Final Arguments in MS vs. the States

Bistronaut writes "Reports are in today on the final arguments between the 9 State Attorneys General and Microsoft (articles from eWeek). CNN also has a summary. Spoiler: States say, "Here are our priorities for reforming MS." - MS says, "We don't need no stinkin' remedy.""

Comments

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Phroggy]

Of course they've done good. They've also been convicted of breaking the law. Should we look the other way when Microsoft abuses their monopoly power, just because they've made computers more widespread? Should we look the other way when the county sherrif steals money, just because he's helped protect our community? Should we look the other way when a priest molests a child, just because he's done so much good in the church?

Think about what you're saying, and quit trolling for Microsoft.

Re:Let's stop and reflect

[Rasta Prefect]

Where would we be without Microsoft's existance? Just an idea, perhaps they haven't done anything good, but I think that they have done some for us.

Running Netscape on OS/2 Warp? Running Mosaic on MacOS? Despite what they'd like you to believe, Microsoft has not contributed anything particularly vital to the ease of use of computers. The basic concepts can all be found elsewhere(and earlier). Windows at Xerox PARC and on MacOS. The mouse was invented well before Microsoft was founded. DOS was certainly nothing special, and Win95 didn't offer anything OS/2 wasn't doing well before. I fail to see any big favors they've done us.

Microsofts attitude

[fava]

Quote from article:

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said that the company has always maintained that no remedy is in order, and the provisions outlined in the federal settlement go as far as the company is willing to go.

Why does Microsoft keep acting like this is a negotiation between equals. They LOST, the court has a right to impose any settlement that it deems fit irregardless of what Microsoft wants. Now if both sides could agree on a settlement if would result in a much quicker settlement without the endless appeals, but Microsofts approval of the settlement is NOT necessary or even desirable.

I am really getting tired of Microsofts attitude towards this whole trial. Take your lumps and move on.

Microsoft's complaint

[TheFrood]

Microsoft lead attorney John Warden told Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that the states' proposed remedy was punitive...

Yeah, imagine that. Being convicted of a crime and then actually being punished. What a crazy world we live in, huh?

Cheap humor aside, can anyone explain (and IANAL, so I'm asking honestly here) why a company that lost an antitrust suit gets to make arguments about what the punishment should be? If a private citizen is successfully sued, does s/he get to go through another round of hearings arguing that s/he shouldn't be penalized?

Frood

we can only hope...

[esarjeant]

Remember when railroad companies used different sized track to eliminate competition? They also eliminated any semblance of travel convenience for the consumer.

The commercial software establishment is largely like these now non-existant railroad franchises. People have discovered that it's just software, and they are happier to enjoy a level of compatibility accross a variety of systems.

Of course, once the railroad industries agreed on standards it became possible for mass production of standards-based railway hardware. This eliminated much of the guesswork, tracks were wide enough to support trains of various sizes and shapes. Without these standards, the golden age of travel would have been unachievable.

Software needs to adopt standards, and the open source community has been vital to that process.

Given Microsoft's track record in this area, I think the best outcome now is for the judge to force MS to abide by standards for all present and future networking protocols. If a networked feature of MS software does not employ a documented RFC, W3C recommendation, etc. it must be fixed.

And there should be a federal committee responsible for reviewing and enforcing this. It is not acceptable that standards can be implemented along with a proprietary MS protocol (eg: MS Exchange).

Ultimately, all commercial software should be made to follow these rules, only the open source community will be allowed to innovate networking protocols. Most of the significant protocols came from open source / public domain anyway, let's mandate that tradition and stop companies like Microsoft from meddling with a good thing.

Re:Not trying to troll just pondering

[bmetzler]

Anyway, sorry if you guys thought I was trolling, but I just didn't see the 'antitrust' suits as being really a big deal, Microsoft didn't ever stop me from using a 3rd party utility or 'confuse' me about their options to install software. I can put Opera, or Mozilla, or Netscape, or AOL, or Realplayer on my system as easy as anything else. It's not stopping me from doing what I need to do.

Indirectly, they did. By not allowing OEM's to preload BeOS on their computers (That's an anti-trust violation!) they have not only prevented me from getting a quality OS from a quality OEM, but now I can't get BeOS at all! The same thing with Netscape. I can't get Netscape preloaded from an OEM because Microsoft is able to punish OEM's who want to sell me what I want. (Another anti-trust violation) For goodness sakes, they are supposed to be system integrator's. If I want Netscape 7 and Realplayer 8 on 40 PC's I purchase, I shouldn't have to pay someone else to install them. I should be able to get them preloaded from Dell. I can't though, and the reason is that Microsoft went around to OEM's and told them to not preload Netscape, or else. And we all know what, "Or else" means.

Consider your feeling for Clear Channel. They have an increasing more powerful ability to control record companies. Suppose they told a record company to not sign up a certain group, or they'd not play any of the record companies music? Now all of a suddenly that band finds itself forced to sign with a small record company. Sure, you could probably buy the CD mail-order or something, but the music isn't heard on mainstream radio, sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets, and for the most part unknown. But it hasn't stopped you from listening to the copy you were able to purchase.

See, it's the same thing with Microsoft. Sure, you can still use Opera. But because Microsoft is willing to break anti-trust law, you can't get Opera on your new Dell PC.

Compatability- let's face it, even all of our beloved OSes like *nix and OS2 dont' support everything that we want. Microsoft is generally up to date a good bit of stuff. If I want a Paralell scanner that I have to work, its easy. Linux, I look online, sorry that's not supported, it needs to be SCSI or USB.

This is one of the strangest pieces of logic I've ever seen. And I really wish that people would get some common sense and I'd never hear it again. Okay, maybe companies write drivers for Windows because it's the most popular. But that doesn't mean that drivers couldn't be written for other OS's. It just means that the companies don't want to write the drivers for other OS's. If Windows didn't exist today, companies would be writing drivers for at least one other OS. And that's a fact.

-Brent

Rebut

[phriedom]

I say that if Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, then you would be able to get better driver support for other OSes. Microsoft establishes "standards" not for your benefit, nor for the benefit of hardware makers, but for their own benefit, and they break or "change" them when it suits their business goals. And they use access to these standards as reward or punishment.

As for 3rd party apps, you can expect an unchecked monopoly to stop you from using them in subtle ways. I'm not saying that everything they have done is bad for us, I'm saying that a person who says "there is nothing wrong here" is ignoring the facts. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is smarter than you or I, and he studied this issue for a very long time and heard the best arguements money could buy, and he came to the conclusion that there is something very wrong here, and that it is bad for you and I, and that drastic measures are warranted.

Re:Anti-Trust Case was always bogus

[Arker]

Microsoft gave away their browser for free! Those bastards! Of course, this complaint was loudly made in Congress by Netscape, who gained their market dominance by giving away their browser for free, which was hypocritical at best. The obvious cure for this problem is to force Microsoft to open-source their browser, i.e. give it away for free.... Oh, wait....

The problem wasn't just giving the browser away, it was leveraging their OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly. Yes, legally, if you have a monopoly there are some things you can't do that everyone else can do.

Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their browser into their operating system as an interface tool, perhaps as a defense against the anti-trust attacks, but since the late 90s, that's been a Technically Right Choice to make. It would be nice if they'd done it a bit better, and used a bit less non-standards- based content to do it, but it's still the right choice.

It's never been 'a Technically Right Choice' in any sense of the word, that's just horseshit. It's been done for one reason and one reason only - to sabotage the consent decree.

Microsoft wholesale contracts to PC hardware makers were aggressively obnoxious about "you must pay us for a copy of Windows on every box you ship if you want to get the best wholesale prices", which means that consumers who don't want Windows did end up paying about $30 more per PC than if they could have bought the bare metal. Perhaps this gets into anti-trust territory for the Feds, but Microsoft was backing down on this before the states got into the game.

They were? Huh? They still use the same tactics today.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Kwil]

Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them

Really?

So you're saying that BeOS had the same options and opportunities available? They could have gone to the hardware companies and said "Look, if you give any indication that you're putting Windows on the same system, we're going to charge you double for the BeOS license" and not get laughed out of the office?

You're suggesting that Netscape had the opportunity to use the revenue from their massive monopoly on OEM OS sales to back them giving away their browser until it crushed the competition?

Possibly you're suggesting that Word Perfect or Lotus had the opportunity to leverage their intimate knowledge of propietary Windows APIs to make their software run as fast as any competitor, or that they could modify the underlying OS to cause problems with Microsoft Word or Excel?

Now, can you argue that other companies dropped the ball? Sure, some did. But don't be so quick to assume stupidity on the part of a public that was robbed of any choice from a company leveraging it's monopoly in one area (the OS) to eliminate competition in other areas.

Re:Where lies the real fault?

[Andy_R]

You have completely missed the point!

There is at least one comment that explains why in every /. story on this case, but I guess it's not redundant until people actually understand it...

Microsoft is NOT ON TRIAL for being a monopoly.

There is NOTHING WRONG with being a monopoly under US law.

Microsoft were ABUSING their monopoly, which there ARE laws against.