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."
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
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!!!
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
Huh?
Go to OpenSecrets Search, put "microsoft" into the individual donor search field and click the "Go!" button. I think the answer as to why the Republicrats are behaving this way will become immediately apparent.
"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!
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.
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
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?
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,
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.
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
From www.michaelmoore.com (opens in new window .. his report has links to all sources):
> The only thing that surprises me more than all the Enron henchmen who ended up in your cabinet and administration is how our lazy media just rolled over and didn't report it. The list of Enron people on your payroll is impressive. Lawrence Lindsey, your chief economic advisor? A former advisor at Enron! Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill? Former CEO of Alcoa, whose lobbying firm, Vinson and Elkins, was the #3 contributor to the your campaign! Who is Vinson and Elkins? The law firm representing Enron! Who is Alcoa? The top polluter in Texas. Thomas White, the Secretary of the Army? A former vice-chair of Enron Energy! Robert Zoellick, your Federal Trade Representative? A former advisor at Enron! Karl Rove, your main man at the White House? He owned a quarter-million dollars of Enron stock.
Then there's the Enron lawyer you have nominated to be a federal judge in Texas, the Enron lobbyist who is your chair of the Republican Party, the two Enron officials who now work for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm who sits on Enron's board. And there's the aforementioned Mr. Pitt, the former Arthur Andersen attorney whose job it is now as SEC head to oversee the stock markets. George, it never stops! My fingers are getting tired typing all this up -- and there's lots more.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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
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."
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
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;
"Microsoft said this change would "make crystal clear what is now clear.""
Isn't that kinda like the real estate agent trying to con[vince] you, that on a "clear" day "you can see the ocean from here", or trying to con[vince] you that the lake in the backyard has crystal clear water?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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); }
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?
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
So, if the Justice department is making deals with a known felon, does that make them an accessory to the crime?
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
hawk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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).
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
Why don't you tell that to Microsoft.. You want a coherent discussion?? On the topic of Microsoft being found guilty of using it's monopolistic powers criminally? Please; spare me the bullshit. Especially when they try to continually impede justice and then on top of all that tell the Justice dept on how it should be penalized. Nothing about Microsoft can be discussed coherently except to say. They need to be punished not slapped on the hand or given their way. Enough of that, if you want some other type of coherent discussion call Microsoft PR.
Remember Doublespace? I do. Was in direct violation with Stacker.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
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.
Shouldn't Wintendos be refered to as a NOS (Non Operating System)?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Given that they seem to be claiming 'significant changes', they really do need to allow another comment period -- if only to see if their changes resolve or exacerbate the issues raised in the original comment period.
In the alternative, it would allow a shell game -- offer an agreement to public comment, let people comment on it and the substitute a different agreement that's far worse than what people commented on.
Now, I realize that they claim that this new version answers many of raised in the almost 30,000 comments against the original, but there's no way for the court to know that if someone other than the two parties who put this agreement together have a chance to comment on it.
Especially given that MS isn't even making full disclosure of their lobbying efforts, there is too much hidden. If (as many people believe) their lobbying efforts were successful, then this agreement is (at least in part) between Microsoft and "friends of Microsoft". It would, therefore, be entirely reckless to pass it without 3rd party comment.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I fear there are too many people like you, and not enough like Washington, Jefferson, Adams...
So, you dump all the CD-ROMs in the harbor. Then what? I ask only one thing: That the Revolution be delayed until men and women with as much character and vision as our founding fathers emerge to oversee it.
I dare say that if such men and women exist in this country today, there may be no need for revolution at all.
In your voice, and in many others, I hear the sound of those who know how to destroy. Where are those who know how to create? For now, most of them are either indifferent or on the side of the IP corporations of which you speak. Why? Because their good exceeds their evil. Only when their evil exceeds their good will revolution be justified. If you act in haste, you'll just end up like the Weathermen.
However, I don't think a revolution is likely anyway. Americans have a low tolerance for BS when it really matters. Look at what happened with Vietnam. Now there was something that mattered, and people did something about it. It took time, but protest and the opinion of the people eventually worked.
Right now, Joe Sixpack is on MS's side. When Joe Sixpack starts hurting, when his sons start dying, when he gets evicted or forclosed, when *everybody* knows somebody who had the FBI pay a visit... That's when they'll start marching, and if history is really our guide there will be a small number of deaths back home and some neighborhoods will burn, but the country will *not* have a revolution anything like 1776.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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."
Know how the 'trollish', 'For someone to think that they have means that they have been assimilated by Microsoft' comment concludes?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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."
How do you account for the disparity in money between the parties then? The republicans raise more money then the democrats do and they hate unions, teachers, liberals, environmentalists, feminists etc. According to you the dems ought to be raising more money.
Also the corps can deliver votes too. Remember they can "suggest" that their employees vote for someone or another which is probably more effective then what any union or association can do. The corps can fire people after all.
War is necrophilia.
" If corporations are taking over the government, I expect to see the government being run as a corporation. I don't."
What a nightmare this would be. One out of three companies in the US fail. Imagine if one out of three govt programs would fail. Imagine the catastrophy that would happen if the social security administration decided it was not profitable to give people money for nothing and folded up?
The reason govt is as inefficient is because it has to serve everybody. A corporation can quit doing things that don't make money but the govt does not have that luxury. Giving benefits to veterans, handing out social security checks, waging war and keeping a standing army, delivering mail to every two bit town in the world, keeping the streets cleared of snow, keeping criminals in jail are ineherently money losing propositions.
War is necrophilia.
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.
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.
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.
A revolution of the scale of 1776 is the _LAST_ thing I want to see.
What do I want to see? I want to see an informed populace making informed decisions. I want to see informed politicians making informed decisions representing their informed populace. I want to see representation. I want to honesty.
I don't want to see bloodshed.
I know now is nowhere near the time for things to be as bad as 1776. With all of the talk about the SSSCA and such, even though it is looking pretty bleak - I know that it isn't bleak enough for bloodshed - not by far.
But it is bleak enough that more people should notice. It is bleak enough that more people should care. However, it seems like nobody cares about themselves, their rights, or their neighbors.
How does one sanely live in a society knowing no one cares about themselves, let alone those around them?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon