Microsoft Case Enters Crucial Penalty Phase

An Anonymous Coward points out an article from Joseph Menn's in the Los Angeles Times which begins: "Microsoft -- Nine states waging a landmark antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp. are preparing to venture into territory that has been barely visible during the past years of legal slogging: the future." This delves slightly into ways in which the states in legal conflict with Microsoft would like to see Microsoft constrained legally going forward.

Comments

Landmark case for IT industry

[chrisvdp74656]

This case will be a very important case for the IT industry. If Microsoft gets away with a slap on the wrist, they will continue their monopoly, Linux, BSD and other OSes that refuse to implement DRM in the kernel will be outlawed (in the US, at least) and other double-plus-ungood things. If, however, Microsoft are severely penalised, the IT industry is very likely to decline, as there is at the moment a large dependency on Microsoft in the IT industry. And there is no point denying it.

I am not trying to spread FUD, and I would like to see 1 Microsoft Way at the center of a small nuclear explosion, but we must acknowledge the severe repercussions this may have on the IT industry.

Re:Landmark case for IT industry

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If, however, Microsoft are severely penalised, the IT industry is very likely to decline, as there is at the moment a large dependency on Microsoft in the IT industry. And there is no point denying it.

The IT industry is dependent on people's needs for IT. If you need to move information around efficiently, you need IT to do it, and these days every business, from banking to agriculture, needs to do just that. (The dot-bomb showed us that just moving information around isn't enough to have a successful business, but I think hardly anyone would argue seriously against the proposition that it is a prerequisite for success.) Whether you do that information-moving with Microsoft products or with some other kind of software has no real effect on the demand for movement of information.

Therefore, any penalties imposed on Microsoft will not harm the IT industry as a whole. If the demand for MCSE's and other Microsoft-dependent drones declines, it will be matched by a rising demand for people who know other OS's and applications. In the short run, I see no reason to weep over Microsoft lackeys getting fewer jobs while people with broader-based computer science education and experience get more jobs (which would be a welcome reversal of current trends.) In the long run, of course, Microsoft being nuked would increase innovation and quality in IT as a whole, and so be good for everybody. In short, whether you know it or not, all you're doing is repeating M$ FUD when you claim that a severe penalty in this case would have any major negative effect whatsoever.

Maybe I'm being too oversensitive....

[ThomasMis]

The article states that the anti-trust case is currently in its "punishment" phase. And I know I'm arguing semantics here, but we shouldn't be seeking retribution for past behavior, rather, the focus of the states should be on how to restore competition in tomorrow's PC software market.

Never ending cycle

[Eric Damron]

What good is punishing Microsoft it they keep even some of their ill-gotton gains? If I steal $25,000.00 and get a $10,000.00 fine but get to keep my stolen booty is that a deterant?

Microsoft is now using the gains it made illegally to expand into internet services and other areas. There will be new violations. There will be new victims. There will be new lawsuits.

As long as the Justice Department is getting it's giant Federal dick lubed by Microsoft the cycle will continue.

Re:Never ending cycle

[Bodrius]

If you steal 25K, and you are proven to have stolen 25K, the government will take the 25K back. But they will not take away your house, your car, your children's college funds or your 401K.

Microsoft may have been declared to be an anticompetitive monopoly by the government, but it is not clear, in monetary terms, how much they owe to being a monopoly and how much to being just a successful software company.

You have to remember, Microsoft wasn't always a monopoly, and I don't think the case was clear on when exactly did it become one.

So, from all those billion dollars they have made since that old version of BASIC, how much would you say is directly linked to the crime? It's probably impossible to prove, and trying to figure it out would probably cost about as much in time, lawyers and accountants. That's why the federal government doesn't get into that mess and lets the respective parties deal with it in civil lawsuits, since civil lawsuits are more liberal with the definition of "facts".

Re:Never ending cycle

[Eric Damron]

I don't think I'm the one missing the point here.

"Internet services" do exist already. Microsoft may want to create new services but they are also using their monopoly power to gain market shares in existing areas. Let's take an example. Look at the instant messaging area. XP bundles Microsoft's instant messenger into it's load. I don't believe that they bundle ICQ or AOL's instant messenger.

Did you know that if you buy a computer with XP that a message box prompting you to sign up for Microsoft's Passport service will appear? If you ignore it, it will go away but come back again and again. And if you keep ignoring it that XP will eventually disable the MSN explorer and instant messenger?

Look at the article that just appeared on slashdot that talks about the XP license which prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation.

You bet they use their monopoly power to extend in other areas. The fact that they may create a new service does not mean that the use of their monopoly power to kill competition isn't illegal.

Re:Never ending cycle

[Stonehand]

If you're convicted of a major theft, you will not only need to repay, if possible, but also be fined and likely jailed; your employer will probably fire you; your spouse may divorce you, and a judge would probably agree there's just cause -- and transfer custody of the children as well; you may forfeit voting rights; you will be marked a convict for the rest of your life, and will find it difficult to rebuild it once you leave prison.

Compared to that, slapping a few conduct restrictions on MSFT doesn't seem too harsh.

Re:Just let them kill themselves...

[yintercept]

Old monopolies never die. Look at the automotive and gas industries. Standard Oil is slowly putting itself back together.

Now that we are out of that rapid growth phase of computers and internet, we could well see the reforming of old monopolies, as all the little companies, one by one, fall to the wayside. IBM is a good conservative company with long term growth stategies and connections. I would not be surprised to discover that IBM has increased its market share quite dramatically during the last two years of the tech sector crash.

You think IBM is minor?

[Numen]

You think IBM is minor? You have to be kidding... IBM makes MS look small time.

People have a strange impression as to how big MS actually is. Yes they're big but they've no harware to speak of, and they dont punt to the really high end solution well were the likes of IBM and Sun do.

IBM produces a huge amount of patents annualy, across a wide range of product... MS aint even in the same ballpark.

Re:A little help please

[glitch!]

Either it delves into it or not. Delve - to make a careful or detailed search of something. So this makes a careful search, slightly??

I think the meaning might be "the delving (of other issues) touches ways in which the states..."

the states in legal conflict with Microsoft would like to see Microsoft constrained legally going forward.

Yes, this is a mess. Here is how I parse it:

(...the states (in legal conflict with Microsoft) would like to see [the issue of] (Microsoft constrained legally) going forward).

In other words, "the states would like to see the issue (Microsoft constrainment) move forward."

I agree with you that the poster (Timothy?) could have been a bit more obvious in his grammatical constructions.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A Whole Bunch Of Problems

[mgrochmal]

If you believe everything that all of the sides are saying, this is what a verdict with about Microsoft might do:

Guilty - Microsoft applications get segmented, they can't/won't provide new services, they fold, the computer industry implodes, economy collapses.

Innocent - Microsoft keeps up its anti-competitive practices, other corporations shrivel up, software becomes bloated on its own faulty coding without competition, and Microsoft controls everything.

If you believe everything, no one's a winner. Sure, it's a hyperbole. Try explaining this trial to someone who think no Windows means no computers. (Sadly, I've seen my fair share of those people.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

However it turns out it will be some good in it!

[justsomebody]

There may be something positive in that. Maybe they'll succed to go trough this time.

It really doesn't matter what outcome there will be. Long ago, when trial started, most of the people wouldn't even think there could be such thing as Microsoft monopoly.

And now, well, at least people are informed (or some of them at least). Most of them probably don't realize how global this thing is. It is global, I'm not US citizen, but I feel a lot of pressure. They have grown too large and too agresive.

I guess I'm taking the side of oposition, was pretty neutral, but current events have showed that Micorsoft can't play fair game. Somehow I even understand them, competition is getting stronger every day. But to be realistic, this competition isn't competition out of nothing. Microsoft has done great deal to gain former partners as competitors. And with new version of Windows they will be gaining even more of them (at least most of database makers, because of integrating their SQL client into their system). They are just to pushy to compete with all the market. Once they conquered Software (for which now they're loosing the battle, slowly but surely) they'll try to conquer Hardware (Xbox and probably their PCs)

It looks like next year when they'll complete all of computer market, they'll probably try to compete with car companys, and Henry Ford will be suing them for illegal competition.

My final judgement is firmly oposition. It has come to that moment, when I decided to move my bussines on Linux. I must admit, two or three things are a bit lacking (in bussines view of special software, but nothing what will wouldn't overcome) but the will for privacy is just too strong.

Re:About time

[Brian Kendig]

If there's any question left in anyone's mind about whether or not Microsoft is guilty, and how far any ruling against them needs to go...

Look at the Slashdot story preceding this one, 'The Sad Parable of OS/2'. Specifically, read the article in Linux And Main it links to.

Scroll down to the section titled 'Courtly Hatred and Windows in Mud Huts,' and start reading.

If Microsoft got away with a slap on the wrist last time, it can get away with a slap on the wrist again. It's going to take someone with a lot of backbone to make sure this doesn't happen.

Re:About time

[mpe]

We should just throw criminals in jail and skip all this shitty expensive "trial" business.

People accused of a crime might well be held in a jail until their trial. The process is called "being remanded in custody". Alternativly they may be subject to want they can do, have to report to some official or other at certain times, surrender documents such as passports or give over some kind of deposit. Some or all of these processes are refered to as "bail". At this time the accused is considered by the law to not be guilty.
The idea of a speedy trial is to ensure that innocent people are subjected to any of these for as short a time as possible.
If someone is found guilty they can be held in a jail whilst the judge considers the most appropriate sentence.

Re:About time

[mpe]

Still, the previous poster seems to forget that Microsoft has already been convicted and sentenced and this is the appeals stage of their case.

Problem is that even though they have been found guilty no sentence has actually been carried out. They are appealing what amounts to a suspended sentence.