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."
Another 5 year legal process...
...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.
Lets say that Massachusetts ends up getting everything that Open Source advocates, Linux users, etc want in terms of penalties against Microsoft. Does this apply to all states after they have settled? Or would Microsoft have to have seperate product lines and "features", depending on the legal conditions in each state?
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."
Our new governor-elect, Mitt Romney, is a fine specimen of business-buddy republican. I wouldn't be totally shocked if he threw a wrench into this.
Bored with karma, be a fan/freak
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.
Its good to see at least one state will do the right thing and continue on trying to get a decent rulling against MicroSoft. Really it's time for countries around the world to move away from Microsoft products and start to put some money into open source projects. This will break their reliance on one company and improve balance of payments especially in countries like Australia were we import so much.
Sex - Find It
If a woman can win a case against McDonalds for making coffee too hot and not warning her properly, why cant a State win a case against Microsoft for this? This, in my opinion, is FAR worse then not warning me my hot coffee might be too hot.
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
The AP wire story offered a bit more explanation as to why Tom Reilly, the Massachusetts Attorney General, is appealing the Microsoft antitrust case ruling:
"Reilly characterized the settlement between Microsoft and the federal government, which a U.S. district judge approved earlier this month, as a ''loophole-filled deal'' that won't affect the software maker's aggressive practices or send the appropriate message.
''Microsoft has been found to have repeatedly violated the antitrust laws,'' Reilly said. ''We believe that remedy must send a message that breaking the law does not pay.''"
It may ultimately prove futile for Massachusetts to send this message to Microsoft, but it is worth the attempt. The only other way that Massachusetts can send a message to Microsoft is by replacing Microsoft products with other vendors' commercial or open source products.
"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/
Honestly, though I have no great love for Microsoft (having suffered through WinMe, and being raised on Macs and IBM DOS will do that to ya)- I'm glad the government is at least keeping it's nose out of something in a day where it wants it's nose in everything.
I mean, let's face it, for even your intelligent computer user, Linux is no solution. I went through the process of partitioning, and installing Red Hat and only came out dissapointed. I could never get a PPP protocol to sign me onto the internet, and even though the computer didn't crash, I couldn't use my CD-ROM either. Until Linux is as intuitive as Windows (or even better, Mac's OS X) it's doomed to be for businesses and hobbyists.
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!
No, the point is to send some lawyer's kid to college.
...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
Read them here, or the AG's office press release here.
Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here.
Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)
It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.
That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill
Masochists find Microsoft Ruling Appealing
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Mass. went this alone in the beginning, and they've been prepared to see it thru alone all along. Againgoing it alone is something Mass. has been prepared to do since the beginning.
I live in Massachusetts and I know of a few people gnashing their teeth right now because they wish the Microsoft case would go away. They feel that way because:
1) They know that they are wrong in their support of MS.
2) They know that the AG is SUPPOSED to represent those who have been injured when the law is broken. They just wish it weren't true in this case.
3) They can't find the right words to make "GUILTY" go away...it's a stigma no matter what the punishment to MS is.
4) They are fearful that their true lack of knowledge in the tech world will put them at a competitive disadvantage if ANY non MS (read...non-understood) technology were to become popular. They don't do *nix because they don't understand it. And won't. And don't have to so long as the monopoly keeps them safe.
It doesn't matter if the AG wins or loses. His efforts keep the truth closer to the front page where people read about it. Perception is reality so let the charges fly.
By the way, I just e-mailed Mr. Reilly as well as phoned his office (617-727-2200) thanking him for his efforts and offering my support. He should know we care.
It would be more interesting if Delaware were to prosecute, since (if you look it up) Microsoft is incorporated in Delaware. Ahhh... if only Delaware yanked it's corporate status...
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
THIS IS A CIVIL CASE. Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases.
... but it's irrelevant. (There are also more exceptions to double jeopardy that you might expect, for example the Rodney King beaters could rightfully be retried for civil rights violations following their acquittal.)
Also, an appeal is of course part of the same action; jeopardy remains "attached." I could explain about acquittals and such
Actually Tim Reilly addressed this issue. Because Mass. (and other states?) planned for this to be a long, drawn out battle, there isn't much cost to continue the status quo. We can also hold out for a better settlement. I wish I could say this was because of principles, but we probably have more high tech competitors to Microsoft than anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Did Microsoft give up its aggressive practices? This article gives an overview of the present state of things; judge for yourself: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. If Microsoft ended its aggressive practices, why continue legal action? If Microsoft continues being aggressive, why shouldn't legal action continue?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But since this is about punishment for a company and not about declaring a law unconstitutional, I'm not sure what happens.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Microsoft announced Licensing V7.0 today, and although it looks like V6.0, there are a few changes. One of the most shocking ones was the addition of the clause: "83) It is unlawful for anyone who lives in, works in, ever visits, or has any family in the State of Massachussetts to use this Software Product."
A Microsoft spokesman downplayed suggestions that this was in retaliation for the States' refusal to let the antitrust suit die. Instead he commented that "We feel that we can better serve our core customer base at this point by adding these changes. It will be better in the long run for our youngest users. We're doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children."
A spokesman from the state of Massachussetts could not be contacted, since all of the communications and utilities ran on versions of Microsoft software, and have since been shut down.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
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.
Netcraft says MA Attorney General's web site is IIS on W2K. DOH!
and I say go Tom! This is one guy I'll vote for ... (do we vote for atorney general? doesn't matter, Tom for governor!)
Besides, if we can spend 100's of millions of dollars a day on the Big Dig (largest public works project ever) we can kick out some cash to fight microsoft.
Mass has a lot of schools that were early adopters of free software, and student idealism to flip MS off. FSF is based Cambridge, after all. I think there are a lot of bitter people around the 128 corridor that have never forgiven companies on the West Coast for stealing their thunder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
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.
How many hops til they hit the supreme court?
One more hop. DC trial ct --> DC Circuit Ct of Appeals --> SC
The Supreme Court has discretionary review (by granting a writ of certiorari) and decides fewer than a hundred cases a year from thousands submitted. As this case is mostly about facts and a judgment call on the engineering of the settlement, I suppose they'd be unlikely to take it.
For that matter, I doubt the Court of Appeals will want to reopen the wound. But there could be this great issue I don't know about. I doubt it, given that the other states jumped ship.
I'm not sure how things are handled when one litigant splits off to appeal. It depends on the design of the litigation and the settlement, which the district court merely approved. Obviously MA do anything to bind the other states; if the circuit court were to vacate and remand, I assume everyone would get together for a reunion in DC.
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.
Now that I've got my cheerleading out, check out the update on the appeal, which contains Tom Reilly's comments on it. Basically, it explains why they're pursuing a harsher punishment.
The atty general (AG) is the attorney for the state, The district attys (DA's) prosecute criminal cases in the various counties or cities of the state.
Cost? Not much compared to what has already been spent -- what's another 1%? Plus state attys are salaried and cheap compared to private practice; those who pursue gov't work take a major pay ct of 50% or more, in exchange for saner hours and that warm fuzzy feeling. I assume they did not contract this out.
This is not piecemeal. If the state has a basis for appeal it should do so, and should not be bossed around by the federal gov't which may have worse or politically clouded judgment.
IBM was a 13-year federal investigation that was abandoned when IBM itself sank in market relevance, and is generally regarded as a disaster. But tech antitrust has proved a whole new animal.
Don't Blame Me. I'm from Massachusetts
Somehow seems strangely appropriate in this context. [smile]
I wonder if we can get a Massachusetts only settlement? ;-)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
Microsoft's Redmond campus is almost the size of MA!!
If Microsoft wins, rumor has it they're just going to take over MA for their East Coast campus.
This is bad, but at least one state is sticking in.
However, I feel good--I just watched Antitrust again.
Her injuries were extraordinary -- 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The coffee burned her skin off. I like to think I'm reasonably educated, yet I had no idea that a cup of hot coffee could cause damage requiring skin grafts. I've certainly tucked a cup of coffee (or, from McD's, a hand grenade) between by legs, more so in older cars that did not have the godsend of cup holders. For people too lazy to read the article, The McD's coffee was roughly 50 degrees hotter (190F) than the coffee people brew at home. Water at 120 is hot enough to scald in 30 seconds, and the higher you go the faster it is.
There is no real need for the coffee to be that hot, except to convenience McD's which doesn't want coffee to cool too quickly sitting out, and doesn't want annoyed customers coming back. So they consciously made a business decision to scortch the occasional patron -- and got the ire of the jury for this. The food service industry responded to the decision by lowering coffee service temps.
She initially offered to settle for slightly more than her medical bills. This was not a gold-digger.
The punitive award WAS excessive. The jury was evidently pissed and exceeded its power, but in its defense consider that a punitive damage is supposed to hurt -- hence punistive or punish -- and how much does it take for a behemoth like McD's to even notice? The judge properly intervened to reduce it radically, by over 2/3 (my memory of the numbers differs from what the linked article says). The plaintiff then had a choice whether to retry the case or take the remittitur. The point is that the system worked.
I used to laugh at this case, too. Until I got a real accounting of the facts halfway through law school, not the bullshit blindered version reported by the media and trumpeted by the conservative critics who would like to gut tort law. The only thing good about them is that most did not know the truth either, and negligently parroted what they had heard somewhere, an urban legend. With the internet it is more difficult to get away with this sort of propagandizing.
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?
I haven't read enough of the facts to speak with confidence, but my impression was that the browser issue was very important. Basically IE was proof that not only were they a monopoly but they were misusing the monopoly to bootstrap/foist a new category-killer product.
They said, I did wonder how the IE strategy could ever work, unless they managed somehow to privatize HTML. I guess it was not clear until recently that small lightly-funded groups would produce excellent browsers. (I use Chimera for Mac OS X, Opera as second choice, IE if nothing else works.)
I am still not clear on why the Bush Administration immediately abandoned a tying claim on which they had been successful, other than it is the Bush Administration. [partisan jab in velvet glove]
Ah... er... damn it! I have the urge to tell West Virginia jokes involving sheep, but then they may end up doing something useful and good, and.... ARGH!
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.
"Somehow I don't see the Appeals court which has been far more pro Microsoft than the lower courts deciding to overturn a judgement that the Federal govt and the majority of the states have agreed to."
This is a courtroom, not a democracy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how everybody else feels about the settlement, all that matters is the validity of Massachusetts complaints.
Besides, how can you say the appeals court was "pro-Microsoft?" It wasn't Judge Kollar-Kotelly's (sp?) place to say whether or not the settlement was good or bad.
"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."
Um... you missed something there. The penalty phase was the only thing thrown out. The final judgement stands.
"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."
The appeals court already smacked that one down by throwing out only the penalty phase. Microsoft will have to pull something out of its rear end to convince the USSC that the appeals court was in the wrong.
" 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"
They're one and the same. Microsoft OEM contracts originally said "You must install IE." They got taken to court, lost, and then 'integrated' IE into 95 and 98. The browser issue is just one example of the many contractural problems Microsoft has with OEM distributors.
Hey Archie,
Did you actually take a shit each and every time you flushed the toilet?
yes the coffee was 50 degrees hotter, as it is from most commercial coffee machines. Mcdonalds, truckstops, gas stations. Cheap resteraunts. This is not a mcdonalds exclusive and not something that should be news to a 79yr old woman. In her 79yrs of life she has never purchased a mcdonalds cup of coffee? This was not an exceptionally hot cup of coffee, in fact it was the standard temperature which this article goes to great lengths to prove for me. Just because "everybody does it" hardly makes putting coffee in a weak styrofoam cup in your lap a bright idea. I've been burned using hard plastic cups, let alone flimsy styrofoam. If a motorcycle manufacturer sells a fast motorcycle, does that mean I can sue if I don't wear a helmet and get in an accident while going fast? Or if I get horribly maimed while traveling at high speeds? No, it's their responsibility of providing the capability I've asked for (speed) it's MY responsibility to handle and use it respectfully and with good sense. They don't have to do it "the way I do at home", they just have to be consistant, and they are, they don't hide the temperature of their coffee.
Boo US.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
One point of interest. The AG job in MA is an elected rather than appointed job. That is to say, Tom Reilly has to behave not as a lawyer decding which cases are likely to produce a win and which cases are sure losers, but as a slave to politics who has to decide which cases will get him the best media attention. I'm sure he now has the Open Source geek's vote locked up now.
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.
The thing is, the "Browser wars" is just the best-known example of Microsoft attempting to sqaush a competitor by including a duplicate of its product in the latest operating system. DOS 6 contained DoubleSpace, which was so close to a disk-space doubler called Stacker it resulted in MS losing a patent case. Microsoft eventually bought the company, and the decendant DriveSpace feature still resides in Windows XP, it's just rarely used because it's so easy to get a big HD now.
Trumpet had a business selling Winsock software, which made TCP/IP possible on Windows 3.1. Microsoft included native support in the operating system. Operating systems are now considered unacceptable if they don't include TCP/IP support in the base package.
So there's the rub... what's the difference between advancing an operating system, and using it to undercut other people's businesses?
You knowingly put something capable of burning you on your lap and it of course spilled while driving?
If you had taken the time to read the text at the link, you would know that the 79-year old woman was in the passenger seat -- and the car stopped -- when this happened.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. The new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. makes for interesting reading.
The Mothership
No jokes,
B RU S.html
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/technology/30
I guess it's on way to end their trouble in europe by hiring everyone who opposes them.
I guess everyone as a price
in fact it was the standard temperature which this article goes to great lengths to prove for me
... hmm). When I researched this I read an article in a restaurant trade magazine discussing recommended procedures in light of the decision.
Not any more! It was an unacceptably dangerous practice, the case tells us. To turn your argument around "just because everyone does it" -- serves scalding coffee -- hardly makes it a "bright idea." The industry, esp. McDonald's, changed its rules once they realized, golly, we can get in trouble for this; it can cost us money and good will (perhaps less damage if maybe we're involved in a smear campaign against that old lady plaintiff
The thing with the coffee is that (1) the dangerousness is (reasonably) unexpected by most consumers, who appreciate that hot coffee is painful but not disfiguring; and (2) it is inevitable that coffee will be spilled on people, with or without contributory negligence. Although the woman here lost 20% of her compensation because of her partial culpability, there are other examples. If I recall the evidence, most of the other scalding victims were small children who either pulled the cups down or were doused by a stumbling grown-up. Sure, the 4 y.o. or their parent was arguably "at fault," but McDonald's put the hand grenade on the table.
You can usually blame someone, and a line has to be drawn between your culpability and the other party's. It's a judgment call; there are many many examples of tort cases that sank because even though the manufacturer could have theoretically made the product safer, the plaintiff's conduct was so ridiculous it didn't matter. My favorite example is the guy who tried to trim his hedge by picking up his lawnmower -- he lost fingers and his lawsuit.
If nothing else persuades you, consider the dispassionate economic analysis. Which increases the wealth of society more: protecting undrinkably hot coffee or reducing scalding injuries? When asked, a lot of the public said, yeah, that coffee is too darn hot.
I just checked google (mcdonald's coffee scalding) and saw lots more written about this case and others like it. Here is a sober analysis of the case. Very important is McDonald's detailed knowledge of the hazard -- versus consumer unawareness -- and its lack of intention to do anything about it after 700 unnecessary injuries.
Note also that these were really nasty burns, sometimes with no culpability of the victim.
Beware the words "tort reform" accompanied by deliberately distorted stories, as has happened here. The reform proponents have to be able to come up with at least a few good anecdotes without corrupting stories that actually contradict their position. And even if they do come up with worthwhile anecdotes, remember that anecdotes are unreliable (!) and that statistics or a broad sampling is a better foundation for changing the law.
... there won't be a trial here -- it's an appeal. Appeals run on pretty structured timetables, and no evidence is presented, no jurors, just argument. Everything is on paper. Should take at most a year.
:)
Lawyers have slimy personalities? Hardly true of the dozens I've met. If anything lawyers tend to be a bit boring, but that's not a mortal sin.
IAAL
/. generally hates MS ... but it also hates governement. Quandary time.
dump XP discs into Boston Harbor
;-)
Where, what, they'd dissolve?
Let's hope Microsoft doesn't replay the Boston Massacre. Bunker Hill: Don't fire until you see the glow of their eyes! Paul Revere XXI: Steve Ballmer is coming! Steve Ballmer is coming! Run like hell!
OK, it's late, I'm getting silly.
Yay MA!
:)
What about your PA?
(Heh, get it?) (Sorry.)
I live in MA
Oh wait, jettison metaphor, full reverse!
(Congrats Mass. for being, as usual, a pain. I miss living there.
This is a courtroom, not a democracy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how everybody else feels about the settlement, all that matters is the validity of Massachusetts complaints.
... ahh ... interested in buying a bridge?
I'm a defender of the courts, but
Not to criticize any particular member, but the D.C. Circuit does have a history of being more political that the other circuits. Many of its judge have been politicians in past lives, or resign to return to politics (Abner Mikva was one -- impressively he held high office in all 3 branches of gov't).
It was entirely CKK's job to judge the fairness of the settlement. It is a safety provision in antitrust law.
"Her injuries were extraordinary" indeed. You see, back when I was in college, I worked as a commercial dishwasher. The dishwashing unit had a thermostat, and the water temperature therein averaged 185F (state-mandated minimum was 180F, IIRC). Now, it also tended to jam, which meant someone (me) had to stick their hands in there and unjam the beast. Know what? Water at 185F doesn't cause 3rd degree burns, or even 2nd degree burns. It stings and turns your skin temporarily red, but it doesn't do massive physical damage. If it did, after being plunged into the unit several times a day for 6 months, both my hands should have been burned off at the wrist.
Which is why I don't believe that 190F coffee *alone* caused "3rd degree burns". Either something else went on (pre-existing condition?), or some "facts" as presented in court got expanded a bit.
The M$ case seems parallel in that they claim to have been plunged into very hot water, but given the verdict, the water proved at most tepid.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
Your anecdotal experience is misleading. I seriously doubt that water was 185 unless you have unnatural rubbery skin. :) Scalding burns at temperatures well below boiling are common, and account for the majority of burns among children.
I have seen the figures many, many times, and I'm sure you can find much more online. Note that it takes time for the scald to occur, and that children and the elderly are more vulnerable than average. The woman in the lawsuit was older and wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and prolonged the exposure time.
Home water heaters are now recommended to be set at 120, which still can scald, but much more slowly.
You didn't read the article. Yes, what I said was badly expressed. However, I think most people will think that Microsoft's aggressiveness is continuing, so the other possibility need not be considered.
Yeah, so fair. If they want to make a punishment, why not make them donate the money to a charity institution? There are people out there diying the one true death because of famine, and certainly even a 3rd degree burn by drinking coffee does not seem all that bad at all.
I wonder how that happend, i tried really HOT stuff (remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees) and never got burn like that.
Not flamebait, but I think justice means justice, balance. You can't overcompensate a woman just because they you to send a signal. Justice as a signal WORKS, but it is UNFAIR.
unfinished: (adj.)
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.
Bullshit. The appeals court rulling was incoherent. They decided that Jackson had been fair up to the penalty phase and so biased after the penalty phase that the judgement had to be set asside.
The appeals court rulling only makes sense as a means of sending the parties back to the table to negotiate a settlement.
Jackson showed plenty of bias before the penalty phase. Trying to recruit Lessig a second time after the Appeals court had told him not to was ridiculous. Attempting to write 'findings of fact' which were clearly opinion in an attempt to circumvent the Appeals court was ridiculous. Conspiring with the DoJ to get the appeal sent straight to the Supreme Court so as to get the matter settled before a possible change of administration was stupid.
The partial dismissal by the Appeals court was strictly political. To go further would have brought into question the fairness of Jackson in other cases and opened up a whole rack of possible appeals.
And if you don't believe that the courts can act politically go read the Florida judgement,.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
There have been proposals to give punitive damages to the state, or a portion of them. This may or mat not be constitutional, but does make sense in punitives are intended as society's punishment of the guilty, not a windfall for the plaintiff.
This doesn't change that McDonald's deserved punishment (IMHO, and the jury's). Between the state and the woman, I'd give the lousy $480,000 to her -- won't the state promptly take half back through taxes anyway?
remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees
Er, are we on the same temperature scale here? It was 212 last time I checked. I posted elsewhere in this thread a link to a table of temperature vs. time to scald -- just seconds at 140.
My skin IS tougher than average (most chem students couldn't stick their fingers in Chromerge either -- I *could*) but the unit was state-cert'd for temp every year (sterilization requirement for restaurants). Judging against realworld experience, I'd say the Shriner figures are *extremely* conservative.
:)
This woman didn't have the common sense to peel off her pants if she thought she was being burned by the coffee she'd just dumped into 'em?? See, that's the sort of thing I'd have looked into. "Did you just sit there and suffer, or did you take steps to remove yourself from the hazard??"
(Did you continue to pay M$'s extortionate licensing, or did you take steps to reduce their influence? Take that, OT modders.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Honest, the numbers are "industry standard" in the medical community -- the Shriners are just random google hit. There is room to speculate whether the time-to-burn figures are correct.
These figures vary from individual to individual, which variation is ireelevant unless is was the victim's fault. The rule in torts is that you compensate people for the injury to do to them, not the injury your misconduct might theoretically have done to some imaginary average person (and if you did the latter, lightly-injured plaintiffs would get the windfall). So if you punch a frail 80 y.o. you pay for it, and if you punch Mike Tyson, well, you probably won't live to see a court, never mind.
Here's an even stricter version from Australia -- note it is for children, who burn much more easily, and get hurt by coffee even at household temps. 120 is the universal recommendation for tap water, questioned only by the potential of bacterial growth and homeowners who want endless hot showers despite their inadequate heater.
The facts: How do you know she just sat there and suffered? Why do people have an unlimited capacity for second-guessing what others did in an emergency? As for the pants, try getting your off while seatbelted in your car, in under a few seconds. Remember, you still have a half-full cup of scalding coffee in your lap, are in intense pain, and are panicking. Regardless, her portion of fault was accounted for in the 20% reduction in compensatory damages. Puntives focus on whether McDonald's condust was esp. blameworthy. The jury, which was there unlike us, thought yes.
One last way of looking at it is that even if you think scald burns don't occur at 190 (although it is well-documented that they do, and that they account for a majority of child burns), notice that the risk of burn increases rapidly with temperature. If the coffee is unnecessarily hot, it is an unnecessary risk, and the victim's injuries are going to be worse for no good reason; the restaurant may be liable for this increase in risk which in turn increases injury.
This is how a court would analyze it and, at least to lawyers and economists, this sort of risk allocation makes a lot of sense.
As for OT modders of deeply nested threads, they ought to have better things to do with their fun points.
Zeinfeld wrote:
> Once the appeals court threw out the penalty phase
> of the trial
The appeals court did *not* throw out the penalty phase of the trial! They threw out Jackson's penalty, upheld his findings of fact, and sent it back to the lower court for a "less biased" judge to decide on a penalty. She decided instead to force the two parties into a settlement (which IANAL, but that is the strangest thing I've ever seen, a settlement during the penalty phase).
Toss in the 2000 election (in which Microsoft spent three times as much as Enron on candidates), a new Attorney General still in MS pockets from the 2000 election, and you get the settlement the DoJ came up with.
The judge requested public comments, and of the non-trivial (non MS hate mail) comments that were kept, two thirds were against the settlement. Despite that, the judge decided in favor of the settlement, with only minor changes!
> 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.
They tried to appeal to the Supreme Court. The supremes refused to hear them and bundled them off to their new penalty phase judge the Appeals court had arranged for them.
> I also thing that the DoJ could have put up a
> much better case
The old DoJ put up a great case! They got Microsoft convicted of something like eight counts of antitrust violations that were upheld upon Appeal. The new DoJ dropped the ball.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Microsoft discussed writing a Web browser with us long before Netscape was started. They bought a commercial use license from Spyglass for Mosaic, then they rewrote the thing from scratch.
Tim Berners-Lee proposed deeply embedding the browser into the operating system in his keynote speech at the Boston Web Conference, if Netscape had bothered to show up they would have heard about it. However at the time their PR flacks were too busy claiming that Marc was the genius who invented the Web and Tim was merely a befuddled academic who did not understand anything.
Read the books that Netscape had written. "Architects of the Web" does not mention Tim, Dave Raggett, Ari Luotenen, or anyone who had much to do with the real design. "Netscape Time" mentions Tim three times and each mention is derrogatory.
Netscape got everything that was comming to them, fair and square. The point of getting the DoJ to launch the suit was simply their way of giving themselves cover for their own incompetent management. Easier to blame Microsoft for being the bad guys than admit that you were full of it, that Netscape was never more than another clueless dotcom and that you missed the main chance.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
AG stands for "Attorney General" and "Almost Governor"
I thought of yet another check -- civil disobedience, or disregard for the law in an effort to win change. For your example, we could all bleach our hair blonde and have a rally -- they can't arrest us all!
:)
Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep.
Sorry, here we use celcius, I never really got to understand Farenheit, both metrics are not even linear, you have to use a formula. All I know is to set ac to 74F or 76F in my fathers Volvo to be confortable.
Celcius:
0c degrees = freeze point
100c degrees = boiling point (at normal pressure, blah).
unfinished: (adj.)
still has a place in the wide world of hardcore German bondage movies.
The firing squad, though, seems to have evolved more or less non-violently to the Friday afternoon boardroom set.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
yeah, but so did everyone else.
I'm not sure the Kerberos thing would be any good in court (try exlaining to a judge that SID's aren't part of any internet standard).
Much of the outrage about Microsofs stance on standards has more to do with their lack of respect (or should I just say arrogance?) In the Kerberos case, they usurped an unassigned field for data that by definition doesn't comply to any standard outside of Microsoft. I think that in this case asking nicely would not have helped them, because MIT would never have accepted an MS-only extension to Kerberos (not even if MS didn't play sillybuggers with the EULA attached to the docs for it).
In many cases however the issue is more clear-cut. Back when Windows 95 was being developed, MS wanted some extensions to PPP. So, they proposed to use four unused fields. The standards guys said "njet, you're using protocol independent fields for IP specific data. Go and do your homework and make this world a better place for all". They didn't, and left the ISP's to clean up their mess. This is one I can explain to my mother. Even a judge might grok it.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
...this is not as bad as you would think. The analogy I would make is to auto manufacturers having to match California emissions standards. Eventually, making 2 cars (one for Cali, one for everyone else) gets more troublesome than just selling the Cali car everywhere - hence, the California environmentalists influence the entire country. Let's home the same thing holds here - maybe (just maybe!) the hassle of releasing a MassWin makes them release the same Massachussets-approved Windows to everyone.
Additionally, the very presence of a "MassWin" means the rest of us will at least have something to get from the black market - I really think if Mass makes them open the Pandora's box, all of us will get the benefit.
Naturally, all this assumes the Mass Att. Gen. stays the course and really pushes MS - seems like the inclination is there. But I see more hope here than you seem to, Kollar-Koteley be damned.
Of course, the realist in me says that even if Mass wins the "version" of windows they get will be so intentionally crippled that it will be worse than the currently existing crap. But oh well - maybe that will spawn another round of anti-trust suits! Yay!
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The public comment period is a feature of the anti-trust act, it is pretty irrelevant since the judge is meant to be rulling on the law, not conducting opinion polls.
They tried to appeal to the Supreme Court. The supremes refused to hear them and bundled them off to their new penalty phase judge the Appeals court had arranged for them.
That is normal practice with the supremes, they rarely take cases unless all the issues have been settled in the lower courts. Declining to take the case at that point is not as you attempt to imply a judgement on the merits of the appeal.
Had the case continued there is little doubt that the supremes would have eventually heard the case, probably arround 2006 or so by which time it is doubtful that anyone would place much store in Jackson's decision to decline to hear most of the evidence in order to accelerate the pace of the trial.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The tests are more insightful that the "what ifs" you suggest. I'm not saying they're brilliant, but the culpability of the victim is often a factor reducing the judgment proportionally to their share of that blame. With your experience with the wringer, if true, questions would include whether it was forseeable such a thing could happen, what safeguards there were, what safeguards could have been added at what cost, your culpability (or, more likely, your guardian's), etc.
That's what happened here, in fact. I don't know whether the correct balance was set, but all you have to do is twiddle the facts a little to get a situation where you would have to agree with the outcome. For example, in one case cited at trial the McDonald's employee dropped the coffee from the drive-thru windows into the driver's lap. The employee was clumsy, yes, but the coffee was also too hot. Had the employer been responsible, choosing safety over convenience, these injuries would have been avoided or reduced. No matter how unsympathetic you might be to these facts, there will always be a case where you do find the defendant blameworthy -- unless you think the company is always right. It's just a question of degree.
Like most people, I knew before hearing this case that hot coffee hurts. I didn't know it could burn my skin off. That was neither common knowledge, nor was it safe. The industry has now lowered its thermostats without calamity -- after the case.
People make mistakes. Some of these people are users. Others are designers. Let the one at fault pay for the consequences. It's that simple.