Evidence Surfaces That MS Violated 2002 Judgement

whoever57 writes "In the Comes Vs. Microsoft case, the plaintiffs believe they have found evidence that Microsoft has failed to fully disclose APIs to competitors. If true, this would mean that Microsoft has violated the 2002 judgement. This information has become available since the plaintiffs have obtained an order allowing them to disclose Microsoft's alleged misbehavior to the DOJ ('appropriate enforcement and compliance authorities')."

Comments

Hm.

[Macthorpe]

So by my reading, they've been given the right to talk to the DoJ about something they have found that may or may not prove that they have broken the law? It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I'll be waiting for the next story along in this chain before I start jumping to conclusions.

I'm sure someone else here will do that for me.

Re:Hm.

[Hijacked Public]

Enjoy your lonely stay in the land of reason and restraint.

Re:Hm.

[Anonymous Coward]

...before I start jumping to conclusions

If only the Jump to Conclusions Mat had made it to market. (sigh)

Re:Hm.

[TheJasper]

What I don't understand...why do you need permission to talk to the authorities about a crime? Or isn't this a crime? IANAL , maybe this happens in other places. I just don't understand it.

Re:Hm.

[BecomingLumberg]

"I'll be waiting for the next story along in this chain before I start jumping to conclusions."

But it's such a good game!

Re:Hm.

[Calinous]

Maybe during the discovery, they had to access some documents that are internal and private to the company (*cough* copyrighted *cough*). As such, any use of those documents outside of the court (the very reason for which they were dug up) would be illegal.
      For example, a judge can request you your hand-written journal if you are prosecuted for something, and he thinks this will help to reach a correct verdict. However, the content of your journal can not be used by anybody else, even if it was made public in court.
      Also, there are some things (client data by example) which a corporation is forbidden to publish
(but all of those are just some hand-waving examples)

Re:Hm.

[Macthorpe]

I think I'll just practice playing the world's smallest violin for myself while I wait!

Re:Hm.

[WindowsIsEvil]

It is obviously a Microsoft conspiracy to perpetuate their monopoly and keep Linux down.

Re:Hm.

[indifferent children]

If only the Jump to Conclusions Mat had made it to market. (sigh)

Is that a peripheral for Decide Decide Revolution?

Re:Hm.

[pyrrho]

yes, lets give MS a little more time to see what they're really like.

Re:Hm.

[pfleming]

If only the Jump to Conclusions Mat had made it to market. (sigh)

Is that a peripheral for Decide Decide Revolution?

Doh! You just ungeeked yourself.

Re:Hm.

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks to me like this may be someone who has some legitimate information. Keep in mind that most of the major OEM contracts, including corporate contracts, OEM contracts, and developer contracts include nondisclosure agreements. In addition, Microsoft EULA contracts expressly forbid reverse engineering. Put simply, the people involved cannot disclose what they know, unless responding to court orders issued by law enforcement officials, such as the Attorney General of the US or of the local state.

Suppose that I knew for a fact that Microsoft had committed criminal acts, including piracy, fraud, blackmail, and extortion. The problem is that I was only given access to this information because I signed a nondisclosure agreement with Microsoft. Now, I am an accessory to multiple criminal acts, but I cannot disclose the information, because I've signed a nondisclosure agreement. I may even have documentation which I obtained from Microsoft, along with other key information, but the nondisclosure agreement means that if I testify on behalf of a plaintiff in a civil suit, not only is the testimony inadmissable, but I could be sued, fined, or possibly even jailed for piracy, because I violated a nondisclosure clause of a copyright license agreement.

We really won't know, until, or IF a court order is issued, whether these allegations have any merit. Microsoft appears to have been trying to argue against even permitting the request to be questioned under court order to be permitted. Perhaps Microsoft even knows the nature of the testomony to be given.

In the Antitrust hearing, Judge Jackson ruled that using nondisclosure agreements to prevent people from testifying truthfully under oath, or having Microsoft attorneys present to limit the ability of witnesses to answer the questions, was obstruction of Justice. Once Microsoft announced that those who had signed nondisclosure agreements could be interviewed by law enforcement officers, it opened a door that quickly turned into a floodgate. Many people who refused to go on record because of the NDA were suddenly offering to speak up, and a number of depositions were submitted as evidence in addition to the 25 witnesses who were called to testify during the trial.

I don't know exactly what these people have to say. It could be that they have knowledge about why Active Directory won't work with OpenLDAP, or why other standards, protocols, and APIs have been subverted and sabotaged.

Or it could simply be that someone who used to work for Microsoft, or someone currently governed by an NDA has some groundless accusations to make.

Either way, it's highly likely that even if the information is made publicly available in a more general way, it is highly unlikely that it will be disclosed, in detail, to the general public.

Keep in ind that Microsoft is still insisting that information disclosed in these court ordered disclosures cannot be used to create client software for other operating systems, such as OSX or Linux.

It's possible that there may also be some "back doors" that Microsoft doesn't want disclosed, and doesn't want closed. Microsoft uses these back doors to monitor piracy and to conduct market research. Some of these back doors may also be creating similar openings for hackers, spyware, and private investigators.

I too will be interested in seeing how things play out.
I've pretty much given up any hope that the courts will do anything meaningful or effective
in breaking Microsoft's monopoly hold on the desktop/laptop market. At this point, I'm watching
the reviews of Vista and looking an the number of people who have publicly stated "I'd rather have a Mac" and I can't help but wonder if HP, Lennovo, Dell, and Gateway might not be seriously considering the possibility of putting at least one Linux desktop or laptop on retailer shelves.

The lawsuit is almost pointless. Every other state has settled for "Billy Bucks", coupons for a few dollars of the purchase of Microsoft Windows softwa

Does this suprise anyone?

[bernywork]

A convicted monopolist can't change it's spots overnight, no matter what anyone might think.

Think about it logically, a business that big needs time to change, we are not 10 people sitting in a room here...

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[bernywork]

Whoops...

Preview, not submit.... That should have been:

we are not talking about 10 people sitting in a room here...

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Calinous]

A business this big doesn't need time to change - it needs desire to change. With all its (possible) evil implications, European Union seems to give Microsoft a desire to change.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Short Circuit]

It doesn't surprise me, but not for the reasons you might think.

There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I'd be interested to see which APIs are being discussed here before I go off on an anti-Microsoft rant.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Gr8Apes]

I would disagree. It's really easy - his royal highness decrees "document all your APIs by EOM, or lose your bonuses and all your options" and you'd be amazed how quickly it'd be done.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Calinous]

There are some graphic capabilities (in gdi.exe) that exist only in newer operating systems. Not using them would force one to use (supposedly slower) hand-written functions (by example, filling application areas with a gradient is not available in Windows NT, but is in Windows XP).
      If those functions would really exist, but could be only interfaced to using an "internal" API, then Microsoft products could have faster "on screen" viewing compared to the competition.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and aA convicted monopolist can't change its spot overnight." :-)

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and "A convicted monopolist can't change its spots overnight." :-)

fixed that for ya

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[rlp]

Yes! Bill Gates was so surprised that he dropped his monocle onto his white cat.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[rbanffy]

It never ceases to amaze me that an operating system wastes time and resources worrying about gradients on screens.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Ngarrang]

I am shocked at such news. And here I thought Billy Gates was such a nice young man.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[shotgunsaint]

Now, we all know that Mr. Bigglesworth lost all his fur during the unfreezing process shortly after their return just before the release of 98SE. To pretend otherwise, is just, is just... bogus.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Calinous]

Welcome to Windows.
      Well, this was made (I suppose) in order to accelerate the graphic operations (which will run in kernel space, not user space). Or I might be wrong, but Microsoft in known for many places where, between speed and modularity/security/... choose the former.
      I remember I've read about some Microsoft employee bragging (sometime in the 1999-2000) about the way some small function, dependent on lots of things, was implemented: its code was written by hand on the stack, and the program then ran it from there. No wonder that the "run protection" for memory segments (NX for processors) didn't appeared until a couple of years ago, and was implemented no sooner than XP SP2

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[LifesABeach]

I just figuring that the same thing has happened again, only the victims know what to do next, and will accept this with jaws tightly closed; Lets face it, when China sees Bill Gates before G.W., it is painfully obvious who is really in charge. The same result will be that once folks figure out what Microsoft is doing, the followers will adapt, and adopt. And those who follow the Open Source Solution will wonder what the fuss is all about.

"If you are not the lead dog, the scenery does not change much." - Dog Sledding Observation

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[rbanffy]

Oh no! -1 offtopic!

It means the Microsoft Astroturf Unit has infiltrated Slashdot too!

And they got modpoints!

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[jrumney]

I don't think its a user vs kernel space thing, more a case of making graphics card acceleration available transparently by providing a dedicated API for it. That said, I doubt that NT4 would have such a hidden API, as it predates the availability of graphics cards with gradient fill acceleration built in, but it was only an example. I can see how in general APIs that were formerly internal might be given external equivalents after someone in the Office team found them useful, but the internal API remained undocumented, leaving Office an advantage in using the feature while maintaining compatibility with older versions of Windows.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[tolan-b]

"Convicted monopoly abuser". Monopolies aren't inherently illegal.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[nschubach]

Well yeah, but now Vista has laser beams strapped to it's window headers, so everyhting evens out.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.

I think you're considering this a little too much from the programmer's point of view and not enough from the legal/economic point of view. The real distinction that needs to be determined is which APIs are being used by MS in conjunction with some offering that competes in a separate, existing market. For example, APIs that interoperate with MS's Web browser, virus detection, and allow for communication with their server offerings may be categorized as internal to the operating system, but they provide functionality for bundling and tying from an economic point of view.

...I'd be interested to see which APIs are being discussed here before I go off on an anti-Microsoft rant...

Don't worry, even not knowing what APIs are being discussed we can always go off on anti-microsoft rants on other topics. That's the fun of it, they're doing so many things that are unethical and criminal that there is always something to rant about.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[ibm1130]

Thats like saying a convicted rapist needs time to change. Do we allow the rapist to continue and scale down his activities over time? Hell, no. We do something that makes it impossible to conduct business as usual. I'd be very surprised if the law made provision for convicted monopolists to continue their trade either.
If the allegations can in fact be proved the only real remedy may be to break up Microsoft as was suggested during the original procedings. Require a complete disconnect between the OS and Application arms with heavy monitoring for compliance. Might I suggest the FSF be appointed the monitoring agency. If I were in a vindictive mode I'd also require physical separation between the newly separated parts of M$. Like oh say moving the OS portion to New Jersey and Applications to Arkansas.
And-uh it goes without saying that a provable failure to comply would be an incredibly stoopid(*) move on M$ part.

IBM

( * stoopid = stupid on steroids )

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[PsychicX]

Disregarding the fact that "gdi.exe" doesn't exist in the NT ancestral line, the new functions are accessible quite easily. Pick up the most recent Platform SDK, and look up the docs. There's a number of defines that activate functions only available in newer versions of Windows. They're not enabled by default so you don't inadvertently make your app not compatible with Win2k, for example.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love people who do this. This is not even comparable to something like raping someone.

You're either a bad troll or an even worse person.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Dan Ost]

But abuse of monopoly power is.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[mpe]

Thats like saying a convicted rapist needs time to change. Do we allow the rapist to continue and scale down his activities over time? Hell, no. We do something that makes it impossible to conduct business as usual. I'd be very surprised if the law made provision for convicted monopolists to continue their trade either.

This is one of the most obvious ways in which the idea of corporations as "people" completely falls apart. A real person who is even accused is likely to be restricted in what they can do. By either being locked up or subject to bail conditions. If they are convicted the only way in which they can appeal might be from a prison cell or subject to some kind of curfew. No "business as usual".
Are corporations required to restrict their activities whilst an investigation is ongoing? Let alone stop everything for a trial...

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[kurzweilfreak]

Abusing them is, hence the state of things today.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I love people who do this. This is not even comparable to something like raping someone.

Sure it's comparable. He just compared them. It is not, however, a particularly good or tasteful comparison. Burglary would be a much better comparison. It causes short term damage to differing people and has the potential for serious long term damage. MS is like a repeat offender burglar that is supposed to be on probation. The problem is, this burglar spent most of the money, a large chunk of which went to campaign contributions to help elect the local judge, chief of police, and mayor.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[WhiteWolf666]

Irrelevant.

Whether or not MS needs time to change doesn't change the illegality of their actions.

The only "legal" allowance for extra time isn't a delay in enforcement actions, it's that the penalties imposed are not the corporate death penalty, or revocation of MS's corporate license/charter. Any extra "time" needed incurs additional fees/penalities, and that is Microsoft's sole remedy.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[RightSaidFred99]

You guys love to say "convicted monopolist", don't you? Makes you feel all legal-schmegal I guess.

"Oooh, they're a convicted monpolist this just cannot stand!".

It's so very dramatic. Unfortunately, all it means is a whole lot of...nothing.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[sholden]

No shit sherlock.

Do you think that might be why the post gave the "Convicted monopoly abuser" correction?

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[indifferent children]

A convicted monopolist can't change it's spots overnight

Maybe we can convince them to trade their spots for prison stripes.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[drinkypoo]

Are corporations required to restrict their activities whilst an investigation is ongoing? Let alone stop everything for a trial...

Yes, sometimes they are, but not when they're as big as Microsoft. :) Still, various corporations have had some of their assets frozen, or been prevented from doing business in certain markets (under injunction) while a trial progressed.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Achromatic1978]

Microsoft stopped giving employees stock options several years ago.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[ClosedSource]

MS isn't a "convicted monopolist" anyway. The antitrust case was a civil one and you can't be "convicted" for anything in a civil case.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Mogster]

A business this big doesn't need time to change - it needs desire to change. With all its (possible) evil implications, European Union seems to give Microsoft a desire to change. In light of the fines imposed by the EU Let me adjust that for you

A business this big has change to spare - it desires to give away spare change. With all it's possible implications, Microsoft desires to give spare change to the European Union.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

moving the OS portion to New Jersey

No thanks, there's enough trash in the New York as it is ;P

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released.

Ok, fair point on its face. But what if those APIs are purposefully so bad that even Microsoft isn't using them? What if they are working as hard as they can to make interaction such a headache that you wish it was impossible? And to walk the line so its not completely obvious that they're being anti-competitive even while they deftly are?

I don't have any direct evidence, but I'm pretty sure that this is the case. They make it look like they're trying to make accessible their complex systems, but actually they're layering on more complexity and insults that bedevil their competition with all sorts of extraneous tasks and bugs. It's really cruel, and immensely harmful to nearly all of humanity, which is probably why it is illegal. And why it would be a step in the right direction if the conviction would finally stick.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[evilb]

For what it's worth, I just (today) finished a contract working for Microsoft on a product that is not part of the Windows OS. When I began working on the project, I was specifically instructed by my boss not to use any APIs or information from within the company that are not publicly available. So at least from that experience, it looks they're making a genuine attempt to comply.

The main issue here is whether or not Microsoft is attempting to gain an edge over the competition by using functionality in the OS that's not available to the general public. If Microsoft is developing applications that take advantage of functionality in the OS that competitors don't know about, that creates an unfair advantage for Microsoft.

Any parts of the OS they don't want to make public, they can't use in their own non-OS software.

So what will really happen?

[gravesb]

Will they get anything more than a contempt charge?

Re:So what will really happen?

[Calinous]

I don't know, but I suppose if this is found to be true, then some of the antitrust measures could be "resurfaced". It all depends on how the verdict was formulated.

Re:So what will really happen?

[samkass]

If history is any indication, they won't even get that... they'll just get ANOTHER judgement against them, and the DoJ will say, "This time, really, please don't do it again."

Re:So what will really happen?

[desertrat_it]

but this time, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, things may be different! .. thank you folks, I'll be here all week!

Re:So what will really happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what the law in the U.S. is but here in the U.K. you can go to jail for contempt.

According to the Office of Fair Trading http://www.oft.gov.uk/
"The maximum penalty for contempt of a county court order is two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine"

So a simple way to calculate a fine would be to calculate how much money MS has (including financial assests) and double it, if they don't pay up send the baliffs in.

When they still don't pay up hold them for contempt of that, and then imprison whoever was responsible for a couple of years.

Unfortunaltely the legal system has a problem with coruption. If you have money you are allowed to break laws it would seem.

Still if they laugh at fines, let then laugh at it from inside a prison cell.

I think slashdot agrees with me, the CAPTCHA word is "detain"

Re:So what will really happen?

[hey!]

Will they get anything more than a contempt charge?

Eh? You think that's nothing do you?

You can do all kinds of ethically questionable things within the law. You can delay justice, you can even thwart it. But the one thing you can't do, the stupidest possible thing to try, is to sashay into a court and spit in the judge's eye. They won't stand for it. Nor will they stand for you doing it to to another judge, even another judge they despise and disagree with.

Defying any court is defying the authority of every court. Judicial power is a judge's basic stock in trade. If you willfuly undermine that, you'll find the judge putting judicial restraint up on the shelf and taking down the can of legal whupass. They don't like doing that. If there is a loophole, if it can be argued to be an honest mistake, maybe they'll turn the screw just one or two turns tighter. But once it becomes clear you think you are beyond the power of the court to restrain, the judge will introduce you to a whole new world of legal pain.

Oh please let it be so.

Re:So what will really happen?

[gravesb]

There are two kinds of contempt in the US, civil and criminal. Yes, for criminal, you can go to jail.

Re:So what will really happen?

[rucs_hack]

Microsoft, being a legal entity can be charged with something, but you cannot jail a corporate entity. The veil of incorporation means that it is unlikely that individuals will be charged either.

Fines seem the most likely course of action, and microsoft can either argue about those till it becomes meaningless, or pay up.

Or the Judge could order severe sanctions, like splitting the company into smaller portions so such mistakes are easier to prevent in the future. IBM did this themselves when they got into loads of trouble, and the result was a vast improvement for them in terms of productivity and public image.

Re:So what will really happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to believe this. But I don't recall anything of the sort happening when MS showed a deliberately fabricated video (of Win98 crippled by the removal of IE) in court during the antitrust trial.

Re:So what will really happen?

[WhiteWolf666]

Are you kidding?

Do you even remember why the original senatance was overturned?

The appeals court ruled that Judge Jackson had an appearance of bias, because of his media statements. In the media, Judge Jackson made a series of statements, that I, personally, loved. Here's a quote for you:

"Following the trial's conclusion last June, Jackson's statements began appearing in news stories and books about the case. His views on Microsoft executives and the metaphors he used to describe the case troubled the appeals judges.

Among the examples, in the Jan. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"

Also in that book, Auletta writes that Jackson likened Microsoft's "proclamation of innocence to those of four members of the Newton Street Crew convicting in a racketeering, drug-dealing and murder trial he had presided over five years before."

Such sentiments drew the wrath of the appeals judges Tuesday.

"There are lots of things we think and feel about" the parties during a proceeding, said Chief Judge Harry Edwards. "The system would be a sham if all the judges were doing this."

The problem was the he got TOO angry. He basically "flipped out" legally, and Microsoft started to play nice, at least during appeals. If he had just kept his mouth shut, the judgment would have stood. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253250.html

The appeals court overturned, "Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds, that he gave off-the-record, but nevertheless disclosed, interviews to the news media during the case, and that Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Mic rosoft#Appeal

In that sense, you might say that Microsoft's defense against contempt of court was shooting the moon. And it seemed to have worked out, in the short term. Here's what Jackson had to say, "Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."

Keep in mind that the appeals court did maintain Judge Jackson's findings of fact; that Microsoft did seek to misuse it's monopoly power to drastically damage the market for computer software.

Re:So what will really happen?

[Achromatic1978]

So a simple way to calculate a fine would be to calculate how much money MS has (including financial assests) and double it, if they don't pay up send the baliffs in.

What fantastic logic. So by your rationale, taking into account your home and car and such, you'd have no problem with judges fining individual people such as yourself in the order of 300,000 to 400,000 pounds?

Re:So what will really happen?

[Nimey]

Maybe now judges will be more willing, since neocons can't scream so loudly about activist judges anymore.

Re:So what will really happen?

[redcane]

Only if he was the person responsible for preventing payment of the fine. That seems reasonable. Sure, there would be pressure from your workplace to not do it, but you would have to, since your workplace can't require you to break the law. If you were then fired, you could sue your former employer for wrongful termination, and you'd probsably pocket the 300,000 to 400,000 pounds yourself. Even when working from inside an immoral organisation, a moral person is required to take the moral path. Of course, in the case of Microsoft, you probably aren't going to wake up with a stallions head in your bed for disobeying them.

So...

[styryx]

If the allegations are true, and it turns out that MS might somehow not be the shining beacon of Justice and Honour that we've come to regard it as (okay, I'll cut the sarcasm now), what is the worst that will happen to MS? And are they really concerned...ever?

I'd rather we skip the monetary fines that are becoming meaningless and go for revocation of patents. Can you imagine if MS had it's patents revoked and switched to a free-for-all? That would be nice... Ah, to dream.

Re:So...

[Calinous]

A punishment must fit the crime is applied to. While the punishment applied by US Justice system might seem unfit for the wrongs of Microsoft before the verdict, revocation of patents is a totally unfit punishment for not publishing an API.
      It is like taking you (assuming you are from USA) the right to vote for a parking ticket in Mexico

Re:So...

[Calinous]

This patent revocation business might put the spotlight on whether patents (and their current life) are so good.

Re:So...

[suv4x4]

what is the worst that will happen to MS? And are they really concerned...ever?

No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks /early adopters/ hate them, antitrust lawsuits flying from everywhere, huge burden of backwards compatibility to a decade of poorly conceived obsolete software, competition implementing features you can't, since you're not "trusted", .. and so on and so on).

They in fact are evil alien creatures from the underworld, wearing long black capes, waving angrily their fists and shouting at the end of every episode "I'll get you next time, EU!!!".

Re:So...

[aaronl]

No, that is really not the same at all. First off, the parking ticket would have occurred in a foreign country, and so you shouldn't be punished for it in the US. Second, the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. A patent is temporary property; the right to vote is a basic right of all citizens.

Revoking MS' patents would be more like issuing a very large fine, and forcing the company to pay it. Oh wait, that punishment might fit *exactly* to the crime! If we revoke any patents related to their violation, and begin to allow the free market to reassert itself, then MS may no longer fall afault of all the anti-trust laws that they are currently ignoring (and violating).

Re:So...

[gutnor]

Monetary fine proposed by EU were nothing meaningless: 2 Millions EUR per Day just for a start for 1 violation.

Anyway, revocation of patent would further discredit the patent system in the US. Taking a patent is supposed to be a service you gives to the state: you disclose your invention and in exchange you receive a patent and some rights attached to this patent.
Now just imagine the shilling effect on US industry if you could have your patent revoked arbitrarily as a punishment in an *unrelated* crime ...

Also in the current system, revoking patent for a company is not only giving its asset for free, it is opening the company to massive number of patents trials.

Re:So...

[Jim_Maryland]

What might be more appropriate is barring Microsoft from participating in government contracts (either as a consultant/contractor or an operating system) until they comply. I know if my employer screws up that is what would happen to them.

Re:So...

[rbanffy]

They should be forced to call each misdocumented API a billion times on program start-up for every program they publish.

mwahahaha

Re:So...

[0232793]

Actually, the alien species is called Borg

Re:So...

[balsy2001]

That is not necessarily true. Those convicted of a felony can't vote. So restricting voting rights is a punishment of sorts even in the US. This site has some more information by state for loss of voting rights (http://www.righttovote.org/index.asp).

Re:So...

[sqlrob]

You mean they don't already?

Re:So...

[Calinous]

The right to vote can be revoked by a court (outside of any other punishment); it can be revoked automatically in some cases, as a bonus to a conviction; or it can be revoked for medical reasons.
      However, the right to vote and a parking ticket you get in a foreign country have as much in common as a patent and the API for an operating system (not much).

Re:So...

[vaceituno]

Not all citizens, as far as I know, people serving a sentence can't vote in USA

Re:So...

[will_die]

The US has agreements with many out countries where traffic tickets are exchanged. In the US the agreements are mainly at the state level so if you get a ticket in Germany and live in Colorado you may find that Colorado has added points to license. On the good side if you move to Germany they will accept your license of thoses states and not require you to take all the classes for getting a german license.

Re:So...

[Danse]

While the punishment applied by US Justice system might seem unfit for the wrongs of Microsoft before the verdict, revocation of patents is a totally unfit punishment for not publishing an API.

How would it be any more harsh than a 3-strikes law? Microsoft has a lot more strikes than that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe?

Re:So...

[Danse]

No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks /early adopters/ hate them, antitrust lawsuits flying from everywhere, huge burden of backwards compatibility to a decade of poorly conceived obsolete software, competition implementing features you can't, since you're not "trusted", .. and so on and so on).

Oh yes, poor Microsoft. They've only pummeled OEMs, competing software vendors, and consumers into submission with their illegal, anti-competitive tactics for the last couple of decades. Surely we should feel terrible about their self-made problems. I think we should all chip in and buy Bill a cookie basket.

Re:So...

[Calinous]

Good thing I am not a judge, and must not decide what punishment is fit for what crime.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. and is revocked when someone is convicted of a felony and sentenced to prision or when someone is convicted of treason.

Now in regards to that can of whoopass the Judge could open, one element that comes to mind is that the judge not only could strip MS of their patents but as they are an American Corporation (granted under Washington Law) he could strip them of their corporate status (Execution) and open Gates/Balmer and the other Senior Excecutives to direct lawsuits for the companies actions. This is called Peircing the Corporate Veil and rarely done but is an option. Of course the benefits of this is that it puts Bills and Balmers personal fortunes and all of their stock value directly at risk meaning something will finally be done as it means hitting those responsible right where it hurts the most, their wallets not MS coffers.

Re:So...

[anothy]

while i think your example is crummy, you're right that a sentence must fit the crime. of course, the more Microsoft demonstrates the propensity for their applications group to illegally leverage the monopoly of their OS group, the more the original "break 'em up" sentence looks like a reasonable response.

(and i thought it was serious overkill at the time)

Re:So...

[Danse]

Good thing I am not a judge, and must not decide what punishment is fit for what crime.

You do see where I'm going with this though, right? We already have plenty of precedent for throwing the book at repeat offenders. Why should companies like Microsoft get a pass when they repeatedly break the law? Slaps on the wrist obviously aren't going to have any effect on a multi-billion dollar company. It only makes sense to make the punishment severe enough to act as a strong deterrent.

Re:So...

[Calinous]

The European Union idea - to fine up to the total profits - could be a solution to this. While I don't know how much a profit is Microsoft making in EU, the fine was much lower than that (a tenth? a third?).
      However, there were companies (based in Europe) which were fined to that extent

Re:So...

[mpe]

No, that is really not the same at all. First off, the parking ticket would have occurred in a foreign country, and so you shouldn't be punished for it in the US.

US Citizens can be subject to US law, even if they are not actually in the US at the time of the incident. (Even if what they are doing is perfectly legal where they are at the time.)

Second, the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. A patent is temporary property; the right to vote is a basic right of all citizens.

Except that people in the US can be barred from voting for life, even after they have supposedly completed whatever sentence a court might have handed out. (Even if that sentence does not explicitally prevent them from voting.)

Revoking MS' patents would be more like issuing a very large fine, and forcing the company to pay it.

Since patents are granted on the whim of the state valuewise they would be "fiat money".

Re:So...

[mpe]

I'd rather we skip the monetary fines that are becoming meaningless

There isn't really much point in fining an abusive monopoly. The actual would need to weaken that monopoly. At best fines do nothing, at worst they can make things worst.

Re:So...

[aaronl]

As far as parking tickets go, that is not within Federal jurisdiction. Some states may have made reciprocal agreements with foreign countries regarding tickets, though. I am aware that as a US citizen, the US expects me to follow Federal law no matter where I am. I don't believe that extends to State law, however.

A prisoner loses their right to vote, as does someone that is considered mentally deficient. It is uncommon that someone is sentenced in such a way that they are permanently barred from voting. Most of those cases involve Federal felonies. I don't agree with ever removing a person's right to vote. I stand by what I said: voting is a basic right of all citizens, I just don't agree with what the government has done in that regard, and I never will.

I like the idea of considering patent and such to be fiat currency. That makes it much easier to explain why it is perfectly reasonable to take it as a fine!

Re:So...

[WhiteWolf666]

Huh?

Don't ever understimate a fine. A fine is like brute force; if a fine (brute force) isn't working, your clearly not using enough of it!

At a certain level, even Microsoft will pay attention to a fine. Fine them $10-20 billion, and although it won't break their piggy bank, it will make a substantial difference.

Fine them $10-20 billion, and dump it into government research on open source operating system development through our national labs? That might even work.

Re:So...

[drinkypoo]

On the contrary. It is more like taking away your driving license for getting too many parking tickets. In your example you are losing an unrelated right for what you have done. In my example you are punished with revocation of your driving privileges for what you have done while driving (parking is part of driving.) In the real world, taking away MS' patents would be revoking their patent privileges for what they have done with their patents. If you can not tell the difference then you are not qualified to make a judgment about much of anything.

Re:So...

[drinkypoo]

Now just imagine the shilling effect on US industry if you could have your patent revoked arbitrarily as a punishment in an *unrelated* crime ...

What unrelated crime? Microsoft has used patents to protect their file formats and this particular issue is related to that. It's entirely related.

Re:So...

[rajafarian]

I'd rather we skip the monetary fines that are becoming meaningless and go for revocation of patents.

I don't think that punishment will be acceptable to Mr. Gates. And when you are as rich and powerful as Mr. Gates and you break the law, you get asked whether the punishment is acceptable to you AND to please monitor your own behavior.

It's true. Here. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Re:So...

[Achromatic1978]

I'd love to see that law.

If you have a valid driver's license, you are eligible for an "International Driving Permit" (usually issued by the *AA of your location) which is good for up to twelve months in all treaty member countries. I believe the IDP itself carries no legal force, but is an aid to being pulled over in a foreign country carrying a foreign driver's license.

I moved from Australia to the US two months ago. My traffic ticket data is definitely not exchanged. Overriding the IDP mentioned above is a legal statute that if I am a resident of Washington for more than 90 days I need to obtain a Washington DL. But in applying for that, there ain't no way I can point to my Australian DL and say "Hey, I don't need to do most of these tests" (of which there are only two).

Re:So...

[will_die]

The IDP is just a translation of your licenses into a common format and around 9 languages. There are a few countries that require that you carry one such as Austria, at least for US driver license holders.

Re:So...

[mpe]

At a certain level, even Microsoft will pay attention to a fine. Fine them $10-20 billion, and although it won't break their piggy bank, it will make a substantial difference.

Any fine would have to be large enough to cause Microsoft considerable cash flow problems. If it was too small or they had too long a period to pay it then all they will do is pass costs on to their customers.
It would probably be far more effective to either force Microsoft to shut down for a period of time or to revoke copyrights and/or patents.

Re:So...

[MSZ]

I think it was revenue rather than profits, as there are many ways to have artificially low profits - and a fine based on these would not deter a corporation...

Uh-oh

[TomatoMan]

If this is true, we shall be very angry!

And we shall write a letter, TELLING you how angry we are!

Re:Uh-oh

[Anonymous Coward]

And write it with MS Word, of course.

Publicity

[erica_ann]

Any publicity is good publicity in Microsoft's eyes.

What will they get this time.. another fine and more time to correct the wrong? It's not like these fines hurt MS..

Re:Publicity

[govtpiggy]

There is such a thing as bad publicity. Bad publicity is only good publicity if it's getting an unknown name into the news. There isn't anyone reading this who hasn't heard much about that Microsoft-thing.

Re:Publicity

[erica_ann]

I wouldn't say that bad pub;licity is only good if it's getting an unknown name into the news... Grand Theft Auto wasn't unknown... nor were Donald Trump or Rosie.. but look at the ratings skyrocket after their never ending trist. Tara Conner.. Miss Nevada... they weren't unknown, but yet bad publicity was good for them... and on and on.

Not ALL Bad Publicity is Good publicity.. but bad publicity IS Publicity.. and somtimes any publicity is good publicity.

Re:Publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

nor were Donald Trump or Rosie.. but look at the ratings skyrocket after their never ending trist.

Ouch, that is the worst misuse of 'tryst' I think I have ever seen. It usually means 'a date' or 'a rendezvous with a lover'-- don't quite think that term will ever apply to Rosie and Trump. In fact the mere suggestion of such would probably cause both of them to gag.

Oh, and if you're going to use beauty queens as an example of bad publicity being good publicity, don't forget Vanessa Williams. Without certain nudie pics she'd just be another name on the list of former Miss Americas that nobody remembers, instead of a singer/actress.

Cursed chain

[suv4x4]

I'm afraid the way EU "handles" Microsoft is doing us all a major disservice.

1. Microsoft is monopoly since the majority of people use Windows/Office, despite the availability of competition (i.e. not exactly a classical monopoly, despite preinstallations and so on).

2. EU decides Microsoft should be treated completely differently to say, OSX, Solaris, Unix and Linux vendors, by demanding the core of Microsoft's IP is forced in the public domain.

3. Competition advances with features Microsoft can't implement due to "antitrust" (remember the craplets that laptop vendors install on Windows machines?).

4. Microsoft fights to keep their IP private, and employ bigger and bigger army of lawyers and spends more and more resources on workarounds.

5. This and insane fines (2 million/day???) affect the bottom line of Microsoft.

6. Microsoft takes further steps to protect their IP so they can get their lost money back from profits. This further cements Microsoft's market position.

7. Go to 1.

If only they could have waited...

[danaris]

In two more years, evidence of this might actually get somewhere with the DoJ. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still entirely controlled by the exact same administration that let Microsoft off in the first place?

Now, if Congress could somehow manage to get involved, that might make some difference...

Dan Aris

Re:If only they could have waited...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we want Congress involved? Haven't they just proven their ineptitude time and time again as far as pretty much everything related to technology goes? They'd probably try to take away some of MS's tubes or something before they'd do anything useful.

Re:If only they could have waited...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying the DoJ is still controlled by the Clinton administration?!? Or are you blaming Bush1? Or maybe even Reagan (per-processor licensing was happening as far back as that, I think)?

There is nothing special or unusual about Bush2 administration, in terms of looking-the-other-way on antitrust violations. And your thought that somehow we'll have fair government in two years, shows your naivity. We're not going to have fair government until people decide to vote for it, and so far, about 99% of the public is opposed to the very idea of it. And Congress?! Congress is even less accountable than the president. Congress does slimey shit all the time, but it's always the white house reporters whose pieces you'll ever actually see on TV.

Re:If only they could have waited...

[danaris]

There is nothing special or unusual about Bush2 administration, in terms of looking-the-other-way on antitrust violations.

...Except that they are the ones who looked the other way on this particular set of antitrust violations.

Put away your axe, and your grindstone, read what I actually wrote, and maybe try to remember a little of what happened around 6-7 years ago when Bush came into power, and the lawsuit just quietly...disappeared...

Dan Aris

Re:If only they could have waited...

[CAIMLAS]

If Congress or the Executive branch had the authority to interfere in such things, we'd be living in a plutocracy of the elect. No fucking thanks.

this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement!

[ghbyrkit]

Based on a reading of the email offered as 'evidence' of this transgression, it occurred in 1992, 10 years before the settlement! So this is old evidence of a 'transgression' that allegedly occurred before the settlement. It is NOT evidence of a transgression that occurred AFTER the settlement. So it may not be 'new news' by any measure. Nothing to see, just a wookie, keep moving!

Re:this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement!

[Daniel Phillips]

Based on a reading of the email offered as 'evidence' of this transgression, it occurred in 1992, 10 years before the settlement! So this is old evidence of a 'transgression' that allegedly occurred before the settlement. It is NOT evidence of a transgression that occurred AFTER the settlement.

Amazing, you got access to the evidence when nobody else did, I am impressed.

Re:this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement!

[drinkypoo]

Since you seem to have access to materials none of the rest of us have seen, could you please provide us a link to the content so that we can examine the evidence?

Re:this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement!

[kismet666]

Before mocking the poster perhaps you could do a little research, the transcript for the January 12 proceedings are online: http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/TP011207.txt

Re:this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement!

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I'm not going to bother to read the transcript, but I think it's well known that Excel accidentally used undocumented api in the Win3.x timeframe, when a Windows dev was transferred to Excel and he used an internal windows function. But that function does NOTHING that couldn't be done with public API. The offending code as since been removed, long long ago (I believe in the last Win16 version of Excel). This was around 1992, so I'll just assume that's what this is about, even without reading the tanscript. :p

API is fully disclose ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... because you can get the Windows sources on the Internet ;-)

MS wont change till users change

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Microsoft's user base is very very large and their technical knowledge varies significantly. Most of them dont know where the OS leaves off and where the applications kick in. They dont know the difference between the browser and MS Office. They are willing to pay whatever MS demands. Under these circumstances MS can get away with anything.

Free markets and specilizations work, when large systems are broken into simpler components, the performance metrics and interface details are specified by a neutral standard that do not play favourites. Does the consumer really know the vicosity vs temperature profile of 10W-40 and 5W-40? They dont know, they dont care. The IC engine manufacturers and the lubricant oil manufacturer know it. All the rest only care about the spec name. Free market takes care of the rest and provides us with the cheapest engine oil taking advantage of all economies of scale etc.

If GM could make its cars accept only GM engine oil and keeps the spec secret and the competition out, it will do it. But it is the consumers who would refuse to buy such cars and force GM to disclose the lubricant requirements for its IC engines. If consumers are willing to buy such "closed" cars from GM, could the courts or the govt do anything to change it? The can try. But they will never be able to reach the same level of efficiency the free market does.

So dont just blame MS, blame the consumers too. All the tech columnists who should be educating the public about these things are talking fluff about the latest and greatest gadgets and widgets in trade shows. Blame them too. Slashdotters who know these things better talk to the other consumers as though they are complete idiots, creating a backlash against nerds/geeks etc. People buy MS blindly because they are not fully informed. Not because they are idiots willing to fork over their money to a large corporation without asking questions. Only educated consumers can break the monopoly. It is our duty to educate them without insulting them.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[multipartmixed]

At least in the US, GM could not require GM oil, coolant, or service... not because of consumer demands, but because of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1976.

I'm amazed how many American vehicle owners have never heard of this puppy, y'all should read it sometime. And the next time your new car salesman says anything about the warranty, you'll know where you can tell him to stick his head.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Thanks for the nugget of information. Anyway, in the 1950s climate of what-is-good-for-GM-is-good-for-America could the congress have passed a law similar to Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act? Monopoly abuse has to become an issue enough voters cared about, only then the congress will follow. For all that talk about politicians claiming to be "leaders" they are in effect followers. The good ones figure out which way the crowd is heading and get in front of them and "lead" them to wherever they were already going.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us USERS are FORCED to use MS at work or work-related stuff. For example, I have a dedicated windows box simply so I can do my online timesheet and our corporate training. Often we have NO CHOICE as Windows is the corporate or customer standard.

Some USERS just want to turn the computer on and have it work. They go to Walmart, Best Buy, or Circuit City and get a laptop, plug it in and try to use it. They don't know nor care about the O/S or software, just what came with the machine. They go to these same stores and buy the pretty shrink-wrapped games or tax programs, install them, and just use them (insert CD, click on install, then run the program, no passwords to worry about, no user levels, no additional packages required, no special libraries, nothing beyond clicking on an ICON and answering a few questions). To them the Internet is MSIE, much like to an AOL user 10 years ago, the Internet was AOL. It is often difficult to get them ot use OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, etc (often they have NEVER heard of these).

Some kids just want to run their games on their desktop. My daughter wants to access Barbie.com, my son Lego.com, both require flash but the computers I let them use are FC6/x86_64 -- no stable flash for 64-bit Linux yet. Last night, my son asked if I could setup wine and let him run Black and White 2 on his Linux-only box. A quick check (12/24/06) showed that it installed but would not run. What's his choice? It's go to the basement XP box and run it there (with the window-only Canon F50 printer/scanner).

Yes, we need to educate users. However, we need to address some serious shortcomings with open source and Linux (marketing, drivers, applications like tax software, games, etc.).

Re:MS wont change till users change

[szembek]

It's 'Magnuson' just for anyone's reference who wants to Google this.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[drinkypoo]

For future reference: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) of 1976 is 15 U.S.C. 2301-2312.

Some relevant items:

Section 2301 (9) The term "reasonable and necessary maintenance" consists of those operations

(A) which the consumer reasonably can be expected to perform or have performed and (B) which are necessary to keep any consumer product performing its intended function and operating at a reasonable level of performance.

And here is the followup, the part of the law we're talking about right now:

Section 2302 (c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.

This leaves substantial room for interpretation. One potential example is GM's "Dexcool" which they claim cannot be substituted for another coolant. Interestingly Dexcool (which is red in color) is horrible nasty shit. It's supposed to last five years and typically lasts only one. When it goes bad it is far worse for your cooling system (more corrosive) than any other type of coolant including pure water. But GM persists in telling people that if they use another coolant it may damage their vehicle. Fuckheads. Crap like this is why I won't buy American any more. Anyway, if they could somehow convince a court of their bullshit claims about Dexcool, they could potentially deny you warranty protection...

Re:MS wont change till users change

[Anonymous Coward]

You're completely wrong about Dexcool. It turns into nasty shit because idiots mix it with Ethelyn-Glycol antifreeze. Talk to somebody who knows a thing or two about cars, not some jackass spouting off on a forum. Also Dexcool type antifreeze is available from more than one company, and compatible anti-freeze that mixes with it are available.

GM does not require you to buy Dexcool, they require you to use a coolant that meets certain standards. They are all listed in the owners manual of your car.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[Forbman]

I got the same kind of grief from a Honda dealer when the tranny in our Odyssey started going out. The service writer alleged that Honda ATF fluid has magic stuff that aren't in typical AT fluid, strongly implying that we should have had our tranny flushed at the dealer, and that we would have to buy a new tranny (probably a rebuid, with insignificant warranty).

Another writer a few weeks later pulled in a couple of chips with Honda USA and got us a brand new tranny (we paid for labor). Apparantly the trannies in the 2nd gen Odysseys were having some longevity issues, and Honda quietly had extended the warranty to 100K miles. Our problem was that the torque converter lockup clutch was disintegrating.

Re:MS wont change till users change

[drinkypoo]

You're completely wrong about Dexcool. It turns into nasty shit because idiots mix it with Ethelyn-Glycol antifreeze. Talk to somebody who knows a thing or two about cars, not some jackass spouting off on a forum.

Interestingly, I learned this from the instructor in my Automotive Heating and AC class (I am in fact ASE certified) who actually worked in the field for, well, longer than I've been alive.

Also Dexcool type antifreeze is available from more than one company, and compatible anti-freeze that mixes with it are available.

It's probably available today. However, its degradation has nothing whatsoever to do with mixing with regular antifreeze, although THAT will also make it go bad immediately.

It's too bad you don't know what you're talking about, because as a result, you just got served. Now please, lick my balls. Thank you.

Title is wrong

[NineNine]

Actually, if any Slashdot "Editors" read the actual document, you'd see that the document is actually favorable, and says that MS is making good headway with documenting and hand-holding their competitors. The document says that MS has somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 people working to get this documentation done, and that there have been no substantive complaints about MS's compliance.

Read The Fucking Article, Slashdot editors.

Re:Title is wrong

[Churla]

Look here sir...

If people read articles before posting headlines and summaries which could be considered volatile and flame inducing where would we be as a proper MS hating, Apple and Llinux loving society?

Please.. take your petty reason and logic and peddle them somewhere else, we have no need for those services here.

Re:Title is wrong

[WhiteWolf666]

Bzzzt!

Wrong!

You're reading the wrong document.

The point is that the December Report was found to potentially have missed substantive complaints. Comes v Microsoft, in January, opened the door to those complaints being analyzed by the Plaintiffs. We won't know what they are until the plaintiffs have officially filed, if they choose to do so, but the Judge in Comes v Microsoft believed they were substantial enough to merit consideration.

Re:Title is wrong

[kismet666]

Wrong document? So if the December status report co-authored by the complainants and defendants disagrees with your forgone conclusions you dismisss it? Perhaps others would care to read for themselves: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f219800/219800.htm

Re:Title is wrong

[WhiteWolf666]

It's not that it disagrees so much as it predates.

Please refer to the dates in question. I believe you can figure it out.

The article says, "New evidence coming out! May be damning!"

The joint report says, "So far, no new evidence has come out. All existing complaints may be dismissed as trivial."

There is no dissonance. Please learn to logic.

If it weren't Microsoft...?

[suv4x4]

So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT?

We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right? One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now).

So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.

I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.

Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad).

Maybe we'd all run on FreeDOS, or AmigaOS4.. I don't know...

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Ash-Fox]

We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?

I don't

One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different

I disagree

and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)

I don't agree here either.

So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.

No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.

Maybe we'd all run on FreeDOS, or AmigaOS4.. I don't know...

Might want to think about a bit less inactive projects.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[suv4x4]

We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?

I don't

        One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different

I disagree

        and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)

I don't agree here either.

You will, if you have to develop software targeting multiple OS/CPU vs one (and I don't mean making a web page in Python or PHP, but actual programming, say C++).

No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.

Have you heard of why "design by committee" is bad? It's slow? It's the least common denominator of all benefits? The option that won't "offend" anyone?

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[NineNine]

No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.

Well, in your Fairy Dream Land, every OS works together and we all hold hands and sing together. The reality is that this has never happened, and if you were around during the birth of PC's in the 80's, you'd remember the nightmare of having several different platforms to develop for.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Calinous]

Lots of software written for Linux is able to be run on OpenBSD - by using the so-called ports. Also, for the same architecture, you could run the so-called "binary emulation" with near native efficiency.
      NetBSD (just the operating system) runs on tons of computer architectures. As such, having multiple architectures is certainly possible.
      Games are written for all the three major consoles - and there aren't many similarities between each other.

      Other things - the AMD connection from microprocessor to chipset is derivated from Alpha architecture. Inside, the Intel processors are about as much RISC as their old competitors (Alpha, MIPS). x86 - however good it is - don't have anything in the very low power arena (even the very low power Via processors can't run without a heat sink).

      Having a different server architecture (while running software compatible to Intel microarchitecture) helped AMD from about 0% market share in server processors to some 20% (I think). Having Transmeta Crusoe as a competitor maybe motivated Intel to go for a low power, high performance laptop processor (the Pentium M).

  Interoperability and standards... POSIX seem to work some (even Windows NT was marketed as having POSIX compliance). OpenGL works again. Binary compatibility between operating systems works too (Linux compatibility exists in OpenBSD, Sun, ...). The X Windowing system seems a standard in Unix world.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[GreatDrok]

"We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?"

No. For the same reason that one species of banana is bad news. How about potato blight? Oh, biology. Doesn't have anything to do with computers. While in biology, a monoculture is a bad thing and means that a simple virus can drop a culture into famine and poverty, that simply doesn't happen in the world of computing.......oh wait.

Different code bases implementing fully documented standards is the only way we will get through all this. One company should not control everything regardless of how hard they work to make their code secure. In the end the computers will either have to be complete black boxes with no user modifiable features or there will need to be multiple implementations from different sources to avoid a catastrophic single point failure.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[wellingj]

You will, if you have to develop software targeting multiple OS/CPU vs one (and I don't mean making a web page in Python or PHP, but actual programming, say C++).

Well I'm developing code for a gumstix (400mhz Intel X-scale processor bassed on the ARM architecture, no FPU),
and I can write all my code for my laptop(x86), then just cross compile it and it works exactly the same.
Why is that? ohhhh, yea they are both running Linux. so that covers your multiple CPU problem.

Then we look at the multiple os problem...I mean if you have never heard of Java or QT, then I guess this would sound like a huge problem.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Danse]

So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.

You're misunderstanding the reason that MS is considered evil. As much as people may dislike their OS and software, their business tactics are the real problem. The DOJ had them dead to rights during the last trial. MS execs had been caught lying on multiple occasions. They had destroyed evidence. Their expert witnesses often ended up looking like fools. Everything was going great for the DOJ. Then Bush got elected and the DOJ folded and settled with MS. So Microsoft basically got away with years of illegal tactics and abuse. That's why we should come down hard on them anytime they step out of line. Maybe in another year or so we'll have a government willing to do that.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[suv4x4]

I mean if you have never heard of Java or QT

You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem (I wonder: what IF you're the one writing the JRE... but that's another topic)

Oh my god, what is Adobe doing! They spent so much resources to port that port Flash to Linux properly, while they could've just used Java or QT!?

And all their other software! And Mac software, why isn't it all written in Java so we poor Windows users can run it?

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Viceroy Potatohead]

"We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right? One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)."

I don't agree with that at all. It does have one merit: cost of production should be lower. Personally, I think having wildly different platforms is the way to go. If some hardware manufacturer creates a new architecture, they should publish the hardware interfaces, let the software writers write a layer of code to interface with it. Instead of basing the entire project around that architecture, abstracting that layer, and writing generic code at higher level layers is the way to go. Largely, this IS what is done nowadays, but incompletely, and hence imperfectly. Having wildly different architectures would force better abstraction, and improve program design. Code would then be more responsive to changes in hardware technology, and software developments could more readily demonstrate needed changes in hardware design.

As well, having different platforms makes sense due to different use requirements. There are many real world uses that make an Intel platform, or whatever, less than ideal. Having hardware available which suits the intended use cuts out needless hardware bloat. If my device only needs an 8-bit math-processor, I don't need all the bells and whistles (including energy use, size, and unit cost) associated with a more all purpose solution. (This would still apply, though less so, if we are simply talking about desktops.)

The same goes for homogenization of the OS.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[AusIV]

It may not have happened yet, but it is happening. In the 80's, there were several platforms to develop for, but the cross platform libraries and standards weren't nearly as well developed. Today, there are numerous libraries out there that allow code to either be run directly on different platforms (Java, Python, Perl), or easily compiled for different platforms (QT, GTK+). There are already numerous products that are released on a variety of platforms. Most of the software I use on Linux can simply be compiled for a different CPU architecture, or can be compiled against Cygwin libraries to run on Windows (if not just compiled for Windows). Computers are also cooperating better than they ever have before, as the SMB standard becomes used on Linux and OSX, as well as Windows, and the web begins to replace some past applications.

I don't know what your major objection is to interoperability and standards as opposed to one OS, but to me it seems desirable, and while we've got a ways to go yet, it doesn't seem unachievable.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem...

Actually Java and QT are examples of possible solutions to easy cross-platform development. Almost all major software development houses maintain portable code because it makes for better code even if you never target another platform. It provides more flexibility for the future and other platforms are profitable right now. The real problem with cross-platform applications is not that the technology is not possible. It is that in many cases there is little motivation to use them and some artificial incentives to not use them. Because of MS's monopoly on desktop OS's and the technological decisions they've made to try to make cross platform programming harder, in some market segments it does not make sense to aim at multiple platforms. That does not mean that if the desktop OS market was not more evenly divided among 3 or more competing platforms, cross-platform programming tools would not be a whole lot better and better supported by those platforms. It would be the default way to work and I don't know of any technical reasons why it would not work just fine.

Basically, I think you're mistaking the effect (cross platform tools are not used as widely as they could be and are not mature and well supported on all OS's) for the cause (there is one dominant OS).

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that there aren't, TMK, any up to date Java QT bindings. But there's SWT for Java which isn't bad.

Flash is a different bear. It's all custom drawing and it has to be really fast and play video.

Everyone who has to make very fast custom drawing and play videos raise your hand!

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[LWATCDR]

Sorry but I have written a two applications that are platform independent using Java. They work and are used every day.
The current program I am working on I develop under Linux on the X86 and the cross compile for an ARM.

Take a look at some examples of multi platform applications.
OpenOffice, Firefox, Apache, MySQL, PostgresSQL, GIMP, Google Earth, Thunderbird, and many more.
Programs that run on multiple OSs and ISAs are getting more common.
And frankly Microsoft is scared of that and doing all it can to stop it.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[NineNine]

Well, I haven't seen a whole heck of a lot of cross-platforms apps, even after the Miracle of Java (tm) was created. About the only progress made in the past two decades is that a PC can read a Mac disk and vice versa. All we really have at this point are hacked together kludges (like WINE). I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[NullProg]

Then Bush got elected and the DOJ folded and settled with MS. So Microsoft basically got away with years of illegal tactics and abuse.

I know its popular to blame everything on Bush, but lets not re-write history. An appeals court threw out the guilty verdict after Penfield Jackson ran his mouth off to the press. Had he not done that, there would be two Microsofts right now. Bush choose not to waste tax payer money on a re-trial (Remember there was a recession during this time).

http://money.cnn.com/2001/06/28/technology/microso ft_appeal/

And please note, the Clinton DOJ settled first back in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr osoft

Enjoy,

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Ash-Fox]

Well, I haven't seen a whole heck of a lot of cross-platforms apps

Off the top of my head... VLC, Firefox, Vmware, qemu, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, Skype, KDE (Many, many applications -- probably 100+ if you include the extras), Azureus and there are far more, you can find a large amount of cross-platform software on sourceforge.

About the only progress made in the past two decades is that a PC can read a Mac disk and vice versa.

There has been far more progress than that, sorry.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[anothy]

there's various degrees of this. first off, the tendency here to discount web services, either entirely server-side things like php, ruby and the like or client-side things like ajax is unfounded. the fact that it runs within a particular environment does not diminish the fact that those are cross-platform solutions. those are clearly the most common, and you're blind or ignorant if you're still going to say you've not seen many. beyond that, there's a decent handful of java apps out there that do a good job of being cross-platform. sure, they're less common (for a variety of reasons), but they certainly exist and are certainly options for programmers. finally, things like POSIX and other cross-platform portability standards and libraries have a very real impact as well. sure, they don't provide binary portability, but providing code portability is (in my mind, given the need to test on each supported platform anyway) very nearly as good for commercial or otherwise supported applications. and those have come a very long way since the world of the early/mid-80's.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[pandrijeczko]

Since you have posted at least one comment on Slashdot, it's probably safe to assume that you use the Internet.

Have you considered the possibilities that your (presumably) Windows desktop PC has (possibly) used a Sun Solaris DNS server to connect to (possibly) an Apache web server running on a BSD server on more than one occasion. But of course, you're not bothered about that because it's all happened pretty much transparently and without you needing to give it a second thought.

Hey, guess what... it's the good old TCP/IP ***OPEN STANDARDS*** that allowed all of this to work nicely for you - lots of different hardware on different operating systems, all working nicely together to deliver the ***experience*** you desire!

Please bear this in mind before you start turning every disagreement with your opinion into a "Linux/FOSS vs Windows" war - it has ***ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*** to do with which OS you run but having open standards that allow each and every one of us to choose whatever OS we want to use.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[WhiteWolf666]

So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT?
Yes
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?
No. Multiple platforms with compatible or close to compatible ABIs are vastly superior. Especially if the ABIs follow standards bodies, enabling you to implement backwards, forwards, and cross-compatibility. Think commodity.

One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now).
Nope. x86 blows. Even Intel and AMD know that. But the market momentum has built to such an extent that even the primary x86 supplier cannot change it. This could have changed in a world without Microsoft; Itanium, Power, or any of the other next-gen architectures may have had an opportunity. Apple went Intel because they were the only company buying PowerPC laptop chips, and as such, they could not be produced at the right price point.

Make no mistake; x86 is nobodies choice but Microsoft; even Intel was sledgehammered by Microsoft's refusual to embrace Itanium.


So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.
You're starting from a misconception. You don't need one major OS; you need published standards, so that software for X can be made to run on Y. We have multiple browsers, and in a world with ISO standard document formats, we'll have multiple office suites. Look at e-mail; SMTP/POP/IMAP work across a multitude of clients. Look at Linux; software can work across may different varieties of kernels, with minor modifications here and there. POSIX software isn't build once, install everywhere; but portability is an entirely different beast than going from WindowsAnything else. And, I might add that if we had a company that was dedicated to standards as the market leader in operating systems we might have better, and more inclusive standards.

I would not be shocked to see an LSB that maintained binary compatibility across multiple distributions, and I would not be shocked to see Unixes that implemented an LSB compatible environment.

This is a much better way to mention OS requirements. Think "LSB 4.0", or "POSIX Plus 2.2" required, rather than "98SE", or "Vista required". Standards, standards, standards. Standards are the keystone of commerce.

I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.

You're misinformed. First of all, you need to be considering the desktop, not the kernel. What matters is user experience, not hardware under the hood. In that sense, you've really got 2 choices. Gnome, and KDE. There are a couple different customizations of each. I like the SuSE version and Ubuntu version, because they are easy to use. Linspire, although no the most secure thing under the sun, is a KDE distribution that is drop dead easy to work with. Easy software installs, the whole nine yards. Vastly simplier than Windows.

Either way, both Gnome and KDE, and Linuxes in general, have a great deal of work to do in terms of application availability, but this is neither a technical concern or an interface concern. This is a market concern, and a direct result of Microsoft monopoly practices, not the nature of computing in general. Personally, I find KDE much easier to work with than Windows, and 5 years of testing now with my entire family setup on SuSE has borne this out.

Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad).
I agree that Apple has a bad attitude. That being said, Apple really provides a superior experience. I do hope that one day Apple develops an OS licensing model that allows it to continue to

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[tkrotchko]

"One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different"

Not at all. If there were lots and lots of CPU architectures, OS's would have to be written to run or be ported easily to another processor architecture. This would open up competition to the "best" processor, rather than the best implementation of the X86 command line.

It probably would have forced OS vendor to be far more innovative in terms of virtualization and other technologies that we can't even dream of.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[pyrrho]

no, "better" does not mean "easier"... it's a worse situation over all to have homogenius OS deployment (and highly unlikely, if you just configure something like linux to go on all devices, those version of linux for phones are not going to be just like the workstation install anyway, and you still play OS compatibility games per device)... but my point is it's a worse situation to have a homogenius OS world than it is to do the hard work of making platform independant software.

Further... it's very easy to program in C on any machine, and indeed C++... but the GUI libraries are not standard, and so all the nice ANSI compatibility falls to hell... so add that final layer to the standard C++ universe and you're all set.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[anothy]

whoa. nice set of assumptions!

You will...

huh. and you know this how? different people put priority on different things, and make different choices accordingly. you're assuming the prioritization of things that you've made is the 'right" one, and that clearly anyone else who has to do similar tasks would clearly make the same ones.

...and I don't mean making a web page in Python or PHP, but actual programming, say C++...

nice. so web development isn't "actual programming"? the fact that some applications get to use an easier method of achieving cross-platform compatibility than others doesn't make them less real programming (clearly there's a lot of trivial stuff out there, and a lot of crap, but that doesn't really help your point any).

Have you heard of why "design by committee" is bad? It's slow? It's the least common denominator of all benefits? The option that won't "offend" anyone?

you seem to be under the impression that OS design is somehow inherently superior to the design of all cross platform solutions. that's just stupid. sure, POSIX has some truly ugly stuff in there, but is it really worse than the Win32 API? and that's just POSIX, probably the most committee-based solution available (okay, OSF, but they're really gone by now, thankfully). are you willing to make the same claims about all cross-platform libraries? plan9port? the Apache runtime thingie? the Mozilla environment? certainly none of these suffer from "design by committee", whatever their other faults.

and, just so i'm clear, you were putting C++ forward as an example of "real" programming before, right? you do, of course, realize that C++ suffers from extensive "design by committee" failures, right?

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Danse]

Bush choose not to waste tax payer money on a re-trial (Remember there was a recession during this time).

Recession has nothing to do with it. The fact that Microsoft started making serious political contributions probably had a lot more to do with it. The cost of another trial is insignificant compared to a thousand other ways the government wastes our money. Putting a stop to a major monopoly would probably save us a lot of money in the medium to long term, and would not only be a better investment, but it's simply the right thing to do when a company of that size is so flagrantly breaking the law. Yes, the judge screwed up. No, that shouldn't let Microsoft off the hook. We retry criminals all the time when a trial gets messed up. They don't usually just walk.

And please note, the Clinton DOJ settled first back in 1994.

Right, and the fact that they blew off that settlement is part of what got them in trouble again. Not to mention all the more reason the DOJ should have continued to pursue them and taken them down for good. They'd already shown that they couldn't be trusted to abide by a settlement.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Viceroy Potatohead]

"Not at all. If there were lots and lots of CPU architectures, OS's would have to be written to run or be ported easily to another processor architecture. This would open up competition to the "best" processor, rather than the best implementation of the X86 command line."

I said (or attempted to say, but failed to say) the same thing (or at least a related thing), and got modded down. But this is one of my biggest general peeve nowadays in software development. Too many programmers are just building for situational functionality, instead of transferable, scalable, and modifiable, functionality. This is keeping us tied to (granted, arguably) inferior architectures. Unfortunately, write once, run anywhere is appearing harder than it appeared it would be in the nineties. To not write with that philosophy, however, condemns us to perpetual rewrites and safe (read minor) developments in hardware logic.

Re:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[AusIV]

You didn't even read my comment, did you? I made a list of APIs that are cross platform and work wonderfully, and you mention WINE in the same category? Wine is okay for people who need to get Windows software to work on another platform, but it's a complete cop-out for someone who writes software. As a sibling said, there are hundreds of cross platform applications. Before I switched from Windows to Ubuntu, the programs I used were Firefox for web browsing, Gaim for instant messaging, OpenOffice for an office suite, Eclipse for software development, VLC for playing videos, iTunes for managing my music and iPod, and Audacity on the rare occasion I need to edit an audio clip. The only one of those I'm not using on Linux is iTunes. Every other program I just mentioned was written using cross-platform APIs. I use GMail and Google Calendar for my e-mail and scheduling needs, and while those aren't running on my computer, they certainly meet the needs of users on different platforms.

That's obvious...

[192939495969798999]

Given that if you buy a product, you don't even get to see all the API hooks you can use with the product. Why would they give it to their competitors when they won't even give all the API stuff to customers that paid for it?

Re:That's obvious...

[Forbman]

Well, MS does give it all away, technically. There are several key DLLs that do not have typelibs or named hooks, and the functionality in them can only be accessed by using function IDs. Without the typelib, figuring out the parameters can be hard, (but some information can be inferred, say, if one parameter is obviously a pointer to a struct that is documented elsewhere).

Or, DLLs that don't have a "license" to be used in a given programming environment, or have magic values that actually turn them on, for lack of a better word, and those magic values aren't published publicly at all (except in the code that invokes the functionality).

Groklaw eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much of this is really true?

Ever since the hysteria of the Freespire debacle (PJ directly accused the Linspire CEO of hiring astroturfers to invade her forum and was deleting all comments that weren't rabidly anti-Linspire), I just can't see PJ and Groklaw as I did previously. The groupthink and zealotry was a bit of a wake-up call to myself and my own prejudices.

While I still think PJ and Co. have done tremendously well in the SCO case, I take their analysis with a rather large pinch of salt. I hope they're right in this case, though (there's those prejudices again).

See the success in Munich

[Calinous]

Yes, that would be the best course of action - however, the essence of a monopoly is that you have little other choices.
      Would this be possible? Yes, the Munich city is moving to something else than Windows (details not so important), and is converting from a couple of years, and the complete conversion will take another couple of years maybe

Re:See the success in Munich

[Jim_Maryland]

Other choices do exist though, even if not as dominant as Microsoft. A typical desktop setup (basic office applications, browser, etc...) can be replaced with a less popular alternative. The difficult task will be desktops and servers where applications only exist on the MS platform (which as you indicated can take a couple years). The fallout from Microsoft being banned from government contracts would be that other software vendors would start porting their applications to non-Microsoft operating systems. Maybe provisions within the government ban could be to allow for exceptions where a vendor of an application won't port to alternate operating systems or an alternate product for another operating system does not exist. I would just worry that all system administrators would start submitting exceptions for all their systems they manage.

So?

[El Lobo]

Don't be lazy and do you own code. Do it better than the MS API that they are using. Oh, no, I forgot, it's easier to cry foul!

And I don't care if you mod me down for this. Cry babies.

Re:So?

[MikeBabcock]

You're obviously clueless to the issues at hand.

Please read some history on Windows API issues and why this matters to developers.

This isn't about stealing code or making life easier, this is about Microsoft writing both an OS and the software that sits on top of the OS. Since they write say, Office AND Windows, they could (and have) include API calls that benefit their version of Office on Windows that are hidden from (for example) OpenOffice. The court decision was that since Microsoft has a definite monopoly in the OS market, its unfair competition to not allow their competitors equal access to the API that they have IN THEIR NON-OS development divisions.

That is to say, I should be able to with equal talent and innovation create an equal product sitting on Windows to Microsoft's own and they shouldn't be allowed to unfairly hamper me or benefit themselves in the process using the Windows API.

That's why one of the court recommendations was to split Microsoft into OS and application divisions, and why tying of IE and Windows Media Player are a big deal.

Re:So?

[Kaenneth]

Yeah, Media Player... the 'N' version of XP, the one without Media Player, sold about one copy per 2,000,000 regular copies of XP sold, which is just a few thousand. Which could easily be purchased by mistake, or by other software companies for testing purposes.

API seperation is good, forcing an unbundled SKU to actually be sold (instead of, for example, a checkbox/install script/slipstream option) was a mistake.

Four words

[Digital Vomit]

Four words: revocation of corporate charter.

This is something that needs to start happening a lot if we ever want to reduce the problem of corrupt business damaging society.

Re:Four words

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's go after the best company in the world when we could be going after real corrupt businesses like Haliburton, Exxon/Mobile, etc...

Re:Four words

[anothy]

"best company in the world"? based on what, exactly? stock price? market cap? "innovation"? i could certainly see arguments against the "microsoft is inherently evil" mindset, but putting them forward as "best" needs a bit more justification.
and hey, who says we can't also go after Haliburton, ExxonMobile, and whoever else? revocation of corporate charter should require more grounds than "being jackasses", but repeated violation of judicial findings seems like a good basis. microsoft has that to spare; are the others you'd like to go after equally guilty?

Re:Four words

[Anonymous Coward]

Exxon/Mobile at least produces (well, ok, supplies) stuff that people very badly want. Halliburton gets things done too, if half-assed and overpriced. What value has Microsoft produced?

Then get done for patent infringemen

[Anonymous Coward]

or look and feel
or methods and concepts
or even an ACCUSATION of copying "because how could you have the same bugs if you didn't copy the software" (see OOXML for an example of why: you are required to run bug-for-bug compatible. Same with Win32 and CIFS/SMB).

Tit.

Title is completely correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical ninenine pro-Microsoft cock-sucking.

The title is correct, the plaintiffs in the case have submitted a request to reveal the evidence they have that Microsoft violated the 2002 judgement.

4 more words

[DaMattster]

Have Billions, Will Travel.

Corporate Veils == financial protection, not legal

[CrazedWalrus]

Microsoft, being a legal entity can be charged with something, but you cannot jail a corporate entity. The veil of incorporation means that it is unlikely that individuals will be charged either Really, I don't know why this keeps being said, as it certainly isn't true. Corporate veils protect against financial liability to creditors, but they're no shield for illegal activity. Do you really think I could buy a get-out-of-jail-free card for the $600 it took me to set up my corporation? Do you really think that the government would grant such a "license to kill" as cheaply and easily as a few forms and less than $1000? Not a bad investment, really.

Slashdot readers seem to be generally anti-corporation, and assign them "powers" that simply don't exist, just so they can point to how "unfair" this particular legal construct is.

The Solution

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is a little more general and less about this particular instance of abuse but... Does anyone here have any confidence that MS will stop breaking the law unless the courts effectively intervene? Does anyone here think that MS's huge contributions to the political campaigns of those corrupt people in charge of enforcing said laws will be able to prevent them from being effectively punished for a given abuse? Does anyone think the courts can act quickly enough so that they stop all the existing players in a market from being destroyed?

The courts are slow as molasses when lots of high priced lawyers get involved. The justice department is directed by corrupt politicians who will do anything they can get away with for money. MS has piles of money. As a result MS can break the law and suffer little or no repercussions. Sure they pay a fine here and settle a lawsuit there, but at nowhere near an expense equalling the amount of money they make from their crimes. They built their business model upon the assumption that breaking the law and then buying their way out of it would be more profitable than obeying the law, and they've been 100% correct.

I don't think it will ever be possible for a bureaucracy like most governments to deal with MS on a micro-managing level. The only way to repair the destroyed markets and make sure MS does not have motivation to commit more crimes is to break their business model for them. The best way I can see to do this is the classic way, destroy their monopoly by breaking them into competing factions. You can't abuse a monopoly if you don't have one.

Here is what I think would work. Assign all intellectual property, copyrights, and patents relating to Windows to two new companies MS-A and MS-B. Split the workforce and financial resources between them. Investors get a stock split. Now you have two companies both of whom can sell Windows and make changes to Windows and both of whom have some of the manpower needed to do that. Forbid the two companies from any non-public communication with one another. Every single MS lock-in is instantly destroyed. Dell can buy Windows from MS-A or MS-B and can take bids from both. Dell can also choose based upon competition on features. Windows A now has improved graphics performance for OpenGL and DirectX and is great for gamers. Windows B, however, concentrated on developing the best anti-virus and security solution possible mitigating almost all malware without the user ever doing a thing. Dell can buy either version or both for different customers, but they have a choice. Both new companies are actually motivated to deliver what they think customers want, instead of anti-features that provide MS with what MS wants and ignores the customers under the assumption that they will have to buy from MS.

Windows fans will get a temporary slowdown in development during the reorganization, then a huge boom in development as the new companies streamline and invest in giving users what they want in order to compete with the other new MS. People who think bundling is critical to innovation can likewise be happy, since both new companies are now free to bundle anything and everything they want, as that does not lock anyone in.

Both new companies are motivated to provide interoperability and play nice with others to a much greater extent since they will be trying to win customers from one another. Application developers will no longer be motivated to write non-portable code and thus applications that run on many platforms will become more common. Java VM applications, for example will get a lot better and a lot more common. All of this will make Linux distributions, OS X, and other OS players more viable and more likely to be adopted. Apple will probably be forced to de-couple their OS and hardware in order to compete and will no longer be assured of destruction from monopoly abuse if they take that action. Users and OEMs will have choices and investment in the OS market will skyrocket with accompanying rapid improvements in the sta

Re:The Solution

[gone.fishing]

Your idea has merit and in fact similar things have been done when monopolies have been broken up before (Standard Oil, IBM, and Bell Telephone are examples). I do not know or understand why the courts did not do someting equally draconian with Microsoft when they had the chance. History seems to suggest that it is the most likely method to succeed.

Still, it did not happen. Instead they said "open the API" and now it looks like Microsoft has not done so, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Sadly the order does not compel anyone to really look into this, it merely says "someone says they have some information and if you (the DOJ) want to look at it, you have our permission."

It seems to me without adequate political pressure, the DOJ will probably ignore this permission.

Re:The Solution

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I do not know or understand why the courts did not do someting equally draconian with Microsoft when they had the chance. History seems to suggest that it is the most likely method to succeed.

The original ruling against MS actually called for them to be broken up. They then went on to lose the appeal on all major points, but between losing the appeal and being sentenced the second time, there was an election and MS was one of the largest contributors in that election to both major parties election funds. Basically, they bribed politicians to give them a useless sentence and the politicians replaced the people in charge of the DoJ who then handed down the new, useless, sentence.

It seems to me without adequate political pressure, the DOJ will probably ignore this permission.

I'm convinced there will be legal pressure to push for a better solution to MS's actions, because the Democrats who just grabbed a lot of power know a good thing when they see it. That same political pressure will evaporate once they are paid.

Re:The Solution

[Forbman]

Ideally, Vulcan Ventures (Paul Allen's company) would buy MS-A, and whatever private equity group that BillG gathers owns MS-B. Both are taken private (bye-bye SEC, SarbOx). Secret deals ensue, and one or the other eventually is bought out, and the monopoly is restored.

Stop or I will yell stop again!

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect the penalty for their actions is in my subject line.

Can Microsoft be accused of anti-trust against...

[Ice.Saoshyant]

...other media formats, namely those of Xiph.Org (FLAC, Vorbis, Speex, Theora, etc)? I mean, they have competiting products in the form of WMV and WMA, and their Janus DRM specification explicitely required devices not to support Ogg Vorbis until recently. They aren't going to provide support for any of the free software audio/video formats any time soon, neither in Windows, Media Center, Xbox or Zune. And Apple's pretty much in the same boat with iPod and Mac OS X. I wonder, can an anti-trust case be held against those two companies in either Europe or USA? And if so, how does the average joe turns the attention of (say) DOJ to this issue?

Re:Corporate Veils == financial protection, not le

[evilkiksass]

IANAL
1. Wikipedia != reliable reference
2. The corporate veil he was referring to is its existence as a legal entity.
3. A corporation is a legal body, you can not sue portions of that body.
4. You can however sue Bill Gates / Balmer / some other senior exec for a crime THEY have committed (IE: ordering the company to do something illegal).


Example: If you set yourself up to be a one man corporation and then proceed to kill somebody, the corporation has not committed a crime, and therefore will not be punished, you on the other hand will be guilty of murder and will be found guilty unless you use the chewbacca defense.

Sco/BSF spit in the judge's eye, got away with it

[walterbyrd]

In one of scox's hearings, Scox's law team, BSF, openly defied a judge's orders just minutes after the ruling. The judge just ignored. Actually, that has happend a few times during the scox trials.

Who gives a F*** about API's - end per PC pricing

[pyite69]

There is only one important thing to do to make the operating system market competitive - END THE PER-PC LICENSING. Every computer should have the option of having either Windows or another OS - the government should simply make sure that Microsoft doesn't discriminate against companies that offer an alternative. If I were the judge, I would have gone further and forced Microsoft to price Windows as a commodity so they would have to offer the same price to everyone - with stiff penalties for any sort of marketing kickbacks.

The per-model scheme we have now is slightly better than per-processor, but still not adequate.

Ask Wine

[vinn]

Ask the Wine developers. I'm sure there's hundreds of examples of issues.

One thing to do would be to compare the msys headers with the wine headers. msys only contains publically documented interfaces, wine contains everything that's actually required.

how can tell tell what they dont know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure MS doesnt even know its own API (the documented parts) well enough to share, and even if they did, does it still apply since windows 2000 isnt supported and xp is on its way out?, seriously as long as they keep coming up with new versions of windows they can skate around this for a while.

Re:Sco/BSF spit in the judge's eye, got away with

[tinkerghost]

Actually, the judge didn't ignore it, they just waited until it hurt SCO the most & dropped 2/3 of their evidence in the trashcan. The problem with opening that can of legal whoopass is that it can open up appeals. Watching SCO/IBM you can see that when this walks out of court BSF is going to be laughed out of every appeals court in the country.
The viable reasons for appeal:

1. Bias: check - the judge was highly biased in your favor for all of these rulings during discovery.
2. Violation of precedent: If you actually read the whole rulings that you were quoting from you wouldn't be an ass.
3. Gross Error: Yep, you should never have brought this case in the first place.

and not a valid reason outside SCO's alternate universe:

• Because we lost: As it should be.

Re:Can Microsoft be accused of anti-trust against.

[RightSaidFred99]

According to your "logic" anything a company invents that consumers want (and make dominant by choosing to purchase it) apparently becomes government property? Sweet!

Antitrust law is a joke unless applied to government granted monopolies or monopolies over scarce physical resources. The idea of applying it to intellectual property is logically inconsistent and is basically communistic. "You came up with this idea we really like, it now belongs to us in that we can dictate what you do with it".

Nothing (serious) will happen

[r_jensen11]

Seeing that Microsoft's 2005 revenues are 39.788 Billion and that their net income is 12.254 Billion, both of those numbers are a significant chunck of the United States's 2005 GDP of 12455.8 Billion. Microsoft's net income for 2005 is .098% of the United States's GDP and its total revenues for 2005 are .319% of the United States's GDP. Think about that for one second: one company. If you add 3M to Microsoft you get total revenues of 60.955 Billion 39.788+21.1670 billion). Now let's add P&G. Suddenly, you've got an additiona, 56.7410 billion to bring three companies total revenues up to 117.696, or damn near 1% of the nation's GDP. Simply put, Microsoft, along with the (relatively) few other gigantic corporations are virtually untouchable because they are too large of a portion of our economy to collapse without significantly harming the economy.

Re:Nothing (serious) will happen

[jmerlin]

Who said they would collapse? The best thing would be for the supreme court to require that they split into smaller companies and equally distribute resources which would introduce competition and foster innovation and better business and programming practices. We might actually see windows patches and updates that actually make it more secure against malware instead of a patch that just covers up 1 hole and leaves the other 10 billion wide open ( because they're undocumented ).

Re:Nothing (serious) will happen

[mdfst13]

Microsoft's (international) revenues are less than a third of a percent of US GDP. Check, that's true.

Adding Microsoft's revenues to those of two other companies can total *almost* one percent of GDP. Check, I can believe that too. Not sure why you picked 3M and P&G -- too lazy to search for a relationship. Therefore I'm simply going to assume that you picked two other decent sized but not huge companies (Microsoft is only 48th on the Fortune 500; Exxon Mobil is first with profits of about $36 billion -- i.e. almost the size of Microsoft's revenues; at #13, Berkshire Hathaway is more than twice as big as Microsoft). Combined, your three companies are smaller than Citigroup (8th on the Fortune 500). Not sure what your point was. Why combine those three companies? Is there some reason that breaking up the Microsoft monopoly would automatically affect the other two?

See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/ full_list/index.html for Fortune 500 data.

If Microsoft's revenues went to zero, it would significantly harm the US economy. Basis? I don't believe that. Consider that defense use to make up about 6% (6.2% in 1986) of US GDP. It dropped from 4.8% to 3.7% between 1992 and 1995. In general, those were considered to be good economic years. From 1995 to 1999, it dropped a further .7% to 3%. Yet somehow, despite this, those were considered to be great economic years. The 1992-5 era is especially interesting, as spending dropped from 297 billion to 259 billion. That's about 38 billion dollars. I.e. roughly the same magnitude as Microsoft (albeit in more valuable 90s dollars rather than the relatively depreciated 2005 dollars). In other words, the defense shrinkage from 1992 to 1995 was actually larger in magnitude than Microsoft's revenues. Yet somehow the economy not only survived but prospered.

Of the twenty-nine agencies and departments listed in the 2005 federal budget, thirteen are larger than Microsoft's revenues.

Defense % of GDP from http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative- size.php
Historical budget numbers from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/ (in particular, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf ).

It's also worth noting that no one is talking about sending Microsoft's revenue to zero. In fact, because of the way monopolies work, the normal result would be to *increase* revenues while decreasing profits. A monopoly only produces up to the point where marginal revenue (from sales) exceeds marginal cost (of production). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly -- in particular, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e f/Monopoly-surpluses.svg/250px-Monopoly-surpluses. svg.png

The green line represents marginal revenue. The red line represents consumer demand. The blue line represents marginal cost of supply. Note that marginal revenue is positive for at least part of the distance between the monopoly quantity produced and the competitive price. Also note the yellow region. This is the area where the economy *gains* as a result of switching from a monopoly to a competitive market. It comprises the benefits of increased production minus the costs. The blue rectangle (i.e. the part above the Pc line) is gain shifted from producer (Microsoft) to consumers.

To reiterate:

1. Microsoft is not really that big a part of the US economy in terms of revenue.
2. Even if it were, no on is seriously argui

Re:Nothing (serious) will happen

[GaryPatterson]

Microsoft would have some impact on the US economy *if no-one else took their place.*

If Microsoft disappeared tomorrow, hordes of smaller companies would vie for that market. Apple and Linux would compete for the OS market, maybe with space for some new players (finally!), the business apps market would be split amongst many other companies - there are plenty of non-Microsoft word processors out there, and a few spreadsheets. Any space they exist in would be filled by competition once the 800-pound gorilla leaves the room.

I'd argue that the net effect would be higher overheads, more employment and more diversity with no net loss to the US economy. In fact, I'd be looking for a small net gain.

wikipedia link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warrant y_Act

MS will be fine everyone

[rajafarian]

I'm sure MS did not forget to pay their yearly Republican Party dues. I can just hear the Attorney General asking his pimp what he should do and Bush saying, "Nothing, of course."

Of course if they tell a judge instead of the AG, I think things may be different since judges aren't Dubya's beetches.

LOL - More premature ejaculation by slashdotters!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm sure that most slashdotters are quite familiar with premature ejaculation (well, those that can get it up at all), so it's not a surprise the most of them instantly spewed all over their monitors when reading the headline of this thread, before actually reading the evidence that shows that this so-called "violation" occurred in 1992!!!

Kissy, kissy

[Anonymous Coward]

suv4x4: Aw, Microsoft, I WUV you!

Bill Gates: I wuv you too, suv4x4! You give the best rim-jobs EVER!

Seriously, I hope M$ are paying you well for your "services."

I'm not so sure

[pyrrho]

I'm not so sure he's the reasonable and logical one. No I am not.

unfortunately I'd have to read the article to know for sure.

and in your fantasy land

[pyrrho]

there is just one OS and it runs similarly on every device... and the company owning it doesn't try to screw the world.

Interoperable standards are MUCH MORE LIKELY.

Take screws. Standard thread weights, standard heads... take all contracting, take commodoties.

Humans know how to interoperate, but they don't know how to be good little children when they hold choke points.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice point but wrong story. MS has never been ordered to give their code to anyone. It's about documenting api's.

Copy/paste your quote into a document so you can use it if there is ever a story that it applies to.

Maybe...

[Eric Damron]

Maybe if Microsoft won't comply with the reduced penalty for abusing its monopoly power the original penalty should be carried out.

Bust them up into two or better yet three separate companies.

Honestly, this should have been done a long time ago.

Re:Can Microsoft be accused of anti-trust against.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Antitrust abuse involves markets, not formats. MS has been convicted in the EU of illegally tying their media player software and its accompanying format and DRM to the Windows OS. Technically, that means MS should have to stop bundling it and/or provide some other way in which competing players/formats can be promoted in the exact same way. Unfortunately, the courts dropped the ball entirely and imposed useless penalties.

Apple is currently under investigation for tying their media playing software (iTunes) not to their OS, but to their portable players. If convicted, it is anyone's guess what will happen and I don't know who to cheer for. If they impose another useless penalty, then users will have very limited choices in the market. If they stop Apple, they are basically handing the market to MS, since they failed to stop MS's bundling. The only real hope is that they mandate Apple's format/DRM, but as an opened standard thus denying lock-in for the format at least to any company.

And if so, how does the average joe turns the attention of (say) DOJ to this issue?

First donate a few million bucks to the republican party... or create a huge media sensation about the issue so that political figures become concerned about being re-elected. Otherwise, I don't think the DoJ cares, MS already paid their masters.

No

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you. The fact that they are convicted monopolists means that they've broken the law. When you break the law, and get caught and convicted, you are supposed to stop breaking the law right then and there. Not next Tuesday, not when the Q4 results come in, immediately. Your argument sounds good on the surface, but it ignores the imperative that the law is supposed to be. It's supposed to be like a gun to the head.

Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Track.

[twitter]

It's not surprising to find a first post by Macthorpe denying M$ has hidden things needed by "competitors" to interoperate with M$ junk. Just the other day, he annoyed me enough to research his faithful but insulting defense of M$ in all things.

Still, it's amazing that anyone would defend M$ against the charge of thwarting interoperation, given the OOXML fiasco. The whole reason to buy a silly program like Office is so you can communicate and work with other people silly enough to use Office, they depend on the "networking effect," and monopoly position now as much as they did back in the 1980s. Just to prove the point, M$ has introduced a new 6,000 page "open" format specification which was quickly proven incomplete and unworkable, dependent on M$ owned, even patented and secret stuff, so that no one but M$ will be able to untangle it anytime soon. They even had the nerve to name it ooxml, to confuse users of the other oo, open office. The new Office, of course, saves to the new format with a hidden save as button and a file browser that hides the docx extension from the user, insuring that clueless users will soon be filling email inboxes with the obnoxious new format. From the start, people realized this was anti-competitive, yet here it is in all it's stinking glory. If that's not everything M$ ever was, I'm not sure what would be. Yet, here is Macthrope's big sneer:

So by my reading, they've been given the right to talk to the DoJ about something they have found that may or may not prove that they have broken the law? It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I'll be waiting for the next story along in this chain before I start jumping to conclusions.

A masterpiece of arrogance and misdirection. Let's review Grocklaw's take:

the latest Joint Status Report on Microsofts Compliance with the Final Judgments [PDF], which as usual documents the difficulty in getting Microsoft to write documentation, with Microsoft alleging that the new schedule, which dragged out the proceess, may need to be adjusted again if Microsoft finds it can't meet the new schedule either.

Five years after conviction, they have yet to live up to their obligations and

Plaintiffs in the current Iowa antitrust trial against Microsoft told the court yesterday that it is in possession of certain materials, obtained in part in discovery in that case, that they believe is evidence of Microsoft failing to disclose APIs

Notice that it's the US Government that has judged M$ as "slow" to meet their obligations and the State of Iowa that had to jump through hoops to get around M$'s ability to seal public records of their misdeeds.

The question is not, "are they breaking the law," it's how long they can continue to avoid the consequences and how much they will be forced to fork over. The biggest bust for them will be if Government simply addopts ODF. The "pawns and one night stands" are just the tip of the outrageous iceburg the Iowa case will reveal.

Re:Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Trac

[willyhill]

You seem to do this quite often for some reason. Do you have a particular problem with people who don't hold the same views as you, to the point of calling them "apologists"?

Oh, and you might want to try to use a few more "M$" deals in your post. They'll make you look mature and relevant.

Re:Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Trac

[Macthorpe]

Stalking me now Twitter? You didn't even respond to my points last time, and yet here you are making arguments that are not only mostly irrelevant, are mostly, once again, the opinions of a lunatic.

Let's pick out the important line:

Plaintiffs in the current Iowa antitrust trial against Microsoft told the court yesterday that it is in possession of certain materials, obtained in part in discovery in that case, that they believe is evidence of Microsoft failing to disclose APIs

How am I in any way arrogant to want to wait until the evidence is actually revealed? Strangely enough, I'm not like you, and I'm not interested in what is basically hearsay, ifs, buts and maybes when I accuse someone of something. I haven't said, anywhere in my post, whether I think MS is guilty or not. Apparently the moderators agree with me.

Back in your box, Twit.

Re:Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Trac

[Weedlekin]

"A masterpiece of arrogance and misdirection. Let's review Grocklaw's take"

Because, as we all know, Groklaw is a completely unbiased source that has no pro-FOSS, anti-MS agenda, and PJ hasn't ever deleted a single posted opinion that doesn't agree with hers...

Re:Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Trac

[jb.hl.com]

I really love how you link to your own (or your sockpuppet Erris', as you did above) comments as if they're some impartial, infallible font of knowledge.

And then you call everyone else astroturfers and shills.

Just the other day, he annoyed me enough to research his faithful but insulting defense of M$ in all things.

OH NOES HE DEFENDED TEH MICROSOFTS?!!? And what did you do? You wrote one of your famous posts which links to a lot of his comments and talks shit about them all, just as you did with me. And then you dupe posted it, just to get across the message that twitter was stamping his little footsies in anger. Did you not notice that you got modded down to -1 Troll with that comment? Or is this, in your eyes, a failure of the new Microsoft-controlled Slashdot moderation system?

Even funnier, when the posts you've linked to include such disgusting M$ propaganda as "I like the Windows key, as it provides a handy shortcut key for OS-specific functions" and a comment lambasting both IE and Firefox, presumably in favour of Opera or some such. And he doesn't have to resort to petty "M$" style name calling (LOL firefucks lolololol, look I'm as inventive as twitter! Take that, sparsely-related Internet-based open source software development team!) and is far more reasonable and interesting than you, who has recently written a frankly hilarious screed saying that Microsoft are going to hurt the environment. Not in relation to the article, of course, just in general. You took a comment which said that not sending out plastic media might help the environment a bit and responded to it with "BUT VISTA WILL REQUIRE NEW COMPUTARS!!! LINUX ROX!!!". But I digress.

In conclusion: shut up, you prick. (and I'm sure that will be included in one of your delightful little posts with links to all my comments...go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't mind.)

I refer you to the AC who recently posted in reply to one of your shitfests: "Someone who enjoys and contributes to free software thinks you're a retarded jihadist FUD-spewing ignorant, petulant loser that contributes nothing to the community. Does this fracture your view of reality much? I ask because that is reality."

Re:Macthorpe, Apologist in Chief. M$ Right on Trac

[Macthorpe]

I consider my honour well and truly defended. I don't think I've laughed so much in days!

Take that, sparsely-related Internet-based open source software development team!

Genius.