Slashdot Mirror
Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft
Chin is currently an associate professor teaching antitrust and intellectual property law at the University of North Carolina. According to his faculty biography, Chin also earned a doctorate in computer science in 1991 as a Rhodes scholar at the University of Oxford. After a few years of teaching math and CS, he picked up a J.D. at Yale Law School, and eventually ended up working behind the scenes on the Microsoft case.
Chin's article raises some new points about the Microsoft case that don't seem to have been considered by any of the parties, courts or commentators during the trial, such as the fact that the Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code. A longer piece by Chin is being published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology."
I didn't finsih reading the article but since Bush dropping the "tie-in" charges, MS must have made large donations that year.
Quick, find a spelling error to make fun of!
The government wasted its best opportunity to avoid this result three years ago, when the incoming Bush Justice Department, in a stunning reversal, decided to drop its "tying" claim. Still, the road not taken -- pressing Microsoft to offer a neutral choice of Web browsers for use with Windows -- started to look a lot more appealing this summer, when Internet Explorer's security flaws made national headlines.
Well at least now the DOJ has a lot more pressing matters at hand... Like getting the recent ruling against the Patriot Act overturned so those evil fucking terrorists can't get away and those sneaky American citizens can't hide their financial records from them.
I always felt that if the government continued to pursue their case against MSFT they would only pay for it in higher licensing fees later. Choose your battles... Money from the terrorists and the citizens or money from MSFT?
For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized: http://www.newsobserver.com.nyud.net:8090/opinion/ story/1686331p-7930186c.html.
I think they can smell burning in the server room at the Observer...
A case of insecure browsing
Exploring missed opportunities in the Microsoft antitrust suit
By ANDREW CHIN
CHAPEL HILL -- United States v. Microsoft, the most celebrated antitrust case in a generation, quietly ended its six-year run Wednesday, as the Supreme Court's deadline to file a final appeal passed without a whimper from any of the parties. Little comfort can be taken from the legal system's silence.
Now, there will be no final ruling on whether Microsoft illegally tied Internet Explorer to Windows. Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web. Even worse, the law of competition in the software industry will remain unclear and unstable.
The government wasted its best opportunity to avoid this result three years ago, when the incoming Bush Justice Department, in a stunning reversal, decided to drop its "tying" claim. Still, the road not taken -- pressing Microsoft to offer a neutral choice of Web browsers for use with Windows -- started to look a lot more appealing this summer, when Internet Explorer's security flaws made national headlines.
Many commentators, including the Department of Homeland Security's computer emergency readiness team and even Microsoft's own online magazine, Slate, recommended that Windows users switch to a more secure Web browser.
But switching can be difficult. Windows users who want to access a document on the Web are sometimes required to use Internet Explorer, flaws and all, even if they have chosen a different product for that purpose. Given the inconvenience of using two different products for the same purpose, many Windows users do not bother to try other browsers. By tilting Windows users toward Internet Explorer in this and other ways over the past nine years, Microsoft has ensured that many consumers are using a less secure browser than they would if offered a neutral choice, and prevented other software companies from competing for these customers on the merits.
The Clinton Justice Department proved all of these facts at trial. Yet the lower courts did not move to restore freedom of competition in the market for Web browsers, because they found Microsoft's appeal for freedom more compelling.
According to Microsoft, antitrust law should never require changes to the design of software products, because this will chill the freedom of programmers to innovate. One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Microsoft's argument might make sense if its freedom to design software products ended when the last line of code was written. But a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
Actually, what you own is a license consisting of certain legal rights derived from Microsoft's copyright in the Windows code, together with the technological ability to use the code with your computer in the exercise of those rights. (Similarly, when you buy a movie on a Region 1 DVD, you acquire a license to view it at your home in the United States or Canada, and the technological ability to play the DVD in those countries but not others.)
As the sole author of the license contract, Microsoft enjoys considerable freedom in defining the extent to which consumers are able to use the Windows code.
But freedom of contract is expressly limited by the antitrust laws. The courts therefore had authority to order Microsoft to license and distribute its software so as to offer a neutral choice of Web browser. Microsoft could easily have done so without undoing its programming innovations.
Instead, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals created a special antitrust immunit
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Sure a secure Microsoft product is what the consumer wants but so is profit margin and familiarity. Sometimes inferior products dominate the market for no good reason whatsoever, remember the Chrysler K car?
...another reason to remove the Bush administration from office: it's inability to push for open markets when it would hurt existing market stranglers like Microsoft. Republicans like to talk about free markets, but as soon as it takes away their power, they cringe in fear.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
"Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web. " Only if a better alternative is not adopted as the 'browser of choice' by the WWW community. Go FireFox!
From TFA:
If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
Yeah, but who would want to buy it?......
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Since when is telling the truth Flamebait? Are all the moderators Bush Cabinet/Ashcroft fanboys now?
I'm not about to contest the verdict - that a monopoly existed and so on. That's done. But I think the whole thing smacked of a hurried witch hunt decided from the beginning. Back then Microsoft was pretty much apolitical and their legal team was about a fifth of what it is today. Since that case they've wised up to lobbying and campaign contributions as a way to "play" the system, just like any other big corporation in this country.
Ah well.
It slowed down Microsoft's monopoly engine long enough for Linux to rise, Apple to recover and release a very successful new OS and for groups like Mozilla to start fighting against Microsoft. Does anyone really want the court to hand a "victory" to those of us not fond of Microsoft? Does anyone think that Netscape or Sun or any of the other plaintiffs were really good, noble, altruistic companies that didn't salivate at the thought of filling in the vacuum left by a devastated Microsoft?
The way I see it, the case was good for another reason as well. It forced debate on both sides of the political spectrum, especially the right. Many conservatives were floored when Robert Bork, a well-respected conservative legal authority, agreed with Ralph Nader on Microsoft's trial. It helped bring new ideas and attitudes into respectability on the right, and it allowed left-leaning libertarians to point to a good example of how unfettered corporate power is still a real danger.
I would go so far as to say that the case did its job just fine, and coupled with Microsoft's recent security problems, a door is opening for free market enterprise once more. I will go so far as to say that there are a lot more Firefox users out there than we'd have previously guessed. I read comments all the time on sites like FreeRepublic which aren't known for their technical insight saying how Firefox kicks ass. In fact, of the dozens or so on threads about Firefox, most are overwhelmingly "I can't believe I ever used IE now that I have Firefox."
Microsoft, like Rome, didn't build their Empire in a day, and thus we won't dismantle it in a day. It'll take several more years of whittling away at them on multiple fronts. We just have to learn from history and be more civilized and cooperative if we win, than the barbarians were when they took down the Roman Empire.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Apparently no other browser ever has had a security flaw. Ever. Mozilla and Opera bugtraqs are empty files.
Either Mr. Chin is living in a cave, or he wrote this piece some time ago. With Firefox numbers skyrocketing and even CERT suggesting that running IE is inviting virus infections, his statement, "Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web" seems quite out of touch with present reality.
About the word "if": If bullfrogs had wings, they wouldn't bounce around on their little green butts.
If Judge Jackson had kept his mouth shut just a little longer, we'd be living in a considerably different world today.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Any company that purposefully builds a Web browser (IE) into an OS (Windows) as deeply as possible and as quickly as possible in an attempt to win a court case is asking for trouble. Any software engineer with an IQ above 70 knows that this is a bad idea. The sad part about this is that people who use Windows/IE/Outlook pay the price. How many IE vulnerabilities are in the wild? Hundreds.
In short, MS tossed sound engineeing principles out the window and placed legal and marketing concerns ahead of everything else. They deserver the shitty security reputation they have. They built it themselves... purposefully to win a court case (period).
From the article:
Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web.
That's a joke. IE is losing marketshare at an amazing rate. Link. All kinds of technical and non-technical sources are recomending a shift-away from Internet Explorer.
But switching can be difficult. Windows users who want to access a document on the Web are sometimes required to use Internet Explorer, flaws and all, even if they have chosen a different product for that purpose.
That's right. A web-publisher can put any conditions he/she wants on viewing the content in the question. You can be asked to pay money, watch an advert, or use certain software.
By tilting Windows users toward Internet Explorer in this and other ways over the past nine years, Microsoft has ensured that many consumers are using a less secure browser than they would if offered a neutral choice, and prevented other software companies from competing for these customers on the merits.
That's untrue. MS pre-selecting IE does not preclude others from competing. That's a blatantly untrue statement. It makes it more difficult. That's a big difference.
The Clinton Justice Department proved all of these facts at trial. Yet the lower courts did not move to restore freedom of competition in the market for Web browsers, because they found Microsoft's appeal for freedom more compelling.
MS's argument all along was that it's market share was at risk, and that any moment, a competitor could grap the reigns and win back the web. They argued that the barriers to entry - regardless of what they did - were very low. Low and behold, the best browser on the market is free, open source, and multi-platform. On top of that, other browsers like Opera are low-cost and multi-platform (and also superior).
One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Microsoft was right. Using this method of integration is very common place now. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. What if MS loses market share and Konqueror becomes the dominant browser. Will makers of file-manager utilities sue the developers and because their product cannot compete with products that tie into the rendering engine?
By a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
You license the code, as you goes on to point out. But regardless of the license, the heart of software is code, not IP.
The courts have missed a golden opportunity to affirm the freedom to compete in the information age.
The courts did nothing to MS. So ask yourself. Is there more or less competition than there was in the 90's? How is that possible if MS was able to do what the government allege? If MS had an illegal monopoly on operating systems for x86 computers, how come there are more now than at anytime in history? How come users have dozens more choices than ever? And if MS leveraged the operating system lock up browsers, how come we have more choice now than ever for browsers? How come on x86 alone there are at least 4 major choices for quality web-browsing?
The government was wrong. MS had a large marketshare, but short of patenting everything in sight, it is impossible to have a monopoly on intellectual property like software.
You cannot corner the supply side of software!
This is not flamebait.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
According to Microsoft, antitrust law should never require changes to the design of software products, because this will chill the freedom of programmers to innovate. One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
I wondered throughout the original trial, and later, why there were no security experts called by the DoJ to testify to the security problems inherent in this integration?
The integration was clearly done at a very late stage in the design and in such a way that they had to use "guess and hope" to figure out whether a document was originally a local document called up by a component like Windows Explorer, or a remote document called up by Internet Explorer or Outlook. If they had left the web access as part of the web applications, and just used the HTML control to render HTML, then a huge percentage... probably a majority... of the worms and viruses and spyware spread by remote attacks on Windows via web or email would not have been possible.
But they already had IE, and they needed to come up with a reason to bundle IE with the desktop despite their agreement with the DoJ from the previous case, so they made pretty much the whole thing into an embedded component and set us up the bomb.
Ash nazg durbatulûk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
---
My sig was stolen - the insurance company replaced it with this one.
"Yet another reason for me to ignore people who start a sentence with 'yet another reason'."
Irony, meet NanoGator. NanoGator, meet irony. I'll leave you two alone to get acquainted now.
Just like the assault weapons ban and stem cell research funding. Soon you'll see things quietly expiring all over the place... the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and the political opponents of the 'quiet expiration' domestic policy.
The Bush Adm doesn't care about stopping terrorists in the United States, they only care about stoping them overseas. Proof of this is in our 'Open' Borders policy.
Neither party has any political will to shut down illegal immigration. For the conservatives, it puts downward pressure on the job market which helps business interests and keeps inflation and monetary changes under control. For the liberals, it is both an issue of policy and practicality. Immigrants vote democrat 90% of the time. Registering to vote even as a non-citizen requires virtually no proof - a drivers license (which does not require legal status) or a phone bill (which requires an address and cash) will usually do.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Just a side note: Safari is integrated into Mac OS X (share some GUI code with the rest of the OS and probably some HTMl rendering with Mail.app) and if a user decides that he doesn't want it installed all he has to do is delete it - why can't Microsoft make this work?
However the real question is not why can't one remove IE, but why can't there be a level playing field? Why does M$ get to use its OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from also installing Netscape, Mozilla, or any other browser? Anyway, is any of this a surprise? No; not at all.
-Scott
Now that the apeal time has passed... do we expect MS to start up new and improved underhanded dealings?
If they did, it would be a hard sell for the government to bring another case against the giant. "Yeah, we got crap last time and spent a bazillion dollars on the prosecution, but this time will be better!"
There are things they could have targeted for antitrust, but that they picked Netscape was completely stupid. Microsoft was completely in the right to bundle a browser.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yes. This is getting common. Offensive remarks aimed at non conservatives are left alone. Neocon unfriendly observations/facts/links get mod-abused out of existence. I don't know where it's coming from.
Oops, I spoke my mind. That's a thoughtcrime here these days.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Here's what I got out of the article:
The Clinton DOJ trailed to(rightfully) nail Microsoft in an antitrust case.
The Bush DOJ was not interested in nailing Mircrosoft in an antitrust case.
My opinionated speculative unfound but probably correct conclusion - Microsoft bought its way out through campaign donations supporting Bush.
those sneaky American citizens can't hide their financial records from them.
Seems this has been a part of the IRS for a long time... a lot longer than the Patriot Act...
I'm about sick and tired of the argument that Microsoft locks in customers by including IE with Windows installations. The fact is that there is choice in today's market. If you want to point the finger, point it at the end user who is to damn lazy to install a new browser. Also, point the finger at web developers who create web sites that will only work properly with IE. If Microsoft put code in their OS that prevented the user from installing or using a browser other than IE, I could see where that would cause concern. The fact is that they don't. I realize that many people on here will not like my views, and that's fine. I know there are plenty of things that Microsoft does/has done that aren't exactly ethical business practices. But the browser argument is old. In fact, just about every single extra application (notepad, media player, etc.) that Microsoft includes with their OS can be found from other software vendors or for free. The only people Microsoft is locking in are the computer manufacturers and other hardware companies. John Doe has more choice these days then ever before.
So thats what we look like after we accept MS license.
I can't even point out that his post isn't flamebait? Abusing the moderation system makes this forum less enjoyable for everyone.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
I hate MS as much at the next guy, excluding work where I have no choice I've moved to solely Apple and Linux, and even gotten all my friends/family to get Firefox. Implying that web pages not working in any browser but IE, however, is not entirely true. The fault lies in the hands of web developers who were too lazy/short sighted to see beyond IE compatibilities. While MS did only enflame this problem by making pages that shouldn't work actually work in IE, if these sites had been properly coded to begin with, they would have still worked in IE and also in every other browser.
in bed.
Duh. Would you rather fight them in Iraq and Afganistan or in Iowa and New York?
Please tell us carnak, how many terrorist attacks have there been in the US since Bush took action against the terrorists after 9/11?
What about the secret OEM contracts/deals that MS has? You could say that companies are free to enter into those contracts with MS, but I would be skeptical.
This has to be false. How can you sue someone for switching OS's?
I did a quick search on google and turned up nothing...but you never know.
what?
OK. Give us some evidence like Web page or copy of letter. Not to duobt too much but I believe in evidence before jumping to conclusions.
Why do you think banks still use AS400's and code in FORTRAN?
FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. The language of choice for banking is COBOL.
LOL yeah right. If you were a big enough linux person for microsft to sue don't you think you would at least have a slashdot name?
what?
I wouldn't even mention this if Chin would have left the politics out of it...
I am disappointed by the Bush administration's handling of the case but the fact is that the case would have _never_ happened if the first Clinton DOJ investigation hadn't ended in the consent decree.
the nuclear secrets were found in a Republican fundraisers safe. (She's Chinese, btw).
Um.. I would prefer to fight them wherever they are. If they are in Iowa and New York, we need to fight them there also. What sense does it make to fight terrorism in Afganistan if you're going to let it fester elsewhere? Have we learned nothing from Vietnam? You don't give your enemy a place to hide and regroup. That's why we went into Afganistan.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
I mostly agree with you bug Bork was paid for his opinion. I doubt many other neanderthal conservatives were impressed.
What does having a Slashdot name have to do with anything? I've been coming here for 3 years and got one today. Elitist.
We now have unrefutable proof that Internet Explorer is NOT inexorably linked to the operating system: You can run multiple versions of IE on one machine. There is also work going on to provide complete replacement for MSHTML with a COM wrapper for Mozilla - these are the sort of things that Microsoft should have been forced into - releasing source code for interfaces to allow anyone to swap out what is now 100% confirmed as a component of the operating system that could be removed just as Media Player will be for the European Union....
More ways Bush has fucked up the world... why has Europe not re-examined the browser issue or will they get round to it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the main issue was about "tying", that is, having everything default to IE and making it really hard (next to impossible) to remove?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Is that why California had such a rue over not giving "illegals" a driver's license? I thought it was about people driving cars (regardless of their legal status) without any accident insurance, which is something you cannot get without a driver's license.
And it was a new thing here in California that a driver's license is now required to register to vote. Happened about the same time.
Go figure.
That's all it will take.
COBOL on mainframes, but it's generally RPG and RPGLE on the AS/400s in banking.
Chin's article raises some new points about the Microsoft case that don't seem to have been considered by any of the parties, courts or commentators during the trial, such as the fact that the Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code.
So you're saying, I'm running a computer on an operating system that is only legal ideas and technological capabilities, not actual code? Wow... Things sure have changed since last I checked!
regardless of his opinions, which don't appear to be fed by any insight from his role in the case, I say this is just a court monkey's excuse to say "look at me!"
he probably has the job requirement "publish an article based on job experience" in order to get a raise.
either that or he's writing a book.
It's only a model.
And running on IBM Z/OS, not AS400.
My Journal
Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code
Uh huh. And an RIAA product contains not waveform data, but rather the capability to produce pleasing auditory sensations in a subset of the population.
Ah, memories from a few years back. COBOL, DB2. Only it was S/390 then. I still shudder at the thought of JCL.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
All it takes is one script kiddie hell bent on destroying systems like the old days and windows could dissapear overnight. Just think if some of the latest worms or the new ones about to be released actually had a destructive payload. I don't know about your boss but when I get to work in the morning and 1000 plus windows clients won't boot cause a worm got them you can bet we will be migrating to linux just as fast as we can once we get things at least working again.
The new jpg exploit looks like a good mechanism, what do you think ?
Got Code?
Acceleration feels like speed to humans, and in this case it's just gravity.
That's right. HMO's and shoe store chains run iSeries. Financial guys with the bucks are hardcore zSeries men (though they may keep a couple of iSeries hanging about to talk with the ATMs).
That is all.
You forget about Microsoft pushing to produce applications for Mac OS X. Without this push for Office and IE, OS X would not be were it is today. The only reason for this push was to make sure that Microsoft had a competitor in the Eyes of the DOJ and the courts. (Don't ever think it was about a few percent points of Office, IE users.) As this is no longer an issue, support for OS X is faltering. Expect Apple to be squarely in Microsofts gun sites in the next few years. They know how to kill the Apples of this world, they don't know how to bring down Open Source.
I always felt that if the government continued to pursue their case against MSFT they would only pay for it in higher licensing fees later.
What would be the reason that licensing fees would go up? (as opposed to if the government didn't pursue their case against MSFT)
Do you mean to say you believe that software licensing fees are somehow proportionate to cost?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
In my humble opinion, I think the Feds pushed the wrong solution in the US v. Microsoft case.
Why didn't the Feds push for separating sales of the operating system from the hardware? By pricing the operating system as a separate cost item it would have actually enhanced competition for the operating system market on x86-compatible PC's, and it would have encouraged the FreeBSD and Linux crowd to develop their operating systems much faster because there would be a truly healthy competition of what operating system you want install on your computer.
Anyone ever notice that MSFT looks oddly like "misfit"?
2b || !2b =?
I know a lot of people who are dumping IE and going to firefox, Opera, etc. (I've even done it myself finally). I know a lot of businesses doing it too.
why? Because of all the security problems with IE and MicroSoft's decision to not fix most of them, or to fix them in such a manner as to eat up so much of your computer's power.
Businesses are also starting to move away from IE. While the jury is still out (no pun intended) it's starting to look like MicroSoft may have finally jumped the shark on IE.
Here's hoping!
"You don't give your enemy a place to hide and regroup. That's why we went into Afganistan."
Yes, that was obviously a visionary and practically effective policy wasn't it. I do think however that it was undermined somewhat by the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Cynical types may think that after this excellent corrective measure Afghanistan is now a no go area governed by local warlords fighting for control of the burgeoning heroin trade whilst the on-going situation in Iraq is drawing much larger numbers of impressionable young men into the world of terrorism and intimidation and that the world in general is now much more likely to suffer from terrorist activities.
Even more cynical types might surmise that as the US Government came to terms with 9/11 and realised there was little they could practically do in public to "right the wrong" decided instead to put on a display which everyone could understand with an invasion of Afghanistan involving lot's of precision weaponry, terrorists lurking in caves and illegal combatants during the course of which they realised there was a good chance they'd get away with more the same in Iraq.
Luckily I am not a cynical person. Go USA, Kick That Terrorism To The Kerb !
If Microsoft had stuck to the consent decree, and not tried to engineer a loophole that was so obvious anyone who couldn't see it was a crock must be willingly blind or in denial, there wouldn't have been a case nor an opportunity (squandered) to really do something about their behaviour.
I wish they'd go after VIACOM as aggresively as they went after Microsoft.
-MerkX
But it's a new thing that different agencies can share your information without oversight.
I'm reminded of a very pertinent William Shakepeare quote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."- Henry VI Seriously...all this lawsuit madness...it needs to end! That's why malpractice insurance costs so much...
I use it all the time as a web browser.
However I never use the file-browsing capabilities, and am often annoyed when it decides to show files instead of the index.html file in the directory I try to go to.
It does appear that file manipulation and web browsing are totally different things, and both Microsoft and KDE and several hundred other people (including me) who thought they could be integrated were wrong.
If websites stopped serving pages to Internet Explorer, users would be forced to install another browser. Or, for example, if IE is detected add an extra large banner promoting a Mozilla based browser. Instead of 'Best Viewed with Internet Explorer', it would be 'Worst Viewed'
that reminds me of something else I was thinking of...
Websites and other internet services should start denying services to 'bad' net citizens, a sort of global blacklist.
Say everytime a monitor machine recieves a spam email, a ddos attack, worm propageation attept, etc; it sends a note to one of the blacklist servers. The blacklist server won't instantly list for one bad action, but would require multiple monitors to report a problem with an IP address.
every once in a while ISPs, Servers, Service Providers (think perhaps Battle.net, Steam, web-comics, free e-mail providers, along with free/cheap hosting providers) would download the current list, and start providing blank/warning pages to any requests from those addresses. Corporate internet connections could just outright block any packets at the firewall.
8 bad IP adresses in a C block, blocks the whole c block.
The Monitor servers would have to be authenticated and somewhat secret, otherwise false reports could be used to deny service to a target or the IP addresses excluded from future worm versions and the Blacklist distribution security would still be an issue (if served normally, it would be a DDOS target, if 'push' delivered, it could be spoofed without good authentication.) I'm thinking of a USENET style list distribution method. a listing would also expire fairly quickly.
The distiction with this being, that it's cross service. You send bad e-mails, your web browsing is blocked. You run an open proxy, you can't send e-mail. You have a worm?, you can't play Counterstrike. You run a Starcraft cheat? you can't instant message.
The exclusions would have to be customizable, you wouldn't want to block someone with a worm from downloading a virus remover, or otherwise seeking assistance, but they don't need to play an online game before fixing it.
Microsoft can punish its customers, all it wants but at the end of the day alot of Microsofts money comes from customers and MS needs to keep them on its side. Microsoft has made concessions in the past to keep customers and attract new business and I'm sure it will do so in the future to keep itself relevant.
I support the free market and believe that in the long run, it fixes all problems, but I have been consistently flabbergasted at why people *choose* Windows.
Network effects.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A lot of ATM's have been switched over to windows 2000. US Bankcorp's ATMs are all run win2k now. You'll know this when you too see the BSOD when you want to withdraw some cash for the weekend.
What does having a Slashdot name have to do with anything? I've been coming here for 3 years and got one today. Elitist.
From the looks of the string of moderations so far, you're doing a bang-up job, too. :) Posted AC (I hope) to avoid catching bad moderation cooties.
I always felt that if the government continued to pursue their case against MSFT they would only pay for it in higher licensing fees later.
Two questions:
1) Why should the federal government be buying software from a convicted monopolist?
2) Why should the amount paid for any product take precedence over the government's responsibility to enforce the laws of the country?
lol!
I mean, its sad... but the way you put it...
lol!
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
I have to say, the whole point of the stock exchange is to make money and more money short term. There is little encouragement to make any kind of change that might affect their stock price short term and have a long term benefit.
I was interested in the stock market a while ago, but now I am glad that I have not worked in a public company, and plan to keep it that way to the best of my power.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
The reason the 6 year deadline passed without a peep is because all parties involved know the case is totally irrelevant today. Too much time has passed. Nutscrape is almost gone, IE is actually losing marketshare due to product flaws (free market economies at work), and renewed competition in the browser, operating system, and office suite wars.
Our court system has better things to do - like sort out the mess that is our United States Patent Office.
-ted
(it's like 1984's doublespeak.. but much less understandable.)
..
Microsoft's argument might make sense if its freedom to design software products ended when the last line of code was written. But a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
Actually, what you own is a license consisting of certain legal rights derived from Microsoft's copyright in the Windows code, together with the technological ability to use the code with your computer in the exercise of those rights. (Similarly, when you buy a movie on a Region 1 DVD, you acquire a license to view it at your home in the United States or Canada, and the technological ability to play the DVD in those countries but not others.)
As the sole author of the license contract, Microsoft enjoys considerable freedom in defining the extent to which consumers are able to use the Windows code.
But freedom of contract is expressly limited by the antitrust laws. The courts therefore had authority to order Microsoft to license and distribute its software so as to offer a neutral choice of Web browser. Microsoft could easily have done so without undoing its programming innovations.
Good grief. Does this make any sense? It sounds like this:
Microsoft can put whatever they want in their code.. but since consumers license the code, the courts have the right to say that the license must have a "neutral" choice of web browser.
which ultimately means MS can't include IE in the operating system.. which ultimately means Microsoft can't do what they want with their code!
BAH! Damn lawyer circular logic..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
People use Winblows because they don't know any better. Most people simply want email and web browsing. They would do better with any major Linux distro than they are doing with Winblows. They don't know any better because M$ has used the postion IBM foolishly gave them to screw over hardware vendors who don't play ball. That's what this anti-trust case is all about, abuse of power.
In the end, it's stupid and useless. M$ is such poor quality and the difference in user costs is so great that there's no chance Microsoft will survive another five years. The market is going to do to them what they did to SCO, and that's far worse than anything the federal government can do to them.
Still, I like this guy's angle. M$ has painted themselves into an IP corner by not selling binaries but the ability to use them as a contract. Contracts are something the government feels much more comfortable regulating than actual property. I'm glad no one thought of that, though. The more unbearable M$ acts, the faster people will be driven to free software.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
> Two questions:
> 1) Why should the federal government be buying
> software from a convicted monopolist?
Ask them... I don't know.
> 2) Why should the amount paid for any product take
> precedence over the government's responsibility to
> enforce the laws of the country?
Same.
It's not a logical world we live in.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
> I still shudder at the thought of JCL.
:)
I dunno, it was pretty easy for me.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
should survive incoming administrations... it shouldn't change it's political colours because the ruling clique has changed. It should be rather like our Civil Service, politically neutral. The spectacle of a large corporation holding out until a favourable regime change allowed their case to be dropped was rather sickening. There's a lot of other parts of your administration that should survive and remain politically neutral as well.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Why should the federal government be buying software from a convicted monopolist?
Thank you! Finally someone else brings up the point I've been trying to make for a long time.
If the federal and state governments that were suing MSFT simply stopped buying MSFT products, that may solve the problem by itself. In my estimation, it would drop MSFT's market share below the critical threshold they need to hold their monopoly, since some alternative would get traction (the feds have to use some OS).
I have similar opinions about the antitrust trials in the past. I question whether ANY company could really have a monopoly if the likes of the DoD, DoE, DoT, etc just boycotted the "monopolists".
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Insurance is definitely high if you look at the dollar amount but the last investigative article I read on the issue concluded that it usually amounted to a low single digit percentage of the average practitioner's income.
In the phone company we have to pay Right To Use Fees every year to Lucent Technologies for software in our 5ESS switches. All we have is a license to use Lucent (Bell Labs)code on Lucent hardware that we purchased from them. Now that times are "lean" for Lucent now, we are contractually obligated to run a software audit every year on every 5ESS and give the results to Lucent. From that data, Lucent calculates a dollar amount that we owe them for "features" in their software. These fees can run into the million dollar range every year if you're switches are at capacity ie ~100,000 lines ~45,000 trunks. It seems like a scam but it's common practice in business, not just MS software.
Well... I didn't really have anywhere else to put this right now... so I'll put it in this thread.
I watched the debate last night (all but the last 15 minutes) and ended up with a number of statements/questions for Kerry that I didn't see brought forth. They bothered me enought that I felt I had to write them down and present them so I've summarized them here.
- Why did Bush use Afghani troops to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
A politician and soldier should know why Afghani troops were used in this way. If USA troops actually went in and killed Osama bin Laden then it was the USA vs. Muslims. By using Afghani troops, it would be his own people "throwing him out". The political difference should be obvious.
- More diplomacy was needed in Iraq.
The UN had passed 16 resolutions in 10 years (also note that 10 years covered more than Bush's term in office) detailing what Iraq needed to do. Houssein repeatedly ignored them and/or balked at them. What behavior over the past 10 years and 16 resolutions would lead one to believe that the 17th or the 18th resolutions would be different? There is a saying: The definition of "insanity" is "Repeating the same experiment many times expecting different results."
- How can you expect to rally support for a cause that you have publicly stated you believe to be a mistake/diversion?
After having publicly stated that the War in Iraq was a mistake and/or a diversion, what makes anyone think that you can sell other countries on more participation? By these statements, you've shown that your resolve is not strong and/or your goals and exit strategy will change. You may state that you will see it through, but your previous statements define your position as not agreeing with the war, so your heart isn't in it. Therefore, you will not do as good a job. In addition to this, as you so frequently remind us, you learned many things during your service in Vietnam (which I am definitely not questioning and I do acknowledge and respect). It seems to me that one of the most important lessons that you should have learned is what happens in a military action where the nation/President/government that is not fully committed to the task. You've already demonstrated that you aren't fully committed (simply because you think it is a mistake). What assurances would you give to me that this will not turn worse and become another Vietnam type situation (note: I'm not saying that it won't do the same with Bush, but he is very clear about his resolve to the issue, at least). These points were brought up many times during the debate by both sides but you never stated why you expected other nations to become *more* committed in the face of your comments.
- 4 year time-line for nuclear material cleanup. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
- North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show th
Microsoft has no authority or power to punish its customers. Microsoft can punish itself by alienating its customers.
As for raising licensing fees. (going back to the original issue):
It is as you said. Microsoft is a business. Customers can leave if they want to (without moral justification). And Microsoft can raise licensing fees unilaterally without any moral justification. Very few customers who actually are in position to spend money ask for a moral justification for a price because they know better. They know that in a market based economy 'moral justification of product price' is just bullshit and spin.
Price is whatever the market is willing to pay.
And that is influenced by the price and availability competing products, as well as the demand for the product in question.
Microsoft has a practical monopoly in its market. It only needs to compete against older versions of Windows. And with the introduction of new DRM based hardware, Microsoft appears to be hoping that old versions of windows will not have any hardware to run on, and will thus have 0 availability. Which will in turn allow microsoft to increase the price of the current generation of software.
Microsoft isn't holding back. Losing a lawsuit will not cause the price of software to increase. It will merely reduce the profit margin of a monopoly, guilty of violating anti-trust laws.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
I don't think you understand or have knowledge of what Kerry was talking about. There is a program in place to secure former Soviet Union nukes, where we were basically paying to secure those nukes. More or less, we buy the nukes so that the terrorists can't. Bush cut most of the funding to this program. Kerry proposes to increase it. So, despite your belief, the fact is that there is a clear implementation and the timeline is realistic.
Your idea of tying Kerry's personal funds to his proposal is an interesting idea, but I confess I find something absurd about it. By the same token, shouldn't Bush use his personal fortune to compensate all the unemployed? He did promise that the tax cuts for the rich would solve the unemployment problems.
North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show that the USA was more willing to "go it on its own" as you accused Bush of doing over Iraq.
First Korea. It's obvious that you are not aware of the course of events. Kerry laid it out last night, if you were paying attention:
If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.
Voting mistakes?
You said a number of times that you made mistakes when you voted for things in Congress. How will you reassure me that you won't make more "mistakes" when signing bills into law? Are you going to sign something and then recant after it's too late? Are you going to veto something that you'll come back later and say you should have signed? You, in effect, basically stated that you vote without knowing all the issues or something.
Your position seems to be that you don't want a le
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
A lot of ATM's have been switched over to windows 2000. US Bankcorp's ATMs are all run win2k now. You'll know this when you too see the BSOD when you want to withdraw some cash for the weekend.
While the ATM's themselves may run Windows (OS/2 has traditionally been the favorite), the previous poster was referring to the systems the ATM's "talk with". Those are a different story.
Although it makes me laugh to imagine an ATM with an old AS/400 chugging away inside (not that it couldn't do the job, but that is what we in the business would call overkill).
You couldn't possibly have been paying attention four years ago if you think there's not difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue
Actually, what I think you meant to say was:
I agree with you in every way, shape, and form that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats because THE CLINTON DOJ DID THE EXACT SAME DAMN THING TEN YEARS AGO THAT THE BUSH DOJ DID FOUR YEARS AGO!!!!
Or rather, I think that's what you would have said if you were paying attention to the case.
- Equipment for troops
You had a moving anecdote about troops going without personal body armor (families buying them on eBay and sending the armor to them) and equipment and they need these things desperately. However, you thought allocating more money for these very things for our troops wasn't a good idea. How do you reconcile your actions with your story?
I completely agree with you on this question. Kerry's answer on this hasn't been completely clear, other than to admit that he made a mistake. He was clear about his vote to give the ability to go to war as a last resort to Bush, which Bush clearly mis-used. Exactly, though, what does Kerry consider to be his mistake on the vote for the 87 billion?
On the otherhand, it's valid to question how Bush has been spending the money earmarked for Iraq, and it's valid to call into question how Bush has been persecuting the war.
For the first time in history, money for reconstruction went to the DoD instead of USAID. DoD did not and still does not have the infrastructure for such efforts. The most obvious evidence of this is the 18 billion dollars that has not been spent that the administration now wants to shift back to military purposes. There are also many reports on the ground of how this policy is failing to bring Iraqis into participation, as the DoD lacks the infrastructure and contacts to use smaller local contractors, and instead uses big American and international contractors.
Arguably, one of the greatest effects of using the DoD is that the reconstruction is now seen by the Iraqis as part of the military occupation, rather than the other way around.
Similarly, most of the emphasis on reconstruction has been placed on the oil industry, which reinforces the appearance that we are primarily there for Iraqi oil. A major part of our military operations has been to secure not only the oil fields, but to provide security for Halliburton contractors.
Which leads me to a question for Bush. How can we afford to provide security for a private company when we cannot afford to equip our own troops? Regardless of how Kerry voted, you still got your money. Why do front line troops still lack proper body armor? Why are 10,000 of the 12,000 HUMVEEs in Iraq unarmored? Why are units being given assignments for which they lack proper training?
Bush has said that the "War on Terrorism" must be waged on multiple fronts, but it's pretty clear now that before we invaded Iraq, Iraq wasn't one of them. It's also clear that our forces are stretched so thin that we would be unable to fight on other fronts, should other fronts open up, god forbid. Is Bush ready to officially reinstate the draft? This would probably be political suicide, but what is happening now to reservists and guard units is untenable. They are serving the terms they agreed to and then being forced to continue serving (google "stop loss" or better yet, read about stop loss at Operation Truth. (Operation Truth is a non-partisan site where you will read criticism of both Bush and Kerry by the troops. You'll also get a good idea of what is happening on the ground from the troops point of view.)
I wish Kerry actually had time to answer these questions for me, as I'm trying to decide how to vote.
My impressions of the debate last night:
Kerry made a better impression on me that he had in the past. He definitely has a good presentation and look about him. He is confident and seems to be a decent enough guy. He seems to also be "human" in that we saw him smile some, laugh some, and be generally nice. He seemed to be able to seperate the man and the office (Bush) in some comments and he appeared not to necessarily be personally attacking Bush as he had in some past comments, which is good.
Bush seemed to do OK, too. I think he beat the "a free Iraq makes the world safer" drum a couple times too many, but it is an important point and it is a part of what he thinks is one of the weak p
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.