Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Feds Revise Settlement Agreement
An Anonymous Coward writes: "This AP article writes of some changes negotiated by MS and the Justice Department to the anti-trust settlement. MS urges Judge Kollar-Kotelly to accept the settlement it negotiated with the Justice Department b/c doing otherwise would raise constitutional issues. Please."
Don't dance with the devil and expect to not get burned for it.
Did M$ take the 5th on their source code?
This will also be good for the Open Source community as they will be in a position to steal all those wonderful MS innovations.
Cunning linguists
An offer they can't refuse?
The Raven
The Raven
Microsoft is using these arguments as stall tactics to:
- Wear the DoJ down
- Waste our tax monies
- Tire the states
- Prevent the release of the windows source code
They can tie this up in court until end of the decade, by which time they will just say "Oh! Here's the code for Windows 95." because windows 2010 will be out after three interim versions which they used to secure their monopoly. The US legal system is supposed to have speedy trials, but I foresee this one stretching out quite a ways.
Wherever you go, there I am...
There is too much of a potential conflict of interest.
Besides, think of the innovation it would spur in the software industry! ;-)
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
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 this.... A great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!!
And finally.... A great place to get the latest press releases Click Here!!!
Isn't that swell? Maybe in a few decades they'll get around to actually punishing Microsoft?
Um, if I were interested in or could actually AFFORD the monstrosity known as XP, I still wouldn't buy it. I have no desire to pay for something over and over just because I want to make changes in my hardware configuration from time to time.
XP innovative? Only if crap is considered innovative in this day and age. Hell, I could go into the john and pinch off a 12 inch loaf and call that innovative, then sell it in a pretty blue box for $200 and the idiots who buy their PCs at Wal-Mart would purchase it.
Yes, Linux isn't the greatest. But then again, neither is Winblows. But don't you think that COMPETITION is a good thing? I'm all for a free option.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Is it possible to revoke copyright and/or patents? If MS source code had its coptright revoked, wouldn't that solve a lot of problems?
nahtanoj
Don't you wish that you had the resources to play games with the courts when you got parking and speeding tickets?
How to Download YouTube Videos
Microsoft's Proposed Penalties
'Nuff said.
tcd004
"Changing another key provision to expand the types of technical information Microsoft must
disclose to rival companies about how software
operates with business-level Windows "server"
software. Microsoft said this change would "make crystal clear what is now clear." "
How clear was it originally? Any one out there trying to get interoperatability have any insight on this?
Amen. Nuff said.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
"Well, sure the settlement would give us the right to misappropriate the intellectual property of others. But we're genuinely insulted that anyone would suggest we would use that right..."
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
As I see things now [typing this in XP], the case is now backwards.
.net applications.
Before it was using Windows to get users to switch to Internet Explorer. Now the case has turned 180 degrees.
When I use any Microsoft app, from Money to Encarta... I can't help to notice all rely on IE. The problem is, you can't use IE very well without Windows.
Congratulations XP owners... you paid ~$200 for Internet Explorer and
Windows is the "bundleware".
Get your Unix fortune now!
Man, there are a lot of big differences in the "revised" settlement. They've gone from a slap on the wrist to a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle.
This agreement, and I use the word loosely is simply another attempt to force the U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to agree to the MS / DOJ terms. The indication that to not do so would be unconstitutional due to seperation of powers between the executive and legislative branches is worrying. The Justice Department also states that the Judge "should not lightly reject the government's predictions" is a not too subtle hint that it is running out of patience with Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
I think this is simply going to come down to whose set of lawyers can outlast the other.
But then, isn't this nearly always the case?
Just you're average nitpicker.
You'll probably get one of the [many] CS students at RIT who wears only ThinkGeek[tm] shirts and is a total open-sores zealot biting at this...."Linux is superior in all ways", etc. Also, they'll use the 'clever' name Micro$oft instead of Microsoft and go back to using their default installs of Mandrake and thinking that they're cool. There, I said it.
wrongo, bucko trollboy....
if its found that the copyrights have been used to stifle competition and create a monopoly, they can be revoked.
probably the only truly fitting punishment in this case anyway. MS loses copyright on all Windows source code for abusing their monopoly position.
... hi bingo
if its found that the copyrights have been used to stifle competition and create a monopoly, they can be revoked.
How funny. Actually you are wrong.
As I said, a copyright cannot be revoked. Since it is never granted. If I never apply for a "copyright" I still have one. The message I am typing is copyrighted just by me fixing it in a tangible medium.
So back to your comment.... Even if you stifle competition, you cannot ever ever have your C taken away. They may require you to share it or require that you allow other people to use it.. But like I said. They can NEVER take it away.
I've been relatively confused this whole time how the DoJ can be taking such a blind eye to all of Microsoft's various business practices. It seems like they can't see some of the worst offenses even on the heels of a guilty verdict. In particular the contract re-negotiations with the OEMs. It also doesn't seem to help that most of the people that can afford to be the most vocal are competing companies rather then the public. Though I do think the public comment period showed that citizens are concerned. I do find it minorly displeasing that they threw out some of the comments that didn't have a lot of substance. Seriously even a comment of I don't think the settlement reaches far enough is good...
Sigh.
(I) Freedom of monopolies.
(II) Right to bear arms against the competition.
(III) Right for a BSA henchman to occupy your home or place of business.
(IV) Right to search everyone's computer without their consent.
(V) The right for Microsoft to lie in defense.
(VI) The right to draw out a trial for years to extract every last dime from taxpayers.
(VII) Right to trial by judges who are technologically illiterate.
(VIII) Right to inflict cruel and unusual punishment against anyone using a non-Microsoft OS.
(IX) Microsoft has numerous inalienable rights not granted to anyone else.
(X) Any rights not explicitly granted to Microsoft are exclusively reserved by Microsoft for future litigation.
...Microsoft has bought and paid for their ability to avoid punishment. After years of staying out of the whole political fray and assuming they didn't need to play that game, Microsoft is getting down to business. If you thought they were bad when they didn't care, wait until you see what they can do with politicians in their pocket.
I'm the Bill you owe - Billingate
Because section III.B. of the original settlement calls for uniformity in such agreements, companies like Sony would get screwed because they would be forced to release rights on certain patents to Microsoft, thus undermining their claims to that intellectual property....
That said, doesn't this seem like simply rearranging desk chairs on the Titanic?
Can you name the 10 former Enron Execs?
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
The changes to the settlement agreement are just a way for the Justice Department to save face. The government surrendered. Considering MS spending during the last election, it is obvious that an enormous amount of lobbying went on behind the scenes. Current law does not consider that bribery. But is it surprising that MS does not want to advertise that fact in open court? Or that the Justice Department does not want to comment on MS maneuvering behind the scenes? The spin makers are simply trying to make the Government's surrender look a little less obvious.
;-)
...
In the meantime it is obvious that Microsoft has no intention of playing fair, or by the rules. Locking competing browsers out of MSN is only one example. Microsoft is working to become a toll booth for all Internet access. If they are successful, then Bill Gates will either be the first Trillionaire--or maybe we'll finally have a revolution
Another example of Microsoft claiming victory is a friend who upgraded MS Explorer, because she heard about all the security holes. The upgrade also conveniently removed her Eudora icon from the desktop and replaced it with all kinds of spamicons (although they didn't go as far as actually removing the program or her files).
More? Need I mention Passport? How about XP Forced Activation and "Managed Applications"? Sounds good, until you realize that it gives Microsoft complete control over who can play in their sandbox.
Through the Quest DSL deal, they are even trying to control the pipe.
The bottom line: Microsoft has declared victory, and they are behaving like it. You will be assimilated,
What I'm afraid of is that if I, for example, send an email message to a local contractor talking about replacing some of the old, drafty windows in my house, the email will pass through some Microsoft server, where my use of the term "windows" is noted (and the fact that I'm considering paying someone other than Microsoft for them), and I'll be facing an infringement suit.
,in fact, they arent.
So regarding Lindows. There is confusion of source. People may think that Microsoft is putting that out when
Lesson on law: A trademark designates the source. To be guilty of trademark infringement, there needs to be likelihood of confusion. Also, you need to confuse consumers (and it must be in commerce).
Now apply that to your scenario: Are you talking about Microsoft Windows? No. You are talking about your house windows. So there is no confusion of source. And whoa re you talking to? Are you trying to sell windows. No. You are asking about your windows to your house. So there is no confusion in commerce or to customers. And finally... Is there likelihood of confusion? No. No one in their right mind would get your house windows confused with Microsoft Windows.
You are welcome for the law lession. I charge $250.00 an hour
Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen have been quietly buying up large amounts of Defense companies, and getting on their boards, and influencing them to use MS products.
so... gates and allen have a hand in what the govie computers run...
... hi bingo
Democrats and leftists assume that the Bush Justice Dept. is just in the pocket of Big Business, but that's as simplistic as most of their theories. The major opponents of MS are also giant corporations.
There are three major reasons for the lack of interest.
The first is the Republican belief in market forces. The Democrats have a strong belief in "levers of power" -- that the government "runs" the economy. The Republicans think that most of that is an illusion, especially in high-growth, rapidly changing areas such as high tech. There's some truth in both views, but true or not, that's a reason for less interest from Republicans.
The second is that when this lawsuit started, the Internet was supposed to subsume most of the US economy within two or three presidential terms, by some accounts. This was a major "lever of power" over the future of the economy as a whole. Since then, the Internet bubble has burst, making Big News in the Internet industry much smaller news to everyone else.
The third is the terrorist attack of Sept. 11. The Justice Dept. has to be seen to make steady progress at making people safe. Most people are more afraid of death than of Windows -- some Slashdotters excepted. A department with limited resources and answering to elected politicians will tend to focus on political hot topics.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The Constitution was designed to limit the rights of the government, and later, to more clearly define the freedoms of the People.
As long as we let the bastards advance the illogical and retarded viewpoint that the inventions of Man(corporations and government) deserve the same protection as Men themselves, then we will continue to have an illogical and retarded society.
Actually, if you can find the right lever you can do a lot.
Denver was operating its photo radar in a way purely designed to rip off drivers. Sure the traffic speed on I-70 is above the posted limit, but you don't "fix" that by putting photo radar units on the on-ramps where the interstates merge! Ditto some local streets where the speed limit may be 30, but the heavy traffic always goes 40-45.
So lawyers found an irregularity in the ways their tickets were handled, so they contested their tickets and won. IIRC the problem they found was that Denver contracted out too much of the process to a third party, something explicitly prohibited by the enabling legislation because of fears that it would become a cash cow instead of a legitimate safety tool.
After the first TV news reports, there was talk of a class-action suit. Denver just announced it will use PR in the way intended by the enabling legislation (e.g., in school zones), and has tossed out all unpaid tickets.
There's even some talk that the city may be required to refund all previously paid PR tickets. In this case, I would not mind seeing those lawyers collect my refunds if it puts a permanent end to the hypocritical PR program. As I said, I don't mind PR near schools or other areas where kids are likely to run into the street without warning, but keep them off the interstate and major roads.
So you can fight these nuisance tickets and win big, but you have to have the right tools.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The senior Justice official declined to say whether the government believes Microsoft was obligated to disclose its congressional discussions. "It's their obligation, not ours," the official said.
So the DoJ has no interest in enforcing the law? I love this country.
--
E_NOSIG
...when morons call others morons. Go pick your nose and keep thinking about why you haven't had a date, you anonymous M$ lUser!
It was noted that he took money from Enron and disqualified himself from the case. It is also noted that he took money from MS and has not disqualified himself from the case.
Hummm....
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Microsoft is using these arguments as stall tactics to:
- Wear the DoJ down
- Waste our tax monies
- Tire the states
- Prevent the release of the windows source code
You forgot:
- Cowboy Neal
--
E_NOSIG
If Gore was given the election (he did win it, but he wasn't given the keys) would this case have been settled? If it were settled, would it have been so generous? (Even with the current changes, it is a sweetheart deal.)
Here is a small list, off the top of my head, of the things Microsoft has done or has used to get an advantage in this case:
Online wrestling as a trading card game? WWF With Authority.
Does this mean we get another comment period?
Where are the public records of the MS/DOJ discussions that led to the new proposal?
Aren't such records required by the Tunney Act?
The little I have been able to gather about judge Kollar-Kotelly is that she views it as a sacred trust to take no longer than neccesary to resolve a case. A settlement looked attractive because it would end proceedings.
She may be getting to the point where a contested decision may be projected to be more expedient than achieving settlement.
The word 'lesion' has only one s.
Without government enforcing of the copyright, there is no way to restrict copyright infringement.
The US disregarded the UK copyrights for all aothors, and the huge sales in the US of popular books remain uncredited to the owner of teh copyright in the UK.
Ok I admit it. I use M$ software. (I feel like I am in a 12 step program.) I have for the past 10 years or so. I have also used Solaris, AIX, MAC and Linux for about the same time frame. Microsoft has done wonders for the technology field, just as AT&T did with the telecommunications industry prior to them becoming a total monopoly. I doubt any of the fun stuff that is around now would be in use if M$ wasn't around, like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or Diablo II, or Civilization. Not to mention, sometimes, guess what? I want to write a document, not download, edit, compile, debug, or anything else in order to do so. A freaking document man.
The big problem is that MS has been increasingly volatile towards competitors, partners and competition in the past few years. (Especially since Steve Balmer took over as CEO.) They barge into new technology areas as subtly as a bull in a china shop, do a half ass job while crushing competitors with marketing and money. Meanwhile the entire corporation gets a little more mis-directed because there is one more area to look after.
Split the company up. No collusion between entity's allowed. Make them focus on their respective areas. Office apps on office apps. OS company on OS, etc... Hopefully, this way products will be just that products, not parts of the operating system.
My $0.02
Someone want to explain to me exactly how there's a seperation of executive and judicial branches if the judicial branch is just supposed to bow to the executive branch by simply deferring to the judgement of the Justice Department? It would seem to me that questions over seperation of judicial and executive branches are only applicable if the judge follows this recommendation.
Am I missing something? We are talking about the US government in which there are 3 seperate branches of governement which act as checks and balances to one another, right? How does the one branch of government simply defering to the other provide any checks or balances?
I can't imagine the judge looking too fondly on this "suggestion". Am I way off base?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Review of the settlement isn't a violation of the separation of powers. Its the opposite. Microsoft is asking the Judicial branch to sign off on an executive action without substantive review. Its the court's job to make sure that the DOJ isn't being a bunch of corporate fanboys. Similarly, the court should be taking a good hard look at Microsoft's lobbying activities to make sure they aren't interfering with Congressional checks on the DOJ's actions. This is the purpose of separation of powers--checks and balances.
Do you just not understand what "Copyright" is? If the government forces you to allow someone else to use your IP, then they've voided your copyright. What Copyright is is the right to absolutely control the distribution of the copyrighted work. Any action by the government that takes away that control, is by definition, removing your copyright.
The only reason that you have a copyright on your Slashdot message is because the government chose to make "implicit copyright" a part of the law (if you live in the US, anyway). It didn't always used to be that way, you know...
-Mark
As I was not familiar with the Tunney Act, I did a bit of googling and found out some interesting information regarding the case law involved.
:)
Apparently no Judge previous to the MS case has ever asked if any changes would be made to the agreement between the two parties after the public comment period had elapsed.
Now given that it is Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's responsibility to determine a remedy that is in the People's interest, is more likely that the final settlement will be more inline with the Public Comment sentiment rather than the DoJ / MS agreement.
The Judge is entitled to view all of the public's submissions before coming to a decision.
Now isn't that interesting?
Just you're average nitpicker.
If I had balls as big as Microsoft's, I'd have to register as my own Solar system...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Just you're average nitpicker.
... not ... flame ... grammar ...
Must
Nope, no sig
Gee, the case was all about breaking up MS until Ashcroft took over at DoJ. Now it's about DoJ and MS negotiating with the courts and the states to work out a settlement that won't be laughed at.
Also Thursday, Microsoft defended its decision to disclose to the trial judge only its antitrust discussions with officials in the executive branch, but not with those in Congress. Records of such contacts are required under the 1974 Tunney Act, passed to guarantee that a company settling antitrust charges doesn't improperly lobby the government.
Translation:
Hey! The key political figures that we can influence in our favor are none of your business! We're above the law, remember!
So, unless somebody violates their NDA, you won't see the Windows source. If they do, they're breached contract, and they're liable for damages, as is anyone who recieves the code from them. That's assuming they could have reasonably know nthe code was proprietary, I think. But given that every file will have comments reading "property of Microsoft" prominently marked on it, that's probably pretty easy to prove.
Microsoft's patents are a little better target, though I'm not very familiar with their portfolio. Any patents they've used anticompetitively (if any) ought to be revoked. I believe the government has done this before in other antitrust cases (possibly IBM?). That would at least remove one barrier to interoperability with Windows.
But would either of these actually effect Microsoft's monopoly position in the OS, office suite, and browser markets? Probably not. The biggest problem is that Microsoft has been so effective in eliminating competition, that very little credible competition is still around.
No, Microsoft needs to be dismantled, the pieces heavily shackled, and sunk to the bottom of Puget Sound.
-Mark
...that this will be much like the recent European draft on software patents.
That is:
I mean, even allowing for the fact that MS' competitors loaded the Public Comments merely out of greed (but, see, there are many impoverished opinions coming from the likes of Nader, with no pretense of material gain from excessively hobbling Microsoft), this new agreement goes nowhere close to addressing the many valid objections to the original settlement agreement.
What I find particularly offensive is all of the sage head-wagging and somber talk about how reasonable the new agreement is, how it will really work, etc., while everyone has seen just how ineffective the earlier consent decrees against MS have been.
Just because it's gone through this process of review doesn't mean that the new agreement is a good one.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You IP nazis are really funny. You go on and on pretending that IP is the same as real property. It is not. IP is not a "thing" and cannot be owned in the same way as real property. IP, whether copyright, patent, etc., whether implicitly or explicitly granted by the government, is in fact a legal fiction enforced by government force and government sanctions. There would be no copyright if the government had not passed laws granting copyright - which is a legal monopoly granted by state authority. Therefore, the government can revoke this legal monopoly of copyright using the same authority by which it granted the copyright in the first place! It does not matter whether the government explicity granted each individual copyright, or simply created a law recognizing each copyright as the item in question was created.
We see and hear this crap every damn day here in America - Microsoft, Enron, AOL/TW, MPAA, RIAA, our own government, for cripes sake! - rolling over the people, to damn with the citizens, profits above all!
Nothing seems to stop the behemoths - we can't rely on our government: Not only do they pass the laws that give the corps power, and not only do the corps pay the people in government to pass those laws (let's quit pretending here - of course they do - this is not a fairy tale, and we know it!), but they also pass laws that hinder us, the people, from being able to do anything about those in government (ie, campaign finance reform, term limits, etc)!
Those few in government that support the people (and oh so few they are) can't possibly stay in place forever. Some might even be corrupted by being near and around such a tar pit - it takes a strong man or woman to resist such human baseness.
This is what I see:
I am two years shy of 30. I know things weren't all that different when I was born, versus today - but I do know that people had to care more. I remember when there was a complete uprising on the web over COPA - why don't we see that today with the DMCA, SSSCA, etc? It is there - a little - but at the same time it isn't.
I figure, if I am lucky, and barring any major affordable advance in medicine - that I have another 35-40 years left on this planet. The world I am seeing coming forth from decisions, manipulations, the greed, etc - from multinationals, corps, our government - the apathy of the people to do anything about it - while the world stands by, watching the implosion - some begging the people to do something! - while wars rage on, both physical and over ideas and ways of living (ie, "War on Terrorism", "War on Drugs")...
I see a furthering of the dystopia we now live in that makes the worlds of Bladerunner and Gibson seem peaceful and serene. Darker - closer to 1984 and Farenheit 451 mixed together. Perhaps even darker than that...
When will the people wake up...? Why can I see, you can see it, a lot of people can see it - but everyone else can't...?!
How I long to ignorant and in bliss like the masses. How I long to just do the things everyone else does! I would love to get a DVD player and lots of movies - but I can't justify supporting these idiots of the MPAA! I would love to buy CD's - but I dare not because of the RIAA!
What are we the people going to do - stand by and let this happen? If the corps can control the government a little now - can they control it a lot later? If the control the government, do they control the military?
The system of checks and balances seem to have succumbed to the power of the dollar! Nay, to greed itself! What is the point of Law in such a situation, then?
I don't want to find myself 30 years down the line with my kid asking me why I didn't do something. I write my letters to my congressmen, but it doesn't seem to do anything at all (indeed, I wrote them about Dmitri way back last summer - recently I got a reply about it! Such speed!).
WE MUST DO SOMETHING - TODAY.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Is it just me, or does it seem like the crime of bribery is a question of amount and how you give it? After all, isn't the purpose of bribery to get something you want from a public official by giving them money? It's no wonder Microsoft doesn't want to disclose their congressional conversations. In addition, expect the executive conversations to be full of 'memory gaps.'
If you had $50 bucks to a cop to forget a speeding ticket it's bribery. Hand a politician $25,000 for their campaign (helping to secure their office) it's a 'contribution.' Hand a fire marshall $100 to ignore a firecode violation is a criminal offence. Change a congressman's mind with soft money and it's 'convincing.'
This whole thing stinks. The one time when you need the government to be the government and police a monopoly, they get bought. What will happen is that the desktop will become (and will be made to become) irrelevant. It's getting to services and content on the internet that will make a computer usefull. If Microsoft controls those keys (by controlling the desktop) then we've lost as consumers. They will only further consolidate their monopoly and they will destroy everyone and everything else. (Except a few large companies like Oracle and IBM).
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
If you'd stop a moment to think, you'd realize that this is exactly what Microsoft is saying. They are claiming that the courts (and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in particular) are stepping into territory that the Constitution has not given them, areas reserved for other branches of the government. It's the whole balance of power thing, designed to keep one branch of government (or individuals within those branches) from growing too powerful.
Of course, that's not to say that I agree with their particular interpretation. They just don't like Judge Kollar-Kotelly (haven't been able to buy her yet), and are trying to intimidate her into submission...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
..when they lost their case and were deemed an illegal monopoly. They no longer have any "rights" to stand on. What the judge decides to do is what the judge decides. If the judge wants to shut their entire company down, then it can be done. There isn't anything legally available to Microsoft to ask for any longer.
"I am altering the agreement. Pray I don't alter it further."
Sigh. And just like Anakin Skywalker, no doubt Bill Gates was a nice kid before he turned to the dark side.
What is your Slash Rating?
Microsoft defended its decision to disclose to the trial judge only its antitrust discussions with officials in the executive branch, but not with those in Congress. Records of such contacts are required under the 1974 Tunney Act, passed to guarantee that a company settling antitrust charges doesn't improperly lobby the government. Critics of Microsoft's disclosures -- including former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., who wrote the law -- accused the company of failing to disclose all its conversations with U.S. government officials.
Microsoft called those "meritless complaints," and said Tunney's opinion, "coming over 25 years after enactment of the statute, is irrelevant as a legal matter."
I am just astonished at the arrogance of the Microsoft legal team. I hope it bites them on the ass the way it did with Judge Jackson. Sure, Judge Kollar-Kotelly doesn't technically have to consider Tunney's opinion, but I think it will pretty well rule out any argument about the intent of the statute as it is written, so it's not exactly irrelevant.
Microsoft tried (apparently successfully, so far) to win the case through lobbying rather than in the courts, which is exactly what the Tunney act was designed to prevent. The New York Times said as much in the statement they sent to the DOJ in the Tunney Act public comment period. It's a long way from being a "meritless complaint."
I am so disgusted with the political interference in this case. The settlement would be considered weak even if Microsoft hadn't already been convicted of wrongdoing.
The fact that the Justice Department backed down to this slap-on-the-wrist after winning the case and convicting Microsoft of illegal activities smacks heavily of back-room deals and under-the-table politics. Microsoft obviously has the resources to engineer a political victory. Why didn't they disclose their meetings with members of Congress? A cursory reading of the Tunney act makes it clear as day that they should have done so.
include $sig;
1;
And the word 'lesson' has no i's.
Wrongo Bucko
Like I said 5000 times. A copyright doesnt have to be granted. You obtain a copyright from the moment you fix your work in tangible medium. So the Govt never has to grant anything to me.
I understand that the govt is granting you the right to have a copyright. and they can take that right away.
But the original point was asking if the Govt can take away your copyright. And the answer is NO. They cannot
Sorry this is AC, I wish I could remember my login from work.
I am confused about this whole issue. Has MS been found guilty or not?
If Microsoft has been found guilty of unfair business practices, and / or of being a monopoly and using monopoly power illegally, then how is a Judge's interest in deciding the punishment un-constitutional? That's what Judges do. They interpret the law, and dole out punishment. Taking input from professionals as to the extent of the punishment is unconstitutional how?
Now, since this is a "settlement," I take it to mean that MS hasn't really been found guilty of anything *yet*. Which means that this is the plea-bargain phase of the trail. Which the Judge should have no part in, in spite of the obvious weasel tactics of MS trying to get a "punishment" that just extends influence and market share.
I would, however, like to ask if MS resolving its issues with a majority of the states and the federal government nullifies the charges against them in the remaining states?
That, to me, is ridiculous.
I could commit the same crime against 50 states AND against the feds, and get off with a slap on the wrist from the US, having all charges from the states disappear, if I lined some federal election funds?
they're fighting this tooth and nail:
" Microsoft described those complaints as "a great deal of misunderstanding and wild charges that Microsoft would use the right to misappropriate the intellectual property of others." "
Cheesus, if Msft couldn't misappropriate the ideas of others all "innovation" in the personal computer field would halt (windowing systems, desktop publishing, Client/Server networking, Internetworking, Web Browsing, etc etc etc were all invented elsewhere, just reappropriated by a company that got their undocumented master boot record on the original IBM pc and has never let go).
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From their press releases go to U.S. v. Microsoft: Stipulation (02/27/2002) and from there you get Second Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
Now to actually read it...
For bush/ashcroft to get their full payments, they need bill's agreement first.
BTW, you are wrong on many levels. There are no rights that cannot be revoked, in at least some circumstances. Unlike copyright, which is state created, most will agree that the right to life exists in a state of nature before, and independent of, the creation of the state. And yet in some cases the state may revoke the right to life - when executing a convicted murderer, for instance.
I have no legal knowledge at all, so this may be something simple, but I just have to ask.
Why does Microsoft get any say in what it's punushment will be? They've been found guilty. Shouldn't the DoJ just hand down a sentence and be done with it?
Oh yes they can. It does not matter what you say - the fact is that you are quoting copyright law - a law created by the US federal government. Ergo, easily revoked by the federal government. Lots of people made your kinds of arguments about real property rights, and look where that got them - real property rights are revoked all the time. IP rights are much more nebulous and creatures of state law than are real property. Go back to sucking at MS's teats, astro-turf-troll.
Can you define oxymoron?
I don't really mind double posts on
I hope lawmakers and judges are as offended by Microsoft's outrageous statements and behavior as many computer people are.
This does *not* mean that monopolies should be left on their own. I want them stopped *not* because the government can run things better, or any illusion that the government can "fine-tune" the economy (all the evidence says it can't), but because monopolies tamper with my precious markets.
The very *problem* with monopolies is that they interefere with markets, and stop us from receiving the benefits of the market.
hawk, baffled by the supposedly free-market folks that are willing to let the markets be abused like this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And some are trollish.
hawk
What, exactly, gives you the idea that corporations are controlling the government? Or that they even exert undue influence over the government? You have told us what you see, and I submit that you must be blind.
To illustrate my point, let me tell you what I see:
If Enron was swimming in a sea of red ink, then the government is certainly drowning in an ocean of it. No corporation could obtain credit while holding over $5,000,000,000,000 (five trillion USD), yet Congress borrows cash through legislative fiat.
The government runs an average overhead of seventy-two cents on every dollar. That means, for example, that every of every dollar slated for Social Security payments, the recipient gets 28 cents. Do you honestly believe that a corp could survive while doing the same?
Say what you want about corps, but with few exceptions, they provide goods and services very efficiently; governments do not. Why? Why can my employer pay run payroll every two weeks, while the IRS usually takes more than a month to refund money that they witheld by mistake?
Why continue? The government does an excellent job of destroying quality of life through corruption and stupidity. The list of 'solutions' that the government has offered that have actually made problems worse would rival the Federal Register in size.
In summary, please spare us the lunatic rantings concerning the corporate takeover of the US (and the World). If corporations are taking over the government, I expect to see the government being run as a corporation. I don't.
I see what you're saying, if you can't carry something around with you, you can't own it. So, if someone steals your car while you're in the mall shopping, is that okay?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is Anybody there, Does anybody care, Does anybody see what I see?
Nowdays, we would be terrorists and worse in fighting back, and reclaiming our God given rights that has been swindled away.
I have longed thought about getting people together, and dress up as indians and raid many large corperations (mostly IP based) and dump/burn it all.
But, I'm only 25, the world views me as a kid, and tells me, this is the real world, grow up.
that if Microsoft lost their copyright on all versions of Microsoft Windows (or any other software) that the source code would magically dissapear?
I think it would vanish in a matter of minutes if not seconds. Oh golly... I hit the wrong key oops!
But, hey, we still have compiled versions for sale.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
While surely they could give the impression of bias, it would be difficult to imagine anyone other than the defendants in the case who wasn't inclined to share Judge Jackson's opinions about MS' behaviour in the courtroom. Meanwhile, the Judge's finding of facts and conclusions of law were largely upheld by the (previously pro-MS) appeals court, which should speak volumes about the soundness of the judgement in light of the facts.
So, if they get to change the terms of the settlement, doesn't the public get another chance to comment whether the revised settlement serves the public interest?
You have to remember that to an attourney it's not an outrageous statement. They always spew pointless crap from their mouths to suit their purpose. I have come to believe that they will say things they don't even believe to make their point. In fact they aren't supposed to let their concept of reality interfear with their professional requirement to represent their client. (Mr. Dahlmer isn't a cannibal, your honor, he has a gastric defect that requires he periodically eat human flesh).
This is why we can't defeat lawyers with the truth. They have to be purchased or defeated. Microsoft is going around and purchasing (by retaining the firm) any lawyers they can. Many of these DOJ lawyers might feel that they will have a bright future at one of these firms some day. Perhaps that's why they don't want to push this too much. Or maybe their political strings are getting pulled by politicians that have been legally purchased by Microsoft through "contributions". Or maybe both.
No, this thing has to be beaten politically an economically.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
I've really about had it with the "Death-to-Microsoft" crowd on Slashdot. I will be the last to say that Microsoft is a nice and friendly company, but I would like to hear something more coherent than what I keep reading everytime the word "Microsoft" is so much as whispered on Slashdot.
I really have no argument to make specifically about this article, except that I would just really like to see some logical argumentation here. Rather, I've been reading stuff like "well look who Microsoft is donating money to" or "Microsoft should be forced to open their file formats, so there!"
A coherent discussion of the issues is far preferable to conspiracy theories and pure emotional babble without any argumentative substance.
After all, we have had a change of Executive Administration haven't we? You know, the guys that are tied tightly with Enron?
I like to have confidence in my government but lately, I've seen nothing to lead me to that conclusion. After all, are we not in the throes of the worst case of unemployment the USA has had for many years? And this essentialy after the administration changed? We enjoyed one of the lowest rates of unemployment under the previous administration - the one that initiated the DOJ case against Microsoft?
I am not surprised at all by the turn of events regarding the Microsoft settlement; neither will I be surprised if the Enron issue gets swept under the rug nice and tidily. It's just business as usual for our current administration - the one that can't seem to do anything but threaten to and drop bombs on distant countries.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Keep denying the fact that our government is being driven by the corporations, and keep taking that strong ass-ramming you are used to. I prefer to lobby to my representatives and fight for a change, try to bring back integrity and justice to our system. Man you're weak, just get on your knees and shut up.
Please stand by for 6 to 9 months, and watch for the end of year rewarding of all those DOJ attorney's (James, et al) with cushy legal consulting jobs in Microsoft and it's well-behaved affiliates, and their tidy bundles of MSFT stock options just for signing on.
I'm sure they'll be responsible for keeping the rest of the states in line and locking up all available anti-trust litigation legal teams for years to come.
Bill Gates is selling 1 million shares today. Any coincidence?
What we really need for these articles isn't a 'blind justice' icon. It's more of a justice in a tight mini, fishnet stockings and high heels accepting a nice fat cash bribe from Borgified Bill. Recent slashdot postings referred to ZDnet which shows that Microsoft's contributions to the most recent elections made Enron's money look 'soft' indeed.
Lee
Another "bundled" app is the current version of QuickBooks Pro. It's just a bunch of scripts running in IE. AND, you must relax ALL security restrictions in IE to access the Intuit website for mandatory upgrades, payroll tax upgrades (every month), and just touching base with the Mother Ship. Intuit refuses and Netscape connection.
That's right, your most sensitive computer, the one with your financials, must run with ZERO security. QBPro is the first
While politicians lust for cash, and while they do in fact take quite a bit from corporations, they also take from other entities. This may surprise you, but special interest groups (especially liberal/pro-government ones) and labor unions give quite a bit themselves.
So who do the pols listen to? More likely than not, the interest groups and unions. For all that a candidate may love cash, nothing, and I mean nothing beats a solid voting block.
And corps do not represent voting blocks. A corporate entity cannot itself vote, and how many corporate officers are out there? Can they gift a pol as many votes as the AFL/CIO? The AARP? NOW?
Corps are not even close to taking over the government. A candidate would much rather have the money and backing of the NAACP (which, along with some money, represents 80-95% of the black vote) than the backing of AOL/TW (more cash, but maybe 100 votes).
Why should people of US wake up? They work their jobs that provide them with loans so that the people can have the homes, cars, and bubble baths. Who cares what the government is doing as long as I can have that 51 inch TV in my living room. Now if I were poor and didn't really have good living conditions then I would probably be very politically active. But that's not the case so why bother...
If you can't force them, deceive them.
You do realize that, at the end of an election, it is only the votes tallied that count, right?* Who do you think a politician is more likely to listen to?
A: Microsoft, who can donate large piles of mostly 'soft' money to the party... OR
B: The AFL/CIO, who can probably persuade 60% or more of the local membership to vote for you? And give you a wad of cash to boot?
Keep in mind before you answer that employers cannot compel employees to vote. In fact, most Microserfs actually voted for Al Gore in 2000 (politically, they really are lemmings... they even voted a former exec of Real Networks as their US Senator).
As I see it, the only shafting I'm getting is from the government. No matter what execs at AOL say, Microsoft could never force me to give them money for any reason. The government, on the other hand has forced me to give them money for stupid reasons, completely against my will.
* Don't even go there with the 2000 election in Florida. The court simply affirmed that the candidate with the most votes would become president.
I see this as clearly as you do - what you say makes as much sense as what I have said. The government controls the corps - the corps control the government - the people? They are almost totally out of the loop!
You are right about the blunders and the wastes that our government has perpetrated. But as demonstrated by many corporations, these same kind of blunders and wastes seem to affect them as well - they are just better at hinding it until the very end, when it really blows up.
I don't think corporations are becoming our government, not yet - but they control the strings quite well. In a way, they are commanding a broken puppet, trying to fix the strings and the tattered ness where they can, most of the time not too successfully.
I don't know why this oroborus of a relationship exists between government and corporations. Furthermore, I am not sure why such large entities act this way (when in the end, it is really detrimental to the individual parts - the people - that make up the corporations and governments, and the society they live in and upon). I am still trying to figure it out.
I feel that once it can be understood how corps and governments really operate (ie, understanding the "thought" of the whole from the viewpoint of a part), it might be possible to develop "cures" for/against these large entities. I am talking about the hacking emergent entities - I am not even sure it is possible. Furthermore, I am not sure if such actions, or the talk of such actions would be perceived as a threat by the larger entity - or what the repurcussions of such discussion would be...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Executive branch: enforces the laws passed by Congress. This includes bringing actions against violators and suggesting from among the statutory remedies.
Judicial branch: interprets laws passed by the legislative branch, and meets out punishment within the boundaries established in those laws (which are often left to the discretion of the judge).
I.e., MS is full of shit. The judge is free to completely disregard the opinions of the executive branch if the executive branch abrogates its responsibility to pursue thorough enforcement of the laws passed by the legislature. For example, plea agreements in criminal cases must be approved by the judge, and are in part accepted or denied on the basis of whether or not the executive branch is likely to prevail at trial on the original charge; the government can't (or rather, isn't supposed to be able to)-- if it has a good case -- just decide to let the defendant plead to a lesser charge (subject to statutory exceptions -- i.e., in exchange for testimony against another individual).
As for anyone who has specific case law which they think invalidates what I've said above in this specific context, well, IANALAIYAE,TSUB (I am not a lawyer and if you aren't either, then shut up, beeyatch).
I didn't make it up. In the early 70s US Atty General John Mitchell tried to scare the Washington Post off the Watergate story by telling Ben Bradlee that the his boss, the publisher Katherine Graham, would soon find her "tits caught in a big wringer". According to Woodward and Bernstein.
We tend to think of judges as statues made of marble, I believe though that she's got to be feeling the pressure from MS/BUSH.EXE in a physical way. Just as physical a sensation as David Sentelle surely experiences in being the hand that cranks that wringer.
There is a good chance of negative consequences for her if she tries to apply the law and defend the public interest. At every twist of procedure and indeed every minute, she faces the choice of passively rubberstamping this bill of goods or sticking up for principles and the people and taking a bullet. Wouldn't that churn anybody's gut?
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
How the hell does your little libertarian rant have a damn thing to do with government corruption?! Are you saying that if corporations were really buying laws that it would somehow make the government run more efficiently? Or that since the government (quite obviously) does not run efficiently, it means that there must not be corruption taking place? I'm not sure if your post is a huge red herring or if you're just an idiot.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If he disqualified himself from every case involving someone he took money from, who would be left to sue? Ahh.. the liberals. Sue the liberals!
Remember Doublespace? I do. Was in direct violation with Stacker.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
a) Microsoft's budget for political lobbying during the 2000 election campaign was four times that of Enron,
b) During the antitrust trial from 1995 to 2000 political spending had increased from $16,000 to $6,100,000,
c) During the same period, M$ used the classic tactic of choking off air supply as they did with Netscape by increasing lobbyist retaining from one to almost all of them.
These lobbyists were assigned mundane work unrelated to M$'s interests to keep them unavailable. This is a pretty blatant harm to consumers; by retaining the lobbyists, the supply was cut off from M$ critics which made opposition to M$-friendly judicial and legislative action less effective. Justice is in danger of being tainted by the almighty buck.
I sincerely hope that is fresh in the judge's mind when she considers M$'s absurd argument of "constitutional issues".
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Tobacco is a good example. If the government really wanted to kill tobaco, they would not subsidise farmers. The settlement against the tobacoo companies did not stop people from ruining their lungs and the money extorted will not go to their health care. Tobacoo companies will continue to make lots of money exporting poison to the world. It is a taxed evil.
The RIAA/MPAA is seen as a revenue sorce as well. The government takes it's cut on all sales and exports, and radio fees as well as income taxes. If people decided tomorow that they needed no more shit from hollywood, the US government would loose a considerable source of income. Oh yeah, it also would loose the ability to push propaganda through three or four easily manipulated channels.
Tellcos? More of the same.
The government has seen that people need things and is bussy building exlcusive francises to provide them. The Regan Era of free markets died hard under Clinton and these are the results: publicly built resources are being sold to the highest bidder to rape the public.
Last night NPR connived with and giggled at the prospect of the City of New York selling the Brooklyn Bridge and tolls being established by the likely bidder, the Metro Transport Agency. Need anyone say more? It's all very unamerican.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
My apologies for the name calling. It was certainly bad form, and I am sorry.
The rest of you:
The point of my posts is that government is not as beholden to corporations as many of you seem to think. The US government is much more beholden to special interest groups who deliver both cash and votes. Yet ultimately, it is most beholden to itself.*
Does big business lobby for laws that benefit business? Of course. Do those same entities lobby for laws that would severly limit your ability to exercise your constitutional rights? Few of them probably do. But not all of them. And none of them can deprive you of your life, property, etc.
Special interests give cash. Special interests lobby. Many of them lobby for legislation worse than the DCMA. Hate crimes legislation, for example. But most important, they bring together like minded people to vote as one for a candidate. Vastly more important than cash.
Think about it folks: there are many influences on government, and I happen to find corps more benign than others. YMMV, but it is unlikely that you are being severly harmed by a corp.
(And yes, if corps were controlling gov't, I would expect to see some evidence of that - sorry)
*There are millions of goverment employees in this nation (more than industrial workers, in fact). They typically give 99% of their votes to whichever politician promises to expand the size and power of our government. (Exactly who were those 50 or so folks in DC who voted for Bush?)
Consider:
"Microsoft said this change would "make crystal clear what is now clear."
In other words, v2.0 of the settlement runs faster and with fewer bugs than ever before.
"Critics of Microsoft's disclosures -- including former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., who wrote the law -- accused the company of failing to disclose all its conversations with U.S. government officials. Microsoft called those "meritless complaints," and said Tunney's opinion, "coming over 25 years after enactment of the statute, is irrelevant as a legal matter."
In other words, this version of the law is no longer supported and you need to upgrade to the current version.
Why are we listening to con artists when determining the punishments for their crimes?
Shouldn't Wintendos be refered to as a NOS (Non Operating System)?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
It is here.
I wasn't expressing any opinion on what the appropriate legal outcome should be, I was only expressing an opinion on why the Justice Dept. had lost interest. I'm quite convinced that it is principally for the three reasons I mentioned.
Apparently, without a disclaimer, explaining someone else's viewpoint is assumed to be expressing one's own, but I suppose I usually make that assumption myself in the absence of other evidence.
Just to be clear: I agree entirely with your opinion about monopolies. I'm very much in favor of breaking up Microsoft because it has demonstrated both a willingness and -- importantly -- an ability to extend a sort of "competition umbrella" over a widening range of their products.
I'm disappointed by what Justice is doing. I don't believe it's for the simplistic "in bed with big business" reasons leftists and ordinary liberals repeatedly suggest, however. Microsoft's competitors are also big business. I think it is for the reasons I stated, but I think they are overlooking the danger and extent of MS's monopoly power.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
There is no market at work in computer operating systems, nor in any major application category
...Micro$soft...
If I express the opinion that the Republicans are motivated, in part, by their belief in market forces, the truth of the statement does not depend on whether market forces exist or not. It is sufficient that their belief exists.
Even so, my own opinion in this case is that there are clearly market forces at work in all monopoly cases, especially this one. It was widely believed that Netscape was going to break the monopoly in operating systems with an abstraction layer above the OS containing its own API: the browser.
Sometime thereafter, it was believed that Java would do likewise. Some felt it would be thin client computing, whether Java-based or more diverse. Some believe that devices will eventually proliferate and diversify enough to relegate Windows to a desktop niche. A lot of people here believe it will be Linux.
Whatever the case, eventually trucking and air cargo, plus electronic communication, made rail monopolies no longer transportation and communication monopolies. The same fate will eventually befall MS Windows. The question is how soon and are we willing to wait for it.
I'd prefer not to wait, by the way, but there are always market forces.
The real Internet has nothing to do with that bubble, but understandably, neither you, nor the Republicans get that
I make buckets of money in the "real Internet" industry, with no sign of a slowdown in demand for my particular services. Your claim that I don't understand that the real Internet exists, when it is paying my bills, is a foolish one. Does the same analytical process underlie all your beliefs?
Nice touch.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Dan,
Thanks!
I am not the simpleton that originally asked the question, just some other simpleton benefitting from your lucid analysis.
Governments are made of men
Men want money
Microsoft has money
I find it shocking that anybody who says 'no, copyrights can not be selectively revoked' is automatically an astro-turfer. You'll find yourself taking on a hell of a lot more people than simply shills for Microsoft.
Do you realize that the only way the GPL is enforcable is through copyright law? If copyright law is 'rolled back selectively' what is to prevent the precedent from being used to nullify the GPL?
Do onto others what has been done to you.
Nope. That's why abusers often have been abused themselves when younger - it justifies continuation of abuse. At best you might advocate: Do unto others what they have done unto you (i.e. an eye for an eye - but that just means you're no better than they are). Or are you being sarcarstic?
It's from a tool song.
I always thought it was pretty clever. The golden rule "do onto others what you would have them do onto you" so far has not worked. I have always wondered what kind of a world this would be if the tool motto was the golden rule. As for "eye for an eye" that too has been thrown aside. These days the rule of israel is prevalent "and eye for a tooth" in other words "do onto them ten times what has been done to you".
War is necrophilia.
So, just because I broke the law and destroyed dozens of companies (Netscape was only one of a whole slew) it's okay because it was 10 WHOLE YEARS AGO? Come on. And don't tell me that we should drop the case because Microsoft will make it too expensive, it's a hollow argument. This is akin to saying that once a company reaches a certain critical mass/bankroll that they can do anything they want to without fear of reprisals. While the US legal system has its flaws, and I will admit that money does by the best lawyers, throwing up your hands and just letting them walk away is the wrong wrong wrong.
Antitrust is all about making sure that, within our financial/legal system, might does NOT confer rightness. Microsoft isn't just a company that the government 'decided' to pick on. They are a criminal organization and a pack of ruthless bullies. Covering our eyes isn't going to make it all better.
-oakbox
Not just answers, the correct questions.
During the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft gave Bush:
$57,300.00
$100,000.00
$1,691,090.50
$19,250.00
And Gore:
$28,000.00
$1,300,892.00
As you can see, this isn't even $4,000,000 combined. Please stop making up numbers.
My home state of Minnesota was one of the holdouts. Our Attorney General is up for election this year. For some reason, his opponent is already getting plenty of press. It would not surprise me at all if his opponent wins the election and drops the case all together (and yes, I do think the case will go on that long).
You have to be suspcious of any convicted entity that is encouraging the officials to agree to the settlement/punishment.
What a silly joke! They dont even force them to let the user remove IE or other middleware. You can only remove the icon but all the bloat still lies in there lurking. It should have stated that all middleware should be removable completely. Otherwise microsoft can have their next programs installation procedure say: "Do you want to enable (IE or whatever) cus you cant use program X otherwise?" Its a very lame remedy and as a punishment rather a *baaad Microsoft!*. It should atleast force them to release all protocol and document interfaces to the public ASAP. That way they wont be able to play embrace and extend as easy anymore.
HTTP/1.1 400
The FSF does not have these powers. If the FSF were to say, "pay us $10,000,000 for every product you compile with gcc, or we won't let you have a copy", people would ignore them. GCC may have a monopoly on free C++ compilers (for the time being), but the FSF has no monopoly power.
If you don't like GCC, you can go off and make your own free C++ compiler. The FSF can not stop you. The FSF can not prohibit retailers from distributing your free C++ compiler. The FSF can not stop you from implementing GCC features in your free C++ compiler. The FSF can not even trap people into using a corrupted version of C++.
In short, the FSF does not have the power to abuse its monopoly. Microsoft, on the other hand, is eager to flex its monopoly muscle.
It don't mean nuthin' until they submit it to the Judge as a formal revised settlement proposal.
And as soon as they do, I'll be back in line with my revised Tunney Act comments...
Does anyone else get the impression that Microsoft wants to keep this from ever reaching a decision by a Judge?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
The courts have ruled that the police are there to provide a presence, and NOT to prevent any crime.
In one case there women were in a house when a man broke in and started raping two of them. The third managed to hide under the bed, and get to a phone and call 911. When the police arrived the man answered the door and said "Everything is alright". the police left. Now if you think about it, they can't search the house without a warrent (they had no way of knowing the man didn't have rights to the house), and to serach based on a call isn't right. Unfortunatly it means that the police can't do anything. In otherwords, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
IBM, Lotus, Apple, Sun, Hp, etc. practically sat back and let MS trample their own territory. They were too busy bickering with each other to cooperate to defend alternatives to MS.
I *expect* the gov to be lame. However, it seems that *other* greedbags were also unable to stop MS.
Bill Gates has the genetics of two lawyers in his blood. Perhaps this is the secret to being the Ultimate Hardball Slimeball.
Table-ized A.I.
...for Nader.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon