Slashdot Mirror
States Seek More Oversight of Microsoft
taoman1 writes "A group of states led by California said in a court filing Thursday that ending oversight of Microsoft's business practices in November would not allow enough time to consider the antitrust implications of Windows Vista. The states want oversight extended at least through early next year. 'The justice department said in its report that while Microsoft's operating system market share hasn't dropped because of the consent decree, "it would misapprehend the purpose of the Final Judgments to rely on these facts to argue that the Final Judgments have been ineffective. Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully." In its report, Microsoft directly countered California's claims and said, the "Final Judgments were never designed to reduce Microsoft's share in any putative market."'"
It looks like M$ didn't grease the Governator's palm thoroughly enough...
I'm all for making the playing field even and all, but federal/state oversight of the operating system is a bad idea. Is it just MS you want to oversite, or is it the computer OS so you can start regulating what people use, or charging taxes because regulation doesn't come free.
Just seems like a big Pandora's box of things would be opened up.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
"And I want a solid gold toilet but it just isn't in the cards, now is it?"
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
"The justice department said in its report that while Microsoft's operating system market share hasn't dropped because of the consent decree,"
No, but it might drop because Vista has been the best advertizing that OS X and Linux could ask for.
Didn't increase or maintain its marketshare illegally? What the hell do you call all of the RICO violations that Microsoft has been guilty of with SCO v. IBM, asking companies for 'protection money', and the thinly-veiled threats to sue the FOSS community into oblivion?
The Justice Department has clearly been replaced by members of the mafia.
My blog
Because of a seemingly "pro-microsoft" stance this may show, but why are people and the government so up in arms about the monopoly that Microsoft has when absolutely NOTHING is being done about broadband ISPs, phone companies, oil companies (well we all know the answer to that one) and the RIAA/MPAA?
Living With a Nerd
The OS market "wants" a near monopoly. It's very good for a lot of reasons.
The advantages are more toward business IT and developers, and less toward home-users....but the former are the ones who drive the market.
There is one main thing that maintains microsoft's illegal monopoly: interoperability.
If the settlement had said "You (M$) must make your file formats and server protocols (exchange) available", there would be a whole lot more folks not needing to buy MS products because there would be other viable* alternatives.
* Yes, I know about (and use) OpenOffice, Evolution, etc
- Roach
It's not bundling software, it's not embrace and extend, that gets Microsoft into hot water. That's all authoring of software, and rivals all bundle, and all would embrace and extend if they could.
It's when Microsoft calls up hardware vendors such as Dell and tells them that they will have their Windows license revoked if they sell another OS, that's where you need the Feds to step in. At that point, Microsoft is not investing to add features, but is really working to the detrminent of consumers.
That Microsoft engages in such behavior is already proven. During the OS/2 vs Windows days, Microsoft threatened IBM with license termination if they continued to promote and develop OS/2. IBM withdrew. During the Netscape wars, Microsoft strong armed vendors to bundle the inferior IE2.0 with Windows 95, which confused the market long enough to deny Netscape needed funding for a future release, AND, bought Microsoft time to make an IE 4.0 which really was a better product. In the former case, Microsoft was engaging in restraint of trade, and in the second case, they were tying, both of which are illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The only thing that saved them in the USA is that what constitutes tying in the software business is entirely up in the air. In general, the government under any modern administration wants to give businesses as free as a hand as possible to arrange their product offerings. In Europe, however, this is not nearly so much the case, and geopolitical concerns play as well. The EU is something of an economic rival to the USA, and thus they have absolutely no problem slamming Microsoft in any number of ways, and they have.
This is my sig.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, they continue to abuse their position. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, government interference doesn't tend to "go away" when the problem is gone in some of the cases.
How about we try something really different.
For the next two years, any Windows ad must include the tag line (emphasized somewhere, not hidden)
The operating system you should chose for your computerIt's not outright annoying to them (as requiring "it is possible to use something other than Windows on your computer" would be). It's not arguably false (as "The best operating system you could chose" would be). It sounds like something that would normally be in an ad.
But it will get people questioning... "What do you mean chose?" And spreading that fact is about the best thing we could do.
Off the wall (compared to normal sentences/penalties)? Yes.
Other choices? How about:
We realize you have a choice in operating systems, and we thank you for choosing WindowsComment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Rather than saddling Microsoft with some sort of corporate herpes, they should make it easier (or possible) to consider non-Microsoft operating systems for federal and state contracts. They could also mandate that all state and federal business be done using open file formats and open protocols. That would go a long way toward encouraging alternatives right there.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Has a conflict of interest in the case with Thomas Barnett involved.
c les/2007/06/10/microsoft_finds_defender_in_us_just ice_department/
Judge Kollar-Kotelly needs to view any DOJ testimony with skepticism.
The official, Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett, had until 2004 been a top antitrust partner at Covington & Burlington, the law firm that has represented Microsoft in several antitrust disputes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
putative
You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
I work with the state government on a regular basis. It's already difficult enough to get them to understand your side of the argument. I can't imagine the additional hassle that will come if the state uses different software than the private businesses, even if the only difference is the formatting: I had a client that the state essentially screwed over for $5k due expressly to a table whose format was mis-adjusted due to program incompatibilities.
It's very good for whomever has the monopoly, but that's about it.
I used to think the same thing, and somehow used that to justify what Microsoft did to achieve their monopoly status. I also used to believe that old "If Microsoft didn't do it, IBM/Apple... would have" crap. Microsoft is about as hostile and anticompetitive as a business can get. Some of that might just be the nature of the business, but it really is NOT good for consumers. Microsoft's bottom line is revenue but clearly they've given up on making quality products to get it.
The group of states want oversight extended at least through next year to give them enough time to consider the antitrust implications of Windows Vista. Vista has been out for almost a year now (and will be a year in November). What have they been doing all this time? They had to have known that MS was developing a new operating system and that beta versions of this were being made available (often to the general public) well in advance of the actual release date. While it might not be fair to base these antitrust considerations on a beta version, which may be different from the final version, it can still give a good impression of where things are headed. How long did it take them to consider the antitrust implications of XP? I doubt that it was two years. This just seems to be another example of a bloated bureaucracy at work.
Minor Correction:
"Rather than informing everyone that Microsoft is corporate herpes...
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Its very good for developers, because they only have to test on one platform. If they had to test on multiple platforms, it could definitely raise software prices. Its good for businesses because they can "standardize with exceptions" rather than having multiple platforms. Also the IT staffing becomes less expensive because IT skills become a commodity, rather than having many different specialists.
And it looks like they tried the same thing in Denmark.
The US DoJ report just shows that the current administration is still awarding favors to its friends by saying that anti-competitive measures have worked. Any rational person would think that MS is the same old leopard which hasn't changed its spots.
Isn't it ironic that OSS - in the form of Linux and OpenOffice.org - are starting to show that they are capable of something the US Govt is not - namely, making Microsoft run scared.
Microsoft is using fraud and bribery to make sure that the only company that can be interoperable with Microsoft products is Microsoft itself.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
In this case, a single massively dominant OS is actually good in most ways, but possibly not in terms of the longevity and compatibility of government documents.
I get a little frustrated when I see U.S. Federal and State governments going after Microsoft. Why do such government bodies believe that it is in America's best interest to regulate/otherwise harass market leaders in one of the few industries in which the U.S. is actually a global leader?
I also question the existence of Microsoft's so-called monopoly. I do not use Microsoft products either at home or in my business and I suffer few problems as a result of it. For those that point to Microsoft's overwhelming market dominance as evidence of a monopoly, consider, for once, that Microsoft's products may in fact be superior to available alternatives for the overwhelming majority of users. Although this is likely to subject me to fierce criticism, I can't come up with a better explanation than situational-inferiority to explain why individuals and businesses have not adopted any of the many FREE alternatives to Microsoft products. Perhaps someone can set me straight.
I realize Microsoft is engaged in many fields other than operating systems...but unless I'm mistaken (entirely possible, please point out if so), they're not really the 800 lb gorilla anywhere else. I guess the case could be made for IE, but since there are so many free, better (arguable to some, not to me) browsers out there, which are gaining market share, they can't be attacked for that.
.Terminate ranting pointless post.
Shouldn't more oversight be given to Google? I mean, if predictions (made by some) are true that in a few years OS's won't have nearly the importance they once had, Windows will become more irrelevant. Google, among others, will have much more control over the free flow of information than Microsoft...I give up, its Friday, and a long weekend awaits. I'm not even going to try and fix this ridiculous post.
The original solution still seems to me, from this vantage point, to have been the best one: break up MS. Some may recall that this judgement was vacated on appeal, on the flimsiest possible pretext: the judge was interviewed by the press after the case was closed.
"Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully."
.. also the EU has taken the view that Microsoft's Windows tactics breach the EU's competition laws..
This is spliting hairs if one takes into account the Digital Research settlement where Microsoft was accused of mis-using its monploly-power in an unfair and unlawful way to maintain and expand its monopoly of the DOS market
You know how many versions of the HTTP protocol there are? What about HTML?
And yet, have you EVER seen an error saying that you cannot use this web page that was anything except someone making a page IE-only in the past 5 years?
Funny, that. That you don't have to break compatibility for new features. Especially for new documents not using the new features.
No, the industry would have been better off with open standards for file formats, network connectivity etc.
Bert
Who runs a company
They could also mandate that all state and federal business be done using open file formats and open protocols. That would go a long way toward encouraging alternatives right there.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 2 years, many governments have been doing exactly this. Microsoft's answer is to try to get OOXML ratified as an ISO standard so they can tick the "stores documents in an ISO standard form" box.
The OS market "wants" a near monopoly.
Nonsense. It wants a standard (for portability), that doesn't have to be provided by a monopoly. In fact there already is a standard for operating systems, ISO/IEC 9945, and most IT vendors support it (or something very close).
Microsoft (and some uninformed natterers not clear on the point) call their products "standard", but they're confusing that term with "ubiquitous". Heck, given that there are so many not very compatible versions of Microsofts own products, they can hardly be considered standard. (Is "standard Windows" Vista or XP or ???)
-- Alastair
OS X = BSD done right.
Linux didn't really contribute anything, even ideologically. Next Step = OS X which was prior to any popular version of Linux.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I don't know about other states, but California's state agencies make it essentially impossible for state workers to purchase a computer without Windows. It seems a bit ironic that the state is hassling Microsoft about being a monopoly yet making damn sure that MS maintains a monopoly for state government uses. Perhaps this is just a way for the state to get lower prices for MS products?
I think you're trying to create a distinction that is better explained by differentiating de jure standards from de facto ones.
Microsoft Operating Systems are absolutely de facto standards by virtue of their ubiquitousness, the ISO standard you referenced is a de jure standard.
-AC
While I see the point you are making, I don't think google falls into the same catagory of problem. Right now, (its certainly possible this can change especially with the extra services like email and google apps getting popular these days) its extremely easy for someone to just visit another search engine/portal service website and incur very little cost to them. By cost I mean all of the time and resources involved, not just money. And nothing really stops you from using multiple search engines, each for their strong points. For example, I used to use Hotmail for throwaway email accounts, Google for searching. Well, now I use Gmail for new throw away accounts, but I still use some of the yahoo addresses which turned into not-so-throw-away accounts.
Tired of the way google performs? Use Yahoo or Live search, or whoever you want. Theres no lasting effect from trying your search on Yahoo. Don't like the search results, fine, the cost of the search is over and done with at that point in time and you can go back to google with very little extra cost. And the transition from one to another is a more natural process. Start playing around with the new one, if you like it, you'll slowly, over time, move to using the features you like on it more, and if there are any features on the old, you can still continue to use those, no real cost involved other than visiting two different URLs most of the time.
With an operating system you have to install it, that in and of itself is a considerable investment of time compared to a web search/new portal account. Then coupled with the fact that pretty much every OS installer wants to use the whole drive, users don't realize that they all (okay, maybe not EVERY one, but almost all) will allow you to install multiple operating systems at one time, but that requires repartitioning, which most users probably aren't going to be able to do. So now the user has (percieved has) to give up their current enviroment to try a new one, and if they don't like it, the investment to switching back will be another large one. The process is going to likely wipe out all their data as well, so they have to back it up, and then realize a little down the road that they forgot to back up some important documents because some stupid (windows) app didn't store its data in their home directory.
Okay, so they got the OS installed, now they have to find applications that will work with all their old data and servers. This, to me, is where the whole thing really falls apart. As has been previously stated, OpenOffice just doesn't cut it when dealing with silly picky pointy head bosses that think Word is the only file format for sending text around, or that you have to keep all of your scheduling information in the exchange server so they can use outlook to send a meeting announcement.
If, there were some way to come up with standard file formats and protocols, and microsoft was FORCED to use them, and use them PROPERLY, not half assed implementations of them like they did with IE and HTML, or worse, IMAP in Outlook. Then, I think we'd have a viable solution to the MS monopoly problem.
Allow me to rant on a side note for a moment
WHY THE HELL does OOXML exist? Or, ODF for that matter, why the hell don't we take the worlds most popular document format and add the few features to it that are needed to finish if off and make it something that can replace word? Why the hell don't we use HTML as our standard document format? WHY are we adding new ones? I know, HTML does not have the full features required to be our common document format. But if anyone can tell me why inventing a new one is a better idea than fixing the existing, wildly popular one I'd love to hear it. And no, the screwups at the w3c aren't the excuse, if its not them, it'll be someone else.
Lets make an awesome html editor that has all the silly ass features that middle managers and the other useless 3rd of our population think must be included in documents, have it use HTML and CSS for its
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The DOJ states: "Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully" but what they don't say is that Microsoft was never tried on whether they illegally acquired or increased their monopoly market in operating systems. There are many in the industry who can say they did. One more thing, had Caldera not settled with Microsoft on the DR-DOS case, SCO would be associated with organization, Caldera, which would have opened the floodgates of anti-trust suites against Microsoft for illegally using and increasing it's monopoly in operating systems.
The current settled case with the DOJ was about Netscape and Microsoft Office originally but MS Office was dropped when the states joined the DOJ in the case. IIRC, it was found that Microsoft used its monopoly in OS's to limit distribution of Netscape Navigator and the Netscape Server products. It all ended up getting bent into a settlement to provide "better" access to Microsoft middleware APIs and some issues with charging different prices to large OEMs for MS Windows OS's. They still charge different prices only they move money around via Microsoft Marketing programs and kickbacks.
Seeing how Microsoft is steamrolling their proprietary pseudo standard( MS OOXML ) threw the various ISO committees around the world, any moron who says that today we have a kinder, gentler Microsoft because of the DOJ vs Microsoft settlement should get a pie in the face. And they should be forced, hands tied, to watch a computer screen running Microsoft BoB and Rover. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The second half of your post (the rant) rather nicely describes the file format of ODF, IMHO.
If you don't believe me, try to unzip one. Preferably with pictures (odp) or spreadsheet cells (ods). If you're on MS Windows and winzip refuses to unzip it, try another unzip program.
I'm not sure about your "+ javascript", though; what would be the added benefit of that? I don't find javascript such a well-specified language (yes I'm aware that ECMAscript exists, but still).
The ODF spec is here btw.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
* I'd make them support ODF as the default format in Word. Yeah, they can support OOXML too, but ODF has to be the *default* and they can't create or suggest any new ways to change the default format (sure, they can use the *existing* ones).
* They cannot punish and must allow OEMs to ship systems that are multi-boot. They cannot charge OEMs per computer shipped, only for computers which contain Microsoft software. Should they violate this, OEMs are entitled to compensation from Microsoft (this is what will keep them honest--the OEMs aren't going to turn down free money).
* They have to open DirectX. If there are any secret deals between them and graphics card makers to restrict them from making non-Windows drivers, those will need to be addressed, too. Patents may get invalidated if necessary.
* They have to open any further formats I've missed. And when I say "open", they have to not only allow royalty free access, it has to be usable by GPL'd software.
Yeah, they'll never go that far, but THIS plan would certainly throw them for a loop. Their two biggest lock-ins are Windows and Office. Break those, and Microsoft wouldn't be dominant any more.
Many things about the phone market are not competitive (perhaps google will help us out there). But, splitting up Ma Bell clearly had a big effect at the time. Long distance rates fell dramatically due to competition.
Cow Cube
It's kind of a big irony of this whole thing. Consumers are happy with XP running Firefox running Google applications. And, HP is happy selling PC's as is. What did they expect to see? That as soon as web 2.0 apps came along, everyone would flock to alternatives? It's become clear that there just isn't enough friction to move the market share as quickly as anti-MS people want.
I object to that moderation. Everyone knows its based on Next Step which predated Linux's popularity. If you disagree tell me what Linux contributed to OSX that wasn't in Next Step or BSD prior to it. Thats not a troll, thats a reasonable argument based upon facts, with very little opinion mixed in.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"Seeing how Microsoft is steamrolling their proprietary pseudo standard( MS OOXML ) threw the various ISO committees around the world, any moron who says that today we have a kinder, gentler Microsoft because of the DOJ vs Microsoft settlement should get a pie in the face."
Don't take this the wrong way; I would usually avoid using an incorrect homonym in the same run-on sentence that includes the phrase 'any moron who...'.
watch it or I'll throw a wikipedia at you so freak'n hard it'll go THROUGH your big mouth and out the hole in the back of your head. ;-) What are you, an unemployed english teacher?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Now is a good time to restart antitrust actions against Microsoft. With only a little over a year remaining in George "let 'em off the hook" Bush's term (I'm sure he can't even spell "antitrust"), the states can get the wheels spinning now, and hopefully the next administration won't be quite so monopoly-friendly and can start AND finish an antitrust suit before the term ends.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Part of it is [M$ Office's inability to work with itself] that they simply can't. Hell even if there's a difference in the installed fonts or a different sized screen, documents have to be reformatted by hand to look good.
They could use ODF without charge any time they want. The same thing goes for every other file format they have a special, inferior version of. I can easily share my work across gnu/linux distributions, Solaris and Mac. M$ is always the problem child.
Eweek has an interesting view of what all of this has done to Windoze itself.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I mean, think about it.
Bill Gates has never shown any signs of wanting to stop his press for his right to innovate his way into controlling our lives.
His company has been taking over the control points for sharing basically anything.
Once he forces his version of data labeling down our throats, what's left?
And the only way to opt out will be to act illegally, so how does he round up the holdouts?
I especially enjoy his claim that because there are no Java programs for Windows (or "Windoze", as you call it) then that means Microsoft has done something evil. I mean, aside from removing the Java VM as Sun specifically asked them to, and the fact that Java applications are slow as hell and ugly to boot [*], Microsoft has definitely not done enough to promote and nurture Java. What are they thinking? I expect more from Microsoft. Hell, they should get with the program and change their stock ticker to "JAV1", just to show everyone they care.
Numbnuts.
[*] Eclipse being the exception.
They don't know them all.
That is likely to be a deliberate fact, but it is a fact. (And it's part of the reason for their un-openXML.)
If breaking the monopoly is the goal, it has to go in multiple steps. Force them to
(1) Stop all product development. They are already all unsafe at any speed. (Spam/malware.)
(2) Force them to document the API. Finally. Including all legacy products, even if they have to find old dusty packages in someone else's garage and decompile and reverse them themselves because they've already thrown out all their own docs.
(3) Require that, in any split, the child companies must communicate with each other and any parent company that might remain only in open, public forii presided over by industry consortia in which neither the original parent company nor any child company can have any decision making role for ten years. Don't even allow them to make comments for the first two years after the splits.
(3) Split the company along functional lines in two or three steps:
(3a) OS,
(3b) Infrastructure,
(3c) Application,
(3d) Content.
(3a.1) Kernel,
(3a.2) Drivers.
(3b.1) Access Control Mechanisms,
(3b.2) Network Mechanisms (servers, etc.),
(3b.3) Text-oriented User Interface Shells
(3b.4) Graphical User Interface Shells,
(3b.n) Some other things I'm not going to take time for at the moment.
(3c.1) Personal Productivity,
(3c.2) Office Productivity,
(3c.3) Education Productivity,
(3c.4) Industrial Creativity,
(3c.n) Again, more similar things go here.
(3d.n) Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, etc.
(3c.m.u) Productivity would be split along text, spreadsheet, data management, automation, etc.
(3c.n.v) Creativity would be split along the lines of sound, graphics, and educational entertainment, automation, etc.
(4) Require each child company to either show an existing competitor or split into competing companies under rules that would be very strict against even simple collaboration for ten years.
Now, I don't want this kind of thing to happen, because the above is their only formula for success.
I want Microsoft's products to all disappear. None of them are worth the time they take to learn, they are all oriented to the wrong optimizations: Do what you've always done, but do it by pushing buttons and leaving the results up to Micro$oft.
I want them all to go away, so I am happy to let Microsoft destroy themselves by doing what they keep doing.
joudanzuki
without the right kind of help.
That's one of the reasons big is not good in the end.
the old royalty made over thrones.
But I have to wonder what the benefit of gold is, as well. I have the idea it would be hot in the summer and cold in the winter. You could run electrical current through it to heat it in the winter, maybe?
Hmm.
Maybe not. That would sure add to the greenhouse gases.
--
I don't think I'm going to claim this post.
Even the very fact of their existence should make them the subject of government controls. That is one of the reasons AT&T went along with the split relatively quietly, they could not legally compete as long as they were controlled, and they were controlled as long as they were a monopoly, even though they were _relatively_ well behaved.
Look up the way iNTEL muscled out its rivals in the UWB rumble.
We could have had real, functional, relatively secure replacements for bluetooth and wifi, but, no, iNTEL had to own UWB or force it down the tubes.
joudanzuki
DOS
MSW3.1
MSWnt
MSW95
MSW98
MSWme
MSW2k
MSWxp/home
MSWxp/pro
MSWvista^H^H^H^H^HLookMaNoHands.
One platform, in theory, but any theory that assured the market that Microsoft really knew what they were doing ahead of time was seriously flawed.
We did not know twenty years ago what a computer OS should do. (We still don't really know.) That is precisely the reason for competition, because competition allows the industry to find out what works and what doesn't through natural means.
What Microsoft has given us is the ability to push a bunch of buttons and do the same-old a little faster, generating even more of the same-old pollutions. We even have the RIAA and their ilk pushing for a return to the (same-old) system of government sponsered patronage, and Microsoft is trying to enable that.
It could have been a beautiful world.
Saltpeter in your orange juice?
I don't think you really understand the alternatives that should have been.
"
Holy God, the voice of reason in this sea of nimwits. Yeah, this would seem to be the better approach, claiming MS has a monopoly when they demonstrably and provably don't and then letting the ensuing pointless consent decree carry on for years was stupid. A better approach is to look at the real problem, if there is one, and move government spending to counter that problem.
In this case, a single massively dominant OS is actually good in most ways, but possibly not in terms of the longevity and compatibility of government documents.
"
Yeah, whatever "nitwit" aka former MS employee. A review of your posts confirms this.
In any case, it was proven that MS violated the Sherman Act and had a monopoly, and this was upheld by the Court of Appeals. And no, a "single" OS isn't a good thing, STANDARDS are a good thing. MS hates standards they can't EE/E though.
You're idiotic rant that it was "demonstrably" false is just more shilling.
"Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully."
That's just crazy, how can anyone say that with a straight face? Really, I want to know.