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.
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.
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.
Appealing a ruling is certainly not trying someone twice for the same crime. What's happening is that they are taking the case to the next level of the appeal process. Happens all the time, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US. This has nothing at all to do with trying them twice. In fact, they've been found guilty. What the argument is over is the punishment.
Think of it this way. Someone negligently drives their vehicle into your house (Happened here last week, a semi lost control and took out half a house. Everything else in the example is made up.) Now let's pretend that the driver was forced by the company to drive 12 hours a day, clearly against the rules. The trucking company's insurance refuses to pay. You take them to court and allege 1) that their employee knowingly violated trucking rules and regulations 2) that the company knew their driver was breaking the law 3) that the company forced them to break the law and 4) that the driver was on company business at the time of the accident. The jury finds in your favor. The trucker, his company, and their insurance are all found liable. Then the judge says, "You get a dollar out of this to pay for your medical bills and to rebuild your house, and the company can continue to break the rules." First, you'd be pretty po'd. Second, you'd appeal the judges ruling to a higher court. Which is exactly what's happening here.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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
:) It's a good question. The "phenomenally stupid law" question is an old one.
... unless it helps them in the polls.
There's a reason the Supreme Court is called Supreme. It's the end of the road. There is definitely no way to force them to review a case, and imagine how cranky they'd be if you did. Even if there were oversight, that could be corrupt, and so on in a sort of Zeno's Paradox. Alternatively, the corrupt Court could grant cert. and uphold the law, same result as refusing to hear it but yielding precedent controlling all of the nation's inferior courts.
The Senate can impeach Justices for certain reasons, but being stupid is not one of them. (On that topic, if the Senate abuses the impeachment power, who reviews that? Another example of unreviewability. Don't worry, the President gets a few absolute powers, too.) Also, if the Congress was corrupt enough to pass the law, they're not going to attack the Court for supporting them
Hang on, there is one last super-supreme court -- the public. The bedrock of democracy. For better or worse. They get Congress to repeal the law by replacing all of them if necessary by voting. Unless they all hate blondes, too, or like most Americans don't show up to vote.
Humor aside, we have a Constitution, the supreme law, as a check on discriminatory laws by Congress. No matter how popular, certain kinds of laws can not be enforced, protecting minorities from overreaching by the majority assuming a sane Supreme Court. For example of wackiness, the majority can't sentence the minority to death; that would break a couple of amendments. If you think that's a goofy example, recall that Nazi Germany had a valid court system applying the Nuremberg laws -- with a Constitution the judges could have struck the laws down and gone to concentration camps. Most countries do not have this judicial review, where the courts get the last word.
But wait! There's even trump card on the Constitution: the amendment. That requires a supermajority 3/4 vote of the states, which is hard to get.
Dizzy yet? It's called checks and balances -- Schoolhouse Rock did a favorite number about it ("We the People."). Plus, you can see why lawyers use so many footnotes, they just can't stop worrying there's something they left out.
Woah, wait a second. You mean to tell me that the First Circuit has Puerto Rico and all of New England EXCEPT FOR CONNECTICUT AND VERMONT! How did Connecticut and Vermont get pulled into the Second Circuit with New York, while Puerto Rico avoids being part of the 11th Circuit with their neighbors Alabama, Georgia and Florida. It looks to me like all of the other Circuits are neighboring states.
Maybe a better division would be to have all of New England be the 1st Circuit, include New York in the current 3rd Circuit (NJ and PA), and put Puerto Rico in the 11th Circuit with its neighbor Florida. I would say that all of those regions share a bit more in common than the current division.
Maybe it's just me but this sounds like a really odd division of the Circuits
Sapere aude!
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.
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.
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.