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!
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.
"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."
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
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.
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. "
It is amazing that the one actual insightful comment on this entire issue is stuck down at the bottom without any moderation at all.
The DOJ sold out on this settlement with Microsoft. I have no doubts that a Gore administration would have done just the same, but Charles James really screwed up on this one. The major indicator of how crappy the settlement was is that none of the career antitrust attorneys at the DOJ signed on the settlement. That is an act that is never done by the DOJ. The Washington Post ran a story that was obviously leaked by the career attorneys talking about how Charles James insisted that he should be the only one negotiating with MS, so he and the MS lawyer were sitting in the room together with the MS lawyer dictating what the settlement should be.
One major question that no one has thought about is how this decision will affect the races for Attorney General that are going on now. The elections are on Tuesday, and three of the resisting AGs are in very tight races. I suspect that the settlement will be rejected, and the judge will state that she thinks there should be a more stringent settlement. Microsoft will then appeal this ruling to the DC Cicuit, where her decision will be upheld. Then, the appeal to the Supreme Court will be VERY interesting.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.