Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling 307

Posted by michael from the and-then-there-was-one dept.
linuxwrangler writes "Criticizing the "loophole-filled deal" and saying "We are prepared to go it alone," Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly has announced that Massachusetts is appealing the Microsoft ruling. Seven other states have dropped out and are negotiating enforcement and attorney fees. West Virginia is still undecided on an appeal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling More

Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling

Comments Filter:

  • Just great (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unterderbrucke ( 628741 )
    Another 5 year legal process...
    • Any lawyers on Slashdot?

      If so, please tell me how a company or individual with money can drag out a lawsuit for years? It seems to blatantly defy logic and the point of the justice system.
      Either you're right, or your wrong... WTF!?

      • Re:Just great (Score:3, Insightful)

        by messiertom ( 590151 )
        IANAL, but...

        Cases are usually dragged out because, suprisingly, lawyers have a lot of work to do. What you see on "Law & Order" isn't even 10% of what actually happens during a case. Arguments have to be prepared, witnesses have to be interviewed, re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed. Tons of paperwork have to be completed. Jurors have to be selected. This is all *before* the trial itself starts.

        The actual trial can take weeks (especially in a major one like this). There is usually a huge amount of evidence to be presented and dozens of witnesses have to be interviewed.

        Not to mention, there are some lawyers who have to handle two of these cases at once.

        So there is a reason lawyers have such slimy personalities. It probably comes from the immense amount of stress they are under.
        • This demonstrates how medieval jurists had more wisdom than we currently recognize. They had "trial by ordeal", which could be concluded within one day.

          For example, tie up the Microsoft board of directors and throw them in a lake. If they survive, they abused their monopoly position. If they drown, then there was no illegal behaviour on the part of Microsoft.

          This is simple, effective and prompt justice. There is no need for protracted proceedings, because they either survive the ordeal or they don't. No need to waste time on second guessing.


          • I still think the firing squad and caning both have their places in the world if used judiciously.

            Much more severe, _personal_ punishments should be doled out. Not just cash settlements. To the CEOs of major corporations, it's just Monopoly money anyway.

  • It's the symbolic last act of defiance... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Malcs ( 95091 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:34PM (#4781857) Homepage Journal
    ...which sends a shiver up and down my spine. It's not about winning anymore. It's about standing up for what you believe in.

    • Massachusetts (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:26PM (#4782120) Journal
      For those who do not remember, when Richard Nixon won the race for president against George McGovern, he won all of the states in the country except Massachusetts. Years later, when he was being investigated for various bits of criminal mischief in Watergate, a bumber sticker became popular there:

      Don't Blame Me. I'm from Massachusetts

      Somehow seems strangely appropriate in this context. [smile]

      I wonder if we can get a Massachusetts only settlement? ;-)

    • Which really surprises me, regarding Massachusets. For myself personally, it was always about standing up for what I believe in. [1]
      Although Virginia/West Virginia's behavior doesn't really surprise me, given their proximity to D.C.

      [1] I believe in freely sharing potentially useful information with fellow humans in whatever form it may require, including paper, text, and computer instructions/data

      BTW, that's a cool quote about the Mensa girls, it's beem years since I dealt with them... *sigh*

  • The Lone Ranger (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Siriaan ( 615378 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:35PM (#4781861)
    Well, this is all very depressing.

    Much respect to Massachusetts for appealing the ruling, but with no other (except possibly one) state to support it, it'll just die a natural death.... I'm sure we will have heard the last of this whole thing by this time next year. After then, it'll probably just be the odd private suit Microsoft is so used to dealing with, certainly nothing which will hurt them or encourage them to change their ways.

  • Well if you think about it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:37PM (#4781864)
    Its got good intentions, they are smart enough to figure out that Microsoft pretty much won and want to correct that error, because buissness is pretty much the usual for Microsoft, back to tormenting little buissnesses, OEMs, EULAs and the such. Its got to stop and finally one state isn't blinded by a ruling and is taking them on, hey they have money, they can battle Microsoft on their own and whose to stop them in this stage of the game.

    • Re:Well if you think about it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:42PM (#4781876)
      Yes, that's a good plan. Spend the government's money fighting battles it already knows it can't possibly win. Because God only knows the government doesn't have enough other stuff to waste all its money.

      Incidentally, I found this line really funny:

      back to tormenting little buissnesses, OEMs, EULAs and the such.
      (No, please don't torment my EULAs! They've suffered so much already!)
      • Actually Tim Reilly addressed this issue. Because Mass. (and other states?) planned for this to be a long, drawn out battle, there isn't much cost to continue the status quo. We can also hold out for a better settlement. I wish I could say this was because of principles, but we probably have more high tech competitors to Microsoft than anywhere else.

    • Double jeopardy? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sheetrock ( 152993 )
      While I'm certainly not wholly pleased with the way things have turned out, justice as we've come to collectively accept it has been done. How many times can you try the same entity for the same crime? Already countless dollars and several years has been spent on the "Was Microsoft wrong to integrate" case. Why is it OK to rake them over the coals over and over again when it's clearly wrong to try the same person twice for a crime when you don't like the last verdict?

      • Re:Double jeopardy? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They're not appealing the verdit. The verdict was guilty. They're appealing the pnishment. They're stating that they do not think that the punisment (go be nice) is not in line with the crime.

      • Re:Double jeopardy? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jd142 ( 129673 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:56PM (#4781901) Homepage
        Appealing a ruling is certainly not trying someone twice for the same crime. What's happening is that they are taking the case to the next level of the appeal process. Happens all the time, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US. This has nothing at all to do with trying them twice. In fact, they've been found guilty. What the argument is over is the punishment.

        Think of it this way. Someone negligently drives their vehicle into your house (Happened here last week, a semi lost control and took out half a house. Everything else in the example is made up.) Now let's pretend that the driver was forced by the company to drive 12 hours a day, clearly against the rules. The trucking company's insurance refuses to pay. You take them to court and allege 1) that their employee knowingly violated trucking rules and regulations 2) that the company knew their driver was breaking the law 3) that the company forced them to break the law and 4) that the driver was on company business at the time of the accident. The jury finds in your favor. The trucker, his company, and their insurance are all found liable. Then the judge says, "You get a dollar out of this to pay for your medical bills and to rebuild your house, and the company can continue to break the rules." First, you'd be pretty po'd. Second, you'd appeal the judges ruling to a higher court. Which is exactly what's happening here.
      • How many times can you try the same entity for the same crime?

        The Nazis for the Holocaust.
        When the crime is horrendous enough, we can try them again and again and again.

        When the justice system can't deliver justice, its up to the people to do something about it. What we are seeing now is Joe Sixpack losing interest. Theres football to watch afterall.

      • THIS IS A CIVIL CASE. Double jeopardy applies to criminal cases.

        Also, an appeal is of course part of the same action; jeopardy remains "attached." I could explain about acquittals and such ... but it's irrelevant. (There are also more exceptions to double jeopardy that you might expect, for example the Rodney King beaters could rightfully be retried for civil rights violations following their acquittal.)

        • judicata and $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
          Ah, to do civil procedure justice I should throw in the civil principles called "res judicata" (thing decided) and "collateral estoppel" (collateral bar) which do prevent reopening matters settled in an earlier lawsuits. These serve interests of fairness, efficiency, and finality, and naturally have their own stack of special rules.

          These principles can be analogized to double jeopardy, but this is not a new lawsuit but an appeal from the judge's recent ruling. The earlier appeal was from Judge Jackson's order; the circuit partially vacated and sent the case back down for a new judge to evaluate the merits; then the parties settled and the court accepted the federal version with some tweaks, to Massachusetts's consternation.

          There, a complete answer. I know, no one cares, but I love this stuff.

          Re money, if it seems unreasonable to spend MORE money on the litigation, consider how much has already been spent, and that an appeal will cost pennies in comparison. In for a pound, in for an extra penny. (Well, OK, thousands, but again that's nothing; and the state's lawyers are probably salaried.) Massachusetts has already worked up all its arguments for what it wants; and the trial judge rejected them. I do not know whether MA has good arguments, and hope it is not being a sore loser. The DC appeals court is not going to be disposed to disturb the trial judge's ruling unless she got the law wrong, and it's a fairly conservative court anyway.

          As a last note re money, recall the many millions of dollars at stake in the dispute between the parties. From the structure of the settlement, one hopes there will be no need for a new lawsuit on the monopoly Q. However, I seriously doubt this is Microsoft's last time in court.

  • Consequences? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by manly_15 ( 447559 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:41PM (#4781873)
    Lets say that Massachusetts ends up getting everything that Open Source advocates, Linux users, etc want in terms of penalties against Microsoft. Does this apply to all states after they have settled? Or would Microsoft have to have seperate product lines and "features", depending on the legal conditions in each state?

    • Re:Consequences? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bpd1069 ( 57573 )
      Lets say that Massachusetts ends up getting everything that Open Source advocates, Linux users, etc want in terms of penalties against Microsoft. Does this apply to all states after they have settled? Or would Microsoft have to have seperate product lines and "features", depending on the legal conditions in each state?

      Well IANAL, and all of that stuff... As I understand this, this is an appeal of a ruling on the federal level, therefore it will have a national affect. This is not a new case being brought up in Mass. jurisdiction, but an existing federal case, as the state of Mass. being on of the litigants...

      btw, what is the next level of appeal for this puppy? I mean, theoretically how long can this thing go on? (read as: How many hops til they hit the supreme court?)
      • How many hops til they hit the supreme court?

        One more hop. DC trial ct --> DC Circuit Ct of Appeals --> SC

        The Supreme Court has discretionary review (by granting a writ of certiorari) and decides fewer than a hundred cases a year from thousands submitted. As this case is mostly about facts and a judgment call on the engineering of the settlement, I suppose they'd be unlikely to take it.

        For that matter, I doubt the Court of Appeals will want to reopen the wound. But there could be this great issue I don't know about. I doubt it, given that the other states jumped ship.

        I'm not sure how things are handled when one litigant splits off to appeal. It depends on the design of the litigation and the settlement, which the district court merely approved. Obviously MA do anything to bind the other states; if the circuit court were to vacate and remand, I assume everyone would get together for a reunion in DC.
        • The Supreme Court has discretionary review (by granting a writ of certiorari) and decides fewer than a hundred cases a year from thousands submitted.

          Is there any sort of oversight, or process of appeal to get a case heard if the SC doesn't decide to hear it?

          Purely hypothetically, say that Congress passed a law making it illegal to be blonde. Clearly this is unconstitutional, but if it is enforced many people will go to jail. Obviously they will want to appeal it.
          What if the SC refuses to hear it?
          A law that extreme certainly should be overturned.
          But say all members of the SC hated blondes more than anything in the world.
          Is there any way, in a case this clear cut and critical, to make them hear it?
          (you did say you loved this stuff so I thought I'd ask)

          • Re:Hops? (Score:3, Informative)

            by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
            :) It's a good question. The "phenomenally stupid law" question is an old one.

            There's a reason the Supreme Court is called Supreme. It's the end of the road. There is definitely no way to force them to review a case, and imagine how cranky they'd be if you did. Even if there were oversight, that could be corrupt, and so on in a sort of Zeno's Paradox [mathforum.org]. Alternatively, the corrupt Court could grant cert. and uphold the law, same result as refusing to hear it but yielding precedent controlling all of the nation's inferior courts.

            The Senate can impeach Justices for certain reasons, but being stupid is not one of them. (On that topic, if the Senate abuses the impeachment power, who reviews that? Another example of unreviewability. Don't worry, the President gets a few absolute powers, too.) Also, if the Congress was corrupt enough to pass the law, they're not going to attack the Court for supporting them ... unless it helps them in the polls.

            Hang on, there is one last super-supreme court -- the public. The bedrock of democracy. For better or worse. They get Congress to repeal the law by replacing all of them if necessary by voting. Unless they all hate blondes, too, or like most Americans don't show up to vote.

            Humor aside, we have a Constitution, the supreme law, as a check on discriminatory laws by Congress. No matter how popular, certain kinds of laws can not be enforced, protecting minorities from overreaching by the majority assuming a sane Supreme Court. For example of wackiness, the majority can't sentence the minority to death; that would break a couple of amendments. If you think that's a goofy example, recall that Nazi Germany had a valid court system applying the Nuremberg laws -- with a Constitution the judges could have struck the laws down and gone to concentration camps. Most countries do not have this judicial review, where the courts get the last word.

            But wait! There's even trump card on the Constitution: the amendment. That requires a supermajority 3/4 vote of the states, which is hard to get.

            Dizzy yet? It's called checks and balances -- Schoolhouse Rock [amazon.com] did a favorite number about it ("We the People."). Plus, you can see why lawyers use so many footnotes, they just can't stop worrying there's something they left out.

          • civil disobedience (Score:3, Informative)

            by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
            I thought of yet another check -- civil disobedience, or disregard for the law in an effort to win change. For your example, we could all bleach our hair blonde and have a rally -- they can't arrest us all!

            Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep. :)

    • Re:Consequences? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by doowy ( 241688 )
      Lets say that Massachusetts ends up getting everything that Open Source advocates, Linux users, etc want in terms of penalties against Microsoft. Does this apply to all states after they have settled?
      Yes. They are not opening a new can of worms or anything here. In fact, they are not even appealing the decision - MS was found guilty! They are appealing the punishment [for violating anti-trust and consumer laws] and the revised punishment would apply to all states.

      Or would Microsoft have to have seperate product lines and "features", depending on the legal conditions in each state?
      No. But since MA happens to have its head screwed on straight (at least with respect to this matter) they could feasibly invoke state laws which would, of course, only apply to MA.

      Could MA get away with a law to the effect of "All OS's sold in the state must also release the source" - I don't know. But if even if they did, you can rest assured MS would either ignore the law or just stop selling their OS in MA.

      Disclaimer: INAL.
    • Does this apply to all states after they have settled?
      Massachusetts is in the 1st Circuit. Generally, a ruling applies only in the states that comprise the circuit. The 1st circuit is MA, ME, NH, PR, and RI. (Look here [uscourts.gov].) It's not until a ruling is handed down by the Supreme Court that it applies throughout the country.

      But since this is about punishment for a company and not about declaring a law unconstitutional, I'm not sure what happens.

      • The 1st circuit is MA, ME, NH, PR, and RI.

        Woah, wait a second. You mean to tell me that the First Circuit has Puerto Rico and all of New England EXCEPT FOR CONNECTICUT AND VERMONT! How did Connecticut and Vermont get pulled into the Second Circuit with New York, while Puerto Rico avoids being part of the 11th Circuit with their neighbors Alabama, Georgia and Florida. It looks to me like all of the other Circuits are neighboring states.

        Maybe a better division would be to have all of New England be the 1st Circuit, include New York in the current 3rd Circuit (NJ and PA), and put Puerto Rico in the 11th Circuit with its neighbor Florida. I would say that all of those regions share a bit more in common than the current division.

        Maybe it's just me but this sounds like a really odd division of the Circuits

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andymac ( 82298 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:43PM (#4781878) Homepage
    While it's nice to see the "backbone" being shown my the Mass DA, I wonder:
    1. how effective would any settlement including any "enforcement" techniques (read the last para of the article) actually be, considering the stance of the Fed and the other states?
    2. how much money will this cost Mass taxpayers? (glad I don't live there)
    3. when is the DA position up for grabs? (i.e.: how many votes is this person trying to suck out of people?)

    This just seems like a colossal waste of time and money. If Mass could get other states on-side, maybe the costs would be less...

    But this piece-meal approach to dealing with monopolies like MS (or IBM in a previous generation) is bullcrap. If the federal gov't can't come up with a reasonable punishment/settlement that all states sign off, there will never be any truly effective measures put in place. Another case when distributed power to states gives companies (and criminals) silly-ass easy loopholes to jump through...

    • Nonsense. The cost of this lawsuit is measured in millions of dollars, which is something a state can pay for without blinking. At the very worst it will be few dollars per inhabitant.

      Glad I don't live there, my ass.
    • The atty general (AG) is the attorney for the state, The district attys (DA's) prosecute criminal cases in the various counties or cities of the state.

      Cost? Not much compared to what has already been spent -- what's another 1%? Plus state attys are salaried and cheap compared to private practice; those who pursue gov't work take a major pay ct of 50% or more, in exchange for saner hours and that warm fuzzy feeling. I assume they did not contract this out.

      This is not piecemeal. If the state has a basis for appeal it should do so, and should not be bossed around by the federal gov't which may have worse or politically clouded judgment.

      IBM was a 13-year federal investigation that was abandoned when IBM itself sank in market relevance, and is generally regarded as a disaster. But tech antitrust has proved a whole new animal.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @11:40PM (#4782329)
      "how effective would any settlement including any "enforcement" techniques (read the last para of the article) actually be, considering the stance of the Fed and the other states?"

      Ultimately, their opinions don't matter. It's a federal court, so if Massacusetts wins this appeal and gets harsher punishments out of the process, the results are binding nationwide, Ashcroft or no Ashcroft.

      "how much money will this cost Mass taxpayers? (glad I don't live there)"

      The MA Attorney General is a full time job. The salaries of everybody involved will be paid whether they're pressing their appeal in this case or not. The only real "cost" on the commonwealth's part is the price of putting people on this case that could be working other cases.

      "when is the DA position up for grabs? (i.e.: how many votes is this person trying to suck out of people?)"

      Will this be an election issue? Would this help or hinder the incumbent in the next election? Is it possible that the DA is doing this out of principle, at least to some extent?

  • This should be intersting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shivianzealot ( 621339 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:43PM (#4781879)
    Our new governor-elect, Mitt Romney, is a fine specimen of business-buddy republican. I wouldn't be totally shocked if he threw a wrench into this.
    • "Our new governor-elect, Mitt Romney, is a fine specimen of business-buddy republican. I wouldn't be totally shocked if he threw a wrench into this."

      You assume that he can. Most states choose their Attourny General by direct election, not by executive appointment. You're confusing it with the federal government.

  • So, want to bet ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:44PM (#4781880) Homepage Journal
    Want to bet that the Massachusetts Attorney General office is a stepping-stone to higher office, for governor wanna-bes who are clever enough to grab some headlines?
    Like this [sptimes.com] guy, maybe?

    Here [miami.com] is a link to another article on the same story. From that article:

    Reilly maintained Friday that his state, which also is entitled to reimbursement of some attorneys' fees, can afford to continue the court fight alone because the most expensive parts of the case have already been paid.

    His decision won plaudits in Washington from Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who said Reilly "now becomes the de facto antitrust division chief of the United States and a high-tech hero to consumers and entrepreneurs." Markey is the top Democrat on the House Commerce Committee panel on telecommunications and the Internet.

    Sounds as if it's working already.

    • So, what? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by edinho ( 145769 )

      Are you saying that it is better to not do anything because someone might say that he is a good boy or that he is doing it out of self-interest? Or are you saying that he is actually doing it out of self-interest? Or are you saying anything at all?

      It could be that the action is sincere, or it could be that the action is taken for personal advantage under the pretext of fighting for the common good. But you are throwing dirt without giving any evidence beyond some hearsay.

      Someone does something, and won some acclaim for that (deserved or not), then that someone must be doing it for his own good only, according to your logic? This kind of tenuous accusation will only work on people who don't use their whole reasoning faculty to examine real evidence and instead jump to conclusion easily (especially if the insinuation is inline with their preconceived idea of How Things Should Be (TM)). Unfortunately, that describes way too many people.

      Cheers,
      e.

  • All a matter of perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danshapiro ( 529921 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:44PM (#4781881) Homepage
    MSNBC headline: 7 States Won't Appeal Microsoft Deal

    Slashdot headline: Massachusetts Appealing Microsoft Ruling

    The NYT [newyorktimes.com], WSJ [wsj.com], and McNews [usatoday.com] seem to agree with Slashdot's perspective, FWIW.

    • Hmm, isn't THAT special? Thank you for your research.

      Frank Rich, an NYT columnist, has railed repeatedly against the risk of corporate monsters, esp. Disney, buying media outlets. This could be an example of subtle influence -- I mean, which is the better journalistic headline? Report of the has-beens or the still-be's? At least MSNBC is upfront about its potential conflict of interest, if anyone stops to wonder what those letters stand for.

  • Go for it Massachusetts (Score:2, Interesting)

    by comeng ( 532639 )
    Its good to see at least one state will do the right thing and continue on trying to get a decent rulling against MicroSoft. Really it's time for countries around the world to move away from Microsoft products and start to put some money into open source projects. This will break their reliance on one company and improve balance of payments especially in countries like Australia were we import so much.

  • Microsoft will respond as it normally does (Score:5, Funny)

    by dagg ( 153577 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:50PM (#4781890) Journal
    It will employ one of these techniques:
    1. Extend and embrace Massachusetts.
    2. Purchase Massachusetts.
    3. Say that their next version will make Massachusetts redundant.
    --

    • Re:Microsoft will respond as it normally does (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:49PM (#4782017) Homepage
      Small quibble - it's "embrace and extend", a two phase process of privitizing open protocols involving 1) embrace - announce that your product will conform to industry standards to lure customers in, and 2) extend - make proprietary 'improvements'* to the standard that make it incompatible with competing products, locking their investment into a single vendor solution.

      Saying "extend and embrace" is kinda like saying "conquor and divide".

      *most times the 'improvements' are indeed real and should be paid for, they just have the 'unfortunate' side effect of locking out competition from less innovative companies, just like progress in the technical arts has the unfortunate side effect of forcing you to throw out a perfectly good machine and buy a new one. Sorry about that. But sometimes the incompatible extensions largely ARE anticompetitive. I think that's one way to nail Msft's tactics is get a judge to consider something like the Kerberos extensions that make Msft's incompatible with other implementations. Is the inconvenience of this incompatibility actually a real 'improvement' of such value to a customer that it's worth ditching competitors and going with the alledgedly superior single vendor solution? I think not - it's incompatibility for the purpose of leveraging a monopoly position in one segment into others.

  • Well (Score:4, Funny)

    by TekReggard ( 552826 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:54PM (#4781898)
    If a woman can win a case against McDonalds for making coffee too hot and not warning her properly, why cant a State win a case against Microsoft for this? This, in my opinion, is FAR worse then not warning me my hot coffee might be too hot.

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by SweetAndSourJesus ( 555410 ) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .toboRehTdnAsuseJ.> on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:59PM (#4781915)
      It's always a good idea to know what you're talking about [everything2.com].
      • Indeed it is. After reading the page linked to, IMHO it's still lamentable that she has reproduced. She placed the coffee cup between her legs and then proceeded to remove the only structural element keeping her legs from mashing the styrofoam cup, namely the lid. What's wrong with this picture?

    • Re:Well (Score:3, Funny)

      by xenofalcon ( 605906 )
      Warning: Product may contain strategically anticompetitive programs. Use at your own risk.

  • The cost of this appeal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by agurkan ( 523320 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:56PM (#4781902) Homepage
    There has been some posts about that this will cost a lot of money. I don't understand the legal system of the USA. How can trying some company could cost money to the state? Are they paying the DAs for overtime? Aren't the DAs and other people who work for the state get paid whether there is a case they are trying or not? And also how come this will cost a lot of money only because MS has a lot of money? I can understand that as a person I need to hire good lawyers to fight MS, but I don't think states would hire new and expensive DAs to deal with this case. Are they hiring consultants? What am I missing?
    • How can trying some company could cost money to the state? Are they paying the DAs for overtime? Aren't the DAs and other people who work for the state get paid whether there is a case they are trying or not?

      Well, maybe you have missed something: this could be a profit center for the states. From this story [miami.com]:

      Miller also disclosed that Microsoft will pay $25 million in legal reimbursements to be divided among states based on how much they spent on the antitrust case. California has borne the brunt of legal costs.

      The company was required under federal law to pay those legal fees, though $25 million is far more than the out-of-pocket costs for those states. Government lawyers are paid fixed salaries, but the law calculates reimbursed fees based on hourly rates for private attorneys.

      There is also the name-recognition factor, which is so dear to the politically ambitious Attorney General, in any state.

    • Re:The cost of this appeal (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrEd ( 60684 )
      And what's more, nobody's considered what the cost of allowing Microsoft to continue their business practices is! All the money sunk into projects that just get crushed under the 800lb gorilla, all the possible innovative effective computer solutions that are forbidden under MS contracts, et cetera.


      I'm sure others can think of better ideas than this. Simply crying "Oh, it's too expensive, better let them go" is a bit shortsighted. If Standard Oil had been allowed to go about its practices, it would no doubt have cost the average taxpayer a whole lot more in *being ripped off for every gas-related (and more!) purchase*.


      Am I way off here?

  • The fight must ALWAYS go on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blystovski ( 525004 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @08:58PM (#4781910) Homepage
    "There is no point in going on after the other states have settled."

    You make it sound like it's time to give up.

    I can tell you one thing for sure, if Microsoft saw no opposition to its buisness practices why should they give a damn about reforming them? In this regard, even one voice is better than none.

    Oh well - I will admit the days of hope (however false it was) during the early days of the whole States vs. Microsoft thing has long since faded, but at least one state is willing to prolong the fight.

    More power to them! I only wish my state (OH) had some ballz.
  • I guess they are much better of using that money to support other software companies or even better OSS projects. Now that money goes to lawyers and that's not good at all.
    Another year or so in court will never stop microsoft from doing their business. Not supporting/buying their products is the best way to let them know that you're not satisfied with their product.
  • That it's Massachusetts still going after them.

    Honestly, though I have no great love for Microsoft (having suffered through WinMe, and being raised on Macs and IBM DOS will do that to ya)- I'm glad the government is at least keeping it's nose out of something in a day where it wants it's nose in everything [darpa.mil].



    I mean, let's face it, for even your intelligent computer user, Linux is no solution. I went through the process of partitioning, and installing Red Hat and only came out dissapointed. I could never get a PPP protocol to sign me onto the internet, and even though the computer didn't crash, I couldn't use my CD-ROM either. Until Linux is as intuitive as Windows (or even better, Mac's OS X) it's doomed to be for businesses and hobbyists.

    • I mean, let's face it, for even your intelligent computer user, Linux is no solution.

      What does Linux have to do with the Antitrust lawsuit? Furthermore, what does a solution have to do with Microsoft?

      -Brent

  • Mass., home state of the FSF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Andy Tai ( 1884 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:11PM (#4781939) Homepage
    Being the home of the Free Software Foundation, the state's appealing is the natural thing to do...

    • Right, I'm sure the AG is just itchin' to win the votes of the Bearded Geek demographic. He's now guaranteed to have the entire MIT LCS staff out campaigning for him, and that'll really impress the elderly and Hispanics. RMS is such a political mastermind, too, and with Bradley Kuhn at his side there's no limit to how far they can influence public policy. I expect we'll see John Kerry or Ted Kennedy introduce a law requiring Windows to be GPL'd within the next few months.
  • ...what state I'm going to be looking at colleges in. If the GOVERNMENT there is that smart, imagine what the comp sci proffessors are like! ;)

  • a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doowy ( 241688 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:14PM (#4781946) Homepage
    Why are all of theses comments so negative about MA and their efforts?

    I know /. bashes MS for sport. Aside from all of the childish MS bashing, a REAL problem DOES exist. The practices of MS DO threaten other software makers.

    Think about how far along MS has come in a short time. Where will it end? If they are not stopped - it won't end. It sounds cliche, but MS is clearly on the path to world domination (ok, that was maybe just added for dramatic effect).

    MS will control "digital currency", "digital passports", etc. Mostly because of naive public acceptance.. but nobody else will ever gain a voice with that same public if MS can continue on their path as they have been.

    In the end, I think logic and common sense will sweep the masses - but I don't see that end for many years (if not decades). Good for MA if they can impose some restrictions on MS early in the game (or maybe we are about mid-game).

    Maybe you can say to yourself "MS can't decide what I can and cannot do" - and you may be right (for the time being). But you are a minority and MS is quickly moving into a position to decide what the general public can and cannot do with PC's, what hardware manufacturers can and cannot do (corporate politics), what software makers can and cannot do (neophyte strangling). Outside of the technology sector, MS has a great deal of pull in the media and even in politics.

    Please, don't sluff off the efforts of MA as "wasted" or "useless" - instead, you should show support for their efforts as MA really is looking for a solution in the interest of the public. (and I know, there is always political motives involved)

    • Think about how far along MS has come in a short time. Where will it end? If they are not stopped - it won't end. It sounds cliche, but MS is clearly on the path to *world domination* (ok, that was maybe just added for dramatic effect).

      Pardon? Yes, I'm sure MS does aspire to be the sole provider of the world's software; most businesses want to be the only one in the market.

      That said, I don't think they're on that path at all. In fact, I was having this discussion with a couple of friends just a few nights ago. I argued, to some success, that MS is actually losing mindshare. I've talked to a number of people recently; my bosses (both retired Air Force officers) both appreciate the value of having source code, and one even mentioned it to me (which came as a total shock) that for our new project, we need to get the source, not just binaries. I was flying from Oklahoma City to Indianapolis a few weeks ago, and got to talking to one of my passengers. I don't remember exactly how, but he and I discussed open-source software and alternative operating systems. These are not isolated incidents; I can't count the number of people to whom I've spoken who "have heard of the Linux thing," or are just tired of 'doze bugs (and IE, and Outlook). I've sold a good half-dozen people on Mozilla, and use it in a production environment at work, with many people being happy. I installed it for my parents, too; they like it as well. Again, not isolated incidents.

      So yes, I'm sure MS would like to further strengthen its dominance in the market, but I don't see it happening. Too many people are starting to notice. More importantly, too many organizations are starting to notice: the New York Times, the BBC, IBM, any number of embedded system producers (systems for which software must be developed, and systems which will be used by many people). MS's own FUD mentions Linux frequently; that will (and does) generate questions. Even the government is looking at open-source as an alternative; having worked in government, I can tell you that the inertia there is nothing short of phenomenal. The tide is changing, my friend; maybe not quickly, but I assure you, it is changing.

  • AG Reilly's Comments... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jedi Paramedic ( 587254 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:24PM (#4781959)
    Read them here [state.ma.us], or the AG's office press release here [state.ma.us].

    Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here [state.ma.us].

    Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)

    It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.

  • Just mix the words and you get... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:24PM (#4781962) Homepage
    Masochists find Microsoft Ruling Appealing
  • Mass. went this alone in the beginning, and they've been prepared to see it thru alone all along. Againgoing it alone is something Mass. has been prepared to do since the beginning.

  • Effort counts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ravenseye ( 146453 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @09:40PM (#4781993)
    I live in Massachusetts and I know of a few people gnashing their teeth right now because they wish the Microsoft case would go away. They feel that way because:

    1) They know that they are wrong in their support of MS.

    2) They know that the AG is SUPPOSED to represent those who have been injured when the law is broken. They just wish it weren't true in this case.

    3) They can't find the right words to make "GUILTY" go away...it's a stigma no matter what the punishment to MS is.

    4) They are fearful that their true lack of knowledge in the tech world will put them at a competitive disadvantage if ANY non MS (read...non-understood) technology were to become popular. They don't do *nix because they don't understand it. And won't. And don't have to so long as the monopoly keeps them safe.

    It doesn't matter if the AG wins or loses. His efforts keep the truth closer to the front page where people read about it. Perception is reality so let the charges fly.

    By the way, I just e-mailed Mr. Reilly as well as phoned his office (617-727-2200) thanking him for his efforts and offering my support. He should know we care.
  • It would be more interesting if Delaware were to prosecute, since (if you look it up) Microsoft is incorporated in Delaware. Ahhh... if only Delaware yanked it's corporate status...

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:02PM (#4782044)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • In unrelated news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:07PM (#4782054)
    Microsoft announced Licensing V7.0 today, and although it looks like V6.0, there are a few changes. One of the most shocking ones was the addition of the clause: "83) It is unlawful for anyone who lives in, works in, ever visits, or has any family in the State of Massachussetts to use this Software Product."

    A Microsoft spokesman downplayed suggestions that this was in retaliation for the States' refusal to let the antitrust suit die. Instead he commented that "We feel that we can better serve our core customer base at this point by adding these changes. It will be better in the long run for our youngest users. We're doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children."

    A spokesman from the state of Massachussetts could not be contacted, since all of the communications and utilities ran on versions of Microsoft software, and have since been shut down.

  • Funny (Score:2, Funny)

    by dusanv ( 256645 )
    Netcraft [netcraft.com] says MA Attorney General's web site [state.ma.us] is IIS on W2K. DOH!
  • and I say go Tom! This is one guy I'll vote for ... (do we vote for atorney general? doesn't matter, Tom for governor!)

    Besides, if we can spend 100's of millions of dollars a day on the Big Dig (largest public works project ever) we can kick out some cash to fight microsoft.

  • Colleges and Universities in MA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by screwthemoderators ( 590476 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:14PM (#4782066) Journal
    Mass has a lot of schools that were early adopters of free software, and student idealism to flip MS off. FSF is based Cambridge, after all. I think there are a lot of bitter people around the 128 corridor that have never forgiven companies on the West Coast for stealing their thunder.

  • Is it legal to... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:20PM (#4782090)
    The whole thing, to me, boils down to the following:

    1) Federal laws, people's right to choice, etc. clearly violated--not just once, but many, many times.

    2) USA justice dept. and judicial branch too corrupt /clueless to understand how it happened and how to fix it.

    3) Federal gov't and MS have "buddy deal" to make MS the USA standard, and let the rest of the world choose between Linux or MS, much the way they choose between Metric and English units. (I hope Linux ends up being the international equivalent of Metric units--successful).

    So, is it legal for a state government to declare itself "Microsoft Free", now that they are a convicted criminal organization? Why don't the "solaris seven" use this option, and rather than fight the biased judicial and federal justice dept., that is, just declare themselves microsoft free, as far as state government purchases, and let people use whatever they choose, but urge them to choose freedom?

    It seems fairly obvious to me that we will soon see the politicians shrilly supporting the US "corporate welfare for microsoft program" as they did the use of british units in the seventies--even though the rest of the world was switching to metric right in front of them.

    That will be a sick sight indeed..a bunch of fat ass senators screaming about america, god, the flag, apple pie and microsoft. Sickening, but it will probably come to that.

  • Update on the appeal... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Squidgee ( 565373 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:22PM (#4782099)
    Now that I've got my cheerleading out, check out the update [state.ma.us] on the appeal, which contains Tom Reilly's comments on it. Basically, it explains why they're pursuing a harsher punishment.
  • Microsoft's Redmond campus is almost the size of MA!!

    If Microsoft wins, rumor has it they're just going to take over MA for their East Coast campus.
  • This is bad, but at least one state is sticking in.

    However, I feel good--I just watched Antitrust [imdb.com] again.

  • This is great news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hdparm ( 575302 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @11:03PM (#4782240) Homepage
    Microsoft were able to do everything they did mainly due to an enormous lack of cultivated and constructive innitiative.

    Other states reps' argument about keeping MS on their toes by watching and enforcing rulling if necesarry is a very weak one. Actually, it's a load of crap, complete and utter bullshit and good sign that MS have shelled out few milion bucks where it was needed.

    You can try keeping MS on their toes only if you take the battle to the next level, which is what Mass AG is doing. And rightfully so, since settlement was not the propper remmedy for breaking the law. In fact, it was big win for Microsoft.

    Kudos to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, he deserves all help he may need. I'll do my part:

    1. Show how neat Linux is to at least 2 people a week and help them run penguin on their PC.

    2. Activelly advocate Linux and Open Source anywhere, anytime.

    3. Keep the fight for Linux at my workplace going, despite the fact that some guys have already been sacked for doing so.

    That's what I can do. Have you asked yourselves what can you do and have you started doing it?

  • West Virginia!?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @11:23PM (#4782294)
    Ah... er... damn it! I have the urge to tell West Virginia jokes involving sheep, but then they may end up doing something useful and good, and.... ARGH!

  • Yay (Score:2)

    by babbage ( 61057 )
    Go us.

    Boo US.

  • One point of interest. The AG job in MA is an elected rather than appointed job. That is to say, Tom Reilly has to behave not as a lawyer decding which cases are likely to produce a win and which cases are sure losers, but as a slave to politics who has to decide which cases will get him the best media attention. I'm sure he now has the Open Source geek's vote locked up now.

  • MS Buys European Anti-Trust Top Commisioner (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiZd0m ( 192990 ) on Saturday November 30, 2002 @01:13AM (#4782586)
    No jokes,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/technology/30B RU S.html

    I guess it's on way to end their trouble in europe by hiring everyone who opposes them.

    I guess everyone as a price ...

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close