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

pardon list?

[sl0ppy]

who will be on bush's pardon list (provided he gets booted from office)?

i'm betting kenny-boy, and microsoft.

Must be working SCO took out a license

[bstadil]

Four of the "Major" companies that MS mentioned as proof the settlement is working is our favorite SCO.

Other world players is Tandberg of Norway and Laplink.

Go here for an assessment by a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the get go.

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

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.

Ignorance

[Knunov]

"Never attribute to maliciousness that which can be explained by stupidity." - Twain

The main problem is out judicial system is not setup to deal adequately with technology lawsuits. We have lawyers with barely a clue trying to explain to judges with practically no clue what the technology does nor what the ramifications are.

The idea of 3 more years of school might turn you off, but for the out-of-work CompSci degree holders, law school might be a great choice. The world needs lawyers who intimately understand technology to be able to try these cases, and those lawyers need to go on to become the judges who preside over such cases. Without such people in the legal system, we will keep seeing ridiculous judgements.

Knunov

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?

Re:.."offering to license its software technology"

[mcc]

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.

And who selected the president?

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.

9 Samurai

[morelife]

At least the DOJ continues to check on Microsoft compliance on a regular basis.

Let's not forget that 9 states are objecting to the flimsy DOJ ruling and may overturn it locally. Additionally, the market may readjust in the coming 24 months or so, and rearrange Microsoft's dominance without the DOJ's assistance.

Today, the combined state of RedHat/Enterprise, SuSE/IBM, and OpenOffice, have started a huge push which will steamroll, garnering support (and dollars) from both small business and corporate end users. Steve Ballmer has become publicly shrill and irrational. Samba v3 tested faster than Win2k/AD.

Progress on this is like the minute hand- you can't really see it moving, but it's moving.

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?

Microsoft exploits the loophole again

[rhysweatherley]

Microsoft agreed to make their specifications available for people making interoperable software. But the government forgot to say "available at no cost to the licensees", and Microsoft is exploiting that loophole. Big surprise.

I visited the "licensing" site a few weeks back, and the whole thing is "fill in this form and we'll get back to you about your payment". Sorry, that's not what they were supposed to do.

Let's hope the judge realises that for competition to occur, the main player cannot levy a fee against its competitors.

Re:Microsoft exploits the loophole again

[RickHunter]

That means Microsoft is allowed to charge royalties for the protocols, but the royalty schedule is the same whether you are Sun or IBM or somebody else.

But the thing is, and what I think the original poster was saying, that doesn't seem to be the case. Microsoft appears to have a form that you fill out saying that you want to license something, and then they "get back to you" about the fees. That doesn't sound like the behavior of an entity that intends to use the same royalty schedule for IBM and SCO. In fact, it sounds suspiciously like an entity that's trying to avoid licensing its technology at all, except to carefully-chosen partners. (As "proof" that its complying)

Also convenient that you have to sign an NDA to look at the protocol list. This prevents you from telling the public, for example, that there are no protocols on the list. Or that Microsoft wanted to know what you'd use it for before giving you pricing information. Or any one of a dozen other violations.

Face it. Microsoft's violating the spirit and intent of the agreement while they try to look like they're adhering to its text. The wrist-slap just made their violations of the antitrust laws even bolder and more blatant, as they know the Cheney/Ashcroft/Rove administration won't touch them.

Remember this next time it comes time to vote or purchase software. Microsoft's a convicted felon. Yet they have more influence in your nation than you do, and recieved a smaller punishment than a 12-year-old girl who downloaded an MP3 off Kazaa.

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.

So what do we do about it?

[Brandybuck]

Did the DoJ "roll over"? Did Bush order a lenient judgement? Is Microsoft really government-proof? The truth is, the answers don't matter one whit. No amount of finger pointing is going to help anyone.

Let me repeat that. No amount of finger pointing is going to help anyone. Shocking but true. Bitching doesn't solve problems. So what do we do now that it's clear that the government isn't going to come to our "rescue" and slay the Evil Microsoft?

First, we need to throw away all our myths about being powerless. Microsoft is a natural market monopoly. They don't have any laws preventing competition with them (like the USPO does). Nor do they own the infrastructure (like the telco monopolies). As big as they are, they are still at the whim of the marketplace.

So use the market against them. Sell off any Microsoft stock you own. Don't buy any Microsoft products. Don't buy systems that have a Microsoft "tax". That's step one. It might not be easy, but it can be done. Stop buying your systems at BestBuy or CompUSA, and start buying them at the small mom-and-pop shops who will build you a custom system. Or build them yourself. Or buy a Mac. Then when you do, write to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., and tell them why you didn't choose them.

Next step is to support the non-Windows operating systems, even the proprietary ones. You don't have to run them all, but you can certainly stop denigrating them. Stop bitching at the price of Macs and Sparcs. Even if they're too expensive for you personally, you don't want to discourage the people for whom they aren't too expensive.

Funny thing is, despite the Microsoft monopoly, there are others out there. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, OSX, etc. Since this is Slashdot, odds are you probably use one of these already. Let your friends know you don't use Windows. Help your friends use another OS. Contribute to the Open Source project of your choice, even if it's writing docs or testing alpha and beta releases.

We gave Microsoft their monopoly. That's right, "we" did it. Despite their shady business tactics, it was ultimately we the consumer who chose to purchase Windows. Now it's time for us to take that monopoly away from them.

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:I think there is a huge misunderstanding...

[mabhatter654]

Judge Jackson's findings were never, ever thrown out. Only his take on what the solution should be. That's a big stick the courts have! The court is really trying to give MS a "chance" for some precieved indiscression by Judge Jackson. As MS repeats its show for the new judge!

Hopefully, She will keep brutally silent as MS plays its games with her. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly, and carry a big stick" if she maintains absolute silence now, her smack down will be un-appealable! The Appeals court thought Jackson was HARSH, not WRONG! Also remember that MS made a fool of a Federal Judge...when they attempt to do it again, the Appeals court will be watching...and won't like what they see from MS at all! The appeals court didn't seem inclined to deal with any of the facts of the case, only the judge's behavior. Unlike poor judge Jackson, they don't have to discuss publicly their choices...only the final rulings. Stunts like MS's make for very bitter judges, but they only have to produce a neat ruling draft, and not the very sarcastic comments they are known to make while debating it! [read Supreme Court docs sometime to see that the higher courts don't take bull...or play "pretty" about it! They can be vicious even by /. standards.]

MS is too big and stuck on itself to learn to play nice at this stage of the game. They will screw even this joke of a settlemen up. Not IF, but WHEN!

MS BulletProof 2000 (w/ SP4)

[mm0mm]

Maybe redundant, but some may find this background interesting.

From the page:
" ....Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company's marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country."

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.

Genetic pressures for morality

[Antaeus Feldspar]

You mention that there are genetic pressures towards pro-social behavior (or, to satisfy the purists, genetic pressures towards biological features that in turn encourage pro-social behavior).

However, you neglect the other side of that coin: a society (or genetic population) where pro-social behavior is the norm is itself an environment with genetic pressures towards anti-social behavior. A big network of bonds of trust is a network of opportunity for one willing to abuse those bonds.

It's just as inevitable as evolution itself, I'm afraid: if genetic pressures can and do push for cooperation, they can push back for defection. As Jack Handey said: "I can imagine a world without war, a world without fighting, a world without weapons. Then I can imagine us attacking that world, cause they'd never see it coming."