MS to Implement Some DoJ Settlement Terms Preemptively

lysurgon writes: "The New York Times (free registration, blah blah blah) is reporting that Microsoft will today announce it is taking some steps in implementing parts of the original DoJ settlement, a settlement which is still under review and not yet official. It's seen as a tactic to influence Judge Kollar-Kotelly's deliberation on the more stringent restrictions asked for by nine states attorneys general. Looks like MS wants to get off making some cosmetic changes (no surprise there), but given their rather stormy relationship with the judge, it could backfire. The other interesting thing is that at this stage, without an official ruling, no matter what they do or why they say they're doing it it's legally voluntary." Update: 08/05 17:00 GMT by T : HeUnique adds a link to another story on ZDnet which tosses in a few numbers while remaining fairly vague on what exactly will be released and under what terms.

Comments

alternately...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an article from CNET, with an interesting quote from a Jupiter analyst.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948328.html?tag=fd _t op

win 2k SP3

[Alien54]

It looks to me that some of the things implement in the SP3, that Personal Settings icon, is precisely that sort of Windows dressing trying to preempt the Judges decision.

Not that I hope this tactics works.

Personally, I hope it backfires

[shrug]

Influence..

[donutello]

It's seen as a tactic to influence Judge Kollar-Kotelly's deliberation

Rather, one of the terms of the settlement with the DoJ was that the terms of the consent decree would be implemented immediately (in the next release) without waiting for the settlement to be approved.

IIRC, Microsoft would have been in violation of the settlement if it hadn't done this by now.

Link to article on free site

[duckygator]

The article can also be found on Netscape's news site here.

M$ Releases Windows Code

[potuncle]

see this story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=5 78&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20020805/ts_nm/microsoft_code _dc_13

The unthinkable *may* happen, sort of, maybe.

[wuHoncho]

They must have just made the conference call before I wrote this. Logged onto yahoo and saw "Microsoft to reveal Windows source code" and immediately cleaned up the half-chewed chicken melt pieces that fell out of my mouth and onto my lap. anyway, here's the link (sorry, I'm very rusty with HTML)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid =5 80&e=3&cid=580&u=/nm/20020805/bs_nm/microsoft_code _dc_13

It's still unclear as to what parts of windows will be "revealed" and under what terms or even to whom. IMHO it looks like play-the-good-guy-and-smile-real-big-for-the-camer a legal manuevering.

CNET LINK

[benjamindees]

for those who don't want to register at NYT:
here's a link at CNET

M$ to Reveal Windows Source Code!

[nherc]

Yahoo! is reporting M$ will reveal over 300 "pieces" of Windows source code as a part of the settlement.

SHWEET!

Re:Sure They will Change a few Icons

[Hassan79]

RedHat's abuse of its near-monopoly of the Linux market is what led to the formation of the United Linux group.

Quite the same things are said about SuSE in Germany (it's the main Linux distribution there). Their distribution is blamed to be more and more like WinXP, and the company is accused of violating the "spirit of free software".

Re:Sure They will Change a few Icons

[ericman31]

The big difference though is that with Linux (or Solaris or AIX or HP-UX or .... ) I can choose to just install the core operating system. If I don't want a browser, I don't install, or remove it easily. If I don't want a media player, ditto. Using Solaris as an example, if I don't like Netscape 4.x I can remove it (I have) and install Mozilla (or whatever I prefer).

Now, when I installed Win2K I didn't have those options. I had to install IE and Windows Media Player 6.4 and so forth. If I decide I don't like IE 5.x it doesn't matter, I have to install it.

Re:Sure They will Change a few Icons

[pmz]

What's an OS?

In UNIX, this is easy to answer. The OS is the kernel and its API. Everything else is an application. Even /bin/sh is an application; hell, anything that the user sees is an application. The things the user sees that might be considered the operating system are really side-effects of the operating system, such as process scheduling and file system caching.

The term "operating environment" is more accurate for what we call Windows or Solaris, for example. These are the operating system plus bundled applications that make the system useful.

There is an important distinction to make between Windows and Solaris, however. Sun is slow to integrate third-party applications, such as Perl, into Solaris and does so only after enough users demand it. Microsoft, on the other hand, is quick to add things driven by their desire to dominate a particular market. This distinction makes is clearer how to deal with Microsoft.

The lines dividing what to package and what not to package should be divided by market. Can Microsoft include the operating system? Of course. Can Microsoft include a web browser (a distinct market), also, after being convicted an illegal monopoly? Yes, but it must be completely modular and completely optional. How about a trial contract with MSN (a distinct market)? Yes, but only if it is clearly separated from other applications and clearly documented (currently, they try to make it part of the Windows "experience"). How about an office productivity application (a distinct market)? Yes, but it should also be completely modular, optional, and have an open documented file format.

When you consider that Microsoft is trying to dominate several markets simultaneously, dividing what is and isn't "part of the OS" becomes pretty simple.