Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Final Arguments in MS vs. the States

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sergeants-major dept.

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.""

12 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Competitor's Integration... by manly_15 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 9 states want other companies to be able to replace Internet Explorer / Media Player / etc with their own products. Would the end user be able to do the same? Could I download the Opera display engine and replace the IE engine? Freeamp and Media player? Or would this be only availible to the large software companies (AOL and Real)?

  2. Re:Let's stop and reflect by big_hairy_mama · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For one, without Microsoft I wouldn't have my beautiful Optical Intellimouse or my Natural Keyboard (can't type on anything else). And my friends wouldn't have their XBoxes, and I would never have played Motocross/Monster Truck Madness with my Sidewinder joystick.

    IMHO, Microsoft's gaming/input/hardware development has been the shining jewel of their whole company.

  3. What about penalties? by VultureMN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most of the talk about the MS case centers around how to keep Microsoft from unfairly clobbering competition, which is good. But how come we never see anything about penalties for past behavior? How 'bout a nice 10 billion dollar fine (only 1/3 of Microsoft's cash reserve...) that we can then throw at the ISS? Yeah...

  4. Micro$oft logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As far as Microsoft's priorities with respect to the proposed remedies are concerned, Sullivan said its top priority is to make sure the company is not forced to reveal more of its source code, insisting that doing so would substantially harm the company and give and unfair advantage to competitors, arguments that Gates and other Microsoft executives have made repeatedly in the past.


    Microsoft also previously has argued that the states' demands go far beyond addressing the antitrust violations it actually committed and would harm consumers and the entire computer industry.


    So, disclosing source would benefit all of Micro$oft's competitors, but harm the entire computer industry??? How can that be, unless Micro$oft considers themselves to be "the entire computer industry"??? What economic textbook teaches them that reining in a monopoly harms consumers?


    You've got to give a lot of credit to the M$ lawyers for actually making these claims in court while keeping a straight face, but I suspect the judge is not amused by these insults to our intelligence.

  5. Re:It's never over by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The worst that will happen is that Microsoft will be ordered to pay a fine. Compared to the company's net worth, it will be a pittence. Microsoft will then continue business as usual. Anti-trust laws have no teeth. The white collar criminals who violate them never do any time. Taking a million in fines from a billionare is not much punishment.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  6. various possible penalties. by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    keep trying to think of what would be the fairest penalty, and then they go do something that just pisses me off. So I finnally just throw my hands up and say to hell with them

    Since they should not have any benefit from any illegal act they have done, and since they were convicted of something, they should probably "dis-intergrate" the connection with the internet, and take anything primarily connected to the internet such as browsers, and MSN, and web server stuff, etc, and spin it all off as a separate company.

    things which are not primarily an internet thing (the OS thing, Office, etc) should be retained as another company.

    And the two compamnies should not be able to do any business with each other for 5 or 6 years, basically the length of time they have had the benefit of their illegal actions.

    nothing much, just my rant.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  7. Special treatment? by klui · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Do companies get special treatment when they've been convicted of a crime or is it just Microsoft? According to http://news.com.com/2100-1001-937326.html, the judge asked both sides to seek a compromise and "asked the plaintiff states "how could the defendant's proposed remedy be modified to make its terms more acceptable to plaintiffs." She also asked what changes the states would make to their remedy to satisfy issues raised during the court proceeding while still maintaining the remedy's goals."

    So if some normal schmoe is convicted of a crime, does this person get to have remedies changed so it's more "acceptable"?

    1. Re:Special treatment? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If I was a psychotic compulsive bank robber convinced that all banks must be robbed (but not a complete fool), and I was in court having a restraining order thrashed out, then:

      -if the judge asked me 'Will you obey the restraining order?' I would likely have sense enough to protest that of course I would, your Honor.

      -if the Judge asked me 'What parts of this restraining order are fair and reasonable?', I would likely erupt in wild diatribes about how it's all totally unfair and unreasonable... which would be the truth as I saw it... and would be a far more revealing answer to the first question than you'd get from asking me the first question directly.

      Microsoft, in their closing argument, have made it absolutely clear that they will not cooperate with the eventual ruling in any way, and will continue to devote all their resources to evading it and denying it. I think the Judge asked them about it on purpose, to see how they'd react. Now we know. And now she knows.

  8. The judge has been favoring MS... by burnsy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If the read the daily trial transcripts (which you can read here), You get the sense that the judge has been leaning towards MS, despite press reports.

    It is pretty clear that the states are only representing Sun ('Make MS use Java'), Novell ('Make Windows work with NDS'), Red Hat ('Make MS give us the Office source code'), et al, and don't give one whit about the public interest. The judge has picked up on this and kept telling the states to stop bringing up 'new' transgression and tell her how the states' changes serve the public interest. The states continued to ignore her at their own peril.

    Can't wait for the final decision.

  9. Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief? by Royster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A report in the NYTimes earlier this week said that six former DOJ Antitrust officials chimed in on the proposed remedies. I've looked in several places, but haven't found a copy of the brief. Does anyone know where it can be found?

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  10. Kollar-Kotelly amused by Darth+Paul · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here's a snippet from the article at an aussie news site

    During closing arguments, Microsoft lawyer John Warden refused to give any ground.

    "We have been through this. We negotiated. We went as far as we can go," Mr Warden said. "That's the deal."

    The judge, who had asked both sides to find middle ground, smiled slightly through Mr Warden's statements.

    Interesting, the first indicator of personal attitude from KK that I've heard of (You can draw conclusions whichever way you want). I remember an earlier /. post saying that if you wanted to slam MS with a killer verdict, you'd shut up and keep the appearance of impartiality until the end. I'd like to think that's what she's doing :) Just as long as she keeps it subtle and don't do a Jackson.

    I know if I were in her position and hearing that from Warden, I'd be blowing raspberries.

  11. I think the solution should be.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..that no computers can be sold with Windows preinstalled or bundled, so that consumers must buy Windows separately at a fixed, non-discountable full retail price (of Microsoft's choosing) and install it themselves. Everyone pays the same price, with no volume discounts.

    OEMs may ship computers with any other OS, or with no OS at all. If people truly want Windows, they are welcome to purchase and install it separately, and Microsoft can include anything they want in it, so there's no restriction on "innovation". They would not have to stick to standards, dislose APIs, include Java, whatever. Consumers would just be forced to make the conscious choice to buy and use it.

    For existing installations of Windows, Microsoft would be prohibited from selling upgrades to anyone other than consumers who bought retail - OEM installations would require a new retail purchase.