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,"."
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Try to find VMS admins out there. UNIX admins aren't that hard to find (a good one is though), and Microsoft MCSE's are a dime a dozen.
I never understand the hiring of someone just because they are an MCSE? Some of these people are straight from the burger fryers at McDonalds....
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
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
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.
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.
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
_________________________________________________
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
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.
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.