Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Antitrust Judgement
An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
Microsft is guilty.
Microsoft must play fair under set conditions.
Microsoft can still restrict access, hide APIs and set up questionable business practices under the guise of protecting "security, anti-virus, licensing, authentication and Digital Rights"
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
A quick glance at the State Settlement and Final Judgement makes it appear that CKK has accepted the proposed settlement between the Federal government, the 9 states, and MS.
IANAL, and I only scanned the top few pages for information. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an OEM because the OEM is thinking about developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware.
They also cannot retaliate against them for including a computer with 2 OSes (notably missing is the provision against retaliating due to not installing an MS OS)
MS must provide a uniform license agreement and fee schedule for all it's OEMs, with only a few exceptions.
MS will not restrict in the license agreement installing any other icons or programs on the desktop, distrbuting or promoting non-MS browsers/e-mail readers/media players &c. They also cannot restrict the automatic launching of any 'middleware' (browsers, e-mail readers, media players.)
OEMs may offer users multiple OSes on one machine without retaliation from MS.
Open APIs for any 'middleware' to fully interface with the OS like MS' own 'middleware' does. (This is a big one)
MS must also release any communication protocol necessary to communicate with a MS server OS.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against any vendor for developing or selling things that compete with them.
"Set Program Access and Defaults" is required.
In addition, the users must be able to enable or disable any automatic launching of MS 'middleware'.
End-users and non-MS 'middleware' products must be able to transparently replace the MS 'middleware'.
An MS OS cannot modify or alter anything that an OEM does to the desktop without first getting confirmation from the user.
HOWEVER:
No provision of the agreement forces MS to disclose anything that might hurt the OS security. (This is very vague and I predict will be the biggest loophole.)
--
I haven't read the rest of the decree, I just wanted to get this up. And IANAL, but I think the interpretations I've provided are reasonable.
IANAL, but, as I read it, yes. Microsoft is now prohibited from screwing over an OEM that ships a computer that will boot into multiple operating sytems, or that presents an alternative OS at the BIOS screen. Walmart's Linux PCs may become more ommon, now...
Thomas Galvin
For those who can't get at the main site, here's a mirror of all the documents
In my reading of these documents, it seems that while there significant positive elements to the decision, there are many loopholes for microsoft to slither though. I'm just waiting for every license agreement to be re-characterized as a joint venture.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
As several other respondants have noted, this is largely a win for Microsoft and a loss for the States. What is surprising is the Judge K-K took so long to issue it.
The big deals the States asked for were removal of the "Security carve-out" (noted by several folks), and the appointment of a Special Master to create a streamlined enforcement process. Neither of these survived, and that is regrettable.
The security carve-out will make things difficult for third-party protocol implementors, and the enforcement provisions are lengthy, expensive, and easy for Microsoft to manipulate.
I spent a good deal of my recent life on this, and I'm upset. I need to read the full decisions in more detail, but other than a very generic win for States' Rights as a principle, this is essentially a no-op.
gnetwerker - $40k poorer, no wiser
Chances are that some team of investors are just diversifying his portfolio as they have been doing for years.
A massive win for Microsoft? I'm not so sure. IANAL, and this is a lot to read, but a few things have struck out at me here....
Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against an OEM... because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating... shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System
Good news for anyone who wants another chance at ordering a Linux-loaded Dell.
Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
Translation (as I read it): Microsoft can't stop selling Windows to my company, or stop my company from selling Windows-compatible programs, just because that my company wants to make and sell Mac or Linux versions.
Section III.H is really, -really- long to quote, but from what I read, it says that Microsoft will always offer a 'uniform and unbiased mechanism' for such things as changing file associations and setting up third-party programs to do anything "Microsoft Middleware" does. They can't ever make it so that you -can't- substitute WinAmp for Windows Media Player. As a matter of fact, they need to make it idiot-level easy. They also have to make it idiot-level easy to remove all traces of IE, Outlook Express, or MSN Messenger.
And, from what I see in III.I.3, Microsoft can't make their licenses non-transferrable. I can sell you my XP license, and no one will have any room to complain.
They're required to make all APIs used by their Middleware through MSDN or some similar mechanism. Granted, MSDN access is by subscription, so the information won't be free-as-in-beer, but Microsoft can't altogether stop that information from being public.
The enforcement seems to be in the hands of a multi-state committee. Notorious as committees are for not getting things done, still, the states have shown a strong interest in bearing down on MS.
Have to see how it goes, I guess.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.