Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Not Out Of Anti-Trust Hot Water
tickticker writes "EWeek is reporting on the Anti-Trust follow up, and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice: 'The judges 'were encouraging in the sense that they went to the heart of the case,' Robert Bork, who represented the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association, said following the court arguments. Bork formerly was a judge on the appeals court.' Microsoft comments included the 'abundance of choice' defence. Which to me means that Microsoft wants the last of the hold-outs to choose Microsoft."
lets just hope that the attorneys pushing for stiffer guidelines dont Bork the process ;-)
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
What will happen?
Wrist slap, a million in free software to schools, lawyers get money, MS expends monopoly even further, profit.
--
Talk to me. 1-888-633-3446
After sifting and sorting through the myriad of posts pointing out that this site is running IIS 5 and how the govt. is so hypocritical for doing so, I've come to the conclusion that some if not most slashdotter's are too riled by minor details. It conveys a serious lack of intelligence on our part. But I digress...
While going through some of the PDF docs on the site, mostly pertaining to court judgements, I noticed that many of these documents reference the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court
For those that don't know, this is Section 2 of the Sherman act, which Microsoft was found in violation of. I see the fine of $10,000,000 as a maximum to be completely impotent against a company with a financial foundation such as microsoft's. There should be some sort of percentage of profits reaped from the anti-competitive behavior that should be taken away. $10,000,000 is a drop in the bucket for microsoft. The penalty should be stiffer.
I'd be interested in filing a complaint regarding their procedures regarding the computer sales market, how pretty much all PCs come with their product and their "tax" regardless of whether or not you want it. THAT is a complaint worth filing. I am being FORCED to pay for a PRODUCT that I NEVER asked for nor implied that I wanted.
One can only hope that they get two black eyes, and a broken arm, instead of a tap on the hand with a ruler(it might sting for awhile but you'll recover). It's about time someone of high authority how Microsoft kills the economy with their illegal tactics. People always argue that a complete break-up would hurt the enconomy, well I have a question for people, why did you integrate Microsoft so much into the economy, and why did you invest all your money in Microsoft.
and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice
Justice for whom?
Microsoft's competitors, who were the people who lobbied the government with huge donations to bring the case in the first place?
Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?
Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?
So I ask again... Justice for whom? Anti-microsoft zealots?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Is that the article goes on to explain that "[...] there is no evidence indicating that the settlement will have a meaningful impact.", and that "To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS.".
On the subject of API Disclosure, Michael Lacovara (who represents Microsoft), said that "the challengers' request for greater API disclosure is not based in fact.", and further went on to state that "The theory of the states is that more is better.".
It's really no wonder they don't like Linux, when not even their own API's are open. For crying out loud!
With great numbers come great responsibility!
I think "mildly warm water" would be more appropriate here. I don't recall this Anti-Trust thing being anything more then laughable and a symbolic victory, at best, anyways.
Hate me!
Kuney said that Internet Explorer is a fruit, but Microsoft's Lacovar said that there is no evidence to show that.
I admit that I hate microsoft just as much as the next guy but reverting to this kind of name calling is just plain wrong.
Internet Explorer's preferences are its own buisness and nobody elses!
We should all acknowledge Internet Explorer's decision to operate in whatever way it sees fit and allow it to use whatever plugins it enjoys. I know it acts a little differently than the other browsers but that's their choice to make and for what it's worth I support its decision and hope that despite all the Microsoft bashing the slashdot community chooses to show Internet Explorer no predjudice.
I stole this Sig
That's all well and good, but recall that the case is not about Microsoft being a monopoly, but abusing its monopolistic position.
When Microsoft abuses their dominant position (for instance, to prevent hardware vendors from preloading Linux on their machines), there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
"As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?
Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there."
This is astoundingly missing the point. In economic terms, the issue is whether a company has "monopoly power" which means that it controls so much of the market that they can artificially control the market (i.e. inflate prices, suppress competition, etc.). This does not mean that it has 100% market share -- in many other markets, it's been sufficient that a single company controls more than 30% of a market to establish that it has "monopoly power". Given that Microsoft controls well over 90% of the desktop OS market, it's pretty clear that they have "monopoly power" in the desktop operating system market that gives them great leverage to suppress any competing operating system (witness the contracts that prohibited Windows OEM's from also shipping BeOS), and to leverage that monopoly in order to have an unfair advantage in other markets (witness the contracts with Windows OEM's that inhibited them from shipping Netscape).
The fact that there are some alternatives such as Linux that allow some users to avoid running Windows doesn't change the fact that MS could shut down any PC company at a whim by withdrawing its Windows license. If Microsoft had even 1/2 the desktop OS market, they'd still have "monopoly power" that would trigger limits on their behavior.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
lets just hope that the attorneys pushing for stiffer guidelines dont Bork the process ;-)
.. dont fork( ) the process"
For a second there, I thought you had made a typo in saying "lets just hope that the attorneys..
*Sigh*. You know you are a geek when..
Yeah, he's a real free market advocate. Despite his conservative views, he probably hates microsoft, or any monopoly for that matter, more than you do. He's also a very effective attorney and considered extremely intelligent by other attorneys that don't share his political philosophy. These guys choose well; it never hurts to have a former federal appellate court judge argue your case before a federal court of appeals. Judges give former judges a lot of deference when they argue a case before them. Also, he's now a lawyer. Lawyers argue all kinds of cases that they personally don't believe in; it's there job. In fact it's your sworn obligation to zealously represent and argue your client's interests even if you personally don't agree with him.
If you read the complete Title 15 Section 2 (15USC2) and look at the amendments log at the end you'll see that the fee was updated to $10m in 1990 as part of Public Law 101-588, and a few times prior to that as well. In fact the original law in 1955 was only a $5,000 fine and only a misdemeanor. Note that those fees/punlishments are for the felony act. That doesn't necessarily limit what the government can do to end the monopoly or act in the public's interest.
However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2. See the 15USC Chapter 1. In particular you may want to read section 21, 24, 37 among others.
when the schools get the "free software" they'll be required to pay license fees on it later on.
with microsoft, there's no such thing as "free"