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.
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.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
> 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...
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
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.
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
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.