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

[big_hairy_mama]

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.

Micro$oft logic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Where is the Amicus Curiae Brief?

[Royster]

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?

Re:Special treatment?

[Chris Johnson]

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.

I think the solution should be....

[Anonymous Coward]

..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.