Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the definition-of-sharing-slightly-skewed dept.

Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison, Samba Team."

88 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. Typical. by 1lus10n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    microsoft finds a way to keep closed even when told to open up

    is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the whole "we are going to release our source ..... only to certain [*wink* *wink*] customers" RIGHT .... SURE ......

    --
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Typical. by slickwillie · · Score: 5, Funny

      I say let the weapons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software inspectors have unrestricted access.

    2. Re:Typical. by meatpopcicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is wrong with the system?

      The government has no balls! Or should I say the justice department doesn't. Microsoft has been declared a monopoly. They have been convicted of crimes and bad business practices.

      What has been the outcome: absolutely nothing!

      The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries and people but when dealing with their own they can't do a damn thing.

      The convicted party has more rights than the victims (in this case everyone). This is wholly unfair!

      How many years has this been in the courts and microsoft isn't doing a damn thing to fix it. They fight and lie, and tie up the court system, and nothing comes of it. The justice department really needs to do something about this case.

      If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.

      This article just goes to show that nothing will come of this court case. It will have all been a big waste of everyones time and effort, everyone except microsofts that is.

      -the opinions expressed above are my own. As this is still a free country(I think) I am entitled to express my rights to free speech. If you don't agree with my comments, then don't; that is your right also.

      --
      "You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
    3. Re:Typical. by 1lus10n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries and people but when dealing with their own they can't do a damn thing. "

      actually what bothers me most is that they can but WONT do anything. which is what i think bothers alot of 'informed' americans. the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".

      take a poll. how many americans wanna be raped by the mega-corps ?
      and belive me this goes past micro$haft. as much as i hate them this is a much much bigger issue than just micro$haft.

      i mean think about it, how many people are employeed by the RIAA and MPAA combined ? how about in the US alone ? and Microsoft ? a good amount right ? how many americans are having their rights stripped away ? alot more than would profit from letting micro$haft continue thier prctices. or too continue ignoring the current practices of the **aa's.

      to put it simple - the american gov't is letting americans down. weather they know it or not. this is just a case in point.

      /rant>

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Typical. by PizzaFace · · Score: 5, Funny

      I say a regime change is necessary.

    5. Re:Typical. by EelBait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So stop buy their products, already! Buy a Mac. Buy a white-box PC with Linux. Convert your neighbors, friends, co-workers. Hell, buy above items for your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Work your way into positions of management within your company where you can make decisions that eliminate MS presence. Above all, stop looking to the Government for solutions to economic problems. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy! Learn to work within the system -- not just bitch about it.

    6. Re:Typical. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is wrong with the system?

      The government has no balls.

      Not true. Clinton/Reno was beating up on Microsoft quite a bit.

      The Republicans dropped most of the case the moment they got Bush in, and it's unlikely that they're going to start up anything again soon.

      The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.

      --
      May we never see th
    7. Re:Typical. by SN74S181 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.

      Or, conversely, it could be said the Democrats are a lot better than the Republicans at using the abusive powers of government.

      Somebody had to say it. Might as well be me.

    8. Re:Typical. by iomud · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree they have weapons of mass confusion and arent afraid to use them.

    9. Re:Typical. by Zigg · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.

      Yeah, the Dems really kicking Disney's ass over in Congress right now, aren't they?

    10. Re:Typical. by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually what bothers me most is that they can but WONT do anything. which is what i think bothers alot of 'informed' americans. the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".

      The US policy of "regime change" is a part of policy of backing megacorps. (The only real change is that the US government has recently made some of this policy overt, rather than covert.)

      i mean think about it, how many people are employeed by the RIAA and MPAA combined ? how about in the US alone ? and Microsoft ? a good amount right ?

      If you measure the number as a proportion of the population (even just considering real people and not all the "non mega" corporate entities) you'd be talking a tiny proportion. Best measured on a per million scale, since a percentage would defintly round down to zero.

    11. Re:Typical. by TheGreek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maine voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting terms on state legislators a few years back. We're now coming into the second "class" of long-term, effective legislators being forced into retirement.

      Two years ago when the first class had to retire, they were replaced by people who had little-to-no legislative ability and were EVEN MORE tied to special-interest groups and corporations than the people they replaced.

      Do you put term limits on your dentist or family doctor? They're in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, you know.

    12. Re:Typical. by evilpenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, my personal idea for radical reform? Draft legislators from the pool of registered voters. Yep. Just like jury duty. Citizen legislators.

  2. interesting factoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting factoid:

    Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel quoted in the article, went to law school with a co-worker of mine in Seattle. He interned at Micro$oft during his summers there. I wonder if there were any legal hijinks going on there.

    As you probably know, it's illegal for any corporate lawyer to make disparaging remarks about competition, as he'll usually get slapped with a charge of contempt immediately.

    1. Re:interesting factoid by belroth · · Score: 5, Funny

      He doesn't need to make disparaging remarks, he can just quote from Judge Jacksons Findings of Fact :-)

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    2. Re:interesting factoid by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing is, whether you like Microsoft or not, if you are there competitor you know that this settlement and court case makes them weak so you batter them every chance you get. The settlement says that Microsoft can charge royalties for the protocols and they are doing that. The settlement did not say that Microsoft had to GPL the protocols.

    3. Re:interesting factoid by OddWeapon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know Webbink personally and he went to school in North Carolina (where RedHat is BTW). And I am pretty sure he never interned at MS either.

    4. Re:interesting factoid by Feanturi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is, whether you like Microsoft or not, if you are there competitor you know that this settlement and court case makes them weak so you batter them every chance you get. The settlement says that Microsoft can charge royalties for the protocols and they are doing that. The settlement did not say that Microsoft had to GPL the protocols.

      I agree, though I don't understand why I must swear secrecy to read the LICENSE. The rest is all perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned.

      But what bothers me the most is that this even has to happen. The fact that this information was not previously made available to developers on purpose should call for some big fines or something, shouldn't it? It's been going on for years.. I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.

    5. Re:interesting factoid by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're close!

      A protocol is the flow of data and an agreement on the type of data that will be transported within that flow.

      An API is an interface allowing one entity to interact with another entity. Normally that interaction causes an action of some type to be taken.

      Now then, it is certainly possible to have a known protocol with an unknown API. Knowing the protocol alone does little for you. Likewise, the inverse is also true. Knowing what the API is and how to use it does little good if you are unable to convey your intentions if you don't know what the protocol is.

      I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).

      You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.

      Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.

      So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.

      We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.

  3. NDA be damned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Just one person, company, etc. to go through the process then illegally release it to the world. NDA be damned!

    1. Re:NDA be damned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. What will happen is that Microsoft will claim that those Linux pirates stole the designs, and that all Open Source code is now tainted because the documents were made public illegally, and Samba will be shut down, ... It's better to continue reverse engineering things the legal way until the documents are made public.

    2. Re:NDA be damned! by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quoth the DMCA (17 USC 1201f):

      (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

      (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

    3. Re:NDA be damned! by mbogosian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's better to continue reverse engineering things the legal way until the documents are made public.

      So why not fight fire with fire? Microsoft has been perjuring itself under oath and illegally maintaining its illegal monopoly (yes both the act and the monopoly are illegal) for quite some time. Hell, who wouldn't be willing read and memorize their protocol specifications and swear under oath that they were reverse engineered, even if it was against Microsoft's (IMO illegal) license agreement.

      --

      moto411.com
    4. Re:NDA be damned! by pantherace · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There isn't (in fact most public utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies) HOWEVER, it is illegal to use one monopoly to attempt to force the creation of another (bad wording, let me try again) You can't leverage one monopoly to create another. (For example: if the Xbox wipes out Sony, Nintendo, et al Their US divisions could probably sue the crap out of Microsoft, because Microsoft used the profits from it's Windows monopoly to subsidize the Xbox, and are trying to force people who develop for windows and console to develop on Xbox (though not in those terms)(see EA's reaction to Xbox's licencing, for a much better explanation)(Though I seriously doubt Xbox will)

      Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)

  4. Oh, come ON... by EvilStein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    " But even with the settlement, software firms say Microsoft still isn't making it easy to see the protocols. In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information. "

    Someone needs to take them back to court for this.. or try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do. This interpretation of the "settlement" is just absurd. And what a slap in the face of the rest of the world.. making you use friggin MICROSOFT PASSPORT to gain access.
    And "request" forms? Have they denied anybody the forms? Are they allowed to deny forms? Great. They're going to be nice and slow..and selective..

    Un friggin believable. I can't believe they're just getting away with all of this.

    1. Re:Oh, come ON... by Jherico · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Someone needs to take them back to court for this.."

      Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.

      --

      Jherico

      What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

    2. Re:Oh, come ON... by mtthws · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I think what MS is doins is wrong, I dont think that "get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do" will do you any good. One of the major problems with this country is too much leagelise, IMHO. People want everything enumerated out, to extream lengths. I understand why to a certain extent you would want things listed out(you need this to do this, you need that to do that...), but there is a certain point where this becomes counterproductive. Your listing everything out the way you want is just going to add to this problem. Also, once you start listing things out when are you goign to stop? And does that mean anything that is not listed does not matter? Finaly, that is not a game that I think you can win against MS. They have the money and the lawyers. If you want to get nit picky they will probably come out on top.

      --
      "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
    3. Re: Oh, come ON... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


      > Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.

      So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Oh, come ON... by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      The REAL question is how your comment is ranked as Score:5,Troll

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Oh, come ON... by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking of Iraq, one of the top news stories today (you do get your news from Google News, right?) was about Iraq's "democratic" presidential referendum (deciding who will be the next president). Saddam Hussein was apparently the *only* candidate, and every single one of the registered 11 million-plus voters voted for him.

      Reminds me of Microsoft hiring one of their own PR people to write an "I switched to Windows XP from the Mac." Ah, those were the days (i.e. yesterday).

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re: Oh, come ON... by NattyDread · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

      Because they have lots of money?

      ... or very little oil ...

      --
      Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
    7. Re:Oh, come ON... by kittywampus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've finally decided that I believe the courts cannot resolve this. So, now I'll just what what little I can - I've purchased an iMac. Of course, my purchase makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. But maybe if someone else does it too...

    8. Re: Oh, come ON... by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because they use Windows, and it'd be silly to bomb something that already crashes incessantly. Seems like a waste of explosives to me.

    9. Re: Oh, come ON... by pben · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that you will find that you paid more in federal income tax that the Microsoft corp did. All those stock options are tax deductable. So I paid more in income tax than Microsoft Corporation. Sad but true.

    10. Re: Oh, come ON... by Door-opening+Fascist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft does not pay income taxes, and has not paid income taxes for the last several years. They also pushed through the legislation that legalized some of the accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom.

    11. Re:Oh, come ON... by cornice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. It's much simpler than that: Whenever MS pulls something like this, obviously circumventing the agreements, you simply require MS to openly publish the specs. Then you hold them accountable for that spec. Any changes and deviation must be published. Unpublished deviations, intentional or not, result in liability and law suits. Even MS will find a reasonable solution when faced with such a penalty.

    12. Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Microsoft pays taxes."

      Not really. Not that much.

      "Microsoft employs many Americans."

      Not really. They have under 30 thousand employees. Let's Compare that to some other large employers shall we.

      IBM = 312,000
      AT&T = 151,000
      Exxon = 131,000
      Philip Morris = 140,000

      The paltry 30K employees of MS could very easily be absorbed into the US economy.

      "Microsoft isn't a terrorist state."

      No but they are convicted criminals.

      "Microsoft buys politicians."

      There is no debating this.

      "Microsoft is mostly clean, un-threatening white guys."

      Mostly white sure. Un-threating? depends on who you are I suppose. Unethical most likely? Remember these people have a cult like attitude towards their company and Bill Gates and have remarkable ability to rationalize away any evil committed in their name and with their help.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  5. And the problem is... by Chromonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...?
    So they are requiring an NDA and charging for the right to use the 'communications protocols'. There is no where in the proposed settlement that states they have to make their code "Open Source" is there?

    Just because something isn't GNU doesn't make it illegal.

    --
    There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
    1. Re:And the problem is... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your absolutely right. It also doesn't say they can't wipe there ass with the papers before they hand them over. Maybe they should do that too.

    2. Re:And the problem is... by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem

    3. Re:And the problem is... by belroth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So they are requiring an NDA and charging for the right to use the 'communications protocols'. There is no where in the proposed settlement that states they have to make their code "Open Source" is there?
      They aren't making the code available, we're talking about protocols, you know a specification like an RFC.
      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    4. Re:And the problem is... by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, and that's the problem with the settlement. Not that they should be required to make their code Open Source, but they should be required to publish the protocols in an open manner so that other companies/software projects (ie. NetApp, EMC, Samba) can interoperate.

      That was one of the whole points of the legal action remember, to prevent them leveraging their desktop monopoly into the server space.

      Repeat after me... competition is *good* :-).

      Jeremy Allison,
      Samba Team.

    5. Re:And the problem is... by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that they're circumventing the restrictions imposed on them. How are we supposed to know if they have non-discriminatory license terms if we have to sign an NDA just to see those terms? If they were discriminatory, we then couldn't tell anyone...

      There's nothing to stop them from giving different terms to differnt folks in secret (remember those OEM licenses?) and simply bypassing the law.

      It's TOTALLY wrong, IMO. There just isn't a good excuse for this; it makes them look like they're covering something up (and it wouldn't be the first time, according to the findings of fact in this case!)

    6. Re:And the problem is... by oh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From the article

      then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.


      Open Source Developer:

      Ok, Mr. Gates, you will sell me the protocol specs. How much?

      Microsoft Rep:

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Sign this NDA instead.

      I'm not trying to be a rabid anti-Microsoft here. They are in business, and they are entitled to make money from their work. From a legal standpoint, they have acted illegally, and were told to behave better. Are they really behaving better?

      Another point


      Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them.


      If they acted illegally, and to make up for that illegal behaviour, they had to level the playing field up a bit. Linux (along with apple) is one of two main competitors. So they release the protocol specs under a license that effectively prohibits its use in Linux. Hmmm.

      Just another viewpoint. I'm not here to karma whore, but it does make you think.
      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    7. Re:And the problem is... by King+of+the+World · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're wrong. The L/GPL strictly forbids other licences that take away rights under the GPL. The is neccessary because of, for example, a situation where GPL software is taken by a company and in order to download it you have to sign a NDA that says redistribution is illegal.

      But that's besides the point here. It's quite clear what the intention of opening the protocols was, and surrounding the protocol information an NDA would go against the spirit of the ruling (which may be illegal if it were solid, and it may be evil as much as anything is "evil").

      Did Microsoft break the letter of the law? There's no information here. You may ignore any post following this one as there's no information to base any decision on.

      --
      --Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
    8. Re:And the problem is... by Wateshay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're sort of right. The problem that the Samba team would have is that they would be accused of stealing the protocol and violating the NDA if they released a reverse engineered version of the protocol, having signed an NDA and proven that they did have access to the actual protocol at one time. Therefore, the only legally safe course of action is for no one even remotely related to the Samba development team to sign the NDA to obtain the protocol. On the other hand, whether signing the NDA to see the royaties opens them up to any possible prosecution down the road, I don't know. I can't see how it would.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    9. Re: And the problem is... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem

      So, what do you have to do to look at the NDA?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:And the problem is... by michael_cain · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The problem is that they're circumventing the restrictions imposed on them.
      Excuse me... imposed on them? MS claims they are voluntarily complying with the terms of the agreement that they negotiated with the DOJ. That agreement has not been accepted by the judge, hence has no force. I still believe that the judge will decide that Jackson was right the first time around and that splitting the company is the only way to reliably keep MS from repeating the illegal actions that they were convicted of. Remember that the Appeals Court did not say that splitting the company was wrong, only that Jackson had not conducted proceedings appropriate for such a harsh penalty.

      Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...

    11. Re:And the problem is... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is extremely important that the protocols be made 'publicly available'. That means that anyone and everyone should be able to review them just as an RFC can be reviewed. Otherwise, those that privately review the protocol specifications are tainted (by the NDA). Once you are tainted by Microsoft, you essentially could be prevented from working on any GPL project ever. Even if any GPL code you write has nothing to do with whatever Microsoft documentation you reviewed under a NDA, Microsoft with their money could make your life hell. Bottom line, don't get in bed with Microsoft this way. Even if you don't work on GPL code now, you may want to in the future.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    12. Re:And the problem is... by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "they are entitled to make money from their work"

      No no no no no. This is a common misunderstanding. No company should be entitled to anything. You make money if people decide to buy your product.

      Although, I guess if you are abusing a monoopoly such that people haven't a choice, you are sort of entitled. Either way, its a problem.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    13. Re:And the problem is... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Let's say you have some code that does 'Z'. Let's also say that you have been tainted by signing a Microsoft NDA regarding 'Y'. Later, Microsoft comes around and says that you violated the NDA by implementing 'X' in your 'Z' and they say that you learned about 'X' because you reviewed some of their (Microsofts) documentation about 'Y'. They (Microsoft) say that concept 'X' was implemented in 'Y' and you stole it ('X').

      Whether their accusation is accurate or not is not the point, you are potentially screwed over by Microsoft lawyers. They can make your like hell just because they feel like it.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    14. Re:And the problem is... by dcgaber · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is correct (and those later posts that say the Appeals Court prohibbited break-up are wrong, the Court said that procedurally the break-up was not appropriate b/c of Jackson's ex parte comments and lack of hearings on remedies. In fact, the Court issued a later ruling spelling out quite clearly, in a two sentance order, that no remedy was off the table!)

      However, the DoJ, chose on their own, to take break-up off the table. They took away their best bargaining chip for reasons people can feel free to speculate on. In their later seperate action, the hold-out States also chose not to pursue break-up and instead wanted full unbundlin, port of office and IE to rival browsers inc. Linux, and a crown jewell provision to open up source code for future violations.

      The gist is this, Judge CKK is not going to impose a break-up that no one is asking for. It will probably be a remedy that is stronger than the DoJ sell-out but less stringent than the State's proposal. Expect MS to appeal again, expect this not to end soon, or expect the unexpected.

  6. NDA? by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure Microsoft understands the whole point of releasing specs to the public is so that the information will become undisclosed....

    1. Re:NDA? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course Microsoft understands that -- they're not idiots. The problem is the Justice Department didn't understand that (they are idiots), which is why they went along with Microsoft's absurd agreement. The question is whether the Court understands that -- let's hope the Judge groks this and at least tightens up the terms of the agreement.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:NDA? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fear you misunderstand.

      To call the Justice Department idiots presumes that they actually *want* any remedies for Microsoft and their purpose is being thwarted. Remember we had a regime change through this, and the new regime change seems to wish the whole thing would just go away. This little twist is not misaligned with the new goals.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  7. So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am going to sign up, use the passport ID, sign the NDA, and eat the cost of obtaining the information. BUT, here is my way out. I am gonna do all this with a stock out-of-the-box windows machine. I will pasword protect everything the way the average windows user does. I will keep the protocal info on my hard drive in a password protected folder a-la M$ regulations. I will of course connect the computer to a DSL modem, so I can use IE and passport, at which point my IP will become availible for all to see. It is a shame that I couldn't keep those malicous hackers out, as the operating system failed. But I used it just the way MS gave it to me.....

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:So, I found a way... by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Awsome, I am in luck, I am 17....I need to do this before febuary. anyone wanna give me a big wad of cash to pay for it?

      Would it be illegal in any way for me to pay a juvenile to do this? Is it technically against the law for a juvenile to do this? If it is, then it would be illegal for me to pay them to break the law, I'm sure. IANAL (obviously); can anyone who is comment?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  8. Pecunia non olet. by vonWoland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, this should surprise no-one. Nothing short of a radical break-up will cause this company to be one whit less arrogant---indeed, one can argue that since its primary duty is towards its shareholders, there is no incentive for Microsoft to change.
    But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
    The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
    Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
    But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.

  9. Re:Not fair! by belroth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I know there is a lot of anti-Micro$oft sentiment on this board, but you must admit that a company has the right to protect its trade secrets.
    Unless said company is a convicted abusive monopolist who has voluntarily agreed to release said secrets to avoid a more severe penalty.

    (BTW I said abusive because that was what was found, just having a monopoly isn't unlawful)

    --
    I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
  10. One way around... by Jouster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    is to get an organization that many people belong to, say OSDN, to buy the data. Anyone with an OSDN login can view the data (same "person", legally speaking--everyone's a rights-designate of OSDN if the principals sign a few forms [and we click an "I agree" button or two]).

    Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, since:
    [] Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.
    Damn.

    Jouster
    1. Re:One way around... by Jouster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If one has reason to believe the data were illegally obtained (nobody who has posted in this discussion can reasonably argue they didn't know Microsoft wanted these data kept secret), we have certain legal obligations to ensure that we aren't using stolen data.

      Of course, property laws vary from state to state, so CWYLL (Check With Your Local Lawyer).

      Jouster

  11. Workarounds by overshoot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Although software libre developers can't get access to Microsoft's specs or API source, it's quite possible to work around the problem.

    Basically, a commercial entity or entities (e.g. Sun, IBM) with an interest in promoting free software competition to Microsoft could finance an operation which would use the Microsoft specs to put together a compliance suite. Since a great deal of the effort in reverse-engineering protocols lies in making sure that your tests are complete, a black-box compliance suite -- even though not itself free -- would dramatically ease the process of reverse-engineering the specs themselves.

    As a dandy side-effect, the suite would also show up where Microsoft doesn't comply with their own specs, which detail might be of interest to the public and the Court.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Workarounds by SurfsUp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Although software libre developers can't get access to Microsoft's specs or API source, it's quite possible to work around the problem...

      That's not the point. The question is whether Microsoft is living up to their so-called voluntary compliance with the proposed DOS settlement.

      Anyway, the Samba team know this protocol better than Microsoft does at this point, so there's no possible argument for making use of information Microsoft has not placed unambiguously in the public domain. That would just create an opportunity for Microsoft to attack the Samba project legally, which they would no doubt love to do.

      This turn of events is worth far more in terms of demonstrating to Judge Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft is not now abiding by the terms of the DOJ settlement, and cannot be expected to in the future.

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
  12. Wrong! Read C.a.r.e.f.u.l.ly by ashitaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article...

    . In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.

    No, you are not signing an NDA to see information about the protocols or any source code or anything.

    You are being forced to use a proprietory authentication system controlled by the guilty party and have to sign a legal agreement just to find out how you can GET the information.!!!

    And what do you think you will have to sign+pay to access the protocol information itself?

    This is very, very wrong.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  13. Re:Obfuscation? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Computer science 101 time :-).

    API's are *not* protocols. I don't care what their API's are, I don't program under Win32.

    I care what bytes come out from and go into the *network* from a Windows computer as a protocol description.

    You know, that rather thick blue piece of string hanging out the back of your computer :-).

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  14. ReactOS, Samba and WINE by isolation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know myself as a WINE and ReactOS developer I dont even look at anything besides http://msdn.microsoft.com and am just waiting on the day for them to try and attach a EULA to that. The next thing they will try and do is go after WINE and Mingw for cloning the Win32 headers even though that information is covered under Fair Use.

    More then EVER the FreeSoftware/Linux Nutz need to start supporting WINE/Mingw/ReactOS and Samba so we can compeate with M$ before they gain more control with DRM/Palladium.

    I guess we should just be happy .NETs Windows.Forms is still for the most part a portable Win32. Mabey the Mono project will have luck with Mono+WINE to reimplement Windows.Forms and we can really start moving people off of Windows once .NET apps are common.

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  15. Re:Not fair! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You missed the point. The Court says that these protocols are not to remain trade secrets, as that perpetuates Microsoft's illegal monopoly. One of the things that makes their monopoloy illegal is the fact that Microsoft's applications developers have inside information about Microsoft's operating systems that other, non-Microsoft developers can't see.

    The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  16. Re:Not fair! by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I know there is a lot of anti-Micro$oft sentiment on this board, but you must admit that a company has the right to protect its trade secrets.

    Of course and it was M$'s choice to publish them as part of their settlement with the DOJ .... it's the throwing up of silly barriers to make those settlements meaningless that people are complaining about

  17. No, it is not by kfg · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, the GPL explicitly allows payment, as you can confirm for yourself by walking into an Borders and buying a copy of Redhat or Mandrake.

    The GPL does not prohibit payment, it prohibits *prohibiting* giving it away for free. A subtle difference that appears to be beyond the Post's writer. Said writer should expect to find a *very* full inbox tommorow.

    KFG

  18. No! Really? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 5, Funny
    Journalists, I grow tired of this. Wouldn't it save a lot of time, electrons and trees if you only published articles when Microsoft wasn't up to its old tricks?

    This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  19. The industry standard... as a monopoly by turtlendogrmusd.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    To summarize...

    In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.

    We're going to prevent this information from becoming usefull...

    Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler called the protocol process straightforward. He said nondisclosure agreements are common in the industry...

    Everybody does this...

    The protocols are vital for competitors since Windows runs on about 90 percent of desktop computers..

    Of course... We are everybody!

  20. Re:Is this true? by diaphanous · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

    To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

    ~Phillip

  21. Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or am I wrong?

    I think you are wrong - and here is why:

    *If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?

    Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.

    Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
  22. Re:Obfuscation? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a fair cop 'guv :-). Good point. Ok, I don't care what
    their *internal* protocols are :-) :-).

    Thanks,

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  23. GPL misunderstood again by deblau · · Score: 5, Informative
    Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

    This statement is flat wrong. There is nothing in the GPL which prohibits charging for GPL'ed software. The point of the GPL is that source must be made available for at-cost prices (postage, etc), and that source for any derivative product must be made similarly available. It only says that source must be made available at cost if the buyer asks for it. A lot of times, they don't ask. And a lot of times, they're willing to pay big $$ for a nice, installable binary distribution on CD. The GPL also says explicitly that "you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee". This is exactly what Red Hat does.

    In summary, GPL is hardly the same as 'gratis'. It is, OTOH, a good try for 'libre'. Someone please beat these media guys with a cluestick.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:GPL misunderstood again by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but it does state that anyone down the line is free to redistribute it without royaltys, does it not? So, SAMBA team might pay Microsoft for incorporating full access protocols into their software. But if RedHat, for instance, then takes Samba, maybe modifies it a bit, and incorporates it into their OS, they can't be forced to pay Microsoft again. And Dell, which sells PCs running RedHat, can't be forced to pay MS a royalty for each of these machines. This not what the article was saying, but the requirement for a royalty payment does bar use of these protocols in GPL'd software, from what I understand. To follow Microsoft's rules, SAMBA team would have to pay MS for every copy of SAMBA that was shipped, whether or not they actually distributed it. SAMBA team can force everyone who downloads software from them to pay, but can't force everyone who downloads it (legally) from somewhere else to pay as well.

  24. Re:Not fair! by donutello · · Score: 3, Informative

    You missed the point. The Court says that these protocols are not to remain trade secrets, as that perpetuates Microsoft's illegal monopoly.

    You are wrong. The Court hasn't said anything about these protocols. They are merely part of the proposed settlement which the court has not ruled upon yet.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  25. Why should they bother? by PotatoHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all this is a proposed settlement. They are pushing the envelope to get things defined before they are actually defined. They can site common practice, or that it works for most of the interested parties or some other such lame thing in an attempt to get the court to believe that the non-settlement is, in fact, working.

    The holy grail for them is compliance that allows to keep the playing field closed while appearing open. Sounds crazy and circular, but that really is what this entire thing is about.

    Any combination of rules that stops short of a direct order can and will be exploited to their advantage. They have size and smarts enough to know that. For them this whole thing is just an annoying process that they must work through so they can get back to real business.

    I propose that this works in a similar fashion to how the whole copy protection thing works today. If you can legislate it, they can exploit it. Hah!

    Nothing will change unless clear and direct action with accountability is taken...

    It's all a shell game, nothing to see, move on. (Sorry Jeremy, you are right, but have no real backing.)

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  26. Speaking for myself by anomaly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to say thanks to the SAMBA team!

    I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.

    The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.

    Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.

    I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.

    Keep up the good work!

    Regards,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  27. Charging for protocol specs??? by glenebob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What a joke! How do you define 'reasonable'? I find it very very hard to believe a settlement would be proposed with wording that allows what MS is trying to do here. What good are open protocol specs when a 'reasonable' fee and (*choke*) a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT stand between us and them? Who in their right mind can't see this coming from MS? How does this stuff happen?

    For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.

    That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
    From the article:

    "Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment."

    This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.

  28. Thwarting the spirit of the judgement by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the judge says "release it" he didn't say "release it under special and restrictive conditions" and in my opinion they are breaking the spirit of the judgement and should be hauled into court for contempt.

    However, if the judge's orders are so vague that it allows for this crap, then perhaps it should be clarified. A request to the judge should be made citing this specific instance. I can't imagine a judge having his orders screwed with will take it all lightly and will probably render corrective orders more harshly.

  29. Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue. Even Microsoft understands they can sell GPL-covered software (as they have been doing for quite some time now). The GNU GPL (erroneously referred to as "the General Public License" above) does not "[bar] any payment"; it can be okay to sell Free Software including GNU GPL-covered software. In fact, in the essay I just linked to it is encouraged that one get as much money as one can for distributing Free Software.

    One element that makes payment impossible for Free Software developers are licenses that require per-seat payments. When you have the freedom to share the software freely you can't keep track of who gets a copy. When you have the freedom to modify the software tracking systems built into the software can (and probably will) be removed. Free Software licenses grant you the freedoms to share and modify the software under that license.

    --
    Digital Citizen
    1. Re:Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by nagora · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

      Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue.

      In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.

      In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  30. "Bars any payment" NOT FUD by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.

    This is not FUD. I've read a few posts that say it is, and I must admit it looked like it to me at first. This is really a good idea on Microsoft's part. If they want to keep any proprietory information away from free software developers all they need do is demand a royalty be paid on every distribution of a product that uses that information. Think about it. You want to download Xine with support for the new Windows Media Player format? Ok, Microsoft is more than willing to supply the Xine folks with the specification for the new format, but they demand a royalty on each distribution of Xine. So, you, the user, are required to pay a royalty, to Microsoft, for your copy of Xine. This is pretty standard for non-free-software right? Well the GPL will not permit the Xine folks to make this requirement of you!

    Good show Microsoft, very evil.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  31. If they want IP protection... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they want IP protection, then they must disclose. Disclosure is the price of admission for IP protection.

    If they claim that the information was stolen, then disclosed to third parties, *it doesn't matter* if the original disclosure was illegal: the information loses trade secret status, and the damages they are able to recover are *only* against the original discloser.

    Only patents and copyrights provide IP protection for disclosed information.

    -- Terry

  32. Re: So how come we're not bombing Microsoft? by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
    But Bill knows that it might come to that to enforce the court's decisions. So he's dug himself in with a windowless, underground bunker and started arming himself. ;)

    Seriously, aerial bombing campaign or not, the court's decisions do need to be enforced. Interoperability is essential for economic growth and since Microsoft has been the largest single obstacle to interoperability, you could say that it looks like Microsoft has been a factor in holding back eonomic growth.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  33. I hope the judge read my submission by Paul+Johnson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was one of the people who sent in comments under the Tunny act. You can find them in the list of 47 selected comments. In it I wrote:
    Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they inevitabley reveal the full details of their operation to any programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from using that interface, since to do so would reveal the "secret" of its operation. This appears to have been the objective of the click-through license on the Kerberos extensions (see above). The "Samba" project (www.samba.org) has reverse-engineered the Microsoft file and printer sharing protocols, allowing non-Microsoft systems to gain access to resources on Microsoft systems. An updated version of Samba for Windows 2000 is being prepared which will need to inter-operate with the Windows 2000 Kerberos extensions. If these extensions are considered trade secrets then it would be impossible for the Samba project to work with these extensions, and a key component in any mix of Microsoft and non-Microsoft computers would be crippled.

    I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.

    Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.

    Paul.

    --
    You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
  34. Courts do get it eventually by werdna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft has managed to survive many tough legal blows to date and, despite a criminal conviction, seemed like they would survive with a slap on the wrist. Part of it was some tough negotiations with a timid (or well-lobbied, perhaps) Justice Department and a few states, and part of it was a well-oiled "P.R." campaign to good cop the new judge. Part of that campaign was a supposed, "voluntary," implementation of the settlement.

    Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.

    It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.

    For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.

    I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.