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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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.