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,"."
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!
Since it's an interstate business, it can't be forced to treat those nine states differently.
I never thought that Business Law class would become useful...
Each state is given the right to dictate commerce in their state from The Constitution. As interstate business took off, people saw the need for a uniformed method of trade, thus some of the lawmakers and lawyers met to propose the Uniform Commercial Code. This was a set of laws that controlled how to conduct business and defined a uniform set of rules regarding trade. Each state had to review the laws and then pass a copy of the UCC.
Today, they still need to lobby each state and ask the state to pass the law. The only reason the laws are uniform is because each state agrees to use the basic premise of these codes. The constitution still allows them to pass any commercial codes they want. If the nine states want to treat Microsoft differently, then they can. This is the same reason that the UCITA is only approved in two states. Everyone is allowed to make their own decision.
What Microsoft is really asking for is that the courts stomp over another little piece of The Constitution and ban the states from using their legal right to control commerce in their states.
The courts have spoken, but only to the effect that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The DoJ and 9 states have proposed a settlement with Microsoft that would take the case out of the hands of the federal court by settling it. These other 9 states have refused to be part of that settlement and want the case to proceed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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
Because they are forced not to sell it.
Not true.
Netscape was giving away their product for free in the beginning to educational users - but there was no verifiable method of proving that one was or wasn't a student, so it was essentially free for all comers. This was before Explorer.
AOL has given away their software pretty much since the beginning - but they sell the service it connects to.
Opera is the only one that has had a for-profit model since the beginning. But we're used to free browsers so it's probably doomed in the end.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
The issue of "state-specific injury" refers to grievances which exist only within one or more of the 10 remaining jurisdictions. For example, if California has a problem with OS/IE tying, Microsoft is claiming that the state cannot bring suit unless OS/IE tying is only being done on products marketed within its borders. If the same problem exists elsewhere, it can only be addressed at the federal level.
Not that I agree with the argument, mind you, but I think that's their point.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Indeed, IE is a very useful thing for them for getting people onto MSN/Hotmail/etc.
Yes other companies are bad too. Real is a very good example - I spend ages turning off the notification, auto-updates, usage tracking, news/etc headlines, and other options after I'm silly enough to install it. Netscape (as in the browser/communicator suite) isn't anywhere near as bad though - about par for most applications (no I *don't* want that extra crap program, no I *don't* want icons on my desktop, etc). These things are normally easily disabled whilst doing a custom install and not having to fiddle afterwards. Although I have to admit I've not used it recently, so perhaps AOL's integration has got worse. Personally I do spend some time with whatever browser configuring things such as home page, display preferences, cookie settings, etc, but those are my likes and not nasty extras forced upon me. IE I probably spend least time on, but only because there're fewer options.
Not quite. You need to update it to the latest version to be secure against a large number of security holes allowing access to your filesystem. After the update it often likes to ask you about setting up mail accounts and sends you off to MSN whether you want to or not. Then there are the things you've mentioned. But you don't go far enough. You should disable the user tracking stuff too (hint: Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Enable Profile Assistant - use the ? tool to see exact what that does - nice eh). Disabling various things that tie in with IE is also a good idea (see recent security alert about unique identifier in windows media player that can be accessed via IE). Microsoft's integration is not a good thing. Finally I'll repeat my comment about availability of options - there're things I would like to change about IE but I can't (IE 6 and WMP tie-ins in particular). I'm more happy installing Real player/similar and spending some time to know that I've disabled all the "dodgy" stuff than I am using IE with the number of security alerts that appear for it.
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?
Ah, that does explain it a little better. But even if they're setting it up in this way, that still doesn't make sense. Not a lawyer, but when any other criminal commits crimes in different states, eg kill people here and there, it does not automatically become a federal case. I know from my History (Channel :) that they try him and convict in one state, then turn over to another for justice. I realize this may be different, but still, if there are individual consumers in each state harmed, they can't be forced to settle just b/c the federal case is settling, I would think.
I'd love to see a more detailed legal dissection of this, I need to look at other posts (was too busy with work).
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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.