Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Regulators To Monitor Windows 7, But Not Later Releases
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports that federal and state regulators have struck a deal with Microsoft under which any version of Windows released after May 2011 will not be subject to the scrutiny mandated by a 2002 antitrust settlement. As previously promised, however, Windows 7 will be put under the microscope. Yesterday, the DOJ filed documents (PDF) with US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly asking that she extend her oversight by at least 18 months, until May 12, 2011. Although Microsoft has consented to the extension — and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months — Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request."
I guess the present admistration has the same relationship as the last one.
At least it's non-partism
I guess that means there will be a new mandatory version update of windows7 out in June 2011 then.
let them run their business
i don't think there is anything nefarious with including a damn web browser or media player with their OS
what's next? another round of antitrust suits for including fonts?
It might be tough going through life with a name that sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Citing astounding technological advances (Clippy now mostly works), Microsoft expects to release Windows 8 just one week after the release of Windows 7. "We made a lot of significant and fundamental changes that support this new release" said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
No, I think that you're dead wrong on your history.
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit - the issues were that Microsoft was either not allowing vendors such as HP and Dell to distribute Windows with non-IE browsers (loss of contract) or requiring a contract change that was basically punitive in the extreme.
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
And that's when the shit hit the fan, as far as the plaintiffs and the court was concerned.
I get that this is /. and there's no need to RTFA, but how about the other reference? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123
This wasn't about browsers, it was about an illegal monopoly.
And, on a side note - you have got to be kidding me about ftp downloading, even back in the day. Seriously.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
If Microsoft went to the US govt a few years back to offer the DOJ / FBI / CIA etc a blind eye in spyware to help "catch terrorists" in return for an easy ride in any anti-trust investigations. If the govt have a vested interest in most people running Windows so they can infect and spy on it's users, the last thing they want is Microsoft losing it's user base to something they can't infect easily. If the concept of open source takes off, slipping an application like that in will be even harder. It's easier to deal with one person behind the scenes without any paper trail.
The problem when everything is done behind closed doors between nobody you can trust is that you just never know what's been arranged or agreed. All you do know is what their PR departments have said.
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC? If ATT had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed/marketed UNIX differently?
That's not what the document says, however. It says that a "Windows client operating system" commercially released after the final judgement expires (whether that is May 11, 2011 or 18 months later given the provision allowing another 18-month extension) would not be subject to the final judgement (unsurprising -- that's naturally what "expires" means.) It also says that Windows 7 is already under review. It also says that: "If there is a reasonable expectation that a new version of Windows will be distributed commercially prior to the expiration of the Final Judgments, however, Plaintiffs would consider, after discussion with Microsoft, whether and to what extent pre-release review of the new version of Windows would be necessary and appropriate."
So the agreement is not an agreement either that no Microsoft operating system released after May 11, 2011 will be subject to scrutiny (since it allows another 18-month extension to the Final Judgement, and only states that no Microsoft operating system released after the expiration of the Final Judgement will be subject to the terms of the Final Judgement), or (as I have seen it characterized elsewhere) that no Microsoft operating system released after Windows 7, period, will be subject to scrutiny under the Final Judgement.
From TFA:
At that time, however, she left the door open to continued monitoring, and Microsoft agreed that she could extend it for up to three more years, to Nov. 12, 2012.
and
Although Microsoft has consented to the extension -- and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months -- Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request.
Microsoft agreed and Microsoft consented - my ass.
Good summary alert! This link is in the summary, kids - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123
And I found this post - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43989&cid=4582608 - by VivianC, who read and quoted the full text of the AP and news.com relevant articles:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
How could the language in the computerworld.com article shill any harder? Answer - not much - not much at all.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
It's good to hear that Microsoft is now a trustworthy company, and will now be making products with the features we need, and fairly competing with other companies.
Have they announced a built-in spellchecker in Windows 7 yet?
I guess that means there will be a new mandatory version update of windows7 out in June 2011 then.
Yes and a at 2012-12-21 00:00:00 zulu the global hive of Windows 7 workstations will reach critical AI mass at which point it will become self aware and eradicate humanity as the first step in it's quest to conquer the universe in cube shaped space ships led by a cyborg Steve Ballmer.
Seriously! When the EEE PC came on the scene, Microsoft was forced to dump Vista and go back to the old Windows XP and release a Service Pack to make it work. And likewise Downgrade Rights from Vista to XP.... which is now continuing with Windows 7 to XP as well.
And now, Windows 7 actually consumes lesser resources and is faster on the same hardware, compared to the previous version Vista. This has happened not because of the regulators, but the market realities. And likewise, the success of Firefox has made the different releases of IE and artificial restrictions of OS versions and IE versions meaningless in the market.
Honestly I cannot imagine a single useful thing achieved by these regulators. Better wind the whole organisation up and move on.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I remember I bought it on disk for $40, forget which store now though, one of the box electronic places.
As much as I hate MS, WTF are they pursued for anti-trust so much of the time? If anyone needs to be sued/slammed for antitrust, it's Time Warner who is clearly, blatantly making antitrust moves with their bandwidth tiered pricing. So what if MS doesn't bundle other browsers, it's all free anyway. The consumer is free to do whatever the hell they want after they purchase a product - install any browser, software, etc. It's one thing if MS codes their OS so other software not produced by MS will not run - THAT's antitrust. Kind of like Time Warner or Comcast charging extra when you want to pull competing content in on a medium they can't control...
Do you realize both of your links are from 2002? And we're talking about MS agreeing to extensions in 2007?
I would like to have the ability to consent to the details of my punishment. "Yes, you may search my apartment, but this is the last time".
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The original judge got his ruling to break them up set aside as he showed prejudice against MS.
Then G.W. Bush reassigned the Anti-MS federal legal team, except for a skeletal "do-nothing" crew.
Nothing has changed. There is no free market for operating systems.
The right thing to do is break them up now. Sadly, few people in the American public understand why or even care.
in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
when i read that i laughed so hard i shit myself...
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
That is all.
Yes I realize that my links are from 2002 - the andecent - for a reason.
Again - Microsoft agreed to an extension...... What do you think happened?
DOJ: Uh, Microsoft, can we please do our thing?
Microsoft: Oh.... OK, because I like you, you big, whacky DOJ, you! Now get over here and give me some sugar!
Or:
1. Microsoft is compelled by court....
2. Microsoft complies
3. Shills in the press say the new word for comply is agree
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
If you are big enough to stall long enough, the government loses interest.
Seems Both Microsoft and the terrorists have learned this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
May 13, 2011.
Though it might slip up to 18 months for "technical reasons".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
It's got that comedy 'K' sound! "Colleen Kollar-Kotelly"! A triple threat!
Flamebait? I think it's a fair question. Here's the difference - take the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. Apple doesn't have the monopoly power to force the music industry to only use their technologies.
To accomplish that monopoly, here's what Apple could do: give the entire music industry the tools to create music using Apple's technology for several years. Keep upgrading these tools to gradually only work with Apple products and technical advances. Promise the music industry members a place on iPod/iTunes which can't be removed by the user. In exchange, the entire music industry must agree to not release any other music without Apple's technology. If they do, there will be severe penalties and loss of access to the only viable music outlet available.
Within a few years, anyone trying to listen to music without the complete Apple chain of technology will hear total silence, save for some glitches and noise.
The difference today is that the iPod is first and foremost an MP3 player and always has been. The iTunes store was locked down by DRM at the insistence of the music industry. Apple is under no obligation to license their Fairplay DRM. If they had, every other music player manufacturer would have jumped on it and Apple would have been faced with a real monopoly issue. This way, Apple is competing on merits and public acceptance more than forcing one outcome or another through contracts. They allowed all the other manufacturers and Microsoft the opportunity to make something better, which failed.
Many argue that Fairplay DRM locked people into buying only iPods. The main truth on the street is that the vast majority of users liked the iPods better than other players and had no idea what DRM was. The users knew they could only play music on their own equipment and couldn't "share". Everyone gets that, even if they don't respect it. There was also an exit from DRM by burning CDs anyway, something not as freely available elsewhere and then you could share whatever you wanted. There is no monopoly, just a really successful ecosystem that anyone else is welcome to compete with.
Microsoft's plans for the entire computer industry were similar to the monopoly scenario above. They wanted the world to see a blank screen on the internet unless the entire technology chain came from Microsoft - and they almost did it. Now, those inside the Microsoft castle walls never saw a problem with that. The weren't aware of, nor care, about all the other technical advances outside the castle. That's the great harm to the consumer - better technologies rarely made it to the users and, at the same time, the platform stagnated. It took many years, but consumers started to notice that many Microsoft products were crudely inferior to other options and some users are migrating away - running as fast as they can.
Most of the stuff on
I just re-read your post for some reason. They were right - it's flamebait if you knew what a monopoly was, but I don't think you do so I'm going to give you a pass. There's a difference between monopoly and success.
OS X and Apple manufactured products are not a monopoly. You can load other operating systems on Apple hardware and Apple even gives you the tools to do it. They don't choose to support OS X on every random hardware combination so they try to limit where you can install it, but they don't completely disable it like they could. They can disable it, you know, but probably figure if you're smart enough to make OS X work on random hardware, you're smart enough to support it.
Logic Audio and Final Cut is not a monopoly. It's just software. In fact, they bought both from somewhere else. Apple said "nice software, wrong platform". Feel free to compete against it. Lots of people and companies do.
Most of the stuff on