Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling
linuxwrangler writes "Criticizing the "loophole-filled deal" and saying "We are prepared to go it alone," Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly has announced that Massachusetts is appealing the Microsoft ruling. Seven other states have dropped out and are negotiating enforcement and attorney fees. West Virginia is still undecided on an appeal."
...which sends a shiver up and down my spine. It's not about winning anymore. It's about standing up for what you believe in.
My name is Carlos Montoya. You share files of my music. Prepare to die.
Well, this is all very depressing.
Much respect to Massachusetts for appealing the ruling, but with no other (except possibly one) state to support it, it'll just die a natural death.... I'm sure we will have heard the last of this whole thing by this time next year. After then, it'll probably just be the odd private suit Microsoft is so used to dealing with, certainly nothing which will hurt them or encourage them to change their ways.
Its got good intentions, they are smart enough to figure out that Microsoft pretty much won and want to correct that error, because buissness is pretty much the usual for Microsoft, back to tormenting little buissnesses, OEMs, EULAs and the such. Its got to stop and finally one state isn't blinded by a ruling and is taking them on, hey they have money, they can battle Microsoft on their own and whose to stop them in this stage of the game.
This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money. If Mass could get other states on-side, maybe the costs would be less...
But this piece-meal approach to dealing with monopolies like MS (or IBM in a previous generation) is bullcrap. If the federal gov't can't come up with a reasonable punishment/settlement that all states sign off, there will never be any truly effective measures put in place. Another case when distributed power to states gives companies (and criminals) silly-ass easy loopholes to jump through...
"Content's a bitch."
Like this guy, maybe?
Here is a link to another article on the same story. From that article:
Sounds as if it's working already.See what I've been reading.
Slashdot headline: Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling
The NYT, WSJ, and McNews seem to agree with Slashdot's perspective, FWIW.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
While I'm certainly not wholly pleased with the way things have turned out, justice as we've come to collectively accept it has been done. How many times can you try the same entity for the same crime? Already countless dollars and several years has been spent on the "Was Microsoft wrong to integrate" case. Why is it OK to rake them over the coals over and over again when it's clearly wrong to try the same person twice for a crime when you don't like the last verdict?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
There has been some posts about that this will cost a lot of money. I don't understand the legal system of the USA. How can trying some company could cost money to the state? Are they paying the DAs for overtime? Aren't the DAs and other people who work for the state get paid whether there is a case they are trying or not? And also how come this will cost a lot of money only because MS has a lot of money? I can understand that as a person I need to hire good lawyers to fight MS, but I don't think states would hire new and expensive DAs to deal with this case. Are they hiring consultants? What am I missing?
ato
"There is no point in going on after the other states have settled."
You make it sound like it's time to give up.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if Microsoft saw no opposition to its buisness practices why should they give a damn about reforming them? In this regard, even one voice is better than none.
Oh well - I will admit the days of hope (however false it was) during the early days of the whole States vs. Microsoft thing has long since faded, but at least one state is willing to prolong the fight.
More power to them! I only wish my state (OH) had some ballz.
I guess they are much better of using that money to support other software companies or even better OSS projects. Now that money goes to lawyers and that's not good at all.
Another year or so in court will never stop microsoft from doing their business. Not supporting/buying their products is the best way to let them know that you're not satisfied with their product.
Regardless of the merits of the case I don't see the Appeals court overturning a settlement. One of the major problems with the case was that attempts at settlement were made impossible by the states who were determined to hold out for electoral reasons.
As for the case itself, it was blown once that nitwit Jackson got involved. It is one thing to be a judge with opinions, if you discuss them with the press during the trial those opinions are very likely to be considered bias. Once the appeals court threw out the penalty phase of the trial there was no prospect of a final judgement against Microsoft for a decade. Microsoft could reasonably expect the Supreme court to be sympathetic to the argument that having found the judge to have been biased they were entitled to a completely new trial.
I also thing that the DoJ could have put up a much better case if they had concentrated on the contractual issues where there were real problems and not getting side tracked into the Web browser issue. Netscape failed for a simple reason, the business model was to sell Web server software and that rapidly became a commodity item, particularly once Apache started to gain traction. There were 10 free Web browsers before Marc had heard of the Web, the idea that Web browsers would be a paid application was wierd. Netscape would not have had the market share it did if it had been really charging for the browser.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Being the home of the Free Software Foundation, the state's appealing is the natural thing to do...
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
...what state I'm going to be looking at colleges in. If the GOVERNMENT there is that smart, imagine what the comp sci proffessors are like! ;)
Why are all of theses comments so negative about MA and their efforts?
/. bashes MS for sport. Aside from all of the childish MS bashing, a REAL problem DOES exist. The practices of MS DO threaten other software makers.
I know
Think about how far along MS has come in a short time. Where will it end? If they are not stopped - it won't end. It sounds cliche, but MS is clearly on the path to world domination (ok, that was maybe just added for dramatic effect).
MS will control "digital currency", "digital passports", etc. Mostly because of naive public acceptance.. but nobody else will ever gain a voice with that same public if MS can continue on their path as they have been.
In the end, I think logic and common sense will sweep the masses - but I don't see that end for many years (if not decades). Good for MA if they can impose some restrictions on MS early in the game (or maybe we are about mid-game).
Maybe you can say to yourself "MS can't decide what I can and cannot do" - and you may be right (for the time being). But you are a minority and MS is quickly moving into a position to decide what the general public can and cannot do with PC's, what hardware manufacturers can and cannot do (corporate politics), what software makers can and cannot do (neophyte strangling). Outside of the technology sector, MS has a great deal of pull in the media and even in politics.
Please, don't sluff off the efforts of MA as "wasted" or "useless" - instead, you should show support for their efforts as MA really is looking for a solution in the interest of the public. (and I know, there is always political motives involved)
..mork
Small quibble - it's "embrace and extend", a two phase process of privitizing open protocols involving 1) embrace - announce that your product will conform to industry standards to lure customers in, and 2) extend - make proprietary 'improvements'* to the standard that make it incompatible with competing products, locking their investment into a single vendor solution.
Saying "extend and embrace" is kinda like saying "conquor and divide".
*most times the 'improvements' are indeed real and should be paid for, they just have the 'unfortunate' side effect of locking out competition from less innovative companies, just like progress in the technical arts has the unfortunate side effect of forcing you to throw out a perfectly good machine and buy a new one. Sorry about that. But sometimes the incompatible extensions largely ARE anticompetitive. I think that's one way to nail Msft's tactics is get a judge to consider something like the Kerberos extensions that make Msft's incompatible with other implementations. Is the inconvenience of this incompatibility actually a real 'improvement' of such value to a customer that it's worth ditching competitors and going with the alledgedly superior single vendor solution? I think not - it's incompatibility for the purpose of leveraging a monopoly position in one segment into others.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Ah, to do civil procedure justice I should throw in the civil principles called "res judicata" (thing decided) and "collateral estoppel" (collateral bar) which do prevent reopening matters settled in an earlier lawsuits. These serve interests of fairness, efficiency, and finality, and naturally have their own stack of special rules.
These principles can be analogized to double jeopardy, but this is not a new lawsuit but an appeal from the judge's recent ruling. The earlier appeal was from Judge Jackson's order; the circuit partially vacated and sent the case back down for a new judge to evaluate the merits; then the parties settled and the court accepted the federal version with some tweaks, to Massachusetts's consternation.
There, a complete answer. I know, no one cares, but I love this stuff.
Re money, if it seems unreasonable to spend MORE money on the litigation, consider how much has already been spent, and that an appeal will cost pennies in comparison. In for a pound, in for an extra penny. (Well, OK, thousands, but again that's nothing; and the state's lawyers are probably salaried.) Massachusetts has already worked up all its arguments for what it wants; and the trial judge rejected them. I do not know whether MA has good arguments, and hope it is not being a sore loser. The DC appeals court is not going to be disposed to disturb the trial judge's ruling unless she got the law wrong, and it's a fairly conservative court anyway.
As a last note re money, recall the many millions of dollars at stake in the dispute between the parties. From the structure of the settlement, one hopes there will be no need for a new lawsuit on the monopoly Q. However, I seriously doubt this is Microsoft's last time in court.
I also thing that the DoJ could have put up a much better case if they had concentrated on the contractual issues where there were real problems and not getting side tracked into the Web browser issue.
Bingo! I never had any problem with Microsoft packaging IE along with Windows. Everyone else was doing this- Jamie Zawinksi's home page mentions something about finishing Netscape 1.0 in time for SGI to ship it with Irix 5.3. On the other hand, forcing Compaq and Apple to ship only IE on their systems is far beyond mere sleaziness, as is forcing OEMs into agreements that preclude pre-installing other OSes. Too bad the DOJ couldn't make a decent case, or find any execs with the balls to stand up to Microsoft.
The whole browser-tying issue made for some hilarious embarassments for Microsoft, but it just didn't deserve much more than a slap on the wrist. It actually bothered me, because the government appeared to be getting into the business of regulating technological advancements rather than regulating contract law etc., which enabled Microsoft to spew bullshit about "freedom to innovate" that wouldn't have lasted for a second if the main issue had been bullying PC makers. It's only a short step from preventing browser tying to requiring integrated DRM tech or mandating crypto backdoors.
The whole thing, to me, boils down to the following:
/clueless to understand how it happened and how to fix it.
1) Federal laws, people's right to choice, etc. clearly violated--not just once, but many, many times.
2) USA justice dept. and judicial branch too corrupt
3) Federal gov't and MS have "buddy deal" to make MS the USA standard, and let the rest of the world choose between Linux or MS, much the way they choose between Metric and English units. (I hope Linux ends up being the international equivalent of Metric units--successful).
So, is it legal for a state government to declare itself "Microsoft Free", now that they are a convicted criminal organization? Why don't the "solaris seven" use this option, and rather than fight the biased judicial and federal justice dept., that is, just declare themselves microsoft free, as far as state government purchases, and let people use whatever they choose, but urge them to choose freedom?
It seems fairly obvious to me that we will soon see the politicians shrilly supporting the US "corporate welfare for microsoft program" as they did the use of british units in the seventies--even though the rest of the world was switching to metric right in front of them.
That will be a sick sight indeed..a bunch of fat ass senators screaming about america, god, the flag, apple pie and microsoft. Sickening, but it will probably come to that.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Are you saying that it is better to not do anything because someone might say that he is a good boy or that he is doing it out of self-interest? Or are you saying that he is actually doing it out of self-interest? Or are you saying anything at all?
It could be that the action is sincere, or it could be that the action is taken for personal advantage under the pretext of fighting for the common good. But you are throwing dirt without giving any evidence beyond some hearsay.
Someone does something, and won some acclaim for that (deserved or not), then that someone must be doing it for his own good only, according to your logic? This kind of tenuous accusation will only work on people who don't use their whole reasoning faculty to examine real evidence and instead jump to conclusion easily (especially if the insinuation is inline with their preconceived idea of How Things Should Be (TM)). Unfortunately, that describes way too many people.
Cheers,
e.
Other states reps' argument about keeping MS on their toes by watching and enforcing rulling if necesarry is a very weak one. Actually, it's a load of crap, complete and utter bullshit and good sign that MS have shelled out few milion bucks where it was needed.
You can try keeping MS on their toes only if you take the battle to the next level, which is what Mass AG is doing. And rightfully so, since settlement was not the propper remmedy for breaking the law. In fact, it was big win for Microsoft.
Kudos to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, he deserves all help he may need. I'll do my part:
1. Show how neat Linux is to at least 2 people a week and help them run penguin on their PC.
2. Activelly advocate Linux and Open Source anywhere, anytime.
3. Keep the fight for Linux at my workplace going, despite the fact that some guys have already been sacked for doing so.
That's what I can do. Have you asked yourselves what can you do and have you started doing it?
Everyone else was doing this-
No, they weren't.
Jamie Zawinksi's home page mentions something about finishing Netscape 1.0 in time for SGI to ship it with Irix 5.3.
So you're saying that SGI wrote Netscape?
Or are you saying that Netscape 1.0 was integrated into Irix 5.3, so that you couldn't remove it?
You're completely and totally wrong.
MS wrote IE, and gave it away, and made it essentially uninstallable soley to squash Netscape.
In other words, they used their monopoly in one market to gain a foothold (and now a majority) in another unrelated market.
Bias assumes prejudice. (An unfavorable opinion formed without reason.) Given the behavior of Gates and the MS attorneys, I would argue that Judge Jackson's statements were reasonable and logical.
His mistake was attempting to explain this to the population at large. (Heaven forbid that the judicial process might be so transparent that people actually understand it.)
I have to agree that the DoJ didn't seem to get it.
IANAL, but...
Cases are usually dragged out because, suprisingly, lawyers have a lot of work to do. What you see on "Law & Order" isn't even 10% of what actually happens during a case. Arguments have to be prepared, witnesses have to be interviewed, re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed. Tons of paperwork have to be completed. Jurors have to be selected. This is all *before* the trial itself starts.
The actual trial can take weeks (especially in a major one like this). There is usually a huge amount of evidence to be presented and dozens of witnesses have to be interviewed.
Not to mention, there are some lawyers who have to handle two of these cases at once.
So there is a reason lawyers have such slimy personalities. It probably comes from the immense amount of stress they are under.
If you were, for example, writing your own operating system, would it be fair for someone to force you to include the competition's software? No, that would be ridiculous. That's like saying Ford is strong-arming the car market by not allowing Chevy parts to be easily installed into their cars. Microsoft should be free to do whatever they want with their operating system. Whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft's employees laboured over the operating system to make it work good (if it didn't work good, why would so many people use it?). They're entitled to include -- or exclude -- anything they wish.
That said, there's also another reason that Internet Explorer is so biasedly packaged into Windows; it's part of the operating system. Explorer and Internet Explorer, while separate, are closely tied together. Microsoft's target market (or, more specifically, the market that uses Microsoft products) don't care about third-party browsers. They LIKE the fact that they can type a URL into Explorer and have it connect straight to it, without having to wait for a less-integrated third-party browser to load up separately. The list of IE tie-ins goes on.
It's ridiculous to pick at this subject. If you don't like Internet Explorer, don't use it. You might not be able to uninstall it, but you can sure as Hell use Mozilla/Netscape/Opera/whatever if you want. You can set the default Web browser to something beside Internet Explorer. Sure it's still there, but why do you care?
PS: Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a huge Microsoft fanboy, and i enjoy using alternate operating systems and even alternate browsers; please don't ass-rape me with flames suggesting the contrary.
Usually the goal is to squash competition so you can sell your product at an inflated price or sell more because of lack of competition. THat hasn't happened. IE is still free. Sure their motive may not be to give the people a great browser for nothing but this is another issue that makes the whole anti-trust case a difficult one to judge.
Windows is MICROSOFT'S OPERATING SYSTEM. THEY MADE IT. THEY CAN PUT WHATEVER THEY WANT ON IT.
No. They can't.
The reason? They are a monopoly, and monopolies are held to a higher standard than the average company.
Your Ford/Chevy analogy falls apart because of this. If there was only one automaker in the world, then that automaker would be similarly restricted from making it impossible for third parties to make replacement parts.
Microsoft's employees laboured over the operating system to make it work good (if it didn't work good, why would so many people use it?).
I never understand why people bother trolling.. is there a point to it?
At any rate, you could just as easily ask why do so many people buy Campbell's Tomato Soup when making it from scratch costs less, tastes better, is more nutritious, and really takes no more time? It boils down to marketing and to people being unaware of the alternatives.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Microsoft are not done expanding yet. Everything they do is based on the need for their business to be ten times bigger than it is, years from now- hundreds of times bigger, decades from now, etc.
They're not gonna start cashing in on stuff that they can still use to leverage their past successes. Hell, they're mostly not gonna cash in AT ALL for the simple reason that expansion is the policy, not maximum income.
It's valid to wonder what the HELL Microsoft could possibly be doing in twenty years that would warrant their being ten or a hundred times as big as they are- since they already own computing, and are moving in on media in several ways, possibly they will need to obtain monopoly control over ALL worldwide communications, placing them on very much the level of a first world country as far as geopolitical power.
It is NOT as valid to expect that since they have not tried to cash in on their existing monopolies, therefore they're safe to have around.