Slashdot Mirror
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')."
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.
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.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
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.
"Convicted monopoly abuser". Monopolies aren't inherently illegal.
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)
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.
Are you kidding?
c rosoft#Appeal
... 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."
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._Mi
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.
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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