Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Case Proceeds

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the day-follows-night dept.

YeOldeCurmudgeon writes "This story just posted on Yahoo: Federal Judge Denies Microsoft Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Case. Microsoft's motion to dismiss the suit filed by the 9 dissenting states was denied. The judge agrees the states can sue." An article in the San Francisco Chronicle summarizes the case's current state and what's coming up next.

14 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Is there a simple solution? by lingqi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somebody explain to me why it takes 1187 pages to say "this case can go on" and why it takes this long to figure out a punishment.

    This should be all very, very simple. provisional punishments like "you will now allow people to take off IE" does not stop MS from behaving anti-competetively.

    I mean, just fine them! in fact, fine the crap out of them. You are found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, you choke up 80% of your profits for the next two years (as from SEC filings) or 10% of the company net worth -- which ever is higher. if you do it again, 90%/15%; third time -- dissolution of charter. (third might be a little harsh, but again, we are following the "simple" route of spirit)

    -- when the share holders suddenly realize that, wow, my $$ are going away because the corporate lawyer / managers are screwing up by doing illegal stuff, i don't think they will be happy about the anti-competitive behavior anymore -- i mean, $$ drives the company, so hit it where it hurts; not some bs settlement that they can just circumvent later.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:Is there a simple solution? by smiff · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are found guilty of anti-competitive behavior, you choke up 80% of your profits for the next two years (as from SEC filings) or 10% of the company net worth -- which ever is higher. if you do it again, 90%/15%

      Companies can hide their profits by investing their money. If a company has $6 billion in profit, they can invest $5 billion, leaving them with $1 billion in profit.

      Ten percent of Microsoft's net worth does not even begin to compare to the benefits Microsoft has gained from their anti-competitive actions. And that's only counting to the present day. The benefits of increased market share and customer lock-in will continue to go on long after the case is settled.

      This case has been going on for six years. 80% of Microsoft's profits for the next two years is far less than their monopolistic practices netted. Your proposed minuscule punishment will tell Microsoft, "go ahead and carry out your anti-competitive practices. We might take 20% next decade."

      third time -- dissolution of charter.

      People (e.g. Ralph Nadar) say this all the time. What good would it actually do?

      If you really want to fine them, why not force them to sell stock (with the government collecting the proceeds)? This will cause an immediate drop in their investor's net worth, and decrease the investor's control over the company.

    2. Re:Is there a simple solution? by lingqi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      * True, profits can be hidden as you have pointed out; however, they have to answer to the stock holders for the horrible price to earning ratio for the next two years. (btw, it can be any number of years / percentage, this is just an example, after all) and with a P/E ratio 5 times as low, i would highly suspect some (large) stock price drops.

      * a ruling similar to what i have mentioned would set a case-law for future anti-competitive behavior with defineable, universal reprimand that, i believe, should have an impact on any company regardless of their size or the nature of their business. furthermore, hopefully with a case law such as this, the trials will not take such a long time.

      * dissolution of charter would be stupid, in fact i would not even vote for it. Like i said, it would be kind of severe -- and all the windows users out there would be royally screwed. It was a suggesting in spirit, not meant to be taken literally.

      Lastly, I am not sure who you intend MS sell their stock to. make the stock public would be met with similar problems as we have right now -- individual investors and fund administrators will see the difference between "getting $$ from illegal activities" and "behaving morally". my bet is that they will be taking the money route. besides that, who would buy stock that you *KNOW* the price would be going down? If you sell to the government -- it would also run into problems -- first is that the government is horribly inefficient, and 2, you are GIVING THEM MONEY for breaking the law. (i am pretty sure the last one is not what you meant, though)

      --

      My life in the land of the rising sun.

    3. Re:Is there a simple solution? by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...The share holders suddenly realize that, wow, my $$ are going away because the corporate lawyer / managers are screwing up by doing illegal stuff...

      I think you are *really* onto something here. Somehow MS is able to squiggle out of stuff -- lying in court -- corporate income taxes -- court settlements -- etc ... And when you suggest otherwise, they get belligerent (sp?), start spreading FUD, and founding political organizations [meanwhile I can't squiggle out of a parking ticket].

      You are right on the money when you say the courts need to damage the shareholders, because they are the only people that have leverage over MS. The legal system has been ineffective.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  2. We won! We won! Yeah, yeah, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I have a bad feeling that somehow this is going to turn out to be a slap on the wrist again. That SF article featured a case lawyer who thinks that Kotelly does not have the authority to really push heavy remedies and she's probably right.

    I imagine things will probably turn out like Chris Rock's take on the O.J Simpson Trial: "We won! We won... What the F*ck did we win!?"

    CTH

  3. The interesting part... by dinotrac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I found interesting was the Judge's characterization of Microsoft's motion as misrepresenting the holdings of the cases it cited in support of the motion to dismiss.

    That's a powerful statement from a judge and should be taken by Microsoft as a warning. It seems that the last thing they should be doing is demonstrating to the Court a complete and utter disregard for truth and for the law.

    That's the kind of thing that makes a judge mad and judges are bad people to have mad at you.

    1. Re:The interesting part... by jimhill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of Microsoft's (apparent) legal strategies in its many courtroom appearances has been to goad and provoke the judge into saying or writing something intemperate which the company can then use as "evidence of bias" for an appeal should they lose. It worked like a charm with Jackson -- Judge KK appears to be aware of that and is holding her tongue.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    2. Re:The interesting part... by tempest303 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd say she's doing better than that. Judge KK seems to be bending over backwards for MS in some situations, but standing strong when they pull some screwy crap like this motion to dismiss. Much as I thought Judge Jackson never actually said anything untrue or particularly biased (but I guess I'm biased, so who knows ;) I'm glad that when Microsoft FINALLY gets their Official Spanking from the court, we won't have to put up with as much whining from MS and the "pro-business" crowd (note the quotes) about how the judge was biased, the trial was unfair, etc.

      --
      The Free desktop that Just Works
  4. does anyone even care any more? by JoeBlows · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, not to sound like I am against the trial, but the length has realy made me apathetic. am I the only one?

    --
    True capitalism = lots of similar companies = jobs for everyone who wants one.
  5. Java != .NET by wackybrit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In essence, .NET allows Microsoft's software to dominate on EVERY PLATFORM

    sed s/.NET/JAVA/ | sed s/Microsoft/Sun/

    I don't think so Tim...

    Microsoft has many advantages now over Sun in 1994.

    For a start, Microsoft has an extremely large user base who are going to end up using .NET whether they like it or not. If you want to stick with Microsoft, .NET is not an option, it's what you'll have to use.

    .NET is already being ported to other platforms. Ximian are working on something for GNU/Linux, and MS even released their own source code demonstrating a FreeBSD .NET implementation.

    Java was on lots of platforms, but it was VERY limited in what it could do on each one. .NET's virtual machine and class libraries can do WAY more than what Java can.

    Java limited people to one language, a language that many coders didn't like. .NET is just a VM/platform, whereas 'Java' was both the JVM *and* a language. This limited extension capabilities, as well as the conversion of older software. You couldn't load up your old C software, and get it working in Java.. with VB.NET, VC.NET etc.. this is a possibility. People have already created FORTH and COBOL compilers for .NET!

    Either way, .NET may not be a success, but it has several very important things going for it, and Java had none of them. I mean.. come on.. Sun hardly had millions of users in 1994! Microsoft has got .NET out quickly, and is saturating the marketplace, ensuring their success into the future.

    I might not love Microsoft, but I have to hand it to them.. they're speculating, and I think it's the right one.

    --
    mogorific carpentry experiments
    1. Re:Java != .NET by Hard_Code · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ".NET's virtual machine and class libraries can do WAY more than what Java can."

      Like? From what I can tell, .NET (or rather CLR) adds some small syntactic features (simpler inlining of native code, automatic boxing), and some "web services integration". If you look at the .NET class library, it is almost literally a 1-to-1 mapping to the Java class libraries. And automatic boxing and parameterized types are coming to Java in 1.5. As far as web services and middleware, Java is FAR ahead of the pack with J2EE which is absolutely dominating enterprise middleware and what is now being hyped as "web services". Servlet engines and JSP were in production for quite a while before .NET thank-you-very-much. Unfortunately MS did everything it could to kill the prospects of Java on the client, so we never really saw that come to fruition, while of course .NET will be getting automatic first class treatment on the client side which it will undoubtedly be able to leverage to accelerate acceptence in areas which J2EE is currently dominating.

      ".NET is just a VM/platform, whereas 'Java' was both the JVM *and* a language."

      Well, .NET is a VM/platform geared towards a particular type of language (e.g., C#). From what I've read everything else is pretty much C# with different keyword/token names. That's not to say it is a *bad* thing, since MS's goal is mostly migrating its *current* base of developers. But it's far from magically-better-than-Java.

      "You couldn't load up your old C software, and get it working in Java."

      Woah! Could that have been a feature! ;)

      "with VB.NET, VC.NET etc.. this is a possibility."

      Yes, because the goal of .NET is to migrate current MS developers to a new architecture with many of the benefits of the Java platform.

      "People have already created FORTH and COBOL compilers for .NET!"

      Will wonders never cease! Perhaps you want to take a look at a list of the many languages that run on the Java VM (the page says "160 systems"...I'm not sure what that means, but there are a whole bunch). All this, long before .NET was anything but vapor.

      "but it has several very important things going for it, and Java had none of them."

      Come on, be fair, you are really pulling this out of your ass.

      Actually I'd have to say I like, and am impressed by the .NET architecture, and regularly step in to defend the architecture (if not MS) in front of FUDders and bashers. It is a great step up from the mess of native languages Microsoft was supporting. It has many of the nice features of the Java platform, and some new ones. But it would be really naive and unfair to not recognize the tremendous success Java has had and is having today in the same realms .NET is just now attempting to address. Maybe being one of those who are just now boarding the ship makes things look so much more rosier, than to myself, who has been on the ship already for 3 years ;)

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  6. .NET is not a typical MS proprietary technology by wackybrit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .NET is being considered serious by many groups who are not Microsoft advocates.

    For example, it has been mentioned in the Parrot FAQ that Perl 6 may well be developed for .NET after the Parrot implementation is done.

    Ximian's Mono project also goes a long way to demonstrate that there are plenty of people who want a .NET environment, but not necessarily be strapped to Microsoft's OS. Microsoft doesn't seem to disapprove of this, and in fact highlights how you can port .NET to other operating systems!

    --
    mogorific carpentry experiments
  7. Simple solution. by chris_sawtell · · Score: 3, Interesting
    They have done crime with computers.

    They should do time.

    Sling them in the slammer.

    Probation after 12 months.

    Computer no touchee for at least 3 years.

    Why is that not too hash?

    • They have created software which is so faulty that it's caused losses to other people counted in the Billions of Dollars. ( The cost of time needed to clean up after all the viruses and worms. )
    • They have charged hundreds and thousands of dollars for bits of plastic worth cents. That's a con job netting 40 Billion Dollars.
    • They have totally abused their monopoly position, and thus seriously impeded the progress of innovation in the data processing industry.
    • They are now demanding money from people on a regular basis to provide continued access to their programs. In my country that's called a protection racket.
    Those are the reasons why they are nothing more than a criminal gang and should do time.
  8. Remember Sporkin by johnos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He came to hate them too. And went too far as a result. MS turned that to their advantage, just as they did Jackson's missteps. Neither Jackson's or Sporkin's humiliations will be lost on this judge. She will be as careful as she can possibly be.

    I think the first two came to hate MS because they could see clearly the utter contempt MS has for the justice system, or anyone else that might get in their way. MS is still at it in this new courtroom. Lies, half truths, FUD, remorselessness, arrogance, self-serving "compliance" and disrespect for the intellegence of the bench are usually not part of a winning formula in court. Eventually, MS will find a judge that does not get provoked, but simply hammers them with the law. Hopefully, this judge will be the one.