Sure, it will happen, but it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will take this case. "Gravest National Importance" (which I believe is the operative standard for this particular type of jurisdiction) is a VERY stringent standard.
If this case, one involving a company which formerly had the highest market capitalization, does not qualify under this standard, than NO case ever will.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
From the New York Times copy of Microsoft's appeal (no registration required) as viewed on Internet Explorer.
The court, however, rejected plaintiffs' exclusive dealing claim, holding that the challenged agreements with various third parties "did not foreclose enough of the relevant market to constitute a € 1 violation."
I'm sure they wanted a (section) and not a € (euro) symbol there.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'd like to see a place where those people who are "in the know" could review the case materials (they're all faithfully posted to cryptome) and try to correct the technical errors in their strategy, re-explain the things that are causing confusion, etc.
It's called the OpenLaw/DVD forum. They've already written an amicus curae brief on hyperlinks and reverse engineering. They are providing technical critiques of the MPAA filings. This is why it was important that the depositions not be sealed so that this group could discuss their technical merit.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Judge Kaplan ruled last week that only certain information in the depositions would be sealed as confidential. All depositions may be released a week after they have been taken. The depositions of Eisner and Valenti may be released three days after they have been taken. The judge warned the plaintiffs about being too zealous in marking material as confidential.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The GPL gets it's power from the legal principle of copyright. Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not the underlying ideas themselves. Copyright exists for the purpose of promoting learning.
As long as you don't use the same expression, you are just as able to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest GPLed code as you would any programming text. You may utilize those ideas into expressions that are original to you.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Guess I forgot to append a witty sig line to get myself some instant credibility.
You miss the point of logins. Logins allow us to read the other stuff you've written to see if you are at least consistant in pretending to be a JD. ACs are cowards becuase they won't stand behind their words. The have a default credibility of exactly zero.
the definition of what constitutes monopoly power, as opposed to whether MS meets that definition, is a legal question, not a factual one.
Of course. But no one seriously doubts that Microsoft has monopoly power in at least two markets.
If this is raised on appeal DOJ will have a tough time proving how MS fits within what has traditionally been understood to constitute monopoly power.
Well, maybe you really are a JD. You casually slip attention away from the real question to a phony one. Traditional monopoly analysis provides a framework for applying the law to the economic realities. This hasn't been done before in theis market, so what traditionally been understood to constitute market power is not at issue. Does Microsoft's conduct violate antitrust law is the issue. The fact of their monopoly is undeniable.
As for what the relevant marketplace is, this is often reviewed by the appellate court because answering it requires a special understanding of the law which is not readily imparted to a jury, which is why I say that it is actually a question of law.
Defining the correct market is crucial to a proper antitrust analysis. PC Operating Systems is a huge market and handily qualifies. Read the Finding of Fact. This case didn't go before a jury. The judge made these decisions.
I am also certain that the Supreme Court will decide for itself what its own precident is, especially since innovation is a complete bar to a claim of anticompetitive behavior.
Yes, the Supreme Court *will* decide the application of it's precedent, not the Appeals Court which violated the SC's interpretation by substituting a presumption of innovation for an analysis of the effects of a company's actions on the market.
Furthermore, "innovation" is not a magic incantation that makes antitrust problems go away. The meat of the government's case is this: Windows and Internet Exporer were two seperate products. IE was losing in the marketplace. Microsoft bundled the products together both utilizing it's monopoly powers over the market in order to defend it's monopoly. The notivation behind the action comes out clearly in the record. It is a clear antitrust violation. The court has ruled as such. Microsoft astroturfers need to come to grips with it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I did like the line about the trial being like MS geting pulled over by the cops and not have them find the dead body in the trunk. Whatever your opinion on Cringeley, he sure has a different take on things.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
When it comes to clothing, today's popular "designers" have gone the safe route. Rather than create a signature style (like say the "Chanel Suit" -- you just knew it was Chanel by looking at it), bums like Tommy Pullmyfinger are altering creativity into marketability. He's not a clothing designer, he's a LOGO DESIGNER.
Tommy Whofscker could design distinctive clothes, but he'd have no protection from cheap knock-offs. "you just knew it was Chanel by looking at it" really dosn't help in court or convincing Customs to impound that boatload of similar-looking clothing. But a logo is more distinctive than a style and logo violations are much easier to enforce. Ergo, logos.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Why shouldn't we expect that an Antitrust case of this importance will not go directly to the Supreme Court? The entire purpose of the 1974 law that allows it is to speed up the process of appeals in the case of economically significant antitrust actions. This is exactly the kind of case the law was written for. The Appeals Court will never see this case.
Here's an article from the New York Times that discusses the Justices taking on technically complex cases.
Here's a brief quote:
The Microsoft case presents "interesting legal issues, but not unique ones," Professor Gavil said, noting that at the heart of the case are antitrust principles with which the court is completely familiar. "What Microsoft did with its monopoly and how the law treats that is not that complex," he said. "Did it have a pro-competitive justification, or did it engage in behavior that cost it something in the short run in order to hinder its rivals in the long run? That's a very conventional antitrust question."
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
Railroaded is a strong word. MS can't claim a right to extensive pre-sentencing hearings. The findings of fact and the findings of law allowed no other remedy. Jackson was right to suggest that any testimony would be speculative.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult.
You've been listening to too much Microsoft spin. Jackson was fair. The case for appeal is weak precisely because the case will bypass the appeals court which ruled against the DOJ before.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
There's another possible sequence of events that would prevent the breakup: the DOJ backing off.
Sorry, the plaintiffs are the DOJ and 19 state attorneys general. Even if the DOJ folds, the order stands and the divestiture continues. The states will see to that.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I am counting on them to do the right thing and dismantle or severely limit the scope of the antitrust laws as unconstitutional restraints of trade.
ROTFL! You should be modded (+1:Funny) for that one. Antitrust law has withstood constitutional challenge for nearly a century. This current court has reviewed at least one antitrust decision without any sign of constitutional concerns.
As for the microsoft issue, the Supreme Court is not going to take some showboat judge's word on 1) what constitutes monopoly power, which is a question of law, not of fact, and 2) what is the relevant marketplace which is supposedly being monopolized, (also a question of law) and 3) whether it is possible (question of law) to forbid an allegedly anticompetitive activity which is even nominally innovative, (question of fact) which in the past the court declined to do in an antitrust action against Kodak for the instamatic camera.
You've got these entirely wrong. 1) and 2) are questions of fact and 3) a question of law. The SC will review the findings of fact, but it is very unlikely to reverse a finding of fact especially when they were so well presented. Jackson addressed the appeals court ruling wrt 3) in his decision. He rightly concluded that the appeals court's analysis was inconsistant with Supreme Court precedent. Innovative don't enter into it if it was anti-competitive.
BTW, quess who the lead attorney for the Kodak case was? Hint: MS has a lead attorney too.
He appears pretty incompetent in this case. Probably because MS has tied his hands.
In short, there is plenty of room for MS to win. Rather than bemoaning this, maybe people should think about what a bad precedent it is to have the government involved with the market-based development of technology. I was involved with the legal battles to dismantle the export controls upon encryption, so my philosophical position has never had to change:
Antitrust Law is a part of American law and jurisprudence. Get used to it.
Here's another bit of advice. If you want someone to take you seriously, get an account.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
how can any independent minded techie think that some judge or some antitrust egghead is qualified to decide what does or does not belong in an O.S.? I guarantee you the SCoUSA is a lot smarter than that.
Do not underestimate the intelligence of Supreme Court judges. There was an article on the NYTimes site just this past week about how the SC has taken on technically challanging cases before. They have the back room support and they are smart enough to understand the technical issues involved. They will not shirk their responsibility.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
SCotUS is going to drop this case like a hot potato.
LOL! If you want to call attention to errors of law, do so. Jackson oversaw a nearly perfect case and wrote superb opinions. Taking on the appeals court is not an issue because he wrote the decision with the Supremes in mind. It addresses how the appeals court decision dosn't implement the SC's own opinions on antitrust law. MS is toast.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It will be years and years before this gets enforced.
Not a chance. The breakup is scheduled for 1 year from today. It will happen on time. I predict that this will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court which will rubber stamp the decision this fall. The finding of fact is hugely damaging. The SCotUS will review the finding, but not challange it. The finding of law is equally strong. It will stand on appeal. This case was prepared to be appealed. It will stand because it is all true.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Both Gore and Bush have publicly stated that they are against these proceedings. Once they put in their own AG it's all over.
We've heard this before and it is total BS. There are also 19 state attorney generals who are co-plaintiffs in the case. Even if a new USAG is named, the 19 state AGs would have to agree to any modification. Not that anyone can at this point. The judge has entered a final order. Barring him being overturned on appeal, the proverbial fat lady has sung.
But, even more importantly, this will all be settled before a new AG is named. The SCotUS will hear the appeal in the fall and rubber stamp the decision. Microsoft is going down.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think the argument that "forging spam" is itself a crime is somewhat bogus, I don't know why they don't go forward with some state version of the "Unlawful Use of Computers" statute, as this is a slam-dunk, while this "forged spam is crime" argument is pretty thin.
The guy is actually charged with both forgery and computer trespass. It's the forgery which is the more serious charge. By making the mail look like it came from ibm.net, the spammer dosn't have to deal with the complaints.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'd like to see spec95 benchmark results which transmeta, of course, did not post on their site.
Did you read their criticism of existing benchmarks instead? There's no point in running a spec95 because it won't tell you how the system runs when you go to use it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
As far as photons travelling at a velocity greater than c, I don't know what to say.
I know. They don't.
Read Feynman's book on QED. Renormalization tends to take care of the cases where photons travel faster than light by cancelling their amplitudes with photons that travel slower than light. The result is that we observe light travelling at a fixed speed, c, in a vacuum. That dosn't mean that under very odd conditions the final probablility for a photon to travel faster than c isn't zero.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
ISP's now added to: [list of "evil" corporation types redacted]
There are still clueful ISPs (like my own) but they aren't bottom dollar providers. I pay $32.50/month for ppp plus $10/month for an extra shell account (<gasp!> a shell account?) for my wife. In exchange, I get an ISP with plenty of capacity, static IP addresses and an excess of clue.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
This section has nothing to do with access controls. It means that you can't remove the name of the author, the copyright notice and other similar information (including the ISBN). It has nothing to do with access controls.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it will happen, but it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will take this case. "Gravest National Importance" (which I believe is the operative standard for this particular type of jurisdiction) is a VERY stringent standard.
If this case, one involving a company which formerly had the highest market capitalization, does not qualify under this standard, than NO case ever will.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'm sure they wanted a (section) and not a € (euro) symbol there.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It must be Rob, look at all the typos!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'd like to see a place where those people who are "in the know" could review the case materials (they're all faithfully posted to cryptome) and try to correct the technical errors in their strategy, re-explain the things that are causing confusion, etc.
It's called the OpenLaw/DVD forum. They've already written an amicus curae brief on hyperlinks and reverse engineering. They are providing technical critiques of the MPAA filings. This is why it was important that the depositions not be sealed so that this group could discuss their technical merit.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Judge Kaplan ruled last week that only certain information in the depositions would be sealed as confidential. All depositions may be released a week after they have been taken. The depositions of Eisner and Valenti may be released three days after they have been taken. The judge warned the plaintiffs about being too zealous in marking material as confidential.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The GPL gets it's power from the legal principle of copyright. Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not the underlying ideas themselves. Copyright exists for the purpose of promoting learning.
As long as you don't use the same expression, you are just as able to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest GPLed code as you would any programming text. You may utilize those ideas into expressions that are original to you.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Guess I forgot to append a witty sig line to get myself some instant credibility.
You miss the point of logins. Logins allow us to read the other stuff you've written to see if you are at least consistant in pretending to be a JD. ACs are cowards becuase they won't stand behind their words. The have a default credibility of exactly zero.
the definition of what constitutes monopoly power, as opposed to whether MS meets that definition, is a legal question, not a factual one.
Of course. But no one seriously doubts that Microsoft has monopoly power in at least two markets.
If this is raised on appeal DOJ will have a tough time proving how MS fits within what has traditionally been understood to constitute monopoly power.
Well, maybe you really are a JD. You casually slip attention away from the real question to a phony one. Traditional monopoly analysis provides a framework for applying the law to the economic realities. This hasn't been done before in theis market, so what traditionally been understood to constitute market power is not at issue. Does Microsoft's conduct violate antitrust law is the issue. The fact of their monopoly is undeniable.
As for what the relevant marketplace is, this is often reviewed by the appellate court because answering it requires a special understanding of the law which is not readily imparted to a jury, which is why I say that it is actually a question of law.
Defining the correct market is crucial to a proper antitrust analysis. PC Operating Systems is a huge market and handily qualifies. Read the Finding of Fact. This case didn't go before a jury. The judge made these decisions.
I am also certain that the Supreme Court will decide for itself what its own precident is, especially since innovation is a complete bar to a claim of anticompetitive behavior.
Yes, the Supreme Court *will* decide the application of it's precedent, not the Appeals Court which violated the SC's interpretation by substituting a presumption of innovation for an analysis of the effects of a company's actions on the market.
Furthermore, "innovation" is not a magic incantation that makes antitrust problems go away. The meat of the government's case is this: Windows and Internet Exporer were two seperate products. IE was losing in the marketplace. Microsoft bundled the products together both utilizing it's monopoly powers over the market in order to defend it's monopoly. The notivation behind the action comes out clearly in the record. It is a clear antitrust violation. The court has ruled as such. Microsoft astroturfers need to come to grips with it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
of antitust violations. What are you going to do now?
We're going to the Supreme Court!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I did like the line about the trial being like MS geting pulled over by the cops and not have them find the dead body in the trunk. Whatever your opinion on Cringeley, he sure has a different take on things.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
When it comes to clothing, today's popular "designers" have gone the safe route. Rather than create a signature style (like say the "Chanel Suit" -- you just knew it was Chanel by looking at it), bums like Tommy Pullmyfinger are altering creativity into marketability. He's not a clothing designer, he's a LOGO DESIGNER.
Tommy Whofscker could design distinctive clothes, but he'd have no protection from cheap knock-offs. "you just knew it was Chanel by looking at it" really dosn't help in court or convincing Customs to impound that boatload of similar-looking clothing. But a logo is more distinctive than a style and logo violations are much easier to enforce. Ergo, logos.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Here's an article from the New York Times that discusses the Justices taking on technically complex cases.
Here's a brief quote:
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Basically, I think Judge Jackson knew, as well as MS did, that the appelate court was much more likely to find in MS's favor. MS seemed to be counting on that fact from the beginning, and thus acted as if they'd be fully vindicated eventually, not giving any ground. This pissed off Jackson, so he railroaded the appeal phase in a fashion designed to hammer Microsoft.
Railroaded is a strong word. MS can't claim a right to extensive pre-sentencing hearings. The findings of fact and the findings of law allowed no other remedy. Jackson was right to suggest that any testimony would be speculative.
The problem is that, in doing so, Jackson made the case for appeal even stronger. If his handling of the case had been more moderate right through the end, it would have made an appeal more difficult.
You've been listening to too much Microsoft spin. Jackson was fair. The case for appeal is weak precisely because the case will bypass the appeals court which ruled against the DOJ before.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
There's another possible sequence of events that would prevent the breakup: the DOJ backing off.
Sorry, the plaintiffs are the DOJ and 19 state attorneys general. Even if the DOJ folds, the order stands and the divestiture continues. The
states will see to that.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I am counting on them to do the right thing and dismantle or severely limit the scope of the antitrust laws as unconstitutional restraints of trade.
ROTFL! You should be modded (+1:Funny) for that one. Antitrust law has withstood constitutional challenge for nearly a century. This current court has reviewed at least one antitrust decision without any sign of constitutional concerns.
As for the microsoft issue, the Supreme Court is not going to take some showboat judge's word on 1) what constitutes monopoly power, which is a question of law, not of fact, and 2) what is the relevant marketplace which is supposedly being monopolized, (also a question of law) and 3) whether it is possible (question of law) to forbid an allegedly anticompetitive activity which is even nominally innovative, (question of fact) which in the past the court declined to do in an antitrust action against Kodak for the instamatic camera.
You've got these entirely wrong. 1) and 2) are questions of fact and 3) a question of law. The SC will review the findings of fact, but it is very unlikely to reverse a finding of fact especially when they were so well presented. Jackson addressed the appeals court ruling wrt 3) in his decision. He rightly concluded that the appeals court's analysis was inconsistant with Supreme Court precedent. Innovative don't enter into it if it was anti-competitive.
BTW, quess who the lead attorney for the Kodak case was? Hint: MS has a lead attorney too.
He appears pretty incompetent in this case. Probably because MS has tied his hands.
In short, there is plenty of room for MS to win. Rather than bemoaning this, maybe people should think about what a bad precedent it is to have the government involved with the market-based development of technology. I was involved with the legal battles to dismantle the export controls upon encryption, so my philosophical position has never had to change:
Antitrust Law is a part of American law and jurisprudence. Get used to it.
Here's another bit of advice. If you want someone to take you seriously, get an account.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
how can any independent minded techie think that some judge or some antitrust egghead is qualified to decide what does or does not belong in an O.S.? I guarantee you the SCoUSA is a lot smarter than that.
Do not underestimate the intelligence of Supreme Court judges. There was an article on the NYTimes site just this past week about how the SC has taken on technically challanging cases before. They have the back room support and they are smart enough to understand the technical issues involved. They will not shirk their responsibility.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
SCotUS is going to drop this case like a hot potato.
LOL! If you want to call attention to errors of law, do so. Jackson oversaw a nearly perfect case and wrote superb opinions. Taking on the appeals court is not an issue because he wrote the decision with the Supremes in mind. It addresses how the appeals court decision dosn't implement the SC's own opinions on antitrust law. MS is toast.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It will be years and years before this gets enforced.
Not a chance. The breakup is scheduled for 1 year from today. It will happen on time. I predict that this will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court which will rubber stamp the decision this fall. The finding of fact is hugely damaging. The SCotUS will review the finding, but not challange it. The finding of law is equally strong. It will stand on appeal. This case was prepared to be appealed. It will stand because it is all true.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Both Gore and Bush have publicly stated that they are against these proceedings. Once they put in their own AG it's all over.
We've heard this before and it is total BS. There are also 19 state attorney generals who are co-plaintiffs in the case. Even if a new USAG is named, the 19 state AGs would have to agree to any modification. Not that anyone can at this point. The judge has entered a final order. Barring him being overturned on appeal, the proverbial fat lady has sung.
But, even more importantly, this will all be settled before a new AG is named. The SCotUS will hear the appeal in the fall and rubber stamp the decision. Microsoft is going down.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think the argument that "forging spam" is itself a crime is somewhat bogus, I don't know why they don't go forward with some state version of the "Unlawful Use of Computers" statute, as this is a slam-dunk, while this "forged spam is crime" argument is pretty thin.
The guy is actually charged with both forgery and computer trespass. It's the forgery which is the more serious charge. By making the mail look like it came from ibm.net, the spammer dosn't have to deal with the complaints.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Calling this stuff "Intellectual Property" really stretches the meaning of the word intellectual practically beyond all recognition.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I'd like to see spec95 benchmark results which transmeta, of course, did not post on their site.
Did you read their criticism of existing benchmarks instead? There's no point in running a spec95 because it won't tell you how the system runs when you go to use it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The point of Moore's Law was that the growth rate was exponential, not the particular value for the doubling time.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
As far as photons travelling at a velocity greater than c, I don't know what to say.
I know. They don't.
Read Feynman's book on QED. Renormalization tends to take care of the cases where photons travel faster than light by cancelling their amplitudes with photons that travel slower than light. The result is that we observe light travelling at a fixed speed, c, in a vacuum. That dosn't mean that under very odd conditions the final probablility for a photon to travel faster than c isn't zero.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
ISP's now added to:
[list of "evil" corporation types redacted]
There are still clueful ISPs (like my own) but they aren't bottom dollar providers. I pay $32.50/month for ppp plus $10/month for an extra shell account (<gasp!> a shell account?) for my wife. In exchange, I get an ISP with plenty of capacity, static IP addresses and an excess of clue.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
This section has nothing to do with access controls. It means that you can't remove the name of the author, the copyright notice and other similar information (including the ISBN). It has nothing to do with access controls.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected