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!
You know, the more I hear those words, the more they lose their meaning.
I'm at the point where I picture an anti-trust suit as being the last thing you'd want to wear on a blind date. Basically, the opposite of a technicolor dreamcoat.
Kevin Fox
I can't wait to see how this turns out. I think this is the first time I've anxiously anticipated a Microsoft anything.
This
Beyond the obvious symbolic context, I wouldn't might being part of an unruly mob with pitchforks and torches storming towards the Bill Gate's version of Frankenstein's castle.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
Try keeping tabs on the biggest information company in the world...
:)
What does IBM have to do with the Microsoft antitrust trial?
I was writing the judgement on the PC, and it was like "beep beep boop beep beep", and then, it was like, half of my judgement was gone, and I was like "Huh?".
It devoured my judgement.
It was really a good judgement.
And then I had to do it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of a...bummer.
I'm Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and I'm a judge.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
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.
"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.
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.
If you think about it, 1 OS was good for places like Gateway or Dell or even IBM.
Yeah, IBM was soooo confused... "OS/2 Warp or Windows?"
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.
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.
I guess this is why Dell complained about these things at trial?
Companies always want to be told how to do their business.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Opinion...
Judge: Settlement approved. Microsoft, you're naughty.
Microsoft: I want a second opinion.
Judge: Ok, you're ugly, too.
Ba doom boom...
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
> 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
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.
A /. poll so we can guess the outcome.
What do you think the judgement will be?
Heck, that's worth wagering on. Anyone for SlashBet?
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
Every time she tried to type her ruling against Microsoft, Clippy kept popping up with "It looks like you are trying to type an unfavorable ruling. Do you want some help?" When she clicked no, wouldn't you know it, one of those darn crashes would happen!
Anyone interested in MS's Political Contributions? Or how they've fluctuated over the years? Check out This Page to get started.
Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.
Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Umm.. Not really. Judge KK recently gained a bit of attention for her activities as head of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. That's the secret court that supervises the DoJ and Atty Gen. Asscroft's shredding of civil rights. She nailed Asscroft to the wall for his lies and abuses. This is a woman that has already shown her willingness to stand up to the Atty General. Here's a typical story:p agename= article&node=&contentId=A51220-2002Aug22¬Found= true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
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.
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.
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.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001-email.h tml
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
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.
Think about it if they stop selling windows - it is all over!!!
Think of what the world would be like if there wasnt a newer version of windows, in an year or two.
I would have to use my old version of windows. I wont have a new version of windows to painfully slow down my comp while i am writing email. So then i wont need to buy a new comp. I will not be able to take advantage of innovative licencing schemes where i periodicaly pay microsoft money.
So I will be forced to live with thousands of dollars of extra money burdening me.
This is too painful to just contemplate. Please anything but that.
PS i havent even mentioned all the new viruses that I might miss out. And dont get me started on palladium.
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. "
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.
Er, there were certainly others, at least in the DOS days. Hell, there was even a DOS clone back then, called DR-DOS (DR = Digital Research; if memory serves, it was later bought by Novell, then by Caldera). There were other multitasking environments back then, such as Desqview and GEM Windows. There was even an IBM-Microsoft partnership -- recall OS/2? Of course, that was before MSFT basically stabbed IBM in the back...
/new/ system -- interoperability would be critical.
But as for developing a
(1) Nobody wants to migrate their entire application base, especially if it's impossible because the devs won't port it because the market is too small (Catch-22 here).
(2) Nobody wants to lose access to their documents or ability to exchange files with others, when the porting fails and nobody successfully, completely re-implements the different formats.
If you can't interoperate with the dominant software (e.g. Microsoft Office and its document formats, WordPerfect w/n the legal domain) you'll have serious problems spreading.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
Who was it said the only time 'Microsoft' and 'trust' can be used in the same sentence is when the word 'anti' is also there?