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.
Let us all be realistic for a moment. Will anything the Government does, change anything in the bigger picture for MS? I think not. If something was going to happen, it would have already happened. MS has too much power where it counts. And what would really happen if MS was broken into multiple companies? Would we be any better off? I think eventually superior products and services will be widely adopted and MS will lose it's stranglehold on the industry. But until that happens, I think the government is simply wasting a lot of our tax dollars that could be better spent on other things.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten against an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by witholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration.
Does that mean that they can't screw over OEM's that include alternative operating systems preinstalled anymore?
- Anything that compromises security (anti-piracy, DRM, anti-virus, licensing, encryption, authentication).
- Anything the US government allows them to keep hidden
So how much can they get away with with the fairly loose requirements of the first point?I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
I assume this to mean that the Samba guys will get legal access to the SMB protocol specs and other related stuff. Likely could include the native Exchange server protocols too, since Outlook Express talks that protocol and has shipped integrated with the OS.
11*43+456^2
The readers of slashdot were not the _only_ people anticipating the judgement. Every news organization + people in the financial industry + millions of shareholders are also following the story.
Oh, and maybe the people working at Microsoft cared a little too.
"Excuse me?"
"That's not middleware."
"You're pointing to an integral part of the Windows operating system."
"It's part of our big bung^Hdle of innovative and patented technology and it would be unfair of the burdensome government bureaucracy to make us give it away to competitors in this very competitive business we're in."
"Opening up that part of Windows would allow pedophiles, terrorists and hackers to hurt you."
"Nope. That's not the middleware we were thinking about and we're sure an unbiased judge three years from now will agree with our reasonable and expert assessment."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Ultimately the only serious competition Microsoft faces at this time is from Linux. Thus anything in this settlement that helps or hinders Linux is what's going to make a real difference in competition. Reading through the settlement, Linux cannot take advantage of any of this.
To summarize, there are several clauses about opening up the API's and protocols. This openess must be provided to OEM's, etc, on a "reasonable and non-discriminatory basis". This "reasonable and non-discrimantor" rule allows for charging of royalties and restricting distribution and sub-licensing of the intellectual property. So even if they provide this information at no cost or minimal cost they can make it impossible for any such information to every make it into GPL software.
So folks, I hope you enjoyed have your tax dollars flushed down a toilet.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Fuck.
Nope, no sig
Yeah, the Bill of Rights was supposed to quash things like the DMCA...
That didn't happen (yet).
Got a reference for this?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
M$ is extremely arrogant. The only time this has been repressed at all is when M$ was trying to say, "See, aren't we a good company?" Even then, they have shown an arrogance that is unbelievable and shows that they truly don't understand that anybody has any rights other M$ and that M$ is always right. Now that they've only been slapped on the hand, we can, of course, expect the arrogant behavior to get worse.
More and more companies are switching to Open Source Software because they're fed up with M$. If M$ were reigned in, that would reduce the frustration other companies have with them. On the other hand, since they have essentially no consequences that hurt them, as their attitude gets worse, so will frustration.
It's like being a kid in school and being beat up by the bully. As the bully's arrogance increases, he thinks he's more and more immune to what anyone can do. Eventually he tries to take on the whole class, everyone sees what he's really like, and suddenly the bully is left standing there, like the Emperor in his new clothes.
M$ attitude is a good reason for people to switch from them. The worse it gets, the more will switch. The Judge has just given them permission to show their worst behavior. Just how much of that will the market bear?
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies,
license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third
party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property
rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or
interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
We're sorry, we don't consider giving binaries and source code away for free a viable business model. Go away Samba team. What? What's that about interoperating with Exchange? Yeah, right! Go away stupid free groupware project.
put the what in the where?
Microsoft Corp. anounces MS Lawyer 2k -
The trial was a direct result of MS Election 2000. Had Bush not been elected, the MS case would have had a completely different outcome.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
So, taken this to consideration: "What does this mean for Samba?"
They can get charged for specs, or charged for patented protocol if M$ would patent it (on the other hand in one paragraph it says they can't be, because M$ must provide specs without enforcing any liabilities). (If I'm wrong, please, do correct me)
I'm not sure, but I think you're wrong. She kept the really obnoxious paragraph III.J.2, wherein Microsoft doesn't need to disclose protocols if Microsoft doesn't approve of an ISV's "business model".
Since we all know what Microsoft thinks of Open Source, I suspect that Samba is screwed.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
This is about as bad as I expected it could be.
Microsoft's dominance in the operating system and applications market will continue basically unchecked. Because of it, Microsoft will find it all the easier to deploy Paladium, which will help cement their dominance by using "security" as an excuse for locking out the interoperability efforts of Linux and others. This will help balkanize the Linux and Windows worlds, which will slow migration away from Windows. It will also be a useful tool for silencing a few activists who defy the restrictions with court and prison. Let's also not forget, without the trial hanging over its collective head, Microsoft will be much freer to use the bludgeon of Office withdrawal against Apple, should it not tow the line.
Paladium is the beginning of efforts towards centralized surveillance and control of all electronic media. Once it is deployed and semi-usable, the "gentle coercion" of fees, compatility, and network-effect fear will help Microsoft as they phase out and then attempt to suppress older, more open versions of their operating system (Win2k, XP, etc). Perhaps Windows Update will back-port the "content revolution." Or perhaps the death blow to Microsoft's open legacy will be a virulent worm which preys on a security hole they refuse to fix.
People will ask incredulously, "who would abuse Paladium, and how?" and the answer is, "anyone who can, in any way they can get away with."
The evolution of the operating system will keep its super-slow-mo pace. It was bad enough before; who would invest a nickle in any new technology that could compete with Microsoft now? They have the King's indulgence. In addition to the enormous "natural" benefits of their momentum and size, they are effectively untouchable. Progress in the computer sciences, and then progress in all the fields computers touch (and could touch, in a more innovative world), is hurt tremendously by this.
The threat of loss, from competition or regulation, is what drives progress. Think of it - Windows' closest competitor is written by hobbyists! And even then, it is because of Linux, and this trial (and to a far lesser extent, Apple) that Windows 2000 is more stable than Windows 98 and NT. But with the antitrust case gone, the content trusts having paved the way with the DMCA, and Microsoft already preparing new "solutions" to problems of interoperability and easy migration, there will no longer be a threat.
We are on some kind of roll. As a nation, we seem to make a new decision that betrays our standards and squanders our legacy every day. But, though people will call me a geek or claim I have an exaggerated idea of the computer's importance, I say that today's failure is particularly egregious. What all the parties have done here, the DoJ, their counterparts in the various States, the judge (CKK), and not least Microsoft itself, has left our children a disgusting legacy, and they will curse us for it. Rightly so.
We're on the road to Tycho.
I see. Microsoft breaks the law, gets caught and convicted. Buys a new Justice Department. Then pleads for a punishment that is not punative.
So they end up promising not to do some of the bad stuff ever again. And, they even get to decide whether they are doing the bad stuff!
"Officer, I promise not to speed ever again. To be sure of it, I will watch how fast I'm driving, and report back if I ever drive too fast."
Sheesh.
If they'd gotten their asses handed to them, their new perceptions might have given MS a chance for long-term survival based on listening to their customers and trying to build better products than anybody else. By and large, they now can legally conduct business as usual.
The judge isn't wholly at fault here, DOJ (would large MS campaign contributions to Bush have had anything to do with it) wasn't fighting to win anymore. That's clear even from the public summary. She can only rule on what the opposing sides use for arguments, objective reality has nothing much to do with court decisions.
The future?
Brussels to spend 250k on Linux migration study
More governments and businesses refusing to put up with MS licensing terms, bad security, or the constant hardware/software upgrade cycle, and quietly converting to Open Source. They are investigating desktop as well as server, and the consultancy doing this is already rolling out "secure" Linux desktops and server systems in police stations in part of the UK.
I've been working in high-tech journalism for the last few years. Well, the bottom has fallen out of the market and won't be coming back anytime soon, so I'm changing tracks to system administration. I'm convinced enough that MS is part of the past that I won't be bothering with learning W2000/XP or IIS.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This is a depressing resolution. Someone is convicted of harming competition and told that they will barely get punished because the judge doesn't want to risk aiding Microsoft's "competition" (or rather, potential competition - there is no sodding competition right now.)
The message has gone out - illegally monopolise, and we'll drag you through a trial, but we will not do anything at all that might actually remove you from that monopoly. Keep your prices high enough to pay for the trial, and you'll be fine.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm with squigglesqlash on this one, but I think you'd leave the argument incomplete if you didn't mention that this was Microsoft's plan from the start!
I'd have to check the books to figure out when they decided it, but it was probably back in 1996 when Clinton got re-elected. Delay until the next election. Makes sense, doesn't it? Nothing to lose and everything to gain. Another election gives you another roll of the dice. Clinton picked this fight - anyone else would be better.
The second tactic was a little more shrewd. Get Jackson out. The MS lawyers deliberately baited him, trying to get evidence (ie statements) that could be used to get him thrown off the case. Jackson's an idiot. He should have seen it coming and kept his dumb mouth shut. If he wanted to punish MS that bad (and it was obvious, from his statements, that he did), he should have known he'd have to be less of a glory-hound until after the trial.
After seeing Bill's videotaped deposition in '94, I thought MS lawyers were as bad as their PR and Advertising people. But they've definitely reinvented themselves...
What it reminds me of is the SNL sketch of Bill Clinton after the impeachment aquittal. He trots out to the podium, leans forward, and intones, "I...am...bulletproof." Walks away, stops, turns back around and adds, "Next time, y'all best bring kryptonite."
Personally, I think it should have been the States' strategy to, like MS for so long, delay until the next election. I am not convinced the Republicans will be in power in two weeks, let alone two years. Stupid to always give MS the initiative...
It's about as painful to watch as someone playing chess badly.
You're right. The other person who responded to you and the moderator who modded you down may prefer not to admit it, but it's pretty well known that the Bush/Ashcroft DoJ were embarrassed by the Appeal Court ruling (which upheld Jackson's verdict) and negotiated something that wouldn't cause much harm to Microsoft.
It also indicates that the much trumpeted separation of powers within the US government is more an illusion than actual.
This is a depressing resolution. Someone is convicted of harming competition and told that they will barely get punished because the judge doesn't want to risk aiding Microsoft's "competition" (or rather, potential competition - there is no sodding competition right now.)
Also this trial resulted because Microsoft didn't abide by a previous court case. Usually if someone is dragged back to court because the first case didn't work they are apt to get the book thrown at them.