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.
Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant
It's amazing what a few million dollars under the table can do...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I'd be happy just to see this thing finish itself off. I'm all for justice, and penalizing Microsoft for what they've done, but it's hard to do when the plaintiff doesn't even want it anymore.
Just let it go, and let the states get on with their case.
Let's face it Micro$oft has paid for good government representation.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
The article states the the DOJ was explaining why they settled, not defending MSFT.
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
Just because the DOJ are wusses doesn't mean that MS is totally in the clear.
C'mon. This is hardly surprising. We were all waiting for something like this. Nothing like a new administration to "send a message"... only the message seems to be along the lines of "MPAA/RIAA/M$ Uber Alles!".
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
WTF? I thought they had already been convicted, and the appeals court upheld that conviction. This was a reassessment of the penalty phase, right? Any honest lawyers out there? What's going on?
We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
Defense: Your honor, our client committed no crime.
DOJ: Yes, he did. He committed lots. Look, we have evidence.
Defense: Your honor, our client has committed crimes and is sorry.
Judge: Oh, well, in that case.
DOJ: Your honor! We demand a punishment!
Defense: A punishment? Are you some sort of barbarian, with your "punishing"?
DOJ: Your client will be punished!
Defense: Will not!
DOJ: Will too!
Defense: Will not!
[...3 hours later]
DOJ: Will not! I mean! Wait, that was no fair I...
Defense: Ha! Sucka!
Judge: Case dismissed!
-l
they're whores.
have you seen the amount of contributions given to Ashcroft in the Missouri Senate race by MS? 2nd biggest, right after enron.
... hi bingo
It's pathetic when the U.S. Government can take a hard line on terrorism in traditional forms, but is cowed by a multinational corporation that has been demonstrated to be involved in monopolistic forms of terrorism. The DOJ is basically giving up because they're tired of trying to fight Microsoft. What sort of precedent does this set for the Standard Oils of the new millenium?
This government has bowed to corporate interests at every turn. I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests. This is yet another side effect of the US's desire to remain an economic superpower. It has changed from a Representative Democracy to a colossal beauracratic corporation. Perhaps we should call it The United States of America Inc.?
Remember folks, a government that tramples the rights of the citizen is a tyrannical government. There is no leeway for arguement in that.
In the future, please refrain from the use of profanity in your posts.
A word of advice: Gratuitous profanity only gives your audience a reason to immediately ignore every subsequent word that you speak or type.
Shoo, Micro$oft pimp!
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
i am beyond exasperation re: the DOJ... those goddamned lackeys.
even a jurist i do not particular care for, Robert H. Bork, finds the proposed settlement to be utterly unacceptable in its weaknesses... he was interviewed some months ago and the interview was posted at some Linux website... Bork was more than damning of the proposed settlement.
Pot.Kettle.Black.
Way to compare the Nazis to Microsoft. Pardon me while I roll my eyes.
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
...another /.er's comment i once read:
The DOJ was supposed to come down on Microsoft, but they went down on them instead.
;o
Seriously, this does not suprise me at all, given the priorities of the current administration.
Face it, Microsoft is a major corporation and, yes, a considerable influence on our economy. No administration (that can actually get elected) is going to gleefully attack them, because they fear the economic effects (yes, I realize that any negative effect would likely be short-lived, and would be more than made up for by the subsequent explosion of new entrepreneurship, but many people don't see things this way).
Re:It's gotten to the point...
by Anonymous Coward on 12:53 Wednesday 06 March 2002 (Score:1) (#3120428)
Wow. Quite an accusation comparing them to Nazis but right on target. M$'s payments to the gov't have come to a disgusting point and need to stop
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
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
Yeah, I don't agree either, the prosecution's job has seldom been easier and case so clear cut. There's an ulterior motive, and probably very transparent at that, not the old Jobs for America thing, either.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually, it caused me to read it to the end.
I only read your comment because I expected it to be extremely stupid. It turned out to be a helpful writing lesson instead. Thanks!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
GWB, "I prefer inovation over legislation."
It was all down hill after GW Bush started to use the term "inovation" when referring to Microsoft. The conspiracy theorist in me says that he was bought out. Maybe he slipped when he said it?
Personally, I think that is great for you. And I try to do the same.
But I can't read most of what is emailed to me from a business perspective without MSFT. Heck! I couldn't even submit a resume for a job working on Unix without the document being in WORD. That's whacked.
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.
Netscape has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Wordperfect has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Lotus is mostly dead as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
And now through SSSCA, all GPL software stands a chance of dying too. Then you will only have Microsoft to work with and you will be labelled an enemy of the state, part of the Axis of Evil
it won!
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ahmen brother!
Blech.
So long as you're not suggesting that Bill Clinton and his crew were *any* more impartial.
The DOJ, with every detail of the trial available to them, decided that further litigation would not be of further use to anybody. A large number of people with very limited access to the details (but with heavy anti-Microsoft biases) conclude that the DOJ is wrong. Who's right? I know who I'd put my money on. Do you believe that the righteous always win in the courthouses of the United States? Or that the lawbreakers never escape conviction or punishment? Whether or not the settlement agreement is fair is beside the point. The decision to end the trial makes sense. Within the framework that is the justice system of the U.S., it appears the DOJ has gone as far as they can.
it sucks.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
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?
It's probaly at bit late in the trial to ask, but anyways...
Why are they settling at all? Either M$ broke the law, in which case they get their punishment, or they haven't broken the law, and they don't get punished...
This would be like a judge telling me "I think you killed this man, but I can't make the evidence 'stick', so let's settle at, say, half the normal sentence."
Basically they say "we can't prove they're guilty" in which case the old 'innocent until proven guilty' applies (sadly enough in this case)...
I don't think that there is a good solution to this problem, because for the most part, they seem to be attacking the wrong problem. For most of the trial it seemed that the DOJ and company were attacking the software end of MS, meaning the IE browser, the integrated-ness of the OS and such.
When they should have ignored that completly. They should have attacked their business policys because that's what the problem really is. The problem with MS is that they used their position to destroy all other oses. DR-DOS, IBM-DOS, OS/2, etc. all dissapeared because MS played dirty pool and wouldn't let computer manufactures sell PCs with those OSes without penalizing them for doing so.
It doesn't matter if IE can be removed or not, if MS wants to make it part of their product then so be it. If they want to integrate Office with their os then so be it. It's their product, if you don't like it, complain to MS or don't buy it.
I feel that linux is now a real alternative to windows on the x86 platform. And if you really don't think so, then go buy a Mac. They are also good machines.
I don't know how they can pay for the deaths of the other software they killed by being a monopoly. I don't think that this settlement is enough punishment, but that's a biased opinion.
...sure he curses a lot....but he seems to hate all the same people and institutions I do. He's sort of angry/loveable...
I want to be alone with the sandwich
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
This is a common misconception of anti-trust law (IANAL). Unlike what we were taught by Parker Brothers, a monopoly isn't defined as a 100% market-share. According to the way anti-trust law is applied, a monopoly exists when the average consumer believes there are no viable alternatives. In this particular case, MS has an OS monopoly because the cost of switching is prohibitively high for most end-users. Saying that you can give up most of your existing apps to switch to Linux, or ditch your hardware to switch to Apple is no answer for users.
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.
...burmashave
I want to be alone with the sandwich
In his presentation before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Justice Department lead attorney Philip Beck said that Microsoft was able to hold on to a monopoly in Intel-based operating systems only through anti-competitive acts. But the government was not in a position to make that argument stick, he said.
"We tried very hard the first time around, and we were not able to do it," he told the court. "The causation issues"--actually proving that point about anti-competitive acts--"would have been an uphill battle that would likely have been resolved against us."
What the hell am I missing here? Didn't the case go against Microsoft and a breakup order was issued? I mean the case WAS PROVED! It was only the punishment that an upper court decided should be reviewed.
This makes it sound like they couldn't prove their case. Would someone enlighten me please?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Is it economically viable for the DOJ to issue more sanctions against MS? I think they have to be reasonable to protect the interests of 'corporate' america. Sanctions against MS arnt going to have initial positive effects on the market. Effects on consumers versus effects on large markets that depend on MS's software, support and their ability to conduct business have to be weighed before a decision can be made.
Comments?
Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
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?
I feel it is wrong to say Microsoft has a monopoly.
As I pointed out here, a monopoly is not defined as "the only game in town".
...but deep down we all knew it would end up this way. The Department of Justice grabbed Microsoft by their already huge balls and coated them in brass. Now we have a Microsoft with his brass balls which will become even more brazen with their monopoly practices.
Sad but true - Steve Jobs knew the outcome before the trial started. That's why he refused to testify and sent Avie Tevanian in his place.
DOJ Lawyer, TK429 : Hey, you Microsoft, Let me take a look at your software!
Bill Glates : This is not the software you're looking for.
TK429 : Ok, this isn't the software we're looking for.
Gates (waving his hand) : We may procede.
TK429 : Ok, these guys look clean, move along.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
update WASHINGTON--The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday conceded that it moneyed with Microsoft in part because trustbusters failed to prove part of the basic theory of the antitrust case.
In his presentation before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Justice Department lead attorney Philip Beck said that Microsoft was able to hold on to a monopoly in Intel-based operating systems only through anti-competitive acts. But the government was not in a position to make that argument stick, he said.
"We tried very hard the first time around, and we were not able to do it," he told the court. "The causation issues"--actually proving that point about anti-competitive acts--"would have been an uphill battle that would likely have been resolved against us."
Beck's presentation kicked off a hearing mandated by federal law to determine whether the money is in the public interest.
The Justice Department and a number of state attorneys general in November reached a deal to money their antitrust case against the software titan. Nine other states declined to join the money and are pursuing their antitrust efforts along a separate track. Hearings on the continuing litigation are scheduled for later this month.
Both Beck and Microsoft attorney John Warden argued that the proposed money is in the public interest, and Warden agreed that the government got as much as it could.
"Without causation, there's nothing to remedy," Warden said. Moving ahead with further litigation to determine a remedy--that is, penalties against Microsoft--would not have gotten the government anything more, he said. "One doesn't get two bites of the apple."
The settling states are scheduled to make presentations later Wednesday. A number of third parties also are scheduled to make 10-minute presentations to the court, among them the American Antitrust Institute, telephone company SBC Communications and the ProComp trade group. AAI receives funds from Microsoft competitor Oracle, while ProComp is backed in part by AOL Time Warner, Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
Beck quoted from comments submitted to the Justice Department by SBC and ProComp questioning the money's legitimacy. Like many other critics, they argued that the scope of the money is insufficient because it would neither limit Microsoft's monopoly nor put an end to it.
ProComp had argued that Microsoft's "monopoly power would have dissipated" if not for anti-competitive acts committed against Netscape Communications' browser and Sun's Java language.
But Beck said the Justice Department failed to prove this during the original trial and later during an appeal of the original verdict. The Court of Appeals upheld the earlier finding that Microsoft was a monopolist that employed anti-competitive tactics; the court also threw out the original penalties imposed. Although the ruling by the appeals court upheld a major charge
against Microsoft, it left other claims by the wayside, and the government would not have gained more by continuing with trial proceedings than it can get through the money, Beck said.
"We are constrained by the case" as it was originally shaped, Beck said.
The middleware question
A key issue in the morning session was that of middleware--applications that interact with the operating system--which was at the heart of the original case. The government originally argued that Microsoft, perceiving that Netscape and Java could replace Windows, used anti-competitive means to preserve its monopoly.
At point, Kollar-Kotelly questioned whether the money adopted a different definition of middleware than the one put forth by the Court of Appeals.
"The short answer is no," said Justice Department attorney Philip Malone. According to the court's definition, he said, "middleware refers to software products that expose their APIs (application programming interfaces)."
But Malone also said that the money does lay out a more specific definition of middleware for the benefit of those offering competitive, non-Microsoft software. "That's what the decree really seeks to protect," he said.
If litigation had continued, Beck said, the Justice Department questioned whether "the government would be able to provide a broad definition of middleware."
During his presentation to the court, Warden, the Microsoft attorney, said that the company considered the money's definition of middleware--including its Windows Media Player and Outlook Express--to be a major concession on its part, since Microsoft itself doesn't identify those products that way.
The money, he said, "greatly expands the Court of Appeals definition of middleware."
Warden emphasized that Microsoft made many concessions, including a pledge to disclose client/server programming protocols--a move that went "far outside the case as tried," he said.
He addressed the question of why Microsoft moneyed if it believed it made unnecessary concessions. "The parties (in the case) have been repeatedly urged to money by the courts...finally by this court, in the firmest of terms, on Sept. 28," he said.
The terms were "the price of money," he said. He described the Justice Department and the nine states involved in the deal as "hard bargainers."
"Microsoft wanted to achieve certainty about the road going forward," he said, emphasizing that the company wanted to improve its relationship with antitrust enforcers. "Litigation is not good for an individual or a company," he said.
Even in conceding the limits of the government's case, Beck emphasized its successes. "It was a major victory and accomplishment," he said.
Based on the original ruling and that of the Court of Appeals, "We believe we have negotiated an excellent decree," he said.
But in looking at the language of the appeals court decision and what the Justice Department was able to obtain through the money, the government is satisfied that it cut a deal that is in the public interest and that exceeds the mandate of the court of appeals, Beck said.
They are saying that they can't prove the extent of the crime any further to warrant penalties beyond what they currently have. You have to take what you can get sometimes, you can't always decapitate the criminal, and sometime, you know, you just shouldn't.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Sure they were. Clinton and his party took money from everybody, not just American citizens. Now that's open-minded.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I may be wrong, but reserving judgement would be a good thing since she may hear about the nine litigating states proposals etc. prior to pronouncing judgement.
nothing is real
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
United Corporations of America.
Matt
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.
the RTFA post...
for all you zealots that base your posts off the slashdot headline instead of the article.
expect to see this one more often, kids
//radiotakeover.
...because ALL aspects of steel production in the major countries we compete with are heavily subsidized by their governments. This includes the cost of coke, worker health care, lowered environmental impact costs (allowed to pollute), subsidized transportation, ...you name it. And on top of that, they still sell the steel at a lower price than it costs to make it. And their government targets specific steel markets in the US that they wish to undermine....like the cold-rolled steel and armour plate. The steel capacity in the US now has already been severely injured. Hell, we could not currently produce all of the steel required to rebuild the World Trade Center.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
I couldn't even submit a resume for a job working on Unix without the document being in WORD.
;-). If they only accept M$-crap, not even plain-text or HTML, then the UNIX-folks probably don't have any influence in the company.
Seems like a good hint you're applying with the wrong company
To take it further -- I can't read Word from Linux unless someone has managed to hack out the latest variation of the DOC format.
Agreed.
Netscape has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Well, sort of. The fact that e.g. Gnome, Enlightenment, KDE, Plan9, BeOS, and pretty much every OS (except OS9 and OS X) out there has integrated a browser into their Window manager suggests that maybe, just maybe (horrors!) MS had a point on integrating the browser. And I say that as a card carrying Mozilla supporter.
Wordperfect has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Nope, WordPerfect has died as a result of Corel's incompetence. WordPerfect development practically stalled after WP8. There were forward compatibility issues (and even backward compatibility issues - ever try printing a WP8 document with an embedded .eps file in it from WP9? I don't recommend it) with WP9 that may or may not have been addressed in WP10.
Instead of the traditional Windoze or Office artwork/logo, they would have to show a large, full-color picture of OJ Simpson on every product package. Think of it -- OJ could use the royalties to pay the civil judgment against him, and M$ would have a celebrity endorsement.
First, yesterday's news that the Vatican Endorses .NET Messenger Service, and now this!
When faced with a problem, many web developers say "I know, I'll use JavaScript!".
Now they have two problems.
Monopoly is not a state of affairs, it is a way of doing business, so monopoly is not 100% market share, which could happen by accident if you are the only one willing to make a product, it is a way of organizing economic relationships which explicitly aims to exlude competition per se in a market. Problem then becomes what is a "market", is there a market for browsers, or is there only a market for OS's with browsers... Bottom line M$ has a vision of what an OS is which implies the disappearence of most of the desktop app "markets" by rendering them incompatible with the OS platform, or including them as bundles of windows or office, that's monopolistic.
It's not illegal to BE a monopoly, folks, there are lots of those (local utilities, for example). It's illegal to use the monopoly to preserve its status OR to enter new markets by leveraging monopoly status. That's what Microsoft has been found guilty of doing, and why punishment is appropriate. (I use punishment to indicate something more appropriate than the proposed settlement).
Here's hoping that Microsoft rolls 3 doubles in a row - for the Monopoly fans - and ends up in jail!
Has everyone already forgotten that Microsoft has been found guitly? The court found them guilty, and it was upheld in appeal. Only the terms of the punishment were sent back for review.
Why does the US think that these are the best terms that they could get after winning the case? The US has the leverage, they are just chosing not to apply it.
- Sam
...how exactly does one brainwash GWB?
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Looks like MS scored a huge ROI for supporting Dubya
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.
can't we do more than clip the criminals nails a bit though???
For some reason people tend to ignore that the DOJ went to court with the wrong case. They became enamoured with the Netscape case and left out much better arguments for a monopoly case.
I really don't think MS was inherently wrong by tying the browser to the OS. Maybe it was bad engineering (crippling the OS on purpose), but having an integrated browser did benefit me as a consumer.
Konqueror, for example, benefited me more as a Linux user, because it is a better integrated browser. I would also prefer a lightweight, less-buggy, integrated browser in Windows, but I don't see releasing a crappy product as an anti-competitive maneuver.
Forcing the market to accept a crappy product AND REJECT competition is an obvious anti-competitive maneuver. There is no way MS could give that the "benefits the consumer" spin. The BeOS case was a much more obvious evidence of monopoly abuse than anything Netscape-related.
It's not clear it's monopoly abuse to alter your product to compete with other companies. It is monopoly power to force legislation (OEM contracts) and/or artificial technical constraints (false incompatibility error messages with other OSes) upon the market.
Declaring MS a monopoly for the wrong reasons just makes it less likely for it to ever receive the punishment appropiate for the "right reasons".
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
There's an interesting political subtext here.
The DOJ of a Republican administration is implying they'd like to impose stiffer penalties (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) if only the DOJ of a previous Democratic administration had done a better job arguing their case in earlier phases of the trial.
That's some fancy political jujitsu.
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
How is anyone prevented from using non-Microsoft software?
Apple and Linux have not constituted an option to Microsoft for years. Microsoft owns the market and wielded it's power as a club for over 10 years.
When Microsoft already owned over 80% of the market, and wanted to get rid of any other viable options, they told OEM's they would have to pay for a windows license for every computer they sold - effectively making every other OS cost twice as much - if they wanted to keep their windows license (and who would say no when it would mean losing more than 80% of their business vs losing less than 20%.
And then when the threat of Netscape loomed over them, they did not strive to win marketshare through innovation - No, they went again to the OEMs and made it costly to do business with Netscape - Forcing OEMs who wished to provide alternatives to pay excessively higer licensing fee than those who would agree to 'knife the baby' and support the market leader (of OS's - not browsers).
But, no - you're right. Microsoft has always looked at consumer choice above all other goals as the holy grail to strive towards. They must not be a monopoly because 5.1% of the market chooses to think different (despite being constantly told we're idiots for not conforming, for not becoming lemmings following Microsoft blindly)
I believe in free market economics, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. I don't trust Microsoft to stop such behaviors willingly. I would be a fool if I did trust them, so I am a fool either way. Oh, well....
unless someone pays the government to say you can't of course... then your stuck a couple feet off the ground with that fence making you very uncomfortable.
Jacking in on the weird but true port:
What do you expect from an Attorney General who LOST an election to a dead guy. Yep, that's right he ran for Senate against a guy who died too close to the election for his name to be removed from the ballot, and the dead guy one. It says something when the people would rather have a literal corpse in the Senate instead of you. Then Shrub goes and appoints the loser A.G. Guess it helps to have powerful friends.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red 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.
At the sentencing hearing for Leroy Jones, convicted of grand theft auto, reckless driving, and driving under the influence of crack:
Prosecutor: "Your honor, because the case is so weak, we want to plea bargain this down to speeding and fine him $50."
Judge: "What do you mean the case is weak, he's been CONVICTED already."
I have tried in vain to pimp Linux to everyone I know but the answer is still the same. Either "There is no software for it" or "it's too hard". I mention this here as I am trying to understand why people keep chosing MS over linux (I am aware that about 80% of Windows users have never even heard of Linux which is an issue in itself). Anyhow, both of which couldn't be further from the truth. Linux is very different but its advantages are clear (Not crashing all the dam time for a start) KDE and Gnome make everything nice 'n easy for the newbies and there is no end of free software on the net. After thinking about this for a while I realized that it all came down to conformity. The "everyone else has it so I have to attitude" and I realized that the neumerous arguments I've had in real life with my many student peers over this issue were all in vain as the above mentality is as irrational as it comes and as Ingersoll said "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead". So let's just sit back take the time to congratulate ourselvs for using an OS that we couldn't expect any more from, laugh at the ignorant Windows weenies and then we can write to our senators and register our opinions on M$ so they can ignore us as they cash another check from them.
the herfindahl index.
.9^2, or .81, which is very high indeed.
.18) is considered highly concentrated. They're applying it to M&A here, but you get the idea.
[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2
So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their index would be upwards of
Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.
The DOJ, at least here, uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the same thing, only without the decimals. So, while the Herfindahl index goes from 1 (total domination of market) to 0 (atomistic competition), the HHI goes from 10000 to 0. According to the site, anything above 1800 (or, by the other scale,
ceci n'est pas un sig.
It is a defacto religion among the right, particularly capitalist Wall Street Journal element, that Microsift is responsible for most of the IT economy boom and that they are a wellspring of innovation that drives the industry. It does not matter what details that you expose to them Microsoft is the sole of innovation. Considering most corporate managers (The soul of Bush America) never encounter any IT resources that are not Microsoft based what do you expect.
The cospiracy theorists always come out in force about payoffs, access is even more important. Did Hollywood buy off the Clinton administration or was Bill just so taken with hanging out with Warren, Spielberg, Eisner and Babs that that is who he listened to.
--- Ron
I wasn't aware that throwing rocks through shop windows and fighting with police was considered "peaceful" by some. In that assumption, I erred.
Go crawl back under your bridge.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Actually, a monopoly is defined as:
a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.
This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
Thalia
So the lawyers give up? When peaceful legal avenues are closed, the only recourses left are violent and/or illegal. What we have here is more like a "software mafia" than legal corporations.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
1. Microsoft decides what software to include in the operating system.
2. But all code running in USER MODE must be open source (freely viewable, but with MS copyright).
3. All OS API's, file formats and network protocols must be publicly documented (except for code not owned by Microsoft), where the boundary of the OS is defined by Microsoft. Anyone can re-implement or use these API's or formats without royalties due to Microsoft.
3a. Ditto for Microsoft Outlook the various components of Microsoft Office, which are de facto computing standards.
4. All non-OS Microsoft software must shipped to OEMs and retail vendors on separate media (or electronically downloadable) from the OS. OEMs may elect to exclude such software from their offerings without disadvantage.
5. All OEMs must get nondiscriminatory terms allowing them to include whatever other operating systems, applications, or middleware they want, without disadvantage to their present or future licensing terms for Microsoft products or services.
-- Nobody should take away Microsoft's freedom to innovate, particularly since they haven't used it yet
Seems like a good hint you're applying with the wrong company ;-). If they only accept M$-crap, not even plain-text or HTML, then the UNIX-folks probably don't have any influence in the company.
Yeah, and the selection of HR software available for use on a UNIX machine is overwhelming. Not to mention the well know fact that UNIX-folks are much superior to HR-folks and would force them to use vi or emacs, along with lots of little stickies to do their jobs.
I am not in favor of this settlement by any means, but...
(1) 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.
Of course the DOJ is "arguing in favor" of their own settlement. They helped draft it, for goodness sake, and now they must defend it before the judge who will either accept or reject the deal.
(2) Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..."
I believe this comment could be applied to many court settlements. After all, a settlement is generally when the two parties make concessions with one another. But let's be fair: This is indicative of the US judicial system, not just the Microsoft trial.
In any case, based on the AP article, the settlement has yet to be sanctioned by the judge, and indeed, she is making certain that the DOJ is thoroughly explaining why they *did* settle.
And let's not forget that AOL is taking legal action against MS. Even if this horrible settlement goes through, MS's battle is far from over. Just a shame it has reached this point...
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
"A monopoly is a well defined term. It means that a company has over 80% of market share."
The problem is that determining the appropriate boundries of a market and calculating the share a particular company has of it are not well defined.
I hear Ireland needs tech workers... The US is clearly screwed and owned by Microsoft.
"The evidence before the court is incontravertible!
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before,
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to deficate! --
Philip Beck: Excuse me, your honor, but we've decided our case is too weak, we're dropping the charges.
What!?!?!?!?
Philip Beck: Yes, now if you'll just bang your gavel...
But .. but .. They're guilty! Any fool can see!
Philip Beck: Oh, my no, we hardly have a case, now please dismiss the court, as the defense has a plans to attend a fundraising party and I really do wish them not to be late.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You should be required to add 'on x86 processors' everytime you say monopoly. It's sad that our government can make such a narrow definition that is so pivotal to the entire case and then have it be ignored after the fact. There should be a more realistic model of the computing industry. But then that would have defeated the whole case from the begining. After all, how do you even compare a 486 running win 3.1 to a solaris workstation or an IBM as400. How many users can an IBM as400 support concurrently? Alot more than windows. What's Microsoft's OS market share if you factor in all the strongArm, motorolla, mips, powerPC, etc chips in the world. I doubt bery bery much that it's anywhere near a monopoly and judging from the adoption rate of Microsoft on handhelds, cell phones and embedded products, I'd bet that the real percentage is getting lower all the time. Let's just keep it real.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m138.htmn cpa.org/iss/ant/1999/pd041299h.htmle ss-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulatio n/monopoly_power.htmi os/rulebreaker/1999/ru lebreaker991109.htm
h tml) which claims the legal definition of a monopoly is a firm holding over 25% of the market, but the page didn't come up and I had to depend on google's cache to read it.
http://www.
http://busin
http://www.fool.com/portfol
None of those seem to support your claim. I couldn't find anywhere that says a company with over 80% of market share is a monopoly. That definition doesn't match up with the definition we were given when I studied economics. I did find an article (http://www.jondot.com/Economics/BBEconomicsdef3.
Further, as pointed out in the ncpa.org article, acts that are detrimental to competitors are not illegal or indicative of a monopoly, only acts which are to the detriment of consumers.
I'm no fan of MS, but a clearer statement of the situation would be very helpful, IMNSHO. I still don't accept that MS is a monopoly. I can't find anywhere that supports the 80% claim, but I can find support for a 25% claim, and a 100% claim.
And, of course, there is that sticky little issue of defining the market. I haven't seen any numbers except for a strict desktop market. But I truly believe an effective argument could be made for including servers and possibly set top devices as the market, which would push MS market share down.
Blah, blah, blah. It's all useless arguing anyway - MS is going to walk out untouched, because the gov't is run by pansy-ass morons and supporters of big business.
RagManX
A troll is someone who lives under a bridge. Perhaps it is because you live under a bridge?
Look over your head.
Ah, Microsoft got their hands on the new speedpass watch! This thing is more powerful than we thought.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
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.
"Without causation, there's nothing to remedy," Warden said. Moving ahead with further litigation to determine a remedy--that is, penalties against Microsoft--would not have gotten the government anything more, he said. "One doesn't get two bites of the apple." [emphasis mine]
Oooooh. That one is a stinker. Two bites at the Apple. Har har. Try three or four. Microsoft is taking bites out of everything in their path. Wedging into the server room and coming to a family room near you!
The pendulum sure is swinging faaaaarrrr to the right these days. Next the gov't will agree to pay MS legal fees as compensation for disturbing their business</joke>. Even though they have still been found guilty, the gov't feels they don't have enough of a case to seek penalties?
I committed criminal acts, in order to secure my well-being. I am guilty. But thou shalt not punish me. Where is the accountability???
I hear you. What really infuriates me is that it's not only the techies who understand that Microsoft is way too powerful of a corporation. I've had discussions with some of the people I do work for, your standard office work folks, who don't really grasp computers other than for what they do day to day, and they hate Windows! They understand that there's no real substitute either, if they want to run their software. Everyone knows there's something foul afoot, yet the DOJ can't do shit about it. It's really irritating. Although, they do keep me employed by me having to fix their shitty products, so that's good I suppose.
It says that the DOJ was explaining. Believe it if you can.
I'm afraid that that argument blows my suspension of disbelief.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's not at all surprising that the DOJ is arguing for the settlement... after all, they developed it (in conjunction with MS). Otherwise, it wouldn't be a settlement.
I know I'm working in vain here (michael and timothy love nothing more than to spin stories), but a more suitable title might have been "DOJ explains decision to settle" or "More MS anti-trust coverage".
IANAL....
Wouldn't a lawyer who grossly undermined their client's case in the beginning of settlement negociations (the Justice Dept. made statements to this effect back in late summer), be likely to be guilty of malpractice? Then possible disbarrment?
Just a dream.
I never said they should use UNIX-machines (though ofcourse they should ;-) ), just that it would be nice if they accepted standard, common formats for your resume other than .doc files.
On the other hand, it would also be nice if the HR-person that hires you for a UNIX-job, knows a little bit about UNIX and UNIX-folks. Then again, I don't know if you're in a situation to be picky about your employer/job.
Jane User: Help us Bill, you're our only hope.
Gates: If you strike me down, I shall only become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Uh-oh. Thanks alot Jane...
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
I'm not sure where you're getting your idea that he's opposed to peaceful protest. He did say something about a mob taking to the streets, but I don't usuall equate the term mob with a peaceful protest.
From what I've seen, the anti-globalization protesters that have been tear gassed by police weren't being very peaceful, or were part of a group that wasn't being peaceful, and wouldn't leave so the immedite area so the police could deal with the non-peaceful protestors.
There are many people who peacefully protest anti-globalization. I fully respect their right to do so. There are also many who have violently protested it, and I don't see that violence as justified.
I keep thinking; this whole case started with the last President, and it seems to be soaking into the ground with the current President. Is this a business friendly cabinet?
----------- Sig what?
No administration (that can actually get elected) is going to gleefully attack them, because they fear the economic effects (yes, I realize that any negative effect would likely be short-lived
Monopolies are bad for the economy, period. It is not just a matter of money going to Microsoft or to someone else; a monopoly causes a misallocation of resources which reduces the total wealth generated in the economy. The details are a bit technical, but this is one of the few matters on which practically all economists are agreed.
MSFT-sponsored zealot now runs the DOJ
nope he's the Fundamentalists representative to DOJ, no time for anyone else
let alone the thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East killed by US air strikes and economic sanctions?
umm where exactly are thousands of civilians in the Middle East being killed by US airstrikes?
People are dying in Iraq and the Iraqi government certainly blames UN sanctions but since there is still plenty of money coming in because of the smuggling going on and the military is getting plenty of money the US is certainly not responsible
--- Ron
It's been the United States of America Inc for a long time. Wouldn't be the first time that policy (foreign and domestic) has been used to advance corporate objectives *cough* Gulf War *cough*.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Did anyone ever read anything besides the headlines on the statue cover-up?s OfJustice/h allsofjustice110.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Hall
Evidently every time the photogrpahers wanted to take an ironic picture regarding a Justice Deaprtment they squirmed on the floor until they could get a funny picture that would tweak the DOJ
--- Ron
Bush Jr's presidency was bought and paid for by the country-club Republicans he so aptly represents.
Is it any surprise that they didn't also buy the loyalty of his chief policy makers, like the DOJ.
What I find so richly ironic about the obvious political biases of the Republican DOJ is the constant nattering the Replublicans have done throughout time regarding the political activism of the Supreme Court.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the law, not do it selectively or caprciously.
How does this exercise in deliberate obtuseness get moderted "insightful"? The parent to your post (which although intemperate is not a "troll" as it has been moderated) asserted that the majority of the "anti-globalization protesters" were peaceful and that only a few individuals ("randoms" in the words of the parent) were violent.
Your response to that was to misrepresent what was said. You are correct that Microsoft's business practices are not the same as as what happened on September 11. By that same token, exercising free speech rights by participating in protests where some people cause property damage and/or fight with the police is not the same as what happened on September 11 either. They are not on even the same continuum. When you implied they were similar, you were the one trolling.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Hmm... you mean there are independent entities, like corporations, that operate outside of the state? Destroy them! Stalin's Russia must be our model in our march towards "freedom."
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
So do you mean to tell me that the High price tag, frequent crashing, bugs and Bloat of Windows make it useable not to mention its "dumbed down" to the point where only a kid could bare to use it. The GIMP is a great image editor and there are hundereds of news/mail programs for it. Cull google if you don't believe me :-) But each to their own :p
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.
The morning session ended with Brad Smith, Microsoft's incoming general counsel, who said that the company was already trying to comply with the terms of the settlement proposal.
I wondered what was going on over at Microsoft with the recent Kerberos protocol documentation release. It seems to me that this could be a clever and subtle move by Microsoft. Imagine what would happen if for some reason the settlement was rejected. Microsoft can now claim that in an effort to be good citizens they attempted to comply with the proposed settlement and released several protocols. In other words they can now claim that the cat is out of the bag and the settlement must be allowed. This claim is specious at best but could be used to extend this process for years. Hmmm....
Give Microsoft 400 Hours of Community Service:
Checking government PC's for illegal software
Replacing "out dated" Apple systems with
Xboxes in University Computer Labs
Setting up MSN accounts for the elderly in
high-rent retirement communities...
What if the government had not dropped the IBM antitrust action in the 80's and broke up IBM into separate pieces? Looking back, were they a true monopoly? Would have it seemed foolish today to have broke them up?
I suspect we look at issues like this with a very short time frame in mind, too short to make proper judgements. Time took care of IBM, time will take care of Microsoft. I acknowledge that real companies and real people have been hurt by their predatory actions but can action now a) change the past b) happen fast enough to matter?
That said, I fully understand why someone would prefer Microsoft OSes to Linux:
I'm not saying that I agree with any of these points. Obviously they don't bother me too much, or else I wouldn't be such a die-hard Linux fan. At the same time, there are many parts of Linux that appeal to me that *don't* appeal to other people (such as being able to be intimately familiar with many parts of how your computer runs). So such benefits are lost.
I know that there are groups of people who are working to address the problems I've listed above. But it probably won't happen fast enough for many if not most people. And even then, apathy and technical inferiority (many people still think their monitor is the "computer" and the case with their motherboard and other internal computer components is the "hard drive") will still prevent many people from switching.
I'm not trying to make excuses. I think this is just the way it is.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
No, it was defined as the IBM-PC x86 compatible personal computer market. Which is a bit narrow, don't you think? For a start, it removes Apple
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Linux is very different but its advantages are clear (Not crashing all the dam time for a start)
hey, get with the ticket. it's "at least linux dosen't have all these security issues". the one about crashing all the time is obviously a throwback to the pre-NT 4.0 days. i haven't heard anyone say that on slashdot for almost a year.
but, glad to see that parent was worth a +1 to somebody.
slashdot sucks.
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
One BIG difference between AT&T and Microsoft that you left out. AT&T was GRANTED monopoly status by the government. That means that if anyone had tried to compete with AT&T before they, shall we say, fell out of favor with their master, that the government would have restrained them from competing by force. See the difference?
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
Gotta love Ashcroft. Gotta believe things are getting better, getting better all the time!!!
Well, if you consider all the money flowing from Redmond to DC, it might be said that Microsoft is attempting to buy such status, unofficial or not.
Besides, I was only attempting to illustrate how a monopoly can be non-absolute.
It was even more narrow than that. It was IBM-PC x86 compatible computers which run Windows.
Linux and other operating systems were discounted in Jackson's findings of fact and regarded as being part of a separate market.
Or are you just someone who likes to talk?
Seriously, it will be interesting to see what happens in the rest of the world. I doubt MS has contributed to the campaigns in other countries on the scale it has in the US. - but they have tried hard in the UK by all accounts.
See, when you're replying to a post that mentions the "popular vote", and you happen to also mention the "popular vote", it doesn't actually make you a "tardball" to have said those words. So you really should be replying to about one post up.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
> None of this is that surprising.
. sh tml
Actually, there is a weird twist or two here.
I did a little googling on Philip Beck, the attorney who is in charge of the DOJ team, expecting to find a colorless hack who rode his connections to his current position (like another person in the current administration), only to find he has some positive creds -- at least at first glance. See
http://www.nlj.com/staging/special/1224loy-beck
and
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/168507.html
Frankly, I don't what to make of these two bits of information. Did someone talk Beck into taking a dive over this case, is he someone different from these two stories, or is he correct about the case?
I still believe though, if this were a just universe, Bill Gates would be sentenced to live his life inside a bubble where all the life support functions ran on an NT box.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I guess you don't pay for a subscription either? At least based on the fact that you seem to be waving those MS pom pom's pretty loudly. MS is a monopoly. That is not illegal. What is illegal is how they ACHEIVED it. If you kept up with your beloved gods you would know this...
You keep going until you die..."Me".
I just read in the paper this morning that Prez W. just signed something so that now, approval for mergers between media, software, telecom and entertainment companies are under the jurisdiction of the USDOJ antitrust group, not the FTC. This is the same USDOJ that's currently arguing in favor of Microsoft. Somebody's getting paid off, big time.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
And MS is getting what *it* paid good money for.
The DOJ wants the monopoly on the yellow properties, so they allow Microsoft to keep their monopoly on Boardwalk and Park Place in exchange for getting Marvin Gardens.
OK, that was reaaaaaaly bad. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'm a Canadian. The fate of this case directly affects me. Why is my only option to just sit and watch?
They have only one product* that is worth buying, and that is the OS, which costs $199 a pop. All of their other products are bundled in to the operating system as "free" add-ons. (At least until they gain enough market share for that add-on to sell it as a seperate product. Ever wonder why "WinWord" and "Outlook Express" are bundled with the OS... It's not out of the goodness of M$'s heart. It's a stepping stone to M$ Office.) Sure, these add-ons are useful and great, but try to get them to work on any other operating system.
These add-ons are sold with the operating system (and therefore their development cost is subsidised by the $199 cost of the OS), but they are not (er, do not need to be) part of the OS. There is also no _technical_ reason why they shouldn't work on any other OS. (It just needs to be linked against the right libraries...) Now you might think that these add-ons should be free (and I agree), but they do take money to develop, and thus it would take money to develop a competing product**. Netscape started selling for nearly $50 a copy, but then Internet Explorer came along, and it was "free" (as long as you paid $199 for Windows). This isn't freedom of choice, and it doesn't foster innovation and creativity.
You might say that the $199 that I paid for my OS is a great lifetime subscription to hundreds of useful little tools that work great*** on my computer, with new ones coming every year. I would almost agree, except that M$ comes out with another OS every two years, and charges another $99 for an upgrade.
If these "add-on" utilities**** really are "free" and not "part" of the "OS", then I sould be able to run them on any OS I choose. (And I should be able to reverse-engineer them, or write other clients that speak the same protocol, or write other servers that speak the same protocol... Don't get me started about M$'s back-stabbing tactics when it comes to protocol standards...)
I could use Linux for about 97% of what I do, but the other 3%... It takes too much effort to reboot back and forth, and vmware is too expensive.
* I maintain that all other M$ products leverage off of the M$ brand name in order to get a following. None of them would survive a year if the OS got out of the way.
** Open Source not included.
*** Except for BSOD.
**** Some of you have referred to these add-ons as "middleware", but see this page for a definition of middleware.
Things like this make me ashamed to be an American...
Why not ? I submit all my resumes in HTML format, and I've never had a problem with it. Word is quite capable of reading HTML.