Appeals Court OKs Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Court OKs Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 1, 2004 @04:36AM from the sure-fellas-that-looks-fine dept.

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."

16 of 227 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Of course Ashcroft went soft by nate1138 · 2004-07-01 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
1. Re:Of course Ashcroft went soft by danheskett · 2004-07-01 04:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Of course, nobody should be surprised by this anymore.
  FYI.
  
  Bush openely promised as a campaign pledge (I know, I was at a debate and asked the question to which he responded) to instruct the DOJ to seek a settlement as soon as possible.
  
  In light of that, your suggestion that this wasn't on the up and up doesn't really fly.
2. Re:Of course Ashcroft went soft by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 04:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  funniest thing about ashcroft: in late october 2000, right before the election that ultimately put bush in charge, the democratic challenger to ashcroft's congressional seat died unexpectedly (iirc - a car accident). it was too late to nominate a new challenger as it was right before the vote, and the ballots had already been printed and were being distributed.
  
  guess who won that vote? the dead guy. the people of missouri chose a dead guy over ashcroft as their rep in washington.
3. Re:Of course Ashcroft went soft by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  and how much did MS give to teh democrats?
  
  "While Microsoft donations favored Republicans (who got 72 percent of the money from 1995 to 1998), its employees were more inclined to support the Democrats. Democratic PACs received $222,100 from the company's employees, compared to the $42,875 for Republican PACs."
  
  you forgot to mention that. nice slant.
4. Re:Of course Ashcroft went soft by danheskett · 2004-07-01 06:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ahh, actually.. you are looking at wrong..
  
  If I want to accomplish task A which requires a political change, what is my best goal?
  
  Find a candidate who supports my policy, fund him to win, and reap the benefits of victory - aka my agenda is met.
  
  That's exactly what Microsoft did. Before the DOJ case, they had NEVER donated $1 to a national campaign, never been politically active in ANY way. Not a single race. Not a single dollar. Nothing.
  
  Then they get drawn into politics. A high level DOJ case is, btw, extremely political. Clinton and Gore both personally soliticted donations from Microsoft before the case was filed. Ohh, btw, Sun, IBM, Netscape, and Novell are all big donors to the DNC and all funded the Clinton/Gore re-election ticket.
  
  So, imagine yourself as Microsoft. What is your goal? Avoid DOJ break-up.
  
  Okay, so, let's see. It's the primaries, and you've got 8 candidates. Forbes, Bush, and Keyes all argued against breakup during the early pre-primary season. McCain and the other candidates either said they were happy with case or that they would let it proceed without interruption.
  
  Guess who Microsoft donated too before Super Tuesday? Guess who they donated too in the general election season? Forbes, Keyes, and then ulitimately Bush.
  
  You are suggesting that it's:
  
  1. Microsoft shops for a candidate, gives money to Bush.
  2. Bush changes policy position.
  3. Bush is "elected".
  4. Bush follows through on policy change.
  
  When what happenned actually was:
  
  1. Bush campaigns on policy.
  2. Microsoft seeks candidate to change policy.
  3. Microsoft gives money to get its candidate elected.
  4. Bush is "elected".
  5. Bush follows through on campaign promise.
  
  I think it's time for you to get a clue about politics. Companies seek candidates who share their agenda and then fund them. And yes, many times, companies seeks politicans with no firm agenda on an issue and persuade via cash them to have a firm position.
  
  But don't mistake that for quid pro quo.
Wrong by truthsearch · 2004-07-01 04:50 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Didn't this happen yesterday? by underpar · 2004-07-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Wow.. bad spelling in one article and a bad catagory in another. What is slashdot coming to?
$996,000 to Democrats during 2000 election cycle by Chibi+Merrow · 2004-07-01 05:08 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Re:I wonder what'll happen in the EU by Graf+Typo · 2004-07-01 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

I wonder what'll happen in the EU anti-trust sanctions.

This just in: Microsoft already paid the fine of 497.2 million Euro. Details at Heise (in german, but you can always use babelfish).
Greetings, Graf Typo

--
How to become immortal: Read this signature tomorrow and follow its advice.
Please!! by tabdelgawad · 2004-07-01 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
YOU WANT CHEAP? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 05:21 · Score: 1, Informative

Steve Jobs on the Microsoft Monopoly
Re:My question is... by Kenja · 2004-07-01 05:25 · Score: 2, Informative

"how is this a victory for consumers"
Its not. In fact the prosecution failed to demonstrate that consumers where hurt by Microsofts actions. Something that is required in many such anti trust cases.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Local politician? by arfuni · 2004-07-01 05:27 · Score: 2, Informative

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."
Anyone check the lawyers' names? by Goobermunch · 2004-07-01 05:30 · Score: 2, Informative

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
Re:Blaming Ashcroft is just ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 07:54 · Score: 1, Informative

The Appeals Court knocked out most of the key rulings...

No, they knocked out 1 of the 7.

... -- specifically the "tying" charges related to putting IE and WMP into Windows.

And the justification they gave for overturning that 1 was based on the writings of an antitrust expert. Only problem was that according to the expert himself, they misinterpreted his writings. He said they actually supported finding Microsoft guilty of tying.
Re:"Took a dive on the case"??? by mbstone · 2004-07-01 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Perhaps the best example of "taking a dive" was the June 28, 1997 fight between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, in which Tyson bit off a piece of Holyfield's ear in the third round and was disqualified by referee Mills Lane. The Vegas sportsbooks offered 20-1 odds against Tyson losing in the third round, which of course was advantageous for anyone who knew the outcome in advance.

This may be why Tyson has not as yet been successful in regaining a license to fight in Nevada.