U.S. Faults Microsoft Licensing Compliance

An anonymous reader writes "In a written report card on how well Microsoft is complying with its 2001 antitrust deal with state and federal prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly." The DOJ's court filing is online if you want to wade through it.

Comments

U.S. Faults Microsoft Licensing Compliance

[luckybob83]

"Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly."

well that is a real shocker

Well, what did we expect?

[gotr00t]

It comes as no suprise that Microsoft isn't even living up to an antitrust settlement that is this painless. From day 1, it looked as if they had no intention of following it through, and now, it seems as if the lawsuit was never filed at all.

What is a second lawsuit going to produce? Another slap on the wrist? If so, I will begin to think that the judges were... easily persuaded.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[gilesjuk]

Microsoft will drag it out as long as they can, get fined and then Bush will let them off the hook (again).

So much for competition and monopoly law.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[Black Parrot]

> It comes as no suprise that Microsoft isn't even living up to an antitrust settlement that is this painless. From day 1, it looked as if they had no intention of following it through, and now, it seems as if the lawsuit was never filed at all.

At least they didn't laugh about the settlement this time around.

At least not in public.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[Daniel Phillips]

What is a second lawsuit going to produce? Another slap on the wrist? If so, I will begin to think that the judges were... easily persuaded.

You're the slow-to-anger type I guess.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[56ker]

I give Microsoft a C++ (a passing grade with room for improvement). The settlement was vastly watered down by their legal team anyway....

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

From my experience with M$VC... I can give them a grade of G... for GPF.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[jkrise]

What did I expect? Oh yeah.. well, lemme think, ahem.., here I go:

1. I expected a woman (Kollar Cotelly) would be a good judge, and would make us proud.
2. I expected MS would be fined $2 bn., ordered to open the source for public inspection.
3. I expected "Breakfast with Bill" would mean Bill comes to my place, and fixes my system with the latest Service Pack CD.
4. I expected that the judgment would be in the best interests of the world computing community, and not just a narrow American interest.
5. I expected His Billness to say "I'm sorry"
6. I expected RMS, Linus, ESR and a few others to have received meritorious awards from the Presidents of the respective countries.
7. I expected that MS would stop naming OSes after years, as if they wrote different ones every year.
8. I expected that .Net was officially declared "Dead and Buried"
9. I expected Java would be fast, flexible and open source.
10. I expected more of the Slashdotters to have seen that the whole trial was just a farce - 9 States dissenting was a stage-managed stunt, the female lawyer was not 'randomly' selected, that the evidence shown and arguments had no effect or relevance on the judgment and compliance.....and, and.. well: I expected all of these would have been obvious to all but the few astro-turfing MS apologists and shills that infest the forums over here. In short, I expected justice,dignity and fair-play from a gorilla, and I was a fool - just like most of us.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[Alien Being]

+2 flamebait for dissin' a guy named George on 7/4. I like it.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[SpaceLifeForm]

The puppet won't be in office then.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You never did see clinton and his unfortunate fall during a press meeting...

Now that was a puppet...LOL

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[Spiderbaby1958]

A second lawsuit will at least produce some bad PR, which will counter Bill's recent informercial-style interview in USA Today.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll?

Yeah, I guess an accurate review of the history is trolling.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[andreMA]

Wow. Once again I get to say "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"

Probably with about as little impact. *sighs*

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[rikkards]

I'm surprised that you forgot # 11
11. The "War on Terror" was won by the US.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[RALE007]

Bah, I scoff at your comment. Microsoft doesn't even get the most BASIC of grades in my book.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[56ker]

It was meant as a joke. Hence the +1 moderation point for being funny.

Re:Well, what did we expect?

[gilesjuk]

He probably caught a look at some sexy lady and slipped on his drool :)

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[RALE007]

You mean to tell me the "C++" grade comment was a joke? As in it was a pun referring to the C++ programming language? Well isn't my face red. I can't believe I missed that. That makes my "BASIC grade" comment silly, it's not like my referral to BASIC wasn't a joke itself. Nope nope, not like BASIC is a programming language as is C++, nor that I found the C++ humor funny so I thought I'd try play off on it... thanks for setting me straight.

Re: Well, what did we expect?

[56ker]

Sorry yes - it was a bit of an in joke. The fact that I'd just recently been on the C++ module at university had something to do with it. The rest of the comment was written in such a way as to fool the reader that I was serious. ;o) Anyway - wasn't one of my best jokes.

Question is:

[jkrise]

How many among the four parties are simply 'front' operations, supported and sponsored by Microsoft? Backup and storage are two areas where MS has done poorly on purpose, looks like they might be aiming to buy two of the 4 cos. that licensed their protocols.

What happen..

[bsharitt]

What happens if Microsoft doesn't do what they settlement says? Will they face harsher penalties?

Re:What happen..

[tinrobot]

Yeah... harsher penalties... hee hee... HA... HA... sorry... can't stop... LAUGHING!

(chuckles)

Re:What happen..

[Anonymous Coward]

Double Secret Probation!

Re:What happen..

[Black Parrot]

Somebody set us up the bomb, that's what.

Re:What happen..

[iabervon]

What ought to happen is that the court system should delay processing any MicroSoft suits until they get around to complying. Anyone who felt like violating MicroSoft copyrights could do so with impunity until MicroSoft followed the terms of the settlement. Anyone who felt like paying MicroSoft for anything could consider that they were presently under no compulsion to do so, and that it might not be a socially responsible behavior.

Alternatively, if the government decides MicroSoft is no longer vital to US businesses, they could declare that, since MicroSoft isn't following the settlement, the case resumes, and seek to have MicroSoft shut down.

Re:What happen..

[Alien Being]

Thank you sir. May I have another?

Re:What happen..

[jazman_777]

Somebody set us up the bomb, that's what.

Is this bizarro world, or is it /.? Or do I repeat myself? I feel compelled to correct this: the _correct_ sentence there is "somebody set up us the bomb."

Oh, never mind!

Re:What happen..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they pay bush and ashcroft some more money

Re:What happen..

[Waffle Iron]

What happens if Microsoft doesn't do what they settlement says? Will they face harsher penalties?

DOJ: Microsoft is not complying with the settlment terms. Fetch the Comfy Chair!!

Bailiff: The... Comfy Chair??!!

DOJ: So you think you are strong because you scoff at our remedies. Well, we shall see. Bailiff! Put them in the Comfy Chair! Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.

Re:What happen..

[agent dero]

Then they will sue Bill Gates for all his life's savings, approximately $43.89.

Way to go Justice Department

Re:What happen..

[Anonymous Coward]

the homey on the co'na set me up with the bomb last night. Damn, im still redeyed

You call this a capitalist society?

[rkz]

What happened to laissez faire ideals, free market and all that.
Microsoft is argueably the most successful company evar, if the DOJ takes action to break up Microsoft or fine them I could see this as the ideals of capitalism breaking down.

People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?
If you were Bill Gates would you open source Windows or would you buy a few more boats!

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[LordKaT]

The problem is that Microsoft, being as influential as it is, doesn't allow "free market" in certain enviornments. In a sense, they control the market. So, in a capitalist enviornment, it is more beneficial to have them broken up thus allowing for more competition.

Remeber, having a monopoly is not illegal, having a monopoly and abusing your influence, such as the case of Microsoft, is illegal. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised for the courts to find that Microsoft has "pierced the corporate shield" with all of the tactics and tricks hey use.

Then again, the republicans are in power ... ;/

--LordKaT

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be the first time a company has been broken up. It happens.

It's OK to become rich and powerful, but you're still bound by the law.

You obviously don't understand all the reasons behind why Microsoft should be broken up.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[sisukapalli1]

US is not a truly capitalistic country (look at social security, farm subsidies, bailing out airlines, and even bailing out obnoxious hedge funds)...

Laissez faire ideals are things that can cause depression like the 30's. Without the government regulations, we wouldn't even have had a 40 hour week standard (even though many do way more than that).

The ideals of capitalism won't break down if MSFT is broken up -- MSFT itself has become like a government of its own, stifling free market. Breaking up MSFT can only do good to consumers, just like the breaking up of AT&T and Standard Oil did...

S

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[DataCannibal]

For someone who espouses capitalism you seem to have read neither Adam Smith or the DOJ judgement and you have no idea about anti-trust laws and why they exist.
If I were you I'd shut up until you know what you are talking about...hang on...your posting on Slashdot..mumble...forget it

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is being greedy a crime?"

If you are refering to Anti-trust, yes it is a crime. It has been since 1890 with the Sherman Act.

"People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible?"

Don't be rediculous. Lets look at it another way, if you company can increase it's profit margin but shooting employees that don't perform up to standard. Murder is a crime just as anti-trust laws are and it doesn't matter how rich or "sucessful' you wish to be you are not justified in acting in a socialy irresponsible way.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Trepalium]

Anti-trust laws were originally made because the free market usually works well, there are times when it can break down and cause harm to consumers. Competition is what the free market is all about, but when a profitable monopoly is established, they tend to bleed dry any competition, either by buying them up, or bludgeoning them to death with lawsuits.

People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?

Guess what? Not everyone wants to have so much money that they could never spend it within their lifetime. I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion. Personally, all I need is food, clothing, shelter, and something to do with my time that I enjoy. I don't need a fast/expensive sports car, an automated do-everything house, or my own aircraft.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

with 40 billion you could afford your own goatse.cx guy.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Blind Linux]

I'd actually say that what you're saying is in support of Free Market Venture Capitalism. To break up Microsoft, however beneficial it could be to the economy as a result of more competition, constitutes state intervention in the market and is befitting of a Command Economy, the diametric opposite to the laisser-faire, individualist ideology of capitalism.

The "abuse of influence" (the curtailing of competition through aggressive marketting tactics, hostile takeovers, and intentional incompatibilities with software made by other companies, and other tactics employed/being employed by Microsoft) is the only realistic way to maintain a monopoly; monopolies have almost never historically resulted from a product being simply superior to others in its class...

So really, while having a monopoly is "not illegal", if the means of attaining a monopoly are illegal, the end is also effectively illegal as well, no?

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Larsing]

Actually, capitalism and market economy has very little to do with each other.
As a matter of fact, capitalists (those who own the means of production and reap the profit) prefer as little competition as possible...

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Scrameustache]

I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion.

I would.

I would invest heavily in genetics, cybernetics, and behaviour sciences to create...wait for it... cyborg monkey butlers!

In other words, I would use that money to make the world a better place.
With more monkeys.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[trumaster]

Money is a sure way for a lot of people to compensate for their short, umm, comings.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would invest heavily in genetics, cybernetics, and behaviour sciences to create...wait for it... cyborg monkey butlers!

How is this different from political campaign contributions?

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Bob9113]

You call this a capitalist society?

No, I call it a corporatist society. In corporatism, the government is charged with the maintenance of power of the major corporations.

What happened to laissez faire ideals, free market and all that.

In a laissez faire system, there is no concept of intellectual property law. Laissez faire is based on the natural laws of scarcity. Microsoft's monopoly is based on artificial scarcity established by our corporatist government through intellectual property laws.

Whether corporatism is the best course for our nation I will leave to other threads. I only intend herein to correct your misuse of the terms "capitalism" and "laissez faire."

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[sweede]

AT&T and Standard Oil are also bigger and richer than they where before the government stepped in and said 'thats enough'.

AT&T is also being slowly let back into the markets it was shut out of (local telephone market). After At&T was split up into the various companies (the 7 RBOCS, now 4?), the produced more services, lowered prices and increased technological research that helped AT&T and the other baby-bells grow into what they are today (Note that MCI was NOT a baby bell and has also just about went bankrupt)

If Microsoft was broken up into smaller, more focused companies, does anyone really see this as being a bad thing for all of the products that the company produces? It would definitly be better for the consumer, but I see this as a slow but sure demise of OS,Office,Server,Whatever Companies that have been before/during Microsoft (i.e. unix/linux, probably not sony or nintendo with the console markets). With the new baby-MS's being able to focus more on their specific goals and products, they will be able to push the envolope far faster than they can now, possibly faster than the entire Open Source community can keep up with (Again, the same thing that happened to MCI, after they broke AT&T up, they expanded at a faster rate than MCI could keep up with and now it's starting to show)

Just think of what they could have if they had a whole seperate company with hundreds or thousands of people working on Windows XP (soho,home use) or Windows 2003 server

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nononono. The central idea of capitalism is regulating markets through competition, so monopolies are to happen, but using them to block competition hurts "true" capitalism and that's why antitrust laws exist. MS is, at best, ideal of "savage capitalism".

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[shadowbearer]

I'd invest in companies involved in space launch capability. Heavily. :-) With one caveat: I get to go, too ;-)

SB

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[GigsVT]

I disagree.

You could just as easily say that laws that force companies not to lie to investors are state intervention, and befitting of a command economy.

A free market requires certain things to work: Educated consumers that can make rational choices about products, and the possibility of even making a choice.

The average person faced with buying an Intel compatible computer has little choice, and generally lacks the education to make a rational choice about the products.

Then, once they get the computer, all the little things MS does to lock out other software competitors bite them. They might try an alternate to Office, but when they realize they can't easily exchange files with peers, they will probably see no choice other than to buy MS office.

I hope that government intervention isn't necessary to break the MS monopoly, I think we are making great progress toward those ends with only technical means. That said, even as a Libertarian, I am not totally opposed to the government compelling MS to stop engaging in anti-competitive behaviours.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or japanese dynasty where the sword is replaced with the dollar and a lawyer.

Family based aristocracy is making a very strong come back within democratic countries. IMO a huge failure and a direct result of twisted interpretation lobbying.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Zloopy]

Actually, the depression in the 30's had not much to do with laissez faire but with the socialist federal reserve which controlled the money supply and did it badly.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[rkz]

would the monkey have 5 asses?

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Badanov]

You have an ignorance of the US that is really quite typical for a slashdotter. So you are forgiven. To wit:

1) The US Constitution itself gives congress the power to regulate the economy. This was written into the body of the document, not as an amendment. One of the first fruits of that was the 1800s Interstate Commerce Act. A number of institutions were formed directly from this clause of the constitution. Most failed, but many survived, such as our federal reserve system, which is a model for central banks for nations the world over.

2) The 1860s act which preceded the explosion of immigration to the west, established agricultural universities, required every state to map out its land and to make property public records, and the extension services farmers use today is a farm subsidy.

3) Some states, like Oklahoma for example, allows kids as young as 14 to be licensed to use the country wide road system during the summer for the purpose of farming. Our very school system which gives kids summers off is intended to give farmers use of their kids. All of these things can be considered farm subsidies, but they are not.

4) A 1790s law passed by congress gives publications a break in postal rates is considered to be a subsidy for the press, in a nation where getting news to the participants of a representative republic essential.

Most of these laws and policies were established before Marx was sperm rolling around in his daddy's sacs, and are so old, so well considered, and so well put to use that no one even thinks of calling them antithetical to a capitalist country.

This is the 4th of July. If you are an American try having a litle pride. It won't hurt, I promise.

By the way: The depression of the 30s was a deflationary period for the world. It was a problem of glut, such as what we have right now. Government regulation didn't cause it. It made it far worse than it had to be and extended the recession for years longer than it had to be.

Read the history: the federal reserve board's immediate reaction to the stock market crashes of the late 20s was the constrict the money supply. Hoover was rightly blamed for failing to exert any kind of influence over the Federal Reserve.

The proper reaction for government of that era should have been to cut taxes and spending, sort of what has been done now except for the spending part. It appears that as long as government spending continues to remain at historical highs, we won't be out of this stagnation any time soon.

But to give FDR credit for helping the nation out with his spending and his tax policies is like telling someone who sells a drunk who is still drinking an aspirin, he is now the drunk's personal physician.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[red floyd]

I'd invest in companies involved in space launch capability. Heavily. :-) With one caveat: I get to go, too ;-)

Read Heinlein's short stories The Man Who Sold the Moon and then read his short Requiem to see what happens to the major backer of private spaceflight.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[be-fan]

To break up Microsoft, however beneficial it could be to the economy as a result of more competition, constitutes state intervention in the market and is befitting of a Command Economy, the diametric opposite to the laisser-faire, individualist ideology of capitalism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
All economies in existance today are command economies. There are laws, for example, against killing children, extracting their blood, and selling it as an anti-aging treatment. Thus, the argument that any particular action is "befitting a Command Economy" just because it involves government intervention, makes no sense. The argument must stand on its own merits, and even by your logic, breaking up Microsoft is more in line with the spirit of capitalism.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[shadowbearer]

Good stories. Read them more than a quarter century ago. :-)
SB

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you break microsoft up?

By division (IM, IE, Windows, etc)?

If you do you end up with an environment that is quite uninovative.

Split the company down the middle or more? All clones of the same thing, all building the most useful tools

M$'s most offensive behaviours are it's distribution methods, propieitary claims and lack of any real commitment to standards.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[FurryFeet]

"Get your paws off my drink, you damn, dirty ape!"

Altough maybe this would be more appropiate, after your monkeys have revolted and destroyed civilization:
"YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!"

And the maniac will have been you. Are you proud of yourself, man?

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Alsee]

I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion.

If you ever find yourself in need of assistance with this problem I'd be happy to offer you my consulting services at $25,000 per day.

-

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[noldrin]

If you want a laissez faire software marktet then we can do laissez faire. First thing is to get rid of the DMCA, and copyright and patent protections on software. Next take all the legal teeth out of EULAs. Now we have a chance at a laissez faire software markter. Remember, things such as copyright are artificial government restrictions on what a company can and can't do.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Fallen_Knight]

OK, lets get 1 thing straight here microsoft IS NOT the most successful company. Its #175 in the global market. That is sure as hell NOT the most successful company.

Wal-mart would be a better bet as it IS #1. MS is a large company, but not a true giant like walmart, IBM or many others.

It would also NOT be ideals of capitalism breaking down. Not breaking them up and allowing for compition would be suck a break down as MS is a monopoly that has a unfari advantage and uses its advantage all the time. Its illeag and wrong (even IF they made great software it'd still be bad). MS is preventing the free market ideals by forceing its self upon cusomers and locking them in.

And "People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?" WTF are you on?? Bill gates would lose money, but he'd still be rich as hell. Hes not the one they would go after, its MS.

And even if they did i'm sure no ones going to stop aspireing to be rich and successful.

Get a fucking clue.

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Equinox]

I agreed with you until you said "aircraft". I wouldn't mind owning my own helicopter :)

Re:You call this a capitalist society?

[Blind Linux]

All economies in existance today are command economies
I disagree. Perhaps I should have clarified, but it is the kind of government intervention necessary in this case that constitutes action befitting of a command economy. However, the United States is a market economy, wherein the role of the government is simply to define and enforce the most elementary rules of the market.
Breaking up Microsoft constitutes active intervention from the state in the interest of protecting citizens from what it sees as exploitation by elements of the market (in this case MS), an action in direct opposition to the economic policies of capitalism.

The DOJ's court filing ...

[3.5 stripes]

...is online if you want to wade through it

Well, I have been having problems sleeping recently.

Re:The DOJ's court filing ...

[Leffe]

Having trouble sleeping, try these pills!

Err... I mean, the C99 is great for when you're in need of sleep.

Re:The DOJ's court filing ...

[3.5 stripes]

Cinderella 99?

Re:The DOJ's court filing ...

[Leffe]

100% Funny.

No, C(the programming language) version 1999. About 600 pages(at least numbered, the registers, indexes and stuff are a good 100 pages at least... or not.), a very interesting read, actually, I did not know that you could use <% and %> instead of { and }, neither did I know that you could do int a[*](I do not know what it does though, the language used in the C standard is very complicated, I think it had something to do with reserving memory or ... whatever...).
I think you have to buy it from ISO, I got mine from the warez search engine called Google.com, I'm not sure if the one I downloaded was legal or not, it seemed pretty legal, but I guess it's not as it's for sale over at ISO.

How much should we pay..

[jkrise]

From the ref article:
"One condition that caused particular outcry was Microsoft charging an upfront fee of $100,000 for rivals to examine the code to see whether they want to buy it. If they don't, they only get $50,000 back."

So what's the fee to take one single look at the pile of crap and say " Holy crap! This costs $100,000??"

Bride wants to marry IBM and screw Linux. Brother MS willing to pay any dowry.

The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[McAddress]

If the government had really wanted to do something about Microsoft's monopoly, they would have broken it up like they did to the Bell's. Once they decided not to, it only became a question of "How much are we going to pretend to care about this?"

Their answer as seen from the settlement, and the lack of compliance is "Not very much."

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[gilesjuk]

They probably would have, but then Bush was elected and one of his cronies probably had a vested interest in Microsoft.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Guppy06]

Yeah, because we all know just how much of a stellar success the Bell break-up has been. It's a good thing we took care of that monopoly!

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[McAddress]

Since the Bell breakup, prices on phone calls have dropped dramatically. Interstate calls used to cost $0.25 a minute (not adjusted for inflation). Now you can easily make them for less than $0.05 a minute.
More phone companies have also been able to form, allowing users more choice than ever.
Imagine where the celluar phone industry would be with only one company. Calls would cost upwards of a dollar a minute. The networks would not be so big. Cell phones would be as rare as car phones were.
The government has an interest in controlling monopolies. Microsoft has used it's monopoly on operating systems to stifle competition. Just look back to this. Microsoft commits actions like this all of the time, but the DOJ has just turned the other way.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not far off from your cell phone future, considering the cell companies have yet to make a profit - they'll have to sell to conglomerates.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[shadowbearer]

When I got my new phone a month or so ago, after moving to a different state, Qwest offered me *unlimited long distance*(in US) for 20 bucks a month.

Shocked me.

I guess they're feeling the effects of 3 cents/minute phone cards :-)

SB

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[timeOday]

Are you joking? After 30+ years of Bell stagnation, the whole industry has been completely transformed. The price of long distance fell through the floor. I can't believe you thought we were better off having to rent phones for $7/mo when now I can buy a new one for $10. How can you think it was a mistake?

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[GoofyBoy]

Bell is different. They were forced into a seperation of the company into regions/functions.

With MS, its still one monolithic company with one head. Because of this the settlement is just a speedbump to MS. Except for the egos of the anti-MS crowd, the settlement does not make a difference in a practal sense.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Guppy06]

You're confusing Bell with AT&T.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Guppy06]

"Since the Bell breakup, prices on phone calls have dropped dramatically. Interstate calls used to cost $0.25 a minute (not adjusted for inflation). Now you can easily make them for less than $0.05 a minute."

We're talking about Bell here, not AT&T. IIRC, it's only with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Baby Bells have really been able to get into the interstate long-distance market.

The Baby Bells are essentially in control of intrastate long-distance (ie. within the same state), which IIRC have been more expensive than interstate long-distance calls for quite a while now.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since the Bell breakup, prices on phone calls have dropped dramatically."

Since the Bell breakup, prices for local calls have increased dramatically.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[pyrrho]

really? do you have any numbers... that doesn't seem right but I don't really remember... I mean, I pay a flat rate for local and it doesn't seem any more than it ever was, except possibly for inflation.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[pyrrho]

Because they refer to the same company.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[AJWM]

We're talking about Bell here, not AT&T.

Pre-breakup, Bell and AT&T were the same thing. The breakup divested AT&T of the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and changed some of the restrictions AT&T operated under. Bell Labs (which, Unix fame aside, was also responsible for developing many of the standards and systems by which the phone systems operate) was still owned by AT&T (the Lucent thing came later).

IIRC, post-breakup it was AT&T that (still) controlled interstate long distance, the RBOCs handled intrastate, and it wasn't until the Microwave Communication Inc (MCI) lawsuit that the (interstate) long distance market was opened to competition.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Grishnakh]

Before the breakup, there was no AT&T, just Ma Bell. So not only were in-state long-distance calls horrifically expensive, so were the out-of-state ones. The breakup fixed the problem on out-of-state fees by preventing the baby Bells from having a monopoly in interstate long distance, but not in-state fees since they still controlled that within each state.

Of course, nowadays the solution to the whole mess is to get a cellphone and dump your landline. I've done it and now all my friends are doing it too. With their stupid high prices, the local phone company monopolies have made themselves obsolete.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[Grishnakh]

Huh? Local calls are free for most people. You pay a flat fee for local calls and make as many as you want. Unless you mean in-state long-distance, which really is expensive, but you said local.

How old are all the people here posting about pre-breakup Bell prices anyway? If you're under 30 years old, you probably weren't old enough to know.

Before the breakup, local calls used to have a per-call fee. Ever heard the term "it's your dime"? That came from people having to pay a dime for every call (on their home phone, not just at a pay phone). It wasn't until later when they let people have "unlimited calling" in their local areas for a flat monthly fee.

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[pen]

Reality Check: The original land line phone monopoly came to exist because (surprise!) the U.S. government protected AT&T's monopoly.

A quote from Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly:

The telephone monopoly, however, has been anything but natural. Overlooked in the textbooks is the extent to which federal and state governmental actions throughout this century helped build the AT&T or "Bell system" monopoly. As Robert Crandall (1991: 41) noted, "Despite the popular belief that the telephone network is a natural monopoly, the AT&T monopoly survived until the 1980s not because of its naturalness but because of overt government policy."

Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway

[4of12]

The Baby Bells are essentially in control of intrastate long-distance (ie. within the same state), which IIRC have been more expensive than interstate long-distance calls for quite a while now.

That's been my experience, too.

Looking at the price imbalance suggests to me that there should be room for a new line business:

Provide intra-state long-distance service by artificially bouncing the calls out-of-state, then routing them back into the state to the destination.

Why won't this work? Are there "access fees" that I don't know about?

No worries Microsoft

[Vicegrip]

They just need to put in a call to their favorite guy, Ashcroft, and get him to tell the lawyers to backoff.

Re:No worries Microsoft

[Lysol]

Expect it any day. In fact, unfortunately, when I was half way thru the article Ashcroft's face popped into my head. *shudders*

Translation

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Translation:

Microsoft's substantial contributions to George W. Bush's 2000 campaign fund were very helpful in getting him into the White House. Bush returned the favor by allowing Microsoft to escape unscathed from the big antitrust suit.

Now, Mr. Bush has begun the process of raising funds for his 2004 campaign, and it's time for Microsoft to pay up again.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't it interesting how Thomas Penfield Jackson was appointed by a Republican president, while Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by a Democrat.

Stop your whining and pathetic insults, and get your facts straight.

Re:Translation

[orkysoft]

Republicans and Democrats? They're all in the same conspiracy together! Aliens! ;-)

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do these comments keep get modded as insightful? MS is an equal opportunity lobbyist and campaign financier.

Re:Translation

[Guppy06]

I doubt Microsoft contributed anywhere near as much money as the religious special interest groups have, but that doesn't seem to stop the president from trying to reach out to the homosexual vote (and pissing off said special interests in the process). What makes you think that Microsoft will have more sway over the White House than Baptists seem to have?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what your saying is being liberal means being anti-microsoft.

We both know where this is going; liberal cronies/ass kissers will be puckering for for the next election more then anyone else.

Re:Translation

[McAddress]

Mind you, Microsoft engages in equal opportunity bribery. They donate enough money to both political parties that to them, it does not matter who wins.
Neither party can afford to lose Microsoft's support. As such, until Linus Torvalds becomes supreme king of the universe, Microsoft will always get away with little more than a slap on the wrist.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sort of liberal until member of the media (CNN) began attacking black Republican's calling them trators and less then reputable. I can honestly say it was an eye opener.

Since, due to newly created *sensitivities* it often seems 80% of television programs revolve around liberal idealism effectively removing (c) and (d) from multiple choices questionaire. You'll very likely never see as many people with money in one place as you do on TV and it's very much a choke point due to un warranted influence. If you look at what some people are willing to do for a few hundred dollars the possibilities become unerving. Also, the liberal party and their supports have no qualms about punishing alternative views, or use some what sofisticated uses of psychology for their own greedy little ends. Just look at the moding on /. sometimes, rather then play an honest game and realize the truth, the powerplay game is played.

Regardless of what is said, the liberals have a terrible human rights track record, misrepresentation and deception (as anyone who worked closely with them can testify) hold higher regard then any laws or constitutionally given rights within the US.

Keep a list and follow the consequences to remind yourself and your friends when voting time comes around.

Re:Translation

[nadaou]

I doubt Microsoft contributed anywhere near as much money as the religious special interest groups have, but that doesn't seem to stop the president from trying to reach out to the homosexual vote (and pissing off said special interests in the process).

He can afford to-- what are the Baptists going to not vote for the Republican candidate, esp. if he[*] is cross listed as the RTL candidate.

Same reason a middle-right Clinton could ignore the far left. That legacy ended up backfiring for Gore in the long run of course..

[*] if we were talking about another party I might use 'they', but we aren't, tokens aside, so I won't.

Microsoft.. Microsoft..

[DaLiNKz]

always in the news, never for anything good. Truth is I don't even see Microsoft as the threat it was, maybe thats because I have sort of lost any real caring about Microsoft.. good or bad. Linux is taking over the server market.. Windows does workstations fine. Maybe Microsoft should learn how to be a bit more friendly in the developmental departments with other groups then to try to attack them all..

But of course.. one day.. Welcome to Microsoft Linux 1.0 (Interactive Mode)

Re:Microsoft.. Microsoft..

[Java no not that jav]

Microsoft:Monopoly::Apple:Hardly Noticable

Re:Microsoft.. Microsoft..

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhuh.

Microsoft monopoly

apple monopoly

just like sun, sgi, redhat and mandrake's monopoly

What pray tell do all these non MS companies have monopolies over?

Re:Microsoft.. Microsoft..

[Anonymous Coward]

Quality.

Re:Microsoft.. Microsoft..

[benjamindees]

You're underestimating the threat to Linux in the server market if those Microsoft workstations suddenly start to use some new networking protocol.

I, for one, don't want to see the Samba team constantly having to reverse engineer MS protocols just to keep up.

It took a lot of work to get Linux to the point that it is today. It would be much easier to maintain that progress by keeping the pressure on Microsoft to compete fairly than it would be to constantly have to hack their products just to interoperate.

Is being greedy a crime?

[mikeophile]

Michael Milken, Kenneth Lay, and Martha Stewart don't think so.

Re:Is being greedy a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck are they?
I'll believe it when Rupert Murdoch tells me.

Re:Is being greedy a crime?

[Guppy06]

They also probably thought they'd be sent to Club Fed with conjugal visits instead of the pound-you-up-the-ass variety.

Re:Is being greedy a crime?

[goon america]

Don't forget Neil Bush

Re:Is being greedy a crime?

[miu]

Don't forget Neil Bush

He never went to jail, he was also not banned from involvement with a FDIC (or other fed insurance) covered institution (as were many of the others involved in the S&L scandal), and was bailed out of paying the fine and settlement by a republican fund raiser.

Yawn

[nuggz]

Who cares. They will not force MS to act in a manner that fosters competition. They won't enforce a penalty on MS. It just isn't going to happen in the US.

Normal people think MS Windows and MS Office are what makes the computer industry, by that logic any action against MS would be an attack agains the industry, so they don't want to do anything.

The end is NEAR!

[Noryungi]

Brothers and sisters, consider these facts :

• Microsoft will be forced to comply to a DOJ judgment!
• SCO is suing IBM and actually WITHDREW AIX LICENSE!!
• Europe is going to accept GMOs!!!
• And, in Peoria, Ill., John Smith, 20-years-old Slashdot poster and troll extraordinaire, actually got LAID!!!!

The time has come, repent all you sinners, for the shiny saucers of the sex goddess are coming to deliver us!

This, as everybody knows, has been predicted in the Holy Scriptures of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs! Convert before it is too late, heathens! ;-)

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

Brothers and sisters, consider these facts :

• Microsoft will be forced to comply to a DOJ judgment!
• SCO is suing IBM and actually WITHDREW AIX LICENSE!!
• Europe is going to accept GMOs!!!
• And, in Peoria, Ill., John Smith, 20-years-old Slashdot poster and troll extraordinaire, actually got LAID!!!!

That's not all, consider also:

• The best golfer in the world is black...
• The most popular rapper in the world is white...
• There was a war a few months ago, and Germany didn't want to be involved.

These truly are strange days indeed...

Re:The end is NEAR!

[shadowbearer]

If it was these two then I envy John Smith :-)

SB

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK, Tiger hasn't been doing too well lately. Maybe he's concentrating on his Swedish girlfriend too much.

You can set the doomsday clock back a couple minutes.

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Alsee]

Yes, we're headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

-

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

mod this mother fucker down... he didn't even give credit to the original source: chris rock. you fucking cocksucker...

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Lord_Dweomer]

"That's not all, consider also: The best golfer in the world is black... The most popular rapper in the world is white... There was a war a few months ago, and Germany didn't want to be involved. "

If you're going to steal a joke, at least attribute it to the person who created it. I don't remember off hand who it is...but I believe it was written by a comic who does standup on Comedy Central. But don't take credit for other people's creativeness.

Re:The end is NEAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

Best sig ever!

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is mostly following through with its settlement with the federal government. They've elected to withhold TWO APIs, and they're moving the "Set Program Access and Defaults" desktop icon to a permanent location in the start menu.

Of course you would know all this if you had READ THE DOJ'S PAPER

Re:RTFA

[Troed]

On the other hand, on my XP laptop - even after having used "set program access and defaults" - the only way I could get bsplayer to view .avis was to each and every time select "open with". No matter the settings for filetypes - XP would _always_ launch windows media player.

I had to use "set program.." to specifically say NEVER to use windows media player to get it to work - and yet the icons are still wrong.

I'm quite sure it's not a bug - it's a Microsoft feature.

Re:RTFA

[Shadow99_1]

"I'm quite sure it's not a bug - it's a Microsoft feature."

Are you sure there is a difference?

Re:RTFA

[Adam_Weishaupt]

Microsoft is mostly following through with its settlement with the federal government.

So I guess that means Microsoft won't mind if I MOSTLY comply with thier EULA for Windows XP.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

>view .avis
you mean youre a bird watcher too? fantastic!

Re:RTFA

[Flywheel]

On the other hand they have changed the API's in such a way that 30% of todays applications is unable to run on W2K3 and on Longhorn todays applications is run via the Connectix virtual engine.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I would say it is a pebkac (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) as I have never had a problem setting other applications to open AVIs than Media Player in XP.

Re:RTFA

[jdew]

simple to fix.. go in to tools | folder options | file types and remove the media player file types manually now go and associate them with bsplayer, from within bsplayer. problem solved.. have to do this for jpgs and such too :/

Re:RTFA

[AstroDrabb]

How the hell is this informative? This is some MS weeine skirting around the issues. MS got off very easy because of "persuasion". They can't even comply with the settlement. Please tell me where all these formerly hidden API's are now published? Oh, and if they say they have now release ALL API's, how in the hell are we to know they are not lying? Do we have the source code to be certain that all API's are released? Also, please tell me how not offering IE anymore and making it a "fully intergrated" part of the desktop compling? As if that was not enough, they are doing the same thing with MS Media Player. It is "integrated" into MS windows 2003. How is this in compliance? It is just MS trying to kill off user choice for a browser, media player and anything else no-ms. MS will not stop until every software application is MS only running on an MS OS, Or a "real" judge finally breaks them up just like Ma Bell. Any endevour they get involved in is not to offer a product for consumers and to compete. It is to use whatever monopolistic practices they can to completly remove the competiton so there is no choice but the MS choice. You keep being an MS-Weenie(tm) and in 5 to 10 years the only choice you will have with an "MS Solution" is what resolution to run your desktop at.

Re:RTFA

[David Hume]

This is definately one of those situations where the headline writer can see the glass as half-empty (Slashdot), half-full, or (what a concept) both half-empty and half-full.

The Los Angeles Times has reported:

Federal and state authorities reported Thursday that Microsoft Corp. was abiding by many of the conditions it had agreed to last year in its landmark settlement with antitrust enforcers, though they remained concerned about how much the software giant was charging to let competitors use its technology.

(emphasis added)

Similarly, the Washington Post has reported:

Microsoft Corp. is taking too long to alter how much it charges competitors for technology that is necessary for their products to work with the software giant's systems, the Justice Department told a federal judge yesterday.

In a written report card on how well Microsoft is complying with its 2001 antitrust deal with state and federal prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly. In other areas of the settlement, department lawyers praised Microsoft's compliance.

(emphasis added)

Finally, the New York Times has reported:

Microsoft, in response to prodding from the Justice Department, has made a series of changes intended to make it easier and less expensive for industry competitors and partners to license technical information from the company.

But despite the easing of some licensing restrictions, the government and several states said in a court filing yesterday that they remain concerned by certain Microsoft practices and planned to address those concerns in a scheduled conference with a federal judge on July 24.

Re:RTFA

[Trepalium]

Microsoft in their INFINITE WISDOM added a feature to Windows XP. Certain types, particularly those that play with Windows Media Player, or are viewable by Internet Explorer have a REG_SZ value on the association named LegacyDisable. If it exists, XP decides that it's smarter than the application that decided to take over the file type association, and silently ignores it. Only if the application is designed to use the XP method of associating with files will it be allowed to change them (or if it deletes those registry values).

I have no idea why Microsoft did this, but it effectively makes it so that certain programs seem to cease operating when you upgrade to XP. For the AVI files you mentioned, the value to delete would be HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AVIFile\shell\open\LegacyDisable
This really pissed me off the first time I used XP, and tried to reassociate the files with mplayer2.exe instead of wmplayer.exe, and the associations just wouldn't take. Didn't matter if I did it manually, or used mplayer2.exe to do it, it just didn't work, until I found that value hiding in those types...

Re:RTFA

[Wolfier]

However, the whole POINT of putting the selection in the start menu is for Joe 6-pack to figure it out, not the computer savvy.

It is by no means simple for the majority, and Microsoft knows it.

Re:RTFA

[Wolfier]

There is a difference. Bugs are unintentional.

From the no-one-is-really-surprised dept

[indros13]

Honestly, you would think that with so many examples of corporate misbehavior and outright illegal activity that we'd have a Justice Department with some teeth. Instead, they waste their time covering up nude statues and hounding thousands of immigrants, most of whom have done no worse than stay past their green card expiration date.
John Ashcroft, do your fscking job!

Re:From the no-one-is-really-surprised dept

[Alsee]

they waste their time covering up nude statues

We must protect the children!

and hounding thousands of immigrants, most of whom have done no worse than stay past their green card expiration date.

They might be terrorists!

And you want them to waste their time going after Microsoft? It's hippie communists like you who brought down God's wrath on 9/11!

-

Re:From the no-one-is-really-surprised dept

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd answer you, but to do that he'd have to empty Dubya's sperm from his mouth. Come back later, k?

--Secretary to Mr. Ashcroft

Re:From the no-one-is-really-surprised dept

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it's the comunists and hippies that caused it?

You calling Falwell and Robertson liars?
Men of god never lie, when god tels them he struck down those buildsing because America tolerates pagans, feminists, and abortionists as well as gays and lesbians, we better listen and know who we should be thithing 10% to.

Appeasement only buys short term security

[Ridgelift]

Your US government is trying to appease Microsoft. Appeasement never works. It only buys short term security. It doesn't work in diplomacy with countries, corporations or any relationship..

Though drawing parallels between brutal dictators and Bill Gates may seem harsh, the principle is the same. If people think they're safe now from Microsoft's monopolistic practices, they've bought into a false sense of security.

Yes, they get fined twice as much

[cabalamat2]

If Microsoft continues to fail to comply, the court will double their fine.

Let's work it out: the original fine was $0, twice $0 is $0, so the new fine will be $0.

I guess American justice is the best that money can buy.

Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Myriad]

Somehow this makes me think of the joke about English police stopping criminals without being allowed to carry guns:

Bobby to criminal: Stop!! Or I'll say 'stop' again!!

Except here we have:

DOJ to MS: Comply!! Or we'll say 'comply' again!

Sad, yes. Surprising, no.

Blockwars: new features & bug fixes! All multiplayer. Go play.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Larsing]

Except the English police will wack you senseless with their extendable batons if you don't do what they say...

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow this makes me think of the joke about English police stopping criminals without being allowed to carry guns:

Bobby to criminal: Stop!! Or I'll say 'stop' again!!

You really, really can't think of a way to stop someone without shooting them? Do you look as dumb as you are?

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You really, really can't think of a way to stop someone without shooting them? Do you look as dumb as you are?

I guess you missed the part that said "joke".

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[takev]

It reminds me of a "Alias Smith and Johnes" sketch.

On a shooting range, there are cops of different countries: a german cop, an american asult force officer and the british bobby.

So the german cop shoots his sidearm empty on the target (resembling a human). result twelve small holes.

Then the armerican cop shoots his asult rifle empty on the target. result a many more holes.

Lastly the bobby runs toward the target and smashes his stick into the target, completely destroying it.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Space cowboy]

I invite you to (any time you like) get on the wrong side of a "bobby".

Their job is only to stop/catch unarmed (or at least, without ranged-weapons) criminals anyway. A policeman with one of the standard-issue batons is significantly better armed than joe crook with a knife...

Any time there is a gun-toting idiot (briefly) around, the police just call in the armed-response unit (ARU). Much better-trained snipers who don't seem to care where they hit, so long as the bad-guy gets it. Similar to SWAT teams, I suppose.

Gun crime isn't much of an issue in the UK anyway. There's a pretty-persistent rumour of a shoot-to-kill policy amongst the armed police. Perhaps that's a contributory factor :-) I think I heard of someone being shot earlier in the year around where I live (NE London). The shooter was shot dead by the police ARU. There was some criticism over the fact that he was hit by more than five bullets, which seemed overkill...

[Note that I'm not at all opposed to the bad-guy being shot. If you play the game, you play by ALL the rules...]

Simon.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"with their extendable batons"

I love it when you talk dirty.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[dackroyd]

Gun crime isn't much of an issue in the UK anyway. There's a pretty-persistent rumour of a shoot-to-kill policy amongst the armed police. Perhaps that's a contributory factor :-)

It's not so much a shoot-to-kill policy, it's more that they're meant to shoot only when the gunman is posing an immenent threat to someone else (ie pointing the gun at someone, or saying they're about to shoot). When that happens the armed police have to shoot, and to keep shooting until the threat has been removed (ie the gunman has fallen down).

If the gunman keeps standing and holding the gun despite being shot, the armed police will keep shooting them, and yeah five or so bullets in the chest tend to be fatal....

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Space cowboy]

Where's Britian ?

If I remember my history rightly, the SS was:

• more-or-less non-accountable.
  
• military rather than civilian.
  
• a large organisation with immense political connections.
  

The ARU is a small (there are less than 100, as far as I know) organisation, that is very much accountable for its' actions. Every bullet shot has to be accounted for, as in: "I shot this bullet now because ..." in an incident report. It's also civilian, not military.

If it wasn't accountable, I wouldn't have made the comment about the outcry over the "excessive" bullets used to kill people. See the other post in reply to my original comment for an explanation (I wasn't aware of the reason, myself).

You might call Britain a police state for other reasons, but to compare the SS to the ARU is simply untrue. In any event, I far prefer the idea of a small number of trained armed policemen to the idea of every man/woman in a police uniform having a gun at his/her hip....

Simon.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work in coordinated busy bodies without a badge, little accountability and a irrational amount of civil influence; controlling a population through police action becomes much more feasible.

Like the UK isn't know for it's repressive education standards and laws. Hooligans my ass.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[johnos]

I think a "shoot-not-to-kill" policy is a TV invention. If you shoot someone anywhere but the legs or arms, odds are they will die. Trying to aim at their arms or legs is a poor idea, cause if you miss the ricochet might hit someone else. If you are going to shoot someone, you shoot them. Surviving the shot is their problem.

If it wasn't life or death, then the cop shouldn't be firing in the first place. And for the most part, they are very, very careful. Because if it wasn't life or death before the first shot, it sure is after.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I invite you to (any time you like) get on the wrong side of a "bobby".

In my "violent psycho" alter ego, I've trained various martial arts/combat sports with serving and ex-police officers over the past few years. I've also trained with and under some of the people who train them. The basic training they get is pretty laughable by serious standards (though if you don't know how to fight someone armed with a stick, you won't be laughing long). OTOH, they tend to have a very good attitude, being reluctant to use force until they have no sensible alternative, but having no qualms in using it decisively when necessary. Quite a few also take extra training outside of work.

Their job is only to stop/catch unarmed (or at least, without ranged-weapons) criminals anyway. A policeman with one of the standard-issue batons is significantly better armed than joe crook with a knife...

No, he's not. If it weren't for the knifeproof vest, he'd be a heavy bet to be dead, and even with it he's still at a significant disadvantage. I'll take a sharp over a few extra inches of reach any day, if I'm going to attack someone with the intent of doing serious damage. Obviously it's not exactly a "defensive" weapon, though, so I can't see the police carrying blades routinely any time soon.

Any time there is a gun-toting idiot (briefly) around, the police just call in the armed-response unit (ARU). Much better-trained snipers who don't seem to care where they hit, so long as the bad-guy gets it. Similar to SWAT teams, I suppose.

There are several police units who are routinely armed in the UK, not just the guys in ARVs. "Sniper" might be a bit dramatic a description as well. I'm sure they have that capability if they need it, but it's not exactly the most common use of guns among British police.

Gun crime isn't much of an issue in the UK anyway. There's a pretty-persistent rumour of a shoot-to-kill policy amongst the armed police. Perhaps that's a contributory factor :-)

I rather suspect that there are two reasons gun crime isn't higher in the UK, neither of which relates to that policy. First, most of it is between one group of organised criminals and another, over turf, drugs, or whatever. A few innocents get caught in the cross-fire, but fortunately not very many. Second, guns are a big deal here. Attacking someone with a baseball bat or holding up a store with a knife will get police attention. Wielding a gun will probably get you half the local force looking for you until they find you. Nobody smart uses a gun to commit trivial crimes, it just grabs too much attention.

As for the "shoot to kill" policy, I suspect that if you check around, you'll find pretty much any law enforcement body that carries firearms has a rule that either you don't fire at all or you shoot to finish it. Shooting to wound is for the movies.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[rikkards]

All Canadian Police are trained that if they pull the trigger, the recipient is dead. Hollowpoints help this out.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[zenyu]

In any event, I far prefer the idea of a small number of trained armed policemen to the idea of every man/woman in a police uniform having a gun at his/her hip....

So would I. I was at that big anti-war protest in New York earlier last March, at one point I was in a crowd a couple miles from the protest where there were about 25,000 people severely crowded around four cops with guns and big 10 gallon cans of pepperspray. They were literally shaking in their boots, if one of them had panicked and used some of the pepperspray someone could have been shot when the cop was jumped. Or someone nuts in the crowd could have easily pickpocketed a gun and shot it. There were a lot of families with their children, some would have probably been trampled. Later as me and my friends finally extricated ourselves from the crowd a half dozen cops on horses came into the crowd and trampled some protestors, presumably coming to pick up the cops. I saw one horse trip on of the people it trampled and fall on the rider. If those cops in the crowd hadn't been carrying all that weaponry I'm sure they could have just walked out of there.

The whole protest was a mess, apparently they only expected 100,000 people and over 500,000 tried to get to the protest. There is an investigation apparently, but aside from the poor planning just the fact that they ruitinely carry guns causes problems. (That mini-crowd was caused by barriers on three sides that one of the feeder marcheres walked into, apparently it was supposed to just stage entry into the march, but they never let anyone past them because they were already full to capacity by straglers before the 40 organized marches to the protest even started, add to that that some vandal cut the phone cables to the protester's organizing office..big mess, the cops knew nothing, the organizers knew nothing, I think the fact that it was a peace march saved us from rioting, small kids were held above the crowd and people who really needed to get out were passed overhead if the people in the way couldn't move out of the way.)

It was my first protest so I had to confirm with the former office mate I went with that this wasn't normal. It took us 6 hours of walking to get to the protest, it was actually officially over by the time we got there. We were tired, cold, hungry and in need of a bathroom and left after we spied one of the screens showing the stage and taking a picture..actually one of the four of us gave up and went home three hours earlier, it was her first protest too and she just couldn't take it.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk down those same streets 4 in the morning and you'll likely realize why police need weapons.

Alot goes on without any public digest and alot of these men and women willing place themselves in harms way. Seems to me to be a bit disrespectful to ask somebody to put their life on the line for me and remove their ability to protect themselves or others in the same stroke.

There is a slow but steady tactics/arms race that has developed over the years and only professional conduct and the promise of a genuinely fair trial has shown to slow the race down to a snails crawl, curtail and sometimes even turn it back. Armed or not makes little difference other then waiting for a large accident before you put up the stop sign.

IMO: Three strikes and your out has done little but fill up the jails, allow for greater injustice, and made some bank accounts very very large.

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[FurryFeet]

You'd be surprised how many people die of bullet wounds to the leg.
Police shoot to the torso. Killing or not is not a considerations; it's simply the area where a shot is less likely to miss.
It's incredibly hard to shoot to kill/to not kill in a stressful situation. I guess you could say they simply "shoot to hit".

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Alsee]

Yeah. Too bad the DOJ can't/won't do the same.

-

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Alsee]

There was some criticism over the fact that he was hit by more than five bullets, which seemed overkill

Hit by 5 bullets is overkill? You sound like some back-water hick. Here in the States we do things BIG. We don't even think of calling it overkill unless you're hit by at least 19 bullets.

Warning: This post contains multiple layers of humor. Those who are pregnant, nursing, taking MAOI's, under the care of a physician, or have an impaired sense of humor should not attempt to reply. Do not mix with alcohol. Do not remove this tag under penalty of law. Keep hands inside the vehicle at all times. All rights reserved. All wrongs righted. Doobie doo wah do.

-

Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon, Richard Murphy and Kenneth Boss shot 41 times at Amadou Diallo. Nineteen (19) bullets were found in his dead body.

OEM licensing

[edxwelch]

According to that report MS has been completely compliant in implementing the OEM licensing terms. So why don't we see widespread availabilty of alternative OS's from the big OEMs? There is a little discaimer at the end of that paragraph that seems to say that it hasn't been implemented yet because of the need to "train" OEM sales people, but this "training" has been going on for 2 years already.

Section III.A. prohibits Microsoft from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against an OEM because of an OEM's decision to distribute or otherwise to promote any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software. Unlike Section III.B., which can be (and has been) implemented programmatically, compliance with Section III.A. can be achieved only through training and ongoing oversight of relevant Microsoft employees. Microsoft has conducted extensive mandatory training for its OEM Sales group personnel concerning Microsoft's obligations under the Final Judgments, with particular emphasis on Section III.A. and other OEM-related provisions. Since December 2001, Microsoft has trained its domestic OEM Sales personnel at its headquarters in Redmond, Washington, and has trained its international OEM Sales personnel at regional training sessions held in Germany, Switzerland, Mexico and Japan. Training will continue to be an ongoing process, both via live training by Microsoft lawyers and senior OEM Sales group personnel and via online training tools that Microsoft has developed for this purpose. Microsoft's licensing and antitrust lawyers work directly with OEM Division personnel to address and resolve any ongoing questions.

Re:OEM licensing

[beacher]

Here's your all of the OEM Training that the sales force needs, courtesy of Microsoft's chief sales executive Orlando Ayala.

-B

Re:OEM licensing

[quantaman]

Like This?

It takes time for the OEMs to jump on board. You need to find a good distro, negotiate with the company, test it with your machines to make sure everything works properly, train your staff so they know what to do when some customer calls with problems about it, then finally decide how to market the thing! You also need to wait to make sure that MicroSoft is actually playing nice before you risk seriously screwing yourself by ticking off the supplier of the OS for every machine you sell. Remeber the story about the scorpion and the frog? If I were an OEM I would eb damm careful before messing with M$. Still as we've just seen they are coming out, it's just a matter of how long and what kind of response HP gets from both the comsumer and M$ to see if more machines come out with linux pre-installed

Re:OEM licensing

[Daniel Phillips]

It takes time for the OEMs to jump on board. You need to find a good distro, negotiate with the company, test it with your machines to make sure everything works properly, train your staff so they know what to do when some customer calls with problems about it, then finally decide how to market the thing! You also need to wait to make sure that MicroSoft is actually playing nice before you risk seriously screwing yourself by ticking off the supplier of the OS for every machine you sell. Remeber the story about the scorpion and the frog? If I were an OEM I would eb damm careful before messing with M$.

The problem is, the OEMS don't really believe that Microsoft won't retaliate, and to be honest I don't blame them. The words "completely ineffective remedy" come to mind, as do "as we all knew at the time". Em, and I can't help thinking the words "in the pocket of" as well.

Shock and awe

[Realistic_Dragon]

Not only is Microsoft not complying, they are in fact way in excess of the monopoly position that they were in when they started.

They have been busy leveraging their monopoly into new markets (cell phones and games consoles to name but two) and reverse-leveraging their new market share in these industries back into the PC market for greater lock in (Outlook integration that is closer than 3rd parties can obtain for example).

They have been investigating hardware lock in techniques (palladium style) and trialling them on consumers (Xbox) to prepare for the next wave of monoplising efforts. They are busy fundng other companies attacking their competators (SCO). They are proping up Bush econmic policy (share dividend at an advantageous moment) in return for special consideration (legal proglems decrease).

Lets hope to God this triggers another investigation - there is such a huge increase in their deliberatly destructive antics now that even a half blind judge would break them up.

Except that they will prbably buy him off too.

Re:Shock and awe

[TomSawyer]

They are proping up Bush econmic policy

Like when Billy and his daddy told Bush to stuff his tax cut because they neither needed or wanted it?

Re:Shock and awe

[archen]

Lets hope to God this triggers another investigation - there is such a huge increase in their deliberatly destructive antics now that even a half blind judge would break them up.

Unfortunatly we all know how slow this would be even if there was another investigation. The way the system works is just too lethargic to keep up with technology. Besides which those who stand to judge Microsoft aren't even qualified to really judge what they have or haven't done wrong.

At this point I wouldn't even need a breakup of the company, just STOP Microsoft from buying other software companies for gods sakes. It's almost disgusting realising how MS continues to buy company after company and virtually eliminating choices.

Re:Shock and awe

[Phroggy]

...even a half blind judge would break them up. Except that they will prbably buy him off too.

The judge is only allowed to make his ruling based on the facts and evidence presented by each side - he/she is REQUIRED to be somewhat blind. Jackson wasn't blind enough, and his remedy went further than was called for by the evidence presented - which doesn't mean his remedy went too far, it just means the prosecution didn't go far enough, and that was before the regime change. Judges are not easily bought; prosecutors are another matter.

Only the Supreme Court can look beyond the arguments presented and make a ruling based on whatever they want and get away with it, and so far they have declined to hear this case.

Judges

[FuzzyDaddy]

Judges, yes. Prosecutors, no. The department of justice is responsible for pressing the enforcement of the law. The judge decides between the two sides.

The judges in these cases have been impartial, but the DOJ seriously backed off when the administration changed.

Re:Judges

[Daniel Phillips]

"The department of justice is responsible for pressing the enforcement of the law. The judge decides between the two sides. The judges in these cases have been impartial..."

You really think so? I thought that Colleen Kollar-Kotelly acted the part of a paid-off lapdog rather well.

Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders.

[kaltkalt]

Antitrust law is a good thing, but if it's not used quickly enough, a monopoly can get so big, rich, and powerful, that laws no longer apply to it. It can afford to buy its way out of any problems it may face. Microsoft is just such a monopoly. It should have been broken up around the time of Windows 3.1. But it was left alone for years after that, and now it can fart in the faces of the justice department and there's not a single thing they can do about it (other than whine to the press).

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't understand YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Here's what will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop! Or I'll say "Stop" again!

Re:LOUD SUCKING SOUND EMANATING FROM BUFFALO, NY

[usotsuki]

Ouch. Raw nerve.

-uso.
Presently downloading XFree86 for Win98SE

hummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

the non-compliance comes t the same time that Bush is asking for "campaign" money , but hey no connection.
And you wonder where Gates gets his ideas from. Pay us or I send ashcroft after you
Pay us or I send BSA after you

And on the 4th of July, too

[Rogerborg]

A day when we celebrate victory in a civil war that began as a protest about taxation without representation.

Say, how much representation do your taxes buy you? Wouldn't it be neat if we could all choose to pay "campaign contributions" to buy laws and fat federal contracts, instead of paying taxes to whoever we decided was probably the least bad of two candidates?

I'm in agreement with George W that the only way to deal with oppressive unelected regimes is to replace them forcibly. I just think we should clean house at home before building any more aircraft carriers.

Re:And on the 4th of July, too

[Roger W Moore]

A day when we celebrate victory in a civil war

Civil war? I think you mean revolution unless you still regard yourselves as British. I know you still have a mad king...er....president George but its not quite the same you know.

It's tempting

[abe ferlman]

It's tempting to say "You know a company is corrupt when even Ashcroft says so."

But remember what part of the election cycle we're approaching before drawing too many conclusions here. This will all blow over before you can say "Judge Jackson was biased in favor of the truth."

Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders

[Daniel Phillips]

Antitrust law is a good thing, but if it's not used quickly enough, a monopoly can get so big, rich, and powerful, that laws no longer apply to it. It can afford to buy its way out of any problems it may face. Microsoft is just such a monopoly. It should have been broken up around the time of Windows 3.1. But it was left alone for years after that, and now it can fart in the faces of the justice department and there's not a single thing they can do about it (other than whine to the press).

Your theory also requires that the judicial system and administration be corrupt.

your .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Bride wants to marry IBM and screw Linux. Brother MS willing to pay any dowry.

Don't you mean "McBride"?

Re:your .sig

[tuba_dude]

I doubt it. That sounds too much like a bad fast food sandwich.

Will they?

[SerpentMage]

I think not. The current administration has too many issues on its plate. This time, I am almost willing to bet MS will be the scapegoat.

Think about it. We need ourselves a whipping boy! Oh yeah here's one, especially since they are planning to ship good old American jobs to another country, even with 50 billion in the bank....

I think a politician will be thinking mighty hard right now!!!

Want conspiracy theories... Two days ago we hear about this India thing and how they have 50 billion in the bank. Today we hear that they are not following the law... HMMMM.....

Insightful???

[Pave Low]

Why does this garbage always get modded up on slashdot?

If you look it up yourself, Microsoft's contributions doesn't rank anywhere near the top compared to other donors. In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties.

More mindless drivel on slashdot.

Re:Insightful???

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately while what you said is true, it doesn't really invalidate what he said. Supports it more, actually. They're #34 in the top 100 - $10 million or so is nothing to sneeze at, and you can't deny that Microsoft has a lot of clout politically given their position in the IT marketplace.

The donors in the top 100 above MS are interesting in and among themselves, but they're not software companies (possible exceptions of AOL and AT&T).

Do you have an opinion yourself on why the DOJ backed down?

SB

Re:Insightful???

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Francis Bacon, who, when accused of perverting the course of justice, said "I take bribes, but they in no way influence my decisions"

"Microsoft's contributions doesn't rank anywhere near the top compared to other donors. In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties."

Which surely means that whoever you vote for is on Microsoft's payroll, no? Is that supposed to be a good or a bad thing?

Re:Insightful???

[Anonymous Coward]

A relitively simple law about preinstalled software would curtail most legitiment complaints about monopoly influence regarding microsoft and it's stragitic partners.

Re:Insightful???

[GoofyBoy]

They don't need to donate that money for them to have clout.

In this economy, do you really think that any President would crush the 2nd (or 3rd?) largest company in the the country, if he wasn't forced to?

By its sheer size alone, MS has importance to the US government.

Re:Insightful???

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties.

Which does not make ANY sense apart from coruption of polititians.

Re:Insightful???

[Dak RIT]

If you look it up yourself, Microsoft's contributions doesn't rank anywhere near the top compared to other donors. In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties.

Funny you mention that. Because I did look it up myself and your findings don't really match the numbers. Microsoft is the #1 contributor for Computers/Internet donors.

They are listed as contributing 59% to Republicans and only 41% to Democrats. In 1996 before the antitrust trial began they donated 54% to Democrats and 44% to Republicans. Before that it was even more extreme, in 1992 donating 77% to Democrats and 20% to Republicans. In fact, during the antritrust trial in 1998 they donated 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats.

So in a 2 year time span, from 1996-1998, when the antitrust trial began, there is a massive shift of funding, as the Republicans received almost an 800% increase in funding from Microsoft.

But the antitrust trial couldn't possibly be to blame for such a dramatic shift in funding. It must be a complete coincidence.

Dak

Re:Insightful???

[pyrrho]

or as someone else pointed out... if you give to both parties "evenly" the only explanation is that you are buying favors... right? I mean, it cannot be ideological!

Re:Insightful???

[j3110]

I'll try to point out the obvious flaws of your arguement without insulting you for not seeing just how obvious it is.

There would be more jobs if competition existed.

Businesses could spend money on industries other than software if there was a reasonable alternative to Windows or at least competition to drive prices down. (They can't get their custom software to run on anything else because MS shops are the #1 ISVs because no one can get Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. to ship alternatives because of MS threats... which should be changing, but I haven't seen it.)

So, MS is on all the desktop workstations you can get without building them yourself. Why would anyone target a platform other than Windows? They really are locked in, and this unfair practice hurts the economy, not help it. My clients can't drop all their other software and just use mine, so it has to run on windows. No one has Linux, so it doesn't have to run there. Why go through the extra work of making software work with anything but Word, when that's the only thing anyone is going to have, and they can't change because they have invested millions of dollars in software that only runs on windows because there was no alternative to even develop for when most of it was developed.

The point is, MS is making more money than they should because they are a monopoly and they set the prices on their software, and people have to pay it, or pay the costs of having all their software ported to an alternative. This is MS's power, and this is why .Net will never fully work on another system without a legal battle. MS makes way too much money blackmailing people out of upgrades with the threats of no longer supporting their OS, thus leaving them open to disasterous bugs, rampant viruses, and crackers like they have NT4. If you have NT4 servers, you have been forced into paying thousands per machine because the product you bought was defective. In a decent sized company, that can hit millions fast.

MS doesn't deserve money because they refuse to fix holes in the software you bought. The item is defective, and has only marginally worked since it was released a decade ago, so naturally, you should have to also pay for the new product too! They are a drain on the rest of the world. Everytime you buy anything from a store, part of the overhead cost you are paying for goes to MS. How much do you pay in MS tax? If only they had to cope with the prospect of people just getting Linux and running their software on it without having to port millions of lines of VB and VC++ code, and retraining everyone, and converting all their data from MS formats to another format.

Oh well, too bad MS holding a gun to your data to get money out of you is actually good for the economy, eh?

Excuse my sarcasm, I know a lot of people see it your way, but that only makes me more angry with the situation. Effeciency will help the economy, not the blindness to corperate corruption that seems to be the staple of the Republican party lately.

Re:Insightful???

[GoofyBoy]

>There would be more jobs if competition existed.

There is also time involved. If MS is gone tomorrow, how long will it take for all those jobs to be replaced? How long will the effects of removing part of the economy will last?

To the Government, stability is highly important. An example is how the government had a hand in handling the Long Term Capital situation. They didn't care what the company's business was or how they did it or even if they survived. They only cared about the effects it had on the market.

>Effeciency will help the economy, not the blindness to corperate corruption that seems to be the staple of the Republican party lately.

When did I say anythng about corporate corruption? I just said that MS might be a case of "Too Big to Fail". This sort of situation happens in alot of honest businesses. Its a reality, not a willful blindess.

Re:Insightful???

[1u3hr]

There is also time involved. If MS is gone tomorrow, how long will it take for all those jobs to be replaced? How long will the effects of removing part of the economy will last?

In the worst (best) case, MS wouldn't disappear overnight, but be broken up into functional units. Such as OS, Office, games, other crap. They won't just lock the doors in Redmond and put all the coders on the street. (In any case, MS is busily shipping jobs to the third world as we speak.) Part of the economy won't be "removed", but be run by different people. Bill will still be a billionaire, but he won't be able to tell the Windows people to put in backdoors for MS Office, or lock out WordPerfect, Netscape or whoever his current enemy in other markets is.

Re:Insightful???

[GoofyBoy]

>MS wouldn't disappear overnight, but be broken up into functional units

This isn't the most extreme case. It would be if they got broken up and then were forced to "even out" the field to their competitors. Sort of like how in Canada when they opened up local telelphone service to competition Bell had to partially support/help new companies.

If they did this, the parts of MS could be weaken so much that they would effectively be taken out of the economy.

Re:Insightful???

[1u3hr]

If they did this, the parts of MS could be weaken so much that they would effectively be taken out of the economy

I think we were discussing deleterious effects on the economy, not whether MS itself would remain strong. After the such a break up, the hope and expectation would be that the little-MS units would face real competition and be at least partially replaced by other companies. But the effect on the economy as a whole would not be negative.

moron Godless georgewellian corepirate nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

they just love to .confroNT each other, whilst watching J. et AL, take it in the .asp over & over.

fauxking greed/fear based frauds/felons they are.

consult with yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet.

more details at trustworthycomputing.com

tell 'em robbIE.

Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders

[kaltkalt]

Not corrupt. Just powerless. It's quite possible to be full of honor and completely ineffectual at the same time. I'm not accusing anyone of being corrupt (other than MS of course). Lazy, yes. Corrupt, no.

THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot stop them, they couldnt't stop Enron , they couldn't stop Worldcom , do you not see ? they are a machine They do not see reason or emotion they cannot be bartered with and in pursuit of that almighty symbol $ they absolutely will not stop until your buisness is dead.

Conformity

[Anonymous Coward]

Conformity

What the ....

[DroversDog]

I should get modded high for funny coz this should be 5 for interesting coz if you can make sence of it your better than me *but* it sure is intesting ... even the sig has is a logical insanity ... for now it is legal to think

At least they are making a little effort, I guess.

[dydxjessedydt]

In other areas of the settlement, department lawyers praised Microsoft's compliance... ... It goes on to say that in all other areas of the agreement, Microsoft is in compliance...

Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders

[GoofyBoy]

Not really.

Its not illegal to hire very very good laywers.
Its not illegal to convince, through media, private conversations, arguments, that a politition should think in a certain way.
Its not illegal to use all the resources available to you to its fullest extent.

All of this can be done without relying on corruption. Just playing by the fullest extent of the rules.

U.S. gov to buy open software...

[careysb]

If the government has determined that M$ is an illegal monopoly, how come that can't declare that all future software purchases made by the government be non-M$ ?

Re:LOUD SOUND EMANATING FROM BUFFALO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the sound of one ass cheek clapping!

Re:LOUD SOUND EMANATING FROM BUFFALO

[Anonymous Coward]

And a hollow victory!

Who would want to risk it anyway?

[decoder]

But many of Microsoft's competitors have accused the company of charging inflated prices and imposing onerous terms for the code, thereby discouraging licensing of the technology, stifling competition and taking advantage of its antitrust settlement.

I wouldn't want to look at any Microsoft code even if it were free. They will probably just pull an SCO.

Re:THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL YOU ARE DEA

[presearch]

..in pursuit of that almighty symbol $ they absolutely will not stop until your buisness is dead.

Microsoft or the Justice Department?

MS Anti-Trust Settlement Committee Website

[cyber_rigger]

TheTC.org

Umm,

[Eezy Bordone]

What do you expect them to do? It's not like they're going to get an anti-trust suit filed against them anytime soon...

Sounds like Sun and Oracle are still in charge

[Anonymous Coward]

at the DOJ.

Bravo.<nt>

[papertygre]

It wants me to type text.
Cheers.

Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders

[xenocide2]

Its hard to figure where to place the blame. We all remember how W was talking about telling the DoJ to lay off M$. Seems to have worked. Bush and many representatives believe that its harming America's retirement investments. After all, many people invested in this company. Nobody wants to get screwed. Not investors, not politicians (screwing their constituents), not Microsoft, and not Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft broke the rules, but not many want to pursue this because they're dependent.

I think its totally plausible that the administration be totally corrupt. Look at Abraham lincoln. Total power monger. Suspended habeas corpus, and the 'emancipation proclaimation' was just a PR move. And I'm sure several politicians can muster the personal deception to believe they're acting in good faith by not purusing Microsoft. Afterall, politicians are just better than average laywers, which is to say, better than average liars. ;)

Here's Microsoft's "Protocol Licensing Home Page"

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight from the horse's mouth!

http://members.microsoft.com/consent/Info/defaul t. aspx

Probably not an MS problem

[egg troll]

Funny, I use Winamp to play AVIs and they open just fine. The icons are all correct and everything. I just told Winamp to associate all video files with it and...viola, everything works great! So I don't think its something nefarious MS is doing. From your description it may be a bsplayer issue.

No new words necessary...

[benjamindees]

That's called Fascism.

In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity--provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

-here

Re:No new words necessary...

[Bob9113]

That's called Fascism [not corporatism].

I recently read that one of the big communist or socialist writers (Marx maybe?) said that fascism could be better called corporatism, so I see your point. OTOH, I think there is a strong conception (supported by the definitions of fascism at dictionary.com) that fascism is "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government" - that fascism is about concentration of power with a small group.

In the US, we are moving toward a subset of fascism where the corporations and lawyers are the concentrated group. As such, while I agree that "fascism" is an accurate term, I feel that it is not sufficiently specific. For example, India's caste system and Australia's lack of representation of Aborigines also fit the above definition of fascism, but are not corporate oriented.

Re:No new words necessary...

[benjamindees]

I absolutely agree that Corporatism is merely a subset of Fascism. While we don't yet have the totalitarian government that Fascism requires, we have all the pinnings of one. While political power is not obviously concentrated in an oligarchy of the few, economic power certainly is. Some argue that this is a rebirth of feudalism, and that those wealthy few will never allow the government to become powerful enough to challenge their hegemony.

ya' forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a country France thinks is arrogent.

What's wrong with this picture?

[TheZax]

In other areas of the settlement, department lawyers praised Microsoft's compliance.

This doesn't deserve praise . This means that they have met the bare minimum of what is required of them in some areas. That's like being praised for not spitting on someone.

Not only that, the reason they were in court is because of ilegal activity in the first place.

So, in summary, they act criminally, get caught for it, are given a minimal set of rules to redeem themselves, and they can't be bothered to do that right.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But even with my low expectations of them, they still continue to amaze...

Ob "IN SOVIET RUSSIA"

[Anonymous Coward]

would the monkey have 5 asses?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, YOU come flying out of monkey's butt!

test

[Anonymous Coward]

test

To quote the top link

[Tony-A]

Well, what did we expect?

Microsoft is not in compliance

[defile]

The Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition End User License Agreement, which came with my laptop, specifically states that I may return it for a refund, but Microsoft/Dell refuse to honor this clause.

Brand name stupidity at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

The Brand Name are pretty stupid , they have the manufacture, the hardware and they have the cash and people, Microsoft is nothing without them.

What need to happen is they open a Front name office and they cram there Linux guys into it under a new Brand name , they split there manufacture line so that they put that company sticker on whoever ODM of the day it is there salling , thats the only way they will be able to open that market this way they can say hey its not us doing those its company xyz ...

Once its pretty popular they can make an IPO and have tons of other money to put in R&d and Marketing once they got rid of Microsoft and have a really great business going they can merge back with the brand name who built them in the first place.

and be twice as big ( like HP and Compaq ... )

eventually one Linux based OEM from nowhere will emerge and it will take the market by storm. Linux already beat the crap of windows in terms of number of legal software that come in a distribution and they keep improving them ...

Bad Microsoft, no biscuit!

[spun]

Bad, naughty Microsoft, no biscuit for you. Don't make those eyes at me! Oh, your so cute, I can't stay mad at you. Here's your biscuit. Stop it! I gave you a biscuit. Oh, all right, here's another.

...

Honey! The Microsoft took a crap on the rug again! Have you been feeding it biscuits?

Re:Bad Microsoft, no biscuit!

[Alsee]

Honey! The Microsoft took a crap on the rug again! Have you been feeding it biscuits?

Ah. So that's where Microsoft products come from - biscuits. There clearly must have been marijuana in the biscuits that led to Clippy, but what the fuck was in the biscuits that led to Microsoft BOB?

-

Re:Bad Microsoft, no biscuit!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no. Marijuana is expensive. Let me ask you this, do you remember Mad Cow Disease? All those cows they killed off? That led to Clippy.

BOB came from biscuits made with moldy rye.

Case Study in Parent Post

[pyrrho]

when sarcasm, intending to be wrong, is right, is that irony?

Move Along, Nothing To See Here

[PingXao]

I'm only commenting because I actually wasted 20 minutes RTFA. The thing is a standard, scheduled, report that has to be filed every 6 months. It outlines the steps that the gubmint and MS have taken with respect to the different parts of the settlement agreement. It also lists the complaints received in the last 6 months (less than a dozen). MS could move a little faster on some of its action items, and that's it. Nothing more.

Have you tried posting a complaint online?

[rspress]

No wonder they have gotten only 10 or so web form replies. I tried to submit a complaint and it would not let me because of certain fields in the form, which were not displayed on the page, were not filled in! Of course I was using a third party browser so the page may have not displayed correctly because of some of Microsofts proprietary web coding....which was what I was going to complain about!

How can this be?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" -- Capt. Louis Renault, CASABLANCA.

s/gambling/foot dragging and duplicity/

Another more appropriate end use for your Eula!

[ratfynk]

At least you will now have a piece of paper handy if you take your laptop camping and find you forgot toilet paper!

Be warned, using the rescue disk that came with it might give you a rash. It is now useless plastic anyway and is best used at home under a beer glass to protect your coffee table, like mine.

But it *IS an MS problem

[Wolfier]

What Winamp does is just changing some registry entries. The MS "set default" applet could have done the same too but it doesn't.

Seems like another MS "thoughtful feature" to me.

Re:Reminds Me of the tsarkon reports

[Anonymous Coward]

America hating is so gay

Your bigotry against gays is un-American.

Antitrust Actions and Presidencies

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems to be more of a historical trend than a campaign contribution-related thing.

IIRC, when Reagan got elected back in 1980, the antitrust case against IBM that was going on was dropped. It seems to be a Republican habit. It wouldn't surprise me if Ashcroft told Dubya that nothing much was going to come of it anyway, and that he should just let it run so as not to antagonise anyone...

Re:Reminds Me of the tsarkon reports

[Anonymous Coward]

bzzt. You fucking asshole idiot. I hang out with and work with people who are gay and don't think anything of it fuck head. I don't care who you fuck or how you do it as long as its two consenting adults. In fact, you getting pussy or ass is probably very hard so you try and recognize sexual orientation in speech because you are a fat sexless creep. if you cant get colloquial English, substitute fucking gay for lame or some shit. Can't a fucking word have more than one meaning. you fucking stupid little typical freak, trying to use racial/sexist ad hominem attacks on me. Doesn't fucking work or wash. Fucking dick. Oh, i called you a dick. Does that mean I hole all people named RICHARD in low regard? Fucking fool.

You stupid fucking moron. You stupid fuck. You cant even see the other meanings of "gay" Hahahahaa. Hahahahahaa. FUCKING MORON HAHAHAHHA.

You couldn't even argue with me, you had to try and character assassinate HAHAHAHHA. What a weak loser. What a fucking weak loser.

Who?

[ssstraub]

Who is this MicroSoft you speak of? I'm only familiar with the Microsoft(TM) that makes such products as Windows and Office.

Maybe you're thinking of PeopleSoft?

Is it NetScape to you? How about MacroMedia?