Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Argues in Favor of MS Settlement
hpa writes: "It is described in this article on CNET the Department of Justice is arguing in favour of the proposed settlement, because the government's case was too weak to impose additional penalties on Microsoft. Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..." There's also an AP story.
Of course political contributions could be the reason that the DOJ refuses to enforce the antitrust laws even after winning the case. But, it may just be an ideological bent.
The Cato Institute does not really support Microsoft in its defense. It just believes the government should not have antitrust laws nor enforce the ones they have.
To be honest, it is most likely not the money at all.
Of course, telling the judge that the DOJ did not try because she would not order a more appropriate remedy is a waste of breath. One of the reports suggested that the judge was asking if the DOJ position is not at odds with the appellate decision. It clearly is. And, she knows it. She went on to ask "why?".
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
This is a point I've always been a bit upset by in this whole saga. I feel it is wrong to say Microsoft has a monopoly. Clearly, there are/have been plenty of options - Linux, Apple, Be, *BSD, etc. However, Microsoft has enjoyed and abused monopolistic powers. That is, MS have a sufficiently large market share such that abuse in a monopolistic manner can occur. Much like Standard Oil wasn't strictly a monopoly, MS is not a monopoly. However, when one company becomes a large enough part of a large market, that company can hold (and usually will abuse) monopolistic powers. I've always worried about MS getting out untouched because of the semantic error of labelling the company a monopoly.
RagManX
Do you expect it to be any different? The USA isn't interested in a free market, so why would they punish Microsoft? Yesterday, the USA announced 30% tariffs on imported steel in order to protect their own steel workers. If they don't care about the free market between countries, why would they care about the free market inside their own?
Charles James, the head of DOJ's antitrust division, was a played a significant role in the formulation and enforcement of the DOJ's antitrust policy under Reagan. It was Reagan's DOJ that walked away from the IBM antitrust case. It's no surprise Charles James is using his prosecutorial discretion to avoid putting the screws to MSFT.
The day Bush won, US v. MSFT was essentially over.
And every cent of that in over the table legal contributions ... not _Under_ the table as suggested by the poster. Thus emphasizing a problem with the legality of lobbyists ... as a German colleague once said to me ... yeah, every country has some bribery, but at least in our country it is illegal.
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
When AT&T had a telephone monopoly, people still had the options of...
1) Moving to another country where AT&T wasn't a monopoly.
2) Buying all the land in between their own, and those people they wanted to call, for the purpose of building their own comm system.
3) Writing letters.
4) Doing without. It's not like telephones are a necessity.
So, I guess the courts were wrong back then, they obviously weren't a monopoly after all.
Besides, Linux wasn't an option when Microsoft committed their crimes. Microsoft had, and still continues to have, better than 85% of the marketshare, and is guilty of using it to try to kill both Apple and Linux, and for that matter, everything else which is even remotely a substitute. They're guilty of attempting to turn the internet into a big, sad AOL clone (.NET, IIS extensions that are incompatible with competing products, abuse of html standards) and for no other reason than this would give them more of an iron grip over how you use the net and your computer.
They are guilty, even legally guilty. They are a monopoly not only in the practical sense, but also as defined by law. The executives at M$ don't play fair, and worse, when they force their products onto everyone, those products aren't even half as good as the now dead competitor. So you tell me, how could you ever possibly defend them?
Just a question.
:) ) The question i am asking is, technically, legally, is this a thing which is an *option*; asking "is there a law by which Sun or whoever can sue to have Bush appointees taken away from this case", not "if Sun sued under such a law, would they succeed". Is it possible under the laws of the U.S.. But respond how you will. Thanks..
It is my belief, and i know the belief of most of the people on slashdot, that the DOJ is currently neither acting in the best interests of the american people or acting to see the law of the united states of america upheld.
Whether from "contributions" or bribes, or from the simple republican belief that laws should keep quiet and go play alone in their room and leave the nice Important People alone when they're trying to make money (now run along now. shoo), the DOJ seems pretty clearly to me to be currently of the belief that microsoft is doing a good job and should be let loose from the responsibilities of the good of the american people or either the letter or intent of the antitrust laws. Put plainly, the executive branch is currently against the idea of antitrust regulation.
However, it is not the executive branches job to make the law. That is the job of the legislative branch. And the legislative branch has declared anticompetitive behavior to gain monopolistic control over a market harmful and illegal. And it is not the executive branches job to decide whether extant law is valid and worthy to be carried out. That is the job of the judicial branch. And the judicial branch seems in this case to want the law to be carried out.
But it is the executive branch that is currently trying to end this. So i ask: can they be removed from this? In any way? I know nothing of law-- this is why i am asking. Can citizen groups sue to state that the prosecution of this case should be taken out of the hands of the DOJ and into the hands of the EFF or some specially-appointed board? Can the judge appoint some kind of Special Master or Special Prosecutor or someone who will be picked to actually attempt to push for the most stringent judgement possible for microsoft? (REMEMBER, it is NOT the job of the prosecutor to decide what is just. It is the job of the prosecutor to argue for the strongest judgement possible, the job of the defendant to argue for the weakest judgement possible, and the JUDGE to ensure all arguments are reasonable and find the most just and legal balance behind all. The judge should be unbiased. The prosecution is not really intended to be someone unbiased against the defendant, so it doesn't matter if the prosecutor is someone picked by Sun or Oracle or whoever; whether biased or no, the prosecutor should *act* biased against the defendant, because that is their *job*.) Can we declare John Ashcroft tainted because he recieved campaign contributions from microsoft, and have him chineese-walled away from the case?
Don't police officers and judges and FBI agents and Attourneys General of the United States of America have to swear to protect the american people and uphold the law? If the people currently trying to short-circuit the case against microsoft make it clear they are against in this case the upholding of the law, are they violating those oaths? Can there be legal repercussions for them in doing that?
A quick note to those responding: I am not *particularly* trying to start a flamewar (flamewar bad. informative comments good. HULK SMASH) on whether the doj SHOULD be blocked out of the microsoft antitrust case. I am not 100% convinced it is the best thing (just mostly
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
One thing I don't understand. If a company does something illegal, all it gets is a fine. The company can still exist and still profit from their illegal activities. But if an individual does something illegal, he's sent out to prison, and if he does something really bad, they can give the death sentence. Why is there not a death sentence for companies? In other words, if the company is found guilty of a crime the company ceases to exist. The company is then handed over the government. The government finds a way of splitting the assets between the competitors. More that I think of it, that could cause a whole new set of problems...
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
To take it further -- I can't read Word from Linux unless someone has managed to hack out the latest variation of the DOC format.
Agreed.
Netscape has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Well, sort of. The fact that e.g. Gnome, Enlightenment, KDE, Plan9, BeOS, and pretty much every OS (except OS9 and OS X) out there has integrated a browser into their Window manager suggests that maybe, just maybe (horrors!) MS had a point on integrating the browser. And I say that as a card carrying Mozilla supporter.
Wordperfect has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Nope, WordPerfect has died as a result of Corel's incompetence. WordPerfect development practically stalled after WP8. There were forward compatibility issues (and even backward compatibility issues - ever try printing a WP8 document with an embedded .eps file in it from WP9? I don't recommend it) with WP9 that may or may not have been addressed in WP10.
No, it's more like "We find the defendant guilty. Now for the sentence...
Prosecution: "Hmmm, I just don't think we have a strong enough case."
Someone sane: "But you won!"
Prosecution: "Well, we're willing to settle because we don't really have a good case."
Someone sane: "But you... what?"
No, they are proven guilty already, that's the crazy thing. We're just supposed to be deciding the punishment.
I've been banging my head against the wall about this for so long, it's getting misshapen.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Maybe someone could also explain why I was moderated down as a troll (twice!)
I admit I'm not a frequent poster to Slashdot (in fact, I think this was my first), and maybe I don't understand what a troll is, but it seems like my question was a pretty simple one.
The settlement can not have as its purpose "punishment" of Microsoft. The court documents are littered with precedents that companies found to have violated the relevant statutes (Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, Clayton Act) cannot be per se punished for the violation. They can be required to "disgorge" (such an interesting word) the fruits of their acts, but the finding cannot be punitive. Even this doesn't really apply to Microsoft, because they were found to have gained their Windows monopoly legally (it's legal to have a monopoly, believe it or not) buy to have used illegal means to maintain that (desktop OS) monopoly. Unfortunately the argument about illegally tying IE was overturned by the Appeals Court.
Any future settlement of this case must focus, as a matter of law, on preventing Microsoft from continuing its illegal acts. This is why 99% of the Tunney act responses were more or less thrown out.
Of course they don't. Here's how they define it:
linkWhat, praytell, would this "multimedia middleware" be? From all descriptions, it appears to be none other than Windows Media Player, or a subset thereof.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
This case was mishanded by the DOJ from day one. The stupid idea of using the so-called browswer issue blew it. If this case was solely on MS business practices it would be a done deal now.
DOJ probably figure take what we can, and hope we don't lose that in the Supreme Court appeal that will be MS's next step. This thing isn't over and won't be for quite awhile.
The people behind this case didn't study MS's history in situations like this, MS will delay and delay until whatever is done won't matter any more.
That's why Linux needs to be pre-installed on Dell's or Gateway's etc. The Mac OS has it's market share because it comes pre-installed on Mac's. BeOS didn't come pre-installed on anything after they stopped making BeBoxes. And now Be is gone. Every OS that is used widely comes pre-installed on some type of hard ware. IRIX, Solaris, AIX, Mac OS, Windows all come pre-installed on some type of hardware. Linux won't move beyond the server until it comes pre-installed on Desktop machines. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to use how much software is available or if it's stable or not. If it doesn't come pre-installed on a machine there is no reason for most people to use it.
The corperation/person is not saying anything. They are giving money to canidates to do something for them. IF they were truely for 'free speach' they would say I/WE/MEGACORP WOULD LIKE YOU TO VOTE FOR XYZ CANIDATE. Instead, they donate money to try and win favors. That in my book is bribery. If I saw an ad from Ford, Microsoft, etc saying vote for soandso, that would be free speach in my opinion, not the here we will give you $xx million. Corperations likely hide because most of them think that their support would damage the canidate's case.
In other words, the free speach arguement is a load of stuff, as the big contributors don't speak about it.
Smaller states are still disproportionately represented. From the 2000 census reapportionment figures at http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.txt :
Population of CA: 33,930,798
Electoral votes: 55
People per electoral vote: 616,923.6
Population of WY: 495,304
Electoral votes: 3
People per electoral vote: 165,101.3
Ratio of WY voting power to CA voting power: 3.7:1
It gets even worse when you realize that almost every state has a winner-take-all system. So when FL is won by a few votes, the electoral vote goes 27-0 rather than 14-13. On the other hand, a vote in a landslide state like MA or UT is pretty much useless. Last election, a UT vote had around 1/900 the decisionmaking power of a FL vote, even before looking at the overall vote totals.