Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Ask Antitrust Experts About Microsoft
First, let's introduce our guests:
Don Weightman was the gentleman who did our Instant Legal Analysis immediately after the Findings of Fact announcement. We had many requests for him as an interview guest. So here he is.
Richard Hawkins engaged in the general practice of law for five years prior to obtaining his Ph.D. in Economics and Statistics. He is currently a visiting assistant professor of economics at the University of Northern Iowa, and practices only in antitrust and other economic issues in the law. His past includes both hardware and software development, including the mail-merge patch for LyX.
John Lederer is a retired lawyer in Oregon, Wisconsin. He is currently active in technology and intellectual property issues. He practiced in the antitrust and transportation areas and argued three U.S., Supreme Court cases.
David Niemi is a system engineer with a background in economics as well as software. He has been administering and developing for UNIX and Linux since 1987, and has been following Microsoft's antitrust adventures closely since 1993.
Next, a few selected stories about the Microsoft Saga that you may not have read:
- Findings of Fact, A Two-Themed Opus (from The Linux Show.)
- Jerry's Take On The Microsoft Decision: Wrong! (Jerry Pournelle in Byte.)
- Microsoft willing to settle antitrust case (from the Boston Globe.)
- Now bust Microsoft's trust (from The Economist.)
- Militant Microsofties Bunker mentality... (from SF Gate.)
- Don't You Sass Me, Mr. Micro-Smartypants! is a humor piece we couldn't resist including that talks about how things might go if Judge Judy was in charge of the Microsoft trial. It's from - believe it or not - The New York Times. (Free registration required to read.)
Now Let's Get Down to Business
As usual, moderators will select the most interesting questions, and Tuesday afternoon Slashdot editors will do the final "cut" and forward 10 - 15 chosen questions to the panelists - who are all Slashdot readers, just so you know. Answers will appear Friday. So ask away!
What do you think are the chances of forcing MS to make their APIs open source? Would this be continuous (such as a gnu license), or a one-time release? I would also like to know if there is any president to such a ruling?
How likely is a breakup and what form would it take?
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
From what I've heard most people surmise that it would end up being a Good Thing for Bill Gates if MS were broken up along product lines as he would then own stock in half a dozen or more highly succesfull, smaller companies.
In light of this what is your opinion of what a proper punishment should be assuming that punishment is warranted?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
If I spent my time and money to become certified in a product competing with Microsoft (Say, A Novell or OS/2 Certified Engineer) and that product was subsequently stomped into the ground by Microsoft, could I justifiably sue Microsoft for making that investment of time and money worthless?
On a slightly related note, if I owned stock in one of their competitors who was eliminated through their dirty tricks, could I sue them for that?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Specifically, is overturning a Judge's finding of fact a faux paus among judges? Is it the kind of thing that would make a Judge resign?
I ask because some of the antics MS pulled seem a lot like the antics of the Chicago 7 trial -- where they just kept pissing off the judge. In the Chicago 7 trial, all the Judge's contempt rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court b/c he didn't site them for contempt immediately, and Judge Hoffman resigned.
Do you think Microsoft might be deliberately trying to provoke the same kind of actions?
I guess that's actually three questions...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
We know the Findings of Fact are just one stage on the road, but what are the panel's personal opinions on the sanctions that should be applied to Microsoft if they lose this case completely?
Gerv
In your opinion what are the chances of succesful Class Action suites against Microsoft regardless of the outcome of the trial or the DoJs actions?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
If Microsoft were to be punished with a fine, it would have to be spectacularly huge in order to make any significant difference. For example, it's been said that MS could easily pay off a $100 million fine without problems. The question is, would the American public (who are generally ingorant of just how much money MS has) stand for a bigger fine, or would they see it as an attack on a legitamate business?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I've read in many places that the FoF is hard to overturn. Reading the FoF it seems to me that if you accept it as fact, then you have to conclude that MS broke the law and should be punished (harshly).
Assuming the FoF is unappealable then, where is the opening for Microsoft to appeal the discision? I.E. Assuming the FoF is untouchable how could MS "win on appeal" as we keep hearing from various tech analysts?
Myddrin
From a legal standpoint, can Microsoft point to such developments as the Sun/AOL/Netscape deal and the mainstream attention devoted to Linux and the BSDs and say, "Things move too fast and we're struggling to catch up" and avoid or beg down punishment?
Contrariwise, is the case focused only on what Microsoft has done in the past? Even if the company has broken the law, if it falls apart tomorrow, will it still be held responsible for its actions?
--
QDMerge 0.4!
how to invest, a novice's guide
I read a little article entitled "windows get naked" and it basically said the judge could force MS to open source they api's. I the api's were opened say under a rather restictive license could people in say the wine community still use them?
The FoF points out a multitude of nasty things MS has done over the years. However it struck me that only about a third of them seemed to be truly anti-trust issues (ie. unfairly leveraging their monopoly to take over competition in other venues). Which of the Judge's facts do you think will actually be deemed illegal, and which are just run-of-the-mill business nastiness?
[TMB]
Reading the findings points to a few likely outcomes if the government pursues an anti-trust case against Microsoft, at least to me. How realistic are they?
1. Separate Microsoft Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system.
2. Compensate Netscape Communications for damages up to $100M.
3. Remove browser restrictions from any contractual agreements with other companies, including IAPs and companies such as Apple.
I do not see anything in the findings that would give the government the justification to break Microsoft into multiple companies.
I do not see anything in the findings that would give sufficient justification to pursue action against Microsoft as regards Java.
Is this reasonable? Must an anti-trust case against Microsoft be based strictly on the findings report?
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
On the other hand, what about other alternatives? I've been a big fan of the following as a partial remedy: force Microsoft to fully and completely document each and every API call in Windows, and thoroughly audit them every few months to ensure they're playing by the rules. This would go a long way toward leveling the playing field (though it would not solve every problem, admittedly.) There's really not even a reason the general public *needs* to see the actual source code as long as the interfaces to the system are all out in the open.
What do you all think would be a good remedy, assuming Microsoft does indeed lose?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
We keep hearing how Microsoft has been a big part of the current economic boom and how breaking up Microsoft would be a blow to the U.S. economy. My question is, how much do you think this will affect the judge's decision? If he finds they did break the law, would he let them off with a slap on the wrist in order to protect the economy? If it goes to the Supreme Court, how would they take the economy into account?
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
How would this finding affect getting a refund from system vendors or MSFT for purchasing a PC with Windows pre-installed?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Is it a viable long-term alternative? AT&T could be reasonably broken up thusly because individual Baby Bells were regionally separated, but wouldn't the Baby Bills rather rapidly squeeze each other out of the market -- or is there some legal way of ensuring that Baby Bills remain mutually competitive, rather than having one of them emerge as the Big Bill?
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Let's say that George W. Bush gets elected, and as I have been told he is wont to do, embraces a laissez-faire, hands-off style of conservatism which places a more conservative judge on the Supreme Court (assuming one or more of the present justices were to die or step down). Let's assume further that these judges feel that Microsoft has done nothing so wrong as to merit real punitive action.
/. masses, by the way. Thanks in advance for considering my question.)
What is to stop such a bench from favoring Microsoft and their beyond-hardball tactics? Are Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact so unassailable that, by the rules of the game (as it were), their content cannot be ignored or overruled even by a higher court? (from the paucity of cases that I have read in classes, it seems that the Supreme Court justices can do just about anything short of striking down an existing law) Moreover, if justice is actually meted out, is it possible for Microsoft to simply buy enough senators/congressmen that new laws protecting their investments in the role of Digital Media Broker To The World will favor MS or the Baby Bills?
In short, "Can this finding be made to stick, even with all of Microsoft's money aligned against it, and even in light of a potentially conservative government coming to the fore? If so, why?"
(I'm thrilled that a group of high-powered antitrust lawyers can find the time to read questions from the unwashed
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Now, the question: Which do you think is more likely, Microsoft settling or appealing?
--
If they were to break up Microsoft into seperate companies, a la AT&T, what would the most likely dividing line be? Would it be more likely that there would be 500 different COs for each app/platform or perhaps just an OS branch and a "Applications" branch.
Jackson has been very careful about this entire case. He seems to take it very seriously (even he if has laughed at MS's court room follies). He has stressed settlements on several occasions and even the unusual separation of FoF and FoL pushes for settlement talks. The limited number of witnesses is another factor he employed to speed the process. Since speed of resolution appears to be a theme with Jackson, what sort of remedies could be used to force MS to move towards a rapid final conclusion?
Oh - my login in slothmonster (can't remember the password). If you are only submitting non-AC posts please consider this as non-AC.
Given the pervasiveness of MS software in both consumer and business areas, how realistically damaging can any punishments handed out to MS be?
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Many people seem to be considering the breakup of Microsoft into 2 or more separate companies as the most likely outcome of all this. However, would that really do us any good? Let's say you broke them up into an OS division and an APPS division. What is to stop the OS folks from sharing their secret API's with the APPS company? Would we not just be right back where we are now? What would all of you recommend as a solution that would allow MS to survive, but not as a predator that destroys all competition and stifles true innovation?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
In reading Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, it appears that he is repeating a lot of his arguments from the earlier consent decree case regarding the tying of Internet Explorer. That opinion was rejected by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision marked by particularly blunt language about the advisability of judges ruling on new product features.
There has been discussion (on MSNBC, the AP, and the NY Times) observing that if Microsoft appeals, the Dept. of Justice can move to have the appeal heard directly by the Supreme Court--avoiding review (and the consequent delay) by the Second Circuit. There has also been a suggestion floated around that the Second Circuit in general views Judge Jackson as "a lightweight" and "stupid"--hinting that if the Second Circuit gets this case they may well spank Judge Jackson again.
Can you elucidate on this? Would the Dept. of Justice try to avoid review by the Second Circuit? Would the Supremes accept the case? Would they send it back to Jackson, or could they send it to the Second Circuit?
And on top of that, based on your experience, could you provide some handicapping of the likely sympathies of the players?
(Thanks for agreeing to the interview. Given that the last interviewee still has smouldering tailfeathers, I think you're all pretty brave to do this. [smile])
How much of an impact would a successful conviction of Microsoft have outside the US?
Obviously if the company was sanctioned, it would affect its operations worldwide, but I'm thinking more in terms of compensation for customers (what in the US would be a class action suit).
Gerv
Since there is a good chance that this will hit the Supreme Court before all is done, what is the current attitude of the sitting court in regards to anti-trust cases?
Also, what are the chances that this will get some sort of fast track to the Supreme Court? Is a ten year set of appeals inevitable, or could we conceivably be done in a year?
The cake is a pie
Would breaking up MS into OS company, application company, and Internet company, do the trick? Even if OS MS is prevented from competing in the application market, one of the main strengths of MS Office is its use of undocumented Windows APIs. Both App-MS and OS-MS would still benefit from MS Office continuing this practice, so can the breakup along departmental lines be actually a solution to the MS monopoly?
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
It's been suggested that breaking up Microsoft into so-called "Baby Bills" would not be an effective method of undercutting the abusive monopoly powers that MS holds. One alternative method that has been suggested is to force Microsoft to fully disclose and support all their programming APIs. Mind you, just interfaces, no implementation details.
What legal precedent, if any, is there for this course of action, and what legal 'issues' can we expect to see as a result if this action is taken ?
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
what do you think are the chances of MS being forced to release the source of Windows under a GPL-like license and different Windows Distrobutions popping up? and if you answer yes to that question, how will that affect linux? will we just gobble up the good and throw out the bad, or will we continue to fight for the desktop space?
I post links to stuff here
What cards would MS be able to pull in order to stop a possible open sourcing of it's software?
And in economic terms, what would this bring about? ie, is it possible to speculate that microsoft would lose a lot and very quickly were this to happen?
Hi, Many people seems to be satisfied about the outcome of the trial so far. But, can the damage that has been caused by MS be undone? Both from a techinical and commercial point of view. regards
/* Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. The choice is yours. */
Since the first ruling has come out, some in the press have been saying that findings of fact cannot be appealed. Others say that the findings can be appealed, but that the chances for success in such an appeal are unlikely.
Please set the record straight for us -- can findings of fact be appealed, in general, and what are the criteria for overturning these findings? In the Microsoft case in particular, please speculate for us: is it likely that Microsoft will choose to appeal the findings of fact? If they do appeal, what attack are they likely to pursue, and what do you feel their chances of success are?
--JT
When I re-read this comment, I realized that I was ambiguous in said passage. What I meant was, "the Justices can use as justification for their rulings just about anything, short of arbitrarily flouting an existing, Constitutionally upheld piece of legislature passed by the representatives of the people in good faith and by the correct process". Eg. Potter (?) writing "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it".
I'm curious whether a majority of the judges could concievably say "I don't know what a leveraged monopoly looks like, but this isn't it. Remanded to the lower court for further consideration."
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
In light of the recent DOJ's FoF, what would you advise someone to do if they had invested monies in Microsoft Stock? It sounds like a split would help Bill but what about the rest of the stock holders in general?
I have read a lot about the varying clauses in the antitrust law, like the ability for the DoJ to take the MSFT case right to the Supreme Court and bypass the lower Appelate judges that have been more compassionate towards MSFT's "plight" than have the regular courts.
What do you feel are the chances of something like that happening? Do you think it is likely that the DoJ will allow the case to continue if MSFT attempts to appeal the FoF before the rest of the trial is over? What do you think the impact of the other class action suits arleady being brought against MSFT after the FoF was released is going to have, if any, on the final stages of the case?
This isn't specifically an antitrust matter, but since most of the panelists are lawyers I figured I'd ask it:
One of the most startling things about this trial was how utterly inept Microsoft's defense seemed. Who do you think is at fault there -- Sullivan & Cromwell, MS leadership or both? I find it hard to believe that such a prestigious firm could keep botching things so badly, especially when the media were full of stories ridiculing them. My guess is that MS wanted the defense to go a certain way (give no ground on any front) and the lawyers felt obliged to go along. What do you think?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
What are the real chances that any of the following will happen, as has been speculated:
1 Breakup of Microsoft
2 Escalation of appeals directly to the Supreme Court
__
Is it possible for Microsoft to stipulate in the settlement that "all independent civil lawsuits", from private citizens / corporations be null and void?
If Microsoft IS broken up, how far can / will the Government go towards preventing a reassimilation of the Baby Bills?
Is there any legal way to force Bill Gates, or others, into retirement?
Might there be independent civil or criminal lawsuits for the individuals responsible for the more flagrant violations?
_______________________________
The New York Times recently had an article that called into question the notion that Judge Jackson's finding of fact are indeed bullet proof. Specifically, they mentioned that previous rulings by other appeals courts could possibly counter some of Judge Jackson's findings, creating the strong possibility for an appeal. These issues included the idea that consumers are or are not benefitted by the tying of two products.
In this light, how easy will it be for Microsoft to appeal these finding successfully? How useful are the previous rulings by other appeals courts in deciding the validity of the new findings of fact?
What are the chances of M$ competition (both solvent and bankrupt, in business and out) successfully pursuing damages against Microsoft? Further, what about a consumer class action lawsuit - is it possible under current antitrust law? Where would liability fall if M$ is busted into Baby Bills, either by product/market or into vertical clones? Also, what would prevent one Baby Bill from gobbling up the rest, via fair and competitive business practices?
I am, therefore you think.
Personally, I think this trial couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.
But it also has given me pause to think on a thing or two.
1. Could this open up Microsoft to not only class action lawsuits but other lawsuits from companies claiming that the monopoly has damaged them so that it need compensation to recup the damages it has suffered. If so.. and these lawsuits become rampant, could we possibly see Microsoft file for reorganization? With MS stock now being part of the Dow Jones.. how would that effect our economy, in a time where the slighest rumor of interest rate hikes send investors in to a frenzy?
2. Could we be seeing the end of MS as the "Big Blue" of the 90's possibly passing the torch to AOL? If so, could this set precedent that AOL might be accused of having an unfair monopoly with it's aquisition of COmpuserve, and basically squashing the other ISP (should it ever come to that?).
GIHM -The light at the end of the tunnel is only the oncoming train.
I know a lot of people here (including myself) would like to see the breakup of Microsoft a'la the AT&T breakup. However, it appears to me that a breakup is not warranted given the limited scope of the Findings of Fact.
Given the Findings, do you believe that Judge Jackson may be leaning towards some other form of relief, such as perhaps banning Microsoft from engaging in coersive activities in order to squash "middleware" and otherwise limit activities by it's competitors which may not be in Microsoft's own interests?
(eg: Financial impacts in their local areas, if Microsoft were de-throned, or any political cries from the Senate or House of Representitives)
In short, is there a whelk's chance in a supernova of there being a neutral, unbiased appeal, or are we in for a kangaroo court, one way or the other?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ok,
Looking at the presidence the breakup of Ma Bell (the last big monopoly), does the judge have the leeway to force Microsoft to open up their operationg system? I.e., Since Bell had a monopolistic control on the phone lines, the court said that they had to share the infrastructure with competitors. Could the same be applied here? Since the ruling states Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system, could they be forced to open up Windows??
If the company is broken up, will their certification be nullified as well--especially if different "pieces" of the certification fall to different companies?
Respectfully,
--SpookComix
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
I keep seeing that phrase ("Tough but fair") repeated in press item Microsoft has any hand in. There seems to be the mentality that anything not explicitly illegal is fair game -- is this accurate? Is it accurate for both monopolies and non-monopolies?
If Microsoft is split up, it seems whatever company Gates went to would have a huge advantage in terms of regaining a dominant position. Customers would be inclined to view Bill's company as the "real" Microsoft. And I beleive that many employees of the other Baby Bills would leave their companies for Big Bill's. The fact that Gates would own about 15-20% of all these companies complicates the matter even further.
Given the above and the fact that Microsoft's illegal behavior starts at the top, is there any recourse to keep Bill Gates (and possible Steve Balmer) from participating in the day-to-day operations of any future version of Microsoft?
--Tim
To prevent M$ to drag things in court while continuing to go around hacking, slashing and killing the competition and thus making any final ruling moot/non-applicable/whatever, would it be possible for the DOJ and judge Jackson to impose measures that could apply *RIGHT NOW* and could not be tied/countered in appeals?
Can "special legal measures" (some form of decree) be taken before a final ruling is issued?
Like, say, forbidding M$ (actually, the OEMs) to bundle M$ applications with its M$ "OS", if OEM x-y-z chooses to include M$ Win9x-NT?
Or in other words, absolutely no OA suite bundled with a computer, and finding a way to ensure that non-M$ apps/suites get equal shelf space and placement in stores?
Considering that bundling is M$'s platinum cash cow (come on, it's beyond a simple cash cow, it ensures boatloads of $$$ for M$ and garanties mindshare -- why look for something else to replace an M$ product that came bundled with your computer?), cutting down on the bundling would reduce M$'s supply of oxygen and give a competition a better chance (but not garanties) to reach the consumer.
Whatever the outcome of the trial is, measures must be taken RIGHT NOW(!!!) so that the competition can have a chance of survival. As long as M$ gets to the consumer first and blocks the competition from the main channels to the consumers, we will not be any further...
When Microsoft is split up, how will this affect companies that depend on "integrated solutions". The most obvious split for Microsoft might be O/S and applications - but this could be subdivided much further. This is sure to hurt consumers (no matter how wrong-headed they are for buying the products in the first place, etc) with large existing investments.
What about stock price? It is clear that someone has been propping up Microsoft's stock since the announcement - if it kept on falling as it was, this could have had a serious impact on the stock market and possibly the industry at large (due to the way indices are calculated.
To summarise:
These questions will have to be addressed sooner or later in our brave new world of "NanoSofts"
(My question is in boldface, at the end of this post. You may ignore my observations if you like.)
Ever since the Finding of Fact was released, I've been thinking about this one scene from a story I read a couple years ago. The lead vampire, strongest and most vicious creature in the land, is finally defeated when the hordes of zombies he created are turned against him. He easily fights off the first few, but they keep coming, wave after wave, a nick here, a scratch there, until he is finally torn asunder.
Take one incredibly deep pocketed corporation. Add in thousands of unprofitable Internet companies, all with venture capitalists screaming for some way to get their money back. Now toss in a tremendous number of lawyers, each desperate to feed at the Trough of Infinite Wealth, and you have a potential legal evisceration of one of the country's most powerful companies.
I may be a Linux supporter, but I try to be consistent. Abuse and overuse of the legal system genuinely isn't all that productive, and is often used to replace that oft-repeated concept of "Innovation". (Witness Unisys's exploitation of GIF without a single byte of optimized GIF generation code coming out of them, and other entirely corrupt abuses of the USPTO.)
I want to see something done to check the abuses of Microsoft, but I don't want to see the company converted into a liquidation sale for hungry lawyers and startups that (sadly) didn't have much of a working business plan in the first place. Thus my question:
Is it a) Legally possible and b) Remotely conceivable that Microsoft and the U.S. Government will come to a settlement that will insulate Microsoft from any and all lawsuits based upon their abuses over the last ten years?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
What is the legal importance of the Findings of Fact for other current or new lawsuits against Microsoft? Does the FoF lower the bar of evidence that a plaintif would have to demonstrate in a damages or illegal practices claim? If so, is this limited only to the companies named in the FoF (Caldera, Sun, IBM, Netscape), or would other companies also be able to find some support in the FoF? Does this open Microsoft to increased legal risks?
If not -- why don't the "facts" found in the FoF apply to other cases.
Related question (also asked elsewhere), what is the appealability of the FoF as compared with any remedies or damages which might be levied against Microsoft?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
My understanding is that will next be a verdict followed by the remedy phase.
What are the applicable statutes that apply to Microsoft's behavior? Is it limited to the Sherman Act and the Consent Decree, or is there a boatload of other law that has to be taken into account?
Regarding the remedy phase, I presume that that the DOJ and the state attorneys general will have some recommmendations. Is the judge limited to the scope of these recommendations, or is he free to devise whatever remedy he sees fit? If the judge does have a free hand, what are the limitations to his remedies?
Thanks.
If the next President were favorably disposed towards Microsoft's side what power can he exert to ensure a good outcome for them? Can he order the Attorney General to drop the case?
I see Microsofts transgresses as a /behavioral/ problem. Many proposed solutions, such as opening their source, or breaking MS into smaller MSs, do not address this central problem, and thus will not be successful strategies. Are there any legal mechanisms by which Microsoft can be restrained from /behaving/ in the detrimental way it has in the past (coercing OEMs, making exclusionary pacts, "blackmailing" other companies, embracing-extending-extinguishing technologies), but at the same time not hamper its, and its competitors', ability to innovate and compete in the computer industry? It seems to me, we have to pick the lesser of the two evils of Microsoft's bad behavior and (possibly misguided) government intervention.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What do you think of the possibility of fall-out
lawsuits from harmed companies, and class-actions
on behalf of consumers will be (a) if the DOJ case
goes to decision, and (b) if it's settled?
Is there any compelling reason for Microsoft to
worry about similar suits in other countries? Has
there traditionally been a follow-on of suits in
non-US courts when a company such as IBM was found
to be abusing a monopoly status?
What are the chances for the DOJ to settle
given the fact that litigating the case fully
will set precident? Do you agree or disagree
with the premise that it should be litigated
rather than settled to provide precident?
Thanks,
Paul
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
I know that this is a question many linux users will have. Since, for the past few years, PC
(as the findings of fact define PC) owners have had to pay a higher price for their PCs because of unwanted Microsoft software, like windows and IE. I think that alternative Operating system users, or even just netscape users, would have a case for a class action suit. Please let me know what you think.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
The FoF concentrates on MS's protection of the Windows API, and describes the attempt to force acceptance of IE in order to avoid losing control of 3rd party apps.
The economist article describes a possible break-up remedy where MS's internet interests are discarded and the application software division is separated, in order to create an stable, open API to the Windows OS. This shows that some other opinion also concentrates on MS's monopoly in this area.
However, MS also has an effective monopoly in the Word document format, and if IE usage continues to grow in the browser market they will also have sufficient control of web-related network protocols to provide a monopoly position there, too. This is already apparent in the number of sites (especially service sites such as banks) which will work only with IE or Windows due to the use of proprietary plugins or extensions.
Is it possible to produce a judgement which will also restrict MS's monopoly (or potential monopoly) in these areas too, or will it have to address only the OS API, perhaps leaving an applications company intact to pursue the same damaging strategies ?
I've seen mentioned in several different places now a special law that allows government anti-trust prosecuters to fast-track appealed decisions to the Supreme Court. One of the things that is mentioned is that, if this were to happen, it would likely be determined that the state's portion of the case could not follow it.
Should the appeals process be split like this (seperating the states from the DOJ), what happens? If the two appeals trials become seperate entities, what happens if there are mixed decisions? (one upholding the ruling, one opposing)
Do you think this will look like IBM (long,
drawn out with no real decision made), or T
(long drawn out with an eventual decision)
in terms of what eventually happens to MSFT?
In other words, what is the gov't most likely
to do?
How long do you think it will take the gov't
to make a decision on what to do?
If it takes over 1 year, how relevant do you
think the decision will be?
Judge Jackson's FOF singled out Bill Gates in several places as the instigator of Microsoft's monopolistic actions. Some have seen this as suggesting that Gates may suffer some of the penalties from this suit.
My understanding is that as an officer of a corporation, Gates is shielded from any liability in any suit of law against MS. Is my understanding correct? Could Gates be held liable & punished with fines, or being forced to divest his MS stock holdings -- or similar penalties?
Could another lawsuit use this FOF & put Gates at risk for penalties?
(Sorry if the above sounds convoluted when the title basically says it all.)
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
Many of the opinions I've seen have defended Microsoft's business practices and do not think they should be found in violation of antitrust laws; however, they have accepted the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly. Since the Antitrust laws apply to a company's actions in a defined market during a defined time period, is it safe to assume that regardless of how they achieved their market dominance, Microsoft should be subject to the applicable laws just as any other company with a monopoly would?
This seems like a simple question, but many of the pundits appear to assume that a decade of legal actions can't lead add up to one or more illegal actions.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
If the decision is to the detriment of MS, what do you think about the possibility that they'd move to another country with laxer anti-trust laws?
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
We have read recently that there may be laws on the books to speed up the appeals process for anit-trust style cases by sending it directly to the Supreme Court. Assuming that the case under Judge Jackson turns unfavorably for either side, which side would side would have the most to gain these laws? (i.e. Would MS prefer to drag thongs out or would they be confident that the Supreme Court would see things their way? Would the DOJ try to hamstring MS in the appeals process by forcing the decision to the top?)
I'll never be as good as I want to be. I can only be as good as I am.
The original Anti Trust Acts were developed to protect small farmers and businesses from predatory actions by trusts--Standard Oil regulating who got railroad tank cars, for instance, so small oil producers couldn't compete.
Can Microsoft argue that Judge Jackson is misapplying the law? Jerry Pournelle cogently points out that Microsoft's presence in any market category has consistently driven prices lower. He particularly points out that Microsoft has been remarkably aggressive in providing tools and support to developers--handing out developer tools for free to anybody who even looked like a programmer.
Microsoft has spent zillions of dollars providing tools and support to tens of thousands of small businesses through their ISV and Microsoft Certified Solution Provider program. Other vendors that have emulated those programs don't provide nearly as much, and charge much, much more for their programs.
Judge Jackson's finding that Microsoft's actions have hurt competition seems to be predicated on the idea that (variously) Apple, IBM, Netscape, and Sun are the competition. But doesn't a small consulting firm (say...mine) that employs a few people and uses Microsoft's tools to compete (successfully, I might add) with IBM, Oracle, and others, better represent the small business that the Anti Trust laws were written to protect?
If MS is required to open up their API's then So What!? We still have to write software for an MS operating system if we want our software to sell. If MS is broken up then how does that help the consumers? So isn't the big question this: "What can we legaly do to Microsoft that will actually help the end user?" Opening up the API doesn't help my Mom who will never write a line of code in her life. Spitting up MS doesn't help me who still has to send my documents and slide show in MS Word and MS PowerPoint because that's what everyone else uses. Isn't Microsoft's existing monopoly so big that it's already crushing future competition?
Even if the courts do penalize Microsoft in an appropriate and significant way, what do you think should be done to stop other companies waiting in the sidelines from becoming the next monopoly (Sun and AOL come to mind?).
Can the courts force *everybody* to open up their APIs and/or file formats? To me, this seems the only way to stop companies from using the Network Effect for their own gain and fortune...
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
How many different companies could MS be feasibly broken up into? It looks like the DOJ might be cool with 2 (applications/internet, and Operating systems). Who could lead the companies? Wouldn't MS have to split up the execs? Could Gates or Ballmer be involved in both companies?
It has been reported that the Anti-Tobacco guys are ready to submit their case by December. Their case, as reported, is not in support of consumers but, by and for the competitors of Microsoft. Is this another attempt to line their pockets (the lawyers) or does it have merit? What will the consumer get by this action? Or better yet, benefit from the case? -dutch
How might the break-up of Microsoft (MS) differ from those landmark anti-trust cases with regard to stock? Specifically (and my lack of historical knowledge shows here) what kind of damages were ATT and SO facing? As I understand it, ATT and SO were basically monopolies that prevented entry, but did they bully smaller companies a la MS?
I guess my underlying question is this: given MS' bullying tactics, would a break-up of MS be different from those of ATT and SO because of all the people MS has stepped on along the way who are now looking to loot the MS coffers in compensation for years of abuse? Could this be a critical difference between those earlier decisions and this one, or is this nothing new? ie. were there companies like AOL, Sun, etc. around ready to pounce on ATT or SO when they were ruled against?
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
If you break up the company into OS, Internet, and Apps, the OS company can still "integrate" features as it sees fit, and the appeals court has already shot down the previous restrictions on "integration".
If you break it up into Baby Bills, then either they would fragment badly (doing consumer damage), or one would emerge as dominant, and we are back to square one...
You could impose restrictions (full API disclosure, open licensing), but these are hard to patrol - witness the efforts put into hiding undocumented APIs in the past.
I am kind of in favor of breaking up the company into component parts and then imposing restrictions - the incentive to overcome the restrictions is minimized by the lack of cross-functionality in each new group. Where do you think the balance lies? Are there any effective alternatives you feel haven't been discussed?
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
What are the chances of Microsoft being forced to open the entire source code to Windows, not just its APIs? Some articles I've read/listened to bandied that about as a possible solution.
:)
What sort of software licence would an "opened Windows" be most likely to employ?
What would the short- and long-term effects of such a release be? (Other than a sudden dreadful attrition of open source programmers as about half of those who take a look at the Windows source code die laughing.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Sorry folks, but the judge did not address this issue at all in the FoF. I remember reading about ever-changing APIs and IBM trying to catch up, but nowhere did it say that some APIs are closed (a large number in fact). So, given that, I don't see the judge dering MS to open up their APIs an keep thenm that way.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
I, as well as a number of other people, I'd wager, think that a breakup of Microsoft could actually be more harmful by replacing a large monopoly with a number of smaller ones (ala AT&T and the Baby Bells). Yet from what I read, it seems that that is what they are going for.
My question is, do you think it will be more likely that this will result in a breakup (if it results in anything), or some other action. If so, what?
[Seoman] "A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking."
1) What are the chances that the Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal? And what justifications are they likely use should they decline the appeal? I remember hearing that the Supreme Court prefers to only hear cases with constitutional implications- could the Supreme Court refuse the appeal based simply on that (and a full schedule)?
2) What implications would this have on the Caldera/DR-DOS lawsuit against Microsoft?
IANAL, but AFAIK, the proscecution has filed a complaint regarding a specific violation or set of violations. Judge Jackson can only impose a judgement that addresses the violation(s) discussed in this case. For example, since no evidence (presented this time around) alleged how Microsoft might have abused its Windows monopoly to push Office, does that mean Judge Jackson cannot impose a remedy splitting OSs and applications into different companies?
To me, the most significant aspect of the Findings of Fact was Jackson's constant use of the phrase, "application barrier to entry." It seems to me as if the judge is using this concept, rather than the narrow Netscape vs. IE browser war, to broaden the scope of the trial, and thus the remedies open to him.
So, how broad a scope can Judge Jackson's potential remedies address? --PSRC
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Will the ruling in this case directly impact the Caldera vs. Microsoft case? It seems already that the Judge's findings of fact should provide a significant advantage to Caldera's case, concerning the dirty tricks employed by Microsoft to run DR DOS out of town. And if the Caldera vs. Microsoft case were to finish before the Govt. vs. Microsoft case, would the former case's outcome be a significant weight in the latter case's outcome?
RFC2119
Can the federal court unilaterally impose the GPL on the Windows (95/98,NT,CE) source code?
Would this be more or less effective than trying to break up the corporation?
How would the court deal with parts of the source code that MS licensed from third parties?
1) I've heard that the finding of fact is pretty much untouchable, and I've heard that it can be moderately easily overturned on appeal. Can you tell me how easily overturned this would be, and why?
2) Judging from the Finding of Fact (and economic factors), how harsh do you believe a final verdict from Judge Jackson will be (assuming that the final verdict is that Microsoft did, indeed break the law)? Not in terms of the details (what fines, etc), but rather in terms of "Wrist Slap" or "MS will need to file for Chapter 11" (and everything in between) type of terms.
3) I've also heard that MicroSoft would be very interested in settling before a final ruling by Judge Jackson. Failure to settle before then would mean that the Finding of Fact would stand as is, and be admissible in other courts as evidence against MicroSoft. This is actually a multi-part question, but here goes: a) When this case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices have the option of overturning any verdict from Judge Jackson (which is likely to be hard on Microsoft, from what I and others have read). Will the Findings of Fact still be admissible in other courts? b) Is this document admissible as evidence until then? c) Will it be admissable in case of a settlement?
Sorry to have asked so many, but they are all closely related, and I felt belonged in the same post as one group of questions.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Do you think that it is healthy for the country that the government step in and take action? Could there be nasty legal precedence set in the technology market if Microsoft is broken up that could bite us back big time in the long term?
Is there anything stopping MS from picking up shop, leaving the US and becoming a foriegn-based company? Of course, they might still have most of their operations in Redmond--Corel is in this situation where their "head office" is in Europe (Ireland?) but they clearly do most of their work in Ottawa.
Would this put them beyond the reach of the DOJ and negate the whole process?
While the finding of fact greatly increases the
change of a lawsuit against Microsoft getting
damages awarded, most of us (including small
companies) could never afford to do such a thing.
However, class action suits were designed for
such instances. Do you feel there will be class
action suits against Microsoft and how will they
affect Slashdot readers? What is the precedent
for such action in monopoly cases?
----- obSig
Of these options, which do you feel are likely to be taken, and why (or why not)? Furthermore, which of these options should be taken, and which shouldn't? Again, why on all of that.
I'd like to thank you all for taking the time to do this. I know enough of the law to get myself in trouble, and appreciate the opportunity to hear from people who have actually studied these areas of law.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
It is very obvious that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that it abuses and has abused it's power in the marketplace. The question is did it hurt consumers? I'm no big fan of the company, but it seems that it may be pretty hard to "prove" that Microsoft hurt the consumer. What are "legal views" on this matter? What if MS settles? Does that damage the other cases against MS (the dr. dos case and Caldera I believe are still pending)?
What courts is this case likely to cross before its resolution? Do you feel they are likely to take a more Microsoft-friendly stance? How long is this thing going to drag on, anyway?
314-15-9265
Assuming a punishment of Microsoft comes out of all this... I see a problem in designing a punishment for Microsoft that does not also punish innocent stockholders.
It would seem that justice would be better served by somehow punishing individuals at Microsoft. It is my understanding that the actions of individuals are not necessarily protected by the fact that their company is incorporated. What is the likelihood of personal punishments? If the likelihood is non-zero, what sort of punishments are likely?
Even if a punishment does not come out of this, it seems to be an injustice that most of the proposed actions (e.g., restructuring into baby-bills) would result in greater personal wealth for the officers of Microsoft. What could be done to ensure justice is served?
For any slashdotter: Would having the source code allow linux developers to implement some sort of layer that would allow windows drivers to work under linux too? Seems like an easy way to get 100% hardware compatibility.
...what settlement would you propose making with the DOJ?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
There are a number of clear misrepresentations made in the video, including a Microsoft executive saying "We have not made any other changes to this computer or Windows 98, except to run Dr. Felten's program." Microsoft later admitted that this was not true.
As Judge Jackson did not mention this apparent falsification of evidence in the Finding of Fact, is it unlikely that this incident will be used to prejudge Microsoft in appeals?
What do you think of my proposed remedies? How likely would any of these be to full implementation? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would require that the source code for all Windows or any Microsoft operating system be licensed to developers so that all applications are written on a level playing field. Right now MS applications for MS operating systems have an advantage over any other competitor application. I would also require that any OEM or computer reseller be obligated to carry at least 2 operating systems for every type of PC they offer, i.e., not just offer Linux as a server PC and, of course, one of operating systems must not be a Microsoft product. The buyer should decide which operating system he/she would like instead of having one of Microsoft's OSs forced down everyone's throat. I would also make it absolutely illegal for an OEM to charge for an OS which the buyer does not want; hence I would make it illegal for Microsoft to force OEMs into exclusionary contracts and licenses which result in a per system fee for Microsoft products and therefore, burden the customer with footing the bill for Microsoft's ubiquitous and often unwanted software. Consumers currently have no choice in OSs because there are not many applications written for alternative platforms. I would make all software companies required to write for at least 2 operating systems and one of these operating systems must not be Microsoft related. I believe this will increase the number of applications available for Linux and BeOS, etc. I would finally require that any "innovation" (read: "integration") which in and of itself is similar to or equal to a separate application offered by a competitor not be allowed to be "integrated" into the operating system. If all of these requirements are set in place and implemented, I believe computer end-users will finally have real choice in the applications and the operating systems which they choose. I believe that some of these requirements would put costly burdens on OEMs and Software developers and other companies that may be affected so as part of the remedy, I would force Microsoft to pay for the extra costs of adding more developers, programmers, etc., and/or the cost of changing contracts, lawyer fees and any other costs incurred by 3rd party venders, resellers, etc., as a result of instituting these changes. Finally, any costs incurred by Microsoft as a result of a remedy to the antitrust action, must not be allowed to be used as a tax write-off.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
The Findings of Fact in the Microsoft case, and the impending decision, have sparked a lot of controversey in the last week. In addition to debate over the correctness of the findings, and the possible outcome, there has been much talk about modern antitrust law and its relation to the "free market" economic model.
While I personally disagree, sites such as microsoft.aynrand.org (among many others) staunchly maintain that the antitrust laws used in the prosecution of Microsoft are in fact inimical to a free market. They argue that Microsoft should be left alone, not because of PR Marketing BS like the "freedom to innovate", but because they feel that market forces should ultimately (and are already starting to) make the final decision.
More specifically, some propose that modern antitrust law has become less appropriate or relevant to the high pace of the technology marketplace, and may be in need of revision to more accurately perform its desired function. Do you feel that antitrust law is still effective in the changing atmosphere of modern business, and if not, what changes do you feel could be made to increase its effectiveness?
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
- CTalkobt ( A.C. b/c of too many (&*&(^% passwords ).
What are Microsoft's chances if they appeal, especially what are the chances of the Expediting Act to be applied?
--Coke
I was talking with my neighbor, who runs a commercial plumbing business, and he was very concerned that the remedies may involve long-term government intervention or monitoring. I agree with him that this would be a bad thing.
What is the likelihood that the remedies will be structured as a single "whack in the head with a two-by-four", as opposed to the equivalent of having the fat kid sit on Bill's head for the rest of his life?
Judge Jackson defined a operationg system as output of text only, will this effect M$ defense in the DR-DOS case?
Shaun Savage
One of the more drastic remedies suggested on slashdot (compatible with its open source stance) has been to open up the source to Win95 / Win98 / WinNT: this could affect MS revenues drastically. To what extent would this be a deterrent to the courts? Is impact on revenues likely to guide the courts at all?
Mark Murray, Microsoft spokesman, recently gave an interview in which he said that the Findings of Facts "do not have any weight or bearing on any other lawsuit" until the judge issues his final ruling. Is this true? [link to the Mark Murray article]
--Coke
The Microsoft Anti-trust case is different from the Standard Oil and AT&T cases in many important areas.
Most importantly, Standard Oil and AT&T controled virtually the entire infrastructure to their industries, making entry close to impossible. While Microsoft has been proven to misuse its monopoly power... it really controls little infrastructure. The barriers to entry in its business (and businesses) are relatively low compared to those cases (and also compared to other industries of today). The bariers have been in the form of actual "fear" of competing with Microsoft, rather than a real barrier in of itself.
Despite their underhanded tactics we are already starting to see competitors in Microsoft's primary business (in the form of BSD, linux and a few others)... isn't this proof that little action really needs to be taken? Yes, they should be punished for past abuse of monopoly power, but isn't the nature of their business one that allows entrance, competition and the nature of a business cycle at a much higher level then our other anti-trust case, thus making further anti-trust actions unnesecary?
What impact will the findings of fact and whatever action is taken have on anti-trust laws in general?
It is my understanding that at least part of this lawsuit is based on the new economic model that a monopoly must be redefined for high-tech or otherwise interdependent economies.[1] For example, if you are a company I do business with, I don't care what type of company cars you give your employees, but I do care what type of PC software you run. If my software is incompatible with yours, this makes our communication more difficult and you may go elsewhere for the services I provide. Since the large majority of businesses use Windows/Office, I too must use those to ensure ``optimal'' compatibility in communications (etc.) between my company and the companies I interact with.
Therefore, if everything goes as it seems it is going to, will ``monopoly'' receive a more general, powerful definition and the possibility of this happening again (with another Microsoft-like monopoly) be lessened since the courts will be forced to recognize the nature of high-tech economics?
1. I cannot recall the economist who developed this model.
dd
"if you hang the blame on the wall
there'd be a frame around us all" - Jay Farrar
If, indeed, the DOJ calls for the breakup of MS, what is there to stop them from collabourating "behind our backs". As well, it could become a Tech-support nightmare:
"MS-Office Division, may I help you?"
"Yes, I can't delete this psychotic paperclip from my desktop after running MS-Office 2001:A Space Gobbler"
"I am sorry mame, oh sorry, sir, that is a bug in the operating system, please call the MS-OS Division at 1900-suck-dry"
"MS-OS Division, may I help you?"
"Yes, I can't delete this psychotic paperclip from my desktop after running MS-Office 2001:A Space Gobbler. MS-Office Division says it's a bug in the OS."
"I am sorry mame, uh-excuse me, sir. That is not correct, the bug is in the Office software. Please call MS-Office Division at 1900-dry-suck"
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Some of my fellow slashdotter's have expressed contempt for the government intervention in the marketplace that this trial represents, that the eventual, inevitable triumph of Linux over M$ will be a hollow victory if it is achieved over a crippled adversary. Microsoft partisans have likewise voiced concern over needless government intrusion, that Microsoft is being punished for being an effective and competitive company, or even that Justice is merely out to take Bill down a notch. Both of these critiques partake of distrust of government's role in policing the "free" market. The political body has clearly grown increasingly chary about government's role in the marketplace in the last two decades.
It would seem that much of this concern can be attributed to the clumsiness of several high profile anti-trust actions in recent history. I am thinking in particular of the IBM case which seems to have simply outlived the conditions it was attempting to redress. The perception is that government intervention, particularly in the high-tech industries, is inherently futile, that the judiciary and bureaucrats are out of touch with the issues industry faces and consequently the cure is often worse than the disease.
Does it remain true that capital, left to its own devices, will seek a monopoly as its natural development? Does the US government, as the only capable body, have a duty to check this natural development? Does the Sherman Act remain a valid vehicle for effecting this control?
Michael Haarman,
illegitimii non ingravare
Please excuse the anonymous coward, I have created an account to post this comment however the e-mail return has not yet arrived. Also please excuse the format as I am, as yet, unfamiliar with how to format these replies. My nickname is legaleze. My question to the panel involves MS likelyhood of getting relief from whatever orders the District Court may issues pending the inevitable appeal from MS should a non-stipulated final judgment be filed. I'm not involved in federal practice, however I know that if I wanted to stay an order pending appeal (pursuant to [FRCP Rule 62] and susequently [FRAP Rule 8]), I would have to be able to show irreparable harm and some certainty that I would prevail on appeal - or I would have to post a bond to ensure disposition of the order should the appeal fail. I imagine that the same rules are going to apply in the instant matter and it has been my experience that non-bond stays are few and far between. Given the District Court's meticulous FOF, I think it unlikely that a mistake will be made in the COLs and orders that will qualify MS for non-bond relief. What kind of bond would be sufficient to ensure the disposition of some of the orders that are likely to be made???? Will MS get a stay? How, I want to do it too? Bill -
If outcome from this case is Microsoft losing and the DOJ attempting to break the company up, what would be the earliest we could see some results.
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
If the whole purpose of the Anti-Trust laws are to protect the economy and consumers, doesn't the judge need to consider the economic impact of his decision? If the judge is compelled by law to seek punitive action against Microsoft regardless of the repurcussions, wouldn't the country be better served by a settlement negotiated by the DOJ with consideration of the impact? Is that why there is so much talk of a settlement?
In the past, the assets were exclusive; thus only one group could control each asset after the breakup. Could the non-exclusive nature of information change the method of breakup?
In particular, it has been argued that the public of the united states (and the world at large) has already paid for Windows 98 far more than they would have otherwise; all in told billions of dollars more than they would have. So, due to the non-exclusive nature of the operating system; is putting the operating system code in the public domain a possible solution? After all, it is the abuse of the very intent of copyright law (to promote the arts and sciences by providing, for a limited time, exclusive rights) by interfering with the advancement of the arts and sciences which has been proven. Would it not make sence to simply revoke the copyright? Why or why not.
Could opening the source to the operating system and allowing other manufacturers to produce their own versions (also open sourced) be considered a compromise that would allow Microsoft to "continue to innovate," break their monopoly hold on the OS market, and have a neglegable economic impact on Redmond and Washington state?
Linux distrubutions are all based on the same core components, however there seems to be a healthy competition between the distributions even while some of them are making open contributions which their competitors can then incorporate. This seems a logical approach that would be good for all parties involved, even Microsoft, as their OS could become more stable. Is there any chance for this sort of approach to be taken?
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
--Terry Pratchett
I'd like to see a judgement mandate that IE builds also be released for *nix and Mac platforms no later than 6 weeks after the Win32 build for major versions and at the same price(free or not). No later than a week for minor versions/patches under a meaningful penalty.
Would this reverse their high-handed works against Netscape and let me, say, bank on the Web with my OS? Is this within the powers of the judiciary resolution?
Do you think that:
A) The judge will make Bill Gates shave his head, get a "linux rocks" tatoo on his forehead, dress up in womens clothing and travel to all 50 states. While in each state he would have to walk along the marginal of major highways ( In a mini-dress, halter top and black pumps) while holding up a huge sign which states "Linux Rocks and MS Windows sucks big Donkey Dicks"
b) The judge will break up Microsoft.
This parallels a previous question about the effects of a newly-elected president on these preceedings. I am fuzzy on the detail, but I am certain that a president could replace many of the people on the DoJ.
So my questions are: whether or not you think that a more economically conservative president would pressure the DoJ into settling or to accept a lesser punishment, and would campaign contributions from Micro$oft make a candidate more amenable to the aforesaid action.
Thank you for answering our questions.
Due to Microsoft's monopolistic tactics, many people were forced to buy Microsoft Windows bundled with their computer. Many people didn't want the software but were forced to take it to get their computer. If microsoft is judged to be a monopoly, what are the chances of people being able to return Windows that came bundled with their computer for a refund?
The judge has established his version of the facts; but not yet how heavily the seriousness of MS's transgressions weigh against any possible disbenefits of government action.
It seems likely that MS's lawyers would want to argue that, whatever the costs of MS's imperialist behaviour, there are advantages to the Pax Redmondia as a consumer accepted de-facto standard, which would be lost if it were broken up or prevented from further evolving.
Question: Can MS make such a comparison at this level, based on accepting the judges facts but belittling their comparative importance, but still argue against those findings of fact at a higher level on appeal ?
how do you define operating system? One of the articles spoke of the speech recognition software issue. Is this an application or an operating system component? Speech recognition in the past has been sold as an application, kind of like a .wav to .mp3 encoder. Couldn't speech recognition software also be thought of as an input device analagous to a keyboard or a mouse? The more general issue is (assuming a MS breakup) where do you split the lines between os and applications? (word is an application, IE is an application, Explorer is OS but could be made to emulate the functionality of IE) ...Second Question... What could MS do to confuse a reorganization attempt by the feds? Layoffs? consolidate groups (the IE and Explorer groups)? spin off sympathetic startup companies of key products (backoffice or office)? -red
I got a call last night from some guy who asked me if I'd heard of the Microsoft Trial. Not being blind and deaf, I said yes of course. He then asked if I wanted to take a phone survey.
:-)
Normally I say no to this stuff, but my interest got the better of me and I said yes. What followed was one of the most biased surveys I have ever taken.
As I was taking this, it was obvious that the guy was reading questions off a computer screen, and really didn't grasp the nature of many of the questions. Also, there was a lot of noise in the background. LOTS of noise, to the extent that I could tell others were asking the same questions to even more people. It was a large scale survey.
Anyway, first he asked background info. Basically it wanted to know how well you understand computers and technology.
Then it asked about the M$ trial. Do you know about the finding of fact? Do you agree with it? Have you read it? Do you watch the news? Do you read a national newspaper?
Then the Microsoft bias set in.
I heard questions like, "Given that the breakup of Microsoft would hurt the consumer and stifle innovation, do you agree that the government should not pursue the case any further, and do you think that the government should try for a settlement, as Microsoft has been advocating for months? Yes or no please."
I'm not joking. It was just that bad. After each one of the most biased questions, he asked the same question again, "Do you think that Microsoft has hurt the consumer?"
That one was repeated a lot, along with "Do you think the government should settle and not waste taxpayer money," and "Do you think M$ is a monopoly?"
Anyway, I got through the whole thing with my sense of morals pretty much untarnished, even having to say things like "Yes, taxpayer money should be wasted to beat that Bill Gates bastard down," because I simply couldn't cope with some of those questions.
Anyway, I thought this somehow might be relevant to the discussion at hand regarding all the m$ hubbub.
Warning: If M$ comes out with survey results of the American public anytime soon, you now know to take that with a grain of salt, don't ya?
Otto
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Then I guess one has to wonder: I'd think a breakup would wind up eventually being a good thing for current MS shareholders all other things being equal (unlocking value and all that - look at what's happened to the Baby Bells since AT&T's divestiture, plus I'd figure the growth possibilities on MS employees' options would improve).. but all that stock being dumped, hoo boy.. maybe putting MS in the DJIA wasn't such a hot idea just now. (like it or not, many of us are MS investors thru 401k investments, funds, etc; MS is currently the single largest component of the S&P500).
It has been shown that MS can't play in the sandbox.
what do you do to a kid that can't play in the sandbox? you take away the sandbox. make the kid sit in his room until he learns to play nice.
sollution:
take away Micro$oft's ability to release new products. "I'm sorry bill, you can't release W2k. go to your room". Make them support ALL of their products and only allow bug fixes/upgrades through the use of free service packs.
let's see how long they will last as the ant under the microscope.
I've heard over and over again from mainstream media that the weekest point of the finding of fact is the impact on consumers. How do you address these pundits that say there has been no finding of damage for the consumers and that a win on appeal is likely?
Will the results of the goverment case have any effect on Caldera's case brought against MicroSoft seeking damages to DR-DOS?
Just for the record, I'm in Mexico...
I am a BeOS and RH user at home and an NT admin at work. I use what I want at home and what I have to at work.
Even though Microsoft is a monopoly, does anyone care besides the obvious groups? Do the "normal" people down at the grocery store care?
When ATT was getting the monopoly treatment from the feds, they had to dump money into Bell Labs. When IBM was in trial, they dumped more money into research also. Since this has not worked with MS, why do you think this happened? Was it because they ruthlessly crushed the competition? IBM and ATT got away with that for a lot longer than MS has. Intel is still getting away with bullying supplies and customers alike!
Business practices like the ones employed by all these companies are pretty lousy, but does anyone care?
Wall St. loves all these companies. History has shown that high tech post-monopoly break ups make money hand over fist. (e.g. Lucent and Baby Bells) This makes Wall St. buy even more stock in MS.
I think the media realizes this which is why the coverage of the trial was more interesting and sexy than the results were. Had the decision gone the other way, the media would have covered it a lot more in my mind.
In the end, do you think that MS will bow out and split in order to increase stockholder dividends? Will the increase in consumer OS options ultimately lead to an increase of MS earnings and power? Again I ask, does anyone, besides the obvious groups, care about any of this?
Early on in the trial, the press had discussed a potential remedy that didn't get talked about much, and is not really mentioned at all anymore, but seems to be consistent with some of the statements Jackson made in his FoF (particularly in his "see-no-evil" attitude towards competing platforms like Macintosh, Linux, Be, Solaris, etc.)
This remedy was called "Essential Facility", where the Microsoft platform (not just the OS, but the API, document formats, applications, development environments) would be declared to be an essential facility, like the power grid, or or Bell's phone network, etc. This essential facility would then fall under government regulation just as if Microsoft were a utility, and price controls would be enforced, as well as careful scrutiny of sales models, service levels, and improvements (or as Bill likes to call them, "innovations").
With the likelyhood that none of the other proposed remedies (splits, either vertical or horizontal, forced open sourcing/API documentation, fines and consent decrees) will really solve the problem (naughty behavior and tactics), do you think that it's likely that THIS remedy would be considered or put into effect, and if so, what would that mean for the competing platforms (which Jackson denies exist)?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
If the decision is made to break Microsoft into several "Picosofts" (as I like to call them), what would be the benefits and drawbacks of this outcome? Specifically, who do you think would be hurt, and how; and who do you think would be helped, and how?
I haven't seen this addressed yet, though it may be by AC's or posted by the time this is...
;).
How about the idea of prohibiting MS from making any further aquisitions? Or limiting such aquisitions to, say, 5 a year?
I think it's generally accepted that MS does little 'innovation' on its own (I am getting REAL sick of that word), but simply buys, copies or outright steals a competitors' technology and integrates it. Indeed, it may be argued that if MS does any innovation at all, it's limited to integrating several different technologies into one overall OS. While no small feat, it is not that critical of a talent.
As many others mention, forcing MS to document ALL their API's and distribute them freely would be a good way to allow others to offer truly competitive products (I'd LOVE to use Netscape as my overall interface instead of IE- why can't I?
I think such a free documentation and distribution of MS API's in conjunction with limiting their aquisitions- and maybe a nominal fine to pay off the governments expenses at bringing this trial- would be a fair and effective way to settle to issue.
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
In a related question, would you say that it is actually a reasonable thing for them to consider moving their operations to a "less restrictive country" should the ruling be against them? Why / Why not?
+Raider of the lost BBS
Please excuse my re-post of this question - I noticed that all anonymous cowards are getting 0 scores and I really do want my question considered. Also please excuse the format as I am new at this and don't yet know how to format a reply. My question to the attorneys concerns the likelyhood of MS getting relief from whatever orders the District Court may issue pending their inevitable appeal should a non-stipulated final judgment be entered. I know that if insignificant little me moved for a stay of execution of judgment or injunction pending an appeal of the order, I would have to either show irreparable harm and some certainty of prevailing on appeal - or I would have to post a bond sufficient to ensure disposition of the judgment should the appeal fail. Given the meticulous FOF filed by the District Court, I think it is unlikely that the court will make any glaring errors in its COLs or final judgment - nor do there seem to be any novel questions of law or matters of first impressions. I therefore can not imagine how MS will get a stay without posting a bond. What bond amount can possibly ensure the disposition of the probable orders? If you were MS's attorney, what would be your strategy for getting relief pending appeal? What would you advise MS on your likelyhood for obtaining said relief? Bill-
Could Microsoft use the buying practices of State and Federal Governments as a defense ?
For example, if the government doesn't require the browser to be separate, or that the APIs, file formats or protocols to be publicly available, can this weaken the government's case ?
Supposing that Microsoft does wait around long enough, and Bush gets elected. If we assume that by that point, Jackson has already handed down a ruling, and it's not at all favorable to Microsoft, then what can GWB do? I'm thinking that a motion to appeal would have already been filed by then. He can gut the Antitrust division, but can he make them drop the case?
More importantly, what can he do about it if the DoJ takes the fast track option and attempts to appeal directly to the supreme court. Wouldn't it be heard before them before he takes office, and do you think that it will be pursued for that reason alone?
-k. ^-^ ^D
I think this case is unique because Microsoft is exploiting other companies' products success. The fact that most applications people use on Windows won't work on other OSen is a huge barrier.. I think it should be illegal to hide APIs for any company because this naturally leads to an "API monopoly", so to say. What do you think?
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
Since it's been found that the deaths of OS/2 and Novell most likely were anything but natural. Murder most foul, in fact. Given that both products were superior to anything Microsoft was putting out, there was no reason to believe they wouldn't take enough of a chunk out of the market for a fellow to make a living. Probably would have too, had Microsoft not killed them in the prime of their lives.
Of course it's mostly hypothetical for me, since I'm a UNIX programmer and despise OS/2 almost as much as I despise Windows. My certification in OS/2 I got for free one year at COMDEX for the effort of taking a short test on the subject. But I know quite a few certified developers who might be interested in the answer to this question.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is there really a case (rather, an appeal-proof case) for anything more radical ?
Who will be consulted to determine a penalty for Microsoft. Will Microsoft itself be solicited for suggestions, or will Justice listen to Microsoft's unsolicited suggestions?
What flavor of ice cream do most lawyers eat? Chocolate, vanilla, or other? Do you think the Sullivan and Cromwell gentlemen getting "ice cream headaches" may have been why they defended so badly?
1. Maryland state attorney's office is along for the fight against Microsoft.
2. University of Maryland (the whole system, aprox five or six site univerisities at http://www.umd.edu) just joined in contract with Microsoft to provide cheaper upgrades of system and office software. Univ of MD is partly state funded.
Isn't this a conflict of intrest? What can happen in this case?
---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Would barring them from other markets (say, everything but the pc desktop) be an affective punishment? Could they do that? /palm/cable/whatever business."
Basically tell them, "I'm sorry but you can't 'innovate'/invest/have anything to do with the isp
The FoF is appealable, however it is _very_ rare for an appeals court to disagree with it. Normally when you get to the appeallate level, you are arguing law, not facts.
:)
Sorry I should have been a little strong in wording the part that says "Assuming the FoF is unappealable.." to more like...
"If the appellate court decides the FoF is not up for discussion..."
Sorry about the confusion... My bad.
Myddrin
Tweet, tweet.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
This is not the case with Microsoft. They are guilty of _lowering_ prices so as to cut out competitors, insofar as to give away their products. The primary mode of delivery of their product(s), through PC OEM channels, is owned by other companies. Certainly those OEMs have experienced some anti-competitive tactics of Microsoft, but they still own those channels. These are not common themes of monopolies. Standard Oil owned every step of the process from the oil fields to your doorstep. IBM and Ma Bell controlled/raised prices.
The monopoly that Microsoft enjoys is a monopoly of consumer mindshare! Most consumers believe that Microsoft Windows _is_ computers.
Microsoft's share price hasn't been hit nearly as hard as one would have expected by the findings of fact announcement. My belief is that current laws do not take into account the current market. When anti-trust law was formulated a business model like Microsoft's wasn't possible. How can outmoded laws hope to curb anti-competitve practices of such a company?
Here are some of the proposals:
- Break up the company- What does this accomplish? Does it reduce the barrier to entry for any of the markets which Microsoft dominates?
- Force Microsoft to port their software to other platforms- Here's a slippery slope. Microsoft ports their software roughshod resulting in more demand for Windows because their software doesn't run well on anything else.
- The list goes on...
My question to the panel is simply this- If/When Microsoft is found guilty of anti-trust violations, what actions could feasibly be taken that would effectively allow for sustained competition in the respective markets without destroying Microsoft outright? In my estimation the crux of this question is- how do you anti-monopolize mindshare?Thanks, Is0t0pe
"My works are like water. The works of the great masters is like wine, but everybody drinks water."
"My works are like water. The works of the great masters is like wine, but everybody drinks water."
--Mark Twain
Having a monopoly on the OS isn't illegal, misusing it is. How's this for a minimal clean way to stop that:
Computer people discuss Microsoft being forced to open source Windows. Legal eagles find such a remedy to be unprecedented and therefore unlikely. The traditional anti-trust quasi-equivalent to "open sourcing Windows" is apparently to have Windows declared as an "Essential Facility". What's the difference between the two?
Assume that MS gets diced into (my own favorite) three planks plus sawdust: Consumer OS (W98), business/server OS (WNT), and productivity apps (Office). Divest MSN, games, keyboards, etc.
Then along come at least 19 class-action suits plus the OEMs. I'm assuming that IBM and HP still have time to file, since they seem to have plenty of cause.
Which pieces of MS get nailed with the residual liability of their monolythic ancestor? In other words, who's left to sue? I don't for a minute believe that the USSC would allow a conclusion forclosing IBM's pursuit of redress, especially since the harm to them wasn't at issue in the trial, but would there be some sort of shared membership in a liability pool or what?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Those who assume a broken-up Microsoft would be just as/more profitable than a single Microsoft actually believe that MS competes on merit. If you believe that the only reason Microsoft products are popular is because of the monopoly, then the Baby Bills would likely fail. If you believe that MS succeeds because its products are individually superior, then the Baby Bills will do well.
I suspect that in reality some products will do well and others will fail. I doubt that Windows or Office will disappear, but it seems likely that their absolute dominance will be over. They aren't good enough to blow the competition out of the water, but they're adequate for many and still have a large installed base to cusion the blow of competition.
IF MS IS AQUIESCENT IN ANY ORDER IT LOSES ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT ORDER. MS can enter into any stipulated agreement they want with the DOJ and the various other plaintiffs, however whatever agreement they make they are stuck with; they can not then appeal the issues that are the subject of that agreement. MS may make an agreement on part of the orders and appeal the rest, however this will not happen - not in the DOJs interest.
Seriously. Perhaps M$ knew they'd lose on facts, and wanted to get the judge so pissed off that he would make bench rulings that would be the basis for an appeal.
--
Infuriate left and right
There has not been a comment similar to this one moderated up yet, and I think it is an important question to ask.
Specifically, I am talking about questions that deal with the nature of today's market place, and how it is different than the markets of AT&T's and SO's days.
This certainly has a lot of relevance to this case.
Let's not go overboard with the sarcasm, ok?
Obviously, you are not understanding what I am trying to say, here.
All I'm trying to say is that measures must be taken so that _everyone_ has a fair chance to reach the consumer (or OEMs). Right now, M$ with its boatloads of cash and its licensing agreements used as a punishment system (the proverbial carrot and stick), is blocking non-M$ companies from the channels and is getting essentially first shot at the consumer all the time.
By simply saying "no more app bundling" (and "make it possible for people to buy their computers without an OS if they want to" -- without having to pay M$ FOR EACH AND EVERY BOX SOLD WITH OR WITHOUT AN OS PRE-LOADED) with brand -name PCs, you:
(1) cut down on the garanteed money flow going to M$;
(2) force the consumer to have to actually choose the application he/she will use;
(3) and if M$ can't buy all the shelf space and/or all shelves besides the entry (the most visible ones) systematically, you kinda put every company on similar footing... dare I say on equal footing?
Only then will products be chosen on _merit_ (technical or otherwise), and not "because it came with my computer"!
What the hell is wrong with giving everyone the same chance of succeeding? A free market can only work if the "market power" (the power to impose your product) is not concentrated into the hands of a single company, and if everyone can reach the consumer that would then have, gasp(!), choice.
And what's wrong with giving consumers some choices in software?
If Microsoft were to release its source code to windows under the GPL or some other free software licensing scheme, would that really make them any less of a monopoly? I can see that with the resouces they have in terms of engineering, sales and marketing, I suspect that they may be able to hijack the open source concept in such a way that they remain "in control". In this (very hypothetical) case, even though the licensing agreement would prevent them from using a legalistic means of controlling distributors etc. they could potentially remain an effective monopoly and still abuse that power. So this question has two parts: from an economic standpoint, if a product is a freely available commodity can a company exert control over it and monopolize it? and from a legal standpoint, if the licensing is "open/free" then can they be held accountable for their control and/or abuse of that control?
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
I'll freely admit to playing Devil's advocate here, but I think dealing with the answers offers a better clue into a post-Microsoft/Windows monopoly era than just saying "It's about time."
So I ask:
What negative consequences could result from a breakup of Microsoft? Let me break this down.
1) Would courts and government in general have a freer hand to deal with the software industry?
2) What problems arise out of this president?
3) Will the industry (apart from Open Source proponents) at large have reasons to cooperate if Microsoft's "Tower of Babel" is fractured?
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Criminal cases seem to have the goal of punishment; civil cases seem to have the goal of fixing things, although there are also punitive damages. It is not clear to me if this is a civil or criminal case. One common theme is that if M$ drags this out long enough, they can point to all the changes in the industry since the charges were first brought and say that the FoF and everything following is obsolete. That implies this case is only looking for remedies, not punishment. Could you say a bit about punishment vs remedies in anti-trust cases in general, this case in particular, and possibly a bit on the Caldera case? It doesn't seem right to a lot of us that M$ and especially Bill Gates should be rewarded with dismissal of all charges because they further abused the system by dragging the case out so long.
--
Infuriate left and right
According to the finding of fact, Microsoft maintains monopoly control over Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Defining Microsoft's monopoly strictly to what most computer people term the Wintel world means that the court is NOT considering the computer market as a whole. If the Intergraph vs. Intel lawsuit has shown Intel not to have a monopoly in the computer marketplace, then how can an Intel-compatible OS be a monopoly? It's like saying that The Gap clothing chain has monopoly power over the tacky, trendy, teenage clothing market when there are other clothing manufacturers out there, just not producing tacky, trendy, teenage clothing. This seems like a fatal flaw in whatever conclusions Judge Jackson makes about Microsoft and makes a nice big loophole for an appeals court to put aside the judgement. Is it not?
It is well settled that as a remedy for discouraging monopolies, the courts may order that certain companies not have common board members or officers. If MS is broken up, Bill Gates and other principal members will not be allowed to participate in more than on of the new companies (in my opinion of course). To the extent that the court feels that Bill Gates, or Bill Gates in concert with some small defined group, is largely responsible for the mentality that has resulted in the past acts of abuse, what is the probability that Bill Gates or other will be excluded from participation in any of the new companies or in MS if it remains intact? Bill-
To refresh your memory, the Three Remedies are:
I would like to add to point #3. I would like to include that Microsoft may not integrate the device driver into any of their OSes unless the complete specifications have been published. Of course, the device driver may still be available from the manufacturer, but I'd like to see them prevented from integrating it as well. There is a "device driver support" barrier to entry!!
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
This is an equitable civil action brought by the US against MS. In this case "equitable" means no damages are being sought. The orders issued by the court should be remedial (such as injunctive relief).
We've seen some pretty dramatic disparity between Microsoft's evidence and the governments's evidence. Especially, we've seen the video taped examination of Bill Gates where he answers many direct questions in ways that other evidence seems to contradict. As a result, the judge's findings of fact seems to me to make a number of Microsoft witnesses out to be liars. My question: why don't we hear the word perjury mentioned by those who understand these things? Has it gotten to the point where lying in court is just accepted as part of the game?
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
MS used its monopoly to push consumers and governments away from open standards. (No not open source, the other older open, as in vendor independant).
In doing so they forced higher prices for items were not needed, such as more powerful hardware, MS only solutions, etc.
1) The MS bucking of the OpenDoc initiative, which would have given conssumers what they needed, not what the vendors pushed.
2) The marketing/monopoly force which prevented the full adoption of POSIX requirments for government agencies, which in turn prevented the selection of systems based on openned, price, performance rather that what has become the WinTel defacto vendor only solution standard.
Can we look forward to any new points such as these coming forth to strengthen the case against MS as the court proceeds.
I have read quite a lot about about proposed remedies, and most of them don't sound really useful.
Breaking Microsoft up in multiple parts (any way you like) could either lead to the split companies cooperating (to innovate for the best of the customer, everybody is welcome to make an offer) or the one of them will survive while the other go the way of OS/2 and CPM with their operating system. For the customer, there will only be minor changes. The only merit of this solution I see is the chaos following the split, which may allow some other big company (perhaps Sun) to take over part of the market.
Supervising Microsoft, having them publish their source - API - whatever would be nice for developer, but I fear, before publishing any new relevant information, Microsoft will risk being sued, defending themselves by claiming the new undocumented stuff are just bug fixes, security patches, already there but unclearly documented etc. and they did no wrong. All will go on as before, except for hordes of lawyers suing and contersuing on behalf of Microsoft.
Other proposals were either just a slap on Microsofts fingers (fines, public promises never to do it again...) or so drastic, that they sound not workable under the current legal system.
To be honest, I think the remedy most likely to work, is to limit Microsofts marketing budget for the next 5 years to the average amount available to the next 5 competitors and forbid Mr. Gates ever to use the word 'innovate' again.
My question now is: What options does the judge have, which would break Microsofts monopoly efficently, which will not bog down in legal mud-slinging for the next decade? Are there any?
Servus,
johi
last week charlie rose interviewed the prosecutor for this case. he thinks a breakup along product lines is unlikely because it would simply create several smaller monopolies (an office productivity monopoly and an os monopoly) and wouldn't really change anything. nobody really knows how microsoft will be dealt with. all that we can be sure of is that drastic measures will be taken.
Any breakup of MS would have to include restrictions that protects each Baby Bill from being taken over by another, right? This means they can't compete against each other. So it doesn't achieve competition.
Furthermore, the small companies that try to compete with Baby Bells are at an insurmountable disadvantage. The Baby Bell owns the millions of miles of copper that would take billions of dollars and decades to imitate.
That barrier to entry has still not been overcome.
Do you think the DoJ monopoly suit against Microsoft was precipitous - that DoJ could have waited a few years? (In light of the Caldedra suit and the Linux market share threats in particular.) If so, what do you think the long-term fallout will be?
Which of the several anti-trust precedents are the closest to US vs. MS? What was the remedy in that case?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Which of these is the best for the Open Source movement (and Linux in particular) overall? Which would help promote Linux, encourage and ease its development, and overall make Linux better?
-----
"A man is judged by his every word." -RW Emerson
"They misunderestimated me." -GW Bush
A few legal questions for our edification... (1) It seems that the DOJ missed the worst injury MS has caused. Namely, they caused an informational injury in the industry like those recently recognized by the Supreme Court in Kodak v. ITS (1992). This comes from one thing they did that every user noticed a few years ago: the intentional incompatibility of their API's for external newtork software with MS's internal software, or, in english, tweaking the winsock.dll and friends so Netscape and AOL would crash. The fact that such suspicious incompatibilities have absolutely no consumer benefit, can only harm competition, and only serve to preserve MS's monopoly OS position and create MS's IE market power seemed very strong evidence. Such conduct was the most flagrant (and traditional) antitrust act MS committed, yet I'm curious why it was never put forward. Was the difficulty proving MS's intent? But isn't MS's behavior suspicious given their hesitancy to give DOJ access to any of their code? (2) Reading through the Findings of Fact, Judge Jackson makes a number of conclusions about MS's use of monopoly power to leverage other players and other horizontal (other OS's) and vertical (Apps and Hardware manufacturers) markets. Specifically, the potential agreement to split the browser market w/ Netscape on OS lines appears to be a prima facie illegal market division. Is this the strongest theory for an actual finding of an antitrust violation? (3) MS's refusal to deal problems with Apple and other Hardware manufacturers over exclusive licensing agreements are bad; but, isn't this seems to be a weaker antitrust argument? Namely, it's not at all clear from the legal perspective (although it's pretty clear from a common sense perspective) that MS's market power was proven to extend to hardware dealers. For instance, are the favorable terms to exclusive licensees of Microsoft, while locking out, say OS/2 in the early 90's, enough to constitute an antitrust act on MS's part? (4)In light of Judge Jacksons Findings of Fact about the merging of IE and Win98, is this sufficient to overcome the DC Circuit's novel test it set down a year and a half ago on browser integration? While Judge Jackson's conclusion that there was no consumer benefit from the integration is strong enough that the DC Circuit can't likely overturn it on a clearly erroneous standard, can they say his findings applied the wrong legal standard? In other words, the DC Circuit said explicitly MS had shown a minimum showing of technological benefit from integration that, at least, it did not violate the consent decree and probably didn't violate the antitrust laws, if I'm reading it correctly. Judge Jackson then concluded there was no consumer benefit and the integration was solely for anticompetitive purposes. Does Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact thus legally conflict with the DC Circuit's prior conclusions? (5) Lastly, the Supreme Court has been all but consistent on antitrust in the last few years. It doesn't seem like the DC Circuit test is in line with recent SC decisions, do you think the test will die on appeal? I think the DC Circuit seemed to misinterpret Kodak v. ITS and other cases. In the end, do you think this case will come down to the legal issue of how consumer harm is to be defined in tech cases, and how antitrust injury is defined in tech competitors? I mean these as seeds for discussion, answer what you feel is most interesting, or none at all. People don't seem to realize the conservative interpretation antitrust laws are given nowadays, so I'm asking these to find out which theories MS is most likely liable under.
Apologies: my connection cut off while the last version was being posted. Here is the correctly formatted version.
(1) It seems that the DOJ missed the worst injury MS has caused. Namely, they caused an informational injury in the industry like those recently recognized by the Supreme Court in Kodak v. ITS (1992).
This comes from one thing they did that every user noticed a few years ago: the intentional incompatibility of their API's for external newtork software with MS's internal software, or, in english, tweaking the winsock.dll and friends so Netscape and AOL would crash.
The fact that such suspicious incompatibilities have absolutely no consumer benefit, can only harm competition, and only serve to preserve MS's monopoly OS position and create MS's IE market power seemed very strong evidence. Such conduct was the most flagrant (and traditional) antitrust act MS committed, yet I'm curious why it was never put forward. Was the difficulty proving MS's intent? But isn't MS's behavior suspicious given their hesitancy to give DOJ access to any of their code?
(2) Reading through the Findings of Fact, Judge Jackson makes a number of conclusions about MS's use of monopoly power to leverage other players and other horizontal (other OS's) and vertical (Apps and Hardware manufacturers) markets. Specifically, the potential agreement to split the browser market w/ Netscape on OS lines appears to be a prima facie illegal market division. Is this the strongest theory for an actual finding of an antitrust violation?
(3) MS's refusal to deal problems with Apple and other Hardware manufacturers over exclusive licensing agreements are bad; but, isn't this seems to be a weaker antitrust argument? Namely, it's not at all clear from the legal perspective (although it's pretty clear from a common sense perspective) that MS's market power was proven to extend to hardware dealers. For instance, are the favorable terms to exclusive licensees of Microsoft, while locking out, say OS/2 in the early 90's, enough to constitute an antitrust act on MS's part?
(4)In light of Judge Jacksons Findings of Fact about the merging of IE and Win98, is this sufficient to overcome the DC Circuit's novel test it set down a year and a half ago on browser integration? While Judge Jackson's conclusion that there was no consumer benefit from the integration is strong enough that the DC Circuit can't likely overturn it on a clearly erroneous standard, can they say his findings applied the wrong legal standard?
In other words, the DC Circuit said explicitly MS had shown a minimum showing of technological benefit from integration that, at least, it did not violate the consent decree and probably didn't violate the antitrust laws, if I'm reading it correctly. Judge Jackson then concluded there was no consumer benefit and the integration was solely for anticompetitive purposes. Does Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact thus legally conflict with the DC Circuit's prior conclusions?
(5) Lastly, the Supreme Court has been all but consistent on antitrust in the last few years. It doesn't seem like the DC Circuit test is in line with recent SC decisions, do you think the test will die on appeal?
I think the DC Circuit seemed to misinterpret Kodak v. ITS and other cases. In the end, do you think this case will come down to the legal issue of how consumer harm is to be defined in tech cases, and how antitrust injury is defined in tech competitors?
I mean these as seeds for discussion, answer what you feel is most interesting, or none at all. People don't seem to realize the conservative interpretation antitrust laws are given nowadays, so I'm asking these to find out which theories MS is most likely liable under.
In your opinions, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the FoF's. Does the Judge show signs of personal (as opposed to legal) bias, which would damage the credibility of his findings. Do you feel that present anti-trust laws are appropriate for the software/computer industry, given the changes in business which have accompanied it's growth. (PS Thank you for your time and consideration.)
Many commentators have remarked that the tone of Judge Jackson's findings was unusually harsh, especially the last few paragraphs. Since you have more experience with anti-trust court rulings, can you confirm that the judge's tone was out of the ordinary? If so, what does it signify?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Isn't that also an anti-trust, anti-competitive and innovation squelching issue?
See Slashdot 11/05/99 and Techweb 11/04
The USA vs MSFT case alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust action (UCS Title 15 Chapter 1 sections 1 & 2). Section 2 states that one possible punishment is "imprisonment not exceeding three years."
What are the chances that Gates, Balmer, Allchin, et al will be sent to prison, and what if anything can we do to encourage Judge Jackson to exercise the imprisonment option?
The IBM PC Company (An internal division of IBM -- for those of you who don't know IBM, internally it is a many headed hydra and often the one head is at odds with another) could have stood up to Microsoft and offered PC's with OS/2, but they were already taking a beating from the cut-rate upstarts Gateway and Dell. In that market, every penny you can cut off the price of your system is vitally important.
In the 3.1 days, OS/2 was certainly a superior OS to DOS/Windows, if only to preemptively multitask DOS and Windows apps. In 95/98 days, Microsoft has almost caught up in terms of look and feel despite the fact that under the hood is still Pure Evil(tm). IBM pretty much threw in the towel and in two or three releases Windows will catch up to where OS/2 is today (From a design standpoint.) Of course, it'll require a Pentium VI and 512MB of RAM to run, but such is the price of progress.
Novell's story is slightly different, but Caldera's going to court to argue that Microsoft did, in fact, kill DR DOS (Which was, if I recall correctly, originally Novell's product.) I suspect the FOF will make it much easier for them to get a victory.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a contractor at IBM on and off since 1992. I was a very strong OS/2 advocate and a member of Team OS/2. I promoted the operating system on my own time at numerous trade shows. I often told the other team members that if something better came along, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat and they may have thought I was joking. I'm a Linux user and advocate now, and if something better comes along I'll jump ship in a heartbeat.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Given that the practices going on during the trial were equivalent to obstruction of justice, what is the best case that you could make to argue that Bill Gates, who with Steve Ballmer sets the tone for Microsoft behavior, should be charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and should at the least be forbidden from running _any_ 'baby Microsofts' and at most locked up for a good long time? This assumes that Gates' personality and those of his top henchment sets the tone for not only Microsoft, but for the industry as a whole (which I think is a reasonable statement), and that the chilling effect on innovation and the choking of normal functioning of the industry can be in part attributed to the personality everyone is now worshipping and trying to emulate. Given that the result of this is wrong and unhealthy, why is there so rarely the view that 'Gee, businesswise this guy is a sociopath, mugger and a criminal', why is there so little interest in _removing_ him from any position of power running companies, and what would be a good way to argue this point? Personally, I would say the _greatest_ harm from the monopoly is the brainwashing of the entire world to believe that Bill Gates is someone to be emulated and rewarded, rather than the unprincipled business equivalent of a Mafia chieftain, someone who should be locked up, not lionized. That's _personally_, again: I think the man is _personally_ a sociopath and should not be allowed to run businesses, much less given control of one of the baby-MSes of a breakup. So, how do you make that stick?
two questions.
Could MS sue if a breakup sent MSFT down 90% or so.
Can the government go for something novel like volume only pricing. The company who buys 300,000 copies of Windows cannot pay more than the one who buys 200,000 regardless of other arrangements. coupled with a denial of the right to kill a contract at it's own discretion. Something similar to what applies for public utilities already.
pen wrote:
> Now, the question: Which do you think is more likely, Microsoft settling or appealing?
And in addition to that, which do you think would be more beneficial, both in the legal sense and for the consumer -- a settlement or an appeal?
If Microsoft decides to settle, to make the best of a bad situation and avoid dragging the case out, they would have more control over the punitive damages applied. However, if they think that they have a chance of the FoF being overturned (which relates to questions elsewhere in the thread as to the likeliness/legality of such), they might choose to gamble it all, and risk heavier damages in exchange for the chance of a clear victory.
Which do you think would be the better of the two?
Some questions that I would like an answer to:
1) People have been mentionning this case could lead to a breakup of microsoft, microsoft being forced to release source code to their programs, or being fined. Can you see other possibilities? What do you think is the most likely outcome and why?
2) How do you see this affecting computer users at large, other companies in the field (Intel, IBM, Apple), and the future of computing in general?
Thanks for considering my questions. I feel this interview will be a very interesting read.
I've read in some stories that the anti-trust laws require that consumers be harmed for a "conviction" to be made. Is this really true?
As a consumer, I don't feel that the antitrust case is for me, but rather for the competing companies. I think that the fact that Microsoft are abusing competitors are not so bad in itself, but it's bad because it makes it easier for Microsoft to abuse the consumers, which is their goal. Removing competition is just one of a lot of methods used to force us to buy their products.
Currently, around 90% of the computer users use programs from Microsoft whenever they are available. Microsofts tactic is to separate those from those running other systems, making them unable to communicate. Personally, I can't understand how most people avoids seeing the intention, but they do. And since a large group has more to offer than a small one, the large one (Microsoft-based) stay large, the other stays small.
The primary way they maintain this situation is by secret file formats. The best example is the Word format. I cannot read formatted documents produced by the large group, since Microsoft keeps the Word format a secret. I cannot view ASF movies, because Microsoft keeps the ASF format a secret. I can only barely access Microsoft file servers, because Microsoft keeps the protocol a secret.
All of this limits my options. I can select to either buy the software I want, or to buy everything from Microsoft and become a part of world again. But I don't feel that this limitation is a topic in the trial. It seems as they see the crushing of Netscape as an illegal way of forcing me to choose their web browser. But the case is that Microsoft don't give a shit about what web browser I use. The reason they wanted to crush Netscape was that the large market share would expose their attempts of closing the blockade hole known as the web to too many users. If people stop using Netscape, they can safely make part of the web more and more unavailable to outsiders, thus keeping the separation between the Microsoft world and the outsiders strong.
And now to my questions:
-segfault
If /. is going to read past question #250 (or #200 for that matter), but even so, here's a question I haven't really seen discussed yet...
Obviously, Bill Gates is a businessman. There is clearly no possible way that Microsoft would have become such a dominant computer industry today without Bill Gates' strategic business practices.
With this in mind, it's pretty clear that Mr. Gates would be completely naive if he had no doubt in his mind that Microsoft would win the case in a higher court. How could Bill Gates and Microsoft take an anti-trust lawsuit like this and, despite possible fines and/or forced business restructurings, turn it into a way to benefit the company?
If you were a lawyer for Microsoft, what would you advise them to do?
The cake is a pie
High barrier to entry
Economies of scale
Positive network effects
My question is how useful this comparison can take the government's case, and how closely the analogy works.
For example, the AT&T high barrier to entry was based on the plant requirements of creating a viable telephone network. One has to build and maintain telephone lines, switching stations, and other network elements to create a useful product. In terms of physicality, Microsoft creates nothing "physical" in a manufacturing sense; their entire product is basically intellectual property.
The points of positive network effects and economies of scale also correlate between the two cases, but also have substantial differences. Is the media correct to make this correlation? Do you feel that this Jackson is consciously trying to align the two cases to strengthen his final findings? Will the differences between the two be possible causes for appeal?
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
I can't stand to leave people uncorrected.
look a the emails in the finding of fact - they are saying 'so non that we have copied communicator, and have a good working clone, what are we going to do? People won't necessarily choose IE ' and their solution is 'we'll leverage our windows share!' and shove it down everybody's throat!' Without levergaing their windows advantage, Office and IE could never have gotten where they are today.
to be a monopoly, you have to have a very high share of a market - AOL has maybe, %17 of the interent access market. While I'm sure this is nice for them, um... that is not a monopoly. At all.
two questions.
Could MS sue if a breakup sent MSFT down 90% or so.
Can the government go for something novel like volume only pricing. The company who buys 300,000 copies of Windows cannot pay more than the one who buys 200,000 regardless of other arrangements. coupled with a denial of the right to kill a contract at it's own discretion. Something similar applies for public utilities already.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
What do you people think this case will do for the future, thinking for example of Intel who is trying hard to rid themselves of AMD.
If you read the Athlon Motherboard review on Tom's Hardware Guide, then you'll read about Asus, designing and producing an Athlon motherboard, but not mentioning it _anywhere_ on their site.
It sounds a lot like the 'MSIE as prefered browser' deal that Microsoft did with the ISP's.
Also do you agree with the fact that the government is reluctent to let Microsoft be hurt to badly, because it is still the leader in the American IT sector?
I think this would go along way to leveling the field. It would be a lot harder for MS to hide the stuff it does. All the API's should be published (Windows, NT, Word, Excel, etc. etc.)
Now considering M$'s other feebile attempts to get "grass roots" PR, doesn't it sound like the audience might have been staked? I personally would like to get be able to get some photos of the event and identify the people there.
My $.02
Steve
Something that always fascinates me about Slashdot is how the Heinleinist libertarians that usually are so vocal about pretty much everything manage to either disappear or change sides when the topic of Microsoft comes up. This means that either a) said libetarian types are all hypocrites, or b) they generally avoid anything to do with Microsoft, because they know that those nodes will be filled with posts by pro-big-government, authoritarian idiots who can't stand it that a shitty operating system dominates the world. Anyway, on to my opinion:
C'mon people. Microsoft IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Monopolies cannot exist in a market such as software, where the barrier to entry is virtually nonexistent. So, for instance, if some guy named Bob Linux in Sweden wanted to create an alternative OS called De, he could most certainly do so and actually get people to use it by distributing it online. Similar for office suites. Just because everybody uses an inferior, overpriced piece o' shit does not mean that a monopoly exists.
First, Judge Jackson, in his FoF, did not regard Linux (or the free software community in general) as a competitive threat to Microsoft. His argument is, basically, that there are not enough programmers willing to work "pro bono" to overcome the applications barrier. The one item that he did not mention is that programmers are sometimes forced to create free software by the GPL. In your opinion, is this an oversight on his part or is it possible that he has some doubts about the validity of the GPL?
Second, since the FoF were realeased Microsoft has done nothing but repeat the aurguments that they presented in court even though Judge Jackson clearly rejected them. If they continue to present these same arguments in court, can they be found in contempt of court?
That leads me to my questions :
1. Do you believe that Microsoft will lose the case, and if so, how badly..... I am mindful of the phrase that losing a case can be mitigated depending on just how badly one loses.
2. If Microsoft loses totally - i.e. they are determined to be a blight on the face of innovation, then how willing will the judge be to grant structural remedies? And how far do you think He will go?
3. Do you think that the mere Findings of Fact will have any weight in the ( sure to appear) lawsuits against Microsoft for violations of SEC rules ( by stealing a business, for example )
4. Is it your opinion ( and I know I am asking much, asking 4 experts to agree on something .... ;-) ) that Microsoft is internally already preparing for it's - possibly - inevitable breakup?
Thank you indeed for lending your time and thought to the /. community :-)
* Unix -is- user friendly. It's just very particular about who it's friends are*
Given the earlier /. article (Investment Advisor Alleges MS Financial Fraud), how true is this MS-stock-as-pyramid-scheme thing and how should it factor into the judgement?
I've noticed that the hardware side of Microsoft's business is never mentioned. What role would the near-vertical-monopoly that Microsoft has on certain aspects of computing play in the trial?
Here's a rash prediction:
Rather than wait for a really negative decision by Jackson, Microsoft will choose to be master of its fate and break itself up. Of course, it will do so in a manner that most benefits the current MS stakeholders, and will be calculated to render any other breakup attempts pointless, or at least apparently pointless.
Just remember, you heard it here first.
Who shot the sheriff?
I was just watching the Al Gore speech at Microsoft.
I tell you, before this, I thought I was going to vote for McCain.
Gore was NOT wearing a tie (okay, it was a costume for that specific audiance, dockers, cashmere vneck sweater, etc.) and he was more personable and loose than I've ever seen him. That prozac shit must be working wonders for Tipper.
Anyway, he did something I admire greatly, he walked into the belly of the beast. It's apparent that "the administration" is in favor of Jackson's ruling, and the DOJ action. Gore is legally not allowed to comment on this case, and the questioners were told not to ask about this case during his visit. And still, they asked, There were 4, maybe 5 questions asked about his stance on the issue. He repeated, that he was not able to comment. The brainwashed zombies spewed the party line "why is the government interfering in our innovation?" "show me an example of harm done to consumers." Invariably, Gore responded well to these questions, and finally gave in. He said he would not comment on this specific case, but he would talk about his philosophy on the issue, in general, of whether it's right for government to interfere in a "free market", and what he said did not sound like regurgitated tripe, it sounded like a well thought out argument, a position, a philosophy, that in no case should there be too large a concetration of power. Either in the government, or the private sector, it can lead to abuses. He also said that there should be a means to give startups the opportunity for fair competition in a field against a strong corporate power, for entrance into the market. In short, he communicated his opinion, to a live audience of Microsoft employees, all enthusiastically in support of Microsoft's position and actions, that he was in favor of Jackson's position, and in favor of. He's got a set of brass ones.
He also made statements about encryption. He does favor "protecting the national security interests".
He totally lambasted Bush on the environment.
He said it was totally critical that if you value a woman's choice to choose, you MUST vote democratic in the next election, because the next president is crucial in selecting the tone of the Supreme court for the next 30 years.
He responded to a question about Columbine, went into a very long winded, but honest, and from the heart spiel about gun control, then a biblical thing about Cain and Abel, and how that related to how disenfranchised Harris and Klebold felt, and how they were not respected, how they felt there was nobody and nothing left in this world for them. He was clearly making a statement that the national discourse on this subject, and the government's conclusion was that it was this sick system that pushed a couple of troubled kids over the edge. Yes, first he used it as a tool to tout gun control, but after that, he does seem to "get it".
I may not agree with a lot of what he said. But the fact that he walked into that clusterfsck, and had the balls to stand up in front of that crowd and tell them what they didn't want to hear - it was amazing, and I'm thinking about NOT voting for McCain this time around. . .
I wish I could find a link to the transcript or any coverage of this talk. Maybe some other more skillful surfer will respond and provide a URL.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... and even if it did, it would not derive much benefit from it. Splitting up Office from the OS will not level the playing field.
I guess Gates should use some of his money to buy cigarettes. :)
(offtopic but interesting)
;).
The term for this kind of survey is "push-polling". It has been used by political parties in the past, and IIRC is now illegal in Australian politics.
It's also the kind of thing that will get market research companies a very bad name. If you encounter a survey like this, find out the name of the research company (and pass that info around in your posts too
In fact, if this story is genuine, and you can find out who did the research, contact (or get your local Linux group to contact) the media. Given that the M$ trial is hot news, this is likely to get a run...
Fixing copyright
This raises one question about this particular remedy:
(1) Is there a well-defined, enforceable mechanism by which MS can be required to give adequate and timely public documentation of their API's, without requiring constant governmental interference and decision-making as to what is adequate and timely?
For example, I could imagine auditing by some competitor-selected group with access to some well-specified set of internal MS documents; or, an audited requirement (could it be enforced?) that no info about MS OS API's can be passed privately to MS applications developers, that any such info can be passed only by public posting.
Another key issue that I haven't seen addressed in remedies is the tendency of MS to swallow all creative software into their OS and thus put the developers of such creative software out of business -- Netscape/web browsing being only one of many past examples; voice recognition being one of many very likely future examples. Even splitting MS into OS and applications pieces wouldn't prevent the OS piece from continuing this strategy.
I am wondering if this could be addressed somehow by forbidding MS to put software functionality into the OS when there is an existing market for applications with that functionality -- rather, MS would be limited to putting API's for that functionality into their OS, and then they would have to separately distribute software that hooked into those API's, and compete with other such software. One might define the presence of an existing market by some threshold -- say, $10mil/year in sales or 1/2 mil/year copies distributed?
So my second question is:
(2) Can you see any well-defined, enforceable way, that again wouldn't require constant governmental intervention, to put such a restriction on incorporating into the OS software functionality for which there is an existing market? Or any other remedies that would prevent the "takeover a software market by putting it in the monopoly OS" strategy?
You write: I'm thrilled that a group of high-powered antitrust lawyers can find the time to read questions from the unwashed /. masses, by the way.
High-powered antitrust lawyers and unwashed masses? You're talking about the power politics of an earlier age. It's the techies that rule the new world, and most others just don't understand it and are running hard to try to catch up. Stop watching the telly where the old systems are still portrayed as alive and well despite their waning power. Of course they still have power over the nationally-located physicals, but that's becoming less relevant by the minute.
Lawyers and the judiciary are in a particularly difficult position, because whatever country they currently practice in, they're outside of their jurisdiction when it comes to the net.
I'm sure that they're ecstatic though that people like yourself still postrate themselves before the old high priests. It makes their uphill struggle in a new environment much easier.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If Microsoft defeat (or come to an agreement) with the antitrust trial, can the facts, and details that cam out in this trial be used for other litigation?
Microsoft is a multinational firm - how would the americans anti-trust trial affect other companies. Would Microsoft be allowed to split these off as another independant company, leaving only Microsoft-USA to be broken up, while they continue to dominate markets?
Microsoft's wealth is different than that of other monopolies, it is almost entirely intellectual property and market share. With that in mind, what potential actions do you forsee being taken against Microsoft?
Openness and free exchange of ideas are central to the free software movement. A monopoly in the software market centered around a closed prodcut is antithesis to the ideals of the movement. How might the actions against microsoft affect the free software movement?
Just thinking about this, since corporations are legal entities held to be the equivalent (in many regards) to legal persons.
Are there Corporate Equivalents to crimes that private individuals may create, such as:
Assualt & Battery
Murder
Rape
etc.
be this against private individuals or other corporations, etc?
and what would be the equivalent penalties -
Is there a corporate equivalent of an electric chair? or should one even exist?
and how is this covered under anti-trust law?
I was reading an online Canadian magazine recently (sorry, can't recall the url) and they proposed Microsoft moving it's base of operations to Canada and along with the article and it's supposed benefits to Canadian soceity was a poll asking readers if they'd want Microsoft living nearby. The answer was yes.
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
hello , I m writing this question from france where we re trying to have a law voted that would ban proprietary software. This situation shows that one country's laws are already affecting others, therefore i'm very interrested in your legal system. The anti trust laws of your country seems a marvel to me since , as a customer, we often suffer from monopolies in France...Yet , it seems you suffer even more from private compagnies that become monopolies... That leads to my question:How come there is no legal feedback after such trials? Since there are laws in your country that permits companies to become trust (i mean badly designed laws or unadequate laws (old ones)),why isn't there also a legal Funding of Facts saying "well we also did some wrong since this part of this law permited them to become a monopoly"??? For example your patents laws seem to cause a lot of trouble ...are you going to wait until damage is done before you tune them ??? Isn't it possible in your country to change laws BEFORE any harm is done ??(that doesn't mean it's possible in mine :) naive question i know thanks for your time given
What do you think would be the best result for the rest of the industry?
What do you think would be the worst result for the rest of the industry?
What would be the best for Microsoft?
And I am sorry, but if Bill Gates was a tree, what type of tree do you think he would be?
I keep hearing that the FoF can't be overturned because it is not technically a judgement. However, the words and tone used in the FoF sure sounded like a judgement to me. It is almost as if the judge is saying "I have found that you committed a crime, and you can't appeal because it is a *finding*, not a verdict".
Hasn't "due process" been short-circuited here? If the judge was supposed to limit this phase of the process to disclosure to "facts", but is instead shown to have "ruled" by virtue of the way his finding was structured, is there room for appeal based on his overstepping the scope of his responsibility at this stage?
Forcing a fine will likely prove ineffective if it ever happens. Forcing MS to breakup will be very messy - assuming it ever happens.
I think Microsoft is being treated like a celebrity in court because of their power. Someone's got to stand up to put a stop to it, and their out of court actions.
Do you think the court will find a reasonable, effective solution now?
The judge has found that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems for the Intel processor as a matter of fact. So What? IBM has a monopoly on the operating systems for their AS/400, RS/6000 and mainframe processors. Sun has a monopoly on the operating systems for their SPARC processors. HP has a monoploy on the operating systems for their PA RISC processors. So why isn't the government suing them? I assume that because that these companies own the intellectual property to both the processor and the operating system they are allowed by law to have a monopoly. What if Microsoft bought Intel? Why would such a merger be prohibited since Microsoft and Intel combined would still be smaller than IBM?