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.

Comments

Huh?

[CySurflex]

Microsoft Corp. anounces MS Lawyer 2k - This exciting new product translates any sentence or paragraph into pages upon pages of unintelligable lawyer speak. Vanessa Roberts, VP of Public Relations at Microsoft was quoted as saying "we have been using this product for years for our EULA's and to intimidate small competitors, we just figured it's about time we shared the wealth".

Re:Huh?

[IPFreely]

"An infinite number of Monkeys with typewriters will eventually get the document out correctly, but For version 1.0, we only have 37 Monkeys, and they are limited to 3 hours run time. Expect later version to include more Monkeys"

Re:Huh?

[bobdotorg]

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.

Re:Huh?

[squiggleslash]

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.

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.

Re:Huh?

[schlach]

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.

Re:Huh?

[mpe]

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.

Will any of this make a difference?

[Blimey85]

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.

Re:Will any of this make a difference?

[phsolide]

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, ...

That's exactly the point of Judge Jackson ruling that MSFT performed illegal monopoly maintenance: MSFT squashes potential rivals and potentially superior products and services.

Read a little basic microeconomics. All but the most ideologically radical economists acknowledge that a free market is a good thing but that free markets aren't really that great at keeping free markets free.

Re:Will any of this make a difference?

[Blimey85]

There is a big difference between wanting to rip and burn your cd collection and what MS is doing to it's competition.

Groups are actively lobbying to get laws passed that reduce or eliminate our rights as to what we can do with music once we have purchased it. That is much different than allowing MS to continue it's practices while other superior products mature enough to dominate the market.

Sure it would be nice if something could be done now, but what do you suggest? It seems to me that the leading opinion is to take a hatchet to the bastards and cut MS into either two or three companies. And then what? Will splitting Windows from the herd make a difference? Of course not. The new Windows company can still decide to only realease intimate details of how their OS works to New Company #1 and New Company #1 will still have a distinct advantage and will only write New Company #1 Word 2010 for Windows 2010.

The only solution as far as I can see is to contribute to the products that I like and use as well as writing members of Congress as well as the DOJ and telling them that I would prefer if my tax dollars were spent on items that can be benneficial to the nation as a whole.

If I believed that anything positive could ever come out of all of this, I would feel differently about the matter but since this has been going on for years, and not a damn thing has come of it yet, I'm assuming that nothing ever will. If one half of the energy that has went into trying to defeat MS from a legal standpoint had went into trying to make Linux mature faster, we would be a lot farther along than we are.

But that's just my $.02

Re:Will any of this make a difference?

[Pengo]

I have thought a lot about it.. the US has everything to gain from having a US based software company in a GLOBAL monopoly situation. The GNP is high as ever , like printing money into other countries really. US government isn't going to do anything to stop that , even at the cost of small US business.

Sucks, and unfortuantely it's not going to change until the WORLD learns to kick it's MS addiction. Until that happens, unfortunately, I don't think anything is going to change. Now, when it's more a domestic issue than a global issue, maybe we will see some justice.. but I doubt it.

What a helpful article!

[L. VeGas]

I'll put some kind of summary text here once I've had a chance to read it.

WTF? Ok, I'll put some kind of response here after you've posted it.

Before the Bell?

[jhunsake]

Should this have been released before the closing of the markets? I think not... someone's head is going to roll.

Re:Before the Bell?

[nelsonal]

They actually close at 4:00 Eastern. And this was available on /. about 25 minutes earlier, however it was not generally available nor supposed to be available until 4:30 Eastern after the markets close. Some one at the court who put the files on the web server's head will probably roll. It's sorta ironic that slashdot was, at least indirectly, responsible for an increase in Microsoft's stock price. Look at the chart notice the big up swing after 3:20 EST or so, then go look at the time stamp on the story.

Re:the replies to this post

[BTWR]

Don't forget:
91% - Unfunny comments labeled +5, Funny

Oh wait... that's every postboard

They're not getting off light

[CoolVibe]

From the text:

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?

Re:They're not getting off light

[thomas.galvin]

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...

Re:Slashdoted in record time

[MAXOMENOS]

Not only that, we slashdotted it before the judgement came out. This has to be the first anticipatory slashdotting I've seen in my four years participating here.

the quickie version

[banky]

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.

The Judgement Summarized

[ashitaka]

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"

Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted

[American AC in Paris]

Gah -- that reads worse than a EULA!

Click "I agree" below to accept the terms of this Final Decree.

[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]

CKK accepted the state's proposal

[Zathrus]

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.

Re:Slashdoted in record time

[Jaguar777]

Today a government website was brought to its knees by a terrorist organization making itself known as "Slash Dot". The FBI quickly moved into position to take down the server for the rogue group, but was thwarted in their attempt because the organization recently moved to an unknown location in the western US.

Tonight on Crossfire we will have "experts" on hand to tell us what this "slash dot" terrorists organization wants. Details are currently sketchy but some sources say it may have something to do with penguins, natalie portman, and hot grits???

API's

[BWJones]

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.

Re:API's

[Flower]

From CNN's site:

The decision eliminates the establishment of a technical committee to assess Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. In its place, a corporate compliance committee -- consisting of Microsoft board members -- will make sure Microsoft lives up to the deal, the judge said.

You're right. It is a big deal.

Great except...

[aridhol]

Looks like they've got it covered. Microsoft must allow vendors to change installed apps, unless significant modifications are made to the UI. OK. Microsoft must make public all APIs, except those that are listed in section J:

• 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?

Samba?

[BasharTeg]

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?

Here's the nifty part:

[photon317]

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.

Re:Here's the nifty part:

[Bob9113]

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.

Summary of the final decree

[gleffler]

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.

Sayanora, Palladium

[superdan2k]

...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. :-)

Re:the quickie version -- 3rd party IP?

[AtariDatacenter]

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.

Not necessarily 'slashdotted'

[Cranky_92109]

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.

Re:Not a breakup, but a lot of pain

[4of12]

....looks like they'll have to drastically open up their middleware

"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."

Re:the replies to this post

[nahdude812]

OMG, you predicted your own rating! ;-)

Microsoft Wins (see: fair and non-discriminatory)

[sterno]

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.

Game, set, match

[drew_kime]

I've hilighted the part Microsoft will care about:

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.

Fuck.

Re:Slashdoted in record time

[gruntvald]

Tell me about it. I got pulled over and detained 'cos of my /. bumper sticker. They offered me my 1 phone call, but I decided to trade it for a posting.

Mirror of court documents

[hillct]

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

Don't hold your breath

[greygent]

Yeah, the Bill of Rights was supposed to quash things like the DMCA...

That didn't happen (yet).

I'm confused

[Gudlyf]

IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM

I can't tell if they announced the final decree in the Microsoft case, or if they're trying to say the employees of Microsoft caught some kind of new STD.

Very Unfortunate

[gnetwerker]

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

Re:Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Micros

[KnightStalker]

Got a reference for this?

Interesting power to the states granted...

[ddbsa]

To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, duly authorized representatives of the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following: a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code, books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.

This kind of perpetual discovery will have MS screaming...

I like it.

Actually, this might help OSS in the long run

[TheWanderingHermit]

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?

Re:Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Micros

[nutznboltz]

Chances are that some team of investors are just diversifying his portfolio as they have been doing for years.

Got my hopes up too soon.

[bhsx]

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.

Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted

[sconeu]

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.

Priceless.

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of money you threw at your lawyers. ($80,000,000)

"Gifts" to key government officials. ($20,000,000)

Propaganda designed to lure the public into complacity. ($20,000,000)

Getting off basically free of any real restrictions that will let you continue in basically the same manner as before, and any attempt to bring you to trial again will take another 5-10 years. Priceless.

(I'm itching to know the real numbers)

Re:Slashdoted in record time

[bytesmythe]

They offered me my 1 phone call, but I decided to trade it for a posting.

Just your luck, you probably got modded down. :)

Legal, social tragedy

[DaveWood]

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.

A massive win?

[Dannon]

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.

Re:ok 2% -- Principal Agent

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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.

Re:Felony

[ClosedSource]

No, this was a civil case.

Statements By Robert Bork, Ken Starr (ProComp)

[writertype]

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.

Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted

[Loki_1929]

"Click "I agree" below to accept the terms of this Final Decree.

[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]"

Should have made the I agree part link to the goatse guy.

The beginning of the end...

[alizard]

For MS, I think. They've just been reinforced in an in-house perception that they're more important than the Federal Government... and incidentally, than any of their customers.

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.

Now what?

[Alethes]

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.

This is probably echo'd around but here's my $.02

[CrazyDuke]

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.

Simultaneous Ruling in Washington

[gnarly]

WASHINGTON (DC) Nov. 1. Judge Kollar-Kotelly, asserting a rarely used Federal Appellant Court authority, issued a second legal ruling today, this one concerning the case of two suspects charged with going on a shooting rampage in the Washington DC area. The suspects will be released immediately, but ONLY after agreeing under oath not to shoot any more innocent victims. The guns found in the alleged snipers' possesion will not be returned for a period of 5 years, and then ONLY if the two are found in compliance with this decree. Compliance will be determined by a 2 person committee made up of the snipers themselves.