Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court OKs Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
mbstone writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld [pdf] the settlement reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department in the antitrust case filed in 1998, beating back a challenge by Massachusetts, the only state that didn't settle. Many critics, of course, believe that Attorney General John Ashcroft took a dive on the case which was originally filed by former Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno."
From the articles:
Court:This is a resounding victory for the Justice Department and American consumers. The Court addressed the merits of every argument raised against the Department's remedy by two industry groups and the sole remaining state plaintiff (Massachusetts), and it clearly and thoroughly rejected all of them. The Court's forceful decision confirms what the Department has been saying all along - our settlement protects the public by providing a full and effective remedy for Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct.
MS: "We remain 100 percent committed to fulfilling our obligations under the settlement and earning the trust of our customers and the industry," Smith said. "We are excited about the potential our industry has to bring new innovation into people's lives and help them realize their full potential."
My comments: In order to see what a real inovation is, one has to compare firefox's mouse gestures to Ie's SP2. I mean, who gives a damn about mouse whatnot, we don't want viruses, right?
But I actually don't care since I switched to Gentoo..
Now we can concentrate on SCO losing in court and Linux winning in the hearts and minds of the consumers.
I wonder what'll happen in the EU anti-trust sanctions. If they manage to get off the hook there, it'll be hard to convinve me that they didn't buy the European politicians.
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
A drop in the bucket here. Overseas sales, sales here, and a lack of change in their business structure means that this settlement accomplished nothing.
The only hope now is that the negative publicity will affect sales somehow. Stupid Ashcroft.
The blame starts with Reno and the people that were assigned to the case. A big dose of blame then belongs with the idiot Judges involved.
Blaming Ashcroft if demonstration of ignorance caused by political based hatred.
The anti-trust case seemed to disappear from the media very quickly once the Bush administration came in. I think Microsoft is going to get less support now because of the EU anti-trust lawsuits as well. It will be interesting to see if there is a different decision reached between the states and the EU.
GroupShares Inc. - A Free and Interactive Investment Community
-------
artlu.net
I suppose after 6 years the state decided it had sunk enough money into this morass and tried to cut its losses.
"Piter, too, is dead."
because it's our right, as Americans, to get another coupon for $10 off the latest version of Windows XP2003MEServer 64-128bit edition
Casual Games/Downloads
My uncle. A local politician is fond of the saying. "Law is like sausage, anyone who likes either should never watch them being made". Whoever says justice has nothing to do with politics, or claims law and its use is not always someone enforcing their morality on someone else, needs to take a look at this case.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
It's not really news anymore. It's not much of a surprise, anyway. I'm nore interested in the EU case. Oh.. this isn't anti-microsoft enough..
Microsoft is like.. the man.. and I am like.. the person being oppressed by said man. Yo.
Of course Ashcroft went limp on Microsoft. After all the money that they funneled to the republican party, how could he do anything other than bend over and grab his ankles for his new corporate masters?
From here:
During the last election campaign, Microsoft employees gave more than $50, 000 to the Bush campaign, while the company and its workers gave $500,000 in unlimited, soft money donations to the Republican National Committee for use in Bush's battle against Democrat Al Gore. Gore did not receive any money from Microsoft, according to election commission records.
According to data supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees also donated $22,500 to Bush's recount effort, and a Microsoft executive gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inauguration Committee.
Of course, nobody should be surprised by this anymore.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
The settlement for what I read is nothing but as you Americans put "Slap On Wrist" and what damage does do? The Massachusetss Supreme Court has just had make decison for them. I don't understand issue of how power removed can be, but United States Lawsystem is psychotisch.
Read journal when you are not understand
The truth of the matter is, even a couple hundred million dollars of fines is not that much of a hit to Microsoft, and it isnt exactly a secret that Microsoft holds a near monopoly, so, the whole lawsuit is a nonissue in the end
Nice try, but true.
From a news article: "Massachusetts was the only state to hold out against the DoJ settlement. And it is still talking a good fight. According to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, the judgment shows that antitrust laws are not working. 'Our high-tech economy will not reach its full potential unless regulators and the courts are willing to deal with Microsoft and its predatory practices,' he said, Reuters reports."
Developers: We can use your help.
If you're not much into lawyer speak, try this link n' shit.
Now I don't know where the San Francisco Chronicle gets their data, but opensecrets.org (the defacto source for Slashbots) paints a very different picture of contributions... They still gave more to Republicans, but not significantly more... Heck, excluding the whole anti-trust thing, tax cuts are business friendly. That's enough to earn Bush support, really.
Besides, the person who really lost the antitrust case was Judge Jackson. If he hadn't gone on about Microsoft being a bunch of evil bullies his breakup order would've stood. However, when an appeals court sees a lower Judge out spouting off belligerence in public interviews while a case HE is working on is winding through the legal system, they tend to act in favor of the person being punished.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
The government is notorious for being both sloppy with its networks and being computer illiterate. The prosecutor in the anti-trust case didn't even have an email address as of late 2000.
There was an article by Scott Hacker called He who controls the boot loader. It mentions how the DOJ missed the real issue entirely.
It wasn't web integration that did the damage. It was Microsoft classifying its boot loader as a trade secret that toppled competition.
When I searchedd for "linux", I got no results found for "linux", then a couple minutes later, it returned some results, then when I clicked to goto the next page, it crapped out with this cryptic error message:
Search Error
MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.
Please try again in a few minutes.
EID: f:2114719238 - 1041:1041:10004:1059
HC: 71d61b16
Maybe we can concentrate on developing and using better alternative operating systems instead of having the courts make all our decisions for us.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I'd love to see a nice documentary on the Microsoft case and how the Bush administration rolled over and let Bill have his way.
Maybe he could call it "Justice 1.0," or something.
There are "many critics" both of MS and of the Bush Administration. My personal opinion is that MS is no longer a monopoly and now has lots of competition. However, they continue to be a big, fat, complacent company that won't innovate IE or Windows or improve their reliability. Ashcroft is still an ass.
Declining returns means more effort put in for less yield, like a mine what was initially opened because rich deposites of ore were found on the surface, now poorer ore is deeper down and requires more expense to extract. Windows, in case you haven't noticed, and to which I alluded, isn't about the operating system, but all the junk that comes bundled with it. To maintain the same profit margin and growth Microsoft has enjoyed for years they need to find some way for you the NEED the n, n+1, n+2...nth version but making it do all sorts of things a computer operating system isn't at all about.
On an unrelated topic, something like the RIAA example of not knowing how to deal with all the innovation comming in.
The RIAA simply wasn't forward looking, they were content to sit on their fat asses and collect on old works, invent new manufactured acts of shite music and screw to death anyone who tried to cut their own slice of the pie. Simply put, it was all about fear of losing control and not wanting to actually work out where music needed to go for the future, like MP3's and such. They've got a buddy in Microsoft though, who will work with them to ensure they both get rich and keep consumers under their thumb with DMCA an DRM.
On the other hand, Linux may commercialize, gain momentum and start having all the risks the windows market have. But, by the way how things are set up right now. At least I can control what goes into my source/applicaiton tree.
The beauty of Linux is the many distros and different packaging available. You can build your own OS with no more or no less than you need. It's far harder for some scumbags to put in a half-assed effort and distribute bug-riddled code, since it's checked by many eyes. It's also very hard for a special interest to force upon Linux things like DRM, since the code is open and a reasonably bright programmer could work around it. Which probably has something to do with more crap winding up in firmware for devices, like DVD drives, which are outside a programmers control.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...how is this a victory for consumers when most of them complain that they buy Windows and then need seperate antivirus software, seperate firewall, and seperate software to do everything? Making MS not bundle WMP or IE with their software is just going to make it more difficult for Joe Public consumer and they'll probably just go to Microsoft.com and download all the MS software anyway.
So does this mean that PC companies like Dell will be able to bundle RealPlayer with their PCs instead of WMP? How does this benefit the consumer? It's just going to lead to more people clogging up support sites with basic queries as they try to use the WMP and find out that it's called RealPlayer, is shit, and has a different interface.
From the same article in the parent post:
"Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money."
and
'"Companies that are really toeing the 50-50 party split on donations are basically pragmatic," said Sheila Krumholz, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors political contributions. "They court all sides."'
No large corporation is stupid enough *not* to hedge its bets.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Steve Jobs on the Microsoft Monopoly
*No, I don't equate anti-Bush to equal anti-US... just ol' Timmy happens to do it a lot.
Judge Jackson literally GAVE the life preserver to Microsoft, when he opened his mouth and opined his feelings about the case while he was still sitting on the bench in the case.
This gave Microsoft ample ammunition during the appeals phase to soften the penalties and recommended 'fixes' to resolve the issues about the monopolistic practices.
The only thing that held throughout everything was the 'finding of facts' that showed Microsoft guilty of abusing their power.
See subject
Your local politician must be a fan of Otto von Bismarck, who coined that phrase when he said "people who enjoy eating sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made."
What does that mean? Why should I have to ask? Why don't people just speak plain English instead of trying to spice things up with obscure idioms? Sometimes it's fun, other times it's just annoying. Come on.
Many critics, of course, believe that Attorney General John Ashcroft took a dive on the case which was originally filed by former Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno."
Well OBVIOUSLY he was busy fighting one of the greatest scourges of society for all the people's benefit - The exposed female breast.
Anyone else here think he's still a virgin?
-R
The Computer and Communications Industry of America had Robert H. Bork and Kenneth W. Starr. Not a bad couple of lawyers . . . well, at least they've got name recognition.
."
The CCIA represents a group of non-Microsoft software companies who were trying to intervene and argue that the settlement was not in the public interest. The Court let them in as a way of wrapping their arguments into its opinion.
CCIA wanted the court to order MS to incorporate a Java platform into Windows. They also object to the part of the consent decree that let MS reveal only those APIs that MS's middleware uses.
This last one is kind of a funny argument. CCIA says, if they won't give us all the APIs, we'll only be able to make software that's as good as MicroSoft's, not better. The court basically says--"Hey, at least you're not being disadvantaged now . . .
There's also an argument by the CCIA that the District Court didn't do enough because it didn't require MS to sever its OS from its other products (IE, for example).
There's a whole bunch of stuff in this opinion. If I get time to look at the guts of it, I may come back and post a more thorough analysis. Still, it's interesting to see what the CCIA was asking for, and why the court felt they didn't deserve it.
--AC
I heard a great bit on NPR last week about campaign contributions that really got me thinking. The gist of it was that ALL contributions should be anonymous. That way, companies can still contribute to the candidate that they think would do the best job, but they don't have the ability to hold it over the head of the candidate/party that they contributed to. It may not be a silver bullet, but I think it would go a long way towards fixing the current "pay for influence" scenario. Of course, my preferred solution is an amendment to the constitution that enforces separation of industry and state, much like the separation of church and state. Either way, something has to be done.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Appalling. Simply appalling. Janet Reno may have attempted to grapple with Microsoft for anti-trust at the behest of her master, but all I have to say is Janet Reno should be in prison for treason against the constitution. Under her direction, the DOJ was responsible for the executions for many innocent Americans. The executions at Waco. The executions at Ruby Ridge. The kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez for export to Communist Cuba and a life of slavery to Fidel Castro. The Oklahoma City bombing, which was a total "black helicopter" mess - a congressman from that district wants more investigations as many explosions were heard, McVeigh was in federal custody mysteriously before he was finally charged, and before the entire situation as characterized Tim was on death row. Now the truth lies with him. Also, Ted Kaczynski's investigation and prosecution were most likely rigged as several facts in the case prove he could not have acted alone. She allowed illegal laws to be enforced, many of the laws she enforced are in direct contention with the Bill of Rights. As most Attorney Generals are treasonous law breaking scum, this is partially expected, but Janet set a new bar on how evil an Attorney General can get. While I am not pleased with Ashcroft, Janet used the DOJ to destroy and erode our constitutional rights I cannot even begin to describe my hatred for her.
Janet murdered the constitution, murdered civilians and rapidly prosecuted and investigated cases for outcomes that she wanted with no regard to the whole truth.
She should be in Leavenworth in solitary.
Yet another insane BushCo attack/apology, from an Anonymous inverted Coward. Reno won her antitrust case against M$. Ashcroft ignored the monopoly, cutting a cheap deal that keeps M$ in control of the sick state of disrepair from which we all suffer. The fact that Ashcroft is required to protect us from cyberterror is yet another reason the guy should be fired and prosecuted for malfeasance, and even treason. But of course, ACs like the parent poster will instead call for his elevation to the Supreme Court for his crimes. Why do they hate America?
--
make install -not war
I suppose Janet didn't follow the constitution; but then again, Ashcroft makes Janet Reno look like a huge defender of the constitution.
Ashcroft: "you don't need a trial; use duct-tape to keep yourself safe from those evil terrorists"
Maybe another reason the DOJ "rolled over" was because Microsoft had already been defanged.
At the start of the trial the common wisdom was that the Microsoft monopoly prevented competition. It was generally believed that Microsoft would simply purchase, aquire or destroy any who stood in their way, and that they would use every illegal means to do it.
But the impossible happened. Along came Linux. From some perspectives this was inevitable. Despite Slashdot myths to the contrary, Linux was not written to be a Windows competitor. It didn't have to be Linux, it didn't even have to be Open Source. The evolution of the personal computer created a vacumn for a cheap powerful and customizable operating system, and Linux managed to be there at the right time and place.
Now come to the end of the trial. Linux had become a household word. It had sucessfully prevented Microsoft's domination of the server market, and even managed to score higher market penetration in certain areas. Microsoft still retained its monopoly on the desktop, but it was slowly but surely being eroded. Beyond Linux, Apple was back from the dead in an time when people said no one could compete with Microsoft.
In short, the Microsoft threat had been dulled. The primary purpose of the trial was not to punish Microsoft, but to correct a problem in the market. The situation was being corrected by market forces.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
>>Many critics, of course, believe that Attorney General John Ashcroft took a dive on the case which was originally filed by former Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno."
Oh sure. Of course. This is a political site, not tech stuff.
Leave it to a bunch of computer geeks to exploit an overflow error in the legal system: when you've got nothing left to lose, you can try to piss off the judge with forged evidence, then use the judge's indignation as an excuse to throw out the verdict. It's as if once your guiltiness value exceeds 2^15, the courts wrap it around into the negative numbers again!
Despite losing the case in court, these two leaders (from different political parties) and their staffs deserve credit for fighting the good fight while others settled and cheered from the sidelines. As a state taxpayer I'm aware that Massachusetts has a post-boom budget problem at least on par with most other states, and obviously one state taking on Microsoft in the courts was going to be at a huge disadvantage. But this fight was highly worthwhile because of the detrimental effects of Microsoft's monopoly and dirty tricks on the software industry and consumers. I'm proud that my state didn't roll over and play dead.
You win the prize for being the first person to do so in this thread. Congratulations. You have also won the SUPER BONUS PRIZE as this is now the ONE BILLIONTH TIME someone has blamed the Clinton administration for something the Bush administration dropped the ball on.
Congrats!
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Would never work. It would still be too easy for people to provide evidence to politicians of their financial support.
More and more people have replaced the word 'lose' with 'loose'.
Ex. did the government loose intrest in pursuing the case
I'm not picking on the Kid, but it's a growing trend that I find worriesome.
This Just In: Virtually none of the YRO stories actually have anything to do with rights. This is just another example of the Slashdolts' bizarrely misplaced sense of entitlement.
YES, because everything was absolutely perfect until bush came into office, then that very day the entire country fell apart. (i know people that actually beleive it)
theres a concept, being setup for failure. (incompetance, intentionally or otherwise)
either way, 8 years of presidency means the future is going to be setup a certain way. and its not always changelable. like 8 years of ignoring several terrorist attacjks. (oh but the clintons told bush about it on their way out, yeah right)
MS has more money than they have use for anyway. What matters is whether or not they're going to have to disist the forced exclusive bundling of Windows Media Player with Microsoft Windows.
Look up sometime how much money Microsoft is throwing away on the XBox with no apparent hope of recouping a cent of it anytime in the forseeable future. Next to that 500 million euros doesn't seem significant.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Mozilla/Firefox didn't innovate mouse gestures, or tabbed browsing.
If Bush would have taken less than 1/3 or his time
on vacation and had continue the war on terrorism
that Bill Clinton had started his screw up wouldn't
have been so severe.
Bush should be trown out of office for incompetence
and Cheney for war profitering.
We have criminals in the white house. Not only they
stole the election but have started an illegal war
in Iraq. Instead of fighting Bin Laden and his terrorists they chose to start and illegal war.
Micro$oft used to be one of those IT companies
that did not involve themselves in politics,
including especially massive "contributions".
This "error of judgement" became apparant when
the DoJ brought suit against M$. When Micro$oft
saw the light, and began making large donations
to both political parties, the monopoly issue
all but went away. The decision against M$ was
so insignificant as to be irrelevant. Ashcroft
has merely provided the "positive" feedback
required to assure that Micro$oft continues to
contribute a portion of their bankroll.
Is it extortion? In the narrow legal definition
of the term, it is not. In the broader moral
realm it could be so construed. It would be
quite interesting to know the full details on
how Judge Jackson reached the decision made, as
it would appear to have been written by M$.
I am not in any way defending Micro$oft with
these comments, but merely pointing out the
whoremongering that goes on in politics today.
He hasn't managed to prosecute anyone successfully yet! I wish he were a traffic cop instead so that I wouldn't have to pay all those speeding tickets.
What is the surprise here! The US government is easily bought anytime, everytime.
;)
Dude, Israel with all the spies they have sent over here that we know and those we don't, and we still we put up with all their shit as if they are first class citizens. Again, money from their local cousins.
Money opens door in Washington! Period! And if you mix that with the folks that control the media, how we know who they are, and what you got:
Full Control!
Again, what's new about this?! Lets see, 9 Justices in the Suprime Court and three (or 1/3 are Jewish). Oh, yeee! That just simply happened, I suppose.
Sure!
If you believe that just simply happened, I have a bridge to sell you someplace in New FoundLand at a great price!
as if millions of Linux zealots all screamed at once, and then died out.