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

and..,.?

[User 956]

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.

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

Re:and..,.?

[Atlantis-Rising]

Sssh! This is slashdot! We'll have none of your rational thinking here!

Re:and..,.?

[irtza]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. It is up to the state to see if significant harm has come of an action. Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Apple has done little to damage the market place, so even if they do participate in bad practices, it may not be worth the effort from the standpoint of politicians to persue a case against them. I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company

Re:and..,.?

[alshithead]

The issue might be better viewed as bundling two products that are riddled with security holes together. Two bads = bad squared! You certainly can't claim the same of Apple.

Re:and..,.?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOA there, not so fast cowboy! Safari (like Firefox and unlike mickeysofts internet exploder) can be R-E-M-O-V-E-D from the system. Internet exploder cannot be removed (Old Billy Gates swore on a stack of bibles himself) that there was no way, no possible way in hell that anyone on this green earth could possibly in any way remove internet exploder from windows. The microsoft people are cheerful to remind people not to remove internet exploder (not that there is any possible way to do it), and replace it with firefox. Don't look behind the curtain, don't look at the wizard that is controlling this land, this Oz. So that's the difference. As a software engineer, I know better, but the judge didn't, so bundling is what microsoft did, not apple, nor the linux distros (because the latter two are easily removed). Microsoft swore to their eternal damnation that its not possible.

Re:and..,.?

[paxswill]

Key difference: You can delete Safari, and Mac OS X doesn't break.

Re:and..,.?

[thestuckmud]

Apple's practice of bundling of Safari with OS X is very different from Microsoft's IE policy.

First, as I recall, Apple provided IE when I bought my old PowerBook. Safari had to be downloaded separately. Microsoft dropped IE support for OS X in 2003, leaving Apple unable to offer an up to date IE.

Second, Safari is an application like any other. I could uninstall it like any other app, but it happens to be useful and reliable (though Firefox is my browser of choice). Conversely, IE holds a privileged position in Windows and cannot be removed easily.

Third, Apple has not used Safari to crush competitors.

Does that cover it?

Re:and..,.?

[spisska]

Apple does the same thing with Safari. Or does that not count? If bundling is bad, hold everybody to the same standard.

Not quite. Apple ships an OS that has a browers already installed. However, Apple has never claimed that Safari is an integral part of the OS, that it cannot be removed, that the web browser and file browser are the same thing, or that allowing competing products equal access to system resources will somehow prevent innovation.

Microsoft claimed all of this things, which is partly why they were charged with and convicted for antitrust violations.

Re:and..,.?

[chromatic]

I posit that Microsoft's decision to bundle IE is what ultimately gave us the development of Firefox.

There'd be fewer members of MADD if drunk drivers hadn't killed their loved ones too, but I'm not sure you ought to defend vehicular manslaughter.

Re:and..,.?

[Millenniumman]

How much harm has come from Apple bundling Safari? How much harm has come from Microsoft bundling IE? In court, damages play a significant role in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

Also, there are different standards for monopolies and non-monopolies. Is this fair? Yes, especially when corporations are nothing more than legal entities that obtain their monopoly status through government protection. Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Also, Microsoft did not obtain a monopoly through government protection. It got an overwhelming market presence (which you incorrectly call a monopoly) by selling it's product in a (generally) free market.

There is nothing wrong with the government undermining large corporations for the greater good. The notion of corporations exist to serve the public good and must be regulated to that end. Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I see nothing wrong with their decision to go after microsoft.... mainly because I have no stock in the company So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

Re:and..,.?

[drsmithy]

Key difference: You can delete Safari, and Mac OS X doesn't break.

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

Re:and..,.?

[rm69990]

If you want to hold Apple to that standard, you'd better be damn rich so you can buy a hell of a lot of Macs, because Apple will need more than 3 or 4% of the Desktop market before they can be charged under Antitrust laws. You know, the ones that apply to Monopolies, as in, companies that have more than 3 or 4% of a market. Seems like a simple concept to me personally....

Re:and..,.?

[Psykosys]

There's be fewer posts to Slashdot if it wasn't so easy to write a far-stretching analogy.

Re:and..,.?

[Arker]

No difference. You can do the same in Windows. Deleting iexplore.exe is trivial and harmless.

That's because iexplore.exe is NOT Internet Explorer. It's just a shell. You cannot remove the actual code, and the many security breaches it contains, without causing serious problems.

Re:and..,.?

[unapersson]

"Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist."

What about the high street consumer PC market? As far as those shops go alternate operating systems may as well not exist, you'd struggle to buy even a "naked" PC because of the monopoly control Microsoft have in the market. You have an easier time finding a high street food outlet not selling Coke.

Re:and..,.?

[sumdumass]

Sure, but there has to be a crime in the first place. Configuring your software in a way that displeases some people is not a crime in any sense, even if it is insecure (warranties/guarantees/etc. aside, but Microsoft has never guaranteed Windows is impervious anyway). In the end, "harm" has only come to those who bought the product and used it (generally without proper precaution, I might add). Should I sue a pen maker if I poke myself in the eye?

The crime would be leveraging a position in a specific market to force other products onto customers and/or denying access to competitors simular products. see standard oil and the legal troubles they got into before a law was even passed.

Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist.

Your looking at the wrong defninition. the defninition you want to view would be a legal definition wich could change as the laws governing it does. But legally speaking, Microsoft was declared a monopoly but a compitent court. So they are considerd a monopoly even though it doesn't fit the Oxford definition.

Corporations would exist, in some form or another, regardless of laws (except, possibly, in a totalitarian region where such organization was not allowed). The notion of corporations exists so that the law can be applied to such groups in a manner that fits with their situation rather than that of a person.

"The greater good" can mean a lot of things, and is not a sufficient reason to begin messing with people, whether they choose to act independently or as a group.

I'm totaly in agreement with you. Unless the people/corperations are acting are in some way (legally or not) being destructive to others. Dropping industrial waist in the towns water supply just because there is no law preventing it is only asking for some laws to be made.

So anything you don't have a direct financial interest in is perfectly okay for the government to rob?

haha.. I like the way you translated that for him. But sadley it is how most people think, If it doesn't directly effect them, they just don't care enough about it. In the one hand, microsoft has already done what it is being accused of doing so it has already effected him. In the other hand, there is no seeable direct relationship between the actions going on and his way of life so he could care less. MAny people are this way now and I have to wonder if there is something wrong with them or us?

Re:and..,.?

[goonerw]

Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The DOJ's Findings of Fact in its Anti-Trust case against Microsoft at the turn of the century says otherwise:

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Re:and..,.?

[Serious Callers Only]

Safari.app is also just a shell, it does not contain the WebKit.framework (used by the help system, and mail, among other things) which does all the actual rendering. So in this sense the two browsers are similar, save that OS X Finder doesn't use the webkit framework for normal browsing. It makes sense to put the rendering in a library as nowadays a lot of apps want to do it. The result is that removing WebKit.framework from OS X would similarly break the system.

I think the real problem here, and the things which got MS into hot water in court, was the predatory behaviour toward partners (everyone was a competitor and to be killed off, even clients like IBM) and despicable OEM licences which prohibited installing another browser or another OS on any machines. That's why they were convicted, not for technical reasons to do with the implementation of the browser.

Re:and..,.?

[Arker]

I removed mail.app long ago because I couldn't convince it to quit parsing html. I can remove webkit and my system still works fine. Contrast this to a windows machine and there's a world of difference. Even on Windows 98, where it was, despite the manufacturers testimony under oath to the contrary, possible to remove IE completely, this required patching several system binaries and breaks many applications. Later versions, to the best of my knowledge, will refuse to function at all without IE.

I agree that the predatory behaviour was what got them in "trouble" (I use the word advisedly, as it doesn't seem to have caused them any real repurcussions so far - the suits have been mostly settled by giving away coupons for more of their bugware which costs them nothing) - and a large part of that predatory behaviour was locking IE into systems and doing everything possible to prevent its removal, so as to force a non-standard 'standard' on the web - the imposition of innumerable bugs and security holes on their customers was simply a side effect. But there are definitely very significant technical differences in the implementation of IE on Windows versus Safari on Mac.

Re:and..,.?

[Gorshkov]

No. Because if there is one thing the "geeks" of Slashdot have demonstrated time and time again, it is that they do not understand the software engineering behind "IE" and the way it is the same as the equivalents on other platforms (Safari/WebCore in OS X, khtml in KDE, whatever-it-is in GNOME).

You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?

Let me try to explain the differences to you.

The different browsers on the other platforms use different engines.
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.
If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.

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

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

If I determine that IE is a security risk, I can .... ummmm ...... not use it? But it's still there.

Now, let's go to the software engineering aspects, shall we?

khtml links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
Firefox links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities
BrowserDeJour(TM) links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.

I hope you're seeing a trend here. Now - this is where the software engineering comes in.

I think the rendering engine that BrowserDeJour (TM) uses is buggy as hell. No problem. If I'm anal enough, BECAUSE IT USES A WELL-DEFINED, DOCUMENTED, STABLE API ..... I can re-write the damned thing to my satisfaction and replace it. Or, or I am anal AND charismatic enough, I can start an open source project and have the peons do it for me :-)

Now .... back to IE

You can't remove it. You can't replace the rendering engine, even if you wanted to. Why not? Because Microsoft has gone out of it's way to make that impossible.

OK - so I'll rewrite the damned thing myself (or go back to the peons) and write a replacement.

Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.

Hmmmmm ...... I guess I'm stuck with it then.

You see, some of us "geeks" are neither arrogant nor ignorant enough to assume that our opinion is The Final Word on anything - but sometimes, just sometimes, one or two of us DOES know what they're talking about.

You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.

Re:and..,.?

[MemoryDragon]

Speaking of finanical harm, web development usually is like that 50% of the time is spent to bring the application up to the requested specificatoon the rest of the 50% is spent on bending the html code to make it work on ie as well. I am not talking about the harm done by the security leaks and that Microsoft simply stopped development for six years after gaining enough market share to have a monopoly, I am talking about the financial harm done to pretty much everyone paying for web development because IE has to be supported!

Re:and..,.?

[swillden]

The DOJ's Findings of Fact in its Anti-Trust case against Microsoft

Just one clarification, because I see this error being made frequently on slashdot of late. The above should read "The Court's Findings of Fact in the DOJ's Anti-Trust case against Microsoft".

The DOJ is part of the executive branch of the Federal government. It does not include the court system and the judges, it includes the FBI, US Attorneys, etc. You may know this and have been simplifying, but I've seen many posts that clearly assume the judges work for Ashcroft (and in some cases they act like they do, but they really don't, or aren't supposed to).

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.

Dupe!

[Toveling]

When will the editors learn? I about read this on ./ years ago...

I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[zappepcs]

Though I'm always glad to see someone take MS down a peg, I am not sure that it would be a good thing to have them successfully sued for vulnerabilities. If it works out to simply a refund for every valid registered copy of Windows, ok, since that would be a zero sum for F/OSS should it also happen to say Firefox or a version of Linux. There are so many ways to have vulnerabilities, and punitive damages might lead to things worse than the current patent system as far as hindering new technologies and features etc.

Re:I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[NineNine]

That also means that OSS projects won't ever be able to sell software because none of them can take the hits from punitive lawsuits like the big boys (MS, IBM, Sun, Oracle) can.

Re:I'm not so sure that this is a good thing...

[Almahtar]

You're right to be concerned, but I think in this case Microsoft is being punished not for the security vulnerabilities but for the security vulnerabilities that were made mandatory by anticompetitive practices. So... any damages you introduce as the result of illegal activity can be prosecuted, but if it wasn't caused by illegal activity, it probably doesn't fall under the precedent of this case.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[zappepcs]

So you go to Red Lobster (or your restaurant of choice) and order crabs... Its not the restaurant's responsibility to ensure that you are not allergic to them when they serve them to you.

Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[Avillia]

Microsoft will split into 20 different seperate corporations, each for a tiny part of the business that Microsoft does daily, and each of them will sue another other for patent infringement.

What a very merry christmas that would be.

*Attorneys getting millions,
*Patent reform instantly getting gallons of attention,
*The EU being able to smash the pulp of each company for a fraction of the fine, them being too small to withstand intense govermental legal pounding,
*States and Feds quickly getting cold feet about the stability of the Windows platform,
*Tech stocks going into a brief chaos generating freefall and then building up around Open Source, Apple, and Web 2.0,
*Richard Stallman laughing his living ass off,
*The MPAA and the RIAA going "Oh Shit!" when PlaysForSure and WMDRM falls under patent litigation and likely makes them litigants by the same logic that SCO can sue random companies using Linux,
*The State of Iowa becoming a hero in the 21st century, erecting a giant statue of every AG who helped the motion there and spreading out technical industry aside from being centered mostly in the West Coast and, to a lesser extent, the East Coast. (Sure, that's awesome, but it spreading out would benefit the national economy, even if Silicon Valley isn't the hottest place to say you live in anymore.)

Ah... One can dream...

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky and...

[Lars83]

Iowa smashing Microsoft to become a hero would be the best thing to happen to Iowa since... uh... whatever the most recent "revolution" on farming was. Probably wouldn't have any real economic benefit- I can't imagine anyone would move to Iowa because they smashed Microsoft. Yes, because Iowa is farming only. Nice stereotype.

Check out this "revolution" from Iowa ...the invention of the electronic digital computer.

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

[flonker]

Like any other bit of software, if you delete it, stick the CD in and reinstall it.

Re:Right case-wrong reason

[BCW2]

It has nothing to do with private property and everything to do with standards recognized by every other company. M$ has always tried to modify accepted standards to thier own propriatary version which isn't compatable with the original. Remember the Java debacle? If governments started enforcing the accepted standards M$ would have to comply, imagine the hit in the wallet if the U. S. government refused to by/license any M$ products until they were compliant? Of course M$ claims what they are doing is inovation which is a crock and most programmers know it. If there were any lawmakers in any country that were geeks this could be fixed quickly, so it might happen in the next 20 years if we are lucky.

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.

Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[ZDRuX]

Is it the browser they're going after? Or is it the OS itself? Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes uncovered in their software that would allow people or viruses to sneak through your computer.

If they are suing because of the "bundling" problem, then isn't/hasn't this been already done (or still ongoing)?

I would say that all these people "chose" to use Windows of their own free will, and I know someone in /. will come and tell how their monopoly basically "forces" people to use their products, but in the end - the choice is up to the end-user.

As much as I don't like some of Microsoft's bussiness practices, I hope this case ammounts to nothing in the end, because it could prove to be costly to everyone, not just MS.

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Almahtar]

Or, heaven forbid, I actually gained all of my possessions honestly. Tell me, if someone gains their "private property" by unjustly taking that which should belong to others, isn't it "a completely arbitrary reason" to say "well crap... they did practically steal this, but they got it before we caught them, so ok!"?

If someone wins a bike race by pedaling fastest I completely agree that nobody has the right to take that medal (that "private property") from them. If they win it by throwing a wrench in everyone else's spokes I can't imagine a fair world that would award them a medal.

The idea that just because someone currently owns something they deserve to is Machiavellian ("the ends justify the means") and is the philosophy of bullies, dictators, and all the people that our government should be protecting us from.

But then I'm either poor or a hypocrite, so what do I know?

Re:Who/what are they exactly suing?!

[Dunbal]

Either of which would make no sense since that would basically make every software company liable for any exploits or holes

      Why does it make no sense? We doctors are liable for any mistakes we make, if you can prove negligence or incompetence. Why should it be any different for software programmers?

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.

Go Iowa!

[bnfmsgeek]

Finally some work done on this case. Go Iowa!!! Sorry, but being an Iowan I've just found it so excited that such a large case is happenning in my own home state. I mean the case is litterly just a few hours away from here. That's just 2 TWIT podcasts away! I think I may go sit in at the trial when Gates is witness. P.S. A couple of months ago I got this email... didn't think it was real at first and was just another phishing scheme until I looked it up. Thought you might like it. http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgd95hq_3gkvz9n

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.

Crabs?

[Kadin2048]

But is it their responsibility if their waitress (a helpful service bundled with Red Lobster) misunderstands what you meant by "crabs"? Are they liable for compromising your systems and causing an infection?

I don't think they offer those kind of services at Red Lobster. Out in back of Hooters, maybe.

The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am sick and tired of people *still* ejaculating such nonsense.

For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened.

If you are a MS shrill at least start from a stand that recognizes reality, and not a version you dream about but which is patently false.

Re:The Oxford dictionary is not a judge.

[Mateo_LeFou]

"For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened."

That may be because the 2001 settlement took all of the teeth out of the remedy, so MS may as well have been acquitted.

Re:Alright! Car anology time!

[aussie_a]

They can't easily go to other restaurants if the one of them has a monopoly.

Re: Hidden Cost approach promising

[TaoPhoenix]

Mod previous post up! (I have mod points, but they vanished somewhere, maybe because I started replying instead of moderating.) P.S. in response to a post elsewhere, in the context of court cases in general, this is still a "moderately new issue" (only 8 years old), and the additional time has been passively put to use to review continued developments in the market.

Can we develop this chain of logic a little? (To the tune of House that Bill Built.)

1. MS bundles a browser which cannot be safely removed.
2. MS uses non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
3. Developers (Developers, Developers, Developers) must spend irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
4. Gaps emerge because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
5. NastyWare invades between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
6. Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.
7. Microsoft is forced by pressure to back down from bundling ( ! ) integrated versions of protection suites which have specific features designed to block the Anti-Nastyware companies make money selling software which purports to block the NastyWare that invaded between the gaps which emerged because of the incomplete documentation provded to the Developers spending irreplaceable labor to comply with non-standard specs in the browser which cannot be safely removed.

Conclusion? Lost market efficiency for the masses, profits for the few, with litigation and regulation for all.