Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Flouting DOJ Settlement?
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is not adhering to the terms of its deal with the DOJ. Specifically, there are allegations that it is "trying to license key pieces of its technology at inflated rates" and "thwarting its antitrust settlement with the federal government". They're charging $100,000 just to see technical info about their communication protocols, and you only get $50,000 back if you decide you don't want to license them. Whoda thunk?"
because I don't abide by their EULAs either, so it all settles out.
I am Jack's utter lack of surprise.
oh shock horror, never saw that one coming.....
i mean really, what did you think they were going to do.
S
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
So, we pay $100k to find out they have no communication protocols, and only get $50k back? I'll charge half that if anyone's interested in seeing my communication protocols.
How can you suggest such a thing? There's absolutely no evidence that Microsoft isn't just as well behaved as every other American corporation, such as Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, etc.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Thats a scandalous acussation! Microsoft are kind and gentle, and they certainly learnt their lesson after the nasty talking to the DOJ gave them after that whole "monopoly abusing" thing. Balmer and Gates are such nice men and they wear such nice suits, how could you even think of making such a slanderous comment?
No, I'm sure they're just misunderstood.
"I'm Shocked! Shocked!"
I bet DOJ used Windows Update. Now, none of their computers work. That would explain their lack of follow-through in this case.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
So this is what happens to our best and brightest programmers.....
Yeah, I'd do the same thing if I were forced to send my engineers to visit Redmond...
why the hell would i pay $100,000 to look at freebsd code?
From the article:
Microsoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited -- at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoft -- to ensure that they are only using them for appropriate purposes.
What are "appropriate purposes" when it comes to protocols?
Auditor [pointing, exasperated] And what the hell are you using that one for?
Company rep Oh, we keep donuts in that one.
Auditor And that one?
Company rep Oh, that one is forced into the green button on the air-conditioner, otherwise it keeps switching itself off.
Auditor That one?
Company rep Oh. Erm. Sorry. We ran out of cat litter.
Auditor I am truly shocked at your inappropriate use of MS protocols! You'll be hearing from Bill Gates about this!
Rick Blaine: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Police Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[A croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Police Captain Renault: [sotto voice] Oh, thank you very much.
Slashdot must be the only place in the world where proof by Star Trek gets rated "Insightful."
I think that's all. Want your $50k back?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Companies must put up $100,000 just to see the technical information about the 133 protocols, which helps a potential licensee determine if it wants or needs any of them. But if the company chooses not to license, it gets back only $50,000.
Somebody send a correction to the Washington Post. When making fun of an underskilled and overarrogant programmer or group of programmers, the correct derogatory spelling would be, "l33t protocols".
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance