Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Case Enters Crucial Penalty Phase

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the nervous-goalies dept.

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.

72 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. 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 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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?
    10. 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?
  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"

  5. I liked the cartoon outcome... by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here

    1. Re:I liked the cartoon outcome... by Mwongozi · · Score: 2

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

  6. 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 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 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)

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  9. 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 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...
    2. 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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...
    9. 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...
    10. 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.

    11. 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...
    12. 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!
  10. Re:More States enter Microsoft case by Metrollica · · Score: 2, Informative

    Exact links are:

    here here here here

    --



    --Metrollica
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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!
  17. 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.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. 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....

    --
    Tweet, tweet.
  20. 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...
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. 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
  26. 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...
  27. the only appropriate penalty... by jnana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... is the corporate death penalty.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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."
  32. 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!

  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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