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 does her ruling affect the 9 dissenting states? They didn't agree to the RPFJ, so how can it be binding on them?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Which makes me wonder. If Microsoft had really been trying to win the case on the merits, then their legal team was so incompetent they should all have been fired. I haven't heard they had, though, which makes me wonder if this all went more or less according to plan. Maybe they wanted to infuriate Judge Jackson so much that he would make just the kind of mistake he wound up making. Doesn't it seem to anyone else that from that point on, the MS lawyers suddenly started performing like the legal Dream Team they were supposed to be instead of the fuckups they'd been up to that point? If that's true, they must have been deeply disappointed that only Jackson's penalty was vacated and his finding of fact was left to stand.
This may surprise those of you who believe that conservative judges always rule politically, like liberal activist judges, but many conservative judges prefer to rule based on fairly strict constructions of the actual law rather than legislate from the bench. No less a towering conservative figure than Robert Bork, Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, believes that MS should be broken up, and he literally wrote the book on the conservative approach to antitrust law. Based on the stories I've read about the trial so far, I expect Judge Kollar-Kotelly to come down rather harsher on MS than some of you seem to fear.
And the brethren went away edified.
A lot of widows and orphans have their retirement accounts with investment houses that hold large amounts of Microsoft stock.
:) Shareholders should take responsibility for the actions of their company. If they don't represent the crimes microsoft is guilty of, then they should sell their stock. And if you're talking about mutual funds, same difference. If the death of microsoft toples a mutual fund, then they were very very very very bad investors. This is extremely unlikely. AT&T is still around, and breaking up microsoft would be much easier than it was to break them up. In the long run, (to use your emotionally loaded argument) it's neccesary so that we don't have even more starving orphans and widows. Microsoft hurts the overall economy by cornering the market.
If Microsoft gets torn apart, their stock is going to drop like a rock. The people whose 401Ks and 403Bs hold MSFT will take the brunt of it.
Since when were people assured that their money was safe in stocks?!?!?! No one is forcing you to be involved with microsoft's stocks, only their software
There are a lot of people rooting for Microsoft. The people who root against them are the same as people who rooted for the beating of Reginald Denny.
Oh lord, I can't get over this quote. Reginald Denny was a fucking INNOCENT!!! Microsoft is the AGGRESSOR!!! This would be a lot more like the grand dragon of the kkk getting pulled out of his truck and beaten, and yes, I would be loudly applauding that. I didn't applaud the beating of Reginald Denny, and unlike you who seems to hold some reservations on the subject, I thought it was an utter disgrace. To me, racism is racism. You don't attack innocent people because of their race, period. Anyway, now I'm as off-topic. It seems like everyone thinks the economy will tank even further if microsoft is broken up. What we're all failing to notice is that microsoft is stifiling competition in the market. They're also sweeping into new markets. If anything, breaking them up will HELP the economy. There'll be more market to pass arround, and trust me, there are a lot of companies out there that can do a lot better than microsoft has in the OS market.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
The problem isn't even really with the OS. Remember at one time it cost money for Netscape (because it was [imho:is] the premier product). If someone wanted to strike a deal with Netscape and put it right on the installed OS's desktop... they can't! AOL? Out of the question! Now you must pay more because you haven't given Microsoft the mindshare they wanted.
This is a common misconception, and I have no idea where it comes from.
For example, the Packard Bell computer I had at work in 1998 came with Netscape Navigator pre-installed.
The issues wasn't putting Netscape on there - it was that you couldn't put Netscape on there and remove the shortcut to Internet Explorer.
Similarly, most copies of Windows come with an AOL installer built in. The issue isn't putting it in there - it's that Microsoft want MSN to get the same exposure.
So it's not quite as cut and dried as you seem to want to make it out to be. The OEMs *can* do all of these things -- they just have to leave Microsoft's stuff in there as well, as prominently advertized as the alternatives.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't decide what's better. Accepting it or rejecting. I live in KS, one of the states that told the DOJ and MS to stick it. I *think* it would be better to see it rejected which might make our case stronger. Thoughts?
This product was intended to be installed on a system that has an existing Windows installation. What it did was add a few files to an existing Win31 setup, so that it could run under OS/2. This means that you did not have to migrate your Win16 apps to the os/2 install as well as the windows install.
Netscape
Anyone who was familiar with pre-netscape internet would probably know that browsers supported http:, and for other sessions like ftp: or gopher:, you needed other applications. Netscape integrated this into a user-friendly browser, and charged money for their bit.
Microsoft fielded IE, and charged money for it, too. But when MS did not get the market share they wanted, they first dropped the price, and then bounded it to the OS.
It's not difficult to make a Windows 95b install that has no internet browser on install. It took me an afternoon to patch the install to do it. It works quite well. It just shows that the ties are artefacial, not technical.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Not to disagree with you, because i'm not sure myself about this. But my logic goes like this, for example:
If someone said my company enjoyed "Monopoly Power" and it was true, based on findings of fact, wouldn't I have to be a *MONOPOLY* to be able to enjoy "Monopoly Power"?
Based on your reasoning, it's like saying that I have presidental power, for example. Wouldn't I have to be a president to enjoy those powers?
Unless someone clarifies this for me, it's only fair to assume that in the findings of fact of Microsoft, the court did pretty much say Microsoft is a monopoly.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Actually, as it has been mentioned above, U.S. courts do not usually reveal verdicts concerning publicly traded companies until after the markets close. This is done to prevent the market from severely fluctuating at the news (whether good or bad). It is also interesting to point out that the ruling will be available on a Friday after the markets close. Methinks that this ruling is going to have some serious impact....
Judge Jackson's decision was important because back then it looked like the government and the judicial system were ready able and willing to enforce the law.
But this DOJ has shown no interest to enforce the antitrust law. This makes the case a farce - a conflict between two parties that basicly agree on the issues, but only want to pretend to disagree.
The judge can refuse to approve the agreement but what if she does - if the government doesnt seek sanctions she wont impose them. The best she may do is elicit another agreement, which is guaranteed to be just as inefective.
On top of everything the judicial system has responded in a very unprofessional manner. The appelate court chose not to try and overturn judge jackson on the facts ( they will need to write a good logical justification, based on the evidence, to do that) but to pummel him with ethics accusations.
The current judge knows very well that Jackson got punished for rendering a certain decision and she is unlikely to do anything similar if she cares about her career at all.
since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings
The anti-trust hearings were started under Bush Sr.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Simply not true. Money in the bank can be unused. If your economy is growing to fast, you'd see few "idle" bucks at the banks. If your economy is "cold", you'd see a _lot_ of idle money in the bank. Reinforcing these, when investors see that companies earnings at expected to go down, they sell but NOT to buy another hopefully underpriced stock, but to put it in the bank. (Just look at the interest rates falling. And that's also why the fed lowers rates, but they try to lower them beforehand, before people decide to cancel proyect as a countermesure of getting colder than needed. If they cannot prevent the ice formation, at least there is less incentive to sit the money on bacnks, and olso the projects VAN is measured against this rate).
Buy money owners couldn't care less earning less from having the money sitting in the bank, they are now "safe". Also, many projects are canceled in real life, because demand falls and thus you have extra capacity (you only need capital reposition, if anything). So new projects get postponed because of lack of oportunities.
So what would be desirable? To let companies AND people that will NOT sit their own revenues or even wealth. Of course, we all know that these are companies that either do reinvest all their extra earnings and people that consume all their income.
When this start getting cold, you need the "rich" individuals to start spending money (thepoor have already DONE that! They have no choice) and the rich (=very profitable) companies as well (the others are already speding all their income!)
So your argument COULD be not wrong. But it is in fact wrong. People cannot really find very good project to start right now. And the only ones that can decide to use that money ANYWAY are the ones that own that money. That is Microsoft et al (money bank sitters).
If they don't do it, then the goverment must do it. So you can expect a lot of deficit. And many taxes raised (so they can take away profiting power from the profiters that are not spending it, and then Spend It Right Away. Of course, this hurts companies that where not very profitable). Well, all this means inefficiency and can be a very dangerous game.
I don't really know how can people speak SO HIGH when there a lots of capable human beigns unemployed all over the countries, and a lot of factories underutilized. Is this an efficient use of resources?
And no, money is a limited resource only when it is beign used! Not when sitting in banks. (and if you want to force loans at near 0 interest rates and such, you'll see banks collapsing after a while, because loaned money will be used in stupid projects that can't pay the loans back, and the low margin of intermediation will not compensate the loses.).
So no... the right thing to do is not to profit from monopoly and make it sit on the bank for the "goodwill of the US citizen". The thing is to actually have them to use the money. And they don't want that (after all, shareholders can simple just SELL the stock if they want cash).
unfinished: (adj.)
Expect the following:
...)
.Net code I have been tinkering with. :-)
1) No real motion to do anything about Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. They (MS) already bought most of the legal system to insure the ruling stands, regardless if it is legal or not.
So don't expect any of that to change, now or in the future. Yes, the legal system in the US is that bad, even after Enron.
2) Expect however, for Microsoft to set a number of legal precendents (such as the keeping of its monopoly power by this judge and others sure to come) that insure other very large companies to consider the same tactics to consolidate thier power in other markets in the US outside the tech industry. (i.e. clothing, energy, automotive
I expect as this unfolds, the US economy to become even MORE monolithic, and even MORE depressed as more innovation moves offshore to escape the corporate monoliths of invincibility in this country.
3) Expect other companies to use the same illegal tactics Microsoft has, and then use court rulings to either make "the law" (i.e. specifically anti trust law, cohesion, cartle laws..etc) irrelevant or insure the the legal costs are so high, defending companies will not intrude on companies with 51% market share anywhere.
Don't expect good news people. It is sad because I want my country to return to the good times. But that won't happen, when companies like Microsoft can sit on 30 Billion in capital and lock it away for the specific use to buy court rulings, and congreessional leaders. SInce this money isn't returned into the economy startups can't use it, ideas don't get funded, and little Johnny will continue to see the cost of the OS increase to the point it is 70% the cost os a home computer! (Which is comming by the way, as hardware prices continue to decline, Microsoft licenses continue to increase at never before seen rates...)
Monolithic economies, like the US, do not spur innovation, because large corporate entities who already own most of the market don't have to innovate anymore. They just sit on huge amounts of capital, and do nothing with it except harrass competition, startups, and illegally appropriate technology from other companies and figure out how to price fix thier products in the market place.
The harm that does to the technology investment sector in the US is incalculable, and the job losses are staggering.
Think about this while all you slashdot IT people sit at home unemployed.
Don't buy Microsoft products. Force Microsoft to return that ridiculously large pile of cash back into the tech sector.
Who knows, if the are forced to use all of it, maybe they will make a decent product with it, or improve the alpha quality of the
Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The thing is Microsoft can just kill ANY software product that needs a profit to survive. Netscape this or that, could put could not put blah blah. Microsoft doesn't need to argue. They can decide they want Netscape to die and just invest X money on a bundled broswer. That's it, Netscape HAS to close.
So as long as you don't control the entire software bussiness, you are in risk of getting your revenue stream killed by Microsoft. If they REALLY want to, they could kill you. If you depend on a revenue stream, better not get in the way of Microsoft. It doesn't matter how innovative or well done your product is (ICQ, webmail, whatever), they will just put it free.
No wonder why AOL can't make revenues and Microsoft can. Because Micrsoft just needs 2 or 3 products to be sold to compensate ALL the loses in ALL the other fields (read: Office + Windows + some other products pay for everything).
And then they keep on "embracing and extending". That's why they must be stopped. They MUST be split, so they cannot leverage their positions. I lve Windows, I love Office, I love Explorer, I love . But I don't love them leveraging that so wipe competition. I can only lose in the long/mid term.
unfinished: (adj.)
Here's what you do:
Force all the head honchos from Microsoft (Bill Gates, etc..) to leave the company and to have no financial stake in Microsoft.
Of course, being as greedy as they are, they will create a rival company to Microsoft and have billions to put behind it. Now that would be interesting. I wonder if any of Bill's hired henchmen could possibly be more evil than he is?
Then how does Opera Software stay afloat?
I used to be a huge fan of Netscape. In many ways, NS3/X11 was (and still is) one of the best browsers ever made. Back when the phrase "browser wars" had any relevance, I consistently rooted for Netscape, and I have always and likely will always despise MSIE.
But the sad fact is that Netscape lost because they got overconfident and started sucking. Badly. NS4 was an unadulterated pile of tripe on every platform I've ever had the misfortune to see it running on. (I'm of the firm opinion that Netscape's sending JWZ to play on other projects was a large reason for this.)
From extremely unstable Java, JavaScript, and plugin handling, to a broken DOM, to broken font handling, to simple unmitigated flouting of Web standards, NS4 was a nightmare for developers, system administrators, and end users. And let's not forget that NS4's claim of implementing CSS, while deploying the most insane and broken implementation known to humanity, singlehandedly held back the Web by 2 or 3 years.
My experience with Netscape, the company, seems to bear this out. When I worked for a large company supposedly in a "strategic alliance" with them, they refused to even answer the phone when their phones showed it was us calling. I personally knew several people tasked with deploying Netscape products at the enterprise level, and the painful and unsupported hacks we had to put in place leave me cringing even now. We were supposed to be using the iPlanet server everywhere, but my manager had us use Apache and a third-party servlet engine after Netscape refused to implement basic Java servlet APIs and their configuration manager trashed our configs. When I later worked at a startup, we had one of the Netscape execs at our company, and he was still convinced that his old company's server products would win the day. Netcraft statistics meant nothing to him -- it was as if they didn't even exist -- and he seemed puzzled why everyone refused to mouth platitudes about it.
I use (unbranded) Mozilla now, and I'm very happy with it, but keep in mind that this is basically a complete redesign and rewrite of Netscape, years too late. Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, and other browsers may win back market share, but it is far too late for Netscape, the company, and for good reason.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.