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?"

6 of 580 comments (clear)

  1. Re:supose... by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft couldn't care less about the law. They just do whatever they like, and if they get a settlement, they implement THAT however they like. Just plain arrogance.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  2. It's a "Wonderful Life" by laetus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, It's a Wonderful Life came out in 1946 directly after WWII and though had a happy ending, pretty much dealt with the shaddy side of the business world and one man's despair (and near suicide) because of it.

    It is a great movie and stands as one of the classics.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
  3. Re:supose... by Kilted_Ghost · · Score: 4, Informative

    "But Microsoft was allowed to charge for the protocols because servers were not part of the antitrust case. " Even thought this is Slashdot, at least try and read the article. That goes for whoever modded this up as well.

    --
    Black holes are where God divided by zero.
  4. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DOJ settlement does allow for this. The problem does not lie in the fact that they are charging for the protocol inspection, but there are further terms which could be considered discriminatory. For instance, the independant audit at the licensee's expense with no assurance that the inspector is not reporting back extra information to Microsoft, or the severely crippling NDA which prompted one executive to say that "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back,". Now those are what the DOJ has to center in on, not some admission ticket price.

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  5. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't unfair competitive practices, this is competitive practices designed to protect their trade secrets.

    This is unfair competitive practices. The whole reason they are to disclose the protocols are the remedy the damage done to the competitive landscape caused by their past wrongdoing that they have been convicted of.

    The communication protocols are not to be a trade secret. That is the whole point of disclosing them. Because Microsoft has unfairly leveraged a monopoly to create new monopolies they now have to open the landscape to competition.

    I would love to get a copy of MS's protocols so I could write a proper exchange connector for unix. But I don't have a hundred grand to pony up, so it ain't gonna happen.

    That is exactly why it is unfair. Don't you get it? Competitors are entitled to the protocols. Microsoft is free to compete on the merits of their product, not on the secrecy of their protocols.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  6. Re:Yes, he will. by finallyHasANickname · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Enron scandal flourished under Clinton, but ended under the Bush administration.

    Once upon a time, President Clinton had to deal with a problem. That problem was that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, which is pronounced "the ferk") had someone up and quit. Aw shucks. Who to get? Well, our fair President, against his better judgment, got a right wing fanatic from down south to sit in the FERC. Bummer. The poor guy was right in the middle of a good job with a kewl company--trying to get rid of all that public sector crap that carries high voltage power from place to place in Dixieland. Oh well. Duty calls.

    Fast forward to May 1999. The California agency for dealing with the physical consequences of the absurd right wing fantasy of "AB 1280", circa 1998 had to route the willy-nilly purchased and sold electric power in California. However, just as forecast an uncharacteristic heat wave swept northern California. It was beyond miserable. Oh my. Why were so many power plants down for maintenance? Why all at once? Why was the schedule for downtime changed? (Psssst. Hindsight informs us that the weather forecast was "beamed in" to the decision making headquarters at Enron down there where the heavenly Governor Bush promised always to look the other way.) The price of a megawatt-hour suddenly went to $400 with no ceiling in sight, and I suppose Ken Lay came in his $700 pants that day. Immediately, the California government commissioned a study. Strangely, a thorough report came through raht quick. There was a murmer about someone gaming the system. With a few more highest level power crises short term, everyone survived in California in 1999. In 2000, the evil science was refined. By 2001, the racket was licensed extortion as is common knowledge. The President of the California Public Utilities Commission (Loretta Lynch) told her top lawyer to dig in and sue the lazy bastards at the FERC, whose notions of laissez-faire included sleeping at the switch while your best friends down south print money through electric wires, choke natural gas lines, game the market, gouge customers, and bankrupt decently managed retail power companies without recourse. Why? Because Bill Clinton wanted to be "nice" to those on his right. The FERC was perverted. Yes. It happened while Clinton held ultimate responsibility. Yes. You can hang this on Clinton. However, when Bush's friends on the FERC kept assisting the milking of the California electric rate payers, after a while the conscience got a little stronger (along with the public outcry that leaked beyond the "lost-to-the-Republicans-anyway" i.e., negligible-to-W.-anyway state of California). When that racket stopped screwing California on schedule, the bets placed at the Enron power/futures/weather casinos in Houston started to lose money for their customers--typically the house itself. Just then there was a Frontline piece on public TV. I watched it. Why was it that all Ken Lay would do was laugh?

    Then came August of 2001, when Ken Lay was kind enough to free up the CEO chair for Jeffry Skilling. What a guy!

    You know the rest of the story, but now you know the part that we should blame on Clinton. Let the egg drip slowly down your right wing face now. You asked for it.