, admitted that they do, it's just too late.
It seems that the Microsoft lawyers have learned some lessons from the Microsoft support team...
The more you want a proper solution from Microsoft support, the more time and money you've got to waste...
Before we go to court, can you please give us your credit card number and expiry date?
Experts are once again issuing a warning the newly released MS SettlemeNT contains a security flaw which could allow malicious coders to take over your Intellectual Property, delete files on your computer and gain control of your finances. MS denies these allegations though insiders say Microsoft is working on a patch. Back to you Neil.
I read somewhere about this that MS might have a case, but it's a slim chance.
The essence of what the legal expert was saying was that the case was filed jointly by the states and the feds, or some such thing--not just by the feds--and so it's within reasonable limits for the states to ask for settlements separately from the feds. Basically, it had something to do with the way the case was filed to begin with.
In any event, as the legal expert went on, because of the way the case was filed, MS should have protested initially, during the beginning of the trial. The fact that they have waited so long damages their argument--if this is a constitutional problem, they should have addressed it when the case was first brought against them, and argued that the states shouldn't have separate authority as a plaintiff to begin with.
That's my understanding of this issue at this point.
The states are trying to force Microsoft to release Windows without "middleware." That could seriously jeopardize the definition of an OS ... There are thousands of things that can be removed from an OS that can be called "middleware" but they're all important for a viable commercial OS.
What about the bootloader restrictions? BeOS for x86 flopped largely because Microsoft's OEM license agreements prohibited installing a bootloader that could load both M$ and non-M$ operating systems unless the OEM paid for a copy of the retail edition of the OS (at wholesale prices, which are half of MSRP but double OEM) for each computer.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is the first, of likely many, legal tactics that MS is going to use to prevent the ordered release of the Windows source code. As their argument actually has a minor bit of merit, the courts will have to investigate and argue their position. This means that MicroSoft's lawyers have some time to come up with their next time wasting strategy while they maintain their monopoly. Each time their arguments get shot down, they will come up with another argument which will bog down the entire case again and again until one of the following happens:
- The states capitulate to a not so devastating settlement
- The DOJ screws up and loses one of the arguments
- Microsoft screws up and loses
It's likely that we will not see an end to this case within this decade...
Wherever you go, there I am...
where microsoft can push patches for AgreementXP out to the consumer automatically (for the consumer's convenience of course).
Buahahahaha
Because I didn't think it was very constitutional when Microsoft robbed an industry of billions of dollars.
I forget - in America, money equals the law. Silly me. Carry on.
inkly
I would be willing to bet that the MS legal team doesn't believe that this motion has a snowball's chance in Bills own bedroom of going anywhere. This is a tactic to generate support among the large PC manufacturers who would have to support 2-3 different version of the same operating system. What they are saying is that it is illegal for one state to set the laws of another state, so if the disenting states win their case, then they will cause MS to make one version of Windows for those states, and one version for the rest of the country. You can imagine the logistical nightmare this would cause at HP, Dell, and Gateway.
MS has admited that they recognized a problem when the rest of the industry didn't step up and defend them in this case. This is their unique way of squeezing that support out of them while still staying firmly in the dominant possition.
Brilliant move if you ask me, good chance it will backfire though, and cause the pc makers to get more vocal about what they would like to see the final settlement look like.
There's plenty of room at the bottom.
With Windows, I'd have to upgrade to a slower and more bloated version just for stability. Whereas with Linux I can just get bug fixes and carry on as normal, but Windows would require upgrading my hardware as well. Why can't MS just fix the bugs without the bloat? At 28MB of RAM and a 200Mhz processor, I doubt Windows XP or 2K would even install on my computer, whereas Linux flies by.
If Linux can be stable without the bloat, then why can't Windows? Are MS programmers incompetent, lazy, or just in bed with the hardware manufacturers? Also, upgrading Windows would cost around £100. Why should I have to pay just to have my OS fixed? If I bought a car and the engine didn't work, I wouldn't wait for a few years and then buy another one.
Unless MS give me bug fixes for Windows 98 for free, I refuse to do business with them ever again. In Linux, I can simple download the fixes over the Internet for free. I am not required to spend a hundred quid on a new OS. And even more if I want to disable the crippling restrictions such as a limited number of connections. Until Windows can be as cheap, easy, bloat-free and bull-shit free as Linux, Windows 98 will be the last copy of MS software I buy. If I can help it of course. MS have such a monopoly I'll probably end up forced into using it merely for compatability with everyone else.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform."
Oh well... Boo fucking hoo...
Besides, using the words stable, and windows in the same sentence is an insult to programmers everywhere.
RA7
-
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
If there is a ,stable and consistent development platform, then microsoft is the point farthest from it.
Dr. Suess: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Take the ring! I am too small to carry this thing!' 'I can not, will not hold the One.
only available for free to solaris users. anyone else can still buy it. and openoffice will still be a "light" version available to everybody
you probably shouldn't have read this.
It is not the role of the courts to protect Windows as a stable platform no more than it is the role of the courts to protects competitors of Microsoft. So you'll have to sing that tired song somewhere else Microsoft.
In terms of the dissenting states, they are well within their rights as representatives of citizens of the United States to make sweeping national requests. If we followed this Microsoft logic, noone would be able to make a national case about Microsoft. Now show your operating system source that you foolishly want to keep claiming as evidence so we can get on with this.
Wow. I didn't realize it was either stable or consistent.
AOL IM and Netscape - Delete QuickLaunch, Delete IE toolbar button, delete Favorite, delete Try AOL shortcuts
Real - Unassociate it with all the media types, get rid of "notifications", delete Favorites and QuickLaunch
Clean? When I find a computer with IE on it, have to rebuild the computer with a real operating system. When I don't I leave myself open to Outlook, PNP, IE and other just don't work security risks. Please see ha-ha f for the end result of much bad judgement, that startsy by trusting your clean machine.
When you are angry about many things in the world, it is time for you to re-evaluate your priorities. Wife good, child good, me free, life is AOK.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Since Microsoft has been found guilty and the courts just need to determine a punishment, why does Microsoft have to accept it? Who ever asks the defendent if they accept the term of their punishment? Of course the defendent won't want to accept the terms, but they shouldn't have the option of choosing their punishment, because they are guilty. They aren't higher than the law, and once the prosocution and the judge agree on a punishment, it should then be forced on the defendent.
This whole process of Microsoft having to agree to a settlement is pointless, and a waste of time, and I don't see why they even have to agree to it, it should just be forced on them.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
That is the whole point now isn't it? Not that they would go away (think: Mac OS)... they just wouldn't have a deathgrip on the market anymore.
Searched the web for Evil Bastard Bill Gates. Results 1 - 100 of about 7,250. Search took 0.39 seconds.
It takes Google less then a second to figure it out.. why does it take so long for the government.
Searched the web for Microsoft Sucks Ass. Results 1 - 100 of about 27,300. Search took 0.54 seconds.
Searched the web for Microsoft Is A FUCKING piece of shit. Results 1 - 100 of about 9,120. Search took 0.17 seconds.
We should not be charged for their bug fixes. Then whats to stop the from deliberately installing bugs. To me Windows 2000 Pro is a bug fix of Windows 98.
wouldn't windows have to BE stable to destroy it as a stable development platform? I know win 95/nt4.0/98 were never stable. Have yet to try w2k or xp. The only thing consistant is the blue screen or the poorly designed memory management that causes my win 98 box to crash.
Only 'flamers' flame!
I would also add that while I am no friend of MS, and think they should suffer badly for their transgressions, this whole "give us your code" thing going on in the settlement talks strikes me as trophy-hunting.
It somehow seems cheap and beneath us to be running around saying "You were a bad boy, now you need to give us all your code."
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Any FUD is good FUD. Refutability is irrelevant.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
Insert anti-Microsoft rant here.
I don't even bother anymore.
I'm an EU citizen; what could happen over here? If Microsoft succeeds in the US, but -let's h{o,y}pe- the European Union will force MS to strip down windows.. what's going to happen?
Non-US version of Windows? An English version for UK and an English one for the US?
One browser to rule them all, and in the darkness BIND(8) them?
Will Microsoft move to another country?
...isn't the US DoJ trying to control software that is sold all over the world?
...isn't all that funny?
I mean, not my post. Just the whole situation. Mixing software with laws is like trying to solve an equation using kitchen tools. Sure you can figure it out, but no cookbook will ever describe it.
...looks like there's too many people with free time around...
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Microsoft wants the case dismissed.
And in a related story, people in hell want ice water.
It says Lindows to sue Microsoft.
This is the USA. Everyone can sue everyone. Doesn't mean they'll win. MSFT uses lawyers like you or I use pebbles on birds.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
It is pretty funny that Microsoft only asks that those States not agreeing with it must be removed from the case.
It just shows how cheap and poor their legal reasoning is.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
This is obviously another stall tactic, though I have to say if they are pulling the constitution they must be running out of ideas to stall this longer.
This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform
I think Microsoft is doing this just fine on their own.
This is not the case of states being able to make rules for toher states. Basicly states have the right to sue, and they did. Now just because the federal government is settling the case that does not mean that all Microsoft liability is gone. The federal government settlement only removes the conflict between the fed government and microsoft. But anybody else that has the right to sue under the law can still do it. If a state sues microsoft that state does not try to impose different rules, any more than if i sue microsoft i will be trying to impose different rules. Eventually a judge will decide the remedy and if needed that judge will combine the cases so the remedy is consistent.
Windows never was a stable and consistent development platform, what are they complaining about?
They do have a serious point: as a policy issue, individual states cannot be determining natiional issues, and shouldn't generally have standing to enforce national laws.
However, the actions also violate the laws of the individual states, and they *do* have standing to enforce those.
Additionally, taken to its extreme, microsoft's argument would seriously damage the notion of precedent. The states are suing because their citizens are damaged. They do not find the proposal by other parties to the suit adequate to solve the problem, and like any other plaintiff, can stay out of an inadequate settlement entered by the other plaintiffs. If they *do* prevail in showing a stronger remedy is proper for themselves, then the judge has the power to apply it nationwide.
Microsoft has a point, and a reasonable argument--it's just not as strong as the arguments against it.
hawk, esq.
No, what they are saying is that they paid for the development of IE and don't want to be forced to give away their intellectual property. They don't want there to be a Linux version because the availability of IE in Windows gives them a market advantage over Linux. Say what you want about IE, but there are many sites, including e-commerce, that don't work correctly under other browsers. I don't care why. It's simply true. I run Opera and have to switch to IE occasionally for that reason. My friends who run Mozilla and Netscape report the same thing.
You need to look past your "open source rulez!" tattoo and think like a business person. Microsoft does not want to invest man-years in a wildly popular software product and then give the source away. That's not surprising, hard to understand, or indicative that they feel technologically inferior to the herd of cats that is the open source movement.
But, really, we shouldn't be looking at this situation like "business people." Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime. If I am found guilty of a crime, I don't get very much leeway to protest that the Court's punishment is unfair (setting aside any potential rants about the flaws of such a system of Courts).
I mean, if I speed, I get a ticket... if the Crown Attorney tries to jail me for life, well, I can protest. The Court will (hopefully) note the absurdity of the punishment and fine me, instead. However, in this case, the loss of a monopolist's property (intellectual or not) is quite apropos. Of course it undermines Microsoft's business interest: it's supposed to do just that.
It is not in the public interest to have Microsoft around... We're stuck with them, for the time being, but that's not to say we have to make it easy for them. No, it should be brutally hard.
BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
He was blamed because that was the most convinient way for the appeals court to get rid of his ruling, without having to go trough the difficult process of overturning it.
A judge is free to make any conclusions about the beliavability of a litigant if it based on what they do in litigation, and the evidence that is properly in front of him.
Most of judge Jackson's frustration with Microsoft came from their conduct in trial, like submitting obviously fake evidence, causing delay, Bill Gates acting stupid etc.
Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform ... consistent may be .. stable don't think so .. have you ever runned any windows OS more than a year on a desktop computer. I think not.
.. or maybe I should be Microsoft Certifiate to do so :P
Or maybe It's because I haven't buy some fancy and expensive hardware made especially for windows
0xC3
That was a good reply gilroy. I just wanted to add that settlements only remove the claims of individual plaintiffs. Thus even if the federal government settles with microsoft the states would still be able to pursue their suit, and ask for a different settlement, or even decision from the judge.
But criminals always get away if they got enough money ;)
Interesting theory you've got there. I fail to see how there is any plausible justification for giving people the right not to say things that might incriminate themselves. Either you did something wrong or you didn't, and the court's job is to establish which it is as fairly as possible. You've already got innocent until proven guilty (and that's how I'd want it), but then you load the dice completely by letting people keep quiet rather than say something incriminating that might... well... be the truth.
Hey, over here in the UK, if you refuse to give a breath sample when you get busted after a road accident, the court is allowed to read into that that you're being dodgy, and you can be done for it appropriately. What does the US law say on that?
Which in turn comes down to who has the most money, which in turn is why your system is terminally screwed up and a worldwide laughing stock.
The thing I never got is how you can possibly find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt (is that the legalese you use, too?) if it takes months at a time for each side to present their evidence. Surely, if it takes that long to present evidence, there must be reasonable doubt. Conversely, when you've been found guilty by a court, a higher court, a third high court, and another one after that, how many more appeals do you really need? If you've been found guilty that often, there's not much room for doubt left.
Well, either that or your laws are so absurdly complicated that you can argue irrelevant minutiae ad nauseam at the expense of getting a meaningful or in any way significant result. Personally, I think a system like yours would be improved by limiting the time in court to, say, two weeks of arguments for each side. If you can't make your point convincingly in that time, your point isn't worth making.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I would also add that while I am no friend of MS, and think they should suffer badly for their transgressions, this whole "give us your code" thing going on in the settlement talks strikes me as trophy-hunting.
It's hard to come up with another option to address the wrongs. Microsoft crushed Netscape by bundling IE with the OS while Netscape had been charging for their browser. The average user looks for "a browser", not "a better browser" so Netscape was left out in the cold.
As a result of Microsoft's dominence of the browser market, combined with proprietary extensions (ActiveX, VBscript, etc.), web sites were written to support IE rather than a generic HTTP-compliant browser.
Now Microsoft is using the reliance on IE, and other proprietary products like Office, to keep Linux off of the desktop. Given that the browser was central to the trial, open-sourcing that would help put things back on an even keel.
In the future, I think that the Microsoft should be required to document and release all data storage and transmission standards. If that is not done, this pattern will be repeated over and over.
As I said in the original post:
Now, in light of the verdict, the question must be asked if this is a fair remedy. I believe that it is.
We agree.
Microsoft gets into a suit and then pleads guilty. If they had the balls, they could pack up, and declare ALL MS Software liscenes "VOID IMMEDIATELY". Picture the confusion in the US.... no world.
they haven't shown any "state-specific injury"
That's right, they injured all states equally.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform," said Microsoft.
No, M$ did that on their own years ago
To read makes our speaking English good. - X. Harris
Bully Bad Billy,
Got Caught With His Pants Down,
Take it like a man.
Why do people want the source code to Windows?
Of course, it means you can poke around and see how they do things, but since no-one else builds a platform in quite the way Windows is, I don't really see the point. Plus, Microsoft are going to fight long and hard not to open up their code.
So, let them keep it closed.
However I would have thought that forcing Microsoft to open up, document and distribute for free the file formats they use (doc, xls, ppt and so on and so on) for then next, say 25 years, would be far more advantagious to others. In other words, they cannot lock users into their own formats ever again.
After all, once other applications can load and save Microsoft formats as well as Office can then surely then it would allow them to break onto the desktop and so foster proper competition?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Yeah, right.
They should be held in contempt of court for that kind of BS.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Someone needs to go back to English Class about as much as MS needs to be honest about stability.
I do agree with you, though.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I read sometime ago that Microsoft was considering moving 50 miles up the coast into Canada and complicating the legal picture enormously.
Really though, India seems a better place as it is a) much more corrupt, and Microsoft could have many more government decisions its way for much less money than it lobbies with now, and b) India is not so firmly tied to the WTO so the US could not get at them quite as easily as Canada.
Does anybody know if this plan is still on the back burner?
First MS offers to pay any State who drops the
case against them.
Now they are crying that if they take their deserved punishment. "But, it will hurt".
That's the idea.
may we all live to dance on Microsoft's Grave
Didn't Microsoft use Mosaic as the base for IE?
They're still going to be held liable for their past actions. If I commit a major robbery in the US and flee to Mexico, if they catch me, they will extradite me, if I set foot back in the country before the statute of limitations expires the potential for penalty for the crime, they'll arrest me all the same.
If they move it to India or elsewhere, unless they honor the terms laid down by the government for their infractions, etc. their products will be banned from import into the US.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
is windows "a stable and consistent development platform,"?
Is there a version of windows I missed?
-a.e.mossberg
...how can you say that there's a lack of free speech on Slashdot. For what I can see, none of your emotional, biases (and I suspect Microsoft-funded) rants have been censored. Nobody keeps you from spewing your propaganda here. Or perhaps you are complaining because users aren't modding you up? But you're forgetting that many of them here already use Linux, so they are immune to your disinformation: they know that Linux is a solid, professionnal-level OS (and the proof that open source software can achieve great things). Some of us, like me, are forced to used Windows at work. While I admit that Win2k pro is the most stable Windows to date, it's still not as stable as my Linux box at home. Still, you won't be kicked out by this majority here, who knows you are telling nothing but lies: like everyone else, you are free to speak your mind and promote Microsoft all you want. In that sense, Slashdot is a wonderful example of the right to free speech, and you are totally wrong in upholding to opposite view. You're welcome have and share that view with us, mind you, just as I'm welcome to have and share the view that you are just another one of the countless "cover agents" that Microsoft has hired to go and spread their FUD on the Internet.
Reminder: find a new sig
My page isn't widened... muthafucka!
I 0wnz j00!
IE is not just a "not half-bad" brower, it is absoultely the best browser by almost any imaginable measure.
Okay.. here's some measures for you:
Hard Drive space requirements
RAM requirements
CPU speed requirements
Page faulting
Bandwidth hogging/waste
CPU overhead when not running
Annoyance management (eg pop-ups, cookies, etc)
Security
Protocol breaking (eg "friendly" http error messages)
If these features make your computer run slower, or keep you from putting some massive game on your machine it's not just a "geeky" feature. If your machine gets a virus simply from browsing some page -- that's not just a "geeky" feature. People typically drop a page if it isn't loaded within 8 seconds. They don't care if its the servers fault or the browsers fault - though they'll typically blame the hosting site as "slow". Speed is not just a "geeky" feature.
Opening the source to IE wouldn't make it a better product, but it would open up some of the hidden system calls and allow competing products to take advantage - thus making them better.
Microsoft has been charged guilty of being a monopoly. Microsoft's Windows desktop operating system dominance came about because of abuse of this monopoly. When will Microsoft understand that THEY HAVE NO RIGHT DEMANDING THE GOVERNMENT PROTECT THEIR PRODUCT? That's almost like a mob leader, who broke the law to get the power he has, demanding that the police let him alone or else his empire will colapse....
-Kefabi
Portugal, and a few other smaller coutries (singapore? sri lanka?) do it this way.
Driving on the "wrong" side of the road is from Napoleon.
He was a Cavalryman, and teh standard way to pass would mean that he would have to stand off the eroad to mount his horse.
The "right" way allows driven coaches to pass with the drivers passing right-hand to right-hand with each other, allowing useful defence with the dominant right hand with sword or whatever.
Admittedly not all that useful, but then how often do you mount your horse?
No, what they are saying is that they paid for the development of IE and don't want to be forced to give away their intellectual property.
Try telling that to Spyglass. It was their IP until Microsoft swiped it. I would say that it shouldn't belong to them, if for no other reason than it qualifies as "ill-gotten gains".
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
That being the case, you have to wonder why they gave their IE browser away for free.
Splitting up Microsoft was too simplistic, and would have just created several little monopolies in place of one large one. It was totally unclear how this was supposed to remedy the antitrust violations and restore competition. The Court of Appeals confirmed that Microsoft broke the law, but they were also unconvinced that the original remedy would be effective.
Of course, the DOJ settlement proposal is much worse, offering a slap on the wrist to a convicted criminal after the conviction is upheld on appeal. Microsoft effectively murdered a number of other companies (such as Be) -- can you imagine a state prosecutor getting a murder conviction, which gets upheld on appeal, and then accepting a plea bargain for manslaughter with a suspended sentence? That's about as bad as what the DOJ is doing here. They should be ashamed.
The remaining states at least have the guts to push on, but the new judge seems predisposed to get rid of this case expeditiously, regardless of whether a settlement would be in the public interest, or whether it would remedy Microsoft's illegal conduct, deny them the fruits of their statutory violations, or restore competition in the computer industry.
Judge Jackson would have happily endorsed this proposed remedy -- why did he have to get so careless and get himself removed when his wisdom and insight are so desperately needed most to ensure justice is done? *sigh* I hope the new judge changes her tune -- the remaining states got the proper remedy exactly right this time.
Here's a summary of the states' proposed remedy:
- Require Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer and other middleware from Windows and offer a reduced price for versions without the extra features.
- Mandated uniform, non-discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs and other third parties.
- Continued licensing of previous Windows versions for 5 years after a new version is released at the same price.
- Mandatory and timely disclosure of technical information to ensure interoperability.
- Prohibition on knowingly interfering with the performance of non-Microsoft middleware without good cause.
- Ban on (anti-competitive) exclusive dealing.
- Ban on contractual tying.
- Ban on retaliation for supporting competing products or engaging in (this) litigation.
- Microsoft must respect OEM, user and third-party licensee choices if they want to make a non-Microsoft product the default middleware (e.g. Netscape browser).
- Prohibition on agreements not to compete (like their attempt to divide the browser market with Netscape between Microsoft and non-Microsoft platforms).
- Compulsory open-source licensing of Internet Explorer (to deny Microsoft the benefits of their illegally-gained browser monopoly).
- Mandatory distribution of a Sun-compatible Java JVM with Windows and IE (to give Java the widespread distribution it could have had without Microsoft's illegal behavior).
- Mandatory continued porting and support of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh platform.
- Mandatory auction of at least three licenses to allow porting of Microsoft Office to other platforms, and to provide all necessary information (including file formats) for doing so.
- Mandatory licensing of any Intellectual Property rights necessary for the effective implementation of this remedy proposal.
- Mandatory actual compliance with any industry standards that Microsoft claims to comply with, or de facto standards where justifiable. (Proprietary extensions allowed, but the industry-standard part must work correctly.)
- Appointment of an internal Compliance Officer within Microsoft to ensure compliance with the final judgement.
- Appointment of a Special Master empowered to investigate and resolve complaints quickly while minimizing demand on judicial resources.
- Establish consequences for patterns of non-compliance to discourage such behavior.
- Disclosure of certain information related to acquisitions to enable appropriate government oversight.
This is a well-thought-out, carefully-drafted remedy that would actually have a good chance of restoring competition and serving as a true remedy for Microsoft's established illegal behavior. This is the remedy we need, not splitting the company into "Baby Bills", each with its own ready-made monopoly to leverage...Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
The disagreement is only over what is done to Microsoft, over their punishment for breaking the law. Why should states-rights-vs-constitution even enter into the picture here? Since they've already been convicted, what difference does it make WHO is suggesting their punishment so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs?
IANAL, but I am somewhat of a history buff. It would seem to me that the question of who is suggesting MS' punishment shouldn't even be an issue so long as it is one of the original plaintiffs. They have already been found guilty, so all the judge has to do now is decide how best to punish them. All these motions to discredit or undermine proposed punishments would seem to be nothing but hot air to me. (meaning Lawyers are getting paid for making meaningless paper)
sorry if that sounds troll-ish.
Go Lakers!
LINUX - "Linus, Now I Understand Xenophobia"
???
"Linus, Now I Understand Xenophobia" = LNIUX
Also, note that "guilty" isn't quite thye right word; this isn't a criminal proceeding, and it's "remedies" for the affected market, not punishment.
Microsoft is making a fairly narrow and technical argument about who has standing to enforce federal law. Of course, this reasoning also tosses out the states who agree with the feds . . . and again, it isn't enough to overcome the broader issues, or the state law claims upon which these states won . .
hawk
Obviously when you get the BSOD, the machine won't go anywhere and can be as "stable" as you want it to -just don't expect it to do anything.
Doing that a few time a day makes it "consistent"
Anyone who uses the words "stable" and "windows" in the same sentance should be talking about the benifits of a horse getting enough light.
Microsoft Windows (as distinct from generic windows that have been around for
That or I need to recompile the libraries cause the package mantainer didnt like my machine.
I was just trying to pick the brain of a lawyer for my own curiosity. I've never really enjoyed law like a lawyer does, but the issue of states-rights-vs-whatever has always fascinated me.
Go Lakers!
"Permitting the nonsettling states to seek sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious constitutional questions"
Translation: Expect a Supreme Court appeal.
Are we really expected to believe that the states that comprise the Union (which are the only authorities that can amend the Constitution in the first place), have fewer rights under the Constitution than the Federal Government? Such an assertion offends the 10th amendment, and others.
Also, notice how this statement neatly frames the remedy in terms 100% favorable to MS?" I believe it up to the states what relief they are seeking. "Sweeping, nationwide relief" is inflammatory hyperbole.
Also, note that "guilty" isn't quite thye right word; this isn't a criminal proceeding, and it's "remedies" for the affected market, not punishment.
Anyone know when the criminal proceedings will begin?
> The question you have to ask you're self
The question you have to ask you are self.
What?
I'm sorry, I know I can still understand what the guy is saying, but is it THAT hard to LEARN THE FUCKING LANGUAGE you're using? Jesus Christ.
It's not like it's a hard rule to learn, either.
Apostrophe == missing letters, generally used to shorten two words into a single contraction.
Don't == Do not (second o missing, replace with ')
you're == You are
your == your
If you can't say the sentence with "you are", then don't fucking put "you're".
Isn't that called tying? Is that illegal for a convicted monopolist to do? If they're really saying what you suggested, then haven't they just admitted to breaking the law and wanting to continue breaking the law?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Woo hoo! I just skimmed through it. Wow!
Just to give one example, in section 19-f (somewhat simplified) if Microsoft tries to threaten someone with an unfounded IP lawsuit, they LOSE THE RIGHT to claim protection on IP. Unless I'm mistaken, entired catagoies of Microsoft IP would effectively become public domain - IF AND ONLY IF MICROSOFT PLAYS DIRTY. Damn! Now THAT has some teeth!
Now THESE are the kind of terms you expect a prosecuter and judge to come up with when you've been convicted.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have to agree with Microsoft. Just when you think the Feds couldn't f__k up Federalism any further, the states jump in. Sorry that all you Linux bigots out there are pissed off that Microsoft isn't a complete smoking ruin after these protracted, pointless lawsuits, but it sounds like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Now, if only we could get the government to sue IBM again....
Even if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, they are not required to write versions of IE for Linux, Solaris, *BSD, BeOS, etc.
What they said was that they didn't want to give away their intellectual property. That's all. They didn't say "We want to force people to use Windows in order to have access to Office and IE, which we have used our monopolistic powers to turn into must-have applications." They evil, not stupid.
They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating
systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Ends doesn't justify means???
Maybe they should have thought of that before the committed crimes????
What if MS never got away with any of the wrong stuff they have done?
where would there OS be today? Would it be a stable and consistant
development platform? Or would we have something much better?
How do you undo all the damage MS has done, put back in place all the
companies that MS wrongfully distroyed and harmed?
Fact is you can't undo the damage.
So what moron wants the same unfairness to not be done to MS?
MS deserves to the full brunt of their own medicine. Only the Legal system
for with Bill seems to know all about, doesn't really know how to right
things.
MS really shouldn't be allowed to continue in business. In some
industries if you are caught doing the wrong things you are kicked out,
and not allowed to do business ever again in that industry.
In fact given MS's persistance of doing wrong things, removing them from
the industry is the only fair way to deal with them.
The question is: what to do with their customer base?
As a going out of business sale, the proceeds is to finance the conversion
of their products to open source Public Domain. Seeing how they took so
much from the Public with their deceptions.
If you lie, if you cheat, you lose!!!
If you murder someone, you can end up on death row.
Problem is that the laws just aren't tough enough for the computer industry,
and as such it lets to many crooks run the industry and entrap everyone by not
giving them a reasonable alternative.
Monies and property from drug busts go to re-enforce what?
Here in computer industry crime, it should go to make criminal activities simply
not worth it. Via, supporting GPL, Public Commonwealth of computer technology.
Some time passed. The Web became very big and important.
In the mean time a company I shall refer to as M$ had been busy leveraging their Intel based microcomputer OS monopoly (an OS called DOS that they practically stole from Seattle MicroSystems) to stifle competition. Much interesting technology came and went, smothered by M$ control of OEM OS contracts. Quarterdeck, Stacker, DrDOS and others saw their cool technology usurped by M$ and all went the way of the dinosaur. M$ spent much time reinventing Internet Protocol, now named M$ Networking, and was set to eradicate TCP/IP, IPX, VINES, and all other network protocols in favor of their own 'Enhanced' LanManager protocols. If they had made this move two years earlier, they may have succeeded. They didn't only because Tim Berners-Lee's little invention known as the WWW had become very World Wide very quickly and it was based on TCP/IP networking over the internet.
BillG then had a dream and invented both the WWW and the internet in 1995, about 5 years after the WWW had been invented by Berners-Lee and about 25 years after the internet had been invented.
Navigator combined with http/HTML constituted a viable threat to M$ desktop market domination (monopoly). It was easily platform independent since it had been designed that way from the ground up. M$ knew it had to do something to prevent Netscape from leveraging their platform independent technology into toppling M$'s desktop monopoly.
M$ quickly released a browser of it's own. It was very bad and they knew they had to have something that was reasonably good very quickly. Otherwise, Netscape's 80% browser market share (and growing) might eat their gravy train.
They then licensed the Mosaic technology from Spyglass Technology. Spyglass had been established as a commercial entity to handle the liscensing of Mosaic for UIUC and NCSA. The license they arrainged invloved paying a precentage royalty on the proceeds of M$'s Mosaic now named Internet Explorer.
I.E. was much better then M$'s first browser attempt, but it still was far Navigator. M$ decided that they would provide I.E. for free and bundle it with everything they sold. Who would bother to download Navigator over a 19.2 kb/s modem connection when I.E. was already on their computer?
This trick had two very useful features from M$'s perspective:
- It eroded Netscape's market share and forced them to provide Navigator for free.
- x percent of zero is zero. So they didn't have to pay Spyglass anything.
This must have been orgasmic for BillG. He could seriously fuck two companies with one descision.See paragraph one above. Who's property is I.E.?
Only under our very contemporary ammoral form of capitalism could something developed using public funds be given to a law breaking corporation to use as a club against competitors.
-- hgc
Linux: There is no infringing code.
Thanks.
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
The question is: does microsoft deserve saving? Maybe its destruction would not be all bad.
I guess Boise could have pursued it, but he did not want to use the resources and slow down the whole process.
Boise knew that the judge knew the evidence was not to be believed and that was enough for him.