Judge Jackson Orders Final MS Case Summaries

Richard Finney writes "The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Thoms Penfield Jackson has ordered Microsoft and the Department of Justice to present their versions of the 'facts.' This is a step forward to a final verdict: 'GUILTY!' I hope. Yahoo! News has the story here."

Comments

Re:Why does Windows bomb out so much? (Off topic)

[Sun Tzu]

Windows bombs out so much because they've spent all that time and money on six(*) separate operating systems instead of starting with a single good design and refining it.

They are: (1)DOS, (2)Windows 1-3, (3)Windows 95-98, (4)OS/2, (5)Windows NT, (6)Win2000.

(*)Note that this arbitrarily counts DOS and the original Windows as two operating systems... which is technically incorrect. (Of course, by using a strict definition of operating system one may disqualify DOS, Windows 1-3, and Win95/8 as well. ;) It also counts as separate the time, money, and planning they spent on OS/2, of which NT was originally derived -- but much changed. And, the final obvious error I see in this analysis, Win2000 is derived, to a lesser or greater degree, from NT -- but it may be changed enough to qualify in spirit and implementation as a new OS.

Re:Genia In A Bottle

[webslacker]

I thought we had a character limit on how long comments could be? Oh wait, it's in preferences and mine's set at 4096. Well, that's going to change real quick...

Re:Why does Windows bomb out so much? (Off topic)

[Brian Knotts]

OS/2 1.x was developed jointly by IBM and Microsoft. It was to be the "next big thing" back in the late 80s/early 90s, and could preemptively multitask. Microsoft contributed things like HPFS, a not-half-bad filesystem that resists fragmentation pretty well, and has a MacOS-like implementation of custom resources in the filesystem ("Extended Attributes").

Unfortunately for IBM, what they didn't know was that Microsoft was working *heavily* on Windows in the meantime, and was using OS/2 as a decoy, to throw everyone off, so that they could use their preload power to dominate the OS *and* applications markets.

Some more OS/2 info (subject to the limitations of my memory): OS/2 1.0 was CLI-only, and was released in 1987. OS/2 1.x, released in 1989(?), introduced the Presentation Manager GUI, which was similar to the Windows 3.x interface. Early versions of OS/2 had a 16-bit architecture, and were released in two versions: one specifically for PS/2-based machines, and one for standard PC-compatibles.

OS/2 2.0, introduced in 1992, was partially 32-bit, and was the first IBM-only release of OS/2. It introduced the Workplace Shell, the object-oriented GUI you often hear old OS/2 users (like me) rave about. It also introduced the Win-OS/2 subsystem, which allowed the use of 16-bit Windows programs under OS/2.

--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page

The government's

[binarybits]

I'm adamant about government by government, as opposed to government by large powerful companies and dictators

What's that supposed to mean? Are you seriously saying that Macrosoft is on the verge of becoming a government? That your freedoms are in jeopardy because they make crappy products and use aggressive tactics to market those products? When's the last time Microsoft arresyed someone? Or taxed or regulated someone? They never have. They're not a government. Not even close.

A government by definition is an agency with the power to force people to obey its edicts. If you break the law, men with guns come to your house and arrest you. That's what governments do. Private corporations cannot do that.

So unless you can point to examples of Microsoft arresting Mac users or Linux users, or throwing people in jail or otherwise behaving like a government, stop making overreaching and innacrurate generalizations. No matter what Microsoft does, it will never be anywhere near as threatening to our freedoms as the government.

Re:The government's

[binarybits]

It means that I oppose corporations deciding which laws they will obey and which they will not.

Well, the government should of course enforce the laws on the books, but I don't think that anti-trust law should be on the books. It is vague, overreaching, and intrusive. It gives anti-trust lawyers to harrass literally any successful business.

By the terms of the per-processor clause MS would have had a prima facie case against any OEM that did not fork over a license fee for every PC sold, whether it actually had Windows on it or not.

And any PC manufacturer is free to forego selling Windows and thereby avoid this liscence. They can't survive without Windows, you say? Well, that's their choice. If Libux is so great, they can start an all-Linux company, and then they don't have to pay the MS tax.

Since you morons think you can live without that, I suggest you check yourself in where "laws" are whatever the powerful say they are, and corporations are hard to distinguish from the state, and do indeed sometimes come to people's houses with guns.

OK, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but you seem to be saying that the alternative to anti-trust law is corporate fascism. That's not what I'm advocating and it's not clear where you got that idea.

Re:The government's

[binarybits]

Microsoft's profits depend on government enforcement of its "intellectual property rights." Modern capitalism in general depends on a strong government defense of property.

True enough. And that's a good thing. Microsoft deserves every penny people voluntarily pay for its products.

On a separate point, does the writer really "fear" a democratic government that offers constitutional protections to liberty and dissent? More than he fears living in anarchy? He might try living in some place without a working government, like Sierra Leone, before deciding that government is so bad.

Perhaps "fear" is too strong a word, but I certainly think that most of the things the government does are bad. I am not an advocate of anarchy. A strictly limited government is necessary. I'm not familiar with Sierra Leone, but I doubt it has anything resembling my ideal social system, or i would have heard of it and gone there.

Re:What I'd like to see..

[jd]

Releasing the API won't be enough. They keep changing it. The API should be released and frozen, for a fixed period of time.

If Microsoft find they can't do X, Y or Z with the API, as it stands, tough. If they can't be bothered designing the API properly, that's just too bad.

Having a fixed, defined, published API gives the competition something they can reliably use. Publishing alone isn't enough, if the API changes every time the competition get close, or clone the product.

(Anyone remember the Infamous Windows Changes that Microsoft made, to break OS/2?)

They should also publish all other pertinent details, regarding the API. I know that some Microsoft networking products will delete themselves off the hard disk, if they detect a non-Microsoft TCP/IP stack.

what i wish

[mattdm]

I wish they hadn't focused so heavily on the browser-bundling issue, which is really just a sideshow -- and one which, as you point out, isn't necessarily even a big problem.

The truth of the matter is that Microsoft does wield its desktop OS monopoly as a means of destroying competition. We all know that.

Now, it's possible that Java or Linux or The Browser Platform will defeat Microsoft despite this. I certainly hope so -- but as a software user, I don't think it'd hurt to have a more level playing field.

--

And here's the problem with the court system...

[Masem]

...it take forever to get anything done. Remember, this case came about because of Win98.
It's expected that by the time the appeals
are done with, we'll know the fate of MS in
2001. That's *3* years, and in the computing
industry, 3 years is several generations
of product development, and by then, the
whole point of this case "browser integration"
might be well accepted (as it is, there's no
prove yet that the browserOS combo is
viable for users. .. the next trick will be
IM, as previously taked about here), and
any punishment on MS will be null and void.

Someone else mentioned education and advocacy as
a way to fight the juggernaut. The problem
is, MS has about as much money to send in
those same areas as nearly all competitors
combined. Why does MS continue to publish ads
about Win98 and Office and NT and whatnot?
They've already got 90% of the desktop, and
most likely can't pull the 10% their way;
Instead, they advertize to KEEP theiy monopoly,
mindwashing the users that MS products are superior, and as long as they can put the
money where their mouth is, things like Linux
and MacOS and other programs can only dent the
MS shell, and certainly not breach it.

The US needs a court that would be strictly for
handling monopoly cases like this, only because
the speed of business is several times faster
than the speed of the judical system. A system
where you have a month to prepare your case,
and a week of court time, maximum, and that's it.
If an appeal is to be made, it should go to the Suprieme Court, with no other layers in between.
I know that it sounds strict, but the fact is that
many businesses already wiggle their way under
the law, so why not make them more accountable
and with more haste?

If this happend with MS and DOJ, we'd already have a Supreme Court decision (whether a decision
of the case, or not hearing the case at all and
letting the lower court judgement stand), and
that's it.

Re:And here's the problem with the court system...

[Tax Boy]

I'm a trial attorney with the DOJ (tax, not antitrust), and as such, I cannot comment on ongoing litigation (but guess whom I'm rooting for) ;-)

I don't think we need specialized courts for antitrust. In fact, Judge TPJ has essentially made his court into a specialized microsoft court -- he only has 2 or 3 other cases going on at the same time, the majority of which are rather small (including one case I had). Judge TPJ is one of the most experienced judges in the DC District, which is one of the highest regarded judicial districts in the country. Having watched some of the trial, and followed the reports and transcripts, it is clear the Judge TPJ has read everything, and is always on top of all the arguments, evidence, and witnesses.

Do we need a specialized court? Based on TPJ's example, no. The number of antitrust cases (brought by the US anyway) that actually go to trial is rather low. Most go through discovery and eventually settle.

The Eastern District of Virginia, one of the districts that I handle cases in, is currently experimenting with a streamlined system that brings the average length of a civil trial from 3 years to 18 months. Although this is still a long time, most everyone refers to it as the "rocket docket." Civil litigation is not like criminal litigation -- there is no right to a speedy trial, and civil cases often get put on the back burner when a criminal matter takes precedence on the court's docket. Also discovery make take months or years. Read "A Civil Action" for some more insight into the process of discovery.

If you think that litigation takes too long, it is likely because there is a large number of vacant judicial positions that have been unfilled for several years.

FYI: no matter the verdict, MSFT did get one victory. we're upgrading to new software and replacing Netscape and Novell with WinNT, IE, and Outlook. Ick.

The above views are my own, and do not reflect the opinion of the Department of Justice.

not sure what result I want

[wmeyer]

Although I feel that Microsoft has long engaged in unfair practices, and that they continue to do so, I have mixed feelings about this case. Twice before, the DOJ approached an attack on Microsoft, and both of those had, IMHO, merit. Twice before the DOJ dropped the ball.

This time, it seemes that the DOJ is likely to be successful but I fail to see the merit in their case. Much as it pains me to say it, BG is right on the browser issue: government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.

We in the US live in a schizoid mindset. We applaud success, and deride big success. As most of us would like to be rich, and are not, we are underdogs, and must cheer other underdogs. But we perceive the king of the hill as the enemy; the reason we are underdogs.

I don't object to governemt intervention, but it has to make sense in the context of a capitalist democracy, and this one does not.

Microsoft should have been punished severely for predatory practices. It seems the only folk unaware of the reality of their execrable history in that regard are the lawyers in DOJ.

If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose. I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.

Re:not sure what result I want

[Fyndo]

government has no place in matters of product design, or even bundling.

However the governments contention was that the bundling was not done for technical reasons, but to leverage Microsoft's monopoly power to hurt a competitor's business.

If that is what Microsoft did, it's illegal. And that makes it the governments business.

If the precedent is established that the government has a role in adjudicating appropriate features and bundling, we all lose.

This precedent has been long set. Look at the local telephone companies, they are not allowed to require the use of their telephone (the physical thing) to use their service. In general a monopolist tying a second product, to one in which they hold a monopoly is illegal. So whether Microsoft committed a crime depends on whether the browser was integrated with the operating system for purely "technical" reasons or in order to compete with Netscape. You (and Microsoft) seem to think the former, while the DOJ believes the latter. So it's gone to court, where arguments for both sides have been made.

I cannot think of any group less well equipped to evaluate business decisions than a government.

Driving a competitor out of business is a business decision... I can't think of anyone else besides the government who equipped to rein in a monopolist, and certainly see tying as a awy for a monopolist to profit at the public's expense.

Whatever happened to IBM?

[Fizgig]

I wasn't really paying attention to computers when IBM got into trouble with the government. Whatever happened with that? Didn't that cause serious problems, despite never reaching a verdict? I'm just asking because a lot of people say that this doesn't mean anything since it will be appealed, but didn't in mean something for IBM? Someone enlighten me!

you missed a couple

[mattdm]

There's also Windows CE (aka wince) and "Imbedded NT".

--

That's a strange way of looking at it.

[binarybits]

Um... no, the law you broke was the government's law. The government has a law that says you cannot make unliscenced copies of someone's software without his/her permission. It's pretty strange to argue the corporation is given "legislative power" since the only "law" they have the power to make is "you will be punished if you copy our product. That's hardly a threat to abyone's liberty. Just don't use MS products, and you don't have to worry about it.

And it is simply not true that only large corporations can have their copyrights protected. The reason you are allowed to copy Debian is that its authors have (I assume) GPL'ed it, thereby giving others the right to use it. In fact, if you were to take Debian, make some changes, and then sell a closed-source version, you *could* be prosecuted for violation of the GPL. It cuts both ways. The evil microsoft can make software licsences, but so can the Open Source movement. Are you afraid that Red Hat is going to take over the world?

Re:The tale of slashodot

[Jonas �berg]

I wouldn't be surprised if the free software community feeds more than 30.000 mouths.
On the other hand, there isn't any war between the free software community and Microsoft, or any company for that matter.
What we're opposing is the practice that many companies use that takes away the users freedom to do what they want with software that they buy.
It's not a natural scenario to be called a pirate, to be compared to a murderer and robber, just because you want to share what you have with your friends and neighbors.

Why is everyone so paranoid?

[riboflavin]

If Microsoft controls the market, why are so many companies suddendly jumping on the Linux bandwagon? And if Linux is an open source project maintained by volunteers, then how is Microsoft going to "beat" it? Concerning IE vs. Netscape, IE is simply a better browser. It's faster, much more standards compliant, far more stable. If you don't think it's illegal to crush companies by writing better code, I don't want to live in a world where you have any power. If you think it immoral for them to give it away, then I hope you don't run Linux or any other free software (software given away to crush Microsoft is no different than software given away to crush netscape).

Re:The tale of slashodot

[Jonas �berg]

I have only one remark; people who think that Linux, GNU and all other free software is about bringing down Microsoft is short-sighted and would be better off with a new pair of glases.

Millionaires...

[schon]

Well tell me then, why giving 30,000+ people their livelyhood, making a quarter of them millionaries is bad?

Actually, MS has only made a handful of it's employees millionaires.

THE STOCK MARKET has made the rest, NOT MS..

Relative to what it makes, MS doesn't pay it's employees very well at all (look at the fight of the "temp" workers.) Looks like you've been taken in by the "MS Millionaire Myth."

Re:Sierra Leone

[binarybits]

But that's not a country without a government. That's a country with a government of drug-impaired teenagers. Surely you don't believe that all advocates of smaller government will lead to this sort of society, do you?

Weird dreams (off-topic)

[cje]

Okay, so this is really off-topic, but ..

When I was in college, I had a dream that my roommates and I were watching Speed in our living room (it had just come out on video.) We were really getting into the movie, when suddenly there was an abrupt knock on the door. One of my roommates answered the door, and lo and behold, it was Dennis Hopper, right there in our apartment.

Well, needless to say, we were very excited to have one of the stars of Speed right there in our living room. We got him a beer, and we sat down and started watching the rest of the movie. Pretty soon we all got around to asking him for his autograph. He graciously said "Sure! Why don't you guys go back into your rooms and get something for me to sign?" And so we did. Then we came back ..

The fucker had ripped us off.

Everything was gone. The TV, the VCR, the stereo, my PlayStation, all of our CDs .. nothing was left. Dennis Hopper had completely cleaned us out. The front door was still wide open.

To this day I have no idea what that dream meant.

But I want my fucking TV back, Dennis.

I'm not sure

[grappler]

I love Micros~1 as much as the next slashdotter, but they have many good points here. Yes, the competition DID go running to the DOJ for help against mean old MS. Yes, they SHOULD have the right to sell anything they like, at whatever price they like, and if they want to include a web browser why shouldn't they?

However, there are a great many reasons they should be prosecuted. Unfortunately, the DOJ did not focus enough on legitimate issues such as their restrictive agreements with hardware vendors designed to make it literally impossible to make money selling an alternative OS to OEMs.

And then there are the other reasons to hate them which, while technically legal, are obviously slimy. For instance, their marketing practices of raising a huge fanfare for a new collection of bits, then charging outrageous amounts for them. Then pushing the release back a long time and releasing a still buggy product. Then actually charging the public for a package of fixes. And the practice of denying that bugs exist, either saying they can't duplicate them so they're not there, or calling them 'features'.