Bush Administration Stops Microsoft Breakup

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by the Bush Administration to cease its drive to break up Microsoft, which has already been found guilty of violating U.S. anti-trust law in a complaint filed by the Federal Government and 19 states. See the BBC or CNN for more. It isn't clear what wristslap, errr, remedy the Justice Department will seek instead. Update: 09/06 15:21 PM GMT by M : Declan McCullagh of Wired notes: "The text of the DOJ announcement is here. Wired News has an article. Also, the DOJ says a 'Senior Antitrust Division Official' will brief reporters at the department's DC headquarters at 11:30 am ET, so look for some followup stories from that."

Will restrictions work as a remedy?

One of the provisions of the proposed restrictions from judge jackson's original ruling, which the DOJ is going to model their restrictive remedy after was:

barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up startup screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards.

The question is, does this go to allowing PC vendors to bundle additional operating systems like Linux with new PCs without the penalties that are now part of the Microsoft Bootloader License [byte.com]?

There was another provision -to require a standard and consistant licensing price schedule- which obliquely touches on this issue, but none that address it directly; just as in the trial it's being ignored. Particularly troubling is the suggestion that the DOJ will model their proposed remedy on the restrictions proposed by Judge jackson in so far as those restrictions to business practices were relevant when they were originally proposed but the landscape has changed drastically sice then. Microsoft has moved on from the battle for the desktop, to the battle for the net, and if the restrictions do not relate to practices associated with the new battleground, then they will be on no value at all.

--CTH

Alternate remedies

Justice is the most important point here. Microsoft should not benefit from it's illegal conduct.

There are other penalties that could make Microsoft wish it had been broken up.

The basic idea is that Microsoft should not benefit or profit from the proceeds of their illegal acts.

Therefore, one possible solution could be:

1) the equivalent of a jail term

• Microsoft should not release any new software or any revision or update to their operating system software in any way for an extended period of time. Occasional patches may be issued so long as they are standalone, issued for no cost, and can fit on a single standard format floppy disk. (1.44) megabytes
• The period of time that this prohibition should be in force should at least equal the period of time that they have had profit from their illegal acts (5 to 10 years), if not more. The purpose of this is to inhibit their dominance of the market as it was achieved by illegal acts, and return the conditions as much as possible to what it was when Microsoft committed the illegal acts.
• If Windows XP is not released to market, then the penalty can be reduced slightly (3 to 5 years).
• There should be a very substantial fine to remove any profits that they have accrued as a result of their illegal activity.

Again, the idea is to remove any profit or gain that resulted from their illegal acts.

2) Another alternate solution is to require that all operating system software releases must meet the approval in advance from a government commission comprised of a large number of industry experts. This includes any software integrated into the operating system, and any software intended to replace the operating system. Maybe three from each state in involved in the law suits, plus three from the Federal Government. With a quorum of 2/3 needed to vote. Again from a 5 or Ten year period.

With each of these, if this means that .NET is put on hold, then tough. It is meant to be a penalty. Similar to if you when to jail for several years.

Of course, criminals routinely protest that the jail sentences are unfair, and that they are mis-understood. This should not inhibit the administration of Justice.

- - -
Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

Re:lost vote .. As if he was going to get mine..

After trying to scrap the ICBM treaty...

In some ways this would be like FDR addressing congress on December 8, 1941, "Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

We will therefore abandon Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of our bases in the Pacific and leave it to the japanese as a reward for their initiative and innovative spirit, but leave them with a stern warning not to invade Texas."

From Wired:

Instead, the government said, it would seek to impose severe regulations on what the world's largest software company may and may not do in the marketplace.

What this translates to:

May bundle and give products which are the sole source of income, and thus drive out of business, no more than 35 companies per year.

May not bundle and provide free of cost any of the following: oil, natural gas, lumber, minerals or mineral ores.

May not give more than $500 M^H^H^H^H^H$1 billion per annum to the Republican Party, conservative think tanks, and special shadowy organizations which shall remain nameless.

May not give more than $10.00 per annum to any parties other than those affiliated with the Republican Party, unless they have a popular, but nutty candidate which is competing in an upcoming election and may draw away votes from a party which will be remain nameless.

The Microsoft CEO may not spend more than 3 consecutive nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.

May not include less than 64,000 bugs per major release.

Will release a special W. version of Word with a spell checker which forbids use of words over 7 letters or 2 syllables in length.

Microsft products shall be distributed to all enemies of the USA, free of cost, so that we shall know of their weaknesses.

Should Microsoft be found in violation of any* of these conditions, the CEO will be sent to bed without dessert and grounded to his multimillion dollar mansion for one week of his choosing.

* Excepting the oil and gas provisions, under which punishment shall consist of the Microsoft CEO briefly discovering the resting place of James Hoffa, Sr.

Fragile Economy big motivator to avoid breakup

I'm no fan of MS, but given my current job search headaches I'd prefer not to see a recession get triggered by something that could be avoided. Selfish? Short-sighted? probably. But I'd like the economy to recover sooner than later, and a MS breakup would result in later.

cz

Bush?

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had been instructed by President Bush...

Funny, i don't see any claims that George W. Bush told anyone to do anything.

Typical Slashdot bias.

P.S. Write your state senators and tell them to press on -- the trial can go on without the DOJ.

exactly

From the NY Times article:

The antitrust official said the decision announced today was not connected to the introduction of the Windows XP system. He said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft had been notified of the decision but had not influenced the outcome. The official said there had been no White House involvement. "The decisions about this case are being made in the Department of Justice," he said.

Now you might speculate that they're lying, and that Bush actually did order this action, but to report so as fact is clearly very poor journalism.

NOT exactly

From the LA Times article:

WASHINGTON -- Reversing a Clinton-era legal strategy, the Bush administration announced today it will no longer seek the breakup of Microsoft and wants to end the historic antitrust case against the software maker as quickly as possible.

...

During a ceremony on the White House lawn, President Bush declined to comment directly on the case but told reporters: "During the course of the campaign and throughout my administration I have made it abundantly clear that on issues relating to lawsuits -- to ongoing lawsuits -- that I expect the Justice Department to handle that in a way that brings honor and thought to the process.

"I respect and hold our attorney general in high esteem and I honor the work that he's done and I'm going to leave it at that," Bush said.

Now you might speculate that they're taking the quote out of context, or that there might be another implication to what he said (or almost didn't say), but to only go from one source and ignore all others is clearly very poor investigation.

Naive and incorrect

Clearly your position is grounded more in a kneejerk bias to defend the President, regardless of the merits, than an informed understanding of what is going on, or a valid criticism of the original posting.

Bottom line, the President is absolutely answerable for this (although it may well be the right thing to do from a legal perspective). Writing "state senators" can and will accomplish nothing.

First, the Department of Justice is an agency of the Executive Branch of Government, that is to say, they work for the President of the United States. John Ashcroft was appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the President. While he is sometimes granted autonomy as a matter of course, Ashcroft would take no position contrary to the wishes of the President. You may recall not too long ago, when Richard Nixon sought to have "independent counsel" Archibald Cox sacked -- two officers resigned office (or were asked to resign) rather than follow their boss' instructions. Only Robert Bork, one of the few remaining executives in DOJ who hadn't resigned, agreed to follow those instructions.

Now, just so you understand -- the Department of Justice are the lawyers for the United States Government. If they drop the case, the U.S. government will not proceed. Furthermore, and far more important, the House and the Senate have no constitutional authority to enforce any law against anyone (except a case for impeachment), presuming that, by "state senators," you meant the Senators representing your state in the Federal Senate. Your state senators wouldn't have much to say about anything -- except the cases brought by particular states -- and they would likewise be constrained under their respective state constitution separation of powers from acting against any company. You might write your governor, if you wanted to continue seeking structural relief, for all the good it will do you.

Ever heard "The buck stops here"?

The only way that this wasn't Bush's decision is if all the stories about Cheney really running the country are true. The decision may well have been issued and executed by Ashcroft and his cronies, but Bush is his boss, and can fire him if he makes decisions with which he disagrees.

It's not like Ashcroft is some gunslinging maverick who doesn't toe the party line- he does what Bush wants, or he is replaced by someone who will.

Bryguy

Re:Bush?

Exactly. Dubya didn't pick up the phone, call a receptionist at the DOJ, and say, "Don't break up Microsoft." (Well, not bloody likely. Oh, to be privvy to such things....)

Of course, the DOJ is run by John Ashcroft, a Bush appointee. And Bush, like any President, appointed an Attorney General with views in alignment with his party's platform. In this case, conservative Republican, which prefers to let the market police itself. Which means Bush would have some influence on DOJ v Microsoft.

But there's a world of difference between indirect influence and direct instruction, which Michael claims. By fabricating direct action by President Bush, Michael is, once again, discarding what little journalistic integrity Slashdot has, in favor of anti-Microsoft rhetoric so relentless, it has become irrational. Malda needs to bring the hammer down on Michael, and that right soon.

Venting done. Back on topic.

Would Bill Clinton or Janet Reno have enough patience to see the original break-up order this far? Or would they opt, as the Ashcroft DOJ has done, to forego the break-up and the now-moot browser commingling point in favor of a new remedy based on Microsoft's latest round of predatory behavior? Hard to say. At the very least, Microsoft still isn't off the hook.

And I was never convinced an OS/Office split would have been an effective remedy. The two BabySofts would still have monopolies in their respective markets. This lets the DOJ go after a more meaningful remedy.

Who said anything about Bush?

The CNN story does not mention Bush at all...

and I thought MY bank was bad

Certainly took MS's checks long enough to clear...

Wait a minute...

Where does this say Bush was the reason for stopping the MS breakup? I see a reference to the Bush administration, but I assume that means someone he appointed (ie John Ashcroft) is the person who "Stop[ped] the Microsoft Breakup".

Bush said so?

I'm no political analyst, but IIRC "Bush Administration" != "George W". And for those of you who are wondering, the BBC article names the Bush administration. There's no mention of it in CNN.

So much for being "tough on crime"

How can Ashcroft defend his tough-as-nails posture regarding alleged computer crime by a small-time russian company who threatens nobody, while refusing to pursue an in-the-bag conviction already won in part, of a notorious bad actor whose conduct will affect virtually every computer user on the planet?

Ashcroft's new motto: "We're tough on crime, except when they donated to our campaign fund."

Re:So much for being "tough on crime"

The Democrats would have done the same thing. No sane President is going to push for the crucifiction of the one tech stock that isn't currently in the toilet with today's poor economy.

Not that it matters. Monopolies topple themselves eventually, and Microsoft is well on its way. PC sales are slow (and will remain slow despite Windows XP), corporate budgets are tight, and Microsoft is stuck in the unenviable position of having to compete not only against the growing tide of Free Software, but also against a huge installed base of it's own software.

If people don't start buying new computers or upgrading the software that they currently use then Microsoft is just as cooked as if we all switched over to Linux. And Microsoft isn't helping things either. For every nifty new feature that they have added (stability) they have added several anti-consumer features (the new registration procedure and other intellectual protection measures, higher price).

It's going to be an interesting year next year.