Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trial Resumes Today
paitre wrote in to remind us that the little trial thing
between Microsoft and the DOJ is back in session today after
a lengthy recess.
News.com has a summary of
whats going on over there. Fun stuff coming up includes
economics wiz's claiming that MS is a monopoly, and MS will
try to prove that IE can be seperated from Win98. I'm sure
we're all wetting ourselves.
There are some interesting debates going on at a very technical level that may have a large impact not only on the trial, but also on the way the public (i.e. newsmedia) think about the software.
Microsoft and the DOJ are having a debate over what defines a browser. Is it a set of code or a set of functions? If it's a set of code, then Microsoft can say that IE is not removable from Win98 because the code is mixed together. Furthermore, they will forever be able to mix together code from whatever they want and claim integration. On the other hand, if the browser is a set of functions/APIs/interfaces, then just hiding the interfaces (i.e. removing the icon) is equivalent to removing the browser. Thus Microsoft's claims of integration are a sham. In that case, Microsoft will have to legally justify what it does at the API level, where API is defined in its broadest sense. Microsoft loses big time in this scenario.
As far as I'm concerned, remove the access to a piece of code, and it becomes a bunch of random bits on a hard drive. You can write "Hello, World" in a few lines of code or you can write it in a hundred megabytes of code with no interface to 99.99% of those megabytes. So I think that the government's definition is by far the more natural one.
Ed Felten is the point-man for the DOJ on this one.
I don't think that is right...
Although it doesn't help microsoft that they couldn't prove that it can't be remove,I belive that under US law the prosecutor or plantiff bears the burden of proof. I think that the government in this case must show that it can be separtated. I belive this is the whole "innocent until proven guilty." ("Unless your name is Louis 'Louis the Squid' Calimari." -Dave Barry)
Isn't this like arguing that the CPU is not integrated with the computer because you can take it out? So what if they are shipped seperately, if you HAVE to install it to get the rest of the software to install, that sounds like the first half of integration to me. If in the process of removing it you render the system unusable, then you qualify for the second half of the definition. Isn't this what the DOJ proved?
I read the internet for the articles.
Posted by ^Pip:
Did anyone catch this?
"Richard Schmalensee, dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management"
Looks like Microsoft lined MIT's pockets to get an expert to testify on their behalf. (The new building.)
>>Microsoft has lost, folks.
>>The rest of this trial will consist of posturing on the part of Microsoft to get the best deal.
Remember, M$ lost the last one too. (1995?) The posturing they do is very important. If they lose but get another slap on the wrist, who has really won?
Cal
If you wanted me to agree with you, you shouldn't have given me Mod points.
This entire case misses the _real_ Microsoft monopoly. The Office applications are the real monopoly. If I want to send email, use IRC, send files, non-MS OS's interoperate well enough with MS OS's. It is the _content_ of the files, i.e. Word/Excel that is where the real problem is. Not only do you have to have the same application, but you also need the same version. If someone sends me a document chances are that I cannot read/view it unless I match application/version. This forces me to upgrade the application, which in turn forces me to upgrade the OS, which in turn forces me to upgrade the HW.
Hal Duston
Boring is good
Didn't MS prove that IE can be separated from Win98 by failing to prove that it couldn't?
Wasn't this what the whole forged ("simulated" according to the MS lexicon) video was about?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What do you mean by "require open standards" ? I don't see why MS shouldn't be allowed to invent their own networking protocols, etc. On the other hand, asking them to document their networking protocols is more reasonable. Forcing them to let other people see their source code is essential. I don't think others should develop "windows clones", but what is more important is that they don't hide their APIs.
Another important issue raised has been discriminatory licensing practices ( such as with IBM ) . The government needs to crack down on this, because it gives MS too much control over the industry.
Requiring open standards would effectively de-claw what, so far as I can tell, is the only weapon Microsoft can use against the open source community: closing or "decomoditizing" (sp?) standards.
Sure, and forcing them to release all their products under the GPL will also make it easier for the open source community to compete. I think a lot of slashdot readers aren't really interested in a fair outcome- they are more interested in propping up open source. Personally, I'd rather see open source win on its merits.
While the trial goes on, MS cannot try their usual arm-twisting. Even after the trial, even if MS wins, they won't be able to go back to the way things were a year ago without triggering major outrage and probable legal problems.
/.ers, I don't think that this situation is a good thing. Law should be objective and clearly defined. If Microsoft has done something immoral, it should be prosecuted. If there is no law under which to prosecute them, then we should consider writing one. But "public outrage" and "possible legal action" should have no bearing in a court. Doing things that are legal but look bad should not trigger another trial.
As much as this might please most
Doing so gives the DOJ nearly unlimited power. When Microsoft is prosecuted not for specific actions that are considered illegal, but for patterns of behavior and general meanness, that is a bad thing. And as far as I'm concerned, antitrust law is so vague as to be meaningless. What Microsoft is alleged to have done under the Sherman Act is engaged in "combinations in restraint of trade" and "monopolistic practices." The DOJ can (and does) reinterpret that standard based upon their current target, and can harass pretty much anyone with a majority market share in pretty much any industry.
If a company's prices are "too high" that's gouging. If they are "too low" that is predatory pricing. If they are the same as everyone else, then that's collusion. If they sell to many products together, then that is "bundling." They are not allowed to set certain types of conditions in their OEM liscences. Some of these practices perhaps should be illegal. But if so, they should be made illegal explicitly and directly. Companies should not have to wait until after the fact to discover which practices are illegal under antitrust law.
As I have said before, if Microsoft is guilty of specific crimes--fraud, breach of contract, theft of intellectual property, or whatever--they should be prosecuted for those crimes. But they should not be prosecuted for competing too successfully by means that would otherwise be legal. They should not be forced to play by a whole new set of rules simply because their market share is above 80%.
I love this quote:
"The government is going forward in its rebuttal case with an eye toward the relief that it is going to seek,...As a consequence, it is focusing on the consumer harm that they believe has flowed from Microsoft's business practices."
For all the people out there who try to defend MS, saying that their actions are just good business practice, look at this quote. Microsoft has actually caused consumer harm (in lost productivity, unfair business practices, etc). I get the feeling that not a lot of people fully understand that.
Actually NT Workstation has an artifical limit of 256 network connections, which makes it pretty useless as an application server (by design).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The ruling may wind up being irrelevant to the outcome. The big problem with MS has been that they have used their market share to bully everyone else, threatening to pull the Windows rug completely out from under anyone who even thinks about offering an alternative. The trial has changed that. While the trial goes on, MS cannot try their usual arm-twisting. Even after the trial, even if MS wins, they won't be able to go back to the way things were a year ago without triggering major outrage and probable legal problems. Whether the DOJ wins or loses, MS lost this one when the trial started.
I can't speak for win98, but I am running win95 osr2 (basically the same thing w/out the color-shifting title bars and the defrag/scandisk wizard), and there is no way that a "normal" consumer can completely remove IE from their machine. It is possible to uninstall IE4, (which unfortunately removes all of the desktop update, but guess what it replaces it with?? IE3. That is, if you haven't deleted a bunch of previously non-enssential files. The same goes for IE5. you can uninstall it if you leave certain files there, otherwise you're SOL. --And it restores IE4. As far as I can figure out, the only way to remove IE3 after an IE4 uninstall is to manually delete all found traces of it from the file system and from the registry.
...
Anyone know why Micro$oft removed the Spanish language pack for IE5 from Windows Update a day or two after release??
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
Alas, the problem with that is how to enforce it. Suppose Microsoft violates the ruling, and adds some new private behavior in for their own good? What then? First you have to figure out that something's going on, and what it is. Then you need to drag MS back into court, which'll take another year or two, and by the time it gets resolved, it's already going to be a moot point.
If there is a good way to adjudicate this so that it is a feasible solution, please let me know. I have yet to see an explanation that really covers this in any detail...
-Snibor Eoj
no one has ever complained that MS bundled notepad with their OS -- the only reason IE became an issue was because bundling IE killed Netscape -- an up and coming company relying on their browser as pretty much their only product.
MS should never have said that IE was an integral part of their OS -- it's not, any more than notepad is. Heck, all a web-browser is is a fancy text-viewer. You can't argue that an OS won't boot or run without one, unless you include "read HTML" in the definition of "run."
elflord> What do you mean by "require open
elflord> standards" ? I don't see why MS shouldn't
elflord> be allowed to invent their own
elflord> networking protocols, etc. On the other
elflord> hand, asking them to document their
elflord> networking protocols is more reasonable.
I interpret it as the latter.
What is needed is not the crippling of Microsoft, either by breaking them up or by forcing them to comply with some arbitrary protocols. What is needed is the opening-up of Microsoft's code *just enough* to allow competition.
elflord> Sure, and forcing them to release all
elflord> their products under the GPL will also
elflord> make it easier for the open source
elflord> community to compete. I think a lot of
elflord> slashdot readers aren't really interested
elflord> in a fair outcome- they are more
elflord> interested in propping up open source.
elflord> Personally, I'd rather see open source
elflord> win on its merits.
I think most of them are interested in allowing competition, open-sourced or otherwise. Also, keep in mind that there already is an open-source clone of NT Server. It's called "Samba". The Samba developers have had to reverse-engineer a lot of the more well-guarded NT Server APIs. Opening up NT's APIs would level the playing field between NT Server and Samba (and also the million closed-source SMB server programs out there). It would force NT Server to win or lose "on its merits", not the obscurity of its protocols.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
you can't jail a company.
Sure you can, take away their buisness license. While such an action is VERY extreme, it certainly would in effect jail the company.
I wouldn't quite jump to that conclusion. In fact, I'd be inclined to say that the Judge's comment of "Use your time wisely" prior to the recess was actually directed at the DOJ.
The DOJ demonstrated a number of issues, such as Microsoft's rather aggresive business tactics. All of which, should it be determined that Microsoft is a monopoly, weigh heavily against it.
But that's the true key issue. *HAS* the DOJ proven that no one can succeed against Microsoft? Netscape's final sales valuation of 10 Billion dollars is a major point showing that one CAN take a small business and make it worth billions -- something that's not supposed to be able to occur in a monopolistic environment.
The judge also has to view certain convienent manuvers (such as the timing of the AOL/Netscape deal and when testimony occurred) with just as much skepticism as the Microsoft claims.
I suspect the Ju8dge would certainly like a settlement, rather than a ruling that's bound to be unpopular or potentially overturned.
I recall getting into this argument with somebody once. I oppose government intervention, they argued that the market will take too long to correct Microsoft's undue dominance, and that we need the government to speed things up.
So, what are we, a year and a half into this? The judge is expected to issue his decision NEXT YEAR? And then appeals? Then maybe a delay for settlement talks?
If you want something to cost less or get done faster, how often do you turn to a lawyer? Linux wasn't even on the general public's radar when this started. It might be on everybody's desktop by the time it's done.
Microsoft has lost, folks.
The rest of this trial will consist of posturing on the part of Microsoft to get the best deal.
To that extent, the story is dead. What remains to be seen is just how intelligently the Judge will curtail the monopoly that we know and love to hate as "microsoft".
Hopefully, the Judge will see that breaking Microsoft up is no solution.
As has been argued quite effectively in a number of places, the key is requiring open standards (API/Networking/etc). But will the Judge appreciate this fact?
Let's hope so. Requiring open standards would effectively de-claw what, so far as I can tell, is the only weapon Microsoft can use against the open source community: closing or "decomoditizing" (sp?) standards.
The government will try to prove that IE can be separated from 98, and M$ will try to prove it can't. If IE is a separate product that M$ merely bundled - as it appears is the case - then the government's case gets a lot stronger.
Personally, I've always thought it at least disingenuous for M$ to claim that IE is an integral part of 98, while still providing it as an independent product for the few other platforms it supports.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!