Slashdot Mirror
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.
"Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly."
well that is a real shocker
If there is nothing left worth living, what are you willing to die for?
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.
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.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
What happens if Microsoft doesn't do what they settlement says? Will they face harsher penalties?
...is online if you want to wade through it
Well, I have been having problems sleeping recently.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Their answer as seen from the settlement, and the lack of compliance is "Not very much."
They just need to put in a call to their favorite guy, Ashcroft, and get him to tell the lawyers to backoff.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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)
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
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 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!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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
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
John Ashcroft, do your fscking job!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
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.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
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.
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.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
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.
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.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
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.
Beep beep.
The judges in these cases have been impartial, but the DOJ seriously backed off when the administration changed.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
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).
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
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?
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...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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."
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
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.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
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."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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...
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.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
..in pursuit of that almighty symbol $ they absolutely will not stop until your buisness is dead.
Microsoft or the Justice Department?
TheTC.org
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...
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
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.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Straight from the horse's mouth!
l t. aspx
http://members.microsoft.com/consent/Info/defau
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...
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
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.
Dawn of the Dead
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.
Honey! The Microsoft took a crap on the rug again! Have you been feeding it biscuits?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance