1. Microsoft is claiming copyright on the document describing their extensions, not the extensions themselves.
Actually, they're claiming copyright on the entire specification, i.e. "Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled 'Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems.'" That's beside the point though. They would have a much better case if they were claiming copyright of the extensions themselves rather than the document describing the extensions. The specification is necessary information for anyone attempting to achieve interoperability, something that seems to even be protected under the DMCA, although with a major loophole or three for the corps to exploit.
8. Microsoft respects the right of the users of Slashdot to view the specifications for the purpose of comment.
No they don't, they even want posts that quote only a portion of the specification to be removed, as well as those that link to it, or describe how to open it with Winzip.
Why is everyone talking about trade secrets?
The EULA for the specification claims that it is a trade secret of Microsoft. Then, in the letter, Microsoft references "examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information." Granted, the main issue appears to be the copyright issue, but since Microsoft is trying to claim trade secret status for the spec as well, that's being discussed here too.
Basically, Microsoft is really overreaching on this one. Perhaps if they had just stuck to trying to get the one or two posts that actually posted the entire document removed, they might have met with a more favorable reception. But since they're also trying to remove posts that only quote a portion of the spec, posts that explain that you can open the compressed file with Winzip or a similar program, and posts that contain a link to a copy of the spec somewhere, nobody has much sympathy for their situation. Then there's the point that while the posting of an entire document is rarely considered fair use, it may actually be fair use in the case of a technical specification, most of which is public information, simply because you can't really have an informed discussion of a specification without knowing what the whole specification says. In the absence of trade secret status, this might hold up. Slashdot has a strong incentive not to back down on this one too, because if they do censor any comments on this site, they may lose any chance of claiming "common carrier" status. That could oblige them to censor any comment that someone has a gripe about. Not a good precedent to set.
I'm glad to see that their lawyers are taking this approach. They most certainly should get as much information from Microsoft as possible in order to determine the course of action they should take. Most of those questions were quite valid and relevant.
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
This just in! If it's not really a trade secret, then there's no crime in reavealing it. Microsoft has made no real effort to keep the document secret. They let anybody anywhere have access to it. Even minors who aren't legally bound by the EULA, and people living in places where the EULA has no legal merit. Therefore this specification can no longer be considered a trade secret. It's out there. It's publicly available and you don't have to even read, much less agree to the EULA.
They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Trade secret laws are not the same as regular property laws, and for good reason. In order for something to qualify as a trade secret, one of the criteria that must be met is that the trade secret holder must use "reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect" the secrecy of the information. Microsoft certainly did not do this, as evidenced by the fact that anybody could download the information and legitimately open it using the same or quite similar program as was used to compress the file, without ever agreeing to a EULA.
But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
Now you've jumped from trade secrets to copyrights. Sure. Anyway, the copyright issue is a whole other can of worms. I think that it could be argued that this is a technical specification that Microsoft has made public, and as such it should be considered fair use to post the document in its entirety for the purpose of commentary and criticism due to the fact that it must be taken as a whole to be fully understood and for an informed, rational discussion to take place.
I don't think this is either letter. They probably sent the first letter acknowledging receipt, and this is a second letter asking for more information and clarification. Presumably they will use this information to write yet another letter addressing the issues.
Not non-issues in the case, but not really the point of it either.
While it may not be the point of Microsoft's accusation, Slashdot's lawyers are definitely correct to seek as much information as possible before deciding on a course of action. Not to mention that, as someone else here said, it makes a good delaying tactic to allow the posts to fall off of the/. servers and therefore not risk/. having to censor the posts, thereby setting a bad precedent that could require them to censor any post that someone complains about.
Bypassing the software that has the license agreement dialog violates the DMCA.
I still fail to see how using WinZip or some such program that is specifically designed to open compressed files constitutes bypassing a content protection mechanism. These files are created with such a program, and such a program is routinely used to open them. I don't make a habit of running executables on my system if I don't have to. I almost always open self-extracting compressed files with a compression program rather than just running them. I think that their content protection mechanism isn't really a protective measure since it doesn't even occur in many instances when a person opens the file in a perfectly legitimate fashion.
That has the potential to be illegal under long established (and enforced by the court system) copyright law.
Given the nature of the document, i.e. a technical specification, posting the entire document could probably be justified. You can't really understand the spec without seeing the whole thing. That, combined with interoperability concerns (which was supposedly why Microsoft was releasing this doc in the first place), leads me to think that/. has a good chance of succeeding with a fair use argument.
I can slap a copyright statement on damn near anything. It doesn't mean I really own the copyright to that work. I thought this question was quite relevant:
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
Another good question was this:
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document. They probably wouldn't even try to stand on just the copyright issue. They seem to be playing up the trade secret part more than the copyright part. This is why most of the other questions were quite good.
Of course, neither one should get away with it. Of course the impeachment issues were a lot more complex than Microsoft's antitrust issues. Mainly because there was so much going on behind the scenes. Not to mention all the hypocrisy in Congress. It was pretty disgusting to watch. But when you get down to it, I have to agree that I believe that he did lie under oath. I don't think we should get into all that stuff again though. Suffice it to say that I think that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Now, there may be circumstances that would call for leniency, but I think Microsoft has already exhausted the DOJ's supply of leniency with the consent decree last time.
>Look, we try to maintain a free market system in this country. Part of that entails fixing the problems that crop up sometimes when a corporation goes too far and jeopardizes the goals of the free market. Anti-trust laws themselves are "well-established doctrines." The system is based on rules and regulations, laws. Microsoft didn't abide by those laws. The DOJ tried to fix the problem last time. Microsoft was guilty and everyone knew it. So we ended up with a consent decree. Now, Microsoft could have taken that as a sign that they had gone too far and needed to step back inside the lines. Instead, they chose to thumb their noses (almost literally) at the DOJ and continue business as usual. Since they did not act in good faith last time, the DOJ has no reason to believe they will do so this time. Hence the severe and permanent remedy that is proposed.
You may feel that anti-trust laws are not constitutional. Fine. A lot of people believe that many of the rights granted to corporations aren't constitutional either. Capitalism only works as long as it is controlled. Otherwise you end up with no choice and no competition. The markets will be divided and one corp will come out as the sole owner of each market. The rest of us will become serfs to the corporate lords. I realize that that sounds rather overly dramatic, but in the absence of anti-trust laws, I don't see anything that would prevent such a situation from occurring.
Did you forget that the appellate court didn't even look at any evidence when they made their decision? When this thing goes to appeal, the Findings of Fact will basically be taken as gospel. They are very difficult to overturn. Given that, the appellate court's decision will have little affect on the case from here on out. They made a decision without seeing any evidence. Judge Jackson has seen and considered all the evidence presented in this case and has decided what is fact and what is not. That will be the basis for any appeal as well. The earlire appellate court decision will carry little weight now.
The whole lawsuit swirls around trying to decide whether 1) it really is integrated and 2) whether it matters why Microsoft did it.
Since Allchin already admitted that integrating IE doesn't provide any benefit to consumers that could not be provided without integrating IE, and the DOJ showed many internal emails that explain to us why IE was integrated (they actually stated that they needed to "leverage Windows" more to get IE accepted by everyone), it becomes quite plain that Microsoft was committing an anti-competitive act. Being a monopoly, this is illegal. I don't think they'll be able to get this thing overturned. In fact, if this thing gets fasttracked to the Supreme Court (and I hope that's exactly what happens), I think they'll either settle or lose.
The fact is, and Allchin admitted to this, that integrating IE with Windows does not provide any benefit to consumers that could not already be provided without integrating IE. Combine that tidbit with the other evidence that shows why they decided to integrate IE with Windows and you end up with an anti-competitive act committed by a monopolist. That's why they will lose. (unless the appeals court judges are as incompetent as the last group and don't even bother to look at any evidence)
True, they could be jailed if they were convicted of perjury, but as you say, the trick is proving it. You'd have to prove that, not only way their testimony false, but that they knew it was false and were deliberately lying. Personally, I think the emails that were presented by the DOJ were pretty powerfull evidence. I think they were lying. In fact, Boise actually got a couple of them to reverse some of their statements when he confronted them with some evidence. So, yeah, I think they perjured themselves. But I don't think anyone will take the time to call them on it.
Let's keep this in perspective here. Microsoft is guilty of a lot of things, but taking a human life is not one of them. While corporations are given, as an entity, many rights that are usually reserved for people, they are not human beings. Killing a corporation is still just a non-violent act, much like extortion or some other financial crime. That doesn't mean it's not a serious crime, just that it shouldn't be equated with murder. Asking a court to view it as murder is just irrational and silly. We have laws against what they did and remedies for this kind of situation. As a corporation, they broke anti-trust laws. That is what they will have to face the consequences for. There's no "corporate murder" law for them to violate, therefore they could not be guilty of it.
Which is why they should get rid of the death penalty in the first place. The system makes mistakes. People do sneaky things like witholding evidence and such. There are too many ways someone can be wrongly convicted. We shouldn't take away any possibility of at least doing the right thing at a later time by killing the person. Hell, it would even be cheaper in the long run if they would just stop sending all these people to jail for stupid minor drug convictions. We'd have a lot more room for people convicted of real crimes and would still be spending less than we are now to house them.
I'm from Texas, and even we don't execute anyone in civil cases... yet. Since this is basically one big civil case, there should be no execution. Now, civil cases do often impose harsh financial penalties. I would like to see that happen here, but I'm pretty sure it won't since anti-trust law doesn't deal with punishments, only remedies to restore competition. If the company is broken up, the shareholders will make a bundle of cash and be quite happy and content. Maybe one of the companies will become big enough again and commit the same crimes as Microsoft. Then maybe they get split up again. The shareholders still walk away happy. That's the real problem with the remedies that have been proposed. Why aren't the owners of the company (i.e. the shareholders) being punished for the actions of the corporation that they own? Shouldn't they face some kind of financial sanctions? Something? Anything? No. They'll make a ton of money if the company is broken up. That's my main issue with the whole thing. I want to see the owners face some consequences for the actions of the company they are investing in. Maybe then this sort of thing won't be so readily tolerated by shareholders. Maybe they'll demand that their corporations obey the law rather than thumb their noses at it. If they actually faced consequences, I think they'd be far more likely to do so.
I think they're hoping to tie it up until the end of next year and are hoping that G. Dubya gets elected and fixes the DOJ and Supreme Court so that they'll understand it's not nice to mess with Microsoft.
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
So the mountain of evidence has nothing to do with it then? While selective enforcement does happen, and should not be tolerated, it doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute those who break the law. It means we should make sure that everyone who breaks the law is prosecuted fairly.
Think about it. Remember last time this happened? They had Microsoft nailed and then let them off with a consent decree which Judge Sporkin knew wouldn't work. So, MS and the DOJ end up on the same team defending the consent decree. They win. Then Bill goes out and starts bragging to the press about how the decree won't change Microsoft's business practices one bit. He was right. He won that round.
Then MS pushed things too far again and they're back in the ring with the DOJ. The DOJ isn't going to let them off without an iron-clad solution this time. They learned what it's like to deal with Microsoft the last time around. They don't plan to make the same mistake this time. Hell, damn near every one of Microsoft's witnesses helped the DOJ's case more than any of the DOJ's witnesses. The evidence was there. Their own testimony confirmed their guilt. There's nothing left to do but decide how best to fix the situation. Microsoft wants a flimsy, unenforceable consent decree like last time. The DOJ damn sure won't give them that this time. So Microsoft will complain that they're being overly harsh and that the proposed remedy is too extreme. Well, I say they brought this on themselves. They had the chance to shape up and stop doing the things that the courts had decided were illegal. They chose not to. If you or I do that, we end up in jail for a long time. I don't see why Microsoft's punishment should be any less severe. We can't put the corporate heads in jail, but we can sure take away their power to commit the same crime yet again.
Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
Yeah, the spring 2000 issue of 2600 goes into more detail on how this is done. Neat idea, but like anything, it can be worked around.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in that post. The case wasn't about routers really. IIRC, the defendant compared their actions to that of routers and other equipment that copy data. The judge didn't buy the router comparison because they don't hold data very long. I wish I could remember what the case was actually about. Then it might make a bit more sense.
Given the amount of false information that Congress is being fed, it seems to me that no good can come of this. This deserves major attention before our congresscritters go and do something REALLY dumb. We need to get real information to Congress and then maybe the ones who aren't doing this to further their own agenda (*cough* the distinguished gentleman from Washington *cough*) might actually have some factual information to go on. Are there any academics or industry leaders who might be willing to tell congress the truth? Should there be a letter-writing campaign? What would work best?
Such a message would probably be ignored unless you are a medium to large corporation. We are appointed a lawyer at no cost for defense in a criminal case. Don't think that applies to civil cases though.
Routers don't qualify. They don't keep the data long enough. I forget what case that decision came out of, and I'm not sure it applies everywhere (probably just one district). Not sure about the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Microsoft is claiming copyright on the document describing their extensions, not the extensions themselves.
Actually, they're claiming copyright on the entire specification, i.e. "Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled 'Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems.'" That's beside the point though. They would have a much better case if they were claiming copyright of the extensions themselves rather than the document describing the extensions. The specification is necessary information for anyone attempting to achieve interoperability, something that seems to even be protected under the DMCA, although with a major loophole or three for the corps to exploit.
8. Microsoft respects the right of the users of Slashdot to view the specifications for the purpose of comment.
No they don't, they even want posts that quote only a portion of the specification to be removed, as well as those that link to it, or describe how to open it with Winzip.
Why is everyone talking about trade secrets?
The EULA for the specification claims that it is a trade secret of Microsoft. Then, in the letter, Microsoft references "examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information." Granted, the main issue appears to be the copyright issue, but since Microsoft is trying to claim trade secret status for the spec as well, that's being discussed here too.
Basically, Microsoft is really overreaching on this one. Perhaps if they had just stuck to trying to get the one or two posts that actually posted the entire document removed, they might have met with a more favorable reception. But since they're also trying to remove posts that only quote a portion of the spec, posts that explain that you can open the compressed file with Winzip or a similar program, and posts that contain a link to a copy of the spec somewhere, nobody has much sympathy for their situation. Then there's the point that while the posting of an entire document is rarely considered fair use, it may actually be fair use in the case of a technical specification, most of which is public information, simply because you can't really have an informed discussion of a specification without knowing what the whole specification says. In the absence of trade secret status, this might hold up. Slashdot has a strong incentive not to back down on this one too, because if they do censor any comments on this site, they may lose any chance of claiming "common carrier" status. That could oblige them to censor any comment that someone has a gripe about. Not a good precedent to set.
I'm glad to see that their lawyers are taking this approach. They most certainly should get as much information from Microsoft as possible in order to determine the course of action they should take. Most of those questions were quite valid and relevant.
I've got news for you... people have been put in jail for passing around trade secrets. It's called "theft".
This just in! If it's not really a trade secret, then there's no crime in reavealing it. Microsoft has made no real effort to keep the document secret. They let anybody anywhere have access to it. Even minors who aren't legally bound by the EULA, and people living in places where the EULA has no legal merit. Therefore this specification can no longer be considered a trade secret. It's out there. It's publicly available and you don't have to even read, much less agree to the EULA.
They may even argue that it's not "secure enough". But stealing from my car when the window is open or stealing by breaking the window is still stealing.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Trade secret laws are not the same as regular property laws, and for good reason. In order for something to qualify as a trade secret, one of the criteria that must be met is that the trade secret holder must use "reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect" the secrecy of the information. Microsoft certainly did not do this, as evidenced by the fact that anybody could download the information and legitimately open it using the same or quite similar program as was used to compress the file, without ever agreeing to a EULA.
But the point is that everyone who posted it knew that it was copyrighted material.
Now you've jumped from trade secrets to copyrights. Sure. Anyway, the copyright issue is a whole other can of worms. I think that it could be argued that this is a technical specification that Microsoft has made public, and as such it should be considered fair use to post the document in its entirety for the purpose of commentary and criticism due to the fact that it must be taken as a whole to be fully understood and for an informed, rational discussion to take place.
I don't think this is either letter. They probably sent the first letter acknowledging receipt, and this is a second letter asking for more information and clarification. Presumably they will use this information to write yet another letter addressing the issues.
Not non-issues in the case, but not really the point of it either.
While it may not be the point of Microsoft's accusation, Slashdot's lawyers are definitely correct to seek as much information as possible before deciding on a course of action. Not to mention that, as someone else here said, it makes a good delaying tactic to allow the posts to fall off of the /. servers and therefore not risk /. having to censor the posts, thereby setting a bad precedent that could require them to censor any post that someone complains about.
Bypassing the software that has the license agreement dialog violates the DMCA.
I still fail to see how using WinZip or some such program that is specifically designed to open compressed files constitutes bypassing a content protection mechanism. These files are created with such a program, and such a program is routinely used to open them. I don't make a habit of running executables on my system if I don't have to. I almost always open self-extracting compressed files with a compression program rather than just running them. I think that their content protection mechanism isn't really a protective measure since it doesn't even occur in many instances when a person opens the file in a perfectly legitimate fashion.
That has the potential to be illegal under long established (and enforced by the court system) copyright law.
Given the nature of the document, i.e. a technical specification, posting the entire document could probably be justified. You can't really understand the spec without seeing the whole thing. That, combined with interoperability concerns (which was supposedly why Microsoft was releasing this doc in the first place), leads me to think that /. has a good chance of succeeding with a fair use argument.
I can slap a copyright statement on damn near anything. It doesn't mean I really own the copyright to that work. I thought this question was quite relevant:
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
They're taking an open protocol, adding a bit to it, and trying to call the whole thing their property. I don't think that's going to work.
Another good question was this:
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Given the fact that Microsoft is a known monopolist, people have a right to be concerned about what Microsoft is attempting to do with an open protocol. Posting the information so that we can all discuss it should be considered fair use, even if Microsoft does somehow own the copyright for the document. They probably wouldn't even try to stand on just the copyright issue. They seem to be playing up the trade secret part more than the copyright part. This is why most of the other questions were quite good.
Exactly. Nobody was murdered. Read farther down the thread of my post.
Of course, neither one should get away with it. Of course the impeachment issues were a lot more complex than Microsoft's antitrust issues. Mainly because there was so much going on behind the scenes. Not to mention all the hypocrisy in Congress. It was pretty disgusting to watch. But when you get down to it, I have to agree that I believe that he did lie under oath. I don't think we should get into all that stuff again though. Suffice it to say that I think that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Now, there may be circumstances that would call for leniency, but I think Microsoft has already exhausted the DOJ's supply of leniency with the consent decree last time.
>Look, we try to maintain a free market system in this country. Part of that entails fixing the problems that crop up sometimes when a corporation goes too far and jeopardizes the goals of the free market. Anti-trust laws themselves are "well-established doctrines." The system is based on rules and regulations, laws. Microsoft didn't abide by those laws. The DOJ tried to fix the problem last time. Microsoft was guilty and everyone knew it. So we ended up with a consent decree. Now, Microsoft could have taken that as a sign that they had gone too far and needed to step back inside the lines. Instead, they chose to thumb their noses (almost literally) at the DOJ and continue business as usual. Since they did not act in good faith last time, the DOJ has no reason to believe they will do so this time. Hence the severe and permanent remedy that is proposed.
You may feel that anti-trust laws are not constitutional. Fine. A lot of people believe that many of the rights granted to corporations aren't constitutional either. Capitalism only works as long as it is controlled. Otherwise you end up with no choice and no competition. The markets will be divided and one corp will come out as the sole owner of each market. The rest of us will become serfs to the corporate lords. I realize that that sounds rather overly dramatic, but in the absence of anti-trust laws, I don't see anything that would prevent such a situation from occurring.
Did you forget that the appellate court didn't even look at any evidence when they made their decision? When this thing goes to appeal, the Findings of Fact will basically be taken as gospel. They are very difficult to overturn. Given that, the appellate court's decision will have little affect on the case from here on out. They made a decision without seeing any evidence. Judge Jackson has seen and considered all the evidence presented in this case and has decided what is fact and what is not. That will be the basis for any appeal as well. The earlire appellate court decision will carry little weight now.
The whole lawsuit swirls around trying to decide whether 1) it really is integrated and 2) whether it matters why Microsoft did it.
Since Allchin already admitted that integrating IE doesn't provide any benefit to consumers that could not be provided without integrating IE, and the DOJ showed many internal emails that explain to us why IE was integrated (they actually stated that they needed to "leverage Windows" more to get IE accepted by everyone), it becomes quite plain that Microsoft was committing an anti-competitive act. Being a monopoly, this is illegal. I don't think they'll be able to get this thing overturned. In fact, if this thing gets fasttracked to the Supreme Court (and I hope that's exactly what happens), I think they'll either settle or lose.
The fact is, and Allchin admitted to this, that integrating IE with Windows does not provide any benefit to consumers that could not already be provided without integrating IE. Combine that tidbit with the other evidence that shows why they decided to integrate IE with Windows and you end up with an anti-competitive act committed by a monopolist. That's why they will lose. (unless the appeals court judges are as incompetent as the last group and don't even bother to look at any evidence)
True, they could be jailed if they were convicted of perjury, but as you say, the trick is proving it. You'd have to prove that, not only way their testimony false, but that they knew it was false and were deliberately lying. Personally, I think the emails that were presented by the DOJ were pretty powerfull evidence. I think they were lying. In fact, Boise actually got a couple of them to reverse some of their statements when he confronted them with some evidence. So, yeah, I think they perjured themselves. But I don't think anyone will take the time to call them on it.
Let's keep this in perspective here. Microsoft is guilty of a lot of things, but taking a human life is not one of them. While corporations are given, as an entity, many rights that are usually reserved for people, they are not human beings. Killing a corporation is still just a non-violent act, much like extortion or some other financial crime. That doesn't mean it's not a serious crime, just that it shouldn't be equated with murder. Asking a court to view it as murder is just irrational and silly. We have laws against what they did and remedies for this kind of situation. As a corporation, they broke anti-trust laws. That is what they will have to face the consequences for. There's no "corporate murder" law for them to violate, therefore they could not be guilty of it.
Which is why they should get rid of the death penalty in the first place. The system makes mistakes. People do sneaky things like witholding evidence and such. There are too many ways someone can be wrongly convicted. We shouldn't take away any possibility of at least doing the right thing at a later time by killing the person. Hell, it would even be cheaper in the long run if they would just stop sending all these people to jail for stupid minor drug convictions. We'd have a lot more room for people convicted of real crimes and would still be spending less than we are now to house them.
I'm from Texas, and even we don't execute anyone in civil cases... yet. Since this is basically one big civil case, there should be no execution. Now, civil cases do often impose harsh financial penalties. I would like to see that happen here, but I'm pretty sure it won't since anti-trust law doesn't deal with punishments, only remedies to restore competition. If the company is broken up, the shareholders will make a bundle of cash and be quite happy and content. Maybe one of the companies will become big enough again and commit the same crimes as Microsoft. Then maybe they get split up again. The shareholders still walk away happy. That's the real problem with the remedies that have been proposed. Why aren't the owners of the company (i.e. the shareholders) being punished for the actions of the corporation that they own? Shouldn't they face some kind of financial sanctions? Something? Anything? No. They'll make a ton of money if the company is broken up. That's my main issue with the whole thing. I want to see the owners face some consequences for the actions of the company they are investing in. Maybe then this sort of thing won't be so readily tolerated by shareholders. Maybe they'll demand that their corporations obey the law rather than thumb their noses at it. If they actually faced consequences, I think they'd be far more likely to do so.
I think they're hoping to tie it up until the end of next year and are hoping that G. Dubya gets elected and fixes the DOJ and Supreme Court so that they'll understand it's not nice to mess with Microsoft.
I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.
So the mountain of evidence has nothing to do with it then? While selective enforcement does happen, and should not be tolerated, it doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute those who break the law. It means we should make sure that everyone who breaks the law is prosecuted fairly.
Think about it. Remember last time this happened? They had Microsoft nailed and then let them off with a consent decree which Judge Sporkin knew wouldn't work. So, MS and the DOJ end up on the same team defending the consent decree. They win. Then Bill goes out and starts bragging to the press about how the decree won't change Microsoft's business practices one bit. He was right. He won that round.
Then MS pushed things too far again and they're back in the ring with the DOJ. The DOJ isn't going to let them off without an iron-clad solution this time. They learned what it's like to deal with Microsoft the last time around. They don't plan to make the same mistake this time. Hell, damn near every one of Microsoft's witnesses helped the DOJ's case more than any of the DOJ's witnesses. The evidence was there. Their own testimony confirmed their guilt. There's nothing left to do but decide how best to fix the situation. Microsoft wants a flimsy, unenforceable consent decree like last time. The DOJ damn sure won't give them that this time. So Microsoft will complain that they're being overly harsh and that the proposed remedy is too extreme. Well, I say they brought this on themselves. They had the chance to shape up and stop doing the things that the courts had decided were illegal. They chose not to. If you or I do that, we end up in jail for a long time. I don't see why Microsoft's punishment should be any less severe. We can't put the corporate heads in jail, but we can sure take away their power to commit the same crime yet again.
Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
Yeah, the spring 2000 issue of 2600 goes into more detail on how this is done. Neat idea, but like anything, it can be worked around.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in that post. The case wasn't about routers really. IIRC, the defendant compared their actions to that of routers and other equipment that copy data. The judge didn't buy the router comparison because they don't hold data very long. I wish I could remember what the case was actually about. Then it might make a bit more sense.
Given the amount of false information that Congress is being fed, it seems to me that no good can come of this. This deserves major attention before our congresscritters go and do something REALLY dumb. We need to get real information to Congress and then maybe the ones who aren't doing this to further their own agenda (*cough* the distinguished gentleman from Washington *cough*) might actually have some factual information to go on. Are there any academics or industry leaders who might be willing to tell congress the truth? Should there be a letter-writing campaign? What would work best?
Now they won't be able to read websites in their native language!
That only applies to trademarks, not copyright.
Such a message would probably be ignored unless you are a medium to large corporation. We are appointed a lawyer at no cost for defense in a criminal case. Don't think that applies to civil cases though.
Routers don't qualify. They don't keep the data long enough. I forget what case that decision came out of, and I'm not sure it applies everywhere (probably just one district). Not sure about the rest.
Not in this case. If anyone could be prosecuted, it'd be Playboy. They're hosting the material and they control who gets access to it.