Slashdot Mirror


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.

134 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. More? by Daveman692 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I remember correctly more than just the nine states are gonna go after Micro$oft. A lot of others didn't like the decision that it was over so they were pressing to. How will this effect it or am I just totally off my rocker and need a good slap from Cowboy Neal?

    1. Re:More? by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      There were 25 additional states that came in on the side of the Nine, in opposition to the MS contention that the Nine could not go forward on their own.

      They don't necessarily support the fact that the Nine are going forward on their own, but they do support that the Nine should be able to do so.

      That really boils down to a State's Rights issue.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    2. Re:More? by BlameFate · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else get big LotR flashbacks when they see the phrase "The Nine" used in this context?

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

  2. About time by PhoenxHwk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, it's about high time that we're getting around to the penalty. It has always bothered me how much money the government needs to spend to enforce simple laws like the Sherman Antitrust act. *sigh* Perhaps we would have just been better off if the government had just subsidized the ridiculous price of Windows and Office.

    And it's not like this is the end either. MS will appeal every last thing they can think of.

    1. Re:About time by Arandir · · Score: 2

      It has always bothered me how much money the government needs to spend to enforce simple laws like the Sherman Antitrust act.

      Anti-trust is simple?!?!?!

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:About time by tshak · · Score: 2

      This is typical /. "This is so obviously simple why is it taking so long?" crap. The issues at hand are extremely complex and deserve the amount of energy invested. It is extremely arrogant to trivialize this entire process.

      MS will appeal every last thing they can think of.

      Just like we will until the DMCA is hopefully rewritten or overturned.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    3. Re:About time by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:About time by csbruce · · Score: 2

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

      No, they should throw criminals in jail after they have been convicted and while they are exercising their endless appeals. Oh wait, they do that... unless you're Microsoft.

    5. Re:About time by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      We already have that, they're called military tribunals.

    6. Re:About time by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is a civil matter so any comparisons to criminals are inappropriate.

    7. Re:About time by csbruce · · Score: 1

      Of course, this is a civil matter so any comparisons to criminals are inappropriate.

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

    8. Re:About time by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you know, fuck due process!

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


      Two points:

      1) "Innocent until proven guilty" was a concept invented because the other way can very much ruin a humans life. Corporations do not have a life to ruin.
      That sounds trollish until you realize that we do throw people into jail before and while they have their trials. Maybe we should stop treating corporations like humans and start treating humans like humans.

      2) M$ has been found guilty. Everything going down now is just haggling over the penalty. The minimum I'd expect from a working legal system is that a convicted criminal is stopped from continuing whatever his crime was.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:About time by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2
      Yeah, you know, fuck due process!

      That's exactly what MS have been doing for several years now. They have been found guilty of a variety of breaches of the law, and they are continuing to abuse the system daily, apparently untouchable by the US legal system.

      Sure, you should have a chance to make your case. Sure, it's reasonable to allow for a right of appeal. But there has to be a limit. Your due process caring for Microsoft is currently doing irreparable damage to companies like AOL-TW and Sun, who have been found guilty of nothing more than competing with Microsoft and wanting a level playing field. Where's their due process?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:About time by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:About time by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:About time by csbruce · · Score: 1

      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.

      But they're not suffering enough! They should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains (read: ~$30-billion fine), in addition to the rest of their sentence.

    13. Re:About time by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

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

      Really? What part of my post implies that?

    14. Re:About time by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Of course, this is a civil matter

      I'm not sure whether that's correct, but please note in civil trials the accused is effectively guilty until proven innocent.

    15. Re:About time by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Your use of the word "effectively" suggests that "guilty until proven innocent" is not the real legal standard in a civil case.

      If it is, those of us who rent should be suing our landlords to get our deposits back.

    16. Re:About time by maxpublic · · Score: 2

      Corporations aren't people and don't have the right to due process.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    17. Re:About time by maxpublic · · Score: 2

      What bullshit. Brush up on the law, junior; anti-trust activity is a *criminal*, not civil, act, therefore prosecutable by the government. Civil matters are torts between citizens; the government doesn't get involved at all in either prosecution or defense.

      Microsoft was accused and convicted of *criminal* activity. Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    18. Re:About time by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      This case is, in fact, a civil one. The fact that the government is the plaintiff does not make it a criminal matter necessarily. If it were a criminal case, there could not be a settlement.

  3. hmm by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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."

    So this is kind of like Terminator, except the other way round ?

    They split up Microsoft- but it reformed!

    Bill Gates: "I'll be back"

    graspee

  4. I've got four words for you... by bmw · · Score: 3, Funny

    I LOVE THIS COMPANY! YEAH!

    1. Re:I've got four words for you... by PolyDwarf · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's five words.
      The proper four words are:

      "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers"

    2. Re:I've got four words for you... by bmw · · Score: 1

      That's five words.

      Are you telling me that Steve Ballmer can't count?! Preposterous.

  5. I liked the cartoon outcome... by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:I liked the cartoon outcome... by Mwongozi · · Score: 2

      Surely the two halves should be called MICROS~1 and MICROS~2 ?

  6. oh, I can just see the courtroom now... by CheechBG · · Score: 1

    I can visualize the cross-examination in my head:

    Sullivan: DID YOU, OR DID YOU NOT BULLY NETSCAPE INTO BROWSER SUBMISSION?
    Gates: I don't recall.
    Sullivan: Unless you wish to purchase a license agreement, you can't use that copyrighted phrase. You can have a lifetime, single user license for 3 million. Mr. North is very pleased with his.

  7. Re:Fuck it by Razor+Sex · · Score: 1

    If the misspelling of "Los" upsets you so much that you have to reconsider visiting Slashdot, you might reconsider some other things too, such as your life.

  8. MS of course by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we should, for the duration of the penalty phase, prevent MS from developing any more software, and since technology moves so fast, this would put them at a considerable disadvantage, and also force a settlements soon

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  9. Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by bmw · · Score: 1

    Gates is on Microsoft's witness list, as is Ballmer. The states expect to see Gates alone, and his testimony could be pivotal.

    Gates' evasive, videotaped deposition in the last trial was a disaster. If he testifies this time, he will face Sullivan's withering interrogation.

    "Brendan Sullivan is an absolute marvel. The issue is whether he will be able to crack Gates and show some of the less-believable aspects," Lande said.


    Anyone know if this will be available to the public? What I wouldn't give to see Gates or Ballmer crack while on the stand.

    1. Re:Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by ralian · · Score: 1
      Anyone know if this will be available to the public? What I wouldn't give to see Gates or Ballmer crack while on the stand.

      Hear, hear. Unfortunately, neither you nor I probably will, because a) Microsoft will claim that 'vital trade secrets' are being discussed and b) Microsoft will declare nuclear war on the world before letting an uncensored movie of Gates/Ballmer cracking loose.

      Darn shame.

      --

      -raph

    2. Re:Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by netsharc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bill Gates: You want answers?
      Brendan Sullivan: I think I'm entitled.
      Bill Gates: You want answers?
      Brendan Sullivan: I want the truth!
      Bill Gates: You can't handle the truth!

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    3. Re:Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by lanalyst · · Score: 1

      It's in federal court - IIRC, no teevee camaras permitted.

    4. Re:Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by Bodrius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whatever you say, but please, please, please don't use the sentence "uncensored movie of Gates/Ballmer cracking loose" ever again.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    5. Re:Sweet Jesus... It's HIM... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      What I wouldn't give to see Gates or Ballmer crack while on the stand.

      Of course, if Ballmer cracks, he might just do the Monkey Dance on the stand. Now, I'd pay real money to see that!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  10. Landmark case for IT industry by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Landmark case for IT industry by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Landmark case for IT industry by smoondog · · Score: 2

      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.

      This is incorrect. What you should say is that the tech sector of the stock market might decline in the short term. The industry itself would most certainly not decline, especially since so many companies are looking for ways to make money. Kill the king and the peasants will plunder the riches.

      -Sean

    3. Re:Landmark case for IT industry by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 1

      My very severe bad. I was in grave error. I retract my statements and stand in a corner.

      I also apologise to everyone for the misinformation.

      Chris

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Landmark case for IT industry by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 1

      Quoting scary books? Which one? I didn't quote any scary books!

      Chris

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Landmark case for IT industry by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Holy cow, you actually belive that?

      The absolute best thing to happen to Is and IT in general would to have microsoft and all it's products deemed illegal and must be destroyed by government order. You would have a giant uprising of companies writing software and systems that would create an instant economic recovery for the country and the world in general to levels that will make the late 1990's look like it was a joke. Plus create huge amounts of innovation and some really earth rattling changes.

      If Microsoft were destroyed by a giant firey metorite It would be one of the best things to happen ot the IT and IS industry cince the invention of the microprocessor.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. The future? by secondsun · · Score: 3, Funny

    I didn't know that MS headquarters had a flux capacator, much less the ability to travel the necessary 88 mph. Go them.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
  12. Do that. by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
    "We're trying to protect nascent technologies--the next Netscape--whatever that might look like," said California Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Tom Greene

    Do that. But please, God, don't destroy them by fining, like, a jillion dollars.

    You'll just make the products crappier. And a lot of great people will lose their jobs.

    --

    -----

    Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  13. MS partnering with former employees... by 3seas · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Amiga inc, has hired several former Microsoft Employees and now they are in a partnership with MS to provide content for MS products like CE.

    Many in the classic Amiga community do not like this and also don't like Amiga taking claim of ownwership of the community, in claims that the community is 110% supportive of what they are doing.

    A couple of Amiga news boards have dropped all news directly tied to Amiga inc. in a boycott.

    If you really want to do something about MS then let people know that you do not support MS and that there are alternatives.

    Simply Put: Boycott MS in any and all ways you can.

  14. Judge Jackson had the best plan by cyber_rigger · · Score: 1

    I hate to see the government get into software design. The spliting of Microsoft into 2 parts (OS and everything else) seemed to be a fairer plan to all and easier to maintain than what we will probably end up with. By the time the government remedies take effect it will be too late to address the original problem anyway. Private lawsuits will have to take up that slack.

    1. Re:Judge Jackson had the best plan by michael_cain · · Score: 2

      It has always been my opinion that Jackson decided on splitting MS in two because it kept the government (DOJ and court) out of software design on an ongoing basis, except for enforcing a seperation between the underlying OS and everything else. Note that the appeals court's complaints about the split were not about whether it was an inappropriate remedy, only that Jackson had not laid an adequate groundwork to justify it.

      By the time the new judge makes her decision, which may in fact split MS, such a split may no longer be an effective remedy. MS appears to be moving towards having their major apps run on their middleware (C# and its runtime) rather than directly on the OS. Do we get a replay of this trial at some point in the future with the claims that MS has a middleware monopoly, secret APIs so their apps run better, arbitrarily moving code back and forth between apps and the middleware, etc?

  15. Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by ThomasMis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Check out my podcast: DreamStation.cc Video Game Show
    1. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by Wolfier · · Score: 2

      Good thing.

      Murderers should not be executed because it is a retribution. Bank robbers should not be taking away their robbed money because it is a retribution.

      Rather, the focus of the states should be on how to keep peace among people and make everyone rich in order to prevent future murders and robberies.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by ThomasMis · · Score: 1

      No... we're aren't talking felony crime. That's an entirely different arena. Here we're talking anti-trust law. Therefore the focus should always be on the future of the marketplace. You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

      --
      Check out my podcast: DreamStation.cc Video Game Show
    3. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by Wolfier · · Score: 2

      What is the difference between earning your money by practicing illegal antitrust behaviors from...well, murder is too extreme - how about - stealing?

      I see no difference between the $$$ MS earned illegally than $$$ obtained through back robbery - both involving an unfair transfer from some victims to some criminals.

      I agree that your dictionary definitions are correct. But I believe that unjust behaviors of similar kind should be treated in similar ways.

      In this case, I advocate a fine of the $$ they earned illegally. (Not that I mean it is easy to calculate, tho)

    4. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by mpe · · Score: 2

      I see no difference between the $$$ MS earned illegally than $$$ obtained through back robbery - both involving an unfair transfer from some victims to some criminals.

      Microsoft probbaly have more in common with gangsters and terrorists than they do bank robbers when it comes to the way they do business.

    5. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Punishment == deterrence == protection against future crimes.

      If Microsoft stockholders lose 75% of their equity, they are going to police Microsoft management in the future, to assure they don't lose the other 25%.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:Maybe I'm being too oversensitive.... by Fjord · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. Excution of murderers can be thought as a preventative measure to ensure they don't kill again and as a deterrent to others. Families of victims feel closure at an execution, but not necessarily retribution. The victim feels nothing at all (presumably). Obviously murder isn't analagous anyway, since you can't bring back the person in question (whereas it is possible to bring back competition).

      Taking away stolen money from a robber isn't retribution. Is it really punishment if you take back the $100 I jacked from you? But getting your $100 back is like getting the ability to compete back.

      --
      -no broken link
  16. Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    1. Re:Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

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

      >Thats really intelligent.

      That statement was born out of my frustration with the entire situation.

      Re:Never ending cycle (Score:2)
      by danheskett on Sunday March 17, @08:29PM (#3178680)
      (User #178529 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      As long as the Justice Department is getting it's giant Federal dick lubed by Microsoft the cycle will continue.

      Thats really intelligent.

      First, MS will forfeit much of their "ill-gotten" gains in civil court - its nearly assured.

      Second, for the Government to effectively recover a lot of that money they need to prove causation and tangible harm to consumers. This issue is largely overlooked. Proving that by any reasonable mesure is nearly impossible.

      >Finally, MS can expand where ever it wants. They have no monopoly to leverage in Internet Services. Therefore, there can be no new violations.

      They have a monopoly in the PC OS area that they can illegally leverage to expand into the internet services area. That's the whole point.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    2. Re:Never ending cycle by Bodrius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    3. Re:Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    4. Re:Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      I think this conversation is pointless. You are in denial. MS isn't in the OS business???? The last time I checked 98% of PCs in the entire world were running Microsoft OS.

      Bundling software with their OS doesn't kill competition!? What's the point....

      Next time you see Alice tell her to come up out of the rabbit hole, will ya?

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    5. Re:Never ending cycle by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    6. Re:Never ending cycle by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Finally, MS can expand where ever it wants. They have no monopoly to leverage in Internet Services. Therefore, there can be no new violations.

      Get your facts straight. They have a monopoly in OS's, that they will use to wedge themselves into the internet services industry. This is CLEARLY illegal. And any company that goes under due to this, is a victim, by definition... they were harmed by a criminal act.

      I could also argue that M$ isn't likely to lose more than chump change to civil lawsuits. It would require a judgement in excess of $10 billion, to even faze them. That simply isn't going to happen.

      And as for the parent post... it was vulgar, but much more accurate than your own.

    7. Re:Never ending cycle by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "What MS wants to do with .NET, etc doesnt exisit. They are making it exisit. "

      Whoa there nelly. I know you are a MS troll and all but take a step back please. You are actually saying it was impossible to run bits of code on different machines before .NET arrived? .NET is a rip off of java and java existed before .NET.

      OK I know MS likes to stick the .NET lable on anything it wants to. There will be .NET shoes and .NET ham sandwiches and what not but at it's core it's just another RPC mechanism.

      Unless of course you mean .NET the acronym/hype of the day. That I grant you they are making exist.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    8. Re:Never ending cycle by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Bundling in this case is the same as dumping. The fact is that MS practices illegal dumping of software. They give away products (actually they hide the cost in the OS) that other people are charging for. That's what killed Netscape.

      Dumping is illegal for everybody else except MS that's because MS owns the govt. Who would have thought our grand experiment in democracy would have ended up being dismantled so easily. Fuck Osama, Bill gates is the biggest enemy of democracy.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    9. Re:Never ending cycle by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Why not just develop applications for windows then? I mean if Windows is unfair in the OS department you can still win in other applications. The trick is you have to write something that the end user will like more.

      See the business world is about what the customer wants, not what you want. Compare MSVC to the GCC standard suite [such as DJGPP or Cygwin].

      GCC is a really cool compiler, but is has no IDE which is a big requirement for students just getting into programming. In the end there is little choice. Use GCC and make learning "for loops" harder than it has to be, or use MSVC [or perhaps LCC-Win32].

      This "unfairness" is just a way to be a big sore luser. If you can't write software that competes then shut them down other ways.

      Personally I hope that MSFT just gets a fine and moves on its way and that others realize that they really have to code more user friendly applications so that in the future we really do have a choice in the Desktop x86 OS wars.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    10. Re:Never ending cycle by mpe · · Score: 2

      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.

      What if it could be proven that you used the stolen money in some way to gain these other assets? Typically you would face a putitive fine as well as having to return what you stole. If this house, car, etc was actually paid for using any kind of credit the credit issuers might have something to say about things too.

      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?

      If the accused was a mobster, drug dealer or terrorist the government probably wouldn't ask the question... Some of Microsoft's business tactics arn't that different from these entities.

    11. Re:Never ending cycle by nagora · · Score: 1
      Look, you and I have fundamental disagreements about what an OS is.

      What's your definition?

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    12. Re:Never ending cycle by gfxguy · · Score: 1
      That's ridiculous.
      Why not just develop applications for windows then? I mean if Windows is unfair in the OS department you can still win in other applications. The trick is you have to write something that the end user will like more.
      Have you simply not been paying attention, or are you just trolling? There are two parts to this: bundling and proprietary formats. Bundling means that users aren't given a choice about what's initially installed on their machines, which means that even if they decide to use something else, they've already paid Microsoft for the "privelage". And proprietary formats mean that applications like Star/Open Office still can't read all MS Word documents. Since they already have a monopoly, and their programs are written to coerce users into saving/sharing in proprietary formats, they extend their monopoly in other ways.
      Compare MSVC to the GCC standard suite [such as DJGPP or Cygwin].
      Let's not. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about Visual C - because it doesn't come bundled with the system to the detriment of other compilers. It's a bad analogy. Let's compare browsers, or word processors or office suites. The bottom line is that for the VAST majority of people, MS Office does no more than a package like Star Office does, or Lotus Suite (or whatever it's called). The fact is that people use MS Office 1) because it comes bundled with machines, and 2) because other people use it (mostly because it comes bundled with machines) and they need it in order to be compatible.

      Yes, it's ridiculous because even the MS software let's you save in neuteral formats, but it does it's best to make it easier to save in proprietary formats.

      Lotus Suite - very easy to use and very full featured. Star Office - very easy to use and very full featured (and free, for the current version).

      Why don't people use them? Because their computer came with Office. Because they use Office at work and the other software won't read the proprietary formats because MS doesn't want them to. Because their neighbor or friend got it bundled with their computer so they pirate it.

      Because MS makes it difficult to use other software, not because the other software is difficult to use. I've never seen a company put so much effort into making it hard to use something else.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    13. Re:Never ending cycle by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      First off.

      Bundling software with the OS makes sense. Do you buy a car without seatbelts? Are you now restricted [e.g. there is a monopoly] on seat belts?

      Bundling software with the OS is just a good idea. What *is* a bad idea is forcing people to use it. Sure Explorer is installed, but if I am yuppy enough I can use Mozilla [works with all Windows, I tried XP last night and it worked well].

      There exists a choice, just 99% of the users don't want to use yuppy software.

      Lets compare email clients. Outlook to Mozilla Mail. Outlook sports filters [alot more than mozilla] for *BOTH* usenet and email. Mozilla has limited filtering for mail and barely anything for usenet.

      Lets compare word processors. Well lets not. I run WinXP and I don't use Office at all. In fact it didn't come with my XP disk. I use open office [build 641] for my word processing.

      Its high time you guys get off the soap box and realize whats what. A monopoly exists only when there is no choice, not when its not taken. Just because the plethora of users of windows choose to use explorer [which comes bundled] doesn't mean they are not free to use *ANY* other win32 browser [opera, mozilla, netscape, ...].

      Besides, if linux didn't suck so much it would have more users and this would all push over. But, oh, wait, Linux does suck and its not going to win any favour points.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    14. Re:Never ending cycle by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Still ridiculous...

      Sure, cars come with seatbelts - there were no seatbelt manufacturers to put out of business and the law made them a necessary addition, so your analogy is just plain stupid.

      What the hell is "yuppy" software? Bundling software is a good choice for many people. In your view, we simply don't have to use it - what the hell good is that if I've already PAID for it? So it's OK to use vendor B's software as long as I've already paid MS for their version? I'm sure an MS schill like you would love that - same thing as the MS tax of the eighties.

      If you want to compare email clients, compare email clients - not browsers with email functionality tacked on. Compare it to other third party email clients, like Eudora PRO.

      And I also never claimed that ALL microsoft software came bundled with computers. Usually, for the OS, you have no choice. Often retailers "throw in" some other software - usually it's Word or Office.

      But your last line troll points to the obvious and I shouldn't even bother wasting my time with a troll like you...

      Cheers.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:Never ending cycle by Fjord · · Score: 1

      But you and I probably don't have fundamental differences of what an internet service provider is. This is a separate point, but still a valid example: Microsoft bundles software in it's operating system that gives free advertising to its ISP.

      The monopoly laws are pretty clear: you can have a monopoly, but you can't use it to gain advantage in other markets. MSN advertising bundled with a monopoly OS is an anticompetitive practice.

      --
      -no broken link
    16. Re:Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      "A monopoly exists only when there is no choice, not when its not taken."

      Blatantly false. A monopoly occurs when one company has an overwhelming predominance in a market. A monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. But leveraging the power that goes with a monopoly is illegal. The courts have already ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly and has used its monopoly power to kill competition in order that it might maintain that monopoly. So your position makes no sense.

      Bundling software in an operating system that has an overwhelming predominance makes competing products irrelevant so it too can easily fall into category of abusing a monopoly power to extend into other areas.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    17. Re:Never ending cycle by kingbill · · Score: 1

      If this is the case than there is really no incentive not to try to use monopolistic practices. If you were caught for stealing 25K and all that happened was you got the 25K taken away you lost nothing. You might as well try again, because it's risk free and if you pull it off you get the money you stole. It's unclear to me (and I think to everyone) exactly what gains can be attributed to MS's monopolistic practices, and what can be attributed to being a "successful software company", but if it could be determined, they should have those gains removed, and then they should be punished to convince them that crime doesn't pay.

    18. Re:Never ending cycle by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think they do ast the question. They freeze the assets while they find out, though.

      On the credit issue, it's not the government action, or business. If Microsoft is, say, broken up, I'm sure there will be a lot of creditors with something to say to the new two companies with falling stock. But none of these consequences are government enacted.

      Microsoft's business tactics are quite different from those entities. Can we really compare hardball business tactics with murder, terrorism and drug dealing in schools? I think we're losing perspective here.

      Microsoft should face a punitive damage. When you're convicted of grand theft you face a punitive damage (you can go to jail). This punitive damage can vary greatly and be very harsh, nor not. But it is different and independent from taking away whatever you have legitimately acquired.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    19. Re:Never ending cycle by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      Microsoft will probably be fined and "jailed" (receive some restrictions on the liberty of their business). Just like in any court, the severity of those penalties will depend on a lot of things, and can even be quite lenient.

      All the other consequences have nothing to do with the government: getting fired, divorced, losing your kids, segregated, life sucks... all these are because of reactions of society (the market) to your actions.

      Microsoft will probably have to face creditors (although they do have cash), angry stockholders, fleeing customers, doubting partners and investors, etc. They will never be the "safe company" they were before. Maybe it will be bad, maybe it will not. But these will be market reactions, not government punishment.

      Asking for the government to enforce these things is exactly equivalent to asking to government to make sure that every convict's life is destroyed once they're convicted. That is NOT a good idea. The government has a job, don't give it aother one.

      Now, conduct restrictions (privations of liberty) will be in order. Whether they are harsh, or tame, will depend on the court, but I am inclined to think they will be tame at this moment.

      If you don't like what Microsoft did, by all means do what you may to get the appropiate legal punishment for the company. Just don't go around talking about revoking charters and dissolving companies, because it's silly at best, and at worst it has all the charm and intelligence of a lynch-mob.

      A dissolution of Microsoft would harm the stockholders the most, and these are not executives or Gates (who has enough cash anyway), but the retired elderly, middle-class families with college funds for their kids, etc. Not only that, but it would delegitimize the whole antitrust process as much as letting Microsoft go would (will?).

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    20. Re:Never ending cycle by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      So it's OK to use vendor B's software as long as I've already paid MS for their version?

      Nobody said you have to buy MSFT software though. I bought my PC in parts and not one dime of it went to buying a MSFT OS.

      If you really hate MSFT software install a crippled OS like Linux or something. All the power to ya.

      Personally I bought MS Windows for the sole fact that its a complete suite of desktop tools, not just a core OS.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    21. Re:Never ending cycle by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Blatantly false. A monopoly occurs when one company has an overwhelming predominance in a market.

      By this logic both Pepsi and Coke have monopolies on the same market. Both companies can easily crush any competition in turns of advertisements, product placements and endorsements.

      Stop your yuppy whining and actually but your mind towards solving real problems.

      Bundling software in an operating system that has an overwhelming predominance makes competing products irrelevant so it too can easily fall into category of abusing a monopoly power to extend into other areas.

      Not true. MS Windows comes with "wordpad" but I still use Open Office. It comes with "paint" but I still use Gimp, it comes with "calc" but I still use Maple, it comes with ...

      Believe it or not, people buy MSFT OSes for the sole reason that its familar and has the tools [such as iexplore, wmp, etc..] that they *want* to use.

      Basically this anti-trust thing *disallows* me from *choosing* to buy and use MS OSes and their associated software.

      In the end what will happend will be you get MS Windows, then a URL to a website where you can download all the other tools people *want* to use because some lame ass yuppy judge ruled that bundling tools in a package is a bad idea.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    22. Re:Never ending cycle by mpe · · Score: 2

      Microsoft's business tactics are quite different from those entities. Can we really compare hardball business tactics with murder, terrorism and drug dealing in schools? I think we're losing perspective here.

      Actually there isn't a clear dividing line. Remember that you don't have to kill anyone to intimidate them into doing what you want. Often a threat is sufficent, IIRC Microsoft did use threats against OEMs. Also some of Microsoft's methods of setting their product, including to schools, are very good parallels for people selling addictive drugs.

    23. Re:Never ending cycle by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      A threat is not sufficient to be considered a crime, as many a harassed person knows ("Sorry ma'am, we can't do a thing, he has done nothing yet"). It may increase suspicion, but it is not a crime.

      Maybe you can prove it's blackmail, which is more systematic, and actually criminal. But still blackmail is not murder, terrorism, or drug dealing. Really, it's like comparing a drug misdemeanor (personal use of marihuana) with controlling a drug cartel.

      Selling products to schools is VERY FAR from selling adictive drugs. There is no physiological effect, no addiction (unless you derive an unnatural pleasure from using Word), no violation of regulations, no recruitment and training of gangs to deal the product, no violence, no theft to pay for the merchandise... really, what the hell are you talking about? Do you have any idea of the effects that illegal drug dealing have at schools?

      It isn't clear where the dividing line is between skipping lunch today and starving to death in poverty, but it's very clear that somewhere in the middle there is such a line separating them as two different kinds of problems.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    24. Re:Never ending cycle by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has already been found guilty of using it's monopoly power illegally so your position makes no sense. They are a monopoly and that is not illegal. They use their monopoly power to maintain their monopoly position through anti-competitive practices and THAT is illegal.

      The fact that you may choose to use Open office rather than Word pad is irrelevant. Most people choose to use IE an not hassle with downloading and installing other browsers. This is true with most software that gets bundled with Windows. You my friend are the exception to the rule not the rule.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  17. Re:More States enter Microsoft case by Metrollica · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exact links are:

    here here here here

    --



    --Metrollica
  18. Would this really be so bad? by bmw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer has said it's unrealistic to think that Microsoft could come up with multiple Windows versions that work equally well.

    Who says they have to work equally well? Especially considering the wide variety of needs that people have. What works well for one person, doesn't necessarily work well for another. This would just give people a much needed choice in what is installed on their system. If everyone used a stripped down version of their OS that does only the things they absolutely need (and can be added to at a later time if so desired) then the internet as a whole would be much healthier.

  19. Happy St. Paddy's Day Mr. Sullivan by nickynicky9doors · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "Brendan Sullivan is an absolute marvel. The issue is whether he will be able to crack Gates and show some of the less-believable aspects," Lande said

    Wasn't one of the first American bare fists fighting champions named Sullivan? Any way this promises to be a contest of world calibre. Hopefully this will be televized. I'd pay to witness this while I'd never pay to see Tyson/Lewis.

    --

    heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
    1. Re:Happy St. Paddy's Day Mr. Sullivan by Maserati · · Score: 2

      I'll settle for having Gates' testimony be webcast, and watching it from Mozilla !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    2. Re:Happy St. Paddy's Day Mr. Sullivan by nickynicky9doors · · Score: 2

      No /. wennie moderator it's not offtopic. It quotes directly from the content of the topic and then proceeds to link directly to said content. How the fuck can anyone be so stupid as to moderate it offtopic.

      --

      heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
    3. Re:Happy St. Paddy's Day Mr. Sullivan by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see it televised also. The problem is Microsoft has put alot of effort and money to keep this case out of the public eye. This is so they can shuttle in thier paid for senate, cogressional, and white house lacky's to speak in thier favor.

  20. Re:Just let them kill themselves... by crudeboy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't think you really can call IBM a minor player... They're still the worlds largest IT-company with revenue over $85 billion (2001) and over 300 000 employees.

    IBM is however a rather good example that a company can return in full force after a downturn, from being a hardware company they're much more into services now.
    And as for MS, you don't get to be number one only by breaking laws.

  21. Re:Just let them kill themselves... by danro · · Score: 1

    Don't be so sure about Microsofts future demise...
    They may not have the best OS, but they have shown us all time and time again that ruthless business methods and legions of marketroids and lawyers can beat both legislation and superior technology.

    And Microsoft can afford mistakes. They have something along the lines of 36 billion $US stached away for a rainy day...

    Even if they get smacked down hard by Linux, OSX, DoJ and the EU they will be a major player for decades to come.

    I for one would love to see the Empire crumble...
    ...but I'm not holding my breath.
    Neither should you, unfortunately.

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  22. Now, all we need is some popcorn... by danro · · Score: 1

    I so wish they would air the Gates/Ballmer interrogation live.
    That, and some popcorn would really make my day...

    A wee bit more exciting than ordianry "court TV" wouldn't you say. Of course it won't happen, but it is a beautiful thought.

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Now, all we need is some popcorn... by danro · · Score: 1

      Well, he is not Adolf Hitler after all. A public execution might be a little overkill.
      However, I would find an public explanation of certain business practices of his company very... entertaining.

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  23. Re:minimum sentence by hendridm · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you don't really believe that. If so, may I ask what country you are in (and hence which rights you enjoy)?

  24. Re:Just let them kill themselves... by yintercept · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  25. You think IBM is minor? by Numen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You think IBM is minor? by Decimal · · Score: 2

      People have a strange impression as to how big MS actually is. Yes they're big but they've no harware to speak of,

      Except for the XBox. Granted, chances are that every hardware component is produced by another company but the XBox is a Microsoft product.

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  26. Shut the doors by AllieA · · Score: 1

    So if they keep up the attacks on Microsoft, then the evil empire can just do what the Government and the states want: Close up shop, release all businesses from their contracts when they expire, and everybody can go get their own OS, one that is truly stable, user friendly, everyone already has experience with, bundled with the utilities they need, inexpensive, and guaranteed to be more compatible with all of the other computers that everyone has to deal with on a daily basis.

    And then everyone would be happy, right?

    I remember the wonderful days of the past when everyone had a different OS and everything worked on everyone else's computer.

    Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

  27. Hundreds of different versions of software? by nigelthellama · · Score: 1
    I just can't believe this quote: "Microsoft attorneys said that breaking Windows into pieces will just force PC makers to stitch the units back together or force software writers to make hundreds of versions of their programs--moves that will ultimately cost consumers. ".

    Sounds like they're trying to convince us that if they make Windows without IE, that somehow the OS will be so different that we may have to buy different versions of the same software in order for it to work on the IEWindows, and the NonIEWindows. Seriously, what does that say about Windows as an OS?

    Pretty sad. Hope Microsoft gets whipped. Lord knows they need it!

  28. Evil monkeys by Kizzle · · Score: 1

    I think people need to think about microsoft's army of evil monkeys before they start trying to push them around.

  29. OEM Contracts by eap · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone said in the OS/2 story, Microsoft gained its dominance through restrictive OEM licensing. Any penalty must forbid them from using this anticompetitive practice to be worthwhile.

    1. Re:OEM Contracts by SofaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone said in the OS/2 story, Microsoft gained its dominance through restrictive OEM licensing. Any penalty must forbid them from using this anticompetitive practice to be worthwhile.


      Well quite, but technically, the original consent decree already forbade this.

      Bill Gates ackowledged at the time that this 'penalty' would mean precisely nothing, since the policy had already done its work from his point of view.

      The problem is not simply preventing M$ from continuing to do all of the shitty things it's done until now, but to put in place some punitive measures to compensate everyone else for the undeserved monopoly position they gained through cheating.

      --

      SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

  30. What absolutely has to be in the penalty... by zurab · · Score: 1

    is the clause that will prohibit MS to make any "Windows only PC" deals with manufacturers. Look, it's pretty simple:

    1. MS was found to have a monopoly in the desktop operating system market;

    2. MS was found to illegally use that monopoly to stifle competition.

    It has to be a no-brainer to make all agreements that MS has with PC manufacturers void and prohibit them from making any such deals in the future until further review of the court.

    1. Re:What absolutely has to be in the penalty... by Hostile17 · · Score: 2

      is the clause that will prohibit MS to make any "Windows only PC" deals with manufacturers. Look, it's pretty simple:

      Better yet, force Microsoft to sell retail and OEM versions of all its software at the same price and ban them from giving "Friend of Microsoft" discounts and rebates.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    2. Re:What absolutely has to be in the penalty... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      But this was already in the previous consent decree, and MS has followed the letter of the consent decree. Your language simply isn't strong enough.

      MS uses cliff-pricing and other techniques to maintain being the exclusive software provider to OEMs, so while they didn't have to sign contracts stating they would only use MS software, there were severe financial penalties if they didn't.

      When the trial started to go very bad for MS (and it did, and they were found guilty), they started easing up. You see more and more where places are selling other software, like Word Perfect. But, for the most part, vendors being scared (and why not - they have tiny profit margins they can't afford to lose), mostly all you see is MS software bundled with systems. Seems like the biggest option you get is to not get EXTRA software, but you still need the OS.

      There has also been a lot more (especially smaller) vendors who offer a choice of MS or no operating system. This is a step in the right direction - it'd be nice to see more people offering Linux, but why Linux? What about FreeBSD, or OpenBSD, or anything else? It's hard to tell vendors they need to offer an alternative, but offering no OS is a good start.

      Maybe there should be fixed discount pricing ($X for Y copies, $W for Z copies... no matter what company is doing the purchasing), but then smaller dealers are left out in the cold. Still, let's say they did this... What's to keep them from leaning on companies in other ways? Non-written deals... Heard over dinner "well, we can't raise the prices on you, but we might lose your shipment... our tech staff might forget to call you back when you need assistance... you'll also lose the link on our web-page and we might forget to tell anybody about you..."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Enters? As in "is currently entering?" by weston · · Score: 2

    Wait a sec, here. This article almost implies the settlement has already happened. Did Kollar-Kottely accept the PFJ and I missed it?
    Or does the term "penalty phase" mean something I'm not aware of.

    The paranoid part of me worries about articles like this. Implying the game is already over encourages resignation....

  33. Re:A little help please by glitch! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. A Whole Bunch Of Problems by mgrochmal · · Score: 1, Insightful
    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.)

    --
    This .sig Intentionally Left Blank.
    1. Re:A Whole Bunch Of Problems by Rascalson · · Score: 1

      Insightful?? There already is a verdict with regard to the case against MS? as for the rest of your comments, pure drivel.

      --
      prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. However it turns out it will be some good in it! by justsomebody · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  40. the only appropriate penalty... by jnana · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:the only appropriate penalty... by damnbillgates · · Score: 1

      damn. mod parent up. if ever there was a company that deserved to have its charter revoked, it is microsoft.

  41. Just take all the money! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    Take a big fine and then force MS to give every dime of it's retained earnings +10% to its stock holders. Watch how fast they shrivel! They are overextended like some many other large companies. They will then do themselves in by increasing restrictions, becoming more parinoid (like IBM did in the 80's) until noone cares. They will come back, the top brass will be forced out and they will be a good contributor again!

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Confession Time by Snoopy77 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer has said it's unrealistic to think that Microsoft could come up with multiple Windows versions that work equally well.

    For once I agree with Ballmer ... however I'm still not going to stand up, never will I give it up for him and I don't love this company.

    --
    "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
  44. Looking at the subject in passing: by colonelteddy · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn the topic was

    Microsoft case enters CRUEL Penalty Phase

    But we wouldnt be so lucky now, would we??

    --
    c - a blessed +5 grain of salt
  45. If you were on trial... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    I bet your opinion of the justice system would change... REAL QUICK.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  46. Final moments of the trial... by Spoing · · Score: 3, Funny
    Judge: "Mr. Gates, as a spokesman and an influential leader of Microsoft Corporation, do you promise not to use Microsoft's current monopoly in an abusive manner?"

    Gates: "Well..." [Bill, staring at the floor, kicks a tile with the tip of his shoe. He glances at Balmer.]

    Judge: "Billll???" [Peering down to catch youthful William's eye.] "Come one now, you can do it. Steven's already promised."

    Gates: "OK, I -- I promise."

    Judge: "See, that wasn't so bad. Was it?" [Most in the court room look around, shaken by the emotion, almost to the point of crying. Some indeed do wipe back tears as they nod in approval.]

    Doj: "Oh, darn it! Everybody, group hug!" [And a cheer goes up as Justice has once agin been served. Golly, it sure as heck has.]

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    1. Re:Final moments of the trial... by ArtDent · · Score: 2

      Ballmer: I love this justice system! Yeah! Judges, judges, judges!

  47. About time! by Decimal · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's about time this trial finally got to the penalty stage. Let's see all of those consumers bend over and get what's coming to them! The court has slowed down Microsoft's conquest long enough, and the company is very eager to "settle" the score on this one.

    Don't give me that look. You know everyone else is thinking it.

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  48. Microsoft's Penalty by wedg · · Score: 1

    They should be forced to come up with their own Linux distribution.

    Honestly, I think the only reason there isn't a Microsoft Linux is PR. If they really want a monopoly, they wouldn't try and make everyone use their OS - they'd just take over and assimilate every other OS. Want unix? Use MSnix! Want Linux? Use MS Linux! Want MacOS? MS OS X!

    Just make it the best, make it the cheapest, and then sell them MS "application solutions" or whatever they want to call it at the normal price.

    Would I use MS Linux? Well, if it was as stable as my box now (running Mandrake 8.1), and it had interoperability with all of the Windows file formats, etc, I would. If it was superbloat? No. But it's hard to be superbloat and be stable too. But if it was just Mandrake with the MS logo, and a default install that provided easy access to all those proprietary file formats, it would be hard not to.

    --
    Jake
    Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  49. Burn them at the stake by NSupremo · · Score: 1

    I think thats really the only way to prove they are evil or not. If they don't survive the fire we can safely assume they were innocent.

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
  50. There may be restrictions during appeal by Animats · · Score: 2
    But it may be unable to delay the remedies again while higher courts conduct their review. That means that as soon as this summer, the world may finally change.

    That's a crucial point. Some remedies may be applied while appeals are pending. This should have happened in the first round, but the Justice Department didn't ask for it.

    The concept is that if some conduct appears illegal, it can be prohibited during appeals. If Microsoft wins on appeal, they can start doing it again.

  51. Re:Just let them kill themselves... by loopkin · · Score: 1

    well.. they're into services and mainframes.

    what is important to notice is that, in those two markets, they're not monopolies.

    there are other big service companies (Accenture, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, etc.), and in the mainframes, they have competition from Sun, SGI, or PC networks. It's only on very big mainframes that i don't think they have competitors anymore, but it's a niche market (in spite of the price of one of these babies).

  52. Re:Wow and re-wow by Glanz · · Score: 1

    Judging from the number of mindless Quislings Micro$lop has defending their interests on WWW message boards, including this one, I think you have a point about L. Ron Gates. Maybe this new court battle will prevent the M-$ version of the "final solution" concerning the "cancer" of OpenSource from taking place. In case it doesn't, get ready to hit the road with your code.

    --
    Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
  53. Benefits of this by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    1. Fills press space
    2. Something to talk to your friends to give them the impression your inteligent.
    3. Some form of satistfaction for linux Cult members.
    4. Might spur massive layoffs at MSFT if they have to close divisions.
    5. Will mess around with the only stable OS for the x86 platforms in existance that anybody could use.
    6. Will get in the way of the millions of software developers would code primarily for MS platforms [e.g. win32].
    7. Probably won't change much in the end anyways.
    8. Is costing the US tax payers millions of dollars.
    9. Is probably giving B.Gates something to do.
    10. Is boring and not really "techy" news so get over it and move along.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  54. The Fun Phase by LunarOne · · Score: 1

    Penalty Phase, bah! When do we get to the critical "Parody Phase"? You know, when we get to make fun of Microsoft? Oh, wait...that's the phase we're in now.

    --

    Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
  55. I disagree... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of impatient people, to be sure, but this case has already gone on almost four years.

    Due process is important, but in the technology industry, haste is equally as important. Old rules, like filing for 60 and 90 day extensions, filing for changes of venue (which can delay another 30 to 90 days), etc., should be expedited.

    The problem is that no matter what the penalty is, if MS can drag this out for another four years they have essentially escaped punishment - the damage is and will continue to be already done.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  56. After the courts fail.... by havardi · · Score: 1

    ... and Microsoft securely imposes itself into every crevice in our lives, controlling and taxing us into poverty and despotism...

    "Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live. At least a while, and dying in your beds many years from now. . ."

    "Would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that For one chance JUST ONE CHANCE to come back here and /msg our enemies that you can take our lives, but you can never take our FREEDOM!!!!?"

    . . . In the year of are Lord 2014, patriots of GNU, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Redmond. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like warrior coders, and they won there freedom. Forever!!

  57. Thank you by Rascalson · · Score: 1

    For that useless bullet list straight out of the MS PR handbook, Mr. MS/.Cheerleader #1286. How does it really feel to be an apologist for a company tried and convicted of anti-trust violations? Are you an apologist for Enron too? Verizon? Exxon? DoJ? >|||.|.||| :)

    --
    prisoner# msce18xxxxx. Currently planning my escape.
  58. Sci-Fi Movie parallels by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    So this is kind of like Terminator, except the other way round ?

    They split up Microsoft- but it reformed!

    No, it's right, just like the T1000. On the topic of splitting up monopolies and them reforming, this is quite like what the baby-bells are doing right now.

    More stuff:

    MICROSOFT WARNS

    The states are proposing that Microsoft sell a ``modular'' version of Windows that would allow computer makers to strip out add-on features like the Internet Explorer browser or Windows media player.

    The states also would force Microsoft to disclose more about its software and license its browser to other companies royalty-free.

    Microsoft warned that the sanctions sought by the dissenting states would cause havoc in the computer industry and force the company to withdraw its Windows operating system from the market.

    ``It will have a devastating impact on Microsoft. It will have a devastating impact on the PC ecosystem and particularly consumers,'' Webb said.

    Well... That's pretty creepy, like Microsoft saying "We've got a deathgrip on the organism because of our monopoly, any attempt to separate the two will cause death for both!"

    I think appropriate film here is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. So do you go along with them and let them steal your world, or do you have the courage to fight them and take a few necessary lumps in the process?

    I'm certain John Ashcroft, if given the chance, would have Dick Cheney grab all the court records and squirrel them away under Executive Privilege and spare Microsoft, because it's good for America.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  59. But at the same time by Snover · · Score: 1

    IBM doesn't charge outrageous prices for their products, their stuff doesn't CRASH three times a day, and they aren't trying to use their influence to force themselves into new fields. Well, they might be doing the last thing, but if they are, they're doing it much more quietly and humbly than Microsoft, which says SOMETHING about their upper corporate intelligence, right?

    --

    [insert witty comment here]