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."

Comments

From the article

[donutello]

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.

Re:Must be working SCO took out a license

[beacher]

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Justice delayed is Justice denied.

[Bob9113]

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 really cuts to the core of the problem. The anti-trust law remediation policy says (roughly) "the cure should be the minimum necessary to restore competitiveness - there should be no punishment for past acts, only corrective measures." The courts take this to mean (at the behest of defending council) that the violation should be spelled out, and the company should be instructed not to do so again.

We long ago realized that this does not work with people who break the law. People who break the law are punished, because we recognize that there must be a deterrent to bad behaviour. Not because people want to be bad, or because we want vengeance, but because if there is no downside to being bad, they won't think in terms of the consequences of their actions. And this despite the genetic imperative to be moral that exists in people (social groups are more likely to survive to breeding age than anti-social groups, thus social people are more likely to exist).

There is no such genetic imperative in business. Business schools actively promote amorality - not because it is "good", but because a business should not be in the business of deciding what is moral, it should be in the business of deciding what is profitable. It is assumed that what customers choose to purchase is a reflection of what society wants.

This is in direct contradiction to the anti-trust standards. If customers cannot make a free choice of what to buy, then they cannot enforce the will of society through the power of the pocketbook.

In summary then:

The courts will not punish abusive monopolies (it is not in their mandate - they are only supposed to take corrective steps).

Society can not punish abusive monopolies (without free choice to purchase competing products, there is no power of the pocketbook).

Business profits by being an abusive monopoly (self explanatory).

What behaviour, in light of this, are we expecting?

This is part of a larger problem...

[rock_climbing_guy]

I know that many of you are of the opinion that nothing is being done about this because the current administration is somehow "anti-consumer."

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.

Gutenberg reference.

[ratfynk]

This all comes down to one thing. What is Microsofts business plan? They way I interpret their intentions is simple.

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.

Not to be a smartass

[Shoeboy]

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

I think I'm changing my mind...

[eidechse]

For nearly all of my time as a professional dev guy I've cut Redmond some some slack for a few reasons:

• 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?

Re:Microsoft is Like a child

[Whammy666]

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.

Question about the monopoly

[abertoll]

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?

An opinion from back in the Zd-Net days...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Something to consider:

[martin-boundary]

Who would fill the void? Their leading competitors have higher priorities than consumer satisfaction and industry cooperation, I'll bet.

Are you kidding? Their leading competition is giving away their code for free. That's a pretty strong priority on customer satisfaction wouldn't you think?

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.

Re:Get OVER IT

[mabu]

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.