Slashdot Mirror
Ask a Legal Expert How MS Ruling Affects Open Source
By now we all know about Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in the Microsoft antitrust case. The effect of this ruling on Linux and Open Source use and future development is not yet clear. For those of you who have been wondering about this, we have a special interview guest: Attorney Lawrence E. (Larry) Rosen, Linux Journal's popular Geek Law columnist, who is surely one of the best-qualified people in the world to answer questions on this topic. (Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.)
Finally, tech-based legal advice that doesn't begin with "IANAL".
Has she recently acquired a new beach house?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Both Bill Gates and John Ashcroft talked about how the decision benefits consumers. But there's nothing really in the decision that changes the way MSFT does business. I can't call IBM and get a discount on a system without Windows installed, if I load XP onto a machine, MSFT can take it over and install software without my permission, and the APIs can be buried in MSDN, forcing OSS software developers to not only subscribe to MSDN, but also follow whatever licensing MSDN forces on users. For the most part, this is MSFT business as usual.
Where, in this decision, do the consumers benefit? If you could put yourself in CKK's shoes, what would you say?
My first feeling after reading the slashdot report of the results was that Microsoft lost. APIs and information should have to be released.
But I read amazed the press and the media in my country (spain) and all of them agree that Microsoft Wins.
Who won ?
From an analysis from the register I'd like your opinion on the committe being appointed.
Here's a snip from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27913.html
And it's a good thing that Microsoft helps choose the people who will police it, explains the Judge:
"...the committee will likely foster an environment of cooperative resolution, rather than one of persistent conflict and litigation. Otherwise, attempts at enforcement have a greater potential to take on the tenor of adversary proceedings, resolved in most instances with great difficulty and delay."
With Microsoft pretty much doing what they want these days, do you have fear that their Palladium project could be a real threat to Linux and other free-software projects, if MS try to force it upon their installed base ? What will be the best way to fight Palladium ?
I have heard in various other cases that if a copyright holder uses his copyright to commit antitrust, they lose the ability to defend their copyright.
Clearly, Microsoft has been found guilty of using its copyright on Windows 95 to kill Netscape.
Is is possible for a pirate to successfully defend himself by claiming Microsoft has lost its copyright? (I assume this applies to only that software specifically mentioned in the case. Not all software produced by Microsoft)
The decree permits Microsoft to avoid publishing APIs for security reasons, and permits them to release API docs on a 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' basis. How much do think Microsoft will be able to get away with concealing authentication components of protocols on the security exemption, and how much will they be able to use the RAND provision to ensure that open sourcers never see the APIs to things (e.g. filesharing, Active Directory) they need to interoperate with?
Steve
There is that. Then also The Register has a link to the /. early release of the MS Verdict
The world is getting even.
/. is getting Drudged and Registered.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
The decision by the Justice Department to stop pursuing the antitrust case against Microsoft is a direct result of the outcome of the 2000 election.
If you don't like it, remember: tomorrow is Election Day.
GET OUT AND VOTE!
Open Source Software will continue on in the same way that it has always done. The thing that people may seem to lose track of is that OSS is a nirvana that Microsoft will never be able to "get". They have demonstrated this time and time again. Let them continue to buy politicians, courts, companies, etc. while they lose support one by one day by day from the very people people that comprise the very core of those components being bought out...
Besides, what better way to beat the monopoly than on the very playing field they have tried to keep us from getting near just to watch much less play. Let them waste more time and money in the courtroom and political arena. That's not where OSS shines anyway.
Chris
I'm all angry about the agreement giving free reign to MS, but I'm also worried about its (posssible) effects on other software monopolists. Does this case set a precedent that says: "software companies don't need to pay attention to anti-trust laws"?
In the settlement it talks about MS having to disclose information only to companies with a sound business model that meats critera set out by MS. Where does OSS fall? Can MS say OSS is not up to its standards and therefore not release the code?
Additionally what effect will MS's right to charge have on OSS? Can MS only charge for developers to see the code or are they entitled to charge royalties for the implementation of the code? (Can you legally reverse engineer a software having seen the code?)
Mr. Smoove
Take a look at this article at the BBC as an example of the pro-linux swing being evidenced in the non-geek media.
Will this ultimately do more damage to Microsoft than anything the US DOJ could do?
--is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait
What is being put into place to insure that Microsoft actually hands over real code? I mean really. We've got legal consul that doesn't know jack about code trying to, possibly, enforce somehting that they know nothing to little about. Microsoft could hand over out of date code, partial code, bugged code, and any number of other variables on the "truth" and legal guys would be none the wiser.
- - - - Irony? Yes, it's life everyday. May the Quanta laugh.
The Register's coverage brought up an interesting question that I wouldn't mind seeing answered: can people who made stock deals based on the leaked decision, before it was officially posted (which of course was supposed to be after the close of markets) be prosecuted for insider trading? My gut tells me they can't, because it was the Court's screwup that leaked the decision, but the SEC might not agree ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The reason for this is that we already know that Microsoft has been violating the agreement, virtually from the moment they agreed to it. This does not give me confidence in any monitoring team's ability to enforce it.
My second question (ha! snuck this one in!) is: How does this affect the ability for Open Source groups to re-implement Microsoft APIs for Windows?
Again, we already know that Microsoft has added hidden checks to verify a given DLL is authentic Microsoft, rather than a 3rd-party clone. However, with no legal requirement to modularize (and therefore legal permission to mangle things up too much to re-implement), it would be very difficult to prove in court that a given technical issue was a product of a coding error or an agreement violation.
Ok, one more question. What's to stop Microsoft from releasing a Windows+, which is "not Windows" in the same way Windows98 wasn't Windows95, thus voiding the entire agreement?
Frankly, I don't think this bodes at all well for ANY competitor to Microsoft. Too many loopholes, and too much squelching power. It's about the same as playing "Lemmings" with a high-power plasma cannon. There cannot be any realistic opposition.
(Last, but not least, if the legal expert -does- start their reply with "IANAL", I'd have a hard time being surprised. We live in "interesting times", and reality is taking a long lunch-break.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Have you ever posted on slashdot, and if so, have you ever used the acronym IAAL instead of IANAL?
Now that Microsoft has effectively gotten away with maintaining and extending it's monopoly, how do you think open source projects that are competitive to Microsoft (Samba, WINE, Crossover plugin, OpenOffice etc) are going to survive any legal assults? It would seem easier to kill off an open source project as they are typically not (officially) associated with a company, nor have any serious resources other than perhaps the goodwill of the user community.
As a friend said, there's nothing like getting away with murder to encourage you to start killing more people.
Just how much of their remaining undisclosed APIs does Microsoft have to make public? I found the judge's references to this issue quite confusing; in one place she said that MS would have to reveal all of its "communications" protocols; in another she ruled that MS wouldn't have to reveal anything that pertained to such topics as "encryption" or "digital rights management". Isn't it possible for MS to claim that existing or future new APIs for Windows would fall into the latter category, and thus allow them to keep much of it in the dark?
My followup question is: what mechanism did the judge set up for determining whether an API should be public or not?
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Other industries that expose network effects are specially regulated (e.g. telecommunications). Do the results of the MS case show that we also need sector-spefic regulations for the software industry? Is general competition incapable of dealing with these kinds of problems?
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Linux.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
So the bigest things that I think many of us were looking for is for MS to be in a way forced to reveal and make available cratian information needed for inter-operability. Was this achived or are we still locked out? For instance can the samba team get the information they need form MS to build a better CIFS implimentation?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
It sounds a very open ended authority that grants the judge broad powers over all aspects of the settlement. Can the judge use this provision to broaden the scope of the agreement or to force Microsoft to use a particular intrepretation of some clause, for example the security exemption or the viability clause.
Or am I just a geek grasping for straws.
As we probably all know, a clause in the settlement limits Microsoft's disclosure of APIs to only those not security related.
Is there any legal device that prevents them from, say, distributing some security procedure over all the APIs, thus limiting their disclosure to nothing?
Section J explains what the judgement doesn't intend to do. In J2 it talks about not putting conditions on Microsoft about how they'll be licensing the APIs and protocols to third parties then continues on in J2(c) say that the third party may be subject to conditions set by Microsoft that the third party:
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business
So, does that mean that they can refuse the APIs and protocols to Open Source projects claiming that they don't consider them viable business models?
In the other sections it points out the Microsoft is not allowed to be discriminatory, so which one overrides the other?
put the what in the where?
"one of the best-qualified people in the world to answer questions on this topic" = "someone who agrees with the majority of Slashdot readers"
I'm not saying this because I disagree with Larry's conclusions (although I do, to some extent); I'm just trying to point out the bias that permeates this site. The word "news" has been redefined over the past 35 years to mean "commentary," and that's too bad.
[ home ]
From what I read of the decision (yes, I tried to wade through a significant chunk of its hundreds of pages) Judge KK seems to justify many of her points by saying that the remedies suggested by the dissenting states do not address the fault that was established. That is, for instance, forcing MS to auction the rights to port Office to Linux has nothing to do with the fact that MS used its monopoly power to squash Netscape, etc. That is, anything not directly related to the theory that MS felt a threat from middleware with cross-platform abilities is out of bounds as a remedy. (First question then might be: Is that an accurate description of part of her reasoning?) In some instances, what she says sounds right to me and in others it seems like she needs to re-read the findings of fact.
Another reason she seems to like for rejecting proposed remedies is that they would "help MS's competitors but not competition". This distinction seems slim. If that really is required of any anti-trust remedy, then is anything other than breaking MS up even a potential remedy?
Most importantly, given the narrow ways she uses to reject the proposed additional remedies, didn't she leave open the possibility of the success of a brand new anti-trust suit that does address the other ways in which MS has abused its monopoly power? (Like for instance, wouldn't Sun's additional anti-trust suit have a good chance?) But, given how long these trials take, won't Microsoft's strategy of prolonging the process wind us right back where we are, where any remedy applied so long after the fact makes no real difference? And then if that's so, while her remedy might be legally defensible, it would also serve to graphically illustrate the impotence of our anti-trust laws, no?
BWCarver
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
I'd hate to miss the FBI busting into your parents basement when they come for you.
Get help! Please.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
I refer to licensing designed to block usage of the GPL- and more than that, the attempts through the Shared Source license to produce a population of coders with built-in vulnerability to Microsoft legal attack (the admissions of being privy to MS proprietary information, the abandoning of patent rights etc)
How much of this will they have to immediately change because it conflicts with the Judge's requirement that they not be discriminatory? It happens to be central to their strategy, and I can't believe this discrepancy will go un-noted.
So, How Does The MS Ruling Affect Open Source?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
My question however, is, if you look at this decision from a Business perspective, how does it fall? Is this decision in line with existing case law when it comes to dealing with individuals and corporations who have come to exercise huge amounts of power over their various sectors of the economy? Was this decision made with the intent of strengthening the overall business climate of the US, especially given the current state of the world economy? Will it make perfect sense to the average CEO?
Your Servant, B. Baggins
What I mean by that is realizing that
1. Open Source has bound itself (willingly or not I cannot say) with Free Software. I see a fundamental difference between the two as OpenSource is more of the Scientific approach of having a peer reviewed research and development platform, where as (self admittedly) Free Software focuses on making *all* software free as a public domain/service
2. Many open source applications have been developed with the purpose of allowing those who would not normally have the skills to circumvent "IP protection measures". That is, P2P, an adopted open source initiative has Free Software ties because the "information" that P2P networks choose to distribute are for the most part Close Sourced or Copyrighted material.
3. Closed source companies (like Microsoft) and Copy righted companies (like Vivendi) Have both used the arguement that *OPEN SOURCE* software is the cause of the loss of revenue and piracy and have implemented protection schemes that *must be* protected by proprietary closed source mechanisms in order to protect the revenue stream of those coutries
4. Companies will continue to deny legitimate opensource companies access to their API because they incorrectly bind open-source develpers with Free-Software developers (while one may be the other, both may legitimately exist independently of other that is, not all oss devs are freesoftware devs and not all freesoftware devs are oss devs).
5. Legislation looms that would prohibit Open Source to be developed on any commercial level and even make it illegal to own and distribute open source based hardware *because of those who would use propietary software without paying for it* who feel they have a right to another's work without compensating the creator.
6. Those legislators (rightly or wrongly) see open source as a breeding ground for hackers and information pirates, and do not seperate law breakers from the rest of the group. eg. You never hear a *rogue* OSS developer getting arrested on DMCA charges, the same way you hear of *rogue* ceos or *rogue* scientists acting in a way that disgraces the community.
So really, is this a question of those who have steered open source away from its roots to be a campaign for free software? And how will traditionally open source companies (or) individual developers access the blueprints if MS can conveniently label them as software pirates or illegitimate institutions undeserving of access to its API?
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
In my opinion one of the biggest victories against Microsoft in this judgment was the establishment of a uniform price schedule. No more special bait-and-switch deals. However, it occurs to me that this could actually hurt some businesses more than it helps. How do you think Microsoft will respond to this requirement and how can open source use this to its advantage?
This space intentionally left blank.
Simply put, the Microsoft machine is in high gear, and they know the government wont stop them, no matter what they do.
They now have pretty much free reign to attack all competitors how ever the see fit, including OpenSource stuff.
Lesson learned: if you get big enough you are exempt from business laws. Only trick is getting there before you get caught.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Note that I have no love for Microsoft, yet I do wish to keep the government out of business and more into the practice of governing.
As the settlement stands, it seems like an intrusion(even if quite useless) into Microsoft's business. Perhaps even with this settlement, the invisible hand will deal with them in time.
If US justice fails us against the MS monopoly, how can European court take over the battle? What are the legal mechanisms Europe could use to enforce its own ruling?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Given the much harsher penalties (breakup, etc) that many people were calling for, and given Microsoft's record for behavior, do you think that Microsoft will indeed cease their monopolistic behavior, or do you think that they will take it as yet another slap on the wrist and continue to use their position to leverage an unfair advantage in the industry?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Palladium and LeGrande will probably be embraced by businesses -- media, healthcare, banking -- anywhere that businesses need to ensure that media or data needs to be vaulted. Cisco is pushing it too -- they want to sell the equipment to stream video on demand. In effect, all three are seeking to building a data citadel within the Internet.
As no one else that I'm aware of is doing this in an open source fashion, they'll end up with a defacto monopoly in a protection racket. At that time, the argument could be made that Microsoft used its monopoly power to create another monopoly.
Any chance of using that against them to open up Palladium?
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Yes, everyone seems to be focusing on the viable business thing, with good reason. The wording is ambiguous at best and I am not a lawyer. I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you aren't either. I'm asking a lawyer his opinion on the wording, as he is trained in such things. You're question about remedies is written right there in the judgement; but you're question about the 'security carve-out' is one that does need addressing. However, just because you think you know what J2(c) means, doesn't mean you do (the wording is ambiguous at best and leaves plenty to interpretation) and doesn't mean that it's not a valid question that we should be posing to a lawyer.
put the what in the where?
For instance, if you are interested in writing an EXT2 (or other) driver for Windows 2000, it will cost you $1000 for the DDK.
How many average consumers know what Linux or Mac OSX are? How many will know if MS is screwing them over? How many will have a choice?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Microsoft has a history of making settlements like this and then doing everything that can to weasel out of it. So I'm wondering if this agreement is really going to set up a framework that effectively keeps Microsoft in check. Even if the framework does support this, do you believe the justice department will be aggressive enough with its enforcement to take advantage of it?
Microsoft seems to be playing the part of the spoiled child here. The parents keep saying he's doing bad things and that he should stop, but they never back up their threats with effective action. I can't imagine Microsoft changing its ways anytime soon unless this agreement is actually setting up significant consequences for them.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I really wonder about this one. I believe the time is coming when MS's DRM software will begin deleting "unauthorized" files. When that happens the key question is will the sheep stampede, or will they just blindly go along with being corralled. It could be a giant win for Linux and Mac OSX, but it could also show that the unwashed masses just deserve what they get.
I keep waiting for consumers to revolt to poor quality, service and the general model of licensing ("non-ownership" of products), but things just keep getting worse. I'm not just talking about the software world here either.
Since the feds are acting in the name "of the people". This may appears to large class action suite. So citzens can request not to be part of the class... then could we:
Get a sub-class to sue DOJ & Microsoft for violating the public trust and get judgement set aside.
Group of citzens to appeal the ruling for failure in addressing the concerns of the public, supplied during public comment, by adjusting the agreement to meet those concerns.
When (other than 'never') will the legal profession (particularly judges) admit that their lack of technical expertise is doing damage to the rest of us?
I wouldn't call that a benefit, especially if the govt is essentially giving MSFT the right to maintain their monopoly.
It is irrelevant if average consumers don't write code. In fact, it stresses the point. MSFT opening its APIs doesn't help anyone, since those that do need it worked around it.
A standard OS/browser is pretty irrelevant too. I can get into a Honda, a Saturn, or Ford pickup and still be able to drive it on the road. After I get familiar with the controls, I can drive it easily. Linux and Windows are the same way. If people would take the 15 minutes required to figure out what the differences are, they would be fine.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I work at an ISP as technical support. I've helped several people who don't read licenses, and several more who get defensive whenever I say, "I'm going to have to change a setting on your computer."
Millions of computer users assume that they own their computer, as well as everything on it. They don't understand the concept of software licensing, and most would probably (Strange, but true) give up using a computer if they discovered they didn't own everything on it.
The whole reason license agreements have become terrible for those of us who read them is because of the vast majority who don't. Software companies have an easy time adding clauses to their license agreements, because most people don't read them. It reaches a point where what people are agreeing to, and what they think they're agreeing to, become two separate animals.
If these were physical, handwritten contracts, there'd be all sorts of legal battles citing extortion, but, last I checked, there haven't been any competent lawyers arguing that extortion is possible online.
For reference, ask an old-time geek about GIF and the LZW patents.
I'd really like to see a business demigod declare that software-licensing can become restrictive enough to be considered a "cybercrime."
A good first step? Take two graphs, both of which would be "restrictivity vs usercount" contract comparison graphs. One graph would be for some highly competitive market (like loans or mortages), the other would be for major software products like office products.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to graphically represent the choices for initial software that people have when they buy their computers.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Nothing takes the fight out of a revolution like the tyrant becoming reasonable. IBM super computers, HP, SGI, Sun; as the big boys switch to Linux and cell phones, pda's and other things move to J2ME on a Linux kernel for all the right reasons the governments and other big users will have even more reason to switch away from the MS bullying.
Of course, bully's become spiteful in the end and drive the nails into their own coffins. My question is "can we sue the DOD to switch to OSS and Linux since it would seem necessary for both security and R&D and the MS EULA's don't allow their products to be loaded onto systems alongside OSS software". Seems to me it would save lots of money as well as making the DOD legal, secure and smarter. Given MS's either-or ELUA's they seem like the ones to be canned.
Is it possible for open source individuals to argue that the nondiscriminatory clause does in fact discriminate against them if they are forced into non disclosure agreements or monetary licenses in order to get access to APIs. Since a charge or non disclosure agreement would prevent most open source software developers from gaining access to this information can it be considered to be discriminating since Microsoft Corp. understands that this will prevent open source development.
Also using the term nondiscriminatory does this mean that if Microsoft were to release API's and details to other companies that they consider to be not for general publication because of "security" reasons is this discriminatory and therefore not allowed as well. In other words can Microsoft allow some but not others access to "security" API
s and information?
This post and these questions are made assuming Microsoft is the antithesis of Open Source. If Microsoft has a good day, open source has a bad day. If Microsoft loses, Open Source wins. In this light, any question about Microsoft can be seen as relating to Open Source Software.
From no point of view does the judge's decision make sense. Microsoft is as large a company as there ever has been, and they've gotten that way by screwing people (Microsoft tax on OEM machines), other companies (Microsoft Java VM, etc) , and the government (billions wasted on NT) at every turn. As large as they are, one could speculate that turning this case against Microsoft would devastate the economy (if one were a fool, of course). Is it possible that the ruling was made in favour of Microsoft in order to not dent the economy? Whether or not this was done, nobody with any sense expects Microsoft's tactics to change, so when this court case comes around again next time, how difficult will it be to make a case, considering that Microsoft doesn't have to turn over documents they judge to hold IP, coupled with the precedence this case sets?
With Microsoft's won-loss record in the courts, what would occur if they tried to step on the GPL (a prevalent license of Open Source Software)? If they defeated the viral parts of the GPL, would the entire license be void, or would just the viral parts be NULL? Finally, as a not-a-lawyer, I can't tell who the "we" in the preamble of the GPL means. When I read it, it sounds like the "we" refers to the Free Software Foundation. If just a portion of the GPL were defeated, would the FSF own the copyright to all the software ever GPL'd, but not have to play by it's viral rules anymore?
The situation will be a whole lot more complex when hardware-based copyright protection is forced by law.
What's this Submit thingy do?
As for them losing support: that's how the free market works! If you don't like MS as a consumer, buy from other companies and promote them. For competitors, the solution is to build a better product and promote. Don't whine to the government, do something about it.
Okay sure, we'll buy from someone else then. Let's go on down to Best Buy and see what our choices are...hmmm, we have a Compaq with MS Windows on it, we have an E-Machines with MS Windows on it, we have a Sony with MS Windows on it...plenty of choices aren't there?
Except for Apple, there still is really is no easy way for the average consumer to "vote" against Microsoft, and there won't be until machines pre-configured with Linux, BSD, and other alternative OS's are on the shelves.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Yeah! Or they might find out which company you buy your tinfoil from, and buy that company, and put nanomachines in all the tinfoil so that your tinfoil hat actually reads your brain!!
OK, so MS can go home feeling pretty good about having gotten the judgement they wanted, and that (from what I've seen here in the US) mainstream media is focusing on how the judgement might bouy the US stock market rather than on the issues of the case or how it will affect the industry. MS will probably view this as a huge win. So huge, in fact, that it's likely that Microsoft (which has never publicly acknowledged any wrongdoing, or expressed any hint of contrition) will regard the ruling as a validation of their aggressive business tactics. The fact remains, however, that the Microsoft monopoly is a Bad Thing(c) in and of itself, and that the unabated weight of it will continue to have a widespread negative impact on the industry, consumers, the economy, security, innovation and progress. Right now, we could impose remedies against MS (revealing source, breaking up the company) that would help mitigate these damages. But since the USDOJ and the justice system have failed to enact meaningful remedies, and given that MS is unlikely to back off their anti-competitive (and often illegal) behavior, is it not more likely now that we're headed into territory where politicians will start thinking about (God help us) regulation to "fix" the problem?
What do you think would have to happen (as if it's not bad enough already) for regulation to rear it's ugly head, and what ramifications do you think regulation would have for OSS?
---
...or we could all just start using Linux.
Does the wording on non-discriminatory licensing to OEMS mean that I will finally be able to purchase most laptops without having to pay a microsoft tax for software I delete as soon as I get it?
(Unix on the desktop is here, for those of us that want it. I've been running entirely in linux and BSD on the desktop for years now).
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Ummmm.... Where cash comes from?
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
--I have a few questions....
Mr. Rosen--
Are you aware of why a RICO suit wasn't pushed against microsoft execs given the scuttlebutt of the strongarm tactics they used against various hardware manufacturers as regards bundling and pre-loading alternative OS's? Last I knew, extortion was a criminal and not a civil crime. To me that was a more proper venue and focus for this case, with wider ranging ramifications. Comment?
This ruling boils down to a repeat of "bad microsoft, go ahead and keep doing what you were doing more or less". so--what's next? How can the average person who's had his security threatened by their exclusionary polices leading to insecure systems in not only the private market but in the public sector react to this and in what manner? What practical recourse is left? Say you have already stopped using microsoft products. Well, big deal, I want to know when they will be removed from my tax supported government, as they are A untrustworthy and a national security risk, and B, products produced by known felons who have been allowed to skate after using illegal activities to promote and profit from flawed products, a double crime in essence. What's a next step to take, for an individual? Is there ANY sort of practical recourse to take with such a vague but clear threat from mass continual useage and deployment of their products?
thanks in advance
This is a really easy one to answer. If you look to history you can find many instances where this same problem has come up before. The short and sweet answer is: It never works.
The slightly longer answer is: Even monkeys avoid pain. Thus, as will be shown, the longer the committee is around, the less they will do to monitor Microsoft and the more they will adamantly state that they are complying with the court order. In this way they can misdirect any and all probes to find out exactly what they are doing.
Basically, the judge is incorrect. You cannot have someone monitor themselves because they will be saying they are doing what you've asked them to do when really they never do.
Ask yourself this: We recently had a string of murders committed by two people. Should we give them back their guns and set them free? We should. Let's just tell them not to shoot anyone else - ok? I'm sure they will do as we ask. After all - they've promised not to do it again and are willing to report in anytime we ask them to do so. You believe them? Don't you?
I didn't think so. So now, change the word "gun" to "unlimited funds" and "shoot anyone else" to "harm any other business [like make them go out of business or do anymore FUDs and such]" and you basically have what's going on with this case. Oh yes, I almost forgot, change "murders" to "business fallouts/forced foreclosures/buyouts/takeovers/whatever" and "two people" to "Microsoft". Why! It reads the same. Bless me!
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Special reference to: "Groups that do not exist".
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
So we know that MS does have a monopoly, and they did unlawfully act to preserve that monopoly, and based on those protective actions did reap a profit at the expense of their would be competitors. (These things are not up for debate they are 'Findings of Fact'.)
My question is, do they get to keep their unlawfully obtained profits? If yes, is it because they settled and did not have a judgement imposed upon them? If no, what penalties in the judgement serve to revoke valuable assets/profits from MS? (I must have missed that part.)
The really odd thing is that many /. posters assume that MS won and that that is bad for computers in general.
/. opinion seemed that MS should be forced out of business period and that anything less is a loss for GNU/Sun/Netscape, etc.
Microsoft did not win. Netscape, Sun, etc. did not win. The US government did not win.
Everyone lost money and, more importantly, time.
One main angst point is that MS "should not be free to enter the consumer electronics business" and that we all have "right" to have "open source, hackable consumer electronics".
I don't remember anyone pursuing anti-trust, 'you must open source or open the harware to hacking' the Nintendo Gamecube, Sega Dreamcast, or Sony Playstation 2.
Does freedom of speech include freedom to design your hardware/software anyway you want to?
Would it be perfectly legal for Microsoft to simply release a new OS version every year and obsolete the old software api's every other year to make competitor's software obsolete much much sooner. Thus forcing competitors to spend large sums of money to re-code their software for the new os version as well as support many more os platforms.
The general consensus
This is unreasonable. Microsoft could offshore it's assets to a country and have protection from US anti-trust regulations.
Admittedly it's been a few years since I last needed to look on MSDN, but the last time I did they had two tiers of access on the website - stuff everyone gets to see, and stuff only subscribers get to see. Has that changed at all?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Standards aren't about picking one product only and having to use it and nothing else in order to interoperate with others. Standards are about defining a behaviour that products should follow to work with each other, so that companies are ENABLED to compete. There are standards that help the auto industry, for example, about how wide lanes on roads are, what the chemical mixture of gasoline available at the pump will be like. There are standards to make sure everyone is on the same page with regards to safety conventions (for example, the convention that an automobile's turn signal must operate by blinking either an amber light, or the red taillight, on the side of the turn, one in front and one in back.) These sort of standards don't stifle companies. They allow them to compete fairly in a situation where there would otherwise simply be a de-facto standard of "whatever the hell Ford happens to be doing, right or wrong, will the the standard since they have the most cars on the road (at the time these sorts of standards were being concieved.)"
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"Ummmm.... Where cash comes from?"
Well you and the rest of the world that uses MS software. That is however irrelevant. That money belongs to MS shareholders and in any other publicly held company having 40 billion in cash laying around is bad. Companies are supposed to either use the money for aquisitions or growth through other means or give it back to the shareholders via dividends.
MS instead is holding on to cash assets and I want to know why? I suspect that Bill Gates knows something about the world economy that we don't.
War is necrophilia.
I remember this issue coming up back when Phoenix cloned the IBM BIOS. But it has been so long that things have almost certainly changed due to the DMCA, etc. And in light of this anti-anti-trust ruling, I would love to hear from an authoritative source the answers to these questions.
What methods exist to create a program which is interchangeable with another, copyrighted program? Are there different rules that apply to file formats? What about network protocols, can I simply sniff my ethernet card and whatever I can deduce from the output is fair game?
What is the current legal status of 'reverse engineering' and 'disassembly' of a copyrighted program in order to create an interchangeable replacement program or alternately a program which interoperates compatibly with the original copyrighted program?
How many parties must be involved and what steps are required to reverse engineer a program? Must the party who writes the specifications be outside the U.S.? What ramifications are there for that party, i.e. can they ever write new software that competes with the program they reverse engineered without tainting the ownership of the new software?
For one fleeting, imaginary moment, let's presume that most people who click "I Agree" know what they're doing.
On one hand, we have a demand counted in millions of potential customers. That's a huge demand.
On the other hand, we have this rather lopsided supply. Sure, we have at least a few million software developers in the world, but their distribution isn't even. We have huge, monolithic companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Apple, who have large big, well-known names, large customer bases, and fat profits.
Then we have thousands and thousands of OSS developers, most of whom give away their products for free.
The problem is with the monolithic companies. Big names shine like headlights in your face at night; you can't see the little guys. Like looking at the night sky in a big city, that reduces your visible options dramatically. So you have a small supply.
But a big demand. That means high costs.
Costs don't have to be in the form of dollars-per-sale; they can be in the form of freedoms lost, charges for technical support on a faulty product, and any number of practical costs intrinsic to closed-source, big name products. (Wish someone would compile a list of these, maybe, say, a thousand items.)
For home use, these costs are conveyed into personal freedoms like personal copies of music and choice of product.
(Okay, you can stop presuming Joe Average as intelligent. I know, it hurts. I do tech support.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
Funny?"
:-)
FUNNY?!
This should be modded INSIGHTFUL!
Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy
Nintendo, Sony, Sun, and IBM are not convicted monopolists working under a consent decree.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It doesn't. It simply means that the standard rules of the game do not apply, that you are working under different rules.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Mr. Rosen is speaking at tomorrow night's (Tuesday, November 5th) LUGOD meeting! If you're in or near the Bay Area, come on over!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just because people could bout coal does not mean Standard Oil was not a monopoly. According to legal standards Microsoft HAS A MONOPOLY in its market. That means there are substantial barriers to consumers from being free to choose an alternative.
Capitilism is about making choices.
Exactly. And that is precisely the reason the government has to step in in the case of a monopoly. Microsoft has been concicted of abusing its monoply power to prevent competition is the OS market. Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly position to destroy competition in other markets.
Capitialism is a great system, but it breaks down when there are substantial barriers to choice and free competition.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I try, I really, really try, to like SuSe. It comes with so many packages you can install, and is just very cool ("have a lot of fun"), but they keep fscking up their kernel source that gets installed and that ruins it for me. I've tried SuSe 6, 7, and now 8. Each time their installation gets screwed up whenever I need to make a small change to the kernel config and recompile. The reason, I only just found out recently, is that the kernel source they install on your system is NOT configured the same way as the kernel source from which they made their prebuilt kernels. This means I have to just make a wild guess as to what the settings were for all those config options. With over hundreds of config options to choose from, the probability of my random guess being correct approaches zero. So inevitably whenever I want to change something small (like setting it up to read IDE CD-ROMS under SCSI emulation so I can run burner software), I end up accidentally changing a heck of a lot of settings because I had to guess what the whole list of settings originally were. Suddenly stuff breaks all over the place on the next reboot as drivers can't be found (I configured as a module what had been originally compiled-in). And then I look in the source tree and can't even FIND the drivers existing anywhere in the source for what had obviously been working using the prebuilt binary, so now I know I don't even have the same SOURCE CODE they were using, much less the same config options for that source.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Offshoring only gets one so far... while protected from US anti-trust regulations, it would also be effectively prohibited from doing business in the US.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
That's bullshit. No way in hell do you need to offset 40 billion dollars in options. Bill actually thinks he will need cold hard cash in the near future. He knows something that you and I don't. I can think of no other company in the world who keeps that much in liquid assets.
War is necrophilia.
Fuck Intel and AMD. Linux runs well on PPC.
photosMy Photostream
Now that they have recived minimal reprocussions from their illegal practices, do you see this same practice increasing, or decreasing, in their 'war' to dominate all aspects of technology and competitors?
I worry that now they will see it as 'open season' on the world, since there is little holding them back.
---- Booth was a patriot ----