The media has been grossly ignorant of the larger picture. I have been researching the issue of standing in the Microsoft case. Of particular interest to me was that the Justice department first brought this case to a civil court, and later attempted to enter into a settlement with Microsoft.
The consent decree was to include an injunction disallowing Microsoft to enter into any new non-disclosure agreements with developers or any exclusive contracts with computer manufacturers for 7 years. The district judge, refused to issue the consent decree, citing a book he had read called "Hard Drive" which alleged that Microsoft was sleazy. He was demanding that the Justice department also expand its investigation to include allegations that Microsoft had been guilty of pre-announcing non-existent products - commonly known as "vaporware."
He (Judge Sporkin) also allowed 3 companies to anonymously file a brief supporting the vaporware charges and over a month after the filing deadline no less. The Judge wanted the government to continue it's investigation and so refused to issue the consent decree on the grounds that it wasn't in the public interest as defined by the Tunney act 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (1988).
BOTH Microsoft and the Justice department appealed. Microsoft on the grounds that the anonymous filings were improper, the Government on grounds that the consent decree was in the public interest. The DC circuit court ruled against the Judge and remanded the case back to the district court with the instruction that it was to be handled by a different judge. They found Judge Sporkin to be grossly biased.
The appeals decision is important for two reasons:
It verifies what I've been saying all along: The Federal Government is suing Microsoft and isn't even alleging that Microsoft has broken a law. It is also doing so in a civil proceeding where it cannot possibly have standing because, there is no alleged offense, and there is no harm to the government.
From what I understand about the issue of standing, it is always considered. In other words you normally do not have to issue a challenge to standing because the judge presiding over the case is supposed to consider standing when any case is brought before the court. However I believe that it is sometimes challenged and I haven't found such a challenge in the case of Microsoft.
The government did not allege and does not contend_and this is of crucial significance to this case_that Microsoft obtained its alleged monopoly position in violation of the antitrust laws. The government believes that Microsoft's initial acquisition of monopoly power in the operating systems market was the somewhat fortuitous result of IBM choosing for its PCs the operating system introduced by Microsoft ("MS-DOS"), which, with Microsoft's successful exploitation of that advantage, led Microsoft to obtain an installed base on millions of IBM, and IBM-compatible, PCs.
So Microsoft was lucky. How dare they take advantage of this situation eh?
The government (Justice Department) is attempting to create ex post facto law through the manipulation of the judicial system.
It's important to note that the government is so convinced that the practice of entering into exclusive agreements is NOT illegal that they do not demand in the original consent decree that Microsoft refrain from entering into them in the matter of the NT operating system:
The district court understandably questioned the government as to why the decree did not forbid Microsoft from using the alleged anticompetitive licensing practices with respect to all of Microsoft's operating systems (in particular, Windows NT products). But the government explained that Windows NT products do not have "a significant share of a relevant market at this time."
What you have here is a clear double standard. The Justice department is attempting to punish MS for it's success with Windows3.1 and perhaps Windows95, but is allowing MS to continue with practices it claims are "harmful" with WindowsNT.
This proves that the Justice department is either utterly clueless with regards to the software industry, or is only interested in getting a quick settlement and the resultant cash that would result. They are not in any way interested in creating a remedy for the software industry but in extorting money from Microsoft.
You can be sure that they do not give a hoot about MS competitors. Why? Because it is widely reported that Windows2000 will be based on the NT kernel. Therefore they have a solid legal basis by which they can continue their "anticompetitive" agreements.
Game, set and match Microsoft.
If the new consent decree is similar to the original, it will be entirely moot well before the 7 year prohibition is reached. To those who believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, this is horrible news. It proves that the government is totally inept. To those that believe, as I do, that Microsoft has done nothing wrong (that would include the Justice department) it is also tremendously bad news. The government will be effective in extorting and manipulating a company that has not broken the law.
Anyone and everyone is fair game for this sick practice. Keep cheering. But don't pretend to be interested in "fixing" the problem. This is about class envy and persuing an unpopular icon in the buisness community. If the Justice department can sue anyone willy nilly for not breaking the law, then everyone is fair game. That is everyone who is unpopular with the ignorant masses.
Giving the government access to civil courts simply undernmines due process. Also the rules of evidence are much more lax. What you are advocating is something which makes it much easier for the government to "prove" that a law has been broken. The idea that one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't exist in a civil court.
In a civil court the defendant must prove his innocence. That flies in the face of what we consider to be criminal justice in this country.
Public school right? Is that why you have so little understanding of our political system?
The government should not have access to the court system as a plaintiff.
Microsoft hasn't committed a crime and yet they are having to defend themselves from a government with virtually unlimited funds. NO CRIME! Give me 60 million dollars and I'll take you to court and "prove" that you've done something wrong too.
You've simply failed to consider the longterm chilling effect this kind of activity has on freedom.
Let me ask you how laws can be enforced if the government does not have access to the judicial system as a plaintiff?
It's quite apparent that you haven't considered that a civil court and a criminal court are two different things.
The rules of evidence in a civil court as well as what kind of testimony is admitted etc, are completely different.
If Microsoft had done something criminal, then the proper action would be to indict Gates, or some other official of the company, and put them on trial.
Microsoft is not on trial. They are being sued. By your own government. This is about power and money. It has nothing to do with a browser or an OS.
You assume that capitalism is good. The problem is that unchecked capitalism leads to monopoly situations.
Simply not true. A monopoly cannot exist unless the government makes it possible.
This is true for every monopoly you can name.
In the case of AT&T, it was the government that disallowed other companies from getting involved in the infrastructure. The breakup of AT&T was good. But it would never have been necessary if the government hadn't created the monopoly. It was an indictment on government intrusion into the market place. That's why protectionism is so insidious. It creates monopolies.
On the othe hand, Microsoft isn't a monopoly and this lawsuit is not about technology. It's about the federal government extorting a very successfull software company. It's about money and politics. The technology aspect of this argument is simply a means to make you talk about an irrelevant subject while they're dismantling your freedom. Yes, your freedom. If the government can sue in the civil courts over things which aren't illegal (there have been no violations of anti-trust laws found so far) than we are all simply slaves. And it is our tax money which funds this slavery.
M$loth's efforts have not been in order to enhance the community's *computing* experience, merely their own wallets.
Oh the horror! Microsoft is interested in profits? For shame! And I must assume then that the public is not interested in enhancing their computing experience since they do not purchase the AVAILABLE OS that you prefer.
Viewing the comments here one would have to come to the conclusion that most of the MS haters believe that Bill Gates has the capability to induce mind control on his "victims." NOBODY apparently buys Microsoft products of their own volition.
By the way, I own a Mac. Very little of the software I run on it is Produced by MS. Partly because there is a dirth of MS software for the Mac and partly because I do not like MS software. I'm doing swell with out MS. They are not a monopoly. Oh yeah, I have another Mac that I run Linux on.
Clue: It isn't about whether or not there are no choices - it's whether the company has a dominant market share, which Microsoft clearly does.
It's about crybaby's who have crap to offer as alternatives, are lousy in buisness and want the government to step in and make it easier to sell their crappy worthless products.
Linux is available for anyone who wants it. Apple screwed themselves by grossly over-pricing their products.
Microsoft out performed everyone else. They won. And as fast as the markets and technology changes, there will be new innovators who come along and become successfull. And there will be another round of morons to scream that the company in question is a bunch of big meanies who aren't fair....
Bill Gates is not God. And he's not a saint. But he is in fact responsible for the fact that the computer and internet industry as a whole is so vibrant and competitive. Let's have the government step in and screw it up now.
and are very dangerous right now because they believe they _must_ prevail over the government for the good of the world and innovation everywhere.
That's what they said about Jefferson and Madison.
Microsoft should prevail and it would in fact be good for us if they did. Being successful cannot be converted into a crime. For once look outside of the myopic view that "windoze sucks" and consider that the government is far more powerfull than even Bill Gates. And when the Government can use our money to sue unpopular public figures in civil courts, the concept of self-determination is obliterated.
The one thing you will find burried in reports and hardly mentioned is that nobody has found any crime that has been committed. No laws were broken. So what buisness does the government have suing corporations or individuals who have broken no laws? This whole mess is about money and politics and has nothing to do with technology.
Technology is simply the hand wavy propoganda spewed by the Justice department and it's minions in the press (most of which don't understand what they're writing about). It's extortion. It shouldn't be applauded. It's downright scary.
monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. Monopolies. [L. monopolium, Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product.
Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
Extortion \Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.]
The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
(Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.
That which is extorted or exacted by force.
Syn: Oppression; rapacity; exaction; overcharge.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A businessman has agreed to pay an $845,000 fine to settle charges his company mailed millions of households a $15 offer for services that the Social Security Administration provides for free.
ATLANTA (AP) -- The judge in the government's lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. said Monday one of his goals was to avoid the ``Vietnam morasses'' of previous long-running antitrust cases.
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- American Airlines has asked to meet with U.S. Justice Department lawyers this month about the government's claim that the nation's second-largest air carrier tried to drive small, startup airlines out of business.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is getting some outside help in preparing a federal tobacco lawsuit from a Minneapolis law firm that helped Minnesota obtain a $6.6 billion settlement from the industry last year.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Visa and MasterCard, the nation's biggest credit card networks, are limiting customer choice and inhibiting competition by preventing banks from offering other cards, the government alleged Wednesday in an antitrust lawsuit.
Freedom be damned Today, might possibly be the beginning of the end. The end of the sane masses who wish to be left alone to pursue happiness. Today, people you would consider intelligent, honest citizens, are cheering the demise of America's greatest success story. And many can't even explain why they cheer.
Yesterday. It wasn't justyesterday but some time ago, the government gained access to our civil courts as plaintiffs. The result is manifest as rapacious tragedy. Americans all over the continent are being held hostage by their own government. Extorted, wheedled, cajoled and preyed upon by greedy, poor excuses for men (and women). Sadly, no one foretold the tragic results. The bill of goods that our forefathers read and subsequently accepted, included a litany of bad behaviors meted out by an evil gaggle of robber barons intent on world domination. Of course, what was not included in that list of insult, was the revelation that such behavior was only made possible by the very government which proposed a solution.
How very clever. Create the problem, terrorize the victims, and then turn them into willing slaves. "Save us from this pestilence!"
Why, the mere mention of these former boogy men sends chills down the spine of all: Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Philip Morris...
Giving the federal government, nay giving any government, access to the civil court system, was in effect, creating a new form of slavery. There is now no place that one can consider safe from government intrusion. In fact, it is perhaps the most insidious and insane usurpation of power ever willingly granted in America. Your own government can use your money, to enslave you. You will never win and can only lose. Every dollar you spend on your defense, will be met with a thousand more. And the very money you spend mounting a defense will be taxed again and used against you. There is no amount of money that can be raised that will save you. Why? Because it is in effect feeding the very animal you are wishing to kill. Your battle with the animal actually makes it stronger as you become weaker.
Humans have a very sick sense of justice. We always wish to see the "evil" character punished. The government tort, is a beautiful fantasy fulfilled on prime time airwaves. And the government, with it's limitless resources (borrowed money, the repayment of which will be produced by the slaves) is portrayed as the David to the "evil corporation's" Goliath.
If there is just one thing to be accomplished in my lifetime which would promote the cause of freedom and restore the constitution, it would be the banishment of any government agency from setting foot inside a civil court unless they were named defendants. The person or persons who plotted this enslavement, will never receive the justice they deserve.
This isn't simply a matter of anti-trust law. Consider the fact that our government can now initiate lawsuits against individual property owners for "environmental" reasons. It is in fact, how the tax code is enforced by and large. And in case you're not aware, civil court rules for judgement are a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt." In some cases, a mere preponderance of evidence will do. Hearsay is allowed, and in many states a unanimous decision isn't even required by the jury. That is, if you get a jury. You could end up with a government appointed judge. Still think the deck isn't stacked? In civil courts, it is more often than not, the sheer volume of spending which determines the outcome. Whoever can spend the most money, and confuse the jury, wins. Most of these cases are settled however, because a good lawyer will do the best he can to minimize the damage. But going to trial against a plaintiff with the kind of resources that is the governments, is sheer insanity unless you have videotape (recorded in four different spectrums and angles) proving your innocence. In a civil case, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Our founders knew this. It is why they kept the government under strict rule that they would never be able to enslave their citizens in this manner. We must stop this practice at all costs. Some people think that they are not slaves. They are wrong. You are indeed slaves. And if it isn't you who is victimized, you can be sure that the fruits of your labor are being used to victimize your fellow citizen. We are all unwittingly responsible for the slavery. We have simply gotten so used to these chains they no longer bother. Callous upon callous has helped us to forget. I would urge you to make this issue a priority in your life. The government should have no standing in civil courts unless they are the defendant.
Slashdot Mirror
The consent decree was to include an injunction disallowing Microsoft to enter into any new non-disclosure agreements with developers or any exclusive contracts with computer manufacturers for 7 years. The district judge, refused to issue the consent decree, citing a book he had read called "Hard Drive" which alleged that Microsoft was sleazy. He was demanding that the Justice department also expand its investigation to include allegations that Microsoft had been guilty of pre-announcing non-existent products - commonly known as "vaporware."
He (Judge Sporkin) also allowed 3 companies to anonymously file a brief supporting the vaporware charges and over a month after the filing deadline no less. The Judge wanted the government to continue it's investigation and so refused to issue the consent decree on the grounds that it wasn't in the public interest as defined by the Tunney act 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (1988).
BOTH Microsoft and the Justice department appealed. Microsoft on the grounds that the anonymous filings were improper, the Government on grounds that the consent decree was in the public interest. The DC circuit court ruled against the Judge and remanded the case back to the district court with the instruction that it was to be handled by a different judge. They found Judge Sporkin to be grossly biased.
The appeals decision is important for two reasons:
One would think, based on the rulings so far and especially this one, United States Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit No. 95-5037 June 16, 1995, that the government has never been able to show harm to itself:
So Microsoft was lucky. How dare they take advantage of this situation eh?
It's important to note that the government is so convinced that the practice of entering into exclusive agreements is NOT illegal that they do not demand in the original consent decree that Microsoft refrain from entering into them in the matter of the NT operating system:
What you have here is a clear double standard. The Justice department is attempting to punish MS for it's success with Windows3.1 and perhaps Windows95, but is allowing MS to continue with practices it claims are "harmful" with WindowsNT.
This proves that the Justice department is either utterly clueless with regards to the software industry, or is only interested in getting a quick settlement and the resultant cash that would result. They are not in any way interested in creating a remedy for the software industry but in extorting money from Microsoft.
You can be sure that they do not give a hoot about MS competitors. Why? Because it is widely reported that Windows2000 will be based on the NT kernel. Therefore they have a solid legal basis by which they can continue their "anticompetitive" agreements.
Game, set and match Microsoft.
If the new consent decree is similar to the original, it will be entirely moot well before the 7 year prohibition is reached. To those who believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, this is horrible news. It proves that the government is totally inept. To those that believe, as I do, that Microsoft has done nothing wrong (that would include the Justice department) it is also tremendously bad news. The government will be effective in extorting and manipulating a company that has not broken the law.
Anyone and everyone is fair game for this sick practice. Keep cheering. But don't pretend to be interested in "fixing" the problem. This is about class envy and persuing an unpopular icon in the buisness community. If the Justice department can sue anyone willy nilly for not breaking the law, then everyone is fair game. That is everyone who is unpopular with the ignorant masses.
In a civil court the defendant must prove his innocence. That flies in the face of what we consider to be criminal justice in this country.
The government should not have access to the court system as a plaintiff.
Microsoft hasn't committed a crime and yet they are having to defend themselves from a government with virtually unlimited funds. NO CRIME! Give me 60 million dollars and I'll take you to court and "prove" that you've done something wrong too.
You've simply failed to consider the longterm chilling effect this kind of activity has on freedom.
It's quite apparent that you haven't considered that a civil court and a criminal court are two different things.
The rules of evidence in a civil court as well as what kind of testimony is admitted etc, are completely different.
If Microsoft had done something criminal, then the proper action would be to indict Gates, or some other official of the company, and put them on trial.
Microsoft is not on trial. They are being sued. By your own government. This is about power and money. It has nothing to do with a browser or an OS.
Simply not true. A monopoly cannot exist unless the government makes it possible.
This is true for every monopoly you can name.
In the case of AT&T, it was the government that disallowed other companies from getting involved in the infrastructure. The breakup of AT&T was good. But it would never have been necessary if the government hadn't created the monopoly. It was an indictment on government intrusion into the market place. That's why protectionism is so insidious. It creates monopolies.
On the othe hand, Microsoft isn't a monopoly and this lawsuit is not about technology. It's about the federal government extorting a very successfull software company. It's about money and politics. The technology aspect of this argument is simply a means to make you talk about an irrelevant subject while they're dismantling your freedom. Yes, your freedom. If the government can sue in the civil courts over things which aren't illegal (there have been no violations of anti-trust laws found so far) than we are all simply slaves. And it is our tax money which funds this slavery.
Oh the horror! Microsoft is interested in profits? For shame! And I must assume then that the public is not interested in enhancing their computing experience since they do not purchase the AVAILABLE OS that you prefer.
Viewing the comments here one would have to come to the conclusion that most of the MS haters believe that Bill Gates has the capability to induce mind control on his "victims." NOBODY apparently buys Microsoft products of their own volition.
By the way, I own a Mac. Very little of the software I run on it is Produced by MS. Partly because there is a dirth of MS software for the Mac and partly because I do not like MS software. I'm doing swell with out MS. They are not a monopoly. Oh yeah, I have another Mac that I run Linux on.
It's about crybaby's who have crap to offer as alternatives, are lousy in buisness and want the government to step in and make it easier to sell their crappy worthless products.
Linux is available for anyone who wants it. Apple screwed themselves by grossly over-pricing their products.
Microsoft out performed everyone else. They won. And as fast as the markets and technology changes, there will be new innovators who come along and become successfull. And there will be another round of morons to scream that the company in question is a bunch of big meanies who aren't fair....
Bill Gates is not God. And he's not a saint. But he is in fact responsible for the fact that the computer and internet industry as a whole is so vibrant and competitive. Let's have the government step in and screw it up now.
That's what they said about Jefferson and Madison.
Microsoft should prevail and it would in fact be good for us if they did. Being successful cannot be converted into a crime. For once look outside of the myopic view that "windoze sucks" and consider that the government is far more powerfull than even Bill Gates. And when the Government can use our money to sue unpopular public figures in civil courts, the concept of self-determination is obliterated.
The one thing you will find burried in reports and hardly mentioned is that nobody has found any crime that has been committed. No laws were broken. So what buisness does the government have suing corporations or individuals who have broken no laws? This whole mess is about money and politics and has nothing to do with technology.
Technology is simply the hand wavy propoganda spewed by the Justice department and it's minions in the press (most of which don't understand what they're writing about). It's extortion. It shouldn't be applauded. It's downright scary.
Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
Syn: Oppression; rapacity; exaction; overcharge.
Freedom be damned Today, might possibly be the beginning of the end. The end of the sane masses who wish to be left alone to pursue happiness. Today, people you would consider intelligent, honest citizens, are cheering the demise of America's greatest success story. And many can't even explain why they cheer.
Yesterday. It wasn't justyesterday but some time ago, the government gained access to our civil courts as plaintiffs. The result is manifest as rapacious tragedy. Americans all over the continent are being held hostage by their own government. Extorted, wheedled, cajoled and preyed upon by greedy, poor excuses for men (and women). Sadly, no one foretold the tragic results. The bill of goods that our forefathers read and subsequently accepted, included a litany of bad behaviors meted out by an evil gaggle of robber barons intent on world domination. Of course, what was not included in that list of insult, was the revelation that such behavior was only made possible by the very government which proposed a solution.
How very clever. Create the problem, terrorize the victims, and then turn them into willing slaves. "Save us from this pestilence!"
Why, the mere mention of these former boogy men sends chills down the spine of all: Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Philip Morris...
Giving the federal government, nay giving any government, access to the civil court system, was in effect, creating a new form of slavery. There is now no place that one can consider safe from government intrusion. In fact, it is perhaps the most insidious and insane usurpation of power ever willingly granted in America. Your own government can use your money, to enslave you. You will never win and can only lose. Every dollar you spend on your defense, will be met with a thousand more. And the very money you spend mounting a defense will be taxed again and used against you. There is no amount of money that can be raised that will save you. Why? Because it is in effect feeding the very animal you are wishing to kill. Your battle with the animal actually makes it stronger as you become weaker.
Humans have a very sick sense of justice. We always wish to see the "evil" character punished. The government tort, is a beautiful fantasy fulfilled on prime time airwaves. And the government, with it's limitless resources (borrowed money, the repayment of which will be produced by the slaves) is portrayed as the David to the "evil corporation's" Goliath.
If there is just one thing to be accomplished in my lifetime which would promote the cause of freedom and restore the constitution, it would be the banishment of any government agency from setting foot inside a civil court unless they were named defendants. The person or persons who plotted this enslavement, will never receive the justice they deserve.
This isn't simply a matter of anti-trust law. Consider the fact that our government can now initiate lawsuits against individual property owners for "environmental" reasons. It is in fact, how the tax code is enforced by and large. And in case you're not aware, civil court rules for judgement are a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt." In some cases, a mere preponderance of evidence will do. Hearsay is allowed, and in many states a unanimous decision isn't even required by the jury. That is, if you get a jury. You could end up with a government appointed judge. Still think the deck isn't stacked? In civil courts, it is more often than not, the sheer volume of spending which determines the outcome. Whoever can spend the most money, and confuse the jury, wins. Most of these cases are settled however, because a good lawyer will do the best he can to minimize the damage. But going to trial against a plaintiff with the kind of resources that is the governments, is sheer insanity unless you have videotape (recorded in four different spectrums and angles) proving your innocence. In a civil case, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Our founders knew this. It is why they kept the government under strict rule that they would never be able to enslave their citizens in this manner. We must stop this practice at all costs. Some people think that they are not slaves. They are wrong. You are indeed slaves. And if it isn't you who is victimized, you can be sure that the fruits of your labor are being used to victimize your fellow citizen. We are all unwittingly responsible for the slavery. We have simply gotten so used to these chains they no longer bother. Callous upon callous has helped us to forget. I would urge you to make this issue a priority in your life. The government should have no standing in civil courts unless they are the defendant.