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,"."
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 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
Just because they don't sell it, doesn't mean they don't make money on it. The browser is used as a tool to divert users to their services such as Expedia, MSN, Carpoint, and so on, which in turn can make money for the company.
Now before you flame MS, Real, Netscape and AOL all do the same thing - the product is free, but one has to do quite a great deal of cleanup after the installation.
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
At least in case of IE, all I have to clean out are the favorites it creates, in Media and Links. Not that bad.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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?
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 California gets its way, you might be required to.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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.
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.