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 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.
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."
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
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...
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
Has no one really considered the implications that no more microsoft would mean?
Yes, but that isn't what is going to happen. Even if Microsoft loses the case (which seems plausable), it won't come to that.
Think of all the businesses depending upon them for tech support etc.
Like losing technical support from Microsoft would be a big problem? Their technical support is not only grossly overpriced, it stinks. There will always be someone there to provide technical support to those that need it. Most likely if companies were forced to shop around they would benefit from finding a better and cheaper support provider.
Let's face it, Microsoft is so entrenched in, well, everything, that destroying it would likely manage to cause major economic consequences to the whole country.
Oh please. Microsoft is no more entrenched than AT&T was before they were broken up. The breakup of AT&T didn't cause dire economic disaster for the country. Customers have benefitted, and competitors to AT&T have flourished. AT&T is still around, and seems like it is going to be around for a long time to come.
Destroying MS by a court ruling would be a *horrible* action.
Even if that is true, who says Microsoft would be destroyed by being broken up (probably the most harsh action that could be taken as a result of this case)?
You are going to leave many, many consumers in a sticky situation.
Why? The copies of Windows and MS-Office they have now won't suddenly disappear. Its not like you couldn't still buy Windows or MS-Office, you would just have to buy them from seperate companies.
People didn't suddenly not have phone service when AT&T was broken up. People weren't suddenly cut off from their supply of gasoline when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.
AT&T didn't go belly up. Their business has changed, but they have still managed to be fairly profitable. Standard Oil is still in existance and profitable.
There is no reason to think that Microsoft would be completely destroyed if they were broken up and forced to play ethically. Predictions of the end of the world are gross exaggerations at best.
If anything, the risks to the economy from problems of Microsoft would probably be reduced because it would be several smaller companies (although probably still pretty large) instead of one huge one. Failure of any individual divisions wouldn't have consequences to the others anymore.
You made a lot of true points. But does that mean that Microsoft should be let off because they did some good things. That's like not punishing a murderer because they always paid their utility bill on time.
Microsoft has had failures all over the place in market segments they have tried to diversify into.Absolutely. Maybe it's not something that people recognise, but it's true.
The problem I have with all the anti-Microsoft paranoia is that it's all based on hype.It's not all based on hype. Do you think that charging IBM 4 times what they would have if IBM didn't sell OS/2 was hype? How about preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape. That was hype, right?
MSN isn't going to wipe out all the independent ISPs. (another near-Monopoly, AOL, does that nicely, thankyouverymuch)AOL is definately *not* wiping out independent ISP's. And they definately aren't trying to by using anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft isn't likely to take over the Enterprise Database market (a few huge firms, including Oracle have that field tied up)You are right. But they sure do make noises claiming that they will. But they won't.
Of course, some people need a big monster to point to, to excuse their failures.This is a knee-jerk reaction. You show me just one example where Microsoft is used to excuse someone else's failure. It wasn't a failure on Netscape's part that OEM's were forced to unbundle their browser, or lose licensing agreements. This is what the case is all about. Microsoft unethical practices.
-Brent--