Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Anti-Trust Rulings Due Tomorrow
ewhac writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will deliver her opinions on the Microsoft anti-trust suit tomorrow, after close of markets. Much speculation revolves around whether she will approve or reject the settlement negotiated by the Justice Department. Should she reject it, she can only offer suggestions for improvement; she cannot impose amendments. Watch this site for further developments :-)." Reader acacia points out that the opinions should be posted at this site, if you want a quick bookmark.
how they intend to enforce the judgement. Try keeping tabs on the biggest information company in the world and you'll see where the problem lies.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Now the browser is back into the OS really.
Hopefully court cases can start moving at a O(1) pace instead of a O(N^2) pace.
I do however think this situation is different from the big tabbacco lawsuits that we saw from "The Insider" movie (eg they have enough money and time to wait out a 15 year lawsuit) since the comp field is far more dynamic than simple ol cigarettes.
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
Judge Jackson was also a Reagan appointee. And yet he took the time to "get it" (by which I mean that he managed to educate himself enough about the technology to see through the smoke screens Microsoft's lawyers put up), and his ruling ripped the company a new one.
So Judge Kollar-Kotelly may yet rule in favor of Microsoft, but her being a Reagan appointee doesn't guarantee that at all.
Wait, so it's possible (hopefully unlikely, but nontheless possible) that DoJ completely ignores her suggestions and let Microsoft get off EASIER?
wow gotta love this government... Judges cannot impost judgements =)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
They are really whistling in the dark now. The announced departure of Charles James from the DOJ portends a complete undoing of the "settlement" he was dictated by Redmond. Bush had to find him a cushy job from his oil-field cronies to get him out of the way.
What is with Microsoft and Halloween? This could well be a make or break (literally ;) day for Microsoft. When the judge first took this under consideration in late June many were expecting a decision by late August. Let's hope that the judge has been pondering this carefully and she'll blow up Microsoft. I think it is also particularly ominous for Microsoft considering she is going out of her way to release the ruling _after_ the close of the markets.
I know it's worth a grain of salt, but my prediction: she is going to break up the company in some for or another, reject the settlement and require Microsoft to seperate IE from the OS in some form.
"The problem is that they are forcing machine makers to ship Windows as-is and punishes them for shipping otherwise."
I can't help but think that the bigger PC retailers weren't exactly kicking and screaming over an exlusive arrangement like that until MS's anti-trust allegations came around. If you think about it, 1 OS was good for places like Gateway or Dell or even IBM. Only one OS to support. Computers only needed one OS installed. That one OS ran everything people wanted on their computers, including games.
If you think about it, MS didn't always have the power to dictate who can use what. I think the odds are pretty good that the retailers themselves were happy to get into those agreements, early on at least.
"Derp de derp."
Just imagine how much money you could make/loose from Friday to monday. Are you the gambling type?? :)
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
No matter what happens Microsoft will appeal to the Supreme Court. That will drag everything on even longer, and be exactly how Microsoft has handled all their dealings. Drag it out until it doesn't matter that much whatever happens.
Actually Microsoft is punishing themselves more than the court probably will with their new licensing.
> Considering that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by the very conservative Ronald Reagan
Judges sometimes show remarkable independence after being "packed" onto the bench.
> and the Justice Department is under control of the reactionary John Ashcroft
Judges don't generally suck up to whoever is running the JD.
Looking at her record would probably give a better prediction of her behavior.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It doesn't matter if the settlement goes against M$. The proposed changes do nothing to stop their monopoly, and the financial affects are negligible (anyone drop a penny lately? I dont pick them up either...)
Microsoft, without a complete dismantling, will continue to rape and pillage the marketplace with their strong arm tactics. Fortunately for us, Govts/Corporations are getting SICK OF THIER BULLSHIT. Hopefully the market will force M$ to change cause the "law" (read decisions based on large donations and wining/dining lobbyists.)certainly wont.
Hell, if it were me, I'd SHOOT ALL OF THE MICROSOFT EXECUTIVES IN THE FUCKING HEAD AND LEAVE THEM FOR ROADKILL FOR THE CROWS AND VULTURES TO PEC AT.
(luckily i dont have a gun)
One of the flaws with antitrust law is that once a monopoly is allowed to reach a certain critical mass, it becomes immune to antitrust laws. MS is well beyond that level. Antitrust laws simply do not apply to it. The only thing that can be done is to break up monopolies before they reach this critical mass. Whatever this judge may say tomorrow is irrelevant and will not affect MS in the slightest way. The government will win the "war on drugs" before it will ever be able to break up Microsoft.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
No, its not because Microsoft can buy high priced lawyers.
;))
A report I have not seen on slashdot lately, and unfortunately I cannot confirm, is that Microsoft was eyeing major Real Estate in Canada around the time the White house and Attorney General's office was making the transistion to Bush/Ashcroft.
This action would have scared the shit out of the Clinton admininstration, even if they didn't act on it. The current administration probably felt it wasn't worth it to try to completely kill Microsoft and lose billions in tax dollars. They also probably saw that $40 billion war chest and said "Crap, that's enough money to move them out of the country, and we won't see any taxes on it."
If anyone has anything that could confirm this I would appreciate replies added (and a mod up to show them to everyone
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Assume that dividing microsoft into separate divisions is successful in giving competition a chance. More products will be introduced to the market, and software prices could go down.
Now you might argue that increaced price competition in the software industry will only cause further harm to an already sick area of our economy, but I disagree.
For example.
Our company provides custom programming services to shopping malls. If our shopping mall clients could save $3000 dollars from their annuall operations budgets by spending less on Microsoft products then they now have $3000 more that they can give to me.
Of that $3000 bucks I give Uncle Sam $800, and now have $2200 to save of spend. I know that money sitting in the bank does our economy no good so being a good citizen I go out and buy a new iBook.
The money keeps circulating in the economy.
Money that is not spent on Microsoft products will be spent elsewhere. Trust me if Microsoft crumbles (and it won't any time soon)the economy will survive. Increased competition might even help it.
Sorry, but breaking up the company has already been thrown out. That can't be an option. Thanks for playing though. Hope that helps.
Actually, that's not true. Judge Jackson's ruling has been thrown out, because of questions over his impartiality, and the case was sent back for re-evaluation. However, Kollar-Kotelly is perfectly within her rights to decide that a breakup is the right thing to do after all. Of course, she's a different person and may have a different opinion than Jackson, but she's certainly allowed to have the same opinion.
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Actually, money sitting in a bank is loaned out to people who want to buy houses or start businesses. The money then goes on to build something that will generate income which will require income tax payment. So money that is not in your hands because it is in the bank is actually out earning more for the government than your spending it would.
In the market, money is a limited resource. In the bank, the money is growing. The more money grows, the more taxes the government can take in the long run.
Don't be fooled by elementary economics.
OK Anonymous Retard, listen up. I live in LA and was watching in abject horror in 1992 as Reginald Denny was beaten by a group of thugs. I didn't like the verdict but the riots were inexcusable.
As far as the starving retirees, widows and orphans who might be inconvenienced by an adverse verdict against a very deserving Microsoft: there was ample warning that MS had done something wrong, they could suggest to their broker to put them into something that did not contain the offensive stock. There were literally YEARS to prepare for this moment. Besides, anyone who didn't get out of tech stocks in 2000 was a fool.
Besides, all indications are that MS will only get a slap on the wrist and a half-hearted "don't DO that!" They 0wn the Department of Justice. Who's to say they haven't already bought and paid for a favorable verdict here too?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
You're not drawing a distinction between sole-source and monopoly. Most definitions of the word monopoly refer to exclusive ownership or control, but one definition says "a commodity controlled by one party" (from m-w.com). From the US government's point of view, having a 95% share in a market constitutes an effective monopoly (okay, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably about right in this case). Sure, there are alternatives, but they aren't practical in most cases (see my example below).
You say "A company shouldn't be penalized for being successful...." This is entirely true, and this is why anti-trust laws were written very carefully. Companies are not punished for being monopolies. If your company makes product A so well that no one else can compete, great! However, companies are punished for using their monopoly in one market to wedge their way into other market rather than competing based on the merits of their product. This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer (which, if you remember, was distinctly worse than Netscape Navigator until Microsoft used their monopoly powers to force IE on everyone).
I'm sick of hearing from people who think monopolies are bad, or who think this case is about Microsoft being a monopoly. It's not. This case is about Microsoft abusing their monopoly to gain control of other markets. The true importance of this case only comes to light when you consider that just about every company in the US (and maybe in the world) depends on Microsoft software to run their computers, and thereby to run their business.
To put it in concrete terms: let's say you want to start a business selling widgets. You've come up with and patented a method for making widgets that are twice as good and cost half as much as those of your competitors. Now you just need to set up a computer network to control your manufacturing, sales, and distribution network. Since you're a big fan of open-source software, you've built your distribution system using FreeBSD, Linux, or your OSOS (open-source operating system; not to be confused with ZOSO, a popular name for a certain Zeppelin album) of choice. However, you find that the available talent for your secretarial pool (or, in this day and age, the temps you hire) only know Windows, so you buy them a bunch of computers running Windows FU. Suddenly you get a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft that says that under the terms of the license agreement (which the temps you hired that day clicked through when you set up the machines), you're only allowed to sell widgets if all of your computers have up-to-date licenses for Windows FU, and then you can only sell them at the prices Microsoft dictates. Suddenly you're in a position where Microsoft is controlling your business practices, but you can't tell them to sod off because your secretaries only know Windows. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but without control, Microsoft could have somewhat more subtle but no less disturbing effects on the global economy. Before being broken up, AT&T could've done the same thing. If we need laws to make sure that the companies supplying phone service obey common decency, then why should we be surprised to need similar laws in the computer industry?
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
The problem with breaking MS up is that once you break them up, you can no-longer impose punishments on the individual broken up parts. But that is no matter if you break them up in the proper way.
The proper way to break MS up isn't breaking it into hardware, software, and OS parts. That's idiotic, and would just create 3 more monopolies in the hardware, software, and OS areas. What you need to do is split MS up vertically and horizontally. That is, split it up by departmental lines; then also split up each department into multiple companies.
If they're to be split up, they should be split up into software, hardware, and OS components; then the software, hardware, and OS components should be split up further. This way, several MSlets would be competing in regards to an OS. This destroy's the OS monopoly.
Of course, the problem with this is that Windows is so universal that their products might still continue to dominate by inertia, even though they're inferior. Thus, careful consideration needs to be taken in deciding whether to split them up or punish them harshely.
If we're to punish them, we need to demand they release the source for their standards, and release the source for the various parts of the OS which programs directly interact with; this will allow competitors to make products which can compete against MS natives on MS Windows. We also need them to open up these specifications so other OS's like Linux can offer better emulation layers for Windows. You need to prevent MS from blackballing OEMs and the like. You need to give OEMs the right to modify Windows any way they choose before selling it. You need to ensure that MS can't enter into any contract with OEMs which would prevent or dissuade them from also offering Linux or BSD on their computer. Also, large fines should be imposed on MS, the money from which would be used to bring drivers and software to competing OS'. The only way that GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga SDK, and *BSD can compete with MS is if they have alot of software support and alot of hardware support. The problem is that software and hardware companies won't offer their software/drivers for alternate OS' unless those OS' are popular; and those OS' won't become popular unless they have large software and hardware support. Hence, a hellish cycle which favors the current monopoly, MS. The main consideration of the government should be to break that cycle and allow all OS' to compete on their merits.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
A careful study of Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly demonstrates that she is well versed in the law, and spends the necessary effort to research her opinions. I like this is in a Judge, even though I may not agreewith their opinions. IMHO, Microsoft's behavior, to date, has been a clear demonstration of why anti-trust law was created to begin with. I deeply hope that Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is able to see from a similar perspective. If we're lucky, she'll decide that Judge Jackson was far too restrained, and hand Microsoft ground butt in a handbasket. But, then again, I've always been a hopeless optimistic.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
"IANAMF (read I am not a MS fan) but as I remember the other companies with competing OSs did not step up to the plate and court the PC clone companies like MS did in the early game."
The fact is that there wouldn't have been any PC clone companies were it not for MS. The only reason they exist is that MS insisted on the right to license DOS to 3rd parties and IBM foolishly agreed.
I suspect that had IBM decided otherwise, personal computers would be more expensive and Apple would have a significantly larger market share.
The impact of the tech sector that would cause is that there will be an opportunity for other os's to be sold. That will probably cause a boom in the tech sector. Further more the application sector would improve, because developers will no longer be scared that their apps will be incorporated into office or windows. And one might even be able to go into Circuit city and have a choice of operating systems on a new computer.
If you patch for a windows exploit you usually create a new exploit. Some times you might even get a new "rights manegment" feature.
By the way when you say "Gates would probably enjoy the satisfaction of telling the govt. to shove it" it shows that you dont understand what is going on. The government is currently trying very hard to make gates happy. They just want to do it while mainting a pretense of rule of law. Gates has no reason to be pissed at them right now.
The price that the consumer is charged per Kilowatt in CA was always controlled by the CA govt. That is NOT deregulation, no matter what anyone tells you. Right now there are a lot of companies with long distance networks, and that has proven to provide a cheap source of long distance. The same could work with electric power if the govt. would STOP regulating.
Vote for Pedro
OK. Now that is breathtakingly naive. It is one of the most essential roles of government to set the rules under which business is done. To make the simplest example, if you sign a contract with a company, that contract is only useful because you both know that the government will enforce it for you. Now suppose we didn't have those pesky government rules about contracts -- how would you do business? The answer is, you couldn't.
Since you bring up the Soviet Union, perhaps you've noticed that since the USSR is gone Russia has not exactly seen an economic boom. And the reason is that the government is failing to enforce business law, and the resulting anarchy is enriching a few crooks but generally sending the economy into a shambles.
So although the more mindless conservatives like to talk about government regulation like it's the plague, the fact is that business absolutely relies on it. The tricky part is, they have to be the right rules.
Bzzt. You lose. Microsoft is a legal monopoly. Acquiring this status does not require you hold 100% of the market; rather only something like 85%. Even this is probably a little lenient. Being a monopoly is also not illegal, as long as you don't abuse it.
Nice logic. Coke and Pepsi do bad things and aren't monopolies. Microsoft does bad things. Therefore, MS isn't a monopoly.
Humans eat food and water, and aren't cows. Cows eat food and water. Therefore, cows aren't cows.
Yeah. This should happen. You don't go quite far enough, but we're at least on the same page here.
Unfortunately, you're rather naive if you think monopolies should be left to run unchecked. In a perfect system, either monopolies couldn't happen, or they would run their natural course and die.
The problem is, this isn't a perfect system. Look at the RIAA, MPAA, even Microsoft lobbies; when corporations can fund lawmaking, legislate their business model, and outlaw their competition, the system doesn't work.
The checks and balances are there for a reason. You take those away, and everything topples. Right now, it's leaning precariously.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
IBM were a convicted monopolist long before OS/2 appeared on the scene. IBM is a hardware company who make software. Their software is none the less good.
For being such a loser product, it does a pretty good attempt of staying alive. Its community is every bit as vibrant as that of Linux, despite being a closed source operating system. Why. It was the firstest with the mostest. OS/2 v 3 now has USB support. Hmm. Not Windows NT 4.
IBM also complied with the antitrust people.
It must never be forgotten that the roots of Linux lies in yet another anti-trust case: that of AT&T. They developed unix, and the source code for unix was released under assorted agreements and restrictions of antitrust. This became the foundation of the open-source stuff.
On the other hand, MS tightened the screws in every way they are legally allowed to, such as using massive reserves to literally capture markets with loss-leaders. I do not trust MSFT.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
The appellate court said "we find no evidence of actual bias ".
Part of Jackson's rulings were overturned because he violated judicial standards about talking to the press which could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
As for a proper solution, that's a tough one. Microsoft anti-competitive tactics are rampant throughout their bussiness dealings. Simply fixing the OEM licensing contracts isn't going to accomplish anything.
I don't know if a break-up is a good idea or not, but it is about the only ruling I can think of that would be sweeping enough to keep them from continuing with anti-competitive tactics that aren't on some short list of prohibitited activities.
A truely massive financial penaly might be enough to put some fear of breaking the law into them, but I think that may not be an available option.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You see, that's the problem - they do have a gun pointed at everyone - the economic equivalent of a gun called monopoly power. And your suggestion to pull Windows from the market is akin to cocking the hammer and squeezing the trigger.
But......
Believe it or not, I agree with you - Microsoft should do exactly that. Though I doubt you'll like my reasons for agreeing.
Windows is the metaphorical bullet in the gun. Once they pull the trigger, they'll have nothing left to threaten the marketplace with. The market will complain about being shot in the groin (personally because I believe that's where Microsoft likes to aim), but it's not a fatal wound. Once the market gets past the initial shock, they will realize there is nothing stopping them from going to alternate apps, alternate OS'es, and alternate licensing schemes.
Pulling Windows from the marketplace will ultimately give the market the impetus it has been wanting for a while now to restore balance and competition. No more Windows, no more dependence on Microsoft. Distributors/retailers will no longer feel pressured (or bullied) into offering only MS product, nor will competing companies feel like they have to hide from 'the giant boot'.
So....I'd love to see MS pull Windows. Unfortunately the gun they wield is double-barrelled, with one barrel aimed at themselves. They can't shoot you without shooting themselves. Their monopoly is their lifeblood - and they know it.
Karma: Shagadelic (mostly affected by those tight knickers - yeah baby, yeah!)