Excellent comments. For the benefit of those who want to look up the legislation for themselves, here's a link that almost leads to just the right place, and that should be durable: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c106:H.R.1714:. That link will display a list of all the versions of the bill; just click on the "H.R.1714.EH" link to get the version that's currently in the House.
"Oh, but wait, you say! The consumer has to agree to this! So, now when you sign up for something like this, Agreement 2, Section 9, Paragraph 12, Sentence 48 specifically says that you agree to electronic notifications. Come on...since when have you gotten to negotiate the fine print on a contract with a big corporation?
That's an excellent point, but there's a couple of things that should be mentioned here:
Under the terms of the bill, the consent to electronic notice has to be "conspicuous and visually separate from other terms"; it can't be something that's slipped into the middle of a paragraph somewhere.
"Stealth changes" like the ones you're subscribing are nothing new; a number of credit card companies are particularly fond of stuffing things in their bills that look like advertisements but that are actually changes to the agreement. Of course, there are some unique consumer threats to the electronic approach; instead of hiding the changes in a larger message like you're describing, a company could send a notification in a way that made it look like spam (complete with the email header format that spam-mailer software usually uses), hoping that the consumer's spam-filtering software would filter it out and that the user would never even see it.
Rather than speculate about what this bill will or won't do, let's take the time to read it for ourselves. Like all the other bills working their way through Congress, the text of this bill is available at the Library of Congress' THOMAS server. Here's the full text of the bill; that link may or may not work when you read this, since the URLs on THOMAS do have a habit of changing occasionally. If the link fails, then go to THOMAS' home page, type "HR 1714" in the 'Search by Bill Number' box at the top of the page, and do the search. In the list of bills that appears, choose 'HR 1714 EH'; that's the current version, at least as I'm writing this.
A few personal comments after reading the bill:
Like many other Congressional bills, this one contains lots of contradictory paragraphs and "Notwithstanding paragraph b..."; it takes a very careful reading to figure out what it does and doesn't do, and I'm personally still not sure I've got it figured out. This alone gives me reason to distrust it.
In order for an electronic document to satisfy a requirement that a consumer be informed of something in writing, the consumer must first be informed that electronic notification may be used, and the consumer must agree to that "by means of a consent that is conspicuous and visually separate from other terms". Furthermore, the consumer can withdraw consent at any time. This doesn't seem bad to me.
A consumer is still allowed to claim that notification was never given or that an electronic signature isn't the consumer's, just as a consumer can claim that a document was never mailed or that a physical signature is a forgery.
States are allowed to pass laws modifying the use of electronic signatures within their states; however, there are restrictions on their ability to do that, and those restrictions seem extremely muddy to me. Lots of potential for arguments and Supreme Court action here.
If a notification is "necessary for the protection of the public health or safety of consumers", then the notification cannot be only electronic, even if the consumer has consented.
A will still cannot be electronic. Those probate lawyers are a conservative bunch, I guess.
Court orders and notices still can't be electronic. All those lawyers are a conservative bunch.
Notices about the cancellation of utility service, foreclosure of a home, or cancellation of health or life insurance can't be electronic-only.
Overall, I wish that it were written more clearly, but it doesn't seem onerous to me.
To be a little bit more specific about that: Basically, if a court decision goes against you in the US, you have a right to appeal, and the courts are required to hear your appeal. If the court hears your appeal and decides that it was a frivolous one, they can fine you for making it; but they have to hear it first. Only in extremely rare cases--someone filing a long series of utterly frivolous lawsuits and appeals--can someone be denied the right to do this.
This continues up to the level of the federal circuit courts of appeals, the second-highest level of courts in the US. The highest level is the Supreme Court, and it works quite differently. With very rare exceptions, the Supreme Court is not required to hear any case. If a decision goes against you in the federal circuit courts, and you want to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, you must file a "petition for writ of certiorari"--a formal request to hear the case, and a description of exactly what issues you feel the Court needs to decide on, and your legal arguments supporting your opinions on those issues. The other side can then file a "brief in opposition", a factual and legal description of why the Court should find the other way on the issues, or refuse to hear the case altogether. You can then file a "reply brief" rebutting the other side's arguments. In addition, any other party that might be interested in the outcome of the case can ask the Court's permission to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, describing their own views. (For example, if a drug case that started out in state court gets appealed to the Supreme Court, the federal government isn't a party to the case; but if the Justice Department feels strongly that the case should be ruled in the state's favor, it may file an amicus curiae brief supporting the state's views.)
Once all of this filing and counterfiling has been done, the Court can then do one of several things.
It can agree to hear the case. In this case, the parties have a chance to argue their views orally before the Court, and the Court then makes its decision (though that decision may not come for months after the oral argument). The court's decision, whatever it is, becomes precedent that all courts in the US must follow for cases with the same set of facts.
It can refuse to hear the case. (This is by far the most common result.) In this case, the decision of the circuit appeals court stands. This does not create a national precedent, though the circuit appeals court's decision still sets precedent within that circuit only. (When you hear a news report say that the Supreme Court "refused to consider" or "sidestepped" some case, this is what happened.)
It can immediately make a ruling. For example, if the Court makes a ruling on a particular case after hearing the arguments, and several other cases with the same set of facts have recently been presented to the Court, the Court may immediately make the same ruling on all those other cases.
I, for one, hope that the DoJ does not decide to go with the 'expedited' route. Let me explain why.
There are three courts directly involved in this case: Judge Jackson's district court, the DC circuit appeals court, and the Supreme Court. We already have a very clear idea where two of those three courts stand on the issue. Judge Jackson is clearly in agreement with the government; his findings of fact were even harsher than the government's proposed findings in a number of places. The DC circuit appeals court clearly leans much more towards Microsoft's side of things; the language they've used in rejecting many of the government's arguments on appeal makes that clear. Only the Supreme Court is largely a question mark at this point, since they have yet to have occasion to weigh in directly on the issue.
Let's assume, for the moment, that the case is not expedited directly to the Supremes, and instead follows the usual route. Judge Jackson's court will make its findings of law, which will almost certainly go heavily against Microsoft. Microsoft will almost certainly file an immediate appeal at that point, asking the DC circuit court to review the conclusions of law before the district court starts deciding the remedies. That request will almost certainly be granted, and the circuit court may well reverse some of the conclusions of law. Then the remedies will be decided on, and those will almost certainly be appealed as well.
Ultimately, of course, it will all wind up at the Supreme Court. They do have the option to refuse to hear the case; but in a case as important as this one, that's very unlikely. So the Supreme Court will make the final decision, based on both the district court's and the appeals court's findings.
On the other hand, if the DoJ 'expedites' things, both the conclusions of law and the penalties will be decided on at the circuit court level; then the whole thing will go to the Supreme Court for appeal all at once; the appeals court is skipped. This certainly sounds like it would be faster, but let's look at it more closely. It's actually quite rare for an appeals court to dictate a completely new solution; in other words, neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court is likely to say 'Here's the complete new ruling on the case'. Instead, the appeals court will more often reverse--strike out--particular elements of the lower court's findings, and then send the case back to the lower court. The lower court then re-decides the issue, incorporating those reversals. So in other words, the appeals court won't say "These three conclusions of law are wrong; on that basis, here's the new remedies." It will say "These three conclusions of law are wrong. Now, lower court, go back and re-decide on what the appropriate remedies are."
So the end result of that is: Under the 'expedited' flow of things, both the conclusions of law and the remedies have to be decided at the district court level, before the case is appealed at all. If the Supreme Court agrees wholeheartedly with everything the district court said, that's no problem. But if the Supreme Court decides that even one of the district court's conclusions of law are wrong, and reverses that wrong conclusions, then the district court will probably have to do the 'remedies' phase of the trial all over again, in light of the new conclusions of law. And, of course, once it decides on a new set of remedies, those remedies can be appealed as well. And heaven help us all if the Supremes reverse any of the findings of fact; that would probably throw out not only the remedies, but the conclusions of law as well.
In constrast, in the normal flow of things, the findings of fact and conclusions of law will probably be appealed fully--first to the appeals court, then to the Supreme Court--before the remedies are decided on at all. So the chances are much, much higher than we'll only have to go through the remedies phase once, since those remedies will be based on the final conclusions of law, rather than just the district court's own view of them.
So the 'expedited' path may well not wind up being substantially faster than the standard path after all. And more importantly, what spin will Microsoft be able to place on the expedited process? Don't believe for a moment that the courts are operating wholly in a vacuum on this; there's always public and/or political pressure of one sort or another, especially at the Supreme Court level. And whatever the final solution is, it's almost certain to require various government agencies to implement it; and those government agencies are often governed by politics as well. So public opinion plays a role here.
Everybody who's been watching this case knows what I said in that first paragraph--that the appeals court has been receptive to Microsoft's views on things. So if the DOJ chooses to skip the appeals court and go straight to the Supremes, Microsoft is going to loudly point out everything I just said--that the 'expedited' process isn't likely to be that much faster than the normal process, and may involve quite a bit more wasted effort. So they're going to claim, loudly and repeatedly, that the DOJ isn't doing this out of any desire for efficiency; they're doing this as an excuse to bypass and ignore the views of a court that they know will disagree with them. And that claim is going to strike a chord, because I believe that quite a number of viewers--myself included--are going to conclude that that claim is absolutely right. The DOJ is going to come across looking like an agency that's more interested in twisting the rules for its own benefit than it is in justice--more or less exactly what the DOJ has been claiming about Microsoft. And public opinion, which I think has been shifted the DOJ's way by Judge Jackson's harsh findings of fact, is very likely to shift right back to Microsoft. And I think that shift will have a very real impact on the sort of remedies that are likely to be imposed, and on the degree of vigor with which the government will enforce those remedies.
The government is winning. If they just stay the course, they're likely to get most if not all of what they want. But, just like Microsoft blew their case by coming across as arrogant and manipulative of the rules, it's still not too late for the DOJ to blow it in return.
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer; not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)
Well, you're not completely lost in hallucination; but you're definitely fuzzy around the edges.
There's no requirement at all that USB keyboards still implement the PS/2 stuff. Many of them do anyway; for example, the Microsoft Natural Keyboards can work as a USB and/or a PS/2 keyboard. But that's just so they can sell to the masses that still don't have USB, not because of any technical requirement.
As for the motherboard emulating a PS/2 controller: Hardware-wise, this isn't true at all. Software-wise, many PCs with USB ports do have a BIOS with "legacy USB support", where the BIOS makes a USB keyboard appear to software as if it were an old-fashioned PS/2 keyboard. (Sometimes this support extends to USB mice as well.) This is done so that you can boot into MS-DOS and still have a working keyboard. But this is purely software-based, and can be disabled in the BIOS setup program.
If companies are shipping USB-based hard drives, then I would agree that their developers are on something stronger than the legally-sanctioned mix of caffeine and pizza.
If companies are developing USB-based hard drives, then that's perfectly reasonable; the upcoming USB 2.0 will raise the USB bus's bandwidth to around 50 megabytes/second, more than enough for a fast hard disk.
I do find it amusing that USB 2.0 is aggressively pushed in the developers' section of the USB site, but only mentioned in passing on the consumer side, and not mentioned at all in the consumer FAQ. We wouldn't want to give consumers reason to wait instead of rushing to the store for the current generation of products, would we? (On a less cynical note, USB 1 peripherals will work on the USB 2 bus, and USB 2 peripherals can be designed to fall back to USB 1 speeds; so if you're a masochist, you'll be able to hook that USB 2 hard drive up to your current USB ports, and blaze along at a breathtaking 1.5 megabytes per second. I can see the advertising now; "Get the power of a hard drive with the speed of CD-ROM!")
I would agree that the timing is 'interesting'; but in terms of the ongoing DOJ case, it's largely irrelevant. The judge specifically pointed out in the findings of fact that servers are very different beasts; an OS that's great for a server isn't necessarily a good substitute for Windows, "since server operating systems lack the features -- and support for the breadth of applications -- that induce users to purchase Intel-compatible PC operating systems." [paragraph 19] Later in the ruling: "Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs. Several ISVs have announced their development of (or plans to develop) Linux versions of their applications. To date, though, legions of ISVs have not followed the lead of these first movers. Similarly, consumers have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows, with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating system whose future in the PC realm is unclear. By itself, Linux's open-source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from competing." [paragraph 50]
You can certainly disagree with these statements; I do, at least partially. But for the purposes of this lawsuit, they're now facts, and the penalties imposed on Microsoft (if any) will be based on those facts.
Gosh; for a system that Microsoft has so 'convincingly proved' (spit) to be slower and less efficient than Windows NT, people sure seem to be switching to it in droves. Funny how that works, hmm? One would almost think that the Microsoft-funded tests didn't reflect reality; but we know that can't be right...
When it comes to the desktop, all sorts of factors come into play when choosing an OS. But in the server field, the decision-making process is usually much narrower; how much speed and reliability can platform X deliver, and for what cost? Unix has always has the edge performance-wise; but commercial Unix implementations were often pricey, and the companies I've worked for have found recruiting experienced Unix administrators to be much more difficult than recruiting NT admins. Linux has really changed the field, both by reducing the cost of the server software, and by creating a much wider pool of potential Unix administrators. Microsoft had better hope that they can hang onto the desktop for a while longer, because it looks like the server playfield is tilting heavily against them.
In most circumstances, 'emergency use' would probably be the worst possible justification for a phone like this. Since it's intended as a disposable phone, it probably won't be rechargeable. So you throw one in your glove box; then, once you've driven into the snowbank, you pull it out and... the battery's died. You're up a creek with no way to recharge it. With a normal, rechargeable phone, you've got a much better chance in this situation; just plug the phone into the cigarette lighter, as long as your car battery hasn't gone dead too. And with a rechargeable phone, you can afford to test the thing before you head out on your trip, without worrying that your test call will be the straw that breaks the battery's back.
If all you want is a phone for true, life-threatening emergencies, there's another option; just find someone who's recently cancelled their cellphone plan, and offer to buy their phone. In these days of subsidized, system-locked digital phones, people who switch companies usually have to buy a new phone anyway, so they'll often sell their old one for a pittance. (Online auction houses are great for this.) You don't even need an airtime plan; FCC regs require cellular carriers to accept 911 calls even from unactivated phones. And if it's not quite that much of an emergency, most carriers have a special number (like *CALL) that will allow you to place calls from an unactivated phone using a credit card; you'll pay outrageous airtime rates (like $2 a minute), but it will still probably be cheaper than buying a prepaid disposable phone and airtime just in case something like this turns up. And there's no waste; in fact, you're reducing waste, by reusing a phone that would probably otherwise be thrown away.
There is one real potential use I can see for disposable phones, which could be a major plus or a major minus depending on how you look at it; it could make it much easier to legally place truly anonymous cellphone calls.
I agree with you almost wholeheartedly. Yes, I certainly think that a healthy part of Windows' code bloat is due to compatibility code; but from what I've been able to see as a developer, supporting IE and Office hasn't been the major problem on that score. There's an amazing array of compatibility hacks in Windows, designed to support old behaviors for the sake of all sorts of old applications written in the Windows 3.0 days. The dismally low Windows resource limits are there because of a design decision made back in the Dawn of Time, when the thought of using four whole bytes for a resource handle was unthinkable. And MacOS is just as bad if not worse, with patches on top of patches for the sake of pre-MultiFinder apps.
It's the age-old tradeoff; people want Neat New Stuff, but they also want the old stuff to work. You can only make real architectural progress if you're willing and able to shake off the baggage of the past; and in order to do that successfully, one of three things has to happen. You need to offer some new benefit that's so compelling that users are willing to sacrifice heavily to get it; or you need to find a way to coexist seamlessly with the old OS--which usually means waiting until software and hardware has advanced to the point where you can afford to throw the old behaviors into an emulator or "compatibility box" and isolate them from the rest of the OS.
Apple tried to take that leap with Copland and then Rhapsody, by running old MacOS programs under emulation; but it largely failed. Emulating the old OS is a very important step, but deploying the new OS is only worthwhile if there's applications for it; and with Apple's small market share, most developers weren't willing to retool their existing Mac apps, let alone develop new ones. Perhaps the iMac will change that; but for now, Rhapsody is still only a niche market of a niche market, for running Mac servers. (The server market has always been something of a special case; when you're deploying a server, you don't care about whether or not it can run Word--you just want high performance from the few server applications you'll actually run.)
Linux has straddled the two strategies. The people who run Linux standalone do so because the performance and stability improvements (and perhaps the philosophical improvements) make the smaller application pool worthwhile. And for the people who still need their Windows apps, there's always WINE or dual-booting--not exactly seamless, but close enough for many purposes.
Microsoft hasn't been able to take that step forward; they know that a huge part of their Windows customer base is only there for the sake of compatibility with existing apps. Even if Windows were cut loose from the other Microsoft apps, I don't think that the situation would improve that much unless the developer was willing to take that fundamental leap and cut the old compatibility ties. (And if you're willing to do that, then why stick with Windows?:) )
Basically, the distinction between matters of fact and matters of law on appeal is this: The appeals court judge is presumed to be able to judge the law as well as the trial court judge did; and the appeals court judge may well have a better overall knowledge of the law--after all, there's presumably a reason why that judge was appointed to the appeals court to begin with. So the appeals court judge is entitled to review most issues of law de novo--considering them from scratch, and giving the original judge's findings no weight at all.
On the other hand, when considering issues of fact, a judge (or a jury) often has to analyze things in a way that would be very difficult for an appeals judge to fully recreate. For example, the findings of fact are often heavily dependent on the judge's or jury's views on the credibility of the witnesses; and it's often much easier to judge someone's credibility when they're sitting in the courtroom than it is from just reading their words on a transcript, or even seeing them on tape. So, in considering findings of fact, the appeals judge is required to give heavy deference to the findings of the trial judge and/or the jury; the appeals judge is usually only allowed to reverse findings of fact in the case of "plain error"--overwhelming evidence that the finding of fact was wrong.
By the way, here's my own spin on the findings of fact: I get the feeling that the judge is somewhat frustrated with the whole thing. As we've learned so far from following all this (and as Microsoft is so fond of pointing out), the antitrust law in areas like this is very limited; the courts are very disinclined to get involved in the engineering details of software. The DC court of appeals has already overruled the trial judge during this case; and, if the conclusions of law go the government's way (as it's almost certain that they will), I wouldn't be at all surprised if the appeals court reverses many of them. So the judge may be using the findings of fact to make his own statement about the inadequacy of the antitrust law in this area; the message of the trial may wind up being 'Even if the facts are this clearcut, the law still doesn't provide a remedy.'
(Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent comments. For the benefit of those who want to look up the legislation for themselves, here's a link that almost leads to just the right place, and that should be durable: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c106:H.R.1714:. That link will display a list of all the versions of the bill; just click on the "H.R.1714.EH" link to get the version that's currently in the House.
"Oh, but wait, you say! The consumer has to agree to this! So, now when you sign up for something like this, Agreement 2, Section 9, Paragraph 12, Sentence 48 specifically says that you agree to electronic notifications. Come on...since when have you gotten to negotiate the fine print on a contract with a big corporation?
That's an excellent point, but there's a couple of things that should be mentioned here:
Rather than speculate about what this bill will or won't do, let's take the time to read it for ourselves. Like all the other bills working their way through Congress, the text of this bill is available at the Library of Congress' THOMAS server. Here's the full text of the bill; that link may or may not work when you read this, since the URLs on THOMAS do have a habit of changing occasionally. If the link fails, then go to THOMAS' home page, type "HR 1714" in the 'Search by Bill Number' box at the top of the page, and do the search. In the list of bills that appears, choose 'HR 1714 EH'; that's the current version, at least as I'm writing this.
A few personal comments after reading the bill:
Overall, I wish that it were written more clearly, but it doesn't seem onerous to me.
To be a little bit more specific about that: Basically, if a court decision goes against you in the US, you have a right to appeal, and the courts are required to hear your appeal. If the court hears your appeal and decides that it was a frivolous one, they can fine you for making it; but they have to hear it first. Only in extremely rare cases--someone filing a long series of utterly frivolous lawsuits and appeals--can someone be denied the right to do this.
This continues up to the level of the federal circuit courts of appeals, the second-highest level of courts in the US. The highest level is the Supreme Court, and it works quite differently. With very rare exceptions, the Supreme Court is not required to hear any case. If a decision goes against you in the federal circuit courts, and you want to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, you must file a "petition for writ of certiorari"--a formal request to hear the case, and a description of exactly what issues you feel the Court needs to decide on, and your legal arguments supporting your opinions on those issues. The other side can then file a "brief in opposition", a factual and legal description of why the Court should find the other way on the issues, or refuse to hear the case altogether. You can then file a "reply brief" rebutting the other side's arguments. In addition, any other party that might be interested in the outcome of the case can ask the Court's permission to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, describing their own views. (For example, if a drug case that started out in state court gets appealed to the Supreme Court, the federal government isn't a party to the case; but if the Justice Department feels strongly that the case should be ruled in the state's favor, it may file an amicus curiae brief supporting the state's views.)
Once all of this filing and counterfiling has been done, the Court can then do one of several things.
I, for one, hope that the DoJ does not decide to go with the 'expedited' route. Let me explain why.
There are three courts directly involved in this case: Judge Jackson's district court, the DC circuit appeals court, and the Supreme Court. We already have a very clear idea where two of those three courts stand on the issue. Judge Jackson is clearly in agreement with the government; his findings of fact were even harsher than the government's proposed findings in a number of places. The DC circuit appeals court clearly leans much more towards Microsoft's side of things; the language they've used in rejecting many of the government's arguments on appeal makes that clear. Only the Supreme Court is largely a question mark at this point, since they have yet to have occasion to weigh in directly on the issue.
Let's assume, for the moment, that the case is not expedited directly to the Supremes, and instead follows the usual route. Judge Jackson's court will make its findings of law, which will almost certainly go heavily against Microsoft. Microsoft will almost certainly file an immediate appeal at that point, asking the DC circuit court to review the conclusions of law before the district court starts deciding the remedies. That request will almost certainly be granted, and the circuit court may well reverse some of the conclusions of law. Then the remedies will be decided on, and those will almost certainly be appealed as well.
Ultimately, of course, it will all wind up at the Supreme Court. They do have the option to refuse to hear the case; but in a case as important as this one, that's very unlikely. So the Supreme Court will make the final decision, based on both the district court's and the appeals court's findings.
On the other hand, if the DoJ 'expedites' things, both the conclusions of law and the penalties will be decided on at the circuit court level; then the whole thing will go to the Supreme Court for appeal all at once; the appeals court is skipped. This certainly sounds like it would be faster, but let's look at it more closely. It's actually quite rare for an appeals court to dictate a completely new solution; in other words, neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court is likely to say 'Here's the complete new ruling on the case'. Instead, the appeals court will more often reverse--strike out--particular elements of the lower court's findings, and then send the case back to the lower court. The lower court then re-decides the issue, incorporating those reversals. So in other words, the appeals court won't say "These three conclusions of law are wrong; on that basis, here's the new remedies." It will say "These three conclusions of law are wrong. Now, lower court, go back and re-decide on what the appropriate remedies are."
So the end result of that is: Under the 'expedited' flow of things, both the conclusions of law and the remedies have to be decided at the district court level, before the case is appealed at all. If the Supreme Court agrees wholeheartedly with everything the district court said, that's no problem. But if the Supreme Court decides that even one of the district court's conclusions of law are wrong, and reverses that wrong conclusions, then the district court will probably have to do the 'remedies' phase of the trial all over again, in light of the new conclusions of law. And, of course, once it decides on a new set of remedies, those remedies can be appealed as well. And heaven help us all if the Supremes reverse any of the findings of fact; that would probably throw out not only the remedies, but the conclusions of law as well.
In constrast, in the normal flow of things, the findings of fact and conclusions of law will probably be appealed fully--first to the appeals court, then to the Supreme Court--before the remedies are decided on at all. So the chances are much, much higher than we'll only have to go through the remedies phase once, since those remedies will be based on the final conclusions of law, rather than just the district court's own view of them.
So the 'expedited' path may well not wind up being substantially faster than the standard path after all. And more importantly, what spin will Microsoft be able to place on the expedited process? Don't believe for a moment that the courts are operating wholly in a vacuum on this; there's always public and/or political pressure of one sort or another, especially at the Supreme Court level. And whatever the final solution is, it's almost certain to require various government agencies to implement it; and those government agencies are often governed by politics as well. So public opinion plays a role here.
Everybody who's been watching this case knows what I said in that first paragraph--that the appeals court has been receptive to Microsoft's views on things. So if the DOJ chooses to skip the appeals court and go straight to the Supremes, Microsoft is going to loudly point out everything I just said--that the 'expedited' process isn't likely to be that much faster than the normal process, and may involve quite a bit more wasted effort. So they're going to claim, loudly and repeatedly, that the DOJ isn't doing this out of any desire for efficiency; they're doing this as an excuse to bypass and ignore the views of a court that they know will disagree with them. And that claim is going to strike a chord, because I believe that quite a number of viewers--myself included--are going to conclude that that claim is absolutely right. The DOJ is going to come across looking like an agency that's more interested in twisting the rules for its own benefit than it is in justice--more or less exactly what the DOJ has been claiming about Microsoft. And public opinion, which I think has been shifted the DOJ's way by Judge Jackson's harsh findings of fact, is very likely to shift right back to Microsoft. And I think that shift will have a very real impact on the sort of remedies that are likely to be imposed, and on the degree of vigor with which the government will enforce those remedies.
The government is winning. If they just stay the course, they're likely to get most if not all of what they want. But, just like Microsoft blew their case by coming across as arrogant and manipulative of the rules, it's still not too late for the DOJ to blow it in return.
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer; not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)
Well, you're not completely lost in hallucination; but you're definitely fuzzy around the edges.
There's no requirement at all that USB keyboards still implement the PS/2 stuff. Many of them do anyway; for example, the Microsoft Natural Keyboards can work as a USB and/or a PS/2 keyboard. But that's just so they can sell to the masses that still don't have USB, not because of any technical requirement.
As for the motherboard emulating a PS/2 controller: Hardware-wise, this isn't true at all. Software-wise, many PCs with USB ports do have a BIOS with "legacy USB support", where the BIOS makes a USB keyboard appear to software as if it were an old-fashioned PS/2 keyboard. (Sometimes this support extends to USB mice as well.) This is done so that you can boot into MS-DOS and still have a working keyboard. But this is purely software-based, and can be disabled in the BIOS setup program.
If companies are shipping USB-based hard drives, then I would agree that their developers are on something stronger than the legally-sanctioned mix of caffeine and pizza.
If companies are developing USB-based hard drives, then that's perfectly reasonable; the upcoming USB 2.0 will raise the USB bus's bandwidth to around 50 megabytes/second, more than enough for a fast hard disk.
I do find it amusing that USB 2.0 is aggressively pushed in the developers' section of the USB site, but only mentioned in passing on the consumer side, and not mentioned at all in the consumer FAQ. We wouldn't want to give consumers reason to wait instead of rushing to the store for the current generation of products, would we? (On a less cynical note, USB 1 peripherals will work on the USB 2 bus, and USB 2 peripherals can be designed to fall back to USB 1 speeds; so if you're a masochist, you'll be able to hook that USB 2 hard drive up to your current USB ports, and blaze along at a breathtaking 1.5 megabytes per second. I can see the advertising now; "Get the power of a hard drive with the speed of CD-ROM!")
I would agree that the timing is 'interesting'; but in terms of the ongoing DOJ case, it's largely irrelevant. The judge specifically pointed out in the findings of fact that servers are very different beasts; an OS that's great for a server isn't necessarily a good substitute for Windows, "since server operating systems lack the features -- and support for the breadth of applications -- that induce users to purchase Intel-compatible PC operating systems." [paragraph 19] Later in the ruling: "Although Linux has between ten and fifteen million users, the majority of them use the operating system to run servers, not PCs. Several ISVs have announced their development of (or plans to develop) Linux versions of their applications. To date, though, legions of ISVs have not followed the lead of these first movers. Similarly, consumers have by and large shown little inclination to abandon Windows, with its reliable developer support, in favor of an operating system whose future in the PC realm is unclear. By itself, Linux's open-source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from competing." [paragraph 50]
You can certainly disagree with these statements; I do, at least partially. But for the purposes of this lawsuit, they're now facts, and the penalties imposed on Microsoft (if any) will be based on those facts.
Gosh; for a system that Microsoft has so 'convincingly proved' (spit) to be slower and less efficient than Windows NT, people sure seem to be switching to it in droves. Funny how that works, hmm? One would almost think that the Microsoft-funded tests didn't reflect reality; but we know that can't be right...
When it comes to the desktop, all sorts of factors come into play when choosing an OS. But in the server field, the decision-making process is usually much narrower; how much speed and reliability can platform X deliver, and for what cost? Unix has always has the edge performance-wise; but commercial Unix implementations were often pricey, and the companies I've worked for have found recruiting experienced Unix administrators to be much more difficult than recruiting NT admins. Linux has really changed the field, both by reducing the cost of the server software, and by creating a much wider pool of potential Unix administrators. Microsoft had better hope that they can hang onto the desktop for a while longer, because it looks like the server playfield is tilting heavily against them.
In most circumstances, 'emergency use' would probably be the worst possible justification for a phone like this. Since it's intended as a disposable phone, it probably won't be rechargeable. So you throw one in your glove box; then, once you've driven into the snowbank, you pull it out and... the battery's died. You're up a creek with no way to recharge it. With a normal, rechargeable phone, you've got a much better chance in this situation; just plug the phone into the cigarette lighter, as long as your car battery hasn't gone dead too. And with a rechargeable phone, you can afford to test the thing before you head out on your trip, without worrying that your test call will be the straw that breaks the battery's back.
If all you want is a phone for true, life-threatening emergencies, there's another option; just find someone who's recently cancelled their cellphone plan, and offer to buy their phone. In these days of subsidized, system-locked digital phones, people who switch companies usually have to buy a new phone anyway, so they'll often sell their old one for a pittance. (Online auction houses are great for this.) You don't even need an airtime plan; FCC regs require cellular carriers to accept 911 calls even from unactivated phones. And if it's not quite that much of an emergency, most carriers have a special number (like *CALL) that will allow you to place calls from an unactivated phone using a credit card; you'll pay outrageous airtime rates (like $2 a minute), but it will still probably be cheaper than buying a prepaid disposable phone and airtime just in case something like this turns up. And there's no waste; in fact, you're reducing waste, by reusing a phone that would probably otherwise be thrown away.
There is one real potential use I can see for disposable phones, which could be a major plus or a major minus depending on how you look at it; it could make it much easier to legally place truly anonymous cellphone calls.
I agree with you almost wholeheartedly. Yes, I certainly think that a healthy part of Windows' code bloat is due to compatibility code; but from what I've been able to see as a developer, supporting IE and Office hasn't been the major problem on that score. There's an amazing array of compatibility hacks in Windows, designed to support old behaviors for the sake of all sorts of old applications written in the Windows 3.0 days. The dismally low Windows resource limits are there because of a design decision made back in the Dawn of Time, when the thought of using four whole bytes for a resource handle was unthinkable. And MacOS is just as bad if not worse, with patches on top of patches for the sake of pre-MultiFinder apps.
It's the age-old tradeoff; people want Neat New Stuff, but they also want the old stuff to work. You can only make real architectural progress if you're willing and able to shake off the baggage of the past; and in order to do that successfully, one of three things has to happen. You need to offer some new benefit that's so compelling that users are willing to sacrifice heavily to get it; or you need to find a way to coexist seamlessly with the old OS--which usually means waiting until software and hardware has advanced to the point where you can afford to throw the old behaviors into an emulator or "compatibility box" and isolate them from the rest of the OS.
Apple tried to take that leap with Copland and then Rhapsody, by running old MacOS programs under emulation; but it largely failed. Emulating the old OS is a very important step, but deploying the new OS is only worthwhile if there's applications for it; and with Apple's small market share, most developers weren't willing to retool their existing Mac apps, let alone develop new ones. Perhaps the iMac will change that; but for now, Rhapsody is still only a niche market of a niche market, for running Mac servers. (The server market has always been something of a special case; when you're deploying a server, you don't care about whether or not it can run Word--you just want high performance from the few server applications you'll actually run.)
Linux has straddled the two strategies. The people who run Linux standalone do so because the performance and stability improvements (and perhaps the philosophical improvements) make the smaller application pool worthwhile. And for the people who still need their Windows apps, there's always WINE or dual-booting--not exactly seamless, but close enough for many purposes.
Microsoft hasn't been able to take that step forward; they know that a huge part of their Windows customer base is only there for the sake of compatibility with existing apps. Even if Windows were cut loose from the other Microsoft apps, I don't think that the situation would improve that much unless the developer was willing to take that fundamental leap and cut the old compatibility ties. (And if you're willing to do that, then why stick with Windows? :) )
That's not quite true.
Basically, the distinction between matters of fact and matters of law on appeal is this: The appeals court judge is presumed to be able to judge the law as well as the trial court judge did; and the appeals court judge may well have a better overall knowledge of the law--after all, there's presumably a reason why that judge was appointed to the appeals court to begin with. So the appeals court judge is entitled to review most issues of law de novo--considering them from scratch, and giving the original judge's findings no weight at all.
On the other hand, when considering issues of fact, a judge (or a jury) often has to analyze things in a way that would be very difficult for an appeals judge to fully recreate. For example, the findings of fact are often heavily dependent on the judge's or jury's views on the credibility of the witnesses; and it's often much easier to judge someone's credibility when they're sitting in the courtroom than it is from just reading their words on a transcript, or even seeing them on tape. So, in considering findings of fact, the appeals judge is required to give heavy deference to the findings of the trial judge and/or the jury; the appeals judge is usually only allowed to reverse findings of fact in the case of "plain error"--overwhelming evidence that the finding of fact was wrong.
By the way, here's my own spin on the findings of fact: I get the feeling that the judge is somewhat frustrated with the whole thing. As we've learned so far from following all this (and as Microsoft is so fond of pointing out), the antitrust law in areas like this is very limited; the courts are very disinclined to get involved in the engineering details of software. The DC court of appeals has already overruled the trial judge during this case; and, if the conclusions of law go the government's way (as it's almost certain that they will), I wouldn't be at all surprised if the appeals court reverses many of them. So the judge may be using the findings of fact to make his own statement about the inadequacy of the antitrust law in this area; the message of the trial may wind up being 'Even if the facts are this clearcut, the law still doesn't provide a remedy.'
(Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)