Slashdot Mirror
Judge Examines Microsoft Settlement Progress
Infonaut writes "The judge who presided over the settlement between Microsoft and the federal government may be starting to realize what a lot of people already know about Microsoft. The settlement was predicated on the belief that competitors would be able to license technology from Microsoft in order to get some relief from Microsoft's desktop OS monopoly. As Kollar-Kelly admitted, 'I think all of us had hoped for more agreements.' Now the judge is asking federal prosecutors to examine specifically why more licensing agreements have not been reached. I'm truly shocked that the settlement isn't turning out as planned, after the Justice Department so shrewdly rolled over when they had Microsoft over a barrel."
I'm not expecting much other than lip service so long as the current administration is in place. Let's face it, Asscroft and company haven't exactly been busting a nut when it comes to M$.
As much as I dislike having to do this, I have to agree. Microsoft is right here. After all, it's not their fault if the selected President* told his people to give a brisk slap on the wrist to Microsoft after the previously administration had won the case in court and had them bound, bent over and greased up. It's not Microsoft's fault if the lawyers left who actually wanted to try and salvage some sort of basic human dignity from this whole sordid affair didn't watch those movies where someone makes a deal with Satan and leaves out that one little clause that eventually leaves them in a pile of feces. You give an Evil Civil Judgement Decided Monopolist an inch, they HAVE to take a mile and your wallet and laugh while they're doing it.
If I was Microsoft, I'd get out the Icy Hot or Tiger Balm to deal with those sore, sore wrists.
The judge said it was unclear whether Microsoft's competitors were unhappy with terms of the offers or simply not interested, "and there's not much we can do about that."
Doesn't sound like the judge is "starting to realize" anything. Next time try reading the article before posting a summary.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Microsoft scratched SCO's back - SCO is just scratching back. It's pretty odd that SCO would license Microsoft's protocols and them and then incorporate Samba3 into SCOServer. That whole "we respect IP" crap isn't flying
I don't think it's fair that they're counting this puppet when trying to go after the puppet master.
-B
It can be just that alot of people have realized that it's not worth it. Microsoft will either make it difficult for your software to operate properly; especially if it directly competes with something from them or they'll simply try to screw you in some other area. IE, higher mark up fee for X software. It's simply not worth the headache and trouble for any business especially a startup business. Sure, Microsoft is a convicted monopoly with zero punishment, so they continue to act like a monopoly. If there is no punishment, even if a crime is committed; a monopoly will continue to do so.. heh you'd think a Federal Judge would understand that. For all those that are going to respond with a monopoly isn't illegal. Be sure you understand that a natural monopoly isn't illegal, a monopoly gained from unfair practices is, however illegal. I just don't understand how one company can be convicted of illegal monopolistic practices in an industry that garners them billions upon billions and are let go with; heh, please don't do it again, and oh yeah you can be on the board of persons who makes sure you operate justly and fairly.
This country, America is a bunch of bullshit.
The anti-trust case went to hell as soon as Big Business Bush got into office. Now that it seems we may actually have an election, things seem to be coming back to life.
Ah hell, it's not who casts the ballots, it's who counts them, right? 51 billion in cash reserves, Micro$loth will probably end up being the one.
Why do I get excited by viruses and tanking stocks? Long term freedom and prosperity.
Open source- the greatest equalizer mankind has ever seen.
Please allow me to remind you that the DMCA passed through the Senate unapposed - No one in the Senate voted against it. There were 99 votes for it and 0 against. We have patents on simple software algorithms that last 20 years with no end in sight. Remember, even if you understand that software patents are bad, if you're in the business, you've got to play the game the way it's set up, or your competitors will not hesitate to screw you over. Remember the Amazon.com one-click patent?
The problem is that politicians clearly don't understand technology, plain and simple.
I think that a good starting point would be to impose strict term limits on our Representatives and Senators. Our country can do without the people who make it their career to be politicians and contribute nothing else. Furthermore, those career politicians live in a world of their own; they have no idea what it's like to have your ideas taken away from you because of some stupid patent law. Look at Gray Davis; he's pissed off because he's been recalled from office by angry voters. Gray Davis passed stupid laws from which he was detached from the consequences. He had a big political machine that crushed the opposition in the last election cycle. He didn't care that he raised car taxes through the roof. He didn't care that foolish policies crippled California's power system. It's great to see that someone finally made him face the music.
My point is, politicians don't understand anything but politics these days because that's all they do.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
To control digital communication world wide.
To remove all competitors and hardware platform competition.
To invest in technologies that can become a monoply, and only make heavy investments in tech that they can completely control.
Legally steal software tech with coding virgins if they cannot Legally own it.
Protect their code base so that it cannot be cloned by altering the coding languages and making them proprietary.
They are completely within their rights in doing these things. It is the consumer and communication industry that needs to fight this monolyth not the courts. They harm the industry with their software patents and security policies, and the sooner the consumer realises this the better.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
But has anyone considered that maybe other companies don't consider Microsoft's technology to be worth licensing? I don't even think it's worth pirating, myself.
--Shoeboy
- It's convenient for ISV's to concern themselves with a single platform. Way before my (professional) time, it'd have been tough for a smaller outfit to target all the popular platforms: atari, commodore, amiga, PC, Apple/Mac, various DOS flavors, etc. They pretty much picked one, maybe more, and gambled that they'd still exist and/or remain popular.
- Books, third party dev tools, publications, and training (formal and informal) have long been plentiful.
- Many software companies (ok...not as many now) target MS platforms.
- And a few more...
But as of late I'm having a change of heart. For the following reasons (and others):- nefarious upgrade practices
- restrictive licensing practices
- the lessening of system level tools/techniques available to third party developers
- still more incursions into third party developer space (search engines, email, possibly anti-virus)
I've about had it with Redmond. I don't even really want to create software for their platforms anymore. Still, I'm not in the RMS camp; I like the idea of making money on software, possibly by restricting the availability of the source code.I do recognize the benefit of open/free platforms and frameworks. My question is this: is there a place for proprietary (read 'closed') applications on said open/free platforms and frameworks?
You got to be kidding, right?
The only reasons I can imagine you posted this is that:
- You've never used quality software that's not bloatware with 50 million intimidating features you've never used and will never use or,
- It's a troll.
Cheers!-Mybrid
Besides As much as I dislike M$, Microsoft does not have an illegal monolopy
Ummm, you haven't been paying attention, have you? M$ was in fact found guilty of being an illegal monopoly in a court of law.
Additionly, it was no secret that Bush and company had no real interest in pursuing M$. They said as much during the 2000 election campaign which is why M$ did their best to drag the court case out until after the inaugeration. It payed off for them. M$ got a slap on the wrist and basically walked away unscathed.
As far as hurting consumers, M$ hurt consumers by limited their choices by preventing competition. The result is that consumers are stuck with shoddy and overpriced software with few options to shop elsewhere.
When all else fails, run.
Microsoft's monopoly came largely in part due to agreements with computer manufacturers to ship their operating system pre-installed (even today most computers come with windows).
So the question is, if Microsoft DIDN'T have this agreement would they be able to charge aprox $200 for the "home" edition of their software? Can you imagine buying a computer first, then going out and choosing the excellence of Windows for just a low $200?
Basically, is Windows true market value $200?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Back in the days of the antitrust trial, Lewis was actually rather instrumental in explaining the legal mumbo-jumbo underlying antitrust to the ZD-Net community. I personally checked many of his assertions and never found an inaccuracy.
At one point though, Lewis just posted the same piece over and over and over again, with little variation. Users complained he was hogging bandwidth and as a result of those complaints he was booted on the pretext of having a URL in his signature. A few people cheered. A few people mourned. Most ignored his absence. When he was actually posting argument; he was well worth reading. When he was in diatribe mode; less so.
Personally, I wouldn't categorize him as a kook, and certainly I've not found a record of his JD (though I admit not having looked very well) so he may well be a legal hobbyist. Still, at face value his less-belligerant rants make for a good editorial opinion - simply don't appeal to him as an authority. Far better to read the case law and decide for yourself. Your clickage may not be commensurate with Lewis'.
JL'B
Here's a thought. Suppose Microsoft is destroyed and disbanded. That would open up a huge chunk of the IT market, and we'd see gazillions of startups, small and medium companies, with pricing structures along the whole range from free to heavily overpriced. A real IT renaissance.
If the 911 system screws up because of non compatable Microsoft interfaces,...then people can certainly die! If a hospitals pharmacy software or med imaging software screws up then ditto...etc..etc..etc. I will not name names and places but guess what, it happens, and MS gets away with it because they are not the vender responsible for the GUI that is tacked on to the MS servers. So trojans and worms are really a threat to these operations and have caused trouble and will continue to cause trouble because of the stupid MS .NET C# to OS communication protocols and their ability to infect client machines at the OS level. Strange that a Hospital now has to worry about computer viruses as much as real ones!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Only if the emulator meets your needs. It would be a bit stupid otherwise, wouldn't it?
FWIW, you can find out whether it will run the programs you want by checking the website before you buy, running a demo, etc.
HTH.
is that there must be a monopoly. Personally, I believe that if M$ had not become a monopoly, no one would have! Why should Apple have become one?
There were a whole bunch of different operating systems, on different hardware platforms, poised to take off between the mid-80s and the mid-90s. What was it that crushed them--was it merely the presence of a bigger fish? Or was it the fact that the big fish was systematically going around eating and killing the little fish?
Apple's philosophy has always been different than Microsoft's. Where Microsoft has made things cheap and functional, Apple has made things solid and elegant. Where Microsoft has bought or squashed new, useful technologies, Apple has developed their own, or licensed existing ones. Where Microsoft lied, cheated, and stole their way to the top, Apple was still plugging away down there, making good, dependable hardware (generally) and elegant, well-written software to go with it.
Yes, there have been times when Apple did bad stuff, too; I'm not trying to paint them like some kind of saint. For a while, they lost their way, in the Amelio era, and they have done unpleasant stuff before & since, too. But they didn't make a pattern out of it the way M$ did.
I think that if Microsoft had not become the monopoly that they did, the playing field today would look totally different. I suspect there would have been at least ten major OSes (including Linux and its OSS brethren as maybe 2 of those), playing by a set of standards that mean that almost any software will run easily on most of them.
The worst part is how close M$ came to dying before it was even born. Have you watched Pirates of Silicon Valley? You should. The beginnings of Microsoft and Apple were both incredibly precarious. If one tiny decision had gone the other way, everything for the past 25 years would have been changed.
And, once again, I don't think that anyone but Microsoft would have become the monopoly that they did. No one else has the mindset that Gates does, that everything belongs to him. Jobs is a control freak too, but he just likes to control everything that does "belong" to him absolutely. Not make everything his.
That's the difference between Microsoft and Apple.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
So, with a "fix" that is specifically designed to forbid use by the only competitor, why would anyone think that the fix would ever work?
The APIs and file formats for Windows and Office need to be public and open to all, no exceptions, no licenses. The document formats are in many ways more important, even; it makes no sense that much of the world's public records are only accessible via a private gatekeeper.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
The next time I get mod points, I'm using them all to mod you down.
For a statement like this, you should be permanently banned from moderation. (Kind of like the jerk/enemy that routinely hits me with five Overrated mods on unmodded posts -- at least have some balls and don't hide from metamods) Moderation should be done on a post by post basis.
Put identity in the browser.
Consider the formal, medical definition of antisocial disorder (colloquially known as "being a sociopath") and ask yourself: Gates? Ballmer? Alchin? Hmm." By the way, all you Microsoft employees: how does it feel to work for the betterment of people who share a diagnosis of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jim Jones? Do you sleep well at night?
Diagnostic Criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
-
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
Microsoft business practices conforming to social norms? Yeah right! Subject to arrest? Violating antitrust - well not in the US, unfortunately. Perjury in federal court? Definitely. Repeated theft of IP? Sometimes.(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
Does perjury in federal court count? Does stealing IP, multiple times count? Aliases? Does SCO count?
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
Go back in comp.risks 10-15 years and note that people have been warning about MS security and design flaws for a very long time. If ignoring widely published warnings by leading CS professors and leaders isn't lack of planning (and responsibility) I don't what is. If designing schlock and passing it off as quality product isn't lack of planning...
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
Does Billy Boy get irritable and aggressive against legitimate competitors and start "cutting off air supplies" in response sound like a form of assault? Does throwing legal departments count as a fight or assault? Duh! Yeah!
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
Nuclear power plants and medical devices using Microsoft Windows!?!? HP, IBM and Sun have long had this barred in their Ts&Cs. Microsoft doesn't. 'Nuff said!
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
Does failing to comply with a Antitrust Consent Decree count? I'd say so.
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Sounds like the Microsoft press relations department's broken record. Sounds like every word from Gates, Ballmer and Alchin regarding Microsoft's antitrust conviction. Sounds like what they all say every time their hands are caught in the cookie jar. Check!
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
Ah, yeah. Check.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder (see p. 90) with onset before age 15 years.
Hard to know, but we got all the other criteria covered anyway
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
Well, our boys (and girls) in Redmond haven't been officially diagnosed with anything else, that we know of, but the antisocial behavior seems pervasive and perpetual.
Well, there you have it. A positive diagnosis doesn't even required all points, yet Microsoft and its management qualifies on every single point! Perhaps we need men in white suits instead of federal courts.
I'm not surprised that SCO is one of the "major" licensees for Microsoft "technology", given that Microsoft has purchased nonsense licenses for SCO's "technology".
I thought that this behavior was exactly what got Enron into trouble. They inflated their revenues by selling nonsense "product" to companies who had already sold them (the same) nonsense "product".
Clearly i'm doing something wrong, here. I'm just trying to build stuff, but there's obviously not money to be made in that...
My take on copyrights is:
1. That I believed that Congress was mandated not to establish kingdoms, monarchies, or any other set up where one person, group, or organization could control things for long periods of time unless it was a government run entity. 275 years is a long time. I know I will be dead, my sons dead, their sons dead, and so on for up to fifteen generations.
2. That each generation (ie: 20 years) is supposed to be given the chance to build upon the work of the previous generation without having to worry about owing the previous generation anything (like royalties). See the rules about The Patent Office for more information. Current copyright rules have destroyed this balance.
3. I am in favor of:
3a. Copyrights.
3b. Of the author being paid for their works.
3c. Of extending copyrights to the life of the author so long as the author is being paid for his/her work.
3d. Of the author being able to lease his copyrights.
4. I am not in favor of copyrights being bought or sold but that is just because I believe it muddies the water over how long a copyright should last. The person or entity who buys the copyright wants to make as much money as they can on what they paid out money for. As such, they have a vested interest in extending the copyright.
5. I am also in favor of having a group of small businesses get together,reviewing, and rewriting the copyright laws from the standpoint of those who are most affected by the changes in the DMCA. It would be interesting to have non-multibillion dollar companies present their views on what Congress did.
As as side note: I have heard (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that one of the reasons for the extension was because people were living longer. My rebuttal to this is that whomever said this was not lying but they were not speaking the truth either. That is because the length of time people are living to be is still the same but the number of people living to that age is increasing. So the number is only increasing because there are more people living in the world and not because they are living a greater number of years.
To back the above up I refer people to Plato's "The Republic". In the section on when should men and women be allowed to procreate, Socrates replies that men between the ages of 25 and 55 may have children and women between 20 and 40. Now, ask yourself - if men lived to be 55 (and older) centuries before Christ came along, how can someone say we are living longer in terms of years?
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.
This is what is called a Shake Down.
The politicians weren't making enough money from Microsoft, but were making a lot of money from KPCB-venture group companies including Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc.
As such, the California guys paid for an antitrust trial with their campaign contribution. Once Microsoft started paying cash to politicians - as they 'should' have been doing all along - the problems for them stopped.
But hey, as long as the system works in your favor you really don't care about that, do you? All you care about is that Microsoft has figured out the game, and is now immune from it. Never mind that it was the game that got Microsoft into court in the first place.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You must be new to the astroturfing scene, you dont use ALL of the arguments MS gives you the first time you post. Save some for later, better impact.
The way to beat microsoft is to consistently build better products. Products that do things Microsofts don't, offer choices Microsoft won't, or provide economies that Microsoft can't are the key to dislodging them.
I agree, but when future patches of Microsoft's OS or releases of new hardware deliberately cripple or make these "better products" cease to be supported or function properly, that crosses the line.
When you truly create a better product, and Microsoft bundles a competitive product for FREE with their next software release, it's hard to compete. When you do have a better product and Microsoft funds a legal effort to discredit the integrity of your product founded on unstable premises, that's not competition. When you're trying to develop a superior product and the overlord of the OS refuses to release information on the platform needed to make your product compatible, that's not fair competition.
This is not a level playing field where the best product wins. So your argument is weak.
Most court cases with what seem to be wierd outcomes are not due to stupid judges, but to stupid laws.
Anarchists never rule