Slashdot Mirror


Massachusetts Probing Microsoft Settlement Gripes

tassii writes "In this article from Reuters, Massachusetts' DA's office told the judge in the Microsoft Anti-trust trial that it was looking into Microsoft settlement complaints. Among complaints being examined by Massachusetts was whether Microsoft had violated portions of the settlement prohibiting pacts requiring exclusive support of Microsoft software. Massachusetts was also examining whether the company had properly offered communications protocols allowing non-Microsoft software to work well with Windows." An Associated Press article covers the same story; the non-Microsoft software mentioned in both stories is Linux, but it's not clear which company's promotion of Linux is drawing the attention.

158 comments

  1. Which company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ximian is based in Boston IIRC...

    1. Re:Which company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Far more likely Lotus/IBM. Lotus (owned by IBM) being based in Mass and IBM having a significant presence there as well.

    2. Re:Which company. by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Actually, it could be any number of companies. There are a lot of technology companies in Southern NH and Mass inlcuding Red Hat which has a R&D center in Mass. At one time Sun was in Mass, but I don't know if they still are there.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  2. Wow by Aadain2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean there is actually someone out there trying to inforce the MS penalties?!?!?!?! I thought everyone knew they were all just a big joke and it was back to business as usually for Microsoft.

    --
    Space for rent, inquire within
    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this was supposed to be funny, but it's really not.

      Why did we bother to waste all this money "fighting" them and then let them go on and do EXACTLY what they did before and them some?

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean there is actually someone out there trying to inforce the MS penalties?!?!?!?!

      It's not like America was running out of bored lawyers.

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well Massachusetts has weird laws, for instance:

      ATHOL, MA This northern Massachusetts town legally allows "horses, cats and/or dogs to enter into local taverns for a sip of sarsaparilla or any other unidentifiable beverage; or act in relation thereto."

    4. Re:Wow by KiahZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I recall correctly, problem was when the first judge talked out of turn to the press, the government felt they had to ease up on the restrictions so people wouldn't feel that they were being too hard on Microsoft.

      In retrospect, no one seems to care what happens to corporate criminals (excluding Martha Stewart, but that's just because she, as Lewis Black said "made us feel bad about using parsley as a garnish").

      I used to think that breaking MS up would have been a bad idea... now I'm wondering if it was the only feasible situation.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    5. Re:Wow by retto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree in regards to breaking up MS. A government imposed split would have taken years to work out and required lots of government oversight over what kinds of programs could be produced. I always thought that ordering MS to reveal the code for Windows for free to developers would have been the best solution. It would have still been covered under copyright.

    6. Re: Wow by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > If I recall correctly, problem was when the first judge talked out of turn to the press, the government felt they had to ease up on the restrictions so people wouldn't feel that they were being too hard on Microsoft.

      No, you're rolling two distinct events into one.

      1) The judge did talk to the press in circumstances not generally deemed appropriate, but all that did was give legs to the appeal. The end result was that a higher court appointed another judge to give a second opinion on the penalty. IIRC the higher court didn't actually find fault with any of the lower court's decisions; they just didn't think the necessary proprieties had been observed. So they sent it back for a "clean room" second round in a different judge's court. There was absolutely nothing in the higher court's ruling that would have kept that second judge from "forking" Microsoft.

      2) The second event was that by the time things got to the second judge's court there had been a regime change in the USA and the new regime's DoJ threw over the case and offered a handslap settlement to Microsoft, even though the Findings of Fact would have almost certainly let them get a hardball settlement if that had fit in with their new bosses' ideology. The new judge didn't see anything wrong with the proposed settlement and ignored the critics who pointed out the inevitable outcome...

      ...and here we are today.

      Massachusets, IIRC, was the only state that didn't cave in somewhere along the way. Some never signed on; some did but then withdrew before it ever got to court (e.g. Texas, purportedly at the influence of Michael Dell); most of those left at the end of the trial signed off on the wrist slap.

      All this from memory... I'm sure someone will correct me wherever I'm wrong.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Wow by KiahZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good point... hadn't thought about that.

      If that were too strict, they could always force them to release code the versions after they've "died"... that way people wouldn't be forced to upgrade, at least.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    8. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "There was absolutely nothing in the higher court's ruling that would have kept that second judge from "forking" Microsoft"

      Actually, the appeals court threw out the "tying" charge, which was the lynchpin for the breakup order.

    9. Re:Wow by Aadain2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I did use my brain. But I'm still using the 3.4 beta release, so it doesn't catch everything. I'm waiting for service pack 4 before I upgrade my brain to the new 5.0 kernel. ;P

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    10. Re: Wow by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > > There was absolutely nothing in the higher court's ruling that would have kept that second judge from "forking" Microsoft.

      > Actually, the appeals court threw out the "tying" charge, which was the lynchpin for the breakup order.

      Ah, thanks. I didn't remember that.

      (BTW, I see you opted for Definition B of "forked".)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:Wow by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that way people wouldn't be forced to upgrade, at least

      That's not 100% true. MS has a vested interest in getting you to shell out $$$ when they need it. Once a product version is desupported, all they would need to do is break backwards compatibility and you'd be left with soon to be useless code.

      Also, the antitrust trial was based on illegal business practices, namely bundling (dumping). The DOJ would never have seeked a penalty to force MS to open up their code since it didn't address the original complaint directly. If the antitrust settlement had teeth, MS would be forced to stop all bundling of non-core software (ie. browser, media player, system utilities, editors, etc) with the OS -and- also bundling in the form of preinstallations with OEMs. To take it one theoretical step further, imagine if OEMs decided to image Linux on all systems and if people wanted windows, they'd have to purchase it separately at $200 a pop. You'd have a market flooded with Linux PCs and a rapidly declining Windows PC base as systems broke or were retired. Of course, since most users have a "good enough" mentality, few would choose to spend the extra $$$ and it would decimate MSs business, so there's no way in hell MS was ever going to let that happen.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    12. Re:Wow by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Well Massachusetts has weird laws

      Oh really? In Boston for instance, it is illegal to bathe without the authorization of a physician.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    13. Re:Wow by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      I used to think that breaking MS up would have been a bad idea... now I'm wondering if it was the only feasible situation.
      Resisting ... must ... resist ...

      Oh, hell with it.

      I told you so. ;)

      Seriously, it was blindingly obvious to me that a breakup was the only way to change Microsoft's behavior, and I had to assume that anyone who felt otherwise was either technologically illiterate or a M$ shill. Apparently I was wrong. Could you explain to me why you thought a breakup was a bad idea then, and why you think it would be a good idea now? I'd really like to understand.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:Wow by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1


      I had always thought that ordering the source code of Win 98 SE and its addins IE 4 and Media Player to be open sourced was the right remedy for M$ using its Windows monopoly to destroy Netscape. That's the time period of when it happened, that's the product they gave away to put a commercial competitor out of business, and that's the fork that the world could choose to go one way or the other. The source code could be used to run all legacy Windows/DOS software in other OS's or on it's own or those who choose to continue on with M$'s new products can choose to do so with M$ unhindered by further restrictions. They would no longer have a monopoly, Win 98 SE would always be a choice, and it's an abandoned product to boot.

      This would be an immediate, all source code and make instructions ordered into public domain decree as restitution for their anti-competitive actions. I wrote to the Justice Dept. suggesting this at the time but they did not recommend this to the judge. I think the breakup scenario was exceeded in dubiousness only by the monitoring of a committee decree that ensued, in other words, the worst possible outcome of this trial was obtained, in my opinion. Perhaps second thoughts can be given to my suggestion thanks to the tenaciousness of the Commonwealth and West Virginia, my home state.

      rd

    15. Re: Wow by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The new judge didn't see anything wrong with the proposed settlement and ignored the critics...

      As I recall, she was a bit upset that the proposed settlement didn't go far enough, but there was nothing she could do - it's up to the prosecution to make their case, and they weren't making it.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    16. Re:Wow by jlgolson · · Score: 1

      Boston may have old, strange laws from Puritan times like that, but it is also a very progressive city. Cambridge (right across the Charles River, where MIT, Tufts, and Harvard are) is the only city in the country where the voting age is 16.

  3. Would it really surprise anyone? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does it really surprise anyone anymore if Microsoft is breaking the law. I mean, obviously the /. population thinks MS sucks, but It always seems as though MS just says it will do things to get the government off their backs, and then not do them. I'm dissapointed, but not surprised by this development.

    1. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by SoSueMe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope.
      They play the law like a cheap violin. Using it however it best serves their purpose.

      If they want an idea, they steal it.
      If you have worked for them, you can't have ideas of your own. See this as an example.

    2. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think Microsoft sucks. I just don't trust the company or agree with a lot of their practices.

      Oh wait...

    3. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ignorant however think that MS is a great company, that puts out such great products. XP is the most stable OS I've ever used, is what they say. I'm sure the DOJ thought this too, that's why Microsoft got away.

    4. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it really surprise anyone anymore if Microsoft is breaking the law.

      <shock>But, but, but they specifically agreed not to break the law!</shock>

      If governmental bodies actually wanted to punish Microsoft, they would deploy alternative technologies.

    5. Re: Would it really surprise anyone? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Nope. They play the law like a cheap violin.

      I'd like to reserve this spot for a joke conflating "violin", "violation", and "inaction", which I can't quite work out at the moment.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by geekee · · Score: 1

      Sounds like from your link, the ex-employee was the one stealing the ideas.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    7. Re:Would it really surprise anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, no reading comprehension skills?!?

      The article ( states: (According to Rao (Esiod))
      1. They did not have access to code related to networking tech while working at M$.
      2. The "Schnazzle" product uses completely different network related technology.
      3. Given the M$ monopoly on almost every software related tech, it is very hard to write software that they can't attempt sue for citing the non-compete clause signed during pre-employment. They just have to hear that you're writing software and then their legal dept sends a letter.

  4. Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by bethane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The anti-trust settlement...
    -lacked any monetary payment by Microsoft to those that had been wronged by their greed.
    -lacked any understanding about how money in Microsoft's hands means less money in other competitor's hands. Microsoft could then throw huge amounts of money into software development and the competition could not. So - this has resulted in MS having the ability to write so many more lines of code, AND the ability to buy other companies out for the code that someone else created... something that no one else could afford to do!

    Instead of having a monetary settlement where every person get a few dollars/money from Microsoft (where only the class action lawyers get the money) it would be better if a revisited settlement included a payment, from Microsoft's 46 Billion dollars in cash (that billy G etc has on hand right now) a payment to be made to a trust fund controlled by Open Source Leaders (Linus, for example) where this money could be evenly spread out to projects (free and commercial software projects for Linux, Apple OS, BSD, etc) that are needed to compete with Microsoft.

    This type of settlement would be fair. And a settlement like this would improve the competition to where Microsoft would really have to innovate in order to compete.

    --


    Bethanie: Whore...
    Fan Whore
    1. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by Ciderx · · Score: 1

      Why is this sort of thing marked as Interesting? Its rubbish. There is NO WAY that anyone could justify giving Microsoft's money to another company-backed organisation who in turn will use it to turn a profit.

    2. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by Darth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i disagree with your assertion that that solution would be fair.

      Any monetary payment for predatory monopoly actions by microsoft should be paid to groups and companies that were harmed by those actions. (like consumers, netscape, samba, etc)
      Competition for microsoft should also come from closed source avenues and, in the event that microsoft's money were to be used to subsidize competitors, those avenues should be subsidized also. (not that i agree with the subsidy idea)

      Open source software can and should win on it's moral and technological merits. The constraints on microsoft should be generic and make available the possibility of open and closed source competition for them. Then microsoft, open source competition, and closed source competition can all fight it out based on their merits instead of on subsidies or illegal business activities.

      Personally, I think breaking Microsoft up was the right choice and anything short of that would lead to exactly where we are today. They effectively ignore any constraints put on them under the assumption that they can weather any legal action against them long enough to make the results of the legal action irrelevent.

      With all the 3 strikes criminal laws getting so much support, it's sad that sufficiently wealthy companies can stay at bat as long as they want (provided nobody hits them with the breakup curve ball).
      (how's that for a lame allegory?)

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    3. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by mabhatter654 · · Score: 0

      To be fair to property owners, the court should force MS to payout 120% of it's cash on hand as dividends all in 1 quarter. Then they should prohibit MS from buying, aquiring rights to, etc anything no copyrights, companies, patents--nada, zilch! Breaking MS up without taking the all the cash is pointless--look at the Baby bells for the results...
      As soon as MS looses all it's cash, it won't be able to sustain the huge losses it's taking trying to grab more markets. The stock market will ignore it just as fast as they lauded it [wall street is funny that way] and the employees will demand their stock options and finish gutting the company.
      Meanwhile, the stockholders will invest all MS profit in other compainies, cars, toys, etc.. the economy will pick up. This would be Republican trickle-down economics at it's best! George could even have MS pay the dividends in half plane tickets to help subsidize that industry!

    4. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trolling, or just high on crack?

    5. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by WPIDalamar · · Score: 1

      As I understood it the lawsuit was not to penalize microsoft, but to restore competition. Just a flat out monetary fine wouldn't really have done that.

      Oh yeah ... this is now the *only* reason I resepct my state's government!

    6. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Actually, there is, and it's really common. You know that lawsuit against IBM? Thats money that they want taken away from IBM and given to an organization that will turn a profit. The motive here would be resitution - the idea being that income gained from illegal activity is forfeit and that it's owed to the people who would have profited had you not performed your illegal activities.

      Now, why they didn't ask for restitution in this case I don't know - I assume there was some legal reason, or political decision. Or maybe they did, and the judge didn't accept it. But it's certainly not unreasonable.

      On the other hand, putting that money into an OSS fund, while a cool idea, doesn't actually give the money to the people who were harmed by MS - Netscape, Be, these are the kind of people who deserve restitution.

    7. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      monetary settlement

      Don't tell me that you're dissastisfied with Microsoft's donations of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of software to schools, etc!

      Why, that software alone represents a significant charitable contribution, as any tax attorney can tell you.

      And a good thing, too, because the profit margins on those Windows and Office CDs make everyone else green with envy: the cost to MS of producing those donated CDs is probably almost as much as what they pay spokespeople to announce the donation.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    8. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Other than missing a few commas and maybe some whitespace, my post was more or less proper english grammar. If you ever had more to say than cheap one -liners you would know this!

    9. Re:Microsoft settlement lacked any Monopoly Money by snarfer · · Score: 1

      Many Microsoft employees I spoke with - especially engineers - were hoping that the company would be broken up. They were tired of working only on products designed to reinforce the monopoly and wanted to design, market and sell competitive products.

      For example, the Office people wanted to be able to really improve the products, and design great products for Linux, etc. But they were stuck with the Windows legacy and reinforcing the Windows monopoly.

  5. Good by BigDork1001 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Good! I hope more states will follow their lead. If pressure isn't kept on Microsoft they won't change. They've already proved that some. I don't think the states should let up on Microsoft until there's actually some change.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    1. Re:Good by Speare · · Score: 1

      Nice thought, but too late. I think every other state has withdrawn from the case. West Virginia was the last holdout besides Massachussetts, and they dropped their case recently.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  6. Another Troll by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 5, Funny

    "whether the company had properly offered communications protocols allowing non-Microsoft software to work well with Windows"

    Jeez, give 'em a break they're still trying to make Microsoft software to work well with Windows.

    1. Re:Another Troll by Aadain2001 · · Score: 1

      They've already produced the pinicle of MS software that intigrates with Windows: IIS :)

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    2. Re:Another Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, they're still trying to make WINDOWS work well with Windows.

      --AC

  7. In other news... by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The konsent dekree approved by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in November inkludes provisions aimed at giving komputer makers more freedom to feature non-Mikrosoft software on the machines they sell.

    Microsoft promised to change it's brandname to Mikrosoft provided Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in their favor.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:In other news... by teh*fink · · Score: 1

      you know this guy has been spending too much time in KDE-land...

      --
      "I DARE you to make less sense!"
  8. Thank goodness by scrotch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm really glad they're following up on this. The penalties were hardly enough to break up a monopoly, and Microsoft gave many indications that they would pretty much ignore the whole thing.

    Microsoft bought VirtualPC. They announced that the Mac version of IE would be discontinued. They've continued to offer special deals to sell Windows at little or no profit to (try to) keep Linux out of government and business.

    The monopoly power Microsoft was convicted of abusing is still being used, and they are doing everything in their power to expand it.

    1. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      M$ licenses WinXP to Dell for $17 a copy and they sell it at stores for $300. What a bunch of assholes.

    2. Re:Thank goodness by Aadain2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that's a verying good point! MS does NOT make their money from the individual consumer. They make it from the corporate sales and the large OEMs like Dell. If they are charging so little to OEMs but so much to consumers, they could probably drop the consumer price down to $50 for XP Pro and find the piracy rate dropping! Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50? And wouldn't you not mind the bugs as much, concidering how much you had payed for it?

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    3. Re:Thank goodness by Darth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50?

      I wouldn't. The only reason i have a copy of XP Home is because i couldnt get the laptop i wanted without a microsoft os. (and before people start in on me about wiping it or the refund thing: i know i'm not gonna get a refund unless i can get a few thousand people to ask for one with me. The machine now dual boots xp and gentoo. I use the XP partition to play games like raven shield and star wars galaxies.)

      And wouldn't you not mind the bugs as much, concidering how much you had payed for it?

      I would mind the bugs a lot. I would mind Microsoft's attitude towards the bugs a lot.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    4. Re: Thank goodness by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


      > If they are charging so little to OEMs but so much to consumers, they could probably drop the consumer price down to $50 for XP Pro and find the piracy rate dropping! Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50? And wouldn't you not mind the bugs as much, concidering how much you had payed for it?

      The market value of an operating system these days is $0.00 plus the bandwidth of a big download. A $50 OS is overpriced by approximately $50.

      Or maybe by more than $50, since Microsoft appears willing to pay governments to use their OS whenever another option is getting serious consideration.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Thank goodness by HisMother · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50?

      Same people who wouldn't buy a cow for $50. What the hell would I do with a cow, bargain or not?

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    6. Re:Thank goodness by glitch! · · Score: 1

      Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50?

      I would not. (Are you calling for some kind of Slashdot roll call here?)

      I will not install WinXP on any of my computers. For now, I use an old copy of NT4 for those (thankfully few) occasions where I have to do Win32 development. I hope that it will do the job for a while to come, but if I am faced with some really bad incompatibility, my "last resort" is to buy a copy of Win2000, hopefully at a closeout price. But I hope things don't come to that. Getting back to the question of WinXP, my answer is "hell no!"

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    7. Re:Thank goodness by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about if they dropped their price 90+% like they did here in Thailand to fight the 100,000 new Linux computers the government is offering??? You and I probably still wouldn't (that probably is about you, not me), but a serious percentage of slashdot would have a copy, not to mention the rest of the world.

    8. Re: Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The market value of an operating system these days is $0.00 plus the bandwidth of a big download.A $50 OS is overpriced by approximately $50.

      Even If you assume that the monetary cost of bandwidth is zero, that doesn't take into account the cost of my time. I'd much rather pay $50 for an OS than downloading 2gig of data over a 56k modem.

      So a $50 OS is not overpriced by $50, in fact $50 OS that I get a physical copy of is probably better value than a $0.00 OS that needs to be downloaded.

    9. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same people who wouldn't buy a cow for $50. What the hell would I do with a cow, bargain or not?

      eh, if you payed $50 for a cow, you'd be getting ripped off!

    10. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt, an operating system is only worth the cost of my time and the CD's I burn it on to. :) Penguins rule!

    11. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad analogy. Cow shit might be closser. Festering pile of poo, if in polite company.

    12. Re: Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      56k modem? Hm... Modem... I know I've heard about those somewhere. Is that those gizmos that people used in the 80's to transfer digital data over the analog phone network? Those painfully slow things? I'm glad we all have 10Mb-connections now. =)

    13. Re:Thank goodness by arkanes · · Score: 2

      It's a really strong sign of a sick and twisted market that the market leader can drop thier price by 90% and still expect to turn a profit.

    14. Re:Thank goodness by linuxelf · · Score: 1

      If they dropped the price of 2000 down to $50 bucks then yeah, my game machine would be running a legally licensed OS. If you can price the OS at about the same price as a good game, then you're getting into the right ballpark.

      --
      - "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
    15. Re:Thank goodness by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't. For me the primary issue has always been their license. They could be free, and it wouldn't matter. They could pay me and it wouldn't matter. I don't want to sign a license that gives someone else the right to say whether or not I can see my own files.

      And that stupid bit about "alter, copy, or remove any files on your disk"... That just about takes the cake. When I create something on my computer it's mine, and neither MS nor any other company has any rights to it. So they couldn't *PAY* me to use their be-bugged system.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re: Thank goodness by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Good point. May I recommend CheapBytes? They've always given me good service. $5 + shipping and handling. (Of course that's high enough that I usually order more than one disk...)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Thank goodness by jmcnamera · · Score: 1

      The Mac version of IE is being discontinued because Apple has Safari now. Since Safari is good and comes with the Mac for free, very few people will download **any** other browser for the Mac (Sounds familiar?)

      IE on the Mac doesn't make money but does cost MS via resources to develop/support it.

      It would be very surprising if MS did keep developing IE on the Mac. Much like Adobe dropping their product since Apple has something in the same space now.

      --
      this is not a sig
    18. Re:Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You don't seem to understand. The whole point of charging $189+ for retail is so when they come to OEMs and sell it for $50, they can also include $10-$20 of requirements, like don't include specific competitor products, don't modify the desktop in some way they don't like, etc. They still make a huge bundle (trivial development cost per license plus less packaging). If you could go out and buy Windows for $50, so could every OEM which means Microsoft would lose all control over dual boot setups, using non-MS products, etc. Since the government didn't want to force MS to sell windows at a reduced cost, they just made it so MS couldn't make contracts where you're not allowed to sell other OSs, dual boot setups, or include non-MS products as part of the bundle.

    19. Re:Thank goodness by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Who here wouldn't buy a legal copy of XP Pro for $50?

      Me.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  9. Linux complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing it's about the strategy described here.

  10. MS got away with a slap on their wrists.... by hashish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now it turns out that they have yet to have the slap on the wrist yet.

    1. Re:MS got away with a slap on their wrists.... by Aadain2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I could think of a few choice places I'd like to slap them :)

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    2. Re:MS got away with a slap on their wrists.... by Little+Brother · · Score: 0

      AARRGGHH Image in my head! GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT! I think the image has been burned into my cranium! Oh the pain the pain!

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  11. MS is in violation... by CySurflex · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...whether Microsoft had violated portions of the settlement prohibiting pacts requiring exclusive support of Microsoft software

    They're also in violation of their restraining order against me, they're not supposed to come within 100 yards the judge said. But they're righ here, on my computer. GET AWAY! GET AWAY!

    1. Re:MS is in violation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, who is "they"? MS is a corporation, which I suppose technically is a person, but only a single one, and that "person" lives at its headquarters, not on your computer.

    2. Re:MS is in violation... by mpe · · Score: 1

      First of all, who is "they"? MS is a corporation, which I suppose technically is a person, but only a single one, and that "person" lives at its headquarters, not on your computer.

      Part of the problem is that corporations are only sometimes treated as "people". Were a real person accused of breaking the law they could wind up being held in a jail, subject to bail conditions, etc before they even get their day in court (where they have to drop everything and appear in court.)
      Nothing similar happened to Microsoft, they could just carry on "business as usual" even whilst they were supposedly "on trial".

  12. believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Justice Department entered the settlement saying the business restrictions it contained would restore competition to the software business and prevent Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive tactics.

    and I believe keeping my work hours flexible will make me a better programmer

  13. State Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be typical of states that are short on cash. They will be attacking compaines to get fines from them so they can get more cash for the social program shortfalls in the budget. They are already giving out more fines in states against citizens and passing more laws to squeeze us for more. To bad many ignorant fools do not understand politics and really believe that they care about Linux. Then again many idoits on /. believe central planning will save us so I should not expect much.

    The tobacco money is running out and I am shure the states will try to restart that mess for some extra cash or invent a way that tobacco companies are breaking their agreement.

    1. Re:State Greed by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What exactly has socialism got to do with it? No, please humour me I'm a fucktard, I dont understand how a corrupt manipulative corporation benifits mankind.

    2. Re:State Greed by burns210 · · Score: 0, Troll

      is this someone on slashdot defending Microsoft AND getting modded up?

      You know, you might want to consider the possibility that Microsoft might have actually broken the rules the judge handed them and that Mass. trying to get those rules enforced.

    3. Re:State Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yada yada yada...so your'e saying if the punishment for something illegal includes a fine then it isnt really a crime.
      I read the article and its not about collecting fines, its about getting the court to force microsoft to stop very specific illegal buisness pratices.
      Its not like they are making up new laws to apply against microsoft. When they start doing that, then you'de be right but theire using anti-monopoly laws that are much older than microsoft.

    4. Re:State Greed by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Hehe, no kidding. Apparently Washington State has started it's own "War on Jaywalking."

      "Excuse me sir, but this isn't a designated crosswalk area. I'm afraid I'm going to have to write you a fine. May I see your license please? No license? I'm afraid that's another fine."

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    5. Re:State Greed by squashed · · Score: 0, Troll
      Kudos, and congratulations.

      Please report to the Redmond Campus. Building 12.
      The password is, Shlurgmite.

      Welcome aboard.

      Microsoft
      Public Relations Department

    6. Re:State Greed by Tokerat · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      "Yes, my name is Rob Malda..." ;-)

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    7. Re:State Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Trust me, as a Massachusetts resident, the only reason this is still wasting my tax money is because Microsoft has no presence here. If MS were to open a branch in MA, this suit would stop instantly. As it is, MA was home to DEC, and I guess some people are still pissed about DEC killing itself. About the only major technology presence left here is HP and Sun. (Hell, Sun got to name a street in Burlington for their "One Network Drive" complex.) Sun's on its way out, and HP doesn't need its MA presence any more than Compaq did (since all the old DEC technologies Compaq got are obsoleted by HP techs - except maybe VMS, which isn't done in MA anyway).

      MA doesn't give a shit about enforcing the law. All they want to do is try and pay for the Big Dig, the "worlds largest public work," otherwise known as something like $20 billion over budget. (And about three years late at this point, too.) Not to mention all the other "let's rebuild major highways!" projects going on. This state could do so much better if they stopped wasting money trying to get MS to pay them to sit down and shut up and instead worked on something like a workable public transportation infrastructure to get people outside of Boston into it as well as get people around the suburbs surrounding Boston.

    8. Re:State Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn I wish i could moderate that as
      Troll, Funny and Insightful!

  14. Massachusetts Attorney General Complaint Form by David+Hume · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft

    In 1998, Massachusetts, together with a group of states and the United States Department of Justice, filed a civil law suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging antitrust violations. In 2000, the Court found Microsoft liable for maintaining an illegal monopoly in personal computer operating systems. In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct.

    Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is seeking stricter and more rigorous restrictions on Microsoft's business practices than those put in place by the Court judgment, and has asked the Court of Appeals to consider the matter. Massachusetts is scheduled to argue its appeal in November 2003.

    Even though Massachusetts is pursuing a further remedy, the Massachusetts Attorney General is working to ensure that Microsoft complies with the injunction issued in November 2002. If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please complete a Complaint Form (File Size: 26 KB) and forward it to the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1598, Attention: Kenneth Miller, CPAD. If you have a complaint against Microsoft, you also may call Kenneth Miller at (617) 727-2200 ext. 2965.


    Source: Massachusetts Attorney General Microsoft Page

    1. Re:Massachusetts Attorney General Complaint Form by 3seas · · Score: 2, Funny

      " If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please ......"

      Switch to Linux.....

    2. Re:Massachusetts Attorney General Complaint Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and throw away the past 20 years of software until someone decides it would be a good idea to make wine and dosemu as easy to use as zsnes.

  15. Mass powered by ASP.NET by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The state also complained that its investigation of Microsoft has been hampered by the Justice Department and some other states enforcing agreements that preclude any of the states from cooperating with Massachusetts."The exclusion of Massachusetts has been effective and complete," the state said.

    And needless to say, the Massachusetts Attorney General's website is running Microsoft-IIS/6.0

    200 OK
    Cache-Control: private
    Connection: Keep-Alive
    Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:20:00 GMT
    Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Mass powered by ASP.NET by iabervon · · Score: 1

      If they weren't using it, they probably wouldn't care so much.

    2. Re:Mass powered by ASP.NET by Tsujigiri · · Score: 1

      Firstly it's IIS/5.0.

      Secondly, if you look up the domain in Netcraft, you'll see that the netblock is owned by a group called Softscape. Further looking at this would seem to indicate that Softscape is quite involved in the running of the Massachusetts Court's IT system (in terms of case and document management). It seems logical that there would be quite a bit of co-hosting going on.

      --

      "I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
      - Monty Python meets the Matrix

  16. MS evil? That's news to me by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all knew this would happen. The only question was when and if anybody noticed. Unfortunately, one of MS defences has always been ignorance. They can claim that they are so big that they don't know sometimes what each section of the company is doing. Take for example the iLoo fiasco. Cynics like me think that the negative public reaction forced them to retract their statements. Billy G has always had a firm grasp of his company. Even though publicly he isn't running the company, as the major stockholder, he would be stupid not to be in charge. MS is still doing business as usual, now they are not so blatant about it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  17. Monopoly is not illegal by cloudless.net · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The penalties were hardly enough to break up a monopoly"

    It is not illegal to have a monopoly, and the penalties are not designed to break up the monopoly. The court already decided NOT to break up Microsoft.

    1. Re:Monopoly is not illegal by psxndc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      OK, but the penalties were not enough to discourage Microsoft from abusing its monopoly (which is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act). Happy?

      psxndc

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    2. Re:Monopoly is not illegal by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not illegal to have a monopoly,

      But it is illegal to do all sorts of things when you are a monopoly.

      and the penalties are not designed to break up the monopoly. The court already decided NOT to break up Microsoft.

      As Microsoft were a "repeat offender" you'd resonably expect a harsher penalty than was applied to them previously.

  18. Why this "trust fund"? by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of having a monetary settlement where every person get a few dollars/money from Microsoft (where only the class action lawyers get the money) it would be better if a revisited settlement included a payment, from Microsoft's 46 Billion dollars in cash (that billy G etc has on hand right now) a payment to be made to a trust fund controlled by Open Source Leaders (Linus, for example)

    I'm not trolling, this is a legitimate question that will crop up if such an approach were to be seriously considered. Namely, why does open source deserve that "payment" any more than anyone else that competes with Microsoft? For example, Netscape's downfall can be at least partially attributed to Microsoft's various anti-competitive practices, so aren't they just as deserving of compensation? Just food for thought.

    --
    "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
    -- Ryan Stiles
    1. Re:Why this "trust fund"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft just paid Netscape (AOLTW) $750 Million for it's anti-competitive practices during the browser wars. Sun is in the process of suing MS over Java for $1 Billion and free bundling.

      The judge rules that Linux was not competitive with Windows, so Linus et al would have difficulty getting any money out of this.

  19. Top Website by tds67 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Massachusetts also told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that it will establish a Web site to solicit complaints about Microsoft's behavior...

    ...thereby replacing donotcall.gov as the hottest new website around.

  20. That's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ago.state.ma.us

  21. It's the licenses. by Population · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sure, a corporation can get XP on a new box from Dell. Because Dell licensed XP from Microsoft. And part of the purchase price goes to MS. But then that corporation has to pay MS for whatever license agreement that that corporation has with Microsoft. And no, the license you just purchased with the new Dell computer cannot be transfered. You have to pay for a new one. So, for one license, Microsoft gets paid twice. Now, suppose you don't upgrade the OS on that computer for 3 years (a very common practice in the business world). You'll have to renew the Microsoft license agreement and pay for that license AGAIN! For the use of ONE license, you have to pay THREE times. And that's just the OS. MS Office falls under the same practice. MS isn't interested in the home market. They don't pay each year and they take up too much time in tech support calls.

  22. Anti-MS FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously haven't used Microsoft software in the past 3 to 4 years.

    1. Re:Anti-MS FUD by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I have banking software that only works in windows (well it's more secure, what would you expect a bank to use?), it crashes 1 out 5 times I use it at a rough guess. But then that would probably be a hardware problem wouldn't it? Funny I don't have any hardware problems with the other dozen identical machines in the department that run another OS.

    2. Re:Anti-MS FUD by stanwirth · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Actually, I have banking software that only works in windows (well it's more secure, what would you expect a bank to use?), it crashes 1 out 5 times I use it at a rough guess. But then that would probably be a hardware problem wouldn't it?

      Um...I hate to tell you, but...if it's just the application that's crashing, it (a) may well be trojaned, and (b) could very well be leaving easily compromised banking information in open files and readable memory, even if it's i/o to other processes is all encrypted. I've seen some awfully insecure banking applications.

      It is not necessarily more secure just because it came from a bank! Think about it! If you were a crooked programmer, now what kind of an organisation would you go to work for? A BANK! Why? Like John Dillinger said, "Because that's where the money is!"

      Funny I don't have any hardware problems with the other dozen identical machines in the department that run another OS.

      YAH! All the more reason to encourage the redevelopment or, if necessary, reverse engineering of that banking application to LIN^h^h^hBSD^h^h^hSOLAR^h^h^h^h^hthat er um "other OS."

      AAHH-OOO! Penguins of Laingholm.

    3. Re:Anti-MS FUD by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
      Actually, I have banking software that only works in windows (well it's more secure, what would you expect a bank to use?), it crashes 1 out 5 times I use it at a rough guess. But then that would probably be a hardware problem wouldn't it?

      Uh, no, it would probably be a software problem with your banking software, not the OS.

    4. Re:Anti-MS FUD by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      So what is your point? Did MS write the application, or are you somehow saying that the people that wrote the crashing application would magically become good programmers if they used some other OS?

      Crappy and crashing software exists for all platforms. There are lots of other, real arguments to use if you want to convince people to switch. Saying something that they don't recognize, for instance telling people that Windows crashes a lot when it never does that for them will only convince them you are making the rest of your "facts" up as well.

      Stick to facts, point out real things (say virus trouble), and you might win. Make things up or twist the truth, and you'll almost certainly lose.

    5. Re:Anti-MS FUD by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      "Uh, no, it would probably be a software problem with your banking software, not the OS."

      How could I tell? It's not open source. I wish the errors where consistent, as I stated in my original post, it must be a hardware problem.

    6. Re:Anti-MS FUD by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      From an old fart, that sounds like what we use to call a timing error.
      Set the threads off running and quite often you can get random results.
      Just a guess, but I would not be at all surprised if it didn't crash on VMware.

    7. Re:Anti-MS FUD by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      Stick to facts, point out real things (say virus trouble), and you might win. Make things up or twist the truth, and you'll almost certainly lose./

      Very dishonourable reply I must say, I question the reliability of software I have to use and you question my integrity, you cad. Unfortunately this isn't a game there no winners. Isn't the proliferation of viruses endemic to certain operating systems, and not to others? I only ask because that doesn't seem to happen on my other machines either, perhaps it's a hardware problem as stated earlier.

    8. Re:Anti-MS FUD by arkanes · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that it being open source would help much, since I'm guessing by your statements that you aren't a programmer. And of course, it being a hardware problem is not precluded by having other machines that work fine.

    9. Re:Anti-MS FUD by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Funny I don't have any hardware problems with the other dozen identical machines in the department that run another OS.

      If somebody is telling you it's a hardware problem, alocate yourself a 4Gb partition and load Linux -- then see if it crashes. If it keeps crashing under Linux then it probably is a hardware problem.

      I actually ran into that once. Had a desktop that kept crashing and I blamed it on 'stupid windows'. Then I loaded Linux on the box, but Linux kept crashing too --- that told me that it was really a hardware problem. Turned out o be badly seated RAM.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  23. Enforcement path? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...Massachusetts said that none of the allegations had been resolved and it would "move forward on an enforcement path should its investigations identify provable violations."
    Can anyone fill me in on this "enforcement path"? As I recall, the only penalty MicroSoft will suffer if they ignore the terms will be that they will have to ignore the settlement for 7 years rather than 5.
    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  24. As expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I expect this of MS. Their typical arrogance and conception that they are above the law will eventually be their undoing, but until then we are at their mercy.

  25. Factual error by Massachusetts AG by Moooo+Cow · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Quoting the Massacusetts AG: "In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct." [emphasis mine]

    However, the final judgement entered on November 12, 2002 clearly says at the start: "AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law". That is, the final judgement does not find Microsoft guilty of any so-called "unlawful conduct".

    Clearly the issuer of this press release (presumably authorized by the AG) is attempting to make up their own interpretation of the Final Judgement, without regard to the actual contents of it.

    --
    Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
    1. Re:Factual error by Massachusetts AG by Tsujigiri · · Score: 1

      Ummm, IANAL and all that crap, but wasn't the Finding of Fact the statement that described the unlawful conduct as determined by the court (under Jackson) and the Final Judgement was the second stage where a remedy is put forward and assumes that some kind of guilt has already been established (essentially the difference between verdict and then sentencing). Isn't the statement referring to admission that you quoted, simply a measure put in by the Microsoft lawyers to indicate that THEY still admit to doing nothing wrong?

      --

      "I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
      - Monty Python meets the Matrix

  26. I love this line.. by Kwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct.

    Talk about a meaningless injunction. "You broke the law! Now we have to pass another law saying you can't break the law!" Uhh.. yeah. Sure.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  27. protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by Eminor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "whether the company had properly offered communications protocols allowing non-Microsoft software to work well with Windows"

    This is a problem. One that made me decide to switch email clients. A while back, my prof. send me my mark back in an attached file. I did not not "get the attachment". I hounded him a couple of times for the mark. He insisted that he sent it to me. He even said that my reply had the file attached. I did some investigation, and found that the attached file was there, but wasn't showing up in the user interface. On further investigation, I found that this is an issue when Outlook XP recieves attachments from Pine. Microsoft was aware of the problem and had no plans to fix it.

    I have no idea why Outlook XP would recieve an attachment from Pine and not show it. It would seem like the code would almost have to be made to purposely do that. Who knows, maybe it is a bug.

    A few months later, switch over to Linux entirely. I now use evolution. I never looked back.

    1. Re:protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by TeraCo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What sort of file is it? Outlook XP quarantines certain kinds of files just because they might be full of the evil. Of course, I'm sure you did a whole bunch of research into it :P

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    2. Re:protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by Eminor · · Score: 1

      ya, i did. I sent myself the file from another box with outlook n it and it showed up.

    3. Re:protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by Eminor · · Score: 1

      actually, that's a browser setting. Try setting your email client to evolution.

    4. Re:protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Outlook XP quarantines certain kinds of files just because they might be full of the evil.

      On my machine PDF and PowerPoint files don't show up. I didn't know Adobe (PDF) and Microsoft (PPT) were so evil.;-)

    5. Re:protocol problems, eh? you don;'t say! by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      I have come across this myself. I didn't understand what was happening until the parent's post. The only indication of an attachment (other than the person declaring it) is that the size of the email is obviously bigger than a text-only email.

  28. Re:MS evil? That's news to me by sdkone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Err, sorry, I think you're looking for the article titled "Judge Rules Against Microsoft: Massachusetts Shows Microsoft Breached Terms of DOJ Settlement". You can find it about 2-3 years in the future in one of the possible universes that will arise from the universe we find ourselves in today.

    I'm guessing those people who modded you up are also from said future. Today's moderators, who should have modded you "-1: Redundant, Overrated, Off-topic, Yet Another Freakin MS Rant", have clearly travelled back in time to mod up other off-topic posts. Anyone who bitched about SCO three years ago can expect a sharp hike in their karma any minute now.

  29. thats simple by eille-la · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Pure Governement Corruption (d)

  30. MIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    but it's not clear which company's promotion of Linux is drawing the attention

    Isn't RMS based in or near MIT?

  31. Re:FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the good ol' capitalist US dollar can only buy .88 communist Euros.

  32. Why this won't be counted as non-compliance by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Section III.A. of the agreement prevents Microsoft from punishing OEMs if they promote an alternative OS. However according to the government monitor of MS's compliance (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f201100/201135.htm ) they are allowed to delay this part of the agreement until their sales people are "trained". In other words, they are allowed to punished OEMs for promoting Linux until the training is finished.

    This training has been going on for the last two years. The agreement itself only is enforced for 5 years, so only 3 more years left to string out that training....

  33. Suggestion by cnoocy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft New England Offices: Waltham, MA
    [Microsoft Waltham Facility]
    Address: Microsoft Corporation, 201 Jones Road, Waltham, MA 02451
    Directions

    Send in state troopers and seize the site. If I were on probation and broke the conditions, I'd go to jail. Criminal corporations won't pay attention until you start treating them like criminals.

    --
    This sig is not the Zahir. Lucky for you.
  34. Write Massachusetts... by raw-sewage · · Score: 1
    In case no one has yet posted the link:

    Massachusetts Attorney General

    This page also has a link to a complaint form where you can send your Microsoft gripes.

    I don't live in Massachusetts, but I'm thinking about writing anyway. I think we should take the time to formulate a few good letters to send to the Mass. Attorney General. In particular, we can address some of the following points (of course this is an incomplete list):

    • Lack of OEM support for non-Microsoft software. While there are several computer companies offering Linux pre-installed on their systems, the average consumer probably isn't aware of these companies. Even the "Linux aware" crowd has to use a little extra effort to ensure they are getting Linux-friendly systems.
    • Why major computer distributors don't offer their systems without Windows at a reduced price. Unless you put forth the (extra) effort to find a Linux OEM, you probably can't get a computer without an operating system (at least from major distributors). The Massachusetts Attorney General should investigate potential strong-arming with OEMs.
    • How the Microsoft monopoly perpetuates itself through vendor lock-in and closed, proprietary data formats. If enough people push hard enough, maybe the Mass. Attorney General could actually get Microsoft to publish complete, correct documentation for their data formats. (I'm starting to write letters/articles addressing this issue that I intend to send to editorials.)
    I'd almost be willing to send money to support this effort. As another poster pointed out, most states' budgets are all but completely depleted, and I'm sure Massachusetts can't afford to work this too long. But if we generated some funds, or at least made our voice loud enough, we might live to see a leveled playing field.

    All in all, I think the fundamental problem is lack of information. The average person probably isn't aware that the Microsoft monopoly compromises his rights (and is effectively a tax on computer hardware); most folks don't understand proprietary data formats or vendor lock-in; most people don't realize the scope of Microsoft's questionable business practices...

    Get the word out, get the word out, get the word out!

  35. Gates Foundation by harvey_peterson · · Score: 1

    Sorry for sounding paranoid, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation announced yesterday that they are donating "$13.6 million to provide high-quality small high schools for 10,000 more students".

    Not to say that this is a bad thing, but with the continuing lawsuit between MA and MS, it sure sounds like Gates is using a charitable organization to do the dirty work of the business side.

  36. Any Companies Offering Dual-Boot Systems Yet? by snarfer · · Score: 1

    Are any computer manufacturers offering dual-boot Windows/Linux computers yet? That was supposedly the POINT of the phony Justice Dept. "settlement."

  37. Antitrust is an infringement on freedom by geekee · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how a group of people who claim people like Jose Padilla are having their rights violated, then turn around and support infringement on the basic rights of Bill Gates, etc. They have a right to free trade, like anyone else, without govt. imposed restrictions that make them slaves to the consumer. You're a hypocrite if you complain about the Patriot act and then support antitrust legislation. Those who would give up a little liberty to avoid monopolies deserve communism.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:Antitrust is an infringement on freedom by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Sorry, your broad bush is devoid of paint.

      You fail to realize that a corproation is a fiction of law. Corporations do not exist "in the wiled". A corporation is a Charter from the government o be granted certain (many) immunities. The government has then gone on to add more immunities, and say that the corproation has nearly every right/protection that a person does.

      As such, a corporation is an arm of government; therefore it falls under it's jurisdiction.

      Now I've been proposing all along tht the punishment to MS should be the revokation of the Corporate Charter. They do not get the benefit of being split up by the government, nor to they retain their special immune status.

      As such, they have to compete w/o the special protections. Just like the rest of us.

      While I would love to take credit for this idea, it is one that *used* to be wielded; effectively at that. Break the law, lose the charter. Unfortunately this has not been used in about a century.

      Sure, we *people* have a right to choose who to do business with and such, however, when one side has special government protections the other does not, it is not "free trade". A corporation is not a person.

      Further, the government operates many monopolies of it's own. I'm all for breaking those up to.

      We should break up such government monopolies as the FDA, the FAA, the School Business, the EP, the Federal Education Department, Welfare, etc..

      Yes, Bill Gates has a right to trade freely, but the corporate arm of the government (corporations) are neither natural entities, not people, and as such do not posess those rights.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  38. Re:Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the difference between George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy is ... George W.'s arrest for drunken driving was on the mainland, no long bridges to drive off. Mary Jo Kopechne was almost certainly dead when they hit the water. Troll.