Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Go Straight to the Supreme Court?
Seth Scali writes "It appears that Microsoft's appeals might not take as long as everybody thought. According to an article in the New York Law Journal, it seems that an obscure federal law, called the Anti-Trust Expediting Act, could allow the DoJ to skip the regular appeals process and take it straight to the Supreme Court. Since the judges in the federal appeals court were sympathetic to Microsoft last June, there's a very real possibility that the DoJ would make use of the law. "
How much MS stock do you own?
If Bush wins, he is sure to make quite a few appointments (just like every other new administration). These appointments usually include the top prosecutors at the DOJ as well.
Of course it helps to have Bob Helbolt (sp?), MS Chief Operating Officer, who is a good friend of Bush, tons of money to spend on congressional races and a top lobbying firm looking out for their interests.
I have been working on the Hill for quite some time now and let me tell you this: you wouldn't believe the lobbying effort put on for MS. Just a few years ago, when MS didn't have any legal problems, there was hardly any mention of MS and MS, for its size, had nearly nonexistent representation.
witold.org
"Large market share?" Try absolute share. Obtained through methods such as bullying OEM's, writing contracts that said 'Bundle Win9x or ELSE', and wiping competition out with this 'large' market share. I'm sorry, but how can you claim that to be legitimate? Through OEM's MS established an OS monopoly and through that OS monopoly, MS removed any competition, be it better or worse. MS did not win by their merits or 'innovation', they won because they ran the competition out of the market. That is ILLEGAL.
Your point most certainly does NOT stand. What if a critical piece of software is NOT avaiable for the Mac? There is a LOT more software for Win32 then for MacOS. And part of the argument made in the FoF is that developers are reluctant to develop for other sectors of the market because MS could come after you, or because the other markets aren't as lucrative. This leads back to the original point of the OS monopoly. Once that monopoly stands, noone will write software for other platforms because it's not profitable. Self fufulling monopoly.
The Judge said FAR more then the forced IE issue. Read the FoF for petes sake! Read on the OEM bullying, EVERYTHING. You're only showing your own ignorance by claiming all the Judge talked about was IE.
The harm to consumers comes from their lack of choice. When there is no choice, you're no longer a consumer using purchasing power. If you can't put your support (money) behind competition because there IS none, then you can't be called a consumer anymore.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Who here do think that Microsoft will rule the world forever? Anyone thinks it will rule for the next 20 years? 10 years? 5 years? I don't think so. Microsoft's happy days are soon to be over.
The world is changing but Microsoft isn't changing fast enough. The question whether Microsoft has a monopoly over PC operating systems (which it does, at the moment) will be irrelevant in few years. There are so many exciting things happening that will undermine Microsoft's powers. Internet enabled mobile phones, set top boxes, Internet everywhere, and all that stuff. But the primary reasons Microsoft will someday fail are two: It's greed and it's employee greed.
First, how much does it cost for PC companies like Compaq or Dell to purchase Windows for each PC they sell? I think each copy costs at least $50, probably $70, and NT/2K even more. Now, how are companies going to be able to sell PC's for $700 or $500 or $300 with an OS that costs 50 bucks? Today already, Windows costs more than the main processor in many of those cheap computers, and I bet Microsoft makes more money on all those $500 PC's than the manufacturers themselves. Second, as we have seen in the past, Microsoft has the bad habit of taking over their "partners" business or betraying them in other ways as Microsoft has often done (keyword: Citrix). Other companies have noticed this behaviour and WILL continue to do so, so they try to avoid Microsoft whenever possible (the smart one at least). Remember for example how reluctant TCI John Malone was to accept Windows CE on his company set top boxes. Microsoft even had to bribe AT&T, TCI new owner, 5 billion dollars to insure it would use Windows. How many times will Microsoft be able to do that? It may have a lot of money but their chest isn't endless. I also think it's certain that somewhere within the PC industry, thousands of people are trying to find a way to avoid the MS Tax by using other, cheaper OS's, be it Linux or BeOS or maybe even something totally new.
Finally, how much is Microsoft worth these days? Last time I checked it was somewhere hovering around 500 billions. How much will it be able to grow? Perhaps it will be worth one trillion or two sometime in the future, but one day the valuation of Microsoft will stop growing 20-30% each year. An when that day will come what do you think all those low paid - stock option rich - Microserfs will do? Either they'll flee the ship or demand a raise. And when all those tens of thousands of MS employee will get their raise, the profits of Microsoft will certainly take a huge plunge. And with it, the stock price and again the Microserfs will demand a raise or leave and the stock price will fall even more etc.
Well, this is what I think, perhaps I'm to optimistic :)
Well, generally settling a case is done to save the time and expense of a trial. I don't see that it's "blackmail" (unless I misunderstand your use of that word) to offer a break, or to take a break, in penalty in return for saving everyone the trouble of court.
The vast, VAST majority of legal suits in this country never go to court, and are settled out of court because both sides (whether private individuals or government entities) recognize the finite assets anyone has to fight with (and I don't just mean money here, time is also a finite asset, as well as people).
This isn't blackmail, it's common sense -- "we all know the evidence will convict him, so we'll settle for a lesser punishment and we'll save taxpayers the time and effort of prosecuting".
Personally I doubt the DOJ would approve a settlement that didn't have significant teeth (they learned their lesson from the consent decree -- that's why they stopped fighting it and came back with a full-press antitrust suit).
I'd prefer to see it go all the way to the end, that way you're guaranteed that the findings of fact are entered in the record. It doen't even matter what the penalty is -- the real penalty will be that Caldera and everyone else MS has screwed can use the FOF against them in their own suits. Once labeled a monopoly as legal fact, MS will find buying companies and ripping off technologies a lot trickier.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Baloney. This is a very standard price for a large software package for Windows. Is Apple a monopoly too?
:)
I think I bought Mandrake for half of that. What are you talking about ?
Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of minutes.
Mr. and Ms. Average Joe will not download another browser when there is already one in their system. As a matter of fact, with the "shell" integration, they might not even know what an internet browser is, even if they're using one !!!
BTW - Downloading the latest Netscape over a modem (again, Mr. and Ms. Average and most people in the world) does not take a couple of minutes. The issue becomes even worse, in non-US countries, where you are charged by the minute of usage.
I haven't used Windoze much, but the few times I used it Netscape seemed to work just fine. At no point was I "forced" to use IE.
Well, maybe you should play with the latest Windows versions and familiarize yourself with the new paradim. When you get a new computer, you have to make a very consious effort to use Netscape, since everything is IE. Even setting up your dial-up networking and getting the latest windows updates/registering is done by IE at initial bootup (the first time). Oh, I forgot. And people are forced to use IE to browse through files and folders. So when IE crashes my explorer shell freezes and I have to restarted by run Task explorer.exe. Intuitive ! I can see average users know how to do this with their eyes closed
As I understand it, this practice has already been curtailed, and it is arguably a net harm to consumers over giving Windows indiscriminately to all comers. But isn't this within Microsoft's rights?
No, it's not under MS rights to revoke licenses in order to limit consumer choice. That's the whole point of the FoF !!!! How does is this attitude compliant with the hypocritical "Freedom to Inovate" concept Mr. Gates keeps spouting about ???
- sigs are for wimps.
NAFTA does not currently apply to Grand Cayman Island.
NAFTA currently applies only to the US (and Territories of the US), Canada (and Territories of Canada) and Mexico.
Chile has applied for membership but nothing has happened on that yet.
In the libertarian-ayn-rand-dog-eat-dog-jungle, there is no morality.
Offtopic, perhaps, but you oviously don't know much about the philosophy of Objectivism or the philosophical grounds of libertarianism. They are highly moral constructions, which find stealing and lying to be repugnant. Certain elements of the case against MS (e.g. the corruption of Java) could therefore be supported under a libertarian legal system.
I think that Microsoft would be interested in dragging out the case as long as possible. Why? The longer a case drags out, the more money it costs. If a case is drug out long enough, someone is going to run out of money and will be forced to drop the case. And Microsoft certainly isn't going to run out of money first.
Remember, the organization figting microsoft here is the Department of Justice, not some other bankrupt company. The US government rakes in 3 times microsofts entire market cap each year, and if they really need to, they could just rase taxes. I don't think it's costing them that much money though...
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Microsoft lies again and again to judges throughout America but you think it would be immoral for them to settle?
Not necessarily immoral. If settling would reduce the penalties they suffer, I wouldn't hold it against them. But I would rather see them fight it out, because if they settle they implicitly accept the false conclusions of Judge Jackson.
Ayn Rand was a fruitcake.
Her philosophy might give lip service (Monica?) to being moral, and lying and stealing being bad, but there aren't any compunctions against the big guy blacklisting the little guy until he has to work for slave wages or starve.
Her rules are all against the little guy, because the big guy can apply pressure from many sides to get what he wants.
If you like Ayn Rand's words, you need to grow up.
This is incorrect. The destruction of Microsoft would help the economy. The economy is not helped by people doing busywork that has no product, like rebooting BSOD'ed boxes. I know people whose full time job is to simply counteract Microsoft defects. This is waste. Waste is bad economy. Having people do busywork doesn't help the GNP, it hurts it.
Yes, these people would need new jobs if mainstream software suddenly started working reliably. But that's not a bad thing -- they might end up in jobs where they actually serve a productive purpose.
And, in addition to the completely artifical (wasteful) support industry that Microsoft has created, look at the devastation in the software industry. Have you ever noticed that web browsers stopped getting better ever since the Netscape/Microsoft wars? You can't make money on a web browser anymore, thanks to what MS has done, and that's why hardly anyone is working on improving them, except outside of the mainstream. The same goes for word processors, spreadsheets, etc. Microsoft has virtually halted the state of the art, and programmers that could be improving things are instead drawing paychecks by installing Service Packs.
Think about overall production, and then try to honestly say that Microsoft is good for the economy. You can't.
Now, that said, I don't think the government has the right to wantonly destroy a company simple because it will help the economy. That's totalitarianism. But I do think they should apply the Law. Fine Microsoft, hand out indictments to those Microsoft employees who are responsible for Microsoft's illegal actions, and happy hand over all the accumulated evidence to the plaintiffs in the coming wave of civil suits against Microsoft.
We don't need the DoJ to destroy Microsoft. Microsoft's civil liabilities alone will be enough to push their stock down to $0, and still leave a lot of unhappy creditors standing around. But that's better than the creditors getting nothing, which is probably what would have happened if the DoJ and Caldera cases hadn't started digging up such a prodigious pile of incriminating evidence.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
> I think that Microsoft would be interested in dragging out the case as long as possible.
Perhaps. But remember that it has been scalding PR for them so far, and if dragging it out means having their behavior discussed negatively in the media, then dragging it out is going to do a lot of collateral damage, so dragging it out will be a trade-off decision for MS.
I think the changes that have been brewing during the last year are the fortuitous conjunction of several independent forces, but the public exposure of MS's internal communications, the media's negative reaction to the Gates video, and the general "police car in the rear-view mirror" effect, have all been contributing factors.
> I predict that we'll see the mighty PR machines spewing out garbage about how the case should be dropped because it is costing taxpayers "too much money".
We've already been seeing this for months from various astroturfers.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's just a phase. You'll grow out of it ; )
**>>BELCH
...and, perhaps more to the point:
Of all the variables in this equation, the supreme court is by far the slowest-changing. In the time it takes to substantially alter the makeup of the US Supreme court, we could suffer under the yoke of Microsoft's "enhanced" "standards" through several generations of new technology.
In general, I say don't write off the Supremes on ideological ground. Their ideological predispositions may be conservative, but on average I've seen them make good legal decisions -- and on factual grounds this case is an easy call.
St. Lucifer's Institute for Moral Studies
Defending Alternative Morality since 1995
If only.
Heard about cases where landlords were sentenced to live in their own slum housing? In at least one case, the landlord spent the money to make his apartment liveable, whie the rest of the building continued to crumble around him.
Gates & Ballmer would probably work out a deal with the PHBs at the support company to make their time far more pleasant: second line support (i.e. no calls along the line of ``which one is the backslash key again?"), a cubicle they could actually stand in, permission to have a radio & their own coffeemaker, & guards to protect them from the vengeful Bobs around them, wanting to give them a personalized BSOD.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Splitting Microsoft at this point would create one company with a monopoly on operating systems, one company with a monopoly on office suites, and one company with... well, a lot of internet real-estate. That wouldn't be an ideal solution, because they could strike deals with each other, or at least continue what they've been doing. At one point, when this whole thing began, I heard a rumor that they were already setting up "lines of communication" betweent the OS department and Office, in case of a breakup.
Splitting MS into a bunch of identical companies would probably be ideal in the short term, as they duke it out with lower prices, etc, but in the long term, we'd end up with just one large company all over again.
Forcing them to release the source to their operating systems is probably the most brutal and unlikely thing that could happen. Open source is a pop phenomenon. There's no proof anywhere that it's a sustainable business idea. Yes, Redhat's doing great, as is Cobalt, and everyone else is lining up to get in on the IPO's, but there's no reason to believe that in the long term, it will be sustainable (not trying to bash anyone here, but opensource has only been in the mainstream for a year or two now).
My impression is that the penalties will try to level the playing field for the future, and shift the balance of power in the short term, but forcing them to go open-source would be akin to saying: "You got too big, acted to bad, so we're shutting you down." That wouldn't be right, i don't think.
I'm really in favor of Scott McNealy's opinion.
1 - Force them to divest their holdings in other companies,
2 - prevent them from investing in or aquiring other companies for 5 or 10 years, 3
3 - disallow any restrictive agreements, and
4 - force them to open up their prices, so everyon pays the same thing with the only discounts avaialable being those strictly based on volume.
5 - And drop those market development agreements.
Lastly, fine them a few billion. Not much, because there has to be some left for the rest of the lawsuits that are bound to follow...
do not pass go
do not collect $200
Chris DiBona (Punchy tired today)
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Since it appears likely that Judge Jackson will produce a result favorable to the Justice Department, the issue here is moot. Microsoft would be the one filing for an appeal, not the Justice Department.
Microsoft has nothing to gain by appealing directly to the Supreme Court. ANY court has a good chance of being more favorable to them than Judge Jackson. By appealing to the Supreme Court, and being heard, Microsoft merely risks losing the final battle. They are in a much better position if they drag this thing out.
Just my non-lawyer $.02
SEAL
This is exactly MS's best strategy. In fact, by writing "intel" into the *market* portion of the FoF instead of the "barriers to entry" (as in, we already have Intel hardware on every desk in this company, we can't exactly switch to MacOS) Judge Jackson made his greatest mistake.
(go ahead, mod me down as redundant, so long as you mod him up. Assuming "sethg"=a "him".)
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Actually, as a side note, RedHat 6.1 does pull up a local jump page when you start up netscape.
What are the possible outcomes if it does go straight to the supreme court? What's most likely to happen - Microsoft getting split up, fines, or what?
--
Everything I know in life I learnt from
I just came back from the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism's site, and I wasn't impressed. None of the three links to "hot news items," specifically an FAQ and two articles, entitled "Judge Jackson's Findings of Fiction," and "Why America Should Care About Antitrust" repectively, worked. With a bit of searching I found that if you clicked on "More Essays on US v. Microsoft" there were other links to the same articles that did work, but I didn't bother.
<logical fallacy>If an organization can't manage to even present a decent page of HTML to me, I don't trust them to have the judgement to present facts to me in a reliable manner.</logical fallacy>
Yes, I'm admitting that I'm guilty of logical fallacy and being closed-minded; however, I think I've listened to M$ lies for long enough to recognise the sound of one coming.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
> You have one appeal as of right from any court case.
IANA*, but...
Do you have a right to an appeal? I thought you "appealed" to a court with overshadowing jurisdiction and they decided whether or not to review the case.
This from a guy who slept through GOV 101 many years ago, so someone please elaborate.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think everyone would agree that it is best for all the parties concerned if the case is brought to a final resolution quickly.
Of course, there can be no appeals until the Judge is finished. Remember, all that has been issued so far is the FoF.
Well, in this particular case, it definitely is. Having a highly profitable corporation in your state means lots of jobs and lots of money for everyone. MS pays state taxes as well as any more political considerations, so MS probably funds a good portion of every kids education.
:)
It also looks a whole lot better to say 'oh, I think Bill's a great guy and I support him and he supports me' than to take money behind closed doors. Either way you look like a political prostitute, but if you're up front about it, at least you're an -honest- whore, right?
Keep it in mind if you ever move to the US and run for office.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
monopoly price of $89 rather than competitive level of $49.
Baloney. This is a very standard price for a large software package for Windows. Is Apple a monopoly too?
refusal to deal with IBM--limiting consumer choices.
Looks to me like IBM is selling Windows computers. Besides, there are lots of other companies that sell Windows-equipped computers. Would it really be that big of a deal if one company didn't have it?
blocking distributiona of netscape as a choice.
Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of minutes.
overriding consumer's choice of other browser and forcinguse of IE
I haven't used Windoze much, but the few times I used it Netscape seemed to work just fine. At no point was I "forced" to use IE.
revoking licenses of OEM's for accomodating the choicesdesired by consumers
As I understand it, this practice has already been curtailed, and it is arguably a net harm to consumers over giving Windows indiscriminately to all comers. But isn't this within Microsoft's rights?
Besides, the only reason that this tactic worked was because almost all customers *do* want Windows. And there are a few computer makers that will sell you other OS's, so what's the problem?
I sure would like to see this case come to an end sometime before 2002. But it seems that this is just going to be a make-work project for the law industry... "I've graduated from Law school and am unemployed. Hey, I know! I could join the Microsoft defense team. I'll have a job for at least 15 years!"
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Great post, except that it's mostly bullshit.
Miscrosoft's competitors have usually had superior products that were cheaper, and Microsoft's illegal behaviour killed them before they could get a chance to compete.
The bug in Windows killing DrDos, the 'discounts' on Windows, if you didn't install competing OSes, etc..
Where on the MS Campus are you posting from?
You are mostly correct. However, according to the NYLJ:
"It precludes a party from appealing until a 'final judgment' is issued - in other words, until Judge Jackson has his say not only on the law's application to his findings of fact, but on what remedies should apply to Microsoft's antitrust violations."
Does this mean that before the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, that Judge Jackson's decision takes effect instantly--without any other judicial review? Despite the fact that I am a firm believer in MS's guilt, this doesn't strike me as due process. And if the Supreme Court refuses to issue a writ, does it get bumped down to the appelate courts before Jackson's decision can take effect? I don't know about you, but I need more information.
This is great to hear! I've been sitting around griping about the millions of dollars (which ultimatly come out of our pockets) which MSFT could waste in the process. This should reduce the costs involed a lot!
I, for one, don't want to see microsoft go away alltogether but they need to be slapped and hard! Giving credit where credit is due, Microsoft has played an enormous role in bringing the masses online and as much as people like to complain abou the masses "infecting" their little net-places, it would be a whole lot more boring without them around to point at and giggle.
Fish! LipHo
Well, I don't know about you, but here in Toronto, i can go into any number of corner stores, and yes Coke and Pepsi will take up ~70% of the shelf space, but there are a bunch of other brands available.
One store I go to get my bagels carries all sorts of weird third-party beverages, like Jones Soda, IBC, and a couple of new ones I saw today whose names eludes me.
The indies cost more than the Big Two, yet seem to be doing well enough to expand their market(s).
The Belgian(?) case you mention is what Microsoft did to their OEMs: per-processor licensing.
I don't know why they didn't stand up to MS at that point and tell 'em to get stuffed.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Not gonna happen. Bill Gates cannot be help personally liable for the actions of the Microsoft Corporation. That's one of the perks of incorporation.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
By skipping the innumerable inevitable appeals Microsoft would follow, we'll all save a few bucks by them going straight to the top. Plus, we'll all know the answer sooner.
Microsoft's bad, m'kay.........
Does Microsoft really want to tread that water? Look at the past history of Microsoft in the court room.
Judge Jackson has presided over Microsoft in court before - and each time been heavily against them. Also, we should all be reminded of the 1995 consent decree - thou shalt not bundle.
Against the government, Microsoft has had a horrible time in court. (Against other corporations, on the other hand...) Does it really make sense for Microsoft to pursue a ruling which, in all likeliness, will not be awarded to them?
It might show that Microsoft truly stands behind its premise of "innovation" and "providing the customer with the best products," and God knows they have enough money to do it, but what if the Supreme Court doesn't just disagree with them, but places further punishment on the company? (Are they allowed to do that, btw?) It'll just bring Microsoft more into the spotlight and get even more people lined up to bring them to court.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
As I've said elsewhere, this is a common antitrust trick:
So I suppose you've worked or studied a large number of antitrust cases to come to this conclusion? Your decades of legal study & courtroom experience outweight those of the judge, who has presumably seen such "tricks" before? I suspect that in an adversarial justice system, the attorneys on both side generally use the law to their favor in such "tricks".
I recall that MS got the "special master" removed from the case early on due to a similar "trick" but it didn't seem to help their case much. regardless of this "antitrust trick", the judge stated quite clearly in the findings of fact that the concusions reached would have been NO DIFFERENT had Apple been considered part of the relevent market. So i really wish folks would stop whining about apple being an alternative -- feel free to edit your version to include Apple in the relevent market and, as the judge stated, It'll have the same acts and conclusions...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
This one took me totally by surprise; I'd sort of assumed that the FoF was an interim step, and that all decisions for the next ten years were going to be appealed. This would have made the whole series of trials pointless; as MS pointed out, the computer sector moves fast, and by the time the supremes got their hands on the case, it would've been irrelevent.
Now it looks like we may see a resolution; my bet this means MS will have to settle.
"Internet Explorer, having to survive on its own without the rest of a big corporation to subsidize it will have to charge money and will lose market share ..."
Not bloody likely if you ask me. There is no way in hell that Microsoft (or any part of it) would ever stop giving away IE for free. Trying to sell something that others give away for free just doesn't work. Netscape almost exterminated itself that way. Not that making it free helped it much (in the long run), it still sucks.
Um, I was borrowing phraseology from the founding fathers of the US. I'm sure that will bother you too; probably too paternalistic.
Nah... it's just that I didn't recognize the quote - probably because I'm a Brit, and won't be allowed to go for citizenship for at least a decade. At which point I'll probably end up learning more about it than most americans - which is kind of sad really.
They don't make it easy to get into the country... *sigh*
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I don't so much dispute the facts, but the premises that lead to the conclusions in the FoF. If you accept the premises of the Clinton DOJ, then Microsoft is definitely guilty. But it is those premisesI question. I object to the idea of antitrust law, to the prinicple that large market share subjects you to a different set of rules, and the contention that having a popular product strips you of the right to determine who may use that product. I agree that under some interpretations of antitrust law, Microsoft is guilty, but it is the law and the interpretations that I question.
So putting a defense "based on the facts" does no good if you have a judge that has accepted the DOJ's premises as to what constitutes a violation of antitrust law. Frankly, I'm not sure there was anything that Microsoft could have done in this case, since people seem to have accepted the premises of the Clinton DOJ.
The links provided on your site are interesting, but many of the essays linked there seem to miss the central point of the findings of fact issued against Microsoft.
The vast majority of the essays miss two facts. First, it's hard to write cross-platform software without some form of "middleware" or some form of library which simplifies cross-platform development. Microsoft's actual "crime", if there is one here, is to suppress any innovation in the "middleware" market in order to prevent Windows from being reduced to a "commody" status. If you read the findings, you'll find several examples of Microsoft's attempts to reduce or destroy the "middleware" market through use of their Windows monopoly. (That is, it's not the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly which is at issue. It's how Microsoft used that monopoly to coerce other companies to dismantle any software product which threatens Microsoft's Windows monopoly which is at issue here.)
The second thing that most of the essays missed is the fact that while we may have a choice, our choice is dictated by the high cost of writing portable software--a barrier which Microsoft did everything they could to artifically preserve. And a barrier that has no real technical reason to exist, as many people here can tell you.
By missing these two essential points, most of the essays you have linked to, while sounding all nice and warm and patriotic, so completely miss the point that they are largely irrelevant.
Of course I won't get into the fact that some of the essays you have linked to have apparently missed the boat from a macro-economic standpoint, but I digress...
Because I think that laws should be based on broad moral principles, and in this case I think that antitrust law is immoral. It is quite possible that Microsoft violated the letter of antitrust, but violating an unjust law does not deserve punishment as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't assume that this case takes the fast appeal track. IANAL, but my reading of the Expediting Act is that three things are necessary for the expedited appeal to take place:
1. One party (presumably the DoJ) asks for it,
2. The district judge issues an order stating that the case is of general public importance to the administration of justice,
3. The Supreme Court accepts the appeal.
Points 1 and 2 would seem to be a slam-dunk. The DoJ desperately wants this resolved quickly, and Judge Jackson is in no mood to have his decision come before the Circuit Court of Appeals again, if that can be avoided. (Besides, this case is genuinely one of "public importance".)
The wild card here is point 3: acceptance by the Supreme Court. They could hear the case, but they could just as easily choose to refer it to the Circuit Court, and then perhaps hear an appeal from that decision.
On the one hand, this seems to be the type of case for which the Expediting Act was designed: a case of national importance, where delay would have widespread repercussions. On the other hand, the Court has such a crush of cases, it must defer or decline action on all but the most vital ones.
So, the Expediting Act really only offers a potental for fast resolution, which may or may not be realized.
The only two that you mentioned that fit that description are the Mac and NT. NT doesn't have a monopoly in the server market, but that's not the focus of the suit. Linux, Solaris et all are "fringe" desktop operating systems.
The only two that you mentioned that fit that description are the Mac and NT. NT doesn't have a monopoly in the server market, but that's not the focus of the suit. Linux, Solaris et all are "fringe" desktop operating systems.
They stole, lied and defrauded.
If they commited these crimes, they should be prosecuted for them seperately. Why are they being lumped in with an antitrust suit?
You squander your moral position by supporting the criminal activities of these criminals.
Perhaps you should explain whose rights Microsoft violated. I will concede that they may have violated antitrust laws, but as I said, I consider that an unjust law. Have they committed any real crimes (such as theft or fraud as you say above?
... the justices we have there are much more reasonable than Judge Thomas Pinhead Jackson
I guess since you've called him a 'pinhead' now, all his findings are now irrelivent, right?
btw, how can i get one of those *.rog domains?
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Even though IBM managed to wait out its Antitrust case, it lost. IBM was longer able to be Big Blue. Similarly, MS cannot be MS as long as this case drags on. They would be much better off settling and regrouping.
Well, yes. Partly.
Eventually MS would expand into markets it couldn't control, such as entertainment, or communications, and it would 'have competition'. It might even have minor competition in the form of another desktop OS, long after its proprietary APIs have locked consumers to Windows forever.
But, to stop the suit just because the circumstances changed would indicate that you can leverage a monopoly in one area to control all surrounding areas, control them for twenty years, then get out with a few hundred billion dollars, and not be punished.
It's like stealing from someone, they claiming you shouldn't be punished because you squandered the money and don't have it anymore.
Don't forget, the reason that Netscape started giving the browser away was because Microsoft was giving it away as "part" of the operating system. That's illegal - a monopoly is not supposed to dump a product below cost in order to squash a competitor.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I wonder if people are really not concerned about where their politicians are funded from, meaning that the news of this funding hitting the press bigtime at the right moment could hurt microsofts case more than benefit it. While judges won't openly admit to consider the public opinion, they probably don't ignore it completely, especially if a too generous ruling could make themselves look dubious.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Agreed. Morality must be first translated into laws before they are used to punish crimes. I am not necessarily saying that the judge should ignore the law in making his ruling, although in his position I might resign in protest.
But the fact that the judge has an obligation to uphold the law does not change the fact that if the law is unjust then Microsoft is being unjustly prosecuted. Certainly if this is so the solution is not to ignore the law but to repeal it, and I guess that's my point: antitrust law should be repealed.
But the fact remains that I don't believe Microsoft has done anything that is worthy of punishment, and I hope that they do not get punished.
This might sound offtopic, but it's interesting to see analogies to the Microsoft situation. CocaCola and Pepsi are likely in a pricing cartell, and they likely divided the market, to shut out the rest of the competition. Anyway, fact is that both are producing soft drinks with a ridiculously high profit margin, still they never manage to get into any price war with each other. Ie. as far as customers go, the soft-drink market is monopolized, in the US and in the EU. They are also pressuring food chains [analogous to OEMs in the Microsoft case] to carry their drinks exclusively with restrictive long-term contracts. There is an investigation under way somewhere in Europe (Belgium?), Cocacola threatened a food chain to increase the price of Coke if they do not sign an exclusive contract, or something like that.
--Coke
The issue *is* whether the government has the right to interfere in the free market and punish successful companies for being "too competitive."
The government can interefere with the free market in the US all it wants; it's the government. And the gov't "intereferes" all the time, mostly for the benefit of everyone. I'm a big fan of things like the Pure Food and Drug Act. Think how many fewer "seal babies" there would have been if the Europeans were as tough as the FDA when it came to Thalidomyde.
Anyone who likes paying 5 cents/minute for long distance (vs. the 50 cents+/minute paid in the 70s) should be kissing the butt of the government for helping to arrange the breakup of AT&T. Bet you didn't know at the time of the breakup how cheap a phone call could be...
If you want to see a country where capitalism is unfettered by the government, take a look at Russia these days. It's a libertarian paradise, isn't it?
And as a by-the-by, why is it that the same people who think that big government is inherently evil think that big business is inherently good? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, any sort of large organization is bound to abuse its power, whether a government or a corporation?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Methinks we need a twelve-step program...
--The basis of all love is respect
judge jackson stated QUITE CLEARLY that there was some question as to whether Apple should be considered (or that the market was defined too narrowly) and he stated QUITE CLEARLY that EVEN IF APPLE WAS PART OF THE MARKET (in other words, even if he had defined the market exactly as you chide him for not defining it), his conclusions of fact would have been no different.
And you're right, Intel is not mentioned in anti-trust acts. But even not limiting it to Intel, just saying "desktop OS" winds up with the same legal findings...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Internet Explorer, having to survive on its own without the rest of a big corporation to subsidize it will have to charge money and will lose market share to the open source Mozilla project which should be in good shape by the time the ruling comes down.
IE doesn't have to charge money. It could still rake in tons of money by being a hot portal site. Millions of people never change the default homepage. I'm surprised RedHat hasn't started doing this for NS under linux... maybe they have some sort of agreement.
-- Virtual Windows Project
err.. I meant "held", not "help".
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The basic "moral" issue here was whether or not Microsoft used their influence to simply strong arm away any other competition and maintain thier monopoly... which is both illegal.. and in the realm of morality, shady at best.
I agree that in may be illegal. But I do not believe it is the least bit immoral. *All* companies try to "strong arm away any other competition." No one said that business was free of conflict. But "strong arming" is a lousy basis on which to write laws.
The *legal* issue might be whether they have a monopoly. But I don't think there is any moral relevance to that concept.
The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market?
Actually, whether they were using thier well-earned influence in one market to promote thier product in another.. was not the issue. The issue was not whether or not they were a monopoly. The basic "moral" issue here was whether or not Microsoft used their influence to simply strong arm away any other competition and maintain thier monopoly... which is both illegal.. and in the realm of morality, shady at best. imran
JMS is absolutly correct. While it is a more difficult position to enforce, it is way more beneficial to the community as a whole than a breakup. the release of propritary API and all future ones would allow ANYONE who wanted to make a compatable piece of software to compete in the marketplace. If M$ is simply broken up then the individual departments have to see the economic feasability of developing for smaller/startup OSs. How long would it be before M$-Office group would develop its products for BeOS? How long before some startup creates an Office compatable suite if the APIs are released? I think the answer is clear.
-- Hail Eris
Thanks for summarizing the FOF.
I guess my basic problem with all of this is the concept of "monopoly." I don't think that this is really an economically relevant term. Having a large market share certainly gives one an advantage, but so do plenty of other things. The key question is not: do you have a monopoly? Rather it is: did you acquire that monopoly by free exchange or by coersion?
By definition, a company in the free market cannot coerce. All companies in a free market acquire their "economic power" by producing products that consumers want. Although there are certainly forces that tend to keep a market leader in front in the short term, long-run success can only occur if a company meets the needs of its customers.
Frankly, I think that's all there is to it. I think Microsoft has a right to set any terms it wants for the use of Windows because Windows is their property.
Of the bulleted list above, I see only two offenses that are not simply cases of Microsoft setting terms for the use of its property. The first is the Microsoft-Apple deal. Frankly, I don't see why this was a problem. It was just a deal whereby each company would help promote the other's products.
The other item is the Java-Sun fiasco. I think there may be something to this, because this is not an issue of "monopoly power." The reason Sun is suing is that Microsoft broke its contract with Sun. If this in fact occured, I fully support taking action against them for that. But it is a seperate issue from the antitrust case.
Not quite right. Any person can seek Supreme Court review of any case, as long as (1) that person has exhausted all other appeals, and (2) there is some legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction. In that situation, the Court may decide whether to take the case or not. Typically, this is done by seeking a writ of certiorari (sp?), which the Court may grant or deny.
However, that's not the only way to get to the Supreme Court. Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has pretty broad authority to specify the Court's jurisdiction. Thus, if Congress makes a law which says, for example, "Antitrust cases against major software manufacturers may be appealed by right to the Supreme Court," then the Court does not have discretion to reject that appeal.
Here, the Antitrust Expediting Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 29) allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, but they do have discretion to accept it or not. If MS appeals, the DoJ can request that it go to the supremes. If "the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice," then it goes to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether to hear it. I'd rather expect they would hear this one, if Jackson entered the order, but I could be wrong.
Everybody who bought Microsoft products (from OEMs and partners to end users) did so by their own choice. If no one wanted microsoft products, no one is forced to buy them.
.doc to the machine w/ Word97, open it, save it in Word6/95 and email it back - voila, perfectly readable with NO loss of content. Even my boss gets a chuckle out of sending people docs in the latest Word format to show how 'with-it' he is - a games M$ knows how to play on - and profit immensely from. Completely useless as far as word-processing goes, but great game for crowbaring dollars for M$ stockholders!
What crack have you been smoking today?
Here's a real live situation where our company would have thought they had to cought up another$95 - we largely use Word6 - someone gets a document in Word97+ format (little square boxes) using my vast experience with M$ schenanigans, I just email the
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I believe this case is about enforcing the rule of law.
We are all harmed if Microsoft is given special treatment just because it's bigger than most nations and has been spreading buckets of cash around D.C., which they have been doing. Remeber the news a couple of weeks ago about how they were lobbying to cut the budget of the DOJ Antitrust Unit?
Unlimited power is dangerous, and must be checked. That lesson has been enforced over and over again throughout history. We cannot depend on the good nature of Microsoft to do the "right thing", any more than Poland could depend on the benevolence of Adolf and the good will of Germany in 1936.
To require Microsoft to cease and desist from the practices Judge Jackson has found they engaged in, and to pay damages where they can be shown to have occured, is nothing more than the minimum we should expect from our legal system.
It may be a quaint point of view these days (god do I sound Old!) but our collective security as a society rests, in large part, on the equal application of the law to everyone, without fear or favor.
I'd also like to add that RH 5.2's Netscape had a default start page. Somewhere in /usr/doc
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
From http://microsoft.aynrand.org
"...Microsoft, whose trailblazing Windows is the operating system for most personal computers today..."
I am totally against the DoJ on this issue. I'm not a libertarian (as far as I know), but I do tend to think that the best way to make a marketplace better is to make it more free. I also believe that lawsuits like that of the DoJ are symptomatic of a society which wishes to take no responsibility-- nobody was *forced* to enter into a contract with Microsoft, and nobody was *forced* to use Internet Explorer. I'm not going to stay quiet on these issues-- I hold my freedom too dear to not say anything.
But no matter *what* I do, I will *never* support the people over at microsoft.aynrand.org. They spend as much time putting Gates up on a pedestal as they do trashing the DoJ. They seem to think that, if they support Microsoft's right to do business, then they must show Microsoft to be an upstanding and wonderful company. This isn't true-- Microsoft isn't a good company; their software sucks and their prices are inflated.
Put it in perspective: if KKK members were to be banned from demonstrating or exercising their rights to free speech, I would be upset. But that doesn't mean I would put Klan members up on a pedestal and say that they are pillars of society-- that would be bullshit!
Perhaps a better paper to read is this one, which was written (surprisingly) by Eric S. Raymond-- yes, that's right, the same guy who wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". I don't totally agree with this one, either, but at least it doesn't try to make Bill Gates into some sort of demigod while trashing the DoJ until it looks like pure evil.
Besides that, what does product quality have to do with defending the company? You should fight for the freedom of *any* entity whose freedom is being taken away unjustly-- even those that say despicable things or make atrocious products. It doesn't matter-- you should be willing to stand up for freedom.
Corporations are *not* people, and as such *do not* have the inalienable rights granted us by our creator.
Mind telling me what those are? Because I think my manual was lost at birth... wasn't in the packaging, wasn't anywhere around the O.R.... they couldn't find it.
So I'm currently trying to work out what these inalienable rights my mother/God/whoever grantment me are.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The key issue to me is control over the Application Programming Interface, and the ability to create and sustain middleware.
I think that the judge understands this. and I'm hoping that he chooses the correct remedy:
(1) Microsoft should be forced to openly publish all of its APIs.
(2) They should be prohibited from utilizing any API that has not been completely disclosed.
(3) They should be forced to provide correction, clarification and explanation, when the behavior of any API differs from the published specification, or is unclear or appears to be in error.
(4) They should be forced to disclose all new APIs as they are created, to facilitate third parties' efforts to make their software compatable with Microsoft software.
Microsoft should NOT be forced to reveal its source code.
This would be bad for the open source movement, because:
(1) It would open free software authors, especially the WINE authors, to charges of copyright infringement. Right now they are in the very powerful position of having NEVER SEEN Microsoft's code, so they have NO cause to claim copyright infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets. In short, they would lose their "clean room".
(2) Programming compatability efforts should always stem from published APIs, rather then Microsoft's buggy code.
Source code alone is NOT an acceptable substitute for published APIs. Just forcing Microsoft to reveal its source code would NOT stop Microsoft from continually shuffling bugs around in order to break competing software. Just being able to see the source code doesn't matter if each OSR release of Windows deliberately breaks your code. You'll still go bankrupt because Microsoft software would continue to work from release to release, while your code would break with each OSR version, and you'll never be able to keep up.
Breaking up Microsoft would not benefit consumers the way that the breakup of Standard Oil benefited customers.
Breaking up an oil company creates a number of different companies, each of which produce an identical, standard product. These companies must then compete on the basis of customer service, product quality, and product pricing.
Microsoft cannot be successfully separated this way.
There are two different scenarios for a breakup of Microsoft:
1) Breakup along product/service lines. The result is several companies with very close ties that are not in competition with each other. Multiple monopolies instead of a single monopoly. This does not benefit consumers.
2) Breakup into several competing companies, each of which obtains the right to all existing Microsoft software. The result would be the fragmentation of all Microsoft programs. Eventually, one of these "baby bill" companies would come out the winner, while the rest of the Microsoft spinoffs wither away and die, and we are left back at square one.
Hey, I'm not an anti-trust lawyer either, but I did graduate from law school. If I remember correctly, it is very hard to overturn a finding of fact. I think the standard of review is whether, based on the evidence presented, a resonable judge could have reached this conclusion. Not whether it is right, or whether it is fair to both side, but whether it was completely unreasonable to have reached that conclusion.
So, if we are trying to decide whether moon rocks are igneous or sedimentary, and all of the experts testify that there has never been any proof of free water on the moon, and that free water is necessary to form sedimentary rocks, it would be unreasonable to conclude that moon rocks are sedimentary.
In the Microsoft case, there were expert witnesses who testified that Microsoft was a monopoly. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the Judge to conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly. Microsoft would have to show that the Judge reached conclusions that were not supported by testimony. It is not enough to show that the Judge did not believe any of your witnesses or testimony, that is not unreasonable by definition.
sorry to be a coward, but I don't have a login right now.
Peter Dachs
peter@appart.com
Read on the OEM bullying, EVERYTHING.
This is not a harm to the consumer. It is true that they have done things to their competitors taht are not warm and fuzzy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Pushing around OEM's is not much of a harm to consumers.
IANAL, but here's what I've seen by watching Judge Wapner, LA LAW, and The Practice:
Generally, when (after) individuals are found guilty of criminal law, they are presumed guilty and have to live out their sentence (ie go to prison) until they win appeal.
Is this how it works in Corporate law, orare sentences suspended ultil all appeals are exhausted?
Well, first of all, the judge spesificaly said that even *if* apple's were considered, his findings of fact would be the same.
If by "monopoly" you mean "large market share on intel computers," then I will agree they have a monopoly. But so what? They gained that "monopoly" fair and square, and I as far as I can see they have committed no crimes in defending that monopoly. You could argue that they have violated antitrust law, but it is so vague that practically every successful company has done this.
A monopoly in and of itself is illigal, they may not be laws that you like, but those are the laws that have been implemented by our system of government. Just beacuse you feel a certan way, dosn't mean that you're correct. If you don't like the laws, vote people who will remove them.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In general terms, it would be an awful precedent to give the government the power to dictate what software companies can do as a whole.
How would such a precedent affect the other software companies such as Sun, for example, and OSS movement?
I've seen this kind of sentiment expresssed many times here. To begin with this is not a new area of the law. The Sherman Anti-trust act has been around for over 100 years. It is unlikely that any significant new precidents would be set here.
In fact, this law is USUALLY applied to companies that are in new technology areas as is the case with Microsoft. It is not unusual for a company in a new technology area to gain an upper hand for one reason ore another. Prior cases like IBM, AT&T, Alcoa, etc. are in fact monopolies that arose out of the development of new technologies.
After a technology matures a bit it is much harder to gain monopoly power through organic growth. More likely you run into the first part of the Sherman act which makes price fixing illegal, or the FTC which prevents the formation of monopolies through a company buying up its competitors.
Unless Sun develops a stranglehold on some part of the market AND starts using it's monopoly power to control the market it doesn't have anything to worry about. And it looks pretty unlikely that Sun is going to gain any sort of monopoly any time soon given it's competition from HP, Linux, MS and so on. OSS is even a less likely situation. How can you have a monopoly on something that is freely available?
Remedies are a very tricky question. After thinking about it the answer seems to me that we need a way to break MS's stranglehold on the OS. Sun has suggested that a complete public disclosure of the APIs is an appropriate remedy. I kind of like that idea, because it would make Windows clones likely. Wine could become a perfect emulator. This would free people to use whatever OS AND the vast array of Windows specific applications. Shattering the interlocking of the Windows API and Windows applications may in fact be the trigger that is needed.
"The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market? How is this anything but a moral issue?"
How is it anything but a legal issue? The laws in this country prohibit it, the morals vary from town to town (and person to person).
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
They don't even have to have communicated their desires to each other.
For those familiar with games theory, this is sort of like a prisoners dilema, except that this allows more than one decision.
They could try to fight it out, probably not getting rid of one another, and ending up with much lower profits, for a chance at being a monopoly which would bring government attention if the profits were increased much (ie, lose/barely-win) or they could take the middle ground and apply little pressure against each other, instead driving out the little guys who would lower their price to compete, ensuring that they both get a steady supply of golden eggs.
If Microsoft hadn't killed OS/2 by bringing out new Win32 APIs, they might have 'competition', even if only as much as Apple is to Intel, and have avoided this whole trial. (But have been able to charge mostly the same prices, etc) But they got greedy, wanted to get 100% of the market, and got caught.
One company shouldn't be allowed to affect the economy. So if hurting Microsoft today means we have a more robust economy in the future-I'm all for it.
---
I may be in the wrong state of mind today, but:
I don't care much for MS, I hate Windows 98 more than anything in this Universe. But why is Microsoft going through this?
They sold an OS to computer companies. They bought it. The computers sold like crazy.
The Computer companies didn't HAVE to buy this OS. They could have done what ever they wanted. MS is NOT the ONLY software company that has developed an OS. Anyone can go out and buy a copy of Linux at your nearest Best Buy. They do sell MACs in computer stores. It is possible to build your own computer and NOT purchase an OS.
I know that WE know all of this. It isn't a hard thing to do (not own a MS OS). I don't see why they have to go to court for this.
Last nights on Jay Leno, Jay made fun of the whole thing by showing "the new" Monopoly. It had all of the squares showing a Windows logo. I laughed for a second, but for all of the computers that I have at home, only one has a 1024mb partition that run Windows NT. Everything else is all of the above. From MAC to LINUX to Solaris.
How is this a Monopoly? Please explain. I have had the choice to run any OS that I want. But I can't choose what phone company runs into my house, or what cable company I can use. Am I missing something here?
-vert-
love the penguin
Yes, Microsoft should definitely settle, if they can. The Federales, however, have nothing to lose now - they've seen blood, and if they're smart, there'll be no turning back.
In order to settle, MS will have to put forth an extremely juicy offer, yet still one that would result in less carnage than a Supreme Court verdict would.
The ball is in the hands of Reno and her DoJ now.
Right now with the case, everyone involved needs to think of sensible solutions, not knee-jerk ones.
In general terms, it would be an awful precedent to give the government the power to dictate what software companies can do as a whole.
How would such a precedent affect the other software companies such as Sun, for example, and OSS movement?
Now, there are valid points to the case. For example, I would not mind a lowering of the price for software in the consumer arena to more competitive or affordable levels (look at the price for hardware...).
Possible solutions would be to lower the pricing of Windows (for consumers - W9x) and perhaps restructure the pricing for W2K. This is all speculation mind you. One person commented a while ago, that perhaps restructuring or completing removing the client access licenses aspect of Window Servers would a benefit. Another possibility is to have an even price that every OS manufacturer charges to OEMs. That way, everyone has an equal shot at the consumer who calls in to request a machine.
Whatever the decision may be, it needs to be fair to Microsoft and to the industry as a whole. For example, if the option to limit the cost of the OS (taking into account inflation and what not) were to be chosen then no one company can charge higher than a certain amount. Disclaimer: I don't know if even such an idea would work, but the example illustrates my point.
All in all, the decisions and outcomes of the case should benefit all consumers . This includes the mindless masses who want to use the internet to increase the quality of their lives, not just MS-bashers. =P Mob mentality usually means the end for everyone involved.
Just my 2 bits...
Tata!
FeiYen
Check out the results of a Gallop poll on the public's attitude towards Microsoft and the DoJ at:
http://www.gallup.com/
(Note that about half of the polling occurred before the FoF were released.)
One result is that computer users favor Microsoft over the DoJ by 78% to 16%. I beleive this shows that "America loves a winner." So, what will America think after it learns that Microsoft is a cheater?
The language quotes from the Declaration of Independence.
The second paragraph reads like this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Anyway, the idea espoused here (and later in the US Bill of Rights) is that these rights are not things granted by governments, but that the rights are natural and that Governments are just gangs of humans getting together to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.
This is amplified by the next sentence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Anyway, he was just saying that corporatations, while looking similar to individuals in some legal senses, only look like that because governments say so. Corporations cannot vote, they do not pay personal income tax, and can't apply for welfare (at least not the sort that people can).
Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of minutes.
Try hours... pluss access charges as high as $2.95 an hour
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
How can you say that Microsoft has a monopoly when Apple has 10% market share and seems to be on the upswing? If they keep doing as well as they have lately, they could easily have 20%-30% marketshare by the time this trial concludes a year from now.
And no I haven't studied all of antitrust law, but I've seen enough example like the Staples/Office Depot one to know that it happens. And my point wasn't so much that this is a way of tricking the judge as that it was a fallacious way of defining markets, albeit one that judges often accept.
Because I think that laws should be based on broad moral principles, and in this case I think that antitrust law is immoral.
Well, what do you think laws are based on currently? random collections of letters skimmed off the top of alpha-bits?
laws ARE ways of establishing collective "moral" judgements of what is right and wrong, but in a way that lets everyone know clearly what's right and wrong.
I believe reason dictates that people take responsibility for their actions -- Microsoft was aware of the antitrust laws (as well as the rules of court) and has broken both of them. i believe it would be not only immoral but immature of them to believe that actions do not have consequences (especially when specific actions have attracted attention before).
if you (or MS) want to change the law, that's fine -- but as near as I can tell Microsoft is going against everything Ayn Rand stood for. Bill gates entered into a legal agreement (a contract) with the state of washington and the government of the united states when he incorporated microsoft years ago. Due to the beneficial terms of that agreement, MS has flourished by taking advantage of those governments' ability to HELP him do business. Now that MS has violated terms of that contract by breaking "laws", MS is unwilling to accept the contract terms stipulating that "breaking laws" has a penalty.
What you don't seem to realize is that Adam Smith was quite correct in describing government as a "social contract" -- it is no different than any other contract that you enter into. if you don't like it, don't sign it. Nothing is keeping Bill and MS in the USA other than his desire to profit off the terms of the contract he has with the government.
What is moral about breaking a contract? MS is capable of acting within the contract it agreed to -- namely the US laws regarding commerce and the regulation of corporate entities. If it doesn't like these contract terms, MS can make a contract with a different country, or start their own. Isn't this what self-determination and reason are all about? Ayn Rand states clearly that we are NOT products of outside forces -- MS is not a passive victim in this play, it is merely seeing the culmination of the consequences for it's actions under the terms of it's self-determinged contractual agreement.
Rand says clearly "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." -- What Microsoft wants is all the benefits of operating within it's contract with the US government but none of the disadvantages. I fail to see that this is moral, rational, or even logical.
Even today, if MS wanted to be rid of these consequences, they could dissolve the corporation and leave the US. But they don't want to -- they want to reap the benefits of their contract with the US government.
nathaniel
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Actaully, I've never purchased a Microsoft product. I have Macs. I think Microsoft makes bloated, mediocre software. But I can distinguish religion from politics. The fact that I personally dislike Microsoft's products doesn't change the fact that many many people have freely chosen their OS. I don't change my politics because I dislike a given company's politics.
Prior damage may have been done, but future damage--have you noticed the flood of press releases from various computer manufacturers who are going to start bundling other operating systems with their product?
So long as the DOJ is looking at Microsoft under a microscope, I'll bet we'll see more manufacturers feeling free to put BeOS, OS/2 Warp or Linux on their boxes instead of Windows.
And while previous middleware manufacturers may have gotten hosed, my bet is that future players who know how to provide cross-platform portability APIs will feel a hell of a lot more free to act...
The Supreme Court will only get more Republican in the next few years, what with a likely George Dubya presidency and two justices set to retire in the next few years...
Force them to open their API's.
And their file formats.
And prevent them from hijacking standards.
Actually, this is one of the barriers that defines a monoploy. If the cost for the consumer to make a change, or a competitor to viably enter the market, is consider to be so high as to make it fiscally imprudent then a monopoly may exist.
So do we all just agree that Monopolies are bad? I was very suprised the other day when I relayed the news of Microsoft's ill fate to a friend and had her say "well that sux".. I don't think she is a Microsoft fan at all so I prompted her with the obvious "But Microsoft _is_ a monopoly, anyone can see that" and received the reply "I don't think that is such a bad thing". Now I could go on about free markets and monopoly pressure for hours but I think judge Jackson has done enough of that, so who has an opinion? Monopoly = bad in all cases or is it just Microsoft?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Um, I was borrowing phraseology from the founding fathers of the US. I'm sure that will bother you too; probably too paternalistic.
If you really actually wanted to know, read some of their works (the founding fathers), like the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. There is a wealth of their writings all over the internet.
Don't you understand that the conclusions in the Finding of Fact were drawn because these were the facts shown to the judge during the trial. You can yell "biased" and "unfair" all you want, but Microsoft didn't put on a decent defense about the facts. If you think the case was unfair, it's because Microsoft couldn't be bothered to put up an honest or usable defense. They preferred to make statements on the steps of the courthouse, create bogus videos, and lie in court--how many Microsoft witnesses were caught in a lie?
The judge's conclusion, with which I heartily concur, tells me that Microsoft didn't put on a defense on the facts because the facts as presented by the Department of Justice were accurate and reliable. Microsoft has already fought on the facts, they lost because they had no facts on their side. They aren't likely to get another bite at this apple.
I mean, as a presidential candidate you cannot get any more explicit than this, without actually committing obstruction of justice and interfering with ongoing litigation.
--Coke
IANAL stands for "I Am Not A Lawyer".
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Got any basis for that statement? The only criticisms I've read of the FoF went on and on about PDAs, WebTV-like appliances, Online Office-type applications, etc. They make a lot more unfounded assumptions than the FoF did. I found them to be at least as shaky as they claimed the FoF was, and usually moreso. Not to mention the fact that they never took into account what Microsoft's current position would mean for those new markets if they actually start to go anywhere.
I haven't seen a decent review of just the legal issues in the document. The New York Law Journal article is the one of few that has brought up many legal issues at all. So far everyone has just tried to back up or second guess the judge's findings.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Try reading the FofF . . .
It is rather detailed, and does show much more than this. Particularly, it shows ms incurring great costs for the sole purpose of impeding netscape and introductions of applications that would rely on netscape's API rather than windows.
Actually, I thought it was more important that the finding of fact showed that Microsoft ordered intel to stop the development of NSP, undermined Java with proprietary protocols, -and- clobbered Netscape. IANAL and you are, but, I thought it was the -pattern- of anti-competitive actions that made an anti-trust suit strong.
Also, I think not having an NSP-equivalent technology five years after Intel had developed it will be more compelling 'consumer harm' to that nitpicky appeals court if the case goes there after all. I'm not sure anyone other than developers (and Judge Jackson
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
But it also applies to a microsoft appeal. "any party" can file the application after a notice of appeal; ms can appeal, then DoJ removes to the SC
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice
What if something *happened* to Judge Jackson? Some *accident* or other? Given the ethics shown thusfar by various employees of Microsoft, who is going to bet that there isn't a "Lone Wolf" with a disposition to violence? There are literally half a trillion dollars riding on this ruling. I really hope the Honorable Jurist has some Federal Marshalls guarding him!
Dog is my co-pilot.
Greetings,
Boy... I just seem to run into you everywhere. *wry grin* Some well-formed words, but missing the point somewhat.
1) I'm not quite sure why AT&T being a government supported corporation makes it 'okay' that they were massively overcharging for the cost of a phone call... They were a monopoly, without question, and a bad one. They DID act in a predatory fashion towards competing firms, and caused harm to the consumer thereby.
2) I agree completely, Russia is not a capitalist system, it is a BROKEN system. You cannot equate a black market with a free market. In fact, the need for a black market identifies the clear lack of a free market. HOWEVER, minimal government is not a requirement of capitalism. It is a requirement of laissez-faire capitalism as originally defined, but is (like many other social and economic systems) impossible in pure form. Unfettered markets are destructive, over-restrictive markets are stunting. The goal of anti-trust legislation in government is to balance the two, by only punishing those who both HAVE dominance, and ABUSE dominance.
3) I think you meant corporations can't... so I'll run with that. I agree, absolutely, that governments have a larger POTENTIAL for evil. This does not dictate, however, that big business is good. The two points are, in fact, completely orthogonal. The question was:
Why is it that the same people who think that big government is inherently evil think that big business is inherently good?
The question still stands. Demonizing government is not an answer. We already know the ills and potential ills of government. We also have to acknowledge the not-insubstantial dangers of corporations, however. Are they at the same level? No, perhaps, but because they are a lesser evil, does that make them good? Of course not.
So...is there an answer to the question?
Cyberfox!
I think it's been said before in here, but it's not JUST the fact that they're a monopoly. It's the fact that that monopoly power may have been used in a way that was harmful to consumers.
-mike kania
MS just has to set up another company, lets call it Microsoft Research, outside the US jurisdiction, which would hold the copyright to the source, and own 95% of the US company. It could then license the codebase back to MS, since the contract would be private between MS and MS Research.
Wouldn't really matter if MS is split up now would it? The only thing the Government could do is hassle the US based company, since that companies is a legal entity created by the government under the US jurisdiction.
IANAL.
Cheers
I explained it before, self perpetuating, self fufilling. That's how monopolies work, that's why governments often need to get involved. Here we go again:
Step One: MS gains control of OS market through bullying the OEMs.
Step Two: As there is only One True OS, there is only One OS to code for, at least if you want to SELL a product.
So this leads to Step Three: New OS's can't succeed in this market. Why? First, the OEMs are controlled by MS, so the OS can't get around onto a lot of computers. If it's not on a lot of computers, the number of developers, and hence apps for it, is minimal. So with no apps, the OS fails. It does not fail because it is inferior, it fails because it does not exist in a market where even being better can get it ahead.
Consumers don't always WANT Windows. They want the OS that runs the apps, and MS has made that OS. They've achieved that illegally. So we sum up ONCE more. The Gov't is involved because this is a situation where market forces no longer wield power.
Anyone who likes paying 5 cents/minute for long distance (vs. the 50 cents+/minute paid in the 70s) should be kissing the butt of the government for helping to arrange the breakup of AT&T. Bet you didn't know at the time of the breakup how cheap a phone call could be...
Except that AT & T was not a free market corporation. They had substantial government support and regulation.
If you want to see a country where capitalism is unfettered by the government, take a look at Russia these days. It's a libertarian paradise, isn't it?
No, Russia today is closer to feudalism than capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by secure property rights, strong punishment of crimes, and minimal government. Russia doesn't meet any of these criteria. They still have a large government, and government agents routinely harrass and demand bribes from businesses. Russia isn't a Capitalist economy in any sense of the word.
And as a by-the-by, why is it that the same people who think that big government is inherently evil think that big business is inherently good?
Because (unless they have help from the government) governments can't throw you in jail. They can't force people to pay for their "services." They can't pass regulations about all aspects of your life. Plus, the government is a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the biggest corporations. A large corporation has anual revenue measured in the tens of billions of dollars. The federal government spends $2 trillion a year.
Read the original Declaration of Independence:
..."
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"
and
"We, therefore the Representatives of the united States of America,
I didn't believe it either until I looked it up.
IANAL
Cheers
If the DOJ is prosecuting, then Microsoft ought to be entitled to exhaust all possible legal remedies - including a long drawn-out appeals process. That's how it works for private citizens. I think MS is guilty as h*** but they're still entitled the same protections you and I enjoy, IMO. However, IANAL.
--
Was it a lie? The statement "DR-DOS may not be compatible with Windows" is completely true. Since Microsoft does not have access to the source of DR-DOS, they have no control over it, and so they cannot guaruntee its compatibility. I don't see how that is a lie. Also, I have read that that message existed only in development releases, and that the commercial product did not contain this message
Firstly, the final product did not contain this. However, the versions sent to reviewers DID have it. So all the magazines wrote "Whoa, watch out DR-DOS users, this thing doesn't work!"
Also I can't see the source to NT, yet I can write a program that runs on it. So why should MS have to see the source code to DR-DOS to know if Windows 3.x would work in it? If anything, this is why there are STANDARDS. This is why DEVELOPMENT DOCS exist. They are good things. And if MS really wanted to make sure DR-DOS worked (oh, I'm killing myself that's so funny) then they would have gone to the makers of it and said "Hey, your version of DOS spits this exception error at us, what's up with that?" Your argument holds no water.
For now, IE is better than Navigator. But I continue to use Netscape on principle.
Lately, I'm coming across more and more web sites that ONLY WORK WITH MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER!
They're about to get a good thrashing and they seriously deserve it.
I don't know if that's the right parallel you want to draw. Most of the exclusionary contracts Microsoft signed with OEMs to destroy Netscape were negotiated in secret (possibly in smoke-filled rooms, but that seems a little less likely in the tech industry). In contrast, the government's lawyers have been dragging evidence of Microsoft's actions into the cold, clear light of the courtroom (where there is definitely no smoking allowed) for most of the 90s. Do you really think that any of those dealings would be public knowledge without the government's interference? I don't usually favor the actions of lawyers, but at least their actions (good and bad) are normally a matter of public record. I wish we could say that for businessmen.
Just last month Microsoft was lobbying to have the budget of the Department of Justice decreased because they were unhappy with being investigated by the government. Not exactly apolitical. Perhaps slightly less political than a tobacco company, if that's your standard.
Let me get this straight - either Microsoft is allowed to continue leaving a trail of shattered standards and vanished competitors across the tech industry, or else they'll simply buy the government? Frankly, those choices are appalling. Perhaps we should buy a new copy of Win98 and make the check out to "protection"?
If neither Standard Oil nor AT&T (who each had a near-stranglehold on essential national utilities) could buy the government and prevent dissolution, you probably shouldn't hold out much hope for Microsoft on that account.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Actually, I was just comparing laws to morals, but now that you mention it, psycotic socialist moral relativist kook would be more accurate. Actually, I'm not really a moral relativist exactly. Moral relativism breaks down when you get into a core set of morals which, I believe, are universal to all cultures. I do think that there is a huge amount of variance in morals, and that societies tend to play games with morals quite a bit (i.e. It's bad to kill people, unless sentenced to death by a judge)
GnrcMan
The psychotic athiest socialist moral relativist kook
--GnrcMan--
You really want to cut off the monster's head so that many heads grow back in its place?
It really worries me that the remedy will just make matters worse.
Actualy, though I could be wrong, I think this law as inacted after the whole IBM thing in the 80's
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
> Adam Smith was quite correct in describing government as a "social contract" -- it is no different than any other contract that you enter into. if you don't like it, don't sign it.
I agree. Whatever rights we didn't give to the government, we keep.
But just try to tell people that you DON'T need a license and registration to travel in a car. (I don't have either and no law officer has ever given me a ticket for driving without a license.) See my post: "Speeding is not a crime" if you want proof that Travelling is a Right.
Cheers
I don't usually favor the actions of lawyers, but at least their actions (good and bad) are normally a matter of public record. I wish we could say that for businessmen.
Not really. The actual trial is publicized, but you can bet that Netscape, Sun, and others met behind closed doors with government officials to plan these attacks. And my point is that if this continues, it will get worse. For example, one of the worst outcomes of this trial would be if MS were declared an "essential utility" and regulated accordingly. Then some of the most important decisions in the future of the computer industry would be decided by government bureoucrats, and they would likely be decided by lobbying and special interest pressures.
Just last month Microsoft was lobbying to have the budget of the Department of Justice decreased because they were unhappy with being investigated by the government. Not exactly apolitical. Perhaps slightly less political than a tobacco company, if that's your standard.
"Just last month, meaning after the antitrust trial. Microsoft has only been involved in Washington in the last couple of years, and this is because they are starting to realize that they cannot maintain their market share simply by improving their products and competing on the merits, as they get accused of being a monopoly. So I see the recent lobbying effort as a defensive move, to protect themselves from further political attack.
Let me get this straight - either Microsoft is allowed to continue leaving a trail of shattered standards and vanished competitors across the tech industry, or else they'll simply buy the government?
Well, no, I'm not saying that by itself this antitrust trial will cause Microsoft to by the government, but it's a first step to a more-politicized industry. I think it's quite likely that BillG is right now hiring lobbyists and publicists to make sure that they don't get screwed over like this again. And as this happens, Microsoft's competitors will all also have to beef up their political operations to protect themselves.
So no, the antitrust trial is not going to cause BillG to buy up the government, but every time something like this happens, the Valley becomes a little more political. And that politicization leads to more money being squandered no lawyers and lobbyists, leading to a lower overall level of innovation.
You're a theory wonk binarybits, of the Libertarian "Objectivist" persuasion, which makes you a bit of a dogmatic kook and troll; I know all about that. Hope you're at least having fun in that fantasy land of which you write. But I don't see any correlation between your posts and what Judge Jackson wrote in his FOF. Read it, digest it's contents, and comment about it specifically -- or continue to look like an idiot in your posts.
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
Or rather than that, they simply need to document all the features used in their file formats.
Requiring them to adhere only to open standards would be another horrible situation. You would in essense bar them from "innovating". I know, they don't innovate now, but one day, a new idea might percolate up from the coffee room, and then they'ed be prohibitted from using it because it was a new way of doing things.
Let them control their softwre, but require them to publish, document every tidbit. Make them hire staff just to answer questions about how something works (the MS Access file format, as a hypothetical example) on a timely basis.
And what would you have them do? Administer an IQ test to moderators? Last I checked, this story has almost 250 comments, and you're nitpicking 1. So you didn't agree with the pointless comment being moderated up. If you're a moderator, you can moderate it down. If you aren't, tough, that's the way it works. So a post didn't get moderated up? Same deal. I don't, but I imagine there's a good number of people who browse at >=1, and don't even see AC posts. Can't be helped. If they have something good to say, they should log in, and get their karma improved in the process.
Of course, with so many posts, something like this is bound to happen. It's not worth your trouble complaining about it. I fail to see how this is a big deal, no one is being hurt and each person can decide for themselves what they think of it. If someone desperatly needed to hear someone's well thought out opinion, they'd find it wether it was 0 or 2. So just calm down and take a break. Posts like that should probably get a nice 'off topic', which isn't going to do much for your karma.
I don't get why everyone keeps talking about Microsoft, Inc's *rights*. They are a corporation. They are an entity that exists because the state allows it to exist.
Corporations are *not* people, and as such *do not* have the inalienable rights granted us by our creator.
Just keep saying this over and over. Hopefully the idea will work its way over to the people deciding this matter.
"Third," says the judge, "Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows." Yet, virtually no new application software using client-specific code is being written.
Isn't nearly -all- application software client specific? Isn't this why companies like Loki can exist, to rewrite existing software for other OSes? Isn't almost every commercial piece of software in any retail store for Windows? (Obviously there is a lot of professional stuff for other OSes, but look at 'mainstream software'). Another:
Mr. Reynolds estimates that Microsoft's share of all 1999 desktop shipments will be 70 percent. If that constitutes a monopoly, he notes, then the Justice Department better investigate Quicken and America Online, which have long enjoyed market shares exceeding 70 percent.
He's comparing an operating system to an application? An OS which dictates how most other software must be written being compared to applications that have competitors, are not forced upon their consumers unwittingly, and don't affect anything but their specific purpose (i.e. you don't have to write software for AOL, you write it for windows). Also, how does AOL have a seventy percent market share? They have what, 17 million subscribers? 19 million? Where some of those subscribers are folks like me, who have an AOL account but don't ever use it, because we have other ISP accounts or use a school network. If 17 million is 70% of the whole Internet, slap me silly and call me Susan.
I don't know who Robert Levy is, but he needs to be smack'd with a clue-by-four.
-Aqui
The important thing to realize here is that, unbelievably, this case is somehow bigger than Microsoft. If 4 years from now, this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, there is a chance they could turn down the case as no longer being worthwhile if MS has lost it's position of power. That would completely lose the point of this case--it's not whether or not MS is a monopoly (it is) or whether it abuses that position (it does) but whether or not the US government has the right to tell any software company that it can't use any means necessary to gain market dominance. This is where the true importance of this case lies, and the Anti-Trust Expediating Act may be the only way for the Supreme Court to really make that decision. There could be another MS in a related market years from now, and it would be nice to be able to stop them before it was too late.
~=Keelor
delmoi: A monopoly in and of itself is illigal
Actually, it isn't. But once you are shown to be a monopoly, you must play by different rules so as not to abuse your monopoly power. binarybits: I ask again: where is the harm to consumers?
There is nothing in antitrust law which requires this to be shown. Sorry.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
They were. They stole, lied and defrauded. They did it all as part of their anticompetitive behavior. Read the FoF, it shows you what they did.
The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market?
Maybe the moral issue is whether it is moral to justify the criminal behavior of others because you like them. Microsoft committed real crimes to further their dominance of desktop OSes. You squander your moral position by supporting the criminal activities of these criminals.
Huh? How is Coke a monopoly? Pepsi has 30% market share,
... and everyone's happy.
Even moreso... You can walk down the aisle of your local grocery store and pick from any number of discount brands. Having had a Coke in the past does not cause your stomache to build up the inability to drink other soft drinks, and you can have RC Cola *and* Coke sitting peacefully on your shelf together.
Monopolies are supposed to be rare in a capitolism enviroment, but they do change all everything. So long as there is no monopoly capitalism works great, once there is a monopoly all the grand things of capitolism don't work.
Monopolies, per se, are not evil, vile, grotesque beings. We have several well behaving monopolies just scattered around. Some power companies behave themselves (I can't speak for my local here in Dallas, but the power company in my hometown in south Texas was decent). WalMart, nationally, doesn't really have a monopoly... but in my hometown, their an effective monopoly, but their prices continue to stay down, and they hire half the community, so there's more good done than harm. Some family businesses went under, but in the resultant monopoly economy, WalMart didn't gouge consumers
Then you have Microsoft. The come in, they drive you out of business, then rape your intellectual property. That's another story altogether.....
woof!
At least this way Microsluff won't have too much time to formulate a convoluted defense. I think it helps level the playing field just a little. But you're right, whatever the outcome, it will be too little too late.
Netscape and Sun, with Navigator and Java respectively, could not clone the Win32 API (IBM tried doing that with OS/2, and gave up), but they tried to make it irrelevant.
Both products had (or tried to have) APIs that were the same across platforms. If these products become technically successful (instead of being "write once, debug everywhere") and gain enough market share, then third-party software developers will be able to write programs in Java, or programs using the Netscape APIs, and they will work on any platform that supports Java or Navigator. If enough third-party applications depend on Java, Navigator, Lotus Notes, Perl/Tk, or some other cross-platform middleware application, then people investigating a non-Windows operating system would have a lot more applications to choose from -- and Microsoft's monopoly goes bye-bye.
When Microsoft realized that they faced this competitive threat, they exploited the monopoly power they already had to attack Navigator and Java. To boost Internet Explorer's market share, Microsoft employed several strong-arm tactics that only could work because of Microsoft's monopoly power, and could not be justified (in the judge's opinion) as attempts to make things better for the consumer. Examples given in the FoF:
Economists and business analysts could argue about whether or not all these things harmed consumers, and in fact both sides did argue about this in front of the judge. It's a judgement call, but this is the sort of judgement call that judges are paid to make.
Microsoft could have responded to the Navigator/Java/etc. threat by concentrating their resources on improving Windows -- just as Intel responds to AMD and Cyrix by trying to improve the Pentium. But merely building better products wasn't enough for them; they used every technique they could get away with to punish their competitors, using the sorts of punishments that only monopolies can mete out.
The judge hasn't issued his findings of law yet, and IANAL, but... Guilty, I say! Guilty, guilty, guilty!
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The catch is you've got to pay my postage.
You'll be out 9 cents on the deal.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
As much as I hate MS, I admit that this case has a certain gravity. As unfair as it sounds to send an individual to jail without appeal, there is a large distinction; as such, it must be handled with carefull consideration.
First off, an individual is smaller, and less likely to offend people and interests. A company of MS's size is hugely exposed and stands to run afoul of many political interests. The decision of one judge, can potentially flush billions of dollars down the drain, put thousands of people out of work, crush an industry, etc. As much as MS may deserve this treatment, I'm not inclined to treat it casually.
Secondly, when an individual is convicted of a crime, it is normally for a specific act and there is much less room for interpretation. e.g.: murder is murder. Antitrust on the other hand, is more open to interpretation and tends to cover a prevailing behavior in the company, rather than a specific act.
Thirdly, I don't believe every single case should get full access. I do, however, require more information on this law before i'm willing pass personal judgement. That being said though, I'm all too happy to see MS's fate decided sooner rather than later.
Dude! Get your facts straight before you
;)
speak. Otherwise, you might seem like you're
not as educated as you make yourself out to be.
Corsair == GM, not Ford.
While some 70s Mustangs (read Mustang II) might have had a flamability problem, I think you should look at the base platform, the Ford Pinto.
Why no mention of the flammable 80's Chevy trucks?
P.S. Whose law is it that says mentioning 'Nazi' loses you the argument?
Do anal-retentive people hyphenate 'anal retentive'?
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
Oh, you mean Excel using secret OS functions in the days of Lotus 1-2-3 wasn't the only and last event of its kind?
Good ideas, but I'd like to add one thing to what you mentioned about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gets to decide when to grant a writ of certiorari (permission to appear). In general, they do this when there's a legally interesting point to consider. As far as I can tell, the only thing about the MS case that's potentially interesting is their assertion that the government has no business regulating them because it doesn't understand what's up with computers. So the Supremes would have to agree with MS that that's a possibility. I don't really think it is, but as always, IANAL and I could be wrong.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
A lot of people are commenting on how possible sanctions on MS (esp. those concerning limiting its ability to cut deals with licensees and hiding APIs) would set a precedent and generally create a very difficult environment to work in for other companies.
But it's important to note that we're not talking about other companies. Other companies don't have a wide range monopoly (i.e. a monopoly on desktop OSs that feeds monopolies on office software, server OSs, back-end tools, development tools, browsers or anything else).
Let's face it, the only way for Microsoft to stop stifling innovation in the computer industry is for its monopoly to be completely deposed in a few sectors. They have to loose, say, the browser wars and the OS wars. Once that happens, they'll have to play fair with others because it will be impossible to offer a Microsoft-only solution as once can do now.
Today, you can set up an entire company network using only Microsoft software. Win98 + WinNT + Office + BackOffice + IE + VisStudio covers practically anything you need, with only niche markets available for others (and since they ARE niche markets, they have to work with the MS non-niche products that even niche clients will use in addition to niche products - not everyone needs CAD, but even those who need CAD need word processing).
You can't make them loose these monopolies through a direct court action, but it's not necessary. We all know that Microsoft will definitely loose out to competing products in many sectors if only competing products are allowed to compete. If this means that the courts need to give them an extra push by handicapping Microsoft for a certain amount of time, that's fine. It doesn't mean everyone will now have to publish their APIs or not have premier partnership programs, just that only Microsoft, the abusive monopoly, won't be able to.
Give a monkey half a brain and still he's bound to fry it - Placebo
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
These are the judge's FoF. Period. Who done what when to whom and how that was done. Very difficult to reverse.
The next phase involves submissions on findings of law. Do the actions described in the FoF violate the law? This is much easier to reverse but must remain consistent with the FoF.
After *that* comes penalties, which can be reversed more easily still.
At least this is the case if you are talking about the same Microsoft trial whose judge just released the findings of fact...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Whatever happens, Microsoft is an integral (if annoying) part of our economy. The wanton destruction of such a huge company would only hurt us.
This leave MS in a nice position, really. We can slap them about, but we (as a country) are so dependent on them, that destroying them would hurt the economy.
It will take far more intelligence and foresight to deal with the verdict than I have. :)
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Thank's for the update, I stand corrected.
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
You never stated that you 'thought that' so I'll do it for you: "You think" that the DOJ is in the wrong. That's you're oppinion, and an opinion not shared by Judge Jackson. He presided over the case, not you.
Dispite what you think about microsoft, they are a monopoly, defined by the Judge, and that is crime.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What if MS based their company in Canida?;would they still have to worry about being a trust?
nm
>>monopoly price of $89 rather than competitive
>>level of $49.
>Baloney. This is a very standard price for a
>large software package for Windows.
Utterly irrelevant to the market power question
>Is Apple a monopoly too?
again, irrelevant.
What matters, as is explained at length, is that the price comes not from the market, but from monopoly profit maximization. That's illegal. If you don't like it, work to change the law.
>>refusal to deal with IBM--limiting consumer
>>choices.
>Looks to me like IBM is selling Windows
>computers.
After being forced to capitulate to the demands to remove products that were seen as a threat to the windows monopoly--an illegal use of monopoly power. If you had read the document, you would have found that the licences came 15 *minutes* before the release of W95.
>Besides, there are lots of other
>companies that sell Windows-equipped computers.
>Would it really be that big of a deal if one
>company didn't have it?
If it's because that company was denied access to windows for providing choices and options that consumers wanted, yes. Which, those of us who read the findings found, is what happened.
>>blocking distributiona of netscape as a choice.
> Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of >minutes.
Like the rest of these, well documented in the FofF. This doesn't happen unless there is a compelling reason. Netscape doesn't need to be better, but amazingly better before any noticable share do this. In the meantime, blocking the initial access prevents the development of the API.
>> overriding consumer's choice of other browser
>>and forcinguse of IE
>I haven't used Windoze much, but the few times I
>used it Netscape seemed to work just fine.
>At no point was I "forced" to use IE.
Once more, you are ignoring the contents of the document. IE is launched in some circumstances *regardless* of the choice made. Developers had to agree to use IE and it's help mechanism to get early access to needed technical information--that is, they had to agree to help lock out netscape.
And an ms executive is quoted as saying that ms must make the use of any other browser a jolting experience. Again, information readily available to those of us who read the document rather than making up contents to attack.
>> revoking licenses of OEM's for accomodating the
>>choicesdesired by consumers
> As I understand it, this practice has already >been curtailed,
This was not part of the earlier consent decree. And curtailing it after the fact doesn't change that at the time it was committed (Compaq's W95 license *was* revoked), it was an illegal use of monopoly power.
>and it is arguably a net harm to
>consumers over giving Windows indiscriminately to
>all comers.
It's not about "indiscrimately." It's about "give the consumers a choice other than MS in browsers, and you can't sell windows."
>But isn't this within Microsoft's rights?
Only with radical changes to U.S. Law. Tying, leverage, refusal to deal . . .
>Besides, the only reason that this tactic worked
>was because almost all customers *do* want
>Windows.
So? It is illegal to use the power from a legal monopoly to charge a higher price, or to create another monopoly.
And it's not Windows that consumers want, but the applications that run under it. If there were a choice (the netscape API), consumers could behave differently. *This* is what ms is trying to prevent.
> And there are a few computer makers that will
>sell you other OS's, so what's the problem?
Committing just about every single act prohibbited by antitrust law? Destroying a competitor for the sole purpose of protecting the windows monopoly? Forcing higher prices, lower reliability, lower performance, and less choices on the consumer (again, each of these is documented).
hawk, esq., making the cardinal mistake of arguing with a troll . . .
I believe the more this gets into the news, MS's stock prices will start to slide. Can't wait. ::Evil Grin:: DOJ making them document features and such sounds very probable though. Lord_Muad'Dib "I'm opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position." Mark Twain
THe fof written by Jackson was so poorly constructed from a legal point of view that any appeal is likely to succeed regardless of the merits of the case. The fof contains many holes and overreaching conclusions that any judge would find unexceptable. Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court orders Jackson to try again. Ed
Well, I don't know what the party affiliations of the justices are, but it's not really right to consider them republican or democrat, and its extremely hard to try to predict how somebody will break on an issue depending on who appointed them.
To be sure, we can reasonably peg Scalia as being on the right, Ginsburg and Stevens to the left, but that doesn't mean chicken shit. First, there's the different ways you can be on the right or on the left (you can be a right wing activist or a left wing activist, or you can favor deferring to legislative intent and prior precedent etc.) Then there's the fact that these guys (with the exception of Thomas who's kind of a dim bulb) are the mega-geeks of the law -- they may have ideological biases, but their technicians who are necessarily going to view the case on a different level. Finally, the centrists like O'Connor really hold the power in the court.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a majority opinion written by Souter, who seems to be one of the bigger technical braniacs on the court.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Since they are (see the Finding of Fact), the faster they settle the smaller the likely punishment.
This is all wrong. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is all about ... the pentiums .
The esteemed Mr. Yankovic has already established this in his own FoF.
ONe could argue that they already do. They release their document formats, the only subject of debate is how well they are documented. In any case, I don't think this would help. It's hard to enforce, and it's not clear that they aren't already doing this.
What does feel-good soft journalism have to do with FUD?
I think you better find out what the letters F U D stand for.
You just described a public relations stunt.
That isn't FUD.
So why should MS ? The danger of this is that it would require MS's products to be designed by committees, essentially taking design decisions out of MS's hands.
While the law is obscure, the NYT (for one) reported on this months and months ago, shortly after the trial started. You can be sure that lawyers on both sides have been well aware of it, whether or not it has been mentioned publicly- neither side would benefit by publicizising something that the other side has a chance (however slight) of not knowing.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Firstly, this is more or less an act of theft. Secondly, allowing competing versions of windows to enter the market is hardly what the industry wants or needs. I don't think this would help anyone except for Microsoft's competitors. Personally, I think a breakup is a more intelligent solution.
I'd like to see the Microsoft case in front of the supreme court today. I think the justices we have there are much more reasonable than Judge Thomas Pinhead Jackson -- perhaps Microsoft would stand a decent chance of being exonerated, as they should be.
Visit my page at www.defendmicrosoft.rog for reasons why.
--Blake
Is it really in the DOJ's interests to take this thing to the Supreme Court right now? I may be wrong here (and if anyone has the current statistics, please post them), but I think the Court is majority Republican right now, which means that getting a decision against Microsoft would be a little harder to do (even impartiality is reliant on human views). I can understand the DOJ's pursuit of this quickly in light of what looks like a strong Republican showing in the polls, but I think the Supreme Court will be a lot more sympathetic to Microsoft's arguments than Judge Jackson was.
Again, I may be wrong about the makeup (I'm just going by my current events knowledge), but the DOJ has to remember that they are still playing in a very political arena now.
I mean, really, think about it. Are you saying that it is NOT an important enough case, with enough precedence for the future of this technologically-driven and dependent country? That a lower court is suitable, perhaps one in a specific state or circuit of states?
I kind of doubt it. Face it, this is the BIG SHOW. Do or Die. Roe v. Wade for the Software Industry.
The day the Supreme Court turns this down is the day that we elect women as both President and Vice-President to run this country. It may happen someday, but it sure won't happen today.
Will in Seattle
Will MS settle? I dont know, but I am a little curious... what would be MS proposal? Would it give up some division of the company? What will be the most probable outcome of this settling?
Levy's analysis is a stunningly naive take on the way things are.
For starters, he complains that the judge's definition of the market in question (Intel-based personal computer systems) as too narrow. He trots out the Mac, server systems, home-brew systems, and handhelds as examples of competition with Microsoft. Fact is, even though Macs and Wintel boxes have many things in common, the types of people who would buy Macs would not buy Windows (and vice versa). Servers, home-brew systems, and handhelds are completely different animals. It's like arguing that you don't have a monopoly on bottled water because there are other people who sell beer. The amount of discretion that Microsoft seems to have regarding how it prices Windows licenses indicates powerfully that Microsoft considers itself to be a monopoly. Ditto for the ways in which they use this discretion to reward friendly OEMs and punish unfriendly ones.
Next he finds that the applications barrier to entry is no barrier at all because of middleware software (such as a browser). You know, I find the most jaw-dropping thing about Microsoft partisans is how they argue that Microsoft is not a monopoly _now_ because they could lose their franchise in any number of ways _several years in the future._ I like Mapquest just as well as the next guy, but I can't seem to find a browser that will get my scanner to scan pictures. If you find one, please let me know.
As for point three, even if it were true that there is "virtually no new application software using client-specific code" being written (a dubious assertion at best), is this necessarily evidence that competition is alive and well in the Intel-based personal computer market? I don't think so! Same goes for the "Windowless" products that Levy points to (which do not exist yet and which may never exist).
Finally we get to Levy's central point (which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point): "The government's focus in this case has been to safeguard Microsoft's competitors rather than protect consumers." Indeed, to many consumers (including, as it seems, Mr. Levy), Microsoft is that wonderful company that distributes that super-duper web browser for free (and is more than willing to cram it down your--er--make it available in any way possible). How dare the government dump on Microsoft for giving us free goodies?
To answer this, I simply need to point out that Bill Gates is not distributing that browser because he is a nice boy. (Well, maybe for his loyal MS users, but certainly not for Mac users.) No, as the judge says, the preponderance of the evidence is that he was doing so to protect the "applications barrier to entry." Sure you're getting a "free" brower, but you already paid for it (indirectly) through your Windows license fee, and you'll be paying for it over and over again once Bill gets control of the standards through his control of Internet Explorer.
Microsoft can't keep everybody tied up in court!
So now when Microsoft takes advatage of its legal right to appeal this case, it is "tying everyone up in court?" Who started this lawsuit? And why is it Microsoft's fault that the courts take forever to get things done?
Anyhow, I think this is a bad thing, because the longer this thing is tied up in court, the less damage the government can do to the computer industry in general and Microsoft in particular. I'd be perfectly happy if the trial drags out to 2010, at which point web browsers and operating systems have all been replaced with wareable computers with voice interfaces. The less control the DOJ has over computer products the better.
Yet they do it for power companies and insurance....
In fact, a remedy must address one (or more) of the two sides of the problem. Microsoft appears to have a monopoly and abuse its monopoly power. However, the FOF observes a monopoly in the desktop operating system market, not in the office product, server OS or other markets, so a breakup along market lines would neither break the monopoly nor prevent unfair competition in maintenance of the monopoly (although it would remove some of MS's interest in maintaining the barrier to entry in the applications market). I suspect the Judge may look at other ways to force competition at the desktop level, or regulate MS's behavior. A breakup into two or three giant divisions is possible to reduce the temptation factor, but I'd still expect to see one of
So, what other strategies would address the problem of 1) Breaking the Desktop Headlock or 2) Chaining the Beast from Redmond?
At first i thought: wow now Microsoft is going to get some (justified) really bad press after that ruling. But now it seems we're going to see something more substantial soon.
Anyway, i think this is only the start of it, since this sets a precedent for many other cases where Jacksons ruling will be cited. Also microsoft will get the heat for their business methods in other countries too (wasn't there some case in France?).
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Two of my favorite examples:
On the other hand, I find it interesting that the NBA, along with most other professional sports associations, has done something very similar to the teams as organizations - salary caps. It isn't hard to understand the logic. Teams that win get good crowd turnout, go to chanpionships, and earn more money per year than teams that lose habitually. If a team were able to gather a large pool of talent, such that it consistently earned large amounts of money, it could spend the extra money on buying talent - shamelessly bribing the best players from other teams to come to theirs. A successful team could theoretically buy out all of the best players in the league, win every game, and buy every rookie with bright prospects. It would be extremely hard to displace such a team from the top position in the rankings. While it could be argued that they earned their success, the result would be that the quality of competition in the league would diminish - both the impoverished teams who can't afford good players and the rich team whose players never get really challenged (except perhaps in practice) would be hurt by such behavior. Ask any sports fan if they would be in favor of removing salary caps, and see what they say.
This is what Microsoft, in essence, has done. I would argue that regardless of the pool of talent at their resources, their attitude of "Microsoft Everywhere" (translated, "Us or No-one") has already done similar harm to the software industry. Their prodcts are not superior, just better marketed and in a position to stay that way indefinitely.
It's interesting that Microsoft never had such a struggle, nor are their products better or prices lower than those who would compete with them.
Another analogy comes to mind, if you will allow a Biblical reference. At the time of Moses' birth the Pharoh issued a command that all male Hebrew babies should be killed at birth. It was feared that, if allowed to reproduce freely, the Jews might become independent of their Egyptian masters and rise up in rebellion.
Compare this to Microsoft's acquisition of companies whose products threaten any of Microsoft's products and/or would free users of their dependence on the Windows platform. In many cases, Microsoft has no intention of implementing these technologies in ways that could be useful; instead they are simply bought and bundled, then forgotten.
Consider the case of Intel's Native Signal Processing (NSP) technology. Microsoft threatened to entirely withdraw their support if Intel continued to develop such technologies, and offered as an alternative that the capabilities offered by NSP would be incorporated into Direct X. Intel accepted the terms, but Microsoft didn't deliver.
That is what I call harming the consumer; that's also what I call killing the baby at birth.
Many other examples could be listed if I had the time to research and list them all. This is why I support the antitrust case against Microsoft.
"Space exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." - Buzz Aldarin
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
>I for one am glad they included IE with Windows.
While microsoft tried to make it appear to the public that that was the issue, andthe DofJ didn't fight that perception, that's not the problem. The FofF does not say that ms couldn't include IE with Windows. It's all of the actions that ms took to stop the distribution of navigator that is the problem.
Assuming, of course, that the Supreme Court takes the case. They are not obligated in any way to take any case, and they usually take only cases concerning Constitutional Rights of lack thereof.
Every year, hundreds of cases have the opportunity to go before the SC. The SC decides whether to hear a case only if it is in their interests. They are free to pick and choose which statements they wish to make about the Constitutionality of any case.
Another option is that the SC delegates the case to a District Appellate, a more likely situation, because the case is not Constitution-based and therefore not the job of the SC. The SC does have such authority.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
I'd like to remind other posters to this comment that Microsoft has been lobbying for a cut in funding to the DoJ AntiTrust division.
At the risk of sounding my own horn, this sounds very familiar. Glad to see that Slashdot has finally noticed this so I can get some reasoned analyses of the situation.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
You know what's desperately needed? An injuction that freezes Microsoft's acquisition fund.
You see, Microsoft just bought a whole bunch of cable companies around DC. Yes, that's right, Microsoft. NOT Charter Communications, but Microsoft proper. And they've been shoving WebTV and cable modems and their new long distance service down everyone's throats.
I don't know about you, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I use M$ long distance. Qwest's leased-line service is absolutely horrific at best currently, and they're supposedly one of the best. BAH. The DOJ needs to clue in and stop Microsoft NOW before they taint everyone. If this is a jury trial (IANAL), Microsoft has just eliminated every possible juror in one fell swoop.
your company here.
shelby != ford
Sorry- "conservative" doesn't mean the same thing as "conservative" in the real world. I don't know that this court has any clear record on anti-trust cases and regardless, it is litterally a rule that if the outcome seems obvious- they'll rule something completely unexpected.
Incorrect. Microsoft could, if they wished create a new country or sufficiently modify an extant country to suit their desires. This has been done before, notably by several fruit companies in Central America, which is where the term 'Banana Republic' originates (it's not just a trendy clothing store ;)
;) by trained professionals. It is understood that a significant part of the application of these laws will be performed by judges, juries, the body of precedents and all of the other trappings of our legal system. Modifications are made by the government constantly, but are publicized and there is no excuse for anything as powerful as MS is to be ignorant of it other than choosing to be.
More importantly, if MS had decided that they were going to break the laws of these United States, which it has been proven they did, there was nothing to prevent them from moving the corporation to a different country in which laws which they were more comfortable with existed. They could have even done so just before making the fateful decision to break the law, and would now not be in this situation. However, barring certain rare cases, those within the US, especially those who derive their citizenship or existance (in the case of a corporation, which is what MS is - an artificial 'person' which exists only because of favorable laws of the land and nothing else) are subject to the law. That's the deal. That's the contract. No one forced them to agree to it - they did so of their own free will, just as I believe you would have them do, given the nature of your other postings.
The specifics of this contract are spelled out quite copiously in the law, which MS and/or Bill Gates has never been too poor to have carefully interpreted for them (Bill was born _VERY_ wealthy; easily 60+ points in GURPS between wealth and patron advantages
Ultimately you can't deny that MS agreed to be bound by US laws. It is irrelevant whether the basis of these laws is immoral. If you disagree with a law you may campaign to strike it down, but until then you're still bound by it. MS is aware of this - they have never, to my knowledge opposed the basis of antitrust law. They certainly could have done so for many years before it was applied to them. But they didn't. Instead, they only now defend themselves, much like the drunk driver complaining about DUI laws not having anything to do with him. I haven't got much sympathy for people who don't fight injustice or percieved injustice until it's being rammed down their throats. They're called cowards.
MS broke the law, now we await to see the results. It's that simple.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Microsoft could get Congress to pass legislation to override anything the courts decide. Check out this old news item from CNN:
o soft.html
http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/15/micr
In my opinion there is another reason why it is very likely that the DOJ will follow the strategy outlined in the article and move up to the Supreme Court right away. It is time... The case against IBM was in the courts for 10 years. The DOJ realizes they just can't have Micro$oft stalling this indefinitely. If they move up the speed of the case, they might actually have a chance of ending this before the end of the world and having a ruling that actually has any relation to why they started with the case.
Beyond losing access to that potentially sympathetic court, Microsoft faces an even greater problem from the Expediting Act. It precludes a party from appealing until a "final judgment" is issued -- in other words, until Judge Jackson has his say not only on the law's application to his findings of fact, but on what remedies should apply to Microsoft's antitrust violations.
This would be a great thing for the DOJ, cause it keeps everything restricted to one court and lets their resources be concentrated on one place. This way Microsoft can't use divide and conquer. I am a bit worried about the position of the 19 states in this. Could somebody shine his or her light on this?
Use Adsense for Charity
Since when? IIRC - it's been a long time - Netscape, even as 0.9 beta software was free to people and institutes associated with education (I was a student at the time) but cost money for everyone else. Which is why Mosaic tended to be the king at the time, though with so many of the Mosiac dev people at Netscape (Mosaic Communications Corporation originally, which is why we have 'Mozilla') it stalled out.
Now, they didn't make you prove you could legally dl it though, so it did get distributed freely a lot.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I have all along maintained that this case is very dangerous, primarily because of its precedent-setting nature. If the case goes to the Supreme Court along a fast track, the danger is magnified. I don't like MS's practices any more than you do, but I don't really want the whole Internet/technology sector subject to a legal ruling that is driven by a lot of anti-MS public sentiment. I'd much rather have a series of incremental FoFs from federal judges than an all-or-nothing ruling from the SC.
Does this mean that MS might get off a littl easier? Yup. But that's a price I'm willing to pay in order to protect the industry's long-term innovative rights.
Can your IM do this?
...to stop production? Since the case has focused primarily on the OS and integration of products, is it really fair to stop their total production or only the Win2K staff? But considering that the new versions of apps that MS brings down the line will be optimized to the Win2K standard then, they too, will be semi-integrated since they can make use of proprietary calls that create a faster environment for working. So they too fall in to the category of integration. Can the DoJ really stop the total production line of MS and if it does, what does this do for the industry? The answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. I think this also points to the reason why a MaBell breakup would be the best choice. Because if MS wants to see the babies succeed then they have to open up the calls available to all companies because the DoJ will probably put in clauses to keep MS from reforming by partnerships between the sub-MS companies. That's as much as I can say from these two copper coins in my pocket.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
I thought monopoly was a good thing. I thought the purpose of government is to nurture the capitalist. Isn't this a free market economy?
Isn't this how England and eventually America became the powers of freedom that they are?
The antitrust laws are from the 1800's and from the progressives who destroyed our free market system.. is that what you all REALLY want?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
No "convoluted" defense is necessary. Everybody who bought Microsoft products (from OEMs and partners to end users) did so by their own choice. If no one wanted microsoft products, no one is forced to buy them. The fact that windows is so prevalant in the market underscores the fact that it has been the prefered choice of most users and businesses. I (like every other slashdotter) have been free to use Linux, BeOS, MacOS, DR-DOS, or whatever other software and applications we select as a best value for our desires.
Contrast Microsoft's agreements with customers (which occur by the voluntary censent of both parties) with the tactics used by the government -- if you don't want a government product (such as anti-trust, or a particular use of your tax dollars), Janet Reno's henchmen come after you with guns. I certainly haven't heard stories of troups marching from Redmond, storming the houses of people who didn't use windows!
Check out www.defendmicrosoft.org for some good links on this topic.
You can still use and prefer linux for yourself, while defending Microsoft's right to produce products it chooses to and sell them to people who are willing to buy them!
His opponent is Al Gore. Who's got a pretty lousy reputation for being boring, an environmentalist (could swing either way) and who has been a VP for eight years thus pretty nicely eliminating him from the public eye.
Including the previous Bush (who had run for Pres once or twice before signing on with Reagan who he really had been blasting back in '80) there have been like two VPs who were elected to President in history. This doesn't include VPs who got it through other means, like the guy either dying in office or being Nixon. That's much more common.
So Gore has pretty damn lousy chances. But the Democratic party is almost certainly going to nominate him b/c he's the VP and that's somewhat traditional. If they want to have a fighting chance at getting their man in, they should dump Gore and pick up a fresh guy, which would certainly end up being Bradley. Who is not terribly impressive to me either, but I've been getting really pissed off at the quality of our politicians lately. They haven't been getting worse, necessarily, I've just been noticing it. I'll probably vote 3rd party (I'm not registered to a party and I think it's awful that parties can get any assistance from the govt., including using our voting equipment and monies for primaries) but will have to check out the various candidates.
There's a good quote I'm reminded of, btw:
I went to the store the other day to buy a bolt for our front door, for as I told the storekeeper, the governor was coming here. "Aye," said he, "and the Legislature too." "Then I will take two bolts," said I. He said that there had been a steady demand for bolts and locks of late, for our protectors were coming.
- Henry David Thoreau
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If Microsoft is split up, there won't be as many divisions as listed above. At most there would be 4-5 spinoffs.
It might be misleading to say that anyone can appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court can simply choose not to hear a case. There does not exist a "right" to have your case heard or even paid attention to.
But it sure doesn't hurt for more people to know about it. I first heard about this in a Register article shortly after the anti-trust trial began, and mentioned it two days ago (though I admit it, I was wrong about exactly what act it was: IANAL.) I'm really surprised it hasn't been more extensively reported in the press. Here's a very fine link. Note particularly this part which says basically that BillG could do time in the slammer for all this.
I'd like to put another prediction on the table: the issue of whether remedies are going to include a large fine is far from settled. Consider that one way to prevent Microsoft from making predatorial acquistions is to confiscate the war chest.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Is anyone producing "Judge Jackson Fan Club" T-shirts yet?
I'm really in favor of Scott McNealy's opinion.
1 - Force them to divest their holdings in other companies,
2 - prevent them from investing in or aquiring other companies for 5 or 10 years, 3
3 - disallow any restrictive agreements, and
4 - force them to open up their prices, so everyon pays the same thing with the only discounts avaialable being those strictly based on volume.
5 - And drop those market development agreements.
In other words, regulate them. And what do you do if they cheat? Start this all again, while they continue to rack up those monopoly profits? And they will cheat - they've done it before (see how they made a mockery of the previous anti-tying settlement). Even worse is the precedent for regulation in the software business itself - a well-regulated monopoly is by necessity awfully dull, and is that what we really want?
I think that regulation of Microsoft is a non-starter. The remedy we need is to put the Windows source code, including future versions, in the public domain. Put the load/save parts of the office suites into the public domain for good measure, as well as anything resembles an interface protocol. Then we will at once cure the problem and apply a suitable penalty. As for restitution, I guess it's not necessary for the government to take care of it. The civil court system will probably handle that very well. Um, that leaves the little matter that breaking the antitrust laws is a felony crime of which directors and officers of the company may well be guilty. (As is perjury.) Presumeably a separate trial would be required, should the government decide to pursue it. Think Michael Milken.
Is this too harsh? Ah - no, it's not harsh, it's just life. Life will go on.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
It was when Reagon came to office that the DoJ dropped it case against IBM. (Back then, IBM was just as evil a Microsoft is now. They just had a little more class.)
"you wouldn't believe the lobbying effort put on for MS"
One of the reasons I saw people NOT voting for Dole was statements he made early in the race that made it look like he had been bought by the tobacco industry. Does anyone, even Repubs, want to look like they can be bought by MS?
The moment that some legit news editorial (as opposed to us discussion groups) says that MS can buy a politician, then that politician is in danger of people believing it. It is much easier to be bought when people aren't watching.
I actually asked the same thing so if you get a response and I don't post about it can you mail me?
stalin@snip.net
How about something totally different, since Microsoft's primary weapon against other companies was using OEM pricing to force the PC manufacturers to install Microsoft only products, why not take away their OEM prices.
This way PC makers and consumers will have a real choice!
What is the chance that the Government could use a Forfeiture Statute to make Microsoft release the Windows Source Code to the Public Domain?
Sound Crazy?
Not Really. The Intellectual Property, although created by Microsoft, is vital to other companies who depend on it for their own products and services. These businesses are built on top of the OS, and place trust in Microsoft's Intellectual Property. This Operating System is more like a Common Facility.
Stripping this ownership would eliminate Microsoft's practice of incompatibility and obstruction of essential services merely to disadvantage competitors.
oh....my!
Thats the manufacturer that is FORCING you. Not Microsoft.
No, dumbass, it's Microsoft forcing the manufacturer to sign restricted bundling agreements such that they then are forced to pass them off to me.
If Microsoft forced the manufacturer into this, then thats their choice. They accepted it. Therefore, you have to accept it or go to another manufacturer.
And that's the whole point of the matter isn't it? Up until about a year ago, you couldn't because Microsoft had forced them ALL into it, so I didn't have anywhere to turn. I even got one of them when I bought a bare fucking motherboard, so don't give me that shit about having a choice.
Keep in mind that no one is forcing you to use software, computers, etc. You do it at will.
Yet another completely specious statement. The whole point is that if I wanted to use a computer, I shouldn't be forced to pay Microsoft. Making a statement like "well, you could just choose to not use a computer" is simply ridiculous. That's the whole fucking POINT of antitrust legislation, dumbshit...
-- Gary F.
One card that ms and its supporters will be looking to play is the economic impact of ANY punishment to the company. Anyone remember Bill&co's pathetic attempts to manipulate the econmic fears of a delayed Win95 launch - I recall either bg or sb saying that the stock market could loose big time!
Now, how much you wanna bet that any of the judges getting to hear the appeal will be hit with an arguement about present economic reality outweighing past corporate misdeads?
(While I applaud the conclusions in the FoF, I'm not too sanguine about the ultimate punishments for ms.)
So, since this case will get there sooner or later, anyone out there follow the supreme court wrt this type of ruling? Other cases that have come before the court? Individual judge's published decisions re big business and such?
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
"No one is forced to buy Microsoft products" which means that nobody is pointing a gun at buyers of Microsoft stuff. Well, nobody is pointing a gun at me to buy electricity or telephone service but life would be damn hard without them.
The Microsoft FUD machine is in over-drive, CBS just finished up an 'intimate' invterview with BGates. They tossed him all sorts of softball questions like "Tell me about the man behind the success." Bill eats chessburgers with some no-clue reporter while he talks about family, charity, and nothing about M$.
They should have saved themselves the trouble and flashed "Microsoft is your friend" at the bottom of the screen.
Right now more than a few million americans are thinking to themselves, "Awww. he's such a nice guy, why is our government picking on him?"
WOW! What a load of crap, suitable for wrapping up in
- Not that Ford Motor Co. management ever sold a Corsair in the '60's knowing it might flip uncontrollably, or a Mustang in the '70's knowing that because of a dangerous design flaw with its gas tank the car often burst into flames in a rear impact. Stupid customers should have figured that out on their own... and hell, DARWIN!
:-)
- While we're on the subject of Ford Motor Co., why don't we discuss their use of Jewish slave labor during Nazi Germany? Yes, in Germany, through the subsidiary "Ford Werke AG." I'm sure there were plenty of other firms, even car manufacturer such as Daimler who committed such grievous crimes -- Ford Motor claims they lost contact with the subsidiary after hostilities erupted... which might be believed except for Henry Ford's and Adolf Hitler's close friendship. It seems Ford liked Fascism. And hell, those wretched slaves could have fled... didn't they see what was coming? Awwwweeeee hell.... DARWIN!
:-)
- Nor was Occidental Petroleum really responsible for those flames popping out of Love Canal waters, nor the many illnesses in the Love Canal community caused by their dumping. Those self-sufficient and intelligent people could have moved! And hell... DARWIN!
:-)
- Nor was Union Carbide really responsible for the thousands of deaths in Bhopal after they accidentally released cyanide gas into a city of millions, never mind the hundreds of thousands who were permanently injured from breathing cyanide. But those pesky Indian people should have figured out that their employer and neighbor was playing with dangerous chemicals. Right? Awe hell... DARWIN
:-)
- Let's get back to those pesky Nazi fascists with a repose to the times of Swiss banking bliss when huge sums of gold just appeared out of nowhere from Nazi Germany and into the coffers of the Swiss banks. And why should those Swiss bankers concern themselves with annoying issues of morality and ethics in wartime Europe? They're neutral! And hell, should those gold fillings go to waste? DARWIN!
:-)
- I'm sure you wouldn't call those twenty five employees, mostly women, killed in the '91 Imperial Food Products Poultry Plant when managers locked the exit doors after fire erupted because those good-for-nothing local workers might steal a few chickens, crispy and ready to eat I'm sure, while fleeing to save their lives. And shouldn't those workers have known their bosses might feel a little concerned? They could have quit; they didn't have to take that job; they didn't have to show up for work that September day. Awwwwweee, hell. DARWIN!
:-)
- How about the more recent JCO Company's criticality nuclear accident which irradiated a town filled with "unnecessary" children, elderly, people... you know, citizens. Oh yeah... DARWIN!
:-( I don't feel like smiling anymore.
- Monsanto wouldn't sell seeds infected with a Terminator gene, ostensibly to save themselves from "Seed Piracy" if the net effect of this technology would be to destroy nearby farms which didn't also purchase Monsanto seeds. Would they? DARWIN!
:-(
- General Electric wouldn't stifle investigative reporting on the American nuclear power industry within their subsidiary NBC, would they? Would CBS kill a news story on "60 Minutes" containing a "Smoking Gun", ahem -- so to speak -- when a cigarette executive decided to blow the whistle, and it just happens to turn out that a firm about to purchase CBS also owned stock in the very cigarette company 60 Minutes was investigating? Naaaa, I'm sure such things don't happen. DARWIN!
:-(
Now, with regard to those environmental issues I'm sure you'll claim that there is not enough -- or no -- scientific evidence which correlates the PCB's and other toxic substances dumped by Occidental to the striking increase in Cancers found among the Love Canal community. Of course, you're also likely to claim there's little to no evidence for Global Warming, the Ozone hole, soil degradation and erosion from non-sustainable farming practices, or that we're annihilating much of our oceans life and irradiating and contaminating ourselves from dumping toxic and nuclear waste into the ocean and then fishing the sea to extinction. Huge corporations don't do such things, only huge governments! And I'm sure you'll argue that these companies had every right in a "free market" to use any and every advantage at their disposal to gain marketshare... hey, anything for a buck, huh?But let's get to the topic at hand: Microsoft. Why should the big bad Justice Department play rough with Microsoft when all they've been doing is "innovating" their way to total domination of the software industry? Microsoft never did anything wrong, did they?
- They never pirated on-the-fly disc compression software from Stacker, Co. by releasing Stacker's binary unlicensed in DOS 6. Of course, courts say something different... but that's just the big bad government talking.
- Hey, who would blame Microsoft for checking to make certain users were running legitimate copies of MS-DOS before starting Windows 3.1? I mean, they wrote it and if end-users want to screw themselves by buying a competitors product, why should they get to enjoy the benefits of their purchased copy of Windows?
- It's OK for Microsoft to release Internet Explorer for free, even though it cost $100 million a year to develop, because that's "innovation" in the market place. If a foreign firm tried this (say with discount memory prices lower than manufacturing costs) the big bad government might call it "Product Dumping"; but hey, that's the big bad government talking!
- And Microsoft should have every right to form exclusionary contracts with OEM vendors. They don't have to ship Windows! Why they could just sell the computer with a blank disk! Or maybe an old copy of DR-DOS!
:-)
Buddy, I've read Ayn Rand for years and understand Objectivist theory quite well. When applied in force without regard to basic legal and human rights it evokes Social Darwinist results throughout the population. People are actually quite frail complex systems -- easy to kill in mass. Consider your philosophy carefully... it's consequences unchecked could cause devastation across the planet.Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
Wrong. Microsoft sort of forced them into installing it by giving discounts for bundling Windows. The marketing genius of Microsoft.
I've seen even OEM companies believing that they HAD to sell Windows with a machine or it couldn't be sold. Alot of companies believed that they HAD to sell Windows with parts orders or almost complete machine orders...I was calling this the Microsoft Tax back in 1993.
DrWatt
Breaking a contract by itself is not immoral.
Actually, I think it is immoral, or at least it should be illegal. That's the whole point of contracts: they ensure that both parties follow through on their agreements. If it can be shown that they are guilty of breach of contract, they should be punished.
Microsoft also embedded a deliberate lie in Win3.1.
Was it a lie? The statement "DR-DOS may not be compatible with Windows" is completely true. Since Microsoft does not have access to the source of DR-DOS, they have no control over it, and so they cannot guaruntee its compatibility. I don't see how that is a lie. Also, I have read that that message existed only in development releases, and that the commercial product did not contain this message.
There are numerous other cases that show that MS is not the innocent party you think it is.
Look, I am not saying that I admire Microsoft. They have done some sleazy things, and certainly they may have broken some legitimate laws (fraud, theft, etc). But if they have done those things, they should be punished for those actions. Suit should be filed specifying which specific contracts have been breached, which technologies have been stolen, or which fraudulent statements have been made.
But the fact that they have done some illegal things does not make everything they do wrong. If they have broken other laws, fine. But that does not justify antitrust law. Microsoft should be prosecuted for specific actions that are illegal, not for vague "monopolistic practices" and "combinations in restraint of trade."
Nope - I think it is entirely correct to say that anyone can appeal to the Supreme Court. However, like a prayer, your appeal can go unanswered. There is no right to have your case heard by the SC, but you have every right to *ask* them to hear it.
By the way, I think this is a really interesting development - and quite in line with what the Anti-Trust Act is supposed to do. Rather than have a decision dragged from court to court endlessly - and the public bearing the brunt of the delay (they ARE being harmed, by the nature of an Anti-Trust violation) - the delay is bypassed by going directly to the Supreme Court, if warranted.
Judging by the 'new hires' by the DOJ, I'd say MicroSoft is in deep, deep trouble.
Don't skirt the issue. If you believe that it was really their ultimate decision then lets see some documentation. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Without facts, you don't have a real claim to stand on.
I've tried to make it easy for you. Look, I'm willing to agree with you if you can back up what you claim.
But I think it's going to be hard, which is why you don't do it. You see, the FoF states a very different story. The OEM's testified under oath, that it was *not* their ultimate decision to not preload Netscape.
And that's only one example of the illegal practices that Microsoft used. The FoF was full of example after example of these practices.
-Brent--
What is moral about breaking a contract?
Nothing. But that's not what Microsoft is being prosecuted for. Only the most broad definition of "contract" can include the body of US law. It was not the least bit voluntary. Contrary to your assertion, they can *not* go off and start their own country. And all the existing countries have the same problems, so they don't have much of a choice.
One aspect of a contract is that it should be clearly defined and should spell out specifically which actions are and are not allowed. I suggest you look at the history of antitrust law. The definition of what it means changes with every administration, and companies are nailed for things that were not considered crimes when they occured. If you had gone back to before the '95 suit and asked 10 lawyers whether bundling IE with Win95 would violate antitrust law, I'd bet that most of them would tell you "no." Quite simply, it's bad law. It's vague, overreaching, and it changes with the prosecutor and with the judge. It's only result is to give government officials an almost unlimited power to harrass successful companies. Given the number of deals Microsoft makes in a year, it's almost certain that a determined prosecutor could find something that would be considered "monopolistic." I don't think there was anything Microsoft could have done about that short of giving up and going home.
That's my problem with antitrust law: that it is not a good law, nor is it a good "contract."
If the Supreme Court decides not to hear your case, they are, in effect, making a decision to uphold the ruling of the lower court. They are still the ultimate arbiters of truth.
----
Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of colors shapes and sounds
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
The expediting provision is simply an old law. You cannot call it obscure just because most US presidents were backed by big business and as such they chose not to litigate monopolies. (eg. Raegan and Bush) The Shermann Act has only been applied 3 times, and you can name dozens of monopolies/kartells which survived for a long time. (eg. CocaCola [:-)] and Intel)
By this very same logic the Constitution is obscure as well just because it's old? Expediting makes lots of sense, wasnt it Microsoft who complained about the lengthy legal process preventing them from focusing on innovation?
Microsoft's only hope seems to be the other Bush becoming president - he was quoted saying: 'my administration will always prefer innovation over litigation'.
--Coke
Let me preface my comment with my biases: I hate Microsoft, avid Mac user, firm beleiver in Reaganomics. That said... I do not feel there is anything wrong with a company such as Microsoft becoming a monaoply or staying a monopoly, as long as they are a good corporate citizen. But the fact the Microsoft likes to play dirty pool and break all the laws that monopolies are supposed to follow, I hope they get what they deserve. Hopefully if the appeal can be quickened straight to the Supreme Court we will get a ruling while it still pertains.
Everybody who bought Microsoft products (from OEMs and partners to end users) did so by their own choice.
What color is the sky in your world? I have three licenses to Windows... none of which I wanted, all of which I was forced to accept (and pay for) because the manufacturer wasn't allowed to sell me a bare system.
It's only just now starting to be a choice, but it wasn't a choice for many years. Remember all the Microsoft Refund Day brouhaha, or were you out touring alternate universes that day?
-- Gary F.
There is a big difference between a fraudulant statement (saying DR-DOS doesn't work when it does) and a simply careless and possibly sleazy statement (saying that DR-DOS is not supported.) Obviously, Microsoft could have gone to the trouble of certifying DR-DOS as working, but since when to companies have an obligation to make sure their competitors' products work properly?
They made a product that was designed to work on MS-DOS. It is therefore a true statement that it was not designed for DR-DOS and therefore might not work on it. Since it is a true statement, it does not constitute fraud, and therefore Microsoft has not broken the law.
be ready to be more bitter if the court case last for 10 years. even Bills pockets might be hurting a bit with all the blood sucking lawyers on the take. If you hate M$ now.. get ready for the new M$ office 2001. 10,000k per seat. ok manybe not.. they just charge for every patch to make sure your copy of the new software is y2k compliant.
I agree that the outocme in the Supreme Court is unclear. But don't assume being "conservative" has anything to do with this. Conservative Rush Limbaugh has come down as solidly pro-Microsoft, while conservative Robert Bork has supported the DOJ's antitrust action. Anyway, only 3 of the 9 justices -- Rehnqiust, Scalia and Thomas are reliably conservate.
Fizz
Microsoft is a good company, they make good products, and they're smarter than their dimwitted competition.
I am not even going NEAR this one.
I hope to God that this person was not serious, because they have obviously not used Win2K RC2, WinNT, Win98 or WinNT server yet. Talk about crap...
The only good thing to come from M$ is DOS. During it's time, DOS was good. Win 95 OSR2 was good too and IMO is the most stable release of Windows. Besides that it is all thrashy bug-infested bloatware.
... or the OJ defense team ;)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
Why does everyone assume that if in a breakup the said brokenup Microsoft companies won't use the others products? Why mess with a good thing. You make a very good argument that prior code is good and the Microsoft (consumer) benefits from a strategic alliance with Microsoft (Internet technologies). Gonna have the Justice department jump up again and argue that case. Why dont you go back and kill any sort of strategic alliance that has brought value to the world. BTW, current alliances such as Sun and AOL, FedEx and Cisco, Wal-Mart and Proctor and Gamble on and on can be subject to that as well. One area in which consumers have truly benefited from the integration of Microsoft products has been SQL Server and Windows NT. If SQL Server had not risen to promience I guarantee you we would be having this same discussion about Larry Ellison and Oracle and how their scum of the Earth. The low-cost and bang for your buck entrance of MS SQL Server has pushed Oracle, Sybase and every other database vendor. What would we be using now if it werent for them and how much would we be paying? If Netscape had had its way in the beginning we would all be using the Netscape Internet Server that was not any better the NCSA based server and we would pay for it unlike Apache and IIS which are free. Think about it. Later, Hangtime
I agree with the additional "benefits" that can be provided, like "advertising dollars". In an article posted last week regarding Microsoft's accounting practices, they already play this game by advertising with MSN to cheat on the taxes.
However, by offering the flat rate (with only deductions possible through "advertising"), the technology cannot be hoarded or directed only to those companies that will play ball with Microsoft.
To completely sum up my view, the whole licensing scheme needs to be examined. I'm personally against government intervention, but I am not against government restrictions. The fact that the government is getting involved in the Microsoft case is proof that A) the existing restrictions aren't working, or B) Microsoft flagrantly broke the law. IMHO, it's a combination of the two.
No competition, no free market. Fix the market restrictions to force competition, not reinforce the old boys network.
-NYFreddie
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
Here an interesing question. Unlike most old style monopolies, Microsoft as very few fixed assets. Their value is in their source code. Now what happens if:
Microsoft forms a new company, Microsoft Development, based in Redmond, which just does subcontract development, but owns no code copyrights. The Copyright hold (Microsoft) moves to say Grand Cayman Island. NAFTA gives them free access to the US market, the Carribean Island initiative gives them access to the USPS at no extra cost. They tell the US Gov to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I wonder what the history for this law is?
For example, did it come about during the huge anti-trust time period of the late 1800's and early 1900's? During that time period it might have been used to circumvent the massive amount of corruption and influence the Trusts had created in the government.
Or maybe it was made becuase someone realized that a Trust/Monopoly has the $$ to make the legal process take decades to execute. Which adds additional cost to the consumer (since the monopoly could conceivably continue operating for that time period... correct me if I am wrong) and also the taxpayer as well. Politics aside, remember how pissed everyone was when we found out how much the Starr investigation was costing? (flamers: chill. It's just an example, albeit a weak one. No need to jump into a political disussion...)
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
"It was like trying to herd cats..." - Robert A. Heinlein
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Or a mortgage and 2.3 kids even?
The SC can also send it back down:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15
(b) Direct appeals to Supreme Court
An appeal from a final judgment pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall lie directly to the Supreme Court, if, upon application of a party filed within fifteen days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice. Such order shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of a notice of appeal. When such an order is filed, the appeal and any cross appeal shall be docketed in the time and manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall thereupon either
(1) dispose of the appeal and any cross appeal in the same manner as any other direct appeal authorized by law, or
(2) in its discretion, deny the direct appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same as if the appeal and any cross appeal therein had been docketed in the court of appeals in the first instance pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
Yeah. We have tons of choice.
That's why less than a year ago, none of the top ten PC manufacturers were allowed to sell a PC without paying Microsoft for a Windows license, whether their customer wanted Windows or not. In order to give some of their customers what they want, they would have to charge the rest of their customers an astronomical amount for Windows. Microsoft had the power to cause this. That's monopoly power.
That's why Microsoft refused to refund people's money even though they didn't want Windows and were returning it just as Microsoft's EULA said they had a right to do.
Lawyers with your mindset are the sort that give all lawyers a bad name. Simply due to your willingness to twist the facts into something completely unrecognizable to the inhabitants of the real world.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So you concede that they have not committed any other crimes?
Need more caffeine...
Instead of the above line we will then see:
"Game X only works with Windows X".
I guess my concern is "do we really want to have that much more headache?".
-- Cleric
Frankly I don't think Microsoft has a chance in hell of getting out of this unscathed. To get the finding's of fact overturned would be impossible unless they could somehow proove the judge to be incompetent, which he is not. The findings of fact, even without a ruling in this case are very important when dealing with other cases such as Sun or Corel's lawsuit.
Because Microsoft is now officially a monopoly, they are in serious trouble. Monopolies are completely legal, but if you are one you have to be very careful about how you use your power. Things that an ordinary company can get away with, you cannot get away with if you are a monopoly. Microsoft has built up a very nasty hurdle for themselves and I believe that they will fall.
As for punishment, legal precedent indicates that breaking up a company is the most viable option. Regulation of a company would have to be very well crafted, would be subject to all sorts of potential legal boobytraps, and would generally make far more of a mess than there already is. I expect to see Microsoft divided into several small companies with strong restrictions about what boundaries they are allowed to operate within.
A possible breakup situation:
-Microsoft Consumer OS
-Microsoft Server Technologies (SQL Server, NT/2000, IIS, etc)
-Microsoft Palmtop OS
-Microsoft Data Products (SQL Server)
-Microsoft Business Software (Office, etc)
-Microsoft Consumer Software (a long list...)
-Microsoft Web Technologies (Media Player, IE, etc)
-Microsoft Media (the MS in MSNBC)
-Microsoft Network (although this might be part of the media group considering the ongoing mergers of cable, phone, internet, etc)
-WebTV
If that happens it will be very interesting to see what happens. The consumer version of windows without the lock-in of Internet Explorer has the potential to be rendered irrelevant by the growth of the Internet. Internet Explorer, having to survive on its own without the rest of a big corporation to subsidize it will have to charge money and will lose market share to the open source Mozilla project which should be in good shape by the time the ruling comes down.
The server software will be forced to stand on its own two feet without the windows desktop hooks and Internet Explorer hooks. It will have the advantage of being nicely integrated within itself, but the whole proprietary technology garbage will have to go away to compete against other people's products.
Office will continue to survive because, honestly, it is actually good (if somewhat bloated and security hole ridden) software. It won't have the commitment to Windows anymore, so expect to see releases for Linux, BeOS, and any O/S that can get enough people together to buy it. With any luck, competition from other sources will drive the price down a bit too.
In the end, hopefully Microsoft will finally get a necessity to innovate to go with their freedom to innovate. Expect them to play by the same rules they do now, they'll just have to play seperately.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Um, what rock have you been living under? It was less than a year ago that the first guy managed not to have to buy Windows with his computer.
Isn't this sort of the whole point of the trial? That people didn't have a choice?
It won't make a difference to anyone? It will make a difference to those who come after us! If we don't do something about this now, when we can, what kind of message does that send? It says "Hey, come walk all over us!" or "M$, do whatever you want!". Is this what we want to say? As far as I'm concerned, it's never to late to change. It's never to late to do the right thing. And if we don't, who will?!?
If you truely love the memory, you must set it free().
If they so choose the Supreme Court does NOT have to hear the case again. because they can (and often) refuse to hear cases. And with the supreme court there is a different matter of trial-thing. First both sides present their info in writing and very little "in-house" arguing goes down.
---
Only the most broad definition of "contract" can include the body of US law
Why? What is different between a contract between myself and microsoft that I only acknowledge by installing the OS, or a contract between MS and the Gov that they acknowledge by incoprporating within this country? Surely with Bill's dad being a high-priced lawyer, he realized there were legal/contractual implications to incorporation, didn't he?
What's the difference? You seem to be drawing an arbitrary line between government and business that doesn't exist. You're not viewing the world objectively, but rather in an arbitrary manner where "government" is some collective bad entity and "business" is some collective good agency. There's no difference -- they both engage in contracts with customers, and are subject in turn to the demands those customers place on them.
It was not the least bit voluntary
Why not? they didn't have to make a company. No one held a gun to bill and paul's heads and told them "make a software company or we'll kill you". they made a company becauser they wanted to, and the did it in the US because they percieved they would be most successful here.
Contrary to your assertion, they can *not* go off and start their own country
Why not? And more importantly, so what? The free market doesn't say that your favored option is available, only that you have *some* options.
And all the existing countries have the same problems, so they don't have much of a choice.
again, so what? the free maket has said that only those countries are available. If MS doesn't like the available choices, too bad. It sounds a lot like the situation they're being criticized for -- not offering choice? You think 2 or 3 OS choices are enough for consumers, but 150 countries aren't enough for businesses? How is this any different? i don't like the terms of the MS user license, but I don't have a CHOICE other than using a different OS.
Why is it wrong for governments to not offer CHOICE but it's right for businesses?
Ayn rand moved from russia to the US at the beginning of her career because she decided the terms of being a citizen here were better than the terms of being a citizen in Russia. was she wrong? Did she not really have a choice? She sure acted like she did!
One aspect of a contract is that it should be clearly defined and should spell out specifically which actions are and are not allowed. I suggest you look at the history of antitrust law.
I suggest that you have little experience with contracts. Laws and legal systems and indeed the entire civil branch of the judicial system exist almost exclusively to determine which interpretation of a contract is correct. Even the most clearly spelled out contract is ambiguous. There is no such thing as a contract that is impossible to misinterpret or misapply under the proper circumstances.
Antitrust law is no more or less vague than any of the contracts MS has with it's OEM's.
That's my problem with antitrust law: that it is not a good law, nor is it a good "contract."
Then maybe Microsoft shouldn't have signed on. if Bill had decided dealing with complex contract terms was too much hassle he could have gone into used car sales. he obviously thought it was worth the trouble.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
My question is how much do the current laws regarding business practices have to do with the creation of the M$ monopoly?
In particular, the whole licensing deal. This is where M$ has been doing all the wheeling and dealing. "This company gets to pay this much, thic company pays that much, and this company doesn't get to buy it at all." IMHO, I think the licensing scheme should be changed to an open method. Now, I'm not talking Open Source.
For example, technology A is opened for licensing. It should have a set pricing scheme (1 license, 100 licenses, 1000 licenses, etc), and be available to all comers. True, this would radically change the industry, but it would offer some true "innovation", instead of a series of sycophant companies that only profit through being a "preferred partner". If the technology is for sale, it should be able to be purchased by everyone. By using a set pricing scheme, it would prevent exclusion of potential competitors through exhorbant prices.
Just my thoughts - any other ideas?
-NYFreddie
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
Sorry, but when i have to use MS-DOS (look in your BIOS as what Windows 9X identifies) to get to use most applications and play all that nifty games then it's not really a choice.
The point here is, that MS products (like DOS) won over competing products (like DR-DOS) by dubious marketing strategies (having windows 3.x check if the 'right' DOS is running) and not because it's a superior product.
This means MS is using it's monopoly to bully competitors out of the market, harming competitors and consumers. MS then proceeds to grab other markets with help of that monopoly (establishing IE as major browser when Netscape really was the better choice), leaving customers fewer and fewer choices.
Also the notion of 'choice' is questionable if i have to buy my computer at a special place when i don't want to have Windows preinstalled on it and then have to take IE with it because MS chose it to be an 'essential' part of the OS.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
If no one wanted microsoft products, no one is forced to buy them.
Hog manure. Microsoft has had exclusionary contracts with PC vendors for many years. Microsoft has in the past been able to FORCE vendors to pay for licenses for machines shipped regardless of whether or not the machine was shipped with Windows on it. Microsoft used tie-ins to FORCE vendors to ship IE with every machine loaded with Windows, whether or not they wanted it.
Even today it is essentially impossible to buy an Intel laptop computer without also getting a copy of Windows. Recent efforts by unwilling Windows owners to return Windows and get a refund were laughed at in Redmond, despite the wording of their own shrink wrap license.
Microsoft uses exclusionary contracts with businesses as well. The company I work for has a discount on Win/Office licenses PROVIDED that Win/Office is loaded on EVERY computer in the company. I had to buy a copy of Soft PC for my Mac to comply with this.
The fact is that it is nearly impossible to avoid ending up paying for Win/Office the way Microsoft runs it's licensing operations.
In my opinion Judge Jackson was far too kind in his ruling, and the government lawyers only scratched the surface investigating the rampant abuses Microsoft makes of it's monopoly power.
Everybody who bought Microsoft products (from OEMs and partners to end users) did so by their own choice. If no one wanted microsoft products, no one is forced to buy them.
Missed Windows Refund Day, did you?
How about the story in my essay about the future of business software? One particular company with which I have a passing acquaintance had to purchase Office 2000 just to get one bug fix which prevented them from communicating with their business partners. (I supposed they weren't *forced* to do so, but the company did feel a need to stay in business. If you don't build anything to sell, you'll run out of money pretty quickly.)
Let's try an analogy -- 'everybody' bought petroleum distillates from 'Standard Oil' not because they all thought that it was the best deal, but because that is the only choice they could see. Sure, some people may have been able to drill in their backyards and set up a gasoline still, but did that work for most people?
No, Microsoft isn't in the business of saying 'buy this software or your dog gets it', but the company does behave in such a way to suggest, 'Nice company, pity if you can't read documents from anyone else.'
--
QDMerge 0.4!
how to invest, a novice's guide
Let's see some facts then. Instead of just posting a bunch of sentences, let's see you back them up. Since you probably think that the Findings of Fact are just myth anyways, written by a judge who has no knowledge of the computer market, I'll make it easier for you.
All I want you to do is to get me (preferably signed) documentation from Compaq and Gateway, stating that it was solely their decision to not preload the Netscape browser and that all decisions to not proload competing products occured by voluntary consent between both parties.
I'll even make it easier for you. You can have those documents faxed to me at 209-821-5008. When I see those documents, *then* I'll believe that everyone who sold/preloaded/used Microsoft products did so by their own choice.
-Brent--
Off Topic, feel free to moderate me down to -1 as I deserve to be, but I just somehow find it amusing that www.defendmicrosoft.org is running Apache on Linux. Sort of ironic justice, IMHO.
Netcraft Results for www.defendmicrosoft.org
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
Judge Jackson has set a schedule Microsoft must follow:
Dec. 6, 1999 - Justice files conclusions of law brief
Jan. 17, 2000 - Microsoft response due
Jan. 24 - Justice may file reply to Microsoft
Jan. 31 - Final reply from Microsoft due.
The goal is to keep this from becoming another IBM anti-trust case... which went on for over a decade before Reagan just threw the thing out. Hell, in even 5 years operating sytems could be completely different outdated and the case deemed worthless... I think they recognize this.
It is fascinating that somebody actually posted this explanation of why the case against MS should go the Supreme Court now:
"The case against IBM was in the courts for 10 years..."
And what happened in those 10 years? IBM went from a supposed monopoly position to a point where it made mistake after mistake in responding to upstart Microsoft.
The IBM case is the whole point -- the claims made by Judge Jackson represent a rush to judgment that is just as misguided as the persecution of IBM was.
In any business field you will inevitably have situations where corporations have temporary monopoly-like powers (although I think Jackson seriously underestimates the Mac and Linux platform as alternatives in this case). Government regulation of those temporary situations will lead to far more harm than good, and that's precisely where we're headed here.
Whoa! I think your sarcasm meter is defective!
Or i'm being too subtle for my own good...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
This topic has generated one of the better discussions that I've seen on slashdot. Like everyone else, I have some strong feelings about the Department of Justice case. I believe pretty strongly that that some type of legal action is required to limit Microsoft's influence. For me, however, the big problem is that while I believe that Microsoft has undue influence in the market, I'm not sure what the best way is to curb the company's power. For any specific remedy that has been proposed here on slashdot, other poster have been able to show hi-lite specific problems. (Then again, its always easier to be a critic)
... In short, I want substitutes to be available. I believe that a competitive market environment will produce better products. I don't want to live in a world where only a Honda authorized battery will work with my Accord.
I think that it is somewhat premature to discuss a specific set of sanctions that the government should impose. Rather, I think that the debate should be initially framed by identifying a specific set of desired changes in the market for operating systems and applications. Once we have a better understanding of what we want to accomplish, deciding how to get there might be a little bit more manageable.
From my perspective, the primary change that I would want to effect is to provide more competition in the operating system / application market. With respect to operating systems, Windows 98 suffers from a number of defects, primarily related to size and stability. When considering personal productivity applications, my primary complaints are related to cost and resource requirements. I do not use the majority of the functions provided with MS Office. The application suite is bloated in terms of price, system requirements, and hard-drive / memory footprints. None-the-less, when I get a new computer system here at work, I will choose Win98 and Office because of the lack of acceptable alternatives. Office will be dictated by the requirement that other users be able to read to documents I produce. Win98 will be dictated by the need to run Office.
I would prefer to see a more open and competitive environment in which I had a choice between 3 - 4 operating systems, all of which could support the same productivity suites. In a similar fashion, I would prefer to be able to choose between multiple productivity suites, all of which support the same file underlying file formats. Such an environment would provide me with the ability to optimize my personal working environment based on my own personal preferences between parameters such as price, performance, system requirements,
The question becomes, how do we design a system that encourages this type of competitive system? How do we ensure that a thriving market develops where-by multiple independent vendors will compete to provide different flavors of operating systems and application suites?
I beleive that for such a scheme to work, open standards are required. If multiple vendors are going to successfully compete in the market for Office productivity software, we need to ensure that there is a common and documented set of hooks between Operating Systems and Application Suites. Furthermore, we need to find a way to discourage providers from choosing to use proprietary linkages between these two types of system components. In short, we need a way to discourage both the use of performance enhancing undocumented hooks as well as the embrace and extend tactics that Microsoft loves so dearly. (Obviously, this idea is very similar to the open API proposal that has already been circulated here on Slashdot)
As part of the on-going legal action, the government could try to force Microsoft to publish specifications for its APIs. I would like to suggest that this type of legal recourse is something of a distraction from the main issue. A far more significant step for the government to take would be to sponsor the development of an open standard describing an Application Programming Interface. Equally important, once such a standard was developed, the government should refuse to purchase software that does not abide by this standard. State and Federal governments spend a lot of money each year. In and of itself, government purchasing might provide a large enough market to attract developers. This same government standard could very well be adopted by other consumers, providing even more weight.
I'm modeling this pipe dream after the early development work associated with TCP/IP. ARPA sponsored most of the original development work. The US government insisted that the specifications for the protocol suite were freely available. The US government subsidized porting TCP/IP over to the UNIX operating environment. The government's reasoning was that they wanted to ensure that they would always be able to enjoy a competitive bidding environment for networking equipment.
Hence, here are the steps that I would like to see from the government. A rough time line is implied.
First and foremost, force Microsoft to document the existing API and file formats. Use this information to develop an open standard.
Split the Microsoft's OS and Application groups. Require that existing applications interact with the OS using ONLY the published API specification.
Split the OS group into between three and five competition entities. Provide each of these new companies with the Windows OS code. By forcing the OS providers to live within the API suite, they would be forced to compete based on parameters such as price, stability, and performance.
Over time it will be necessary to extend the API. Hit Microsoft with a significant fine. Use the money to fund a new standards organization devoted to maintaining and extending this standard.
Specify that all future government software purchases must support the commercial standard. Work to promote this standard with other large organizations.
Over time, I would hope to see other Operating Systems extend themselves to support the specified API. Ideally, from the perspective of an end user who is playing a game or editing a file, the underlying operating system should be completely transparent.
Oh well, I can dream.
Exclusive OEM contracts created environment where there is only one product and no viable alternatives. So now if you want to develop something that will run with that product you have to follow their API. There is simply no other, you have no choice. And guess what? They are developing something too, and they do not want you to compete with them, so they are free to change their API.
Well, you force them to play honestly and use only published API for their own products, so you are on a level field with them while developing applications. But, can you distribute your software preinstalled?... And if you are really annoying they will preinstall it (their code) for free!... After all the core part is theirs and exclusive OEM contract guards it.
Again it's about OEM contracts. If the core product has no more power to be the only one, why "MS Office Corp" would concentrate on a single platform? Why they will not develop for an emerging alternative that could/will/does have substantial presence on users desktops?If and only if that one "baby bill" company has managed somehow to regain exclusive OEM contracts... But if not, then we have several of them, each competing to be installed on your desktop, and at least some of them will pay attention to stability and quality, and will not create overbloated buggy installations. So, maybe those will survive, plus other developers will have a chance to be able to spend their time on components - high-quality components and extensions.When I say morals, I'm not speaking of something that is necesarily good, or that I agree with. I actually wasn't making any judgement on how the system currently is. I just wanted to present one way of looking at the laws vs. morals issue.
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you...most people are under-educated(not stupid) and/or poorly informed...which is why the government is in the sorry state that it is in. I think the best solution is to educate the people. If you teach them how to make intellegent and informed decisions, the entire society will benefit (via better laws, better leaders, etc.)
--GnrcMan--
I thought the real problem was with Microsoft's agreements with OEMs, not customers.
I can defend Microsoft's right to produce products it chooses and sell them to people who are willing to buy them at the same time I protest Microsoft's anti-competitive abuse of monopoly power.
-beme
-beme
1971
One reason to speed things up is that if MICROS~1 thinks that they are going to be broken up, they have an increased incentive to clear the field first. Anyone care to guess how many bodies they could pile up if they thought that they had nothing in the long run to lose?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
A pointless posting gets a score of 2 and a followup by an Anon Coward pointing out why the posting was pointless, remains point-less.
If that's so, then it's an excellent reason to make a point of voting just to vote _against_ this person seeing as they've as much as vowed support for a trust that's declared war against most of the things I like.
Give the prime motivator and whip cracker a LONG stint on the blower getting flamed and bitched at for those OH SO RARE times that Windows® ever gives anybody a problem.
"Reboot?!? I don't have time for this garbage, Gates!"
Chuck
{astounded that you can rpm install SAMBA, setup shares and mount sharesw/o a single restart! WooHoo }
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Yes, the FoF limited the scope of the trial and of the MS monopoly to intel-compatible computers. However, I don't think that "Intel" is mentioned in any anti-trust acts. There is a very valid argument of law as to whether that was a valid limitation.
IANAL, but I think that was one of Judge Jackson's few bad calls. Yes, "desktop OS" is a much fuzzier term, and by embracing Apple, MS's market share would not look so monopolistic. But monopoly law is not solely a matter of market share - it's about healthy competition. In other words, the law factors in barriers to entry (Jackson made a strong case for an "applications barrier to entry"; an equally strong one could be made from a separate "legacy hardware barrier to entry" that would compensate for the weakened market share numbers of including Motorola) as well as anti-competitive behavior.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Having equitable prices across the board would be a nice idea in practice, and it appears that the ability to charge different prices to different "nice" OEM's was one tatic, but I don't believe it would be workable. Consider:
Say MS had to fix the price for Windows, across the board: $50. So, instead, the start a deal, where if an OEM promotes IE, they pay them per promotion. (and you can't stop them advertising) The better they promote you, the more you pay. A "nice" OEM gets paid $20 per promotion - and lookie here, IE is with all copies of windows, so that $20 per copy of windows sold we owe you. Nett result: cost is not the same across the board.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Something worth pointing out here is that the DOJ needs to bring this case to a satisfactory conclusion before our next president takes power.
A quick search for soft-money contributions on opensecrets.org shows $331,100 in Microsoft contributions to party-affiliated organizations over the past ~8 months alone. (73% of this total ($241,100) to Republicans.) This is in an off-year, with the elections a year away and doesn't include contributions made now or in the past to any individual campaign (Gorton) And of course, we've all read the article about MS lobbying to cut funding for anti-trust actions.
I suspect that a key element in Microsoft's strategy is to delay this process until the after the next president is inaugurated. If a Republican gets into office, the Attorney General and DOJ leadership will be replaced, presumably by more "business-friendly" characters, perhaps less inclined to pursue this matter.
I don't think the Supreme Court's conservative nature really matters much - When it comes down to it, they're all quite smart and capable of reason (well, except for Thomas, who basically votes w/ Scalia and rarely writes any opinions of his own.)
However, if the new Atty. General or DOJ procedurally drops the matter, there's nothing the court can do.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Actually, the cases bear many similarities. The "defendents" of both cases attempted to twist the case into being about an issue it totally was not about.
In Clinton's case, he was indicted over issues of perjury, obstruction of justice, and whatnot. Yet the press turned the issue into one over a simple dalliance, which it wasn't and never was. Microsoft is being tried for anti-competitive practices, which are illegal. Yet they (and the MS press) have tried to turn the issue into one of Microsoft's freedom to innovate. Which it isn't about. Nothing in this case has anything to do with whether MS can develop IE, or media streaming technologies, or productivity apps. It just has to do with how they treat their customers who may choose *not* to use their products.
Both cases had something else in common. Public opinion was strongly on the defendants side. The public tended to strongly agree with the defendants portrayel of the "issue" in the case.
Yet, the outcomes are quite a bit different. In the Clinton scandal the "jury" let Clinton off. But in the Microsoft trial the judge has found against Microsoft in the FoF. What is the difference? Jury, especially in highly visible cases decide based on emotion, ie public opinion. Judges on the other hand decide based on facts and laws. I can practically guarentee that if this had been a jury trial they would have found for Microsoft and we would have never learned what the real facts were. And if the impeachment trial would have been held by a real court, that wasn't swayed by public opinion, they outcome would have been different too.
-Brent--
Jackson's findings provide (right now) no punishment. What this says is that Microsoft can't appeal until Jackson determines what the punishment will be. Actually quite similar to criminal trials where a person is in jail until the appeal is heard.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market? How is this anything but a moral issue?
Because morals vary. One person may say it is "immoral" to punish microsoft for it's success, while someone else my say it's actually immoral to stand by the side and let microsoft use it's, as they see it, unstopable power to do others harm.
If morals were used to decide arguments, the courts would be in chaos. The only thing we have are laws. While laws may (and should, in many cases) reflect morals, they are entirely different. In fact, you could think of laws as the colective morals of a country, but your moral issue fails to reflect that. The issue really is this: Is it legal to punish Microsoft for using it's well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market?
If the answer to that is yes, but the majority of the country thinks that it is immoral to do so, then the laws of the country should be changed to reflect the changing morals of the the majority of the country.
Hope that's clear
GnrcMan
--GnrcMan--
In the libertarian-ayn-rand-dog-eat-dog-jungle, there is no morality.
What are you talking about? Libertarianism is based upon the principle of noninitiation of force. If Microsoft were killing off rivals or engaging in fraud or committing some other real crime, I would be the first to advocate punishment. But my point is precisely that Microsoft has not done anything immoral, and for this reason it is immoral for the government to punish them. Morality has a great deal of relevance here. The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market? How is this anything but a moral issue?