Slashdot Mirror
USvMS Ruling Expected Today
An anonymous reader noted that
a website is up for the official release of Judge Jackson's findings in the MS/Doj case. The release will supposedly occur at 6:30pm Eastern on an "Undesignated Friday" which
is rumored to be today.
The problem isn't standardization, per se. It's standardization on file-formats and protocols (which are really sort of the same thing, for this argument).
If everyone standardized on a file format, and if all the various applications could use the same format PROPERLY, then we'd have a very rich diverse choice of platforms. (XML, anyone?) but when one company bends the standard, and bundles that "extension" with their product, it forces people to unnaturally stick with that product, so they can conform to the extended standard.
So it's the company that bends the rules, and force-bundles the extension to their product that causes uninteroperability - the bandaid solution is to standardize on that product, but it causes worse problems long-term, because no matter what you do, you're NEVER going to get the whole world to standardize on one software product, because no software can be all things to all people.
Now, Microsoft made a damn good effort at eliminating all commmercial competition, in the name of standardization, to HELP it's customers with the interoperability problems caused by standardization (one of your clients uses Sun? Fine, we'll eliminate Sun!). Of course, this brings about all kinds of abuses when one application vendor dominates, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Let's assume Microsoft's intentions are all good, that all they want to do is solve the interoperability problem by eliminating competing applications, and therefore allowing people to ensure that their application will always interoperate with any other person they might have to deal with. But the natural order of things emerged when folks started using a system that could survive all commercial attacks. Linux. (Darwinism in action). You can't starve an animal that doesn't need to eat.
So now we KNOW, that the philosophy of standardization via elimination CAN'T work, and is broken. So the alternative is interoperability - and all we need to do is standardize the file formats (XML) (XML) (XML), not the applications.
Is it better to have a single species dominate the ecosystem, or is it better to have biodiversity?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
ah, but Nutscrape DOES have some of it's own quirks that cause cruft. (ever use IE and Netscape on a Mac? Tell me it's Microsoft's fault Netscape is slower!)
For instance, Netscape still holds displaying any table content until the entire table loads - thus, tables, being the main tool used for layouts, cause pain on pages with lots of text. Plus, when Netscape redownloads the page when you simply hit the back button when the fscking page is taking up space in the \cache directory anyway. I really hate that.
PS. Netscape NT GPFs on me about 3 times a week (if I don't reboot after the GPF, relaunchin Netscape, the average survival time before my next GPF is about 10 minutes, which is about how long it takes my NT box to reboot).
Netscape Mac, doesn't crash unless I print, and I guess I can probably blame the CRAPPY-ASS Epson printer drivers.
Never saw Netscape Linux crash, but it does go into lala land a lot.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not to mention, PDF allows the author to LOCK a document, preventing the user from changing it (cracks aside).
It's just a damn shame that the economic barrier towards CREATING PDF documents is way beyond 95% of computer owners, otherwise it could become THE standard (like Adobe says it IS).
Oh yeah, PDF can be read on Solaris too. (not sure about WP).
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I sympathize. I'm oddly exicted and nervous et al. The one thing that I keep coming back to though is that this industry can't get any more screwed up than it is....
:) ) It's highly unlikely that they are going to bring in a Linux Guru to rewrite your product when it's going to be cheaper to just train you in linux since you know the requirements already.
It's an industry where (for the most part) the unknowledgeable make the desicions (accounts, PHB, etc.), absolutely everyone is an "expert". (Oh yeah, I can program see I have a computer and a copy of VB for dummies), and for the last ten years the better technology has been beaten in the marketplace. Let's face it, this is one fsck'd up industry.
Could it get worse? Probably, whether MS wins or loses we are probably going to see more changes in the next 10 years than we have seen since the advent of the Altair. We are about to enter an age where computers are so cheap, and so small that there are going to permeate(sp?) our lives. It's going to be an exciting, thrilling and confusing time. And hopefully, when we are done, we can look at one and other and go "Whooooo! Good Job!"
Are people (MSCE's and the like) going to lose jobs? Some, maybe if they are really bad... but I doubt it, your employeer already has a lot of time and money invested in you. (that's a general you not the specific
Also, the one thing I keep seeing (or maybe it's my imagination) is the idea that the finding of fact (or penalties or whatever) is going to come out and MS is going to curl up and die... Even after all the appeals and so on, some form of the Windows franchise will still be here. The best we can hope is to profit from the confusion and doubt about the future. I don't mean FUD, good lord I hate FUD....
What I mean is when people say things like "Sure I don't like windows, but what else is there." (a phrase I here almost daily from non-techs) TELL THEM. Don't preach, don't sermonize... just say, "Well there's Linux, BEOS, Mac, FreeBSD, ad nauseum." (If I forgot anyone I'm sorry!). If they are truely interested, try to show them a demo of a couple different OS's (and with linux a couple different wm & (KDE | GNOME) packages). See what happens... you might be suprised and how few people actually know there are alternatives!
Well I've rambled on and on and on and on... I think I'm going to go do some work....
Myddrin
Word was ruled as not to be used to create legal documents as the word counter does not work correctly and there was some law that if your over a certain amount of words your in trouble.
:)
I'm sure someone who knows will explain better (or tell me I'm wrong
Justice would be nice, but for me, that's icing on the cake. What I really need to see is Microsoft leashed. Prevented from making these "hard nosed business deals". Prevented from being a dishonest player, prevented from withholding information, prevented from strongarm tactics, prevented with unrestrained bundling and price gouging (and ironically, dumping).
In short, I want to see a level playing field, where some startup (like Be perhaps?) could come up with a great new OS, and have more than a snowball's chance of succeeding (ok, many here will argue that Be did succeed - but only by sucking off the other Don of the industry, Intel).
Is that too much to ask?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
close but no cigar ... in fact, the courts are well aware of the point you make and draft judgements accordingly. Anyone who tries to get round an antitrust judgement by "co-operating" between the split up companies will find himself right back in court, and this time the charge will be contempt.
Oh yeh, and companies exist to make money for their shareholders considered only as their shareholders. They're not allowed to take into account any other interests that their shareholders might have. Otherwise, with so much of the USA owned by pension funds (ie owned by workers), we might see something really strange -- what Peter Drucker calls "pension fund socialism"
jsm
Microsoft, however, is largely ignoring the past and basing its entire defense on the notion that the industry has changed so much that Microsoft will never be in a position to do this again. It's a dubious assertion which would have been patently false if the trial had never happened in the first place... but it's like OJ Simpson defending himself by saying, "Your Honor, with all the attention drawn to me now, do you honestly think I'll ever be able to get away with killing anyone in the future?"
The logic, I think, is this: They're saying, "See how much and how quickly the industry has changed? Our position was always this vulnerable to new developments, therefore we didn't have monopoly power and were not subject to antitrust laws."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
could've had it before MS bought it
If this happens, it will mean Windows might actually become a GOOD product (however unlikely). This has been one of the problems, that Windows has been in development along with other things made by the same company. I have the feeling that if Microsoft had stayed with making one product (aka, windows) the whole time, Windows would be a MUCH better product than it is today. So if Windows becomes a good product, why should we care if Windows use is increased? The reason most of us use Linux is because we wanted something better. If Windows becomes better, what's the problem?
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Right, just because your wife died five years after you beat the crap out of her and put her in a coma, doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished for wife beating. Actually, by that time you should be charged with murder. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out, there's no corporate equivalent to the death penalty in America. Not even "breaking up".
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
WP has had special legal editions for years. I think that they had massive supremacy since their 5.1 DOS versions of it, and have been able to keep that specific market base. matt
Re-living your own childhood days aren't you. You should have been what ran down your mom's leg on.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial.
I don't think breaking up Microsoft
would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been
under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
If I read you correctly, what you are saying is that Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold on the industry, and that breaking them up would deprive consumers by rendering a powerful competitor hors de combat.
I agree that the public good should be considered very strongly in considering what punishment to mete out, but I don't think that this means that nothing should be done.
There is a very important factor that has to be considered:justice. Did Microsoft do something that was wrong and benefit by it? If the findings say this is so, then Microsoft and its executives should be punished -- really punished. Letting somebody get away with a slap on the wrist simply because he is rich or widely admired is a travesty of justice. Basically the message you send is that abiding by the law is for losers.
This really strikes at a basic tenet of our civilization; we restrain our behavior and in return we get the benefit of others restraingin theirs. What is the moral imperative not to "steal" proprietary software, when the producer of that software is given a license to break laws that are inconvenient for it?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Best way to split up Microsoft would be to have 2 OS companies, 2 application companies, and so on. That way Windows, Inc, can't go to Dell and say, no more Windows for you unless you sign this exclusive license. With multiple companies competing with the same base product, they'll do what they can to get business. This means allowing OEM's to preload other OS's, to get their contract.
Having one company still selling Windows, doesn't correct the problem that they have an undesirable amount of control over their clients. It would probably prevent them from preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape, but wouldn't have done much when IBM preloaded OS/2 along with 95.
-Brent--
According to CNBC & CNN, the Finding of Fact in the DOJ vs MS trial will be released today at 6:30pm (EST). The statement will be avaliable at http://usvms.gpo.gov/
...trylu, MS shot itself in the foot... repeatedly... with a 12ga shotgun... from the Halloween papers, to the "pissing on Java" memos, and saying IE can't be unbundled from OS (because look! deleting all dlls used by explorer crashes windows!), to the baldfaced lies told to federal judges, and the utter arrogance MS displayed when questioned, etc., etc., etc... If MS gets broken up it is their own fault!!!! They could've set things right onde the DOJ indictment was made. They didn't. It's as simple as that. It's as simple as that. (yes, I know I said that twice).
Actually putting it on a Friday to stop shock effects in the stock market doesn't say much: while MS stock would fall if the ruling is harsh, it would likely shoot up if not. Either way you have a shock effect.
-
It appears that the verdict won't be announced, but what has been found out in the case will be announced. Is this going to be a verdict?
Give it up. He is a killer. He gets what he deserves
"we'll most likely end up in a
situation that was common in the desktop computer industry circa 1976 to 1985, when everyone had to
purchase the operating system as a separate cost item."
-and of course, that would be fscking GREAT. But, you know Microsoft will just start charging like $150 where they used to charge OEMs like ~$30 (or whatever), and consumers will feel the pain, though most folks will still be compelled to buy Windows because they NEED to because it's the standard (blah, blah, same tired but effective argument) - and MS will blame "govt. interference" as to why they HAD to raise the price, and whine about how it ruined the industry by stepping in and not permitting "innovation".
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
OS/App split won't work.
two words:
Define "OS".
NT kernel = OS
command.com = OS
explorer.exe = um, OS.
Internet Explorer = um, if you say so, Bill, I mean, Netscape's already dead anyway right?
Notepad.exe = um - er, that's a toughie, OS.
Calculator.exe = um, I've always wondered why there aren't any software companies out there making a decent calculator software for the PC. . .
Outlook Express = um, hey it's part of IE right? no? okay, Application.
See? it gets REAL gray and fuzzy, REAL fast. It's not the problem that the OS dominates. The problem is the PLATFORM.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/notice.html :):):)
It's verified; the Findings of Fact *will* be released today!
Sun and Apple both do OS and Apps.
And Hardware.
And, they're both pretty damn big.
Apple may not have the market cap of MS, or the marketshare, but they are a bigger corp.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is correct. In other words he could say
"Internet Explorer was bundled unfairly." or he could say it wasn't. This is more important, from a business standpoint, then the actual punishment.
It is like a judge saying "Bob really did steal that $100 from Jim."
The judge could say Bob pays Jim back $100, or Bob should go to jail, or Bob should get off with a warning.
But what people really care about is whether Microsoft's actions constitute stealing, more than they are interested with what the Judge will do with it.
-Ben
We ARE the government. There is no differentiation, although Socialists like you would like to seperate the government from the people as much as possible.
Did you know that the income tax is a relatively new development? Originally the federal government did not have the right to tax individuals.
Of course the Socialists fixed that. Now we are paying the price (literally).
I agree. None of the proposed remedies seem workable or realistic.
So my remedy (unfortunately, the US legal system doesn't provide for this) is:
Hard Time.
Let Bill Gates and his cronies dominate the license plate manufacture industry.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Maybe they'll break m$ up like at&t, very unlikely, but a possibility.
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
1999 Platforms: 8.50 Apps & Devtools: 8.82
1998 Platforms: 6.28 Apps & Devtools: 7.02
1997 Platforms: 4.92 Apps & Devtools: 5.62
(Sums are in billions of dollars)
Now, perhaps using the word "much" twice in my original posting was excessive, but platforms do earn less than apps for Microsoft, and have done so consistently.
I can't find a page breaking out expenses by division either, but I'll bet the platforms division costs quite a bit more to operate than the apps division. Microsoft's advertising expenses alone totalled $3.2 billion in FY99, and the most expensive part of that is likely to be TV ads. It's been a long time since I saw a TV ad for MS Office or other applications - it's all Windows and IE. This leads me to suspect the bulk of ad expenses belong to the platforms division.
"Cost of Revenue" is another big minus on the MS balance sheet ($2.8 billion). This is distribution, unpaid tech support, shipping and packaging, and I suspect also a major cost with Windows and a smaller one for other products.
I also suspect R&D ($2.9 billion) is tilted towards the OS and not the applications.
This has the effect of making the gap between net income from platforms and net income from apps even greater.
The OS is profitable, but less so than applications and development tools - at least that's what the information I can find in their annual report suggests. I can't find a URL with the figures you name at all.
ME:
Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds.
PWH:
That's exactly the argument used here in the UK in defence of selling Hawk fighters and riot control equipment to Indonesia. It doesn't wash. Microsoft's collapse may have bad effects, but that's no reason to stop it happening.
MY RESPONSE:
I didn't say think about that and then give up. I said, think about it and then post. Just be aware that there are consequences to this action. Real people, not just Bill Gates will be hurt.
I wonder what the judge is going to say? Are we going to have Baby MSes? A Dismissal, or just a huge fine? Or...possibly...quite possibly....is this the beginning of the end? Ahhh...one can dream....
BTW...first post?
Of course they will support M$, this link explains their beliefs on capitalisim. Definition of Laissez-faire
icq:=22921393;
Legal offices have a long history of preferring Word Perfect for their document processing. I don't know the specifics of why, other than perhaps conservatism (time was when Word Perfect was the preferred word processor on PCs) and not wanting to convert all their boilerplate. There may also be technical reasons, legal documents have some particular formatting requirements.
And PDF of course is a popular way of distributing docs on the web.
The lack of a Word format copy isn't necessarily a deliberate slight against Microsoft.
-- Alastair
I've spent the last decade awiting for a good outcome today.
Believe with me, my saplings.
As with Standard Oil and the interdiction of owning both oil wells and gas stations, I suspect such a ruling would end up only apply to those with large market shares. Still forcing those two to divest wouldn't especially bother me.
I doubt it'll happen anyway.
It's pretty clear your first phrase is true. The case against Standard Oil was brought in 1905. By that time their market share was 40%, down from 90% twenty years earlier. New competition from foreign fields combined with a too-aggressive refinery buyout strategy had already destroyed their market share. It was Russian and Texan competitors that 'stepped in' and humbled Standard Oil, not the government.
I think it's cute that they aren't posting the findings in Word, only Word Perfect 6 and PDF.
:)
Very diplomatic
Dana
Ayup at aprox 6:30 PM PST today we get to see it. MS and DOJ have their copy already. Here come the SpinMeisters now
Here's what I don't understand about the whole trial: the DOJ's accusations and Microsoft's defense just don't match up.
The DOJ has trotted out ample evidence that Microsoft has abused the law rampantly in the past decade or so, that its competitors have suffered because of this, and that Microsoft's actions have directly resulted in a reduction of competition in the marketplace.
Microsoft, however, is largely ignoring the past and basing its entire defense on the notion that the industry has changed so much that Microsoft will never be in a position to do this again. It's a dubious assertion which would have been patently false if the trial had never happened in the first place... but it's like OJ Simpson defending himself by saying, "Your Honor, with all the attention drawn to me now, do you honestly think I'll ever be able to get away with killing anyone in the future?"
What I'm most worried about is that if Microsoft gets away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, it's a clear sign to Microsoft and other large industries that you can get away with *anything* as long as you tie your competitors up in litigation until what you did doesn't matter any more.
Or, to put it a different way: "Okay, your honor, so my client murdered the victim... but what good is it to punish him for it now, since she's already dead? Besides, she was probably going to die young of cancer or something, anyway."
Does anyone know if this is his 'final solution' or just some sort of summing up?
This is just the findings that they will release correct? Not the actual punitive part? I believe this will only tell us wether the judge thinks that M$ is guilty or not and on what charges. I don't think this will tell us what the judge thinks should be done about it. Anyone have better info?
-cpd
A breakup of MS will simply never happen. No matter what Jackson rules MS will tie it up in appeals for years -- where it will almost certainly win. MS will spend more years in appeals court than a person on death row.
I wish I could read the coverage on CNN, but I can't because the Javascript they use crashes my Netscape browser (and on about 30 other sites). Thank goodness I can turn to Microsoft's superior product.
The ruling will be available as wordperfect 6 or in pdf format. Whatever the outcome, they didn't use microsoft word to tell us :-)
Reinout van Rees
nothing really just a mention of the friendly rivally between us and canada
I suspect that it will be rumoured to be every Friday until it is actually released.
BTW, the reason for announcing it at 6:30 on Friday is to minimize the affect on the stock market, now that MS is part of the Dow Jones index. I can't think that that bodes well for Microsoft.
While I truly hate most EULAs, this is not the time to take them on. Stopping only one company from using them is not what needs to be done. What should be done is to prevent Microsoft from using Windows prices as a club to beat on the OEMs and keep the competition shut out as much as possible. That would go a long way towards letting competition return to the industry.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have an HTML version available on my box here.
screenshot of how it looks from London (121K)
shameless plug for vanity URL
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.
Yes, but this more a fight between M$ and a the Department of Justice. While I have many problems with the DOJ, when it comes to interpretting the law and the Constituion, and how they apply to events and new laws. They generally do a pretty damn good job (a few notible exception aside) note how the higher courts have ruled several times favoring encyption as free speach, and other intelligent things of that manor. Mainly its the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (in that order) that I dislike mostly, oh yea... and the IRS branch -grin-
What's even funnier is reading all the justifications given in reply for not having it available in HTML. Especially now that the Web site reads: The document will be available for download from this page in three formats: WordPerfect 6, Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), and HyperText Markup Language (HTML). =)
Anyways, for those who think they don't need to read the findings of fact, I'd advise you to change your mind. In fact, this should be mandatory slashdot encyclopedic training of clueful knowledge. I'm learning a lot about business and markets from this little distilled ditty. More comprehensive and condensed than NYTimes, CNN or--should I say it--ZDNET. Forgive me, IANABM (I am not a business man).
My first impressions (based on the first 30 or so pages) are that this case is very thorough. It will be very difficult for Microsoft to get away with much of an appeal. Of course, IANAL.
Especially one should pay attention to the bits about Linux and Open Source. They are actually fairly rational when you put the BIG PICTURE INTO PERSPECTIVE.
It is also amusing to see how other companies are positioned relative to Microsoft. Microsoft's market may become one of those inflection points. Here comes the SUN!
In another 10 years we'll be having another monopoly trial of even more sinister design. Something about the manipulation of open source licenses.
10 years after that, open hardware???
The district court confirmed it'll be tonight.
fuck this government.
to be enlightened, read ayn rands "anthem" thanks to my boys at project gutenberg.
After that if you've got extra time spend a few bucks and buy fountainhead or atlas shrugged... you can see where our sad little government is taking this country. pathetic.
www.jackasscritics.com
I hated WP for DOS. WP 6.0 was a buggy dog. Novell's WP 6.1 was only a little better. Corel's WP 6.1 looked the same as Novell's, but actually was useable. WP 7.0 was better. WP 8.0 for both Windows and Linux has proved to be an excellent program, much more pleasant to use than Word. Apparently WP 9 (2000) is beginning to suffer a bit from feature creep -- due to Corel's desire to not let MS get too far ahead in the bells-and-whistles competition.
If you had actually used WP over thew past 5 years, you would know the product has improved plenty -- without any need to make radical changes in it's file format every few months.
Michael Kerpan
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
It is going to be today!
"This release will occur at 6:30 pm (eastern time) today, November 5th."
This is written now on the page http://usvms.gpo.gov/
First of all, he shouldn't be recommending ANY remedies in the findings of fact document. He will simply state what he believes to be true in the case and why. That should be it. The remedies phase comes later. If the judge has determined that Microsoft has broken the law, this gives them some time to sweat and come to the table to work out a deal with the DOJ. If no deal can be struck, then the next phase will begin and a remedy will be decided by the court.
Did I miss or screw anything up in that?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I read your post from work. On the way home stopped for two bottles myself, and some port wine... and some saki. All of that and a Cuban Cigar I had been saving. Needless to say, I partied and got a little sick. Oh, well...
pronoblem
No longer a rumor. U.S. vs. Microsoft special web site now says this:
I'm all a-tingle.
Penfield's findings document had Roman numeraled major sections, lettered subsctions and numbered sections with one or at most a few paragraphs within each. You and I can talk about paragraph 4 of section 214 even if you print it in 12 point courier and I print it in 36 point Times.
I read the decision in an HTML format.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Bill, you can run, but you can't hide!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now says judgement will be post today 5 Nov 19:30 est
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
yes, you can read it that way. But when it comes time to write briefs for the appellate court, or discuss different portions of the paragraph,you will need to be able tof find the exact line.
Thomas,
I think there is the strong implication that by separating hardware sales from OS sales, everyone will have to compete on price--and with that wide open competition, Microsoft will probably reduce the price of Windows 98 to $40 and Windows 2000 Professional to between $90 to $120.
Because there is pricing up front, there is no incentive to give different prices to different hardware vendors that chose to buy Windows 98/2000.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
from the DOJ page: "When released by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the document entitled Findings of Fact will be available for download from this page. This release will occur at 6:30 pm (eastern time) today, November 5th."
The findings will be released today, according to the page.
Golly...You managed to say that without standing on your soapbox!
Because it's very likely going to experience a dip in value starting on open next Monday- depending on what's in the findings document, it may be a big one.
I agree that the judge definitely wants Microsoft and the DOJ to work something out. But given Microsoft's attitude in the past, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
I also agree that Microsoft should be made to publish a standard (publicly visible) price list with no deviation possible. I was thinking that volume discounts would be ok, but that could provide MS with a loophole. They might still be able to play with the prices that the OEMs pay by looking at the volume of each OEM and deciding how to set their prices so as to have the maximum detrimental impact on any OEMs that aren't playing by the MS rules. I wouldn't want to see any discounting whatsoever unless the government can guarantee that Microsoft will not be able to exploit loopholes like they did with the previous consent decree.
Microsoft should also be prevented from using MDAs (Market Development Agreements) to reward those OEMs who help MS shut out the competition. If MDAs aren't prevented, nothing will change.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No they won't!!
By making everyone buy the operating system as a separate cost item, everyone will have "up front" pricing on getting a copy of Windows 98, Windows 2000, any commercial Linux distribution, BeOS, etc. Because the price of the OS is already known, there is no incentive to raise the price, in fact, I might see Microsoft LOWER the price of Windows 98 and Windows 2000 in order to compete with the US$40-$50 cost of buying a retail Linux distribution.
You haven't read a good book on economics, right? In the case of microeconomics, any monopoly or near monopoly situation will usually lend itself to "natural correction" sooner or later (look at OPEC--they got their butts kicked by 1986 because natural economic forces could not allow them to keep up their $34/bbl. price).
If there's any company that needs to be investigated by the DoJ, it's Intel--now THERE'S a company that almost has no competition in the computer hardware business, despite the efforts of AMD. How do you explain Intel's threat to Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers that prevented many of them from announcing or making Athlon-compatible motherboards?
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
They musta read your post, becouse soon after, it read this:
"The document will be available for download from this page in three formats: WordPerfect 6, Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), and HyperText Markup Language (HTML)."
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The site just change to say that it will be available today, then a few seconds later the site died. The info is up there now.
To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire
...no better than rascists who hate people cause of their nationality ... you DUMB CANUCK Hum..kinda ironic, coming from a "my shit don't stink" yankee
I'm gonna be doing an internship at MS (crowd: boo, hiss...) and if they break them up and the position gets cancelled I'd be pretty pissed!
Its online NOW! go there do not wait, do not pass go! go read! Doh! its been slashdoted, nice!
What will happen if microsoft collapses? Well, first of all, the general tech stock market will face a serious reality check and probably collapse. Serious depression. Lots of people will see their savings wiped out. Lots of jobs will be lost. Etc.
Well, so what? The hyperinflation in the tech stock market is hardly news. If morons decide to build their house on an active volcano and dont listen to warnings Im not going to feel any pity when they get instaincinerated.
After that we may get back a stock market more based on reality than a pyramid scheme. And we may get more computers that actually work again. And we may get an actual true productivity improvement from computers that isnt eaten up by Word crashes.
Yes, it will be painful. But it will be a _lot_ less painful than the alternative in the long run.
>I am a lawyer, this is not advise, etc.
>This is correct. In other words he could say
>"Internet Explorer was bundled unfairly."
That's a bit farther than he can go--he can get as faras "Internet Explorer was tied to Windows 95", but he can't get as far as "unfairly."
So far he is still only deciding what happened (fact). To get to legality (unfairly), he will need to decide if these facts violate the law. *that* will not be decided at this point; there will be at least one more round of briefs--and another encouragement to settle.
a new record?
The Moral Defense of Microsoft
Wow, I had to do a whois on the domain to make sure microsoft wasn't running it themselves. But it's connected to capitalism.org
Joe.
It still crashed about 10 seconds after the thing was posted....
"The deluded are always filled with absolutes. The rest of us have to live with ambiguity." - Aristoi, Walter Jon Willia
>That appearance is more important than content is
>only one of the things wrong with our legal
>system.
How in the world did you get from "formatting is important" to "appearance is more important than content"???
The format means that we can all agree on what is on page 5, line 7, so that we can intelligently discuss the content. HTML does not have this feature, by design.
And there is no Findings of Fact up on their site. Guess we all jumped the gun a bit, eh?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Now what a surprise.
If anyone gets a copy, please let us know where we can gets it. If we all try at once, then at least one of us will get it.
I have an idea. All throw a die three times. If it comes up 6 every time, then try to download it, otherwise just wait here for a mirror to be announced.
Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen!
mochaone trolled:
Here's What the Judge Should Do...
Nothing.
No, he should release his findings of fact as promised, followed by his judgement a while later as promised. Luckily, he listens to his own guide rather than to you, so he is likely to do something rather than nothing.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen.
First off, it is a "Finding of Fact", not a fact of finding (sword of slaying +2?). Secondly, his conclusion of a fact of finding should say nothing of the sort. Possible remidies should be given in the judgement, not in the finding of fact. The finding of fact is just that, a determination of which facts are "Truth" as far as determining the judgement is concerned. I expect the findings of fact will probably declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not suggest anything as to remidies. This way, there is no easy way to appeal the finding of fact. The judgement, to be given later, will certainly be appealed if it is anything more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft.
The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
Again, you have to wait for the judgement for that. What evidence do you have that such a remedy would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you have that more would not? The court of appeals that would hear any appeals in this case is very pro-corporate, but I certainly don't know enough about their legal opinions to make a guess here.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general.
The computing landscape always changes, such is life. Since the case was filed, Microsoft has picked up a few more percent desktop market share, so they're now more of a monopoly. Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know.
A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it. This would be ugly but not a disaster since the Free Software community will get stronger no matter what happens to the guys with the plastic wrap.
Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Any changes due to the trial have been trivial. A few OEM's have bent their license agreements a little bit. Nothing major has changed to make legal action against Microsoft any less important. If anything, the tying of IE with Windows 98 makes the complaint more pressing.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
But it's not like we directly decide where it goes. It's not as if I can say to the IRS "Here's the money I owe you. I want 25% of it to go to NASA, .5% to fight MS, 5% For the Military, 12% to the Strategic Helium Reserve, etc..."
Once we hand over the money, we don't get it back. It's not as if the goverment would be refunding us if it decided not to fight Microsoft.
Vertical integration is producing all of the parts; horizontal integration is the combining of manufacturors of the same product.
Personally, I believe Microsoft will implode within the next year, anyway. I'd rather not see a major action by the government against them, because when the implosion happens, it should be clear that Microsoft did it to themselves.
Consider the facts:
Microsoft has completely penetrated the user base that can tolerate buggy software.
In order to grow, they either have to move out of software, or move into software markets where performance and reliability happen NOW, not on the next ver$ion.
Microsoft's corporate culture is against them in this. Their culture is one of outrunning their mistakes, and selling the next version. At the moment, they are constitutionally incapable of standing behind a product, NOW.
By the same token, Microsoft does no innovate in software, but in marketing. They are GOOD at taking others' innovations and moving them to the marketplace. (Not a negligible skill, to be sure.) But this also may be why their content creation efforts have not gone well.
IMHO they can't keep going this way, and if they change in order to survive, they can't be the Microsoft we've all grown to hate. I don't even know if the market will give them the time it takes to make the cultural transformation needed.
I'd rather see the blame for their fall stay clearly with their own practices, and not get transferred to any antitrust actions.
According to the BBC, they judge said they're a monopoly. I can't get the text.
Can't get more than 3% or so of the pdf or html. The site is hosed.
The freakin' site's slashdotted, but CNN's saying things don't look good for MS!!!
"I don't think I ain't" -Thompson's Corollary to Descartes
but not for the widespread adoption of Linux on the desktop. But let's face it, that's not going to happen anyway because X *sucks*.
What we have is a representative republic, not a democracy. The difference lays in the fact that we vote people into office to handle affairs of state for us (in the case of the Presidency, it's a couple of steps removed -- we vote for the people who actually vote the President into office and who will hopefully vote the way we told them to) instead of handling affairs of state directly.
And beyond election-time rhetoric, I sincerely doubt that any of our representatives think of the money they spend as belonging to the taxpayers -- if it _did_ belong to us, we'd get a direct choice in how it was spent.
--JackCat
config error my butt, try /. effect!?! Or perhaps its a cover-up.
I'd love to see Microsoft either broken up or forced to divest either the apps or the OS. I'd love to see MS divest from Windows by releasing the source for the OS and keeping the apps. It would be the most just and most effective way to end monopoly practices in software. It would set a precedent as effective as the Standard Oil decision decades ago: Thou shalt not possess both an OS and the software to run on it, at least, not if you're big. It makes sense, MS Office is a major cash cow for MS, Windows is a much, much less profitable business.
It won't happen. Few judges in this day and age have the nads to take on big business, even if they have the knowledge to adequately judge the computer industry. Any substantial reorganisation of Microsoft will fail on appeal.
At best, Microsoft will be forbidden from entering into certain businesses or forced to more widely license the Windows source. Anything beyond that is unlikely. If Microsoft is hit with more than a slap on the hand, you can be sure MS will appeal the decision and leave it unenforced for years, maybe decades to come.
But, if the Finding of Fact is sufficiently embarrasing to Microsoft, it might be possible to start a genuine public campaign against them. Nike, Monsanto and all the big car companies, among a long list of others, have suffered from well publicised discoveries of guilt, sometimes even when they haven't broken the law. I'd like to see something along those lines done to Microsoft.
But I'm not holding my breath.
comon man i got good mirror waiting here
That's all fine and dandy. I don't use win*, usually... however, what if I want to play a game of Tribes? What if I want to view _The Matrix_ on my phat new DVD reader? What if I want to use Opera to browse the web, so I don't go thru contortions with Netscape? What if I want to print colour pics out on my DeskJet 722c? What if I want to see how my website looks when viewed under MSIE?
Oh, right. Since I "don't have to use Windows," I certainly don't have to use those apps.
Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work...
Sure... MS will collapse just like AT&T tanked in 1984... or IBM (and nothing happened to them!).
The world will definitely not get *worse* if MS as we know them today vanished.
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Judgement is anticipated by many to go against Microsoft, but nobody is so sure that Congress will have the guts to go through with any serious enough measures to open up the markets. Remember, you're dealing with a company that is an accomplished wielder of FUD... it's been doing it from DR-DOS through to Linux (though thankfully with little success in the latter case). They're more than capable of FUD'ing an economy without Microsoft.
In fact, given the speeches I've heard in recent weeks from Republicans (during the debate on giving tax breaks to developing countries exporting their goods) about how America "isn't really in that strong a position globally" and suchlike it seems quite likely MS could get most of the nastier looking teeth extracted between the now and any actual consequences.
NP
Can you sum it up in a word? *No.* In a noise? *Whuuuurghhhhh!*
I'm in a loving mood today, so I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks on my person. But I would like to point out some contradictions in your post.
>>The only thing I can see the judge doing, which
>>would have any chance of passing apellate
>>muster,is putting in a provision that would
>>mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's
>>business dealings for something like the next 5
>>years.
>...What evidence do you have that such a remedy
>would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you
>have that more would not?
Previously, back on the ranch...
>>That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion
>>should be that a breakup of Microsoft should
>>not happen.
>...I expect the findings of fact will probably
>declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not
>suggest anything as to remidies
So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to gather evidence to support my suppositions, yet you are allowed to postulate as to what Judge Jackson is going to do? I heard they released a movie about being in John Malkovich's head. Someone should have told them that you were already starring in the movie about being in Judge Jackson's head.
Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know. A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it.
Hmm...I guess since you're saying it, "evidence" isn't needed to prove your point?
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
"Federal judge finds that Microsoft has monopoly power in personal computer operating systems"
"I don't think I ain't" -Thompson's Corollary to Descartes
Not.
Please learn from hard science. The act of observation naturally changes the object being viewed.
I don't remember who's theory this was, but assuming the Observer is USDOJ and the subject is MS, this distinctly applies.
I think that the recent occurances that have happened in the past year are directly attributable to the pressure that this case has placed on microsoft (bad press, expenditure of resources, billg looked like a big liar in front of the nation, etc.)
Perhaps the trial's completion will actually be highly beneficial to MS, since the unknown is gone, and they can continue to operate (though no status quo)
ohhhhh...the government is going to punish the evil MS for their bad business ethics. Hello!!!!!!!! The pot calling the kettle black... People living in glass houses... Putting the wolf in charge of the sheep... When the government cleans up it's own fithy house, I'll have a little more respect for them going after MS. If the ./ desired outcome happens, how long do you think it's going to take before Mr. Klein throws his hat into the political arena? Writes a book? I'll give 5-1 odds.
SEE www.cnn.com !! It's the front page!!!
$25 per copy...If MS were charging those rates, /. ers would be all over it. Gouging the public, all that sort of crap.
I know its hard, but lets just wait until Judge Jackson decides/is ready to present his finding of fact.
locust
Today's ruling is supposed to be a "findings of fact" ruling, where the judge basically explains what facts that were presented in the case that he believes to be true.
According to CNNfn:
"Later this year, after further arguments following the findings of fact, Jackson is due to issue another ruling in which he is expected to say whether Microsoft violated antitrust law and has liability for doing so."
Well, the web page has been changed now and you can either download the text or browse it. But it's slashdotted already, probably also because of links from other news articles, I guess. I've managed to get 2% of the 397K HTML file before it stalled (http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html).
A mirror certainly would be nice.
Hell, why don't they release it in WordStar 3.3 format, that's even more obsolete than Wordperfect 6.
Or plain ASCII???
CNNFN news blurb:
A U.S. federal judge ruled Friday that Microsoft Corp. wields monopoly power in personal computer operating systems and has issued a decision highly favorable to the government. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision on the facts of the case, due to be officially released shortly, set the stage for a later ruling on whether the Redmond, Wash., software firm's actions violated antitrust law.
So if Micros~1 is found guilty and split into a bunch of smaller companies, won't the evil be multiplied exponentially?
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
Welp, ms is a monopoly......i think they should shoot bill gates into the sun as a remedy, but that's just my personal opinion. -Fury
i hope microsoft fails from within. that's the only real way they can fall. the justice department can help a little, but not as much as some bad descisions at the top of microsoft.
Closed at 91-9/16. currently at 89 at 6:48pm.
The winners: the lawyers
The losers : the taxpayers & microsoft.
I was hacking a python script to monitor the web site in the interpreter.
:)
Script goes:
from urllib import *
a = urlopen('http://usvms.gpo.gov/')
print a.info()
...and I got back...
Server: Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:48:59 GMT
Content-type: text/html
Last-modified: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:25:12 GMT
Content-length: 3192
Accept-ranges: bytes
Connection: close
Hmmm, seems like a y2k problem to me!
_Deirdre
I just read that Jackson ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
With Regard To Intel - I agree wholeheartedly, and a judge just overturned the injunction in the Intergraph case too. I see Intel dodging their comeuppance WAY more than Microsoft.
Oh well. You win some, you lose some.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Welp, ms is a monopoly......i think they should shoot bill gates into the sun as a remedy, but that's just my personal opinion. Wonder how long it will take for slashdot to have a story on it. I also wonder how biased msnbc is gonna be on the subject -Fury
I find myself, surprisingly, against breaking up MICROS~1. In light of recent decisions levying honking fines agains major coprorations, it's likely that a fine of (let's say) 5-10% of their market cap would pass muster on appeal. Due and payable next year, but held (drawing interest) until final resolution.
Peanuts, you say? Perhaps, for many companies. In MS' case, though, that's several years' revenues even with their funny accounting. Also, it won't go down based on subsequent events, so if (as looks likely) they've pretty much hit their zenith then by the time the USSC slams the gavel a little matter of $5E10 might just finish them off.
OK, so I'm not the forgiving type. Deal.
PS: Ya gotta love Judge Jackson's sense of humor. How many of us knew that he read Mathematical Games, much less that he would actually find a chance to play a variant of the Unexpected Hanging?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Apparently it's because Wordperfect can count words, and Word can't. Word claims to, but forgets the foot notes. The Register did an article on it.
What they have against HTML format is that the document must be PRINTABLE.
The document is in the form of a legal brief, not some arbitrary document you can display any which-way. That means the document must be prepared in a manner which pleases the court.
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
[insert rebel yell here] Slap them sanctions on now! No more running people out of business then jacking up the price!
http://dailynews .yahoo.com/h/nm/19991105/ts/microsoft_leadall_3.ht ml
Actually I find Netscape is very stable it is IE that causes the problems. Now before you write back to this read the rest of what I have to say. IE is integrated in the OS and as such when you upgrade IE it modifies many other system components. Compenents other programs use. I have found that upgrading IE often causes IE to run better but just about kills netscape. The IE 5 upgrade and many of the bug fixes that MS keeps putting out for Windows seems to cause Netscape to become more unstable.
For the Linux platform they don't have that excuse and someone should beat them with a rubber hose over how unstable that browser is. I have never had another apped that crashed as often as Netscape on Linux.
In closing on the windows platform I think some of Netscape problems are caused by microsoft. On Linux and the other OSs I just think they don't know how to make a stable browser.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
I don't (I am the one who made the origional post).I sure wish I did pick up a few about 2 years ago when it was at $13!
Hopefully the Judge will release a ruling so harsh that it will utterly destroy Microsoft, rendering it incapable of producing any more versions of Windows. Of course, he'll probably just do something like charge a huge fine at first, which MS will just pay... And I'm sure MS will appeal if they lose and the punishment is actually detrimental to them. And even though Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways, this alone probably won't mean the end of MS. I'm just hoping they'll actually be weakened enough so that it gives a chance for others to take advantage and return competition to the market place.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Here's what http://www.netcraft.com spits out for http://usvms.gpo.gov
usvms.gpo.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on DIGITAL UNIX
And here I thought it was a VMS box... I guess Netcraft hasn't converted to "Compaq Tru64" either...
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Is all the same...
As others have noticed these won't be the penalties, only the judges findings. Still, they'll provide insight into how severe the judge feels about Microsofts transgressions, if any. This won't tell you what the penalties will be but may indicate which way he'll lean. My personal predictions are: require Microsoft to bundle third party applications such as Netscape Communicator and break Microsoft into seperate Systems and Software divisions. I'm not sure if the licensing fee requirements by anybody who builds systems that could run Microsoft products is still around, if it is I hope its killed.
When the penalities come out expect Microsoft to appeal the decision (unless its a slap on the wrist) so don't expect any final resolution for a few years.
When the inevitable verdict is announced, I'll be opening the two bottles of four-year-old Chimay Blue Label "Grande Riserve" Trappist Ale that I've been saving for this happy occasion.
Time for a celebratory Drink!
Cheers!!
So WP6 format is not that bad...
Keep in mind that MS Word 97 is really MS Word 3 or 4. They jumped from Word 2 to Word 6 to catch up with Wordperfect....
This is pretty funny: The document will be available for download from this page in two formats: WordPerfect 6 and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF)
... what does the DOJ have against HTML?!
My next question is
(see subject)
That's 2330Z ? 00.30 Central European ? 01.30 Finnish time ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
-- euroderf, whose cookies are still fscking screwed up
--
I've mirrored a copy here:
/findfact.html
http://campbell.penguinpowered.com
I assume you are saying that it will cost the GOVERNMENT money.
Well listen--once you pay your taxes, it's NO LONGER YOURS. It's the governments. I'm sick of hearing "taxpayer's money" from politicians too. It implies that your rights are proportional to the taxes you pay. Well, in that case, people like Steve Forbes have no rights, since the ultra rich DON'T pay taxes, or pay very negligible amounts (ask an accountant about this---it's very easy to shelter your income if you have a lot).
Para 18:
Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.
Sorry, I've only got the first 6K.
Netcraft has the following to say about usvms.gpo.gov:
usvms.gpo.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on DIGITAL UNIX
Phew! If it woulda said IIS, then I know we'd be in for trouble. :-)
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
http://hawk-c-014.resnet.purdue.edu/ms-findings.pd f
Read this to get the word from the horse's mouth.
I would put money on that it will be this Friday, though.
Wordperfect 2000 or whatever they are calling it use the same format
how is that obselete
cow
The site was slow and busy but no link for download. Guess its not this Friday or It won't be posted until Monday morning when someone is home.
http://www.csoft.net/~djf/docs/findfact .pdf
(I know, I know, PDF. But I got the PDF because it appeared the HTML on the gpo.gov site was multi-page browseable HTML rather than one big file. Given the instantaneous overload when the docs were released I wanted to just grab one file and let TCP do its thing.)
I hope they are found guilty on all accounts, fined one dollar, and lose the ability to have any sections of their far reaching EULA's enforced. The result might be Microsoft would be forced to offer worthwhile services to compete in the marketplace. Else it will continue to strongarm upgrades and solutions from Microsoft/SPA raids due to unlicensed warez that creep into businesses from homes.
III. MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
Hmmmm...
III. MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET
B. The Applications Barrier to Entry
3. Open-Source Applications Development
51. Since application developers working under an open-source model are not looking to recoup their
investment and make a profit by selling copies of their finished products, they are free from the imperative
that compels proprietary developers to concentrate their efforts on Windows. In theory, then,
open-source developers are at least as likely to develop applications for a non-Microsoft operating
system as they are to write Windows-compatible applications. In fact, they may be disposed ideologically
to focus their efforts on open-source platforms like Linux. Fortunately for Microsoft, however, there are
only so many developers in the world willing to devote their talents to writing, testing, and debugging
software pro bono publico. A small corps may be willing to concentrate its efforts on popular applications,
such as browsers and office productivity applications, that are of value to most users. It is unlikely, though,
that a sufficient number of open-source developers will commit to developing and continually updating
the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a
significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows. In practice, then, the open-source
model of applications development may increase the base of applications that run on non-Microsoft PC
operating systems, but it cannot dissolve the barrier that prevents such operating systems from
challenging Windows.
I always thought I'd be happy when this day arrived. For everything Microsoft has done, it deserves to be smacked down hard, and I hope it is. It's done things that, if it were a human being, would have landed it in jail years ago. Simply because it's a corporation (which is treated not unlike a person under US law) doesn't make it exempt from justice.
But there's doubt in my mind, I suppose. Not in Microsoft's guilt, mind you; they're guilty as charged a thousand times over. My doubt stems mainly from the fact that, after all, it is the US Government that's trying this case. I'm afraid they'll go too far and screw up the industry even more. The hell of it is, I'm not even sure what "too far" is yet. I suppose we'll see tonight...
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
A lot of people are waiting to see this, as it will give some idea of how serious things will be for Microsoft. I expect that page will be slashdotted, and impossible to get at.
:)
It would be nice if people who can put up mirrors volunteer now, so that when the results are actually put up, and Slashdot reports it, they can also report a list of volunteer mirrors.
Of course, this assumes that those that volunteer will actually be able to get the material.
http://hawk-c-014.resnet.purdue.edu/findfact.html
I was hoping to get down there myself to see if anyone showed up to cheer or boo or just drink beers and cry. Anyone interested?
I just noticed the site changed. Yesterday it said that at 6:30, you could get handed out copies of the verdict at the John Marshall entrance of the District Courthouse... I assume the location hasn't changed... someone on the DC-LUG said this is around 3rd and Connecticut... I believe in the NorthWest quarter.
Apologies to those of you not close enough to DC to care about this info.
Para 33:
"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without loosing an unacceptible amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
Thank you, Mike! Good man! I got in right when the page changed, and have been trying to grab source ever since. I got ~225K and it puked on me.
So here is Mirror 1 of US vs MS finding of facts. Because we computer geeks count from 0, right? ;-)
NCSA/1.5.2 running on IRIX 6.5, for those of you keeping score at home.
How many judges can use the acronym "API" in a complete sentence?
Whenever we see litigation concerning software, we always find ourself in amazement that judges have such little understanding of software and can come up with such off-the-wall verdicts.
This judge, on the contrary, seems to understand the subject extremely well!
Chris
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Rounding up microsoft execs, putting them into camps and...
tasteless I know but it had to be said.
Nothing.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen. The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
I think there's a strange irony in the fact that the ruling is expected in Word 6.0 format (also Adobe Acrobat for those of you who believe in true portability).
On another note, I talked with an MSDrone recently who said divestiture is fine with them since it will make Bill Gates the head of three powerful companies instead of one. I didn't have the heart to tell him that that's not how it works. I sense that there is quite a bit of denial flowing through the Redmond campus...
--
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Or perhaps I've misread the political atmosphere of Slashdot?
- Drew
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Folks,
Despite the sound of the crowd wanting blood, I think US v. Microsoft may have been rendered obselete before its time.
The reasons are simple: a LOT has changed in the computer industry since the May 1998 filing. The fact that America Online continues to attract users, AOL has purchased Netscape, alternate devices to get onto the Internet has started to surface, and the rapid rise of everyone's favorite OS (Linux) in the last 24 months has reduced the potential influence that Microsoft could have had on the Internet.
The most equitable outcome of this trial is NOT a breakup of Microsoft; we'll most likely end up in a situation that was common in the desktop computer industry circa 1976 to 1985, when everyone had to purchase the operating system as a separate cost item. That way, there will be a level playing field for everyone in the OS industry, and whoever can be successful in terms of price and ease of use will win hands down.
Also, given the fact this case will be appealled to the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, DC almost immediately, not to mention finally ending up in the US Supreme Court, don't expect a conclusion to this case until at least late 2001 to early 2002. And given the pace of change in "Internet time," who knows what will be the state of Microsoft in 2002, either.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
FYI...
And what I said is true. The ultra-rich are great about talking about taxpayer's money, but pay little themselves.
As in our "damn canuck" government is run by crooks.
Not everyone pays taxes. But they all have a democratic right.
For those knee-jerk republicans about to reply--read your constitution first.
If Judge Jackson releases his findings today, will the first person to download it please POST THE WHOLE DOCUMENT HERE?
This will be a public document, unencumbered by copyright, so lets PUT IT HERE and avoid redundant bandwidth hogging.
In this case, the responsible course of action is for Slashdot to be a broadcaster.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
Remember the words of Shmuel HaKatan: "Rejoice not in the fall of your enemy".
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfa cts.html
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfa cts.html
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfa cts.html
They should use the real standard, Postscript.
--
Huh? The DJIA is run by the editors of the Wall Street Journal. They're private citizens, business journalists to be precise. Insider information being passed between WSJ and a federal judge would be a securities violation of such insane levels, it staggers the imagination.
At this point, no one except Judge T Jackson and his clerks know the story. And it isn't even the complete story yet. This is just the declaration of facts -- whether MS broke any laws. The penalty phase comes later.
MS was added to the Dow because it's the highest valued stock in the US. That's reason enough. If the Dow disallowed every company that's being investigated or prosecuted, you wouldn't have much to choose from.
There is a clause to send certain antitrust cases directly to the Supreme Court. This was done when judge Green broke up AT&T in 1983. That case started in the late fifties. I'm curious to see if Jackson tries to use it.
We can only hope Apple will get to buyout the rights to Office at the (hopefully) impending M$ Closeout sale. This would give them the leverage to finally break free from the hold of M$ threats and get some serious work done, without having to do under the table deals just to keep the upgrades coming.
MS will go back to old exclusive and viciously restrictive contracts with PC makers (install WinXX only on all your products your MS license will be yanked altogether).
Internet Explorer for Linux will be cancelled.
The price for windows (for a now captive market) will go up dramatically.
Any tech competing with MS will be actively CRUSHED. Java, Netscape, etc.
In short, there would be no stopping them. After all, they can't be put on trial again (double jeopardy and all). They'd be legends in their own minds, to quote Clint Eastwood. Gods who could do no wrong. And the enslavement of computing humanity would continue unabated.
Note that "a large fine" is in no way a suitable punishment for MS any more than it was for Big Tobacco because, as always, the cost would be passed along to the consumer. MS would be unaffected by any fine. Breaking them up with heavy handed operating restrictions on the remaining pieces is the only option.
We'll all know if it's today by 4:00PM EST. They agreement is that both sides will be informed with two hours notice before the release, at which point they can alert the general public to their liking..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Linux fanatics should take no comfort in the possible break-up of the Microsoft Corporation. Separating the development of the operating system from the applications that run on it will result in a huge burst of creativity and productivity by both the application division(s) that will now bw autonomous and by third party developers.
Moving the OS to a distinct company will mean even and open access for everyone to the API's and specifications of the operating systems behavior. No longer will developers feel that they are being denied information about new features and un-documented system calls that Microsoft corporate developers are privy to. It would be in the best interests of the OS company to be as supportive of ALL customers and third-party developers as possible.
Linux beware! A break-up could usher in a new renaissance of Windows development.
<derision>
Heaven forfend that a smaller, slimmer company might take this OS, which the home user base is familiar with, and FIX it! (An action I find unlikely, but still fantasize about, having done quite a bit of desktop support.)
Then what would we have to gripe about, aside from the fact that we have to go down to the store and pay for a copy?
</derision>
Weapons of Mass Analysis
They are more or less using Postscript. PDF is basically a tokenized, compiled version of PS.
Even if the Judge completely loathed Microsoft and dreamed of wreaking blood vengeance upon the famous man who made a mockery of his Court, he could NOT "destroy" Microsoft. The law simply does not permit that kind of action as "legal remedy" in Anti-trust litigation. There is basically no such thing in American legal precedent as "summary revocation of charters of incorporation" . If you had been listening to the DOJ this while, you'd know they have no intention of asking even for a split of MS into component businesses. Worry about the boogeyman or something practical.
When will the sentencing be done if MS is guilty?
...and for what it's worth, Ghostscript can be used to view PDF's -- at least the ones I've thrown at it.
... to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils; M$ and the U.S. Government. :^)
+&x
Or at least was intended to, I believe. Basically Wall Street put the "Mark of Cain" on Microsoft: Touch not our beloved dow component MSFT, or you will ALL be very f*ing sorry! saith the Lord. --MSGenesis 12:24
just a little friendly reminder to the Judge about who's really in charge, from same.
(Felton's test, and Microsoft's "upgrade", convinced the judge that, at the very least, Microsoft had been less than 100% honest. Bill Gates' testimony is likely to get shredded, too.)
On the other hand, there is NOTHING to suggest that the judge will pass any kind of sentance, or even declare a judgement. =ALL= he'll be doing is commenting on what's fact and what's fiction. That's all.
Now, having got all that out, I would like to see Microsoft =vertically= split, with no private sales between the companies permitted. That won't happen, but it would be nice. (Vertical splits would allow genuine competition and genuine diversification. A horizontal split, seperating OS from app development probably won't change anything, as the OS writers only need to provide an "integrator" system for VARs, and the end product will be the same as it is now, without any APIs ever being public, or competition being allowed. If anything, it'd be worse.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The whole reason the Judge said I will release the results on a Friday after the markets close. Was to reduce speculation.
There is going to be speculation that "THIS IS THE WEEK" every week until it happens. I have no idea how ready the judge is (anyone doing a pizza watch?) The whole point of this was to have the press and everybody speculate like mad for several weeks every friday. When we have all become quite bored with speculation that "THIS IS THE WEEK" it will be a good time release the judgment.