Opening Statements Begin in Microsoft - Iowa Case

cc writes "The Des Moines Register is reporting that opening statements have begun in the Microsoft-Iowa antitrust case. The Register reports that the Plaintiffs have shaped their case around nine stories involving competitors from IBM to Linux. Microsoft attorneys say Gates is expected to testify in January, and company CEO Steve Ballmer will likely appear in February. Both men are expected to be on the stand for about four days. Unlike previous antitrust cases against the software giant, the Iowa case is seeking additional damages for security vulnerabilities. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows caused harm to consumers by increasing the consumer's susceptibility to security breaches and bugs. The case is one of the largest antitrust cases in history, encompassing millions of documents and Microsoft's business practices during the last 20 years."

Comments

Right case-wrong reason

[EvilRyry]

OK, its fairly obvious microsoft abuses its monopoly status but theres really nothing wrong with bundling a browser with the OS, except that they make it unremovable. Even then, not too terrible IMO.

Why can't we get into some real abuses? Like leveraging their monopoly on the desktop market to try to get into other markets (servers, portable media devices and formats, office suites, etc, etc) and their lack of compliance with standards in preference to their own undocumented formats. This is the real problem and is strengthening their stranglehold on the market. They really need to be sat down and told to play nicely with the rest of the software world.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Lets at least make the complaints current. I think Iowa should go after microsoft for the Novell Deal. They should not be allowed to intimidate competitors. As a penalty for their previously outlined transgressions, they should lose the right to sue companies for infringing their patents. if the patents were obtained from the profits of an illegal monopoly, they shouldn't be able to further profit from them. They already have such a leg up on the industry in a number of ways, they should be held back in some manner. Revoking the enforcement of patents and maybe restrictions on what they can have in their eula's would be a great start.

Re:This is insane

[mrbcs]

Hmmm, maybe because of their monopolistic practices which almost killed off all other competitiors? Since they had no real competition unitl firefox ( and arguably still doesn't) they should be held accountable for the shitty software they release. Since they can "force" people through their automatic updates to install IE7, (they should also therefore be able to fix their browser)so I would think that they should be held accountable for the pain and suffering the internet has had to put up with for the last 5 or so years. Botnet anyone?

I can't count the amount of machines I've fixed that just had Internet Exploder on it. I would put on another browser and they'd never have another problem. Internet Explorer and outlook express are the two biggest problems on the web.

I use MS products every day. I like my win2k box.. but I absolutly despise their shitty business practices. I'd love to see these arrogant pricks knocked down a few pegs.

Re:This is insane

[Watson Ladd]

And failed. Windows is not secure. Orange book level 7 OS is secure, with a full formal proof of correctness. And on hardware with additional correctness proof. The reason is because Microsoft eliminated better competitors by tightly integrating with the OS. If Windows is so secure, what's with all the DCOM/RPC vulnerabilities? That's a core part of the OS that is filled with holes.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[Firehed]

A Ford vehicle doesn't come bundled with your license. Every off-the-shelf PC comes with Windows (unless your shelves happen to be in an Apple store).

Though in both cases, less stupidity could prevent most of the problems.

Damages

[sakusha]

I am infuriated that the plaintiffs are limited to Windows users. The description of the lawsuit says the state is suing on behalf of anyone who purchased Windows during a certain time period. However, the damages go way beyond that limited set of people. I've never purchased or used Windows, but I see the damage from the illegal Windows monopoly every single day. Every time I check my email, I am flooded with spam from compromised Windows zombies. Every time I try to purchase new MacOS X software, I am limited in my selection due to Windows monopolization driving competing developers out of business. I could go on and on.
I'm a resident of Iowa, and I want recompense for MY damages. But it looks like I won't get a dime if they win. I wouldn't care if it was a token, even $10, but I want damages.

On the continuing monopoly issue, note that Bill Gates is plowing his personal fortune into major stock purchases of other monopolies like energy and pharmaceuticals. I would love to see an investigation of Gates' personal financial activities, separate from the MSFT case.

Bully? Yes, their lawyer admited to it already!

[twitter]

Even in court, M$'s strategy is not to build something useful but to disrupt and destroy the opposition. If it's going to be decided on "bully" they had better learn how to talk about their strategy. Witness:

Microsoft lawyer Rich Wallis, ... Microsoft can question him when plaintiffs' lawyers are finished with him. The ruling is a strategic win for Microsoft, Wallis said, because it will allow the company to begin presenting its defense before the plaintiffs have finished their case. That could be important in a lengthy trial, because it will disrupt the flow of evidence and testimony against Gates and Microsoft, he said.

More dirty tricks, before they event start.

Re:and..,.?

[man_of_mr_e]

If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.

Not if you want to use Konqueror as a file manager. Not if you want to read the KDE help system.

If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.

Firefox is just a browser, it's not componentized like KHTML or MSHTML is.

Or, if I'm REALLY anal, I can say "web sucks" ... and delete ALL rendering programmes & systems from my machine entirely.

At the cost of many kinds of apps that depend on it from working. You realize that HTML rendering is more than just web browsing, right?

My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.

Depends entirely on what you define "broken" as. I'd say that if *ANY* functionality other than the web browser itself is broken by doing so, then the OS is broken.