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.
Should this have been released before the closing of the markets? I think not... someone's head is going to roll.
It LOOKS like a wrist-slap to me. They have to allow "middleware" and have to disclose "Communications protocols and APIs", except where it would affect 3rd-party IP or "security".
I think it is an attempt to provide some kind of flexibility but "restrain" them, but the Judge is obviously forgetting history: Microsoft is the Harry Houdini of legal agreements, they can wriggle out of anything.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Ooh, it's like that goofy Reuters 'hacking' thing.
I'm not saying this is unethical - I think it clearly isn't - but mightn't it have been polite to sit on this until the stock market closed, or at least until just before it closed?
This is a scoop. Nobody else has it yet - Yahoo, NYT, WP. Here's the WP's pre-announcement.
sulli
RTFJ.
Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.
This is actually a big deal.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
The big question is, can Samba benefit from this, or are the conditions of the released information going to make it incompatible with the GPL? And can the information be dirty/clean intellectually transferred between one tainted person and one "clean" person even with whatever type of NDA they put on the agreement?
...competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
:-)
2. 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; or
So I think this is the first nail in Palladium's coffin. This legalese seems to imply that Microsoft is barred of collusion with OEMs that would block middleware or OSs that would compete with Microsoft. Which is, at the core, EXACTLY what Palladium would do.
Nice to see that the DoJ can kill two birds with one stone.
blog |
Oh. That sounds like a good one. All Microsoft has to do is hide their IP under shill companies, and they've got instant protection. ...and don't think they won't do it if it is an issue.
That same first year law student would also argue that the clause was not intended to allow Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs for offering computers with two operating systems, such as Windows XP and Red Hat Linux (so called "Dual-Boot" systems.)
I agree it's problematic, but it's not as bad as you think.
Finding God in a Dog
I find it humorous to see Slashdot constantly bashing Microsoft. Some of it is deserved but just as much is juvenile ranting. However, I'm deeply entertained to see a Microsoft ad regularly popping up on Slashdot and other OSDN sites. It used to be a rare thing to see that but now I see it on every third or fourth page.
Has Slashdot reached a point where the only way they can afford to continually rant against Microsoft is by accepting money from them?
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
That is really a silly statement; considering your attitude and stance Monopolies would exist everywhere. The "eventually superior products and services will be widely adopted" piece is a joke. How exactly do you get those superior products and services? Do they just materialize? Having a monopoly is one thing, abusing a monopoly is another. I'm glad that my tax dollars are being spent fighting such monopolies and other companies who would prevent competition in the marketplace. The only thing that saddens me really is the fact that because of the early neglect this monopoly has abused the marketplace and will probably have enough capital to continue the abuse. If the Free Software movement was just a dream and not reality, you wouldn't have as much choice as you do to even post that comment. Simply and for the most part because Slashdot wouldn't exist.
The original proposed settlement on the surface seemed to be a solution but it has so many loopholes to be almost worthless. This settlement seems to be or be based on the original proposed settlement. Are any of the loopholes originally present still there or have they been eliminated?
I noticed that the security exception is still there, what about the others?
I actually just finished an article on my website about why I will not support microsoft by purchasing or stealing copies of their software. I stand strongly behind my morals. I don't give a serial killer a 4th chance to prove himself reformed.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool my twice, shame on me."
Please, read what I wrote and tell me if you would still support Microsoft.
and I apologize for any spelling errors. I haven't had a chance to proofread yet.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
In the past three days, Billy has sold over 3 million shares @ about 50bucks a pop. Do the math.
See here for proof
That's great. I bet he saw the writting on the wall on this one. The great wall of MS is coming down!
I like it.
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
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.
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
"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."
Any thoughts on whether MS will publish MAPI (the Exchange API)? I'm thinking they'll say it's a security issue. What's the worst that can happen to MS? Another 5 year trial with another wrist slap at the end? They'd be retarded *not* to keep fucking us.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Has anyone else noticed this? Not one single thing has been done punishing Microsoft for their actions.
.dll that includes OS security and the copy/paste function all in one. Then of course there is the absence of provisions for OEMs to sell computers sans Windows.
Not to mention the security API. There is nothing keeping them from writing one big lump of
What a waste of taxpayers' money.
Basically this says to me the judge has observed that MS has a record of working very hard to leverage ambiguity in prior judgements, coupled with the known slow pace of DOJ to evade restrictions.
Kollar-Kotelly as I read it has said here: "This court will be seeing that this history does not repeat itself. And all parties have 1 week to sign on.
go Judge!
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I was initially disappointed in this decision- still am, in an emotional sense, I'd love to see MS thwacked soundly- but on reflection, I'm impressed with how cagey Colleen really was. I think this whole thing is about roping them into unwittingly going along with a settlement- thinking it is a total wristslap- except that the judgement very carefully scotches certain SPECIFIC behaviors that get in the way of anyone offering competition and unseating them. That can't be an accident...
Think about it. The judgement addresses their behavior with OEMs, and specifically blocks them from playing politics- something that they did BIGTIME and which helped kill Netscape. The judgement addresses APIs and specifically blocks them from discriminatory behavior there as well. And all the time, it doesn't do a thing to upset Microsoft apart from that.
Call it a MS victory if you want to. A breakup and Gates wailing and gnashing his teeth would have been way more fun. But to me it looks like Kollar-Kotelly thought very hard about the problem, "What can I slip past these people, who have total contempt for the law and enough money to be almost impossible to defeat in court, which they will accept, but which will damage their ability to continue their worst abuses?"
Her answer seems to be, "Certain specific and very carefully placed restrictions on how they deal with OEMs and how they publicise their APIs". I can't really argue with that- if it is true that they cannot be punished and are more powerful than the US government or the justice system, the practical question is clearly 'so what do we do?'. And we all know quite well that playing politics with vendors, developers etc. is how they managed the worst of their abuses.
Don't be too quick to call this a total MS victory. In an ideal world where Microsoft was just a nice hardworking business, it would be. In the real world, the judge has just singled out some of their most effective (and illegal under antitrust law) weapons, and forced them to deal with the world they way they claim to.
It would be difficult for them to bitch at this point and object (on the grounds that they need to be able to discriminate with APIs and pressure OEMs). They almost have to claim in turn that it's a big victory for them. But, again, that's only if they usually play fair. Frankly, they prefer to carry on like mafiosi- and that is almost ALL that has changed, for them.
Welcome to the real world, Microsoft. Announce your victory. And bite your tongue!
Since the CEO is responsible for the actions of the company, does this mean that Balmer and/or Gates are now felons under violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act? I'm not a lawyer, but with all the laws against CEO misconduct that Bush is passing would this be the case?
Judge Robert H. Bork, former Appellate Judge and Antitrust Expert
The decision accepts the deeply flawed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which does nothing to restore competition to the marketplace or to prevent Microsoft from repeating acts explicitly held by the Court of Appeals to have been illegal.
The net result is that until this decision is overturned on appeal, as I believe it will be, competition will not be restored.
The Court of Appeals clearly prohibited Microsoft's practice of commingling the code of Windows with that of other critical software when there is no
benefit, but rather a clear harm, to consumers. This decision fails to
remedy this violation of the law, and its reversal seems likely on this point alone.
Never before has there been a case where liability was so thoroughly established, and never before has there been a case where the Justice Department agreed to a remedy that did almost nothing of what the law and the Court of Appeals required. Today's decision represent a substantial abandonment of antitrust law as it applies to one of the most important industries in America. The Department of Justice won at every step of the trial, and then surrendered in the settlement process. To justify this surrender, the Department resorted to disingenuous arguments that it could not be statistically proven that Microsoft's illegal conduct directly caused harm to Netscape. Their post hoc rationale for a flawed settlement has been absurd. We have the corpse of Netscape on the floor, and a whole host of other technologies whose development was stopped because it did not coincide with Microsoft's business plans.
The most disturbing message of all is that sent to nascent technologies and
innovators: the Department of Justice will not protect you from predatory monopolists. That is a grave error in economic policy and will have disastrous effects for competition in this and other industries.
Judge Kenneth W. Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General and Appellate Judge
This settlement gives the green light to Microsoft to continue its monopoly practices, a disastrous result for the high-tech industry, which has lived under effective Microsoft control for too many years.
In its unanimous ruling last summer that Microsoft had violated antitrust law, the Court of Appeals stated that the remedy must "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This weak settlement clearly fails to meet that standard, and it is my belief that the Judge simply gave too much deference to the Department of Justice, deference that was not warranted given the fact that the remedy proceedings were held after a full and complete trial.
The nine states that refused to accept the Microsoft settlement proved during the remedy hearings that Microsoft's monopoly is stronger than ever and that real remedies are needed. The Attorneys General of these states are to be commended for their courageous defense of consumers, antitrust laws and free-market economy. These AGs fought on because they understood that Microsoft is poised to monopolize the Internet itself, a result made more likely by today's decision.
It is my hope those Attorneys General will continue to fight to seek immediate review of this flawed decision.
Mike Pettit, ProComp President
ProComp is extremely disappointed. This represents a systemic failure of the legal system, a failure to protect consumers, competition, and companies like Netscape whose innovations literally changed the world.
Microsoft has terrorized the industry for more than a decade. Victims of Microsoft's predatory conduct are legion. This was the moment in time when competition could have been restored; that task will be much more difficult in the future. The right case was brought and won resoundingly. Eight
federal judges ruled unanimously against Microsoft. And then what
happened can only be explained this way: the Bush Justice Department surrendered to Microsoft.
The word has gone forth from the Bush Administration to countless would-be dreamers and tinkerers: we will not protect you when monopolists like Microsoft set out to crush you. It may take a decade to understand just how shortsighted today's decision is.
Microsoft has ostensibly been on its best behavior the past few months while pretending to comply with the DOJ settlement. Even during this time, the degree and nature of their predatory conduct has accelerated. I shudder to think of what this portends for the industry, which is now almost totally regulated by the most powerful monopolist in history.
KarlMarx writes:
That is what a government in a capitalistic economy is for; maintaining a free market by hack-and-slash methods
Really? Avoiding the overused (but accurate) argument that you can't blame a capitalist economy when there isn't one, you've got to look at this behavior for what it is: graft/kickback/payoloa/etc.
Do governments in non-capitalist systems squeeze companies until they get the financial "recognition" they seek? The proper respect? Certainly the US isn't the only nation to treat the private sector as the government's ATM machine?
Having dealt with PTT's (monopoly phone companies) in many middle eastern and south american countries for several years, I was always mildly amused at how the deal never cared about bringing good products to people, having better rates, competition, etc. In some banana republics (specifically recalling one off the coast of Venezuela), the first words out of our PTT hosts' mouthes was "What stuff did you bring for us? Any electronics? Computers? Jewelry? Cash? Let's show what you've got." (Yea, they weren't looking for a fruit basket)
It was always about the money that'd be given to the respective PTT, its government, and the parties at the table (plus everyone they had to pay off).
Microsoft's antitrust was caused by its failure to properly recognize authority, and its successful resolution to the matter an indication that the authorities finally felt satisfied that the payola was mostly sufficient (for now).
Please, don't ever confuse this with capitalism. This is the behavior of a controlled economy.
and per:
who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
Yes, the other shoe dropping in corrupt, controlled economies. Other larger corporations got into the deal-fest too. Their congresscritters remembered their obligations to bring back some goodies for them too.
To you hopeless fools who can't figure this out, it'll never change as long as you don't blame the right source. This system was here before capitalism was ever conceived and will probably outlast it as well.
*scoove*
OK. So now we know for sure what we've mostly assumed all along -- Microsoft has a monopoly and the government isn't going to do much, if anything, about it. Are all of the competitors ready to get off their sweaty asses and do something revolutionary finally, or are they and we going to continue to whine about how unfair Microsoft is? We already know a lot of Free Software is superior to the garbage Microsoft spews out, so why don't we develop some sort of strategy to push Linux and other Free Software to the level that it actually threatens Microsoft's monopoly instead of relying the government that we don't trust anyway to somehow help us?
Yes, a lot of companies are doing this already, but let's stand behind them 100% instead of whining about their lack of spine for not including flag graphics or for looking too much like Windows or any number of other cheesy gripes.
Are you people ready NOW or do you want to wait for another few rounds in court before we actually give Microsoft the competition the marketplace needs? The only thing that Microsoft has that the Free Software Movement needs is a clear direction. Yes, free men pull in all sorts of directions, but right now, we're mostly we're running into eachother.
Only in the US:
Can a defendant be proven guilty...
Be disrespectful to the court...
Flat out refuse to comply with court orders without legal grounds...
Not even follow their own version and interpretation of the settlement agreement...
and..
Be granted even more power than they had before. (Yeah, its illegal, but its ok for MS to do it!)
If any of us had tried to pull this kind of shit in court, we'd be like the guy on goatse.cx by now. But because its "Big Money, Corp." they can do it all day long and not even flinch. No polititions calling for reform. No legal experts throwing a fit. No public outcry. Welcome to the US o fuckin A. (smells the karma burn)
I wish I could get away with bankrupting company after company and ripping off billions with a settlement that basically said, "I promise to not do it again as long as I don't think I need to." The settlement rank and file full of contradiction after contradiction, loophole after loophole. I can honestly say, that in my life, I have never seen this large a pile of outright horseshit, and in all places, the country that is supposed to value the rights of the little guy over that of the groups. God help me, where is the United States I was told about growing up? Where is the land of tolerance and Free thought and the chance for the little guy to succeed. I'm not calling for anarchy or comunism, so to those who would reflexively accuse me so, keep that in mind. This is supposed to be the land of the Free, not the land where you are free to fuck someone over, so long as you don't piss off someone with more power than you.
I'll admit, I have been wrong before; I will be wrong again; and I may be wrong now. But right now it sure seems to be the truth to me. This is a sham. This is a shame. This is reality.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
People once dumped their inexpensive Apple II's, Commodores and TRS-80's for the more expensive IBM PC. The possiblity certainly exists that Mac OSX could take off in a big way, particularly since it is both easier to use than Windows, and more powerful.
.Net software figuring they can run it on mono and then discover that a new Microsoft API is available that's only available under windows because the new API's got a number of patents and royalty fees associated with it?
People dumped their inexpensive Apple II's and Commodores and TRS-80's because they all used IBM PC's at work and it made more sense to have the same machine at home as they had at work. Eventually the market share of these machines lead to the vast majority of software being developed for them and so they came to take over the market.
Linux distros are merely repackagers of software, slapping a user "friendly" veneers over it. There's nothing stopping a third party from slapping a better veneer over FreeBSD or NetBSD. This is what Apple did, and they're doing great because of it.
Doing great? In Q1 of 2002, Apple's market share for new computer sales was less than 3% of the market. That has been the case since at least 1999, regardless of OS X. They are hanging on to what they've got, but there's little evidence that they are going to be making any serious head way anytime soon.
I learned the painful lesson of the network effect back in the days of Atari. I an Atari 1040ST computer, and it was superior in every way to an IBM PC except for one REALLY important way. There were more IBM PC's out there. So, support for software dwindled, and my computer became worthless before it's time.
Linux becomes a viable option because it has a strong community of people around it developing for it. So even though there's not as much support amongst commercial vendors, one can accomplish a lot on Linux without them. So Linux isn't as hurt by the network effect as Apple is (especially because Linux runs on the same hardware as Windows).
But in order for linux to have real success going against Microsoft going forward, one of two things must happen. Either the nature of the computer marketplace has to change drastically or Linux has to be able to act as a drop-in replacement for Windows in existing networks. The first option is a possibility, no argument, but increasingly the second path is becoming very difficult.
What do the Samba people do when they can't implement Microsoft protocols? Do they start offering a closed source royalty laden version? I mean who would buy it when they can get that "free" from Microsoft. What happens when the people start writing
I'm not saying that somebody overthrowing Microsoft is impossible, but Linux is the best threat now. I think that this court case, had it ended in a better way, had a chance of helping out that cause. Linux may still do it on its own, but it's going to be a lot harder.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Over time, Microsoft will destroy itslef. It is the nature of the corporation to grow to a point where it is no longer nimble enough to compete with smaller quicker acting companies. Breakign Microsoft up, would create dozens of small nimble companeis all with the Microsoft culture. Nobody would be able to compete. The breakup of Standard Oil and AT&T shoudl serve as a grat lesson to all about corporate breakups; all they do is create companues which treat their customers worse and are more greedy than the original monopoly. Sears, Woolworth and all the othe large companies which grew huge, got arrogant and fell should serve as an indication of where Microsoft will eventually land.
Remember when Intel was forced to open the x86 architecture, because of that clones appeared and further entrnched the x86 architecture into the pc world. Had that not happened, the superior 68k architecture just might have supplanted the inferior x86 architecture.
At least the government has learned from the past
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
I think you are missing the full quotes.
From the AP:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
From NEWS.COM:
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
It seems to make some sense since the board members (including Mr. Gates) can be held personally and financialy responsable for conduct that violates the settlement.
It ain't the best, but it's still better than ICANN.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip