Slashdot Log In
Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement
Posted by
michael
on Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:32 PM
from the sent-to-bed-without-dinner dept.
from the sent-to-bed-without-dinner dept.
JeffMagnus writes: "MSNBC is reporting that the tentative settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct. A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity." The New York Times appears to be the original source for the settlement stories; there's also an AP article.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 595 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:Better than two companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Markets arent fair. If markets were fair, then I could always afford the basics I need to live. "The Fair Market" or "fair market value" is a different concept, but lets get to that in a bit.
The market would be far more fair if there were two monopolies Microsoft instead of one.
Who says that it requires a business model? Linux is free. GNU is free. Free as in no money and free as in code. If Linux can displace Windows, which I believe it clearly *could*, why does it have to be commerical? Competition isn't only commerical. Thats the great thing about competition. You face it not only from other businesses but from other forces. This time that other foce is a free movement called Linux.
The market would be far more fair if there were two monopolies Microsoft instead of one.
There is no evidence to support that. Office is MS's number #1 revenue source. That clearly isnt a loss-leader. What other apps do they sell at a loss? Well, lets see. IE - but if you like me and MS agree that web connectivity is integral to modern computing than it is clear that IE isnt an application but in fact part of the operating system (if not technically then theoretically). What other apps? Most other apps are pay apps OR tied to services (ala Media Player). Clearly no loss-leaders there. Besides which, taking a loss-leader, even when a monopoly, isnt illegal.
But it did have a lock on the home user market. all of sudden, new applications appear in Windows, integration only really works when you use windows, so before you know it, all of these markets fall apart and become absorbed in the Microsoft monolith.
There is no such monolith. What is the most dominant mail client? Not Outlook or Outlook Express. Sendmail alone has a larger installed base than Exchange does. Same with Apache v. IIS. That monopoly does not exisit - MS does not control e-mail or colloboration.
If they had been an Internet -applications company, a business-productivity applications company and an OS company, I doubt that Microsoft would be the single ruler of all of those markets.
What is an OS? Should an OS stagnate? You havent touched on these issues. Should an OS be able to connect using TCP/IP natively? Yes, you say? It is integral to the computer? Well thats monopolistic - Trumpet Winsock no has no market! Should an OS be able to provide basic math functions ala a Calculator? Yes? Well thats not fair. Now VisiCalc's main product is useless. Should an OS be able to view a publically available webpage instrinsically? Yes, and there goes Netscape.
The issues are complex. What is an OS and what is an application? Is Java an OS, a language or an application? Define the "web" in terms of an application, and OS, or a platform?
Microsoft is the ruler of no markets. They have a strong grasp on many, but they control none.
Three people? (Score:5, Insightful)
They better get some help. It's the little things people miss that gets me. Who's gonna help them?
I think it is the consumer's responsibility to take action--why else do you think it's taken so long to get this far? Because they're so big, and so few people are acting!
Re:Let's not forget (Score:4, Informative)
Way back in 1994-5, and you can easily verify this, MS was a non-player in politics. None. No money, no donations, no endorsements, nothing. Lobbying was minimal, and things were good. MS of course changed many many things about its business pratices. But at the same time, both parties solicitied heavily for money from MS. The Democrats and Republicans both wanted a piece of that big bankroll to finance the next big election cycle.
MS's line up to then had always been something like "we are a software company, not a political organization". So they didnt give anything wholly significant (err, perhaps it was $1M to each party).
After Clinton beat Dole, he persisted, trying to get some money from MS for the party. Didn't happen. MS was absent from conspicious $500/plate dinners and $1000/ticket charity events. They were simply apolitical.
Then the shit hit the fan. I am not claiming that the government sued them because of their refusual to give money. However, they did pursue it more vigoursly and worked the system hard. MS had no political allies to lean on - no one to lobby the otherside for them - which sadly is a major part of the whole general process in Washington these days.
Fast forward - MS is bigger than ever, and now, politically saavy. They work it from both sides of the aisle, they have connections and money and lobbyists and influence. They paid out millions in soft-money to both parties- just to hedge their bets. In less than 7 years they went from apolitical to uber-political.
And it paid off.
I've always been luke-warm towards MS. But I truly admired their stance on politics before the trial. Back then IBM, Sun, Apple, Netscape and several other competitors had powerful lobbies which by their own admissions had strong influence over the DOJ's decision to take the case.
I am not saying the case is without merit, but if you live by the corrupt system you die by it. The case originated with strong political motives - and so shall it end.
Finally, nit pick, he didnt tell the courts anything. He told the DOJ. I think he was right for several reasons besides the aforementioned ones. The DOJ's case for breakup was laughable. The finding of facts didnt even pass the laugh test for breakup. This is purely a case for behavioural rememedies. Futhermore most people at large and most legal types would probably tell that if held today, those hearings that led the finding of fact would fall strongly in the corner of MS. The market isnt the same today as in 1995, mostly because of Linux and other Free Software projects.
Re:Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought I made it clear. Its circumstantial. I didnt claim they got sued because of non-payment, but that they didnt have any political protection - which companies like AOL, Sun, IBM, and others had then and have now. You should re-read my post.
Just like it was the Bush justice depts job to pursue the case vigorously.
The courts agree that MS is a monopoly, but more than anything, the courts almost literally laughed the "needs to be broken up" findings out the door. They basically are forcing the DOJ to settle because they have no real case for breakup. Do you dispute that? Go read the most recent appeals ruling. They stated pure and simple that they were skeptical that in any form that MS should be broken up. It was pretty clear.
First of all it does not matter what the market is like today. they are on trial and have been found guilty of breaking the law. You can't argue that the circumstances are different now and that the law should let you go (unless you are the riches man in the world of course).
Anyone can in civil court. It does in fact matter what the circumstances are at the time of sentencing. For example, even in criminal court - if I kill someone and get caught and am completely insane, and then go to trial - well if by sentencing I have been treated, medicated, and put into intensive therapy the judge considers those and adjusts the sentence as necessary. In 1995 there wasnt a credible threat to MS's monopoly if you believe it exisited, today, there is. Circumstances are different now than then.
Besides circumstances are not really different. MS still has a monopoly, it still abuses that monopoly, it still bundles, it still uses monopoly products to gain monopolies in other markets. XP is a prime example of this. The entire purpose of XP is to get people signed up on passport, using MSN, using MS media formats etc. It has nothing to do with being an OS and everything to do with delivering advertising to windows users.
MS doesnt have a monopoly, and certainly not with XP. Ask RMS what OS he uses on his desktop PC. Or Malda, or Roblimo. Ask them how they can get the news, the weather, or listen to music. There is no MS Desktop OS monopoly any more. Its gone. Vanished. Quick as it came. Futhermore, "bundling" isn't necessarily illegal even for monopolies. MS has the full right to extend the product to add new features. Elsewise, WinXP would be DOSXP.
And even if we were to buy your ridiculus arguments how does a consent degree enforce behavioural rememedies. Bill Gates has already shit on the last remedy and Ballmer is getting ready to piss on this one as we speak. This punishment is a joke and everybody knows that. The justice system in this country is corrupt beyond belief.
Yeap, this is a joke. Its a joke because MS has all the leverage. They can walk all over the DOJ because circumstances have changed. The high-courts have repeadetly handed MS either partial or complete appeals victory. The White House is on MS's side. The public is on MS's side (82% favorable rating!). The last court decisions basically said that a break-up will never happen and basically instructed the DOJ to settle. The DOJ has no leverage - MS can stretch this out till 2010 if they want. No leverage at all for the DOJ.
The end result of this case will be formal acknowledgement that Bill Gates is officially above the law.
Yeah, whatever, or that politics and the judicial system are not seperate, which is something that the rest of accepted years ago.
Re:Besides (Score:5, Funny)
Now the current commercial where a room full of mainframes are replaced by a single box running Linux by IBM, now that is good.
Re:Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush didn't sell out to MS - he just saw a bigger picture. IF MS got blugened, broken apart, fined, etc. that would mean problems with every software developer in the nation who writes apps for MS. If MS can't keep upgrading OS's - software companies can't keep upgrading applications. Everyone loses money and jobs. End of story
Political arguments on slashdot are usually stilted to liberal Neuromancer cum Utopian technologists (at least, mine are!) Bush doesn't care about
Re:Voting Ain't What It Used To Be (Score:4, Offtopic)
I thought the last election was broken, not fixed.
fool me once... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:would a breakup be better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft would like the world to believe that the fate of the economy rests on its shoulders. If that were true, MS would not be looking for new and exciting ways to milk money from people (auditing impoverished schools and children's charities, forcing people to pay to keep their software running, etc.) just to keep the company fed. Back in March and April of this year, upgrades of Windows 98 were outselling Windows ME, and Apple's OS X was outselling Windows 2000 upgrades. With all the reasons to hate or fear Windows XP, and all the anger MS's latest license policies are rousing, Microsoft is going to have a tough time selling Windows XP. Add to that the low PC sales (= OS sales) and MS so conveniently trying to overextend itself going for new markets (web services and game consoles), and you get a Microsoft that is weaker than it has been in years. It is ripe for its competition to unseat it, and removing its stranglehold on the market would free up a lot of room for real innovation that would actually spark growth. Microsoft is an ugly, smelly, half rotten weed. It is making the computer industry very sick.
Yes, Apple does make things user friendly (as opposed to MS merely making them user annoying). They have taken that talent, and applied it to an operating system based on an open source version of BSD Unix (plus the Mach kernal and a proprietary user interface). The result is the powerful, but easy to use, OS X. Finally we have a Unix that is as easy to use as Mac has always been, that runs Quicken and the Sims, is as powerful as Unix, and has a Terminal application that the brave can use to access a real Unix shell prompt. The result: Mac users who have never seen a command line before are eagerly rushing to acquire "mastery of the Terminal app", and are posting tips about their favorite cryptic command line like game cheats or easter eggs! OS X is quite capable of filling in Linux's weaknesses on the desktop. OS X makes the Mac a very credible threat to Windows, especially since Apple is the strongest of the desktop computer makers at the moment. Microsoft does not realize the danger here (Shhh, don't tell them).
Linux is nothing to be sneezed at either. It is doing very well against Microsoft on the server side. It is not out of the running on the desktop side either. Linux is a good choice for the enterprise desktop, in cases where commercial apps aren't needed, and MIS has competent people to administer the users' machines. Linux is also good for embedded systems.
Java is supposed to overtake Visual Basic and Visual C++ next year. The success of an OS depends on its developers. If the developers are moving to system independent Java, that weakens Windows and threatens
The alternatives are here now, and ready to roll. Microsoft is either going to have to learn how to compete, or they are going down the tubes, and dragging with them any PC maker stupid enough to not find themselves a better OS. Somehow, I don't see MS learning how to make bug free programs that do what the customer wants any time soon. If I were IBM, I'd start making the rounds of the software companies and get them to start turning out Linux applications.
As for the antitrust trial, this is getting ridiculous. Microsoft has been found guilty of doing nasty, illegal things with their monopoly. Shame. Shame. To even consider "settlement" talks during the penalty stage of a trial is bad enough. Agreeing on the exact same thing that MS violated years ago is idiotic! MS already thinks it is above the law. Letting MS off is going to make it think it is the second coming.
Time to appeal to a higher court: the consumer. Punish Microsoft for their wicked ways by taking your business elsewhere!
Homage to Godzilla, King of Monsters, on the occasion of his 47th birthday this Saturday.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? So let me get this straight: if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, the deal will be extended so that Microsoft can violate them for two more years. ??? Tough on crime we are today, ain't we?
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. As far as I know the "findings of law" from Judge Jackson's part of this affair still hold up. That basically means that the defendant has been found guilty of criminal actions, and put on some kind of probation, but if he/she violates that probation, the probation will continue longer.
OJ may have the title for "most obvious perversion of justice by a single man", but I think MS just got it for perversion by a corporation.
If I ever get found guilty of a crime I'll have to suggest this one to the judge. "Your Honour, I'll agree to do 5 years of community service, but if I decide not to do that community service, I agree you can pretend I'm doing it for 2 years longer. Sound good?"
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has signed consent degrees before and broken them. They were not fined for it.
Microsoft will break this consent degree, and they will not be fined for it.
In 2007, Microsoft will sign yet another consent degree. They will break it, and will not be fined.
Wow! A Consent Decree (Score:5, Insightful)
Shameful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shameful (Score:4, Funny)
Gee...if I'm ever found guilty of a crime, will I get to tell the court what penalties I find unacceptable?
You're right. "Putrid" doesn't even begin to describe it.
And the Panel will be: (Score:4, Offtopic)
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
Re:And the Panel will be: (Score:5, Informative)
Monte was one of the three authors of the famous Altair Basic that Gates and Allen get credit for. Monte evidently wrote the math routines. He's now a software and systems consultant (Alluvial Software [alluvialsw.com]). It appears he does works on several platforms, including Multics.
He knows the business, and more importantly, he knows Bill.
-Paul Komarek
Where's the penalty? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the AP story (paraphrased):
-Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
A very reasonable restriction but is this a penalty? No.
-Banning restrictive contracts but allow financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
Gee, that's what I thought they were doing before the trial. Bill said "you can do it our way or you can't do it at all". Instead he'll say "you can do it our way or pay more". As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice between paying one price for something or paying more for the same thing, which is the typical consumer going to pick? PC vendors have a choice of doing it Microsoft way or coming up with a great song and dance routine to make the exact same box running the exact same software appear to be worth more money. Is this a penalty? Hell no!
-Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows source for its Internet browser, but not Windows.
Huh? Who the hell wants the source to IE? What good is it going to do since Microsoft already illegally monopolized the market? Is this a penalty?
Found guilty by the trial court with that verdict upheld by the appeals court I ask for the last time, where's the penalty?
Doesn't really matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
It made companies brave enough to piss of Microsoft by trying out alternatives. The IT industry is once again interested in investigating other solutions, some of which Microsoft can't destroy or bury through anything else but providing value per $ spent on thier products.
I'm happy - I'm Microsoft's customer again, not thier biatch-yesman-mouthpeice to my companys upper management. I have a choice again - and more choices coming with each passing day, when new code gets posted on myriad CVS servers across the Internet. More choices coming with companies that were heartened enough by the DOJ case to actually develop new, great products that don't require Windows and in some cases directly compete with Windows.
Roll up your sleeves, people, and get back to work. We are the competition.
Soko
Re:Clinton Administration... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, MS didn't pay any taxes [ecommercetimes.com]. I did, but they didn't.
Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
First, read this [cnet.com].
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
How 'bout this (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should be punished for their misdeeds by being fined billions and billions of dollars. (I like to call it the Sagan treatment.) This will send a message to the shareholders to make sure that they don't break the law anymore and suffer further punishment, and have the delightful side effect of severely reducing Microsoft's ability to buy near-monopolys in related fields such as cable tv, etc., as well as putting a lot of money into the government coffers to allow the meeting of expenses such as part of the cost of fighting a war without having to increase taxes or federal debt quite as soon or as much.
Halloween Documents (Score:4, Interesting)
Who gets to be interoperable? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Under the settlement proposal, Microsoft would be required to make that information available in a "secure facility," where representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified could study the Windows programming code and ask questions."
"Carrying out the technology-sharing provision remains one of the sticking points in the settlement talks. The government wants to make sure it is effective, while Microsoft wants to make sure it can protect its intellectual property."
This sounds a little dodgy in terms of open source programmers being allowed a peek for compatibility purposes. And if the code they write then reveals a Microsoft "secret" what happens?
CALL YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL!! (Score:4, Informative)
I suggest you call your own state attorney general and tell them not to give into this federal get-out-of-jail free card...
CALL THEM THURSDAY MORNING FIRST THING AND TELL THEM!!
Here is a site with the phone numbers for most all of the states aj offices..
http://www.naag.org/about/aglist.cfm
Here are the 18 states still involved as complantants in the case..
Connecticut, Iowa and New York have generally been viewed as the three states championing the case. Also involved are California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Also call California and New York because they have the most power and have been the 2 most outspoken against the results of this case so far..and call IOWA because Tom Miller the IOWA AG is the spokesman for all the 18 states involved.
The law don't mean shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The law doesn't mean a thing. Well, not really. The law means a lot, but only to little people. Those with expired tags ("And maybe perhaps could we check inside your vehicle, sir"). Those with less insurance than they need ("You should have opted for the 'Act of God -- but only under duress' clause, sir..."). Those who can't afford a lawyer ("One will be provided for you should you not be able to afford one"). Families with sudden tax burdens ("Actually, it's guilty until proven innocent in a non-jury trial, sir -- get out of your house immediately"). For large corporations and individuals, the law doesn't mean shit.
The law is what you've paid for. It's not what is right, or true, or just... or even what's wrong. It's what's been paid for. It's been this way ever since we've had governments. PoliSci 101: Those with power wield it primarily in order to gain more. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I had to say it. And in a capitalist society, power is money. Therfore, money is politics. Like I said, back to day one of class and nothing new. This is just the most astonishing example of money making government we've seen recently. It's a Morgan or Hearst-like thing.
And since the I have the soapbox out, here's some advice: Fuck Microsoft. They're petty, awful people and I feel that one day soon other people will find it in their best interest not to bet their careers on them.
I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, and stongly against any spurious government interdiction in the free market. But I'm also a realist and realize that there has to be some form of interaction. Shoddy products can be dangerous, after all. But the real power is held by the people: The people that buy stuff for IT departments. I beseech them to look at alternatives to MS prodcuts. They will likely save money (and their jobs) in the long term.
Again, all this is so old it's cliched. But that makes it no less true. Although it's so late in the story du jour that nobody will every see this, so it's all one hand clapping....
-B
States hire power lawyer for just this reason (Score:5, Interesting)
They've hired a power lawyer to get more for all their trouble. We can expect them to contest this settlement, in it's current form, I think.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
MS monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Sound and fury (Score:3, Insightful)
* Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Full OEM version: $30
Stripped OEM version: $80
Profit margin from each system $60
If your losing money on each system, you'll never make it up on volume.
* Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
How does this differ one iota from how MS cornered the market? Put MS-DOS on on all of your systems and get a price break equal to your profit margin. Install even a single copy of DR-DOS, and you pay full price. The month after MS implemented the policy, DR-DOS sales tanked!
* Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software, but not the blueprints to Windows.
So everything is now defined as being part of Windows, and IE is now just an interface to some system libraries. Hate it for all those out there who wanted to actually display pages written by FrontPage on an alternative OS.
This has got to be one of the biggest paper tigers since Reagan's immigration bill in the 80's, the reason you now have to 'prove' you're American or have a VISA to work here. Illegal immigrants can produce a photocopy of a drivers liscense and the Human Resource drone at the cleaning company checks off on the form. These rememedies, whether you agree MS is guilty or not, are full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing.
Random Facts (Score:3, Interesting)
Some random financial facts about Microsoft [smartmoney.com], compared against the biggest company in the world (by revenue) Exxon Mobil [smartmoney.com]. Scary Stuff:
Basically, even though Microsoft has approx 1/10th the revenues of each of the top 3 corporations in the world (the others are Wal-Mart and GM) it has approx half the profits they do.
In June 2000 Microsoft's pre tax profit margin was 60.2%. After taxes it was 41.0%. Seeing as Bill Gates owns 13.3% of Microsoft, every dollar spent on a Microsoft Product -- actually let's make it every $100 because $1 won't buy anything MS sells. For every $100 you spend on a MS product, Bill Gates gets on average $5.33.
There are sites that try to try to put is wealth in perspective [google.com]. This is the google cached version (don't wanna melt the poor guy's server) but it's pretty much up to date.
Re:Finally this reched a conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
"Terms of the prospective settlement were closely guarded, and people close to the negotiations cautioned that precise language was still being worked out even between Microsoft and the Justice Department."
which means absolutely nothing has been worked out. We all knew a deal would eventually be worked out, but without specifics it's still quite up in the air.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surpised if the Justice Dept. found the recent "concessions" by Microsoft (allowing icons of Internet Explorer to be removed; allowing the user to easily change the default browser on the Start Menu) to be enough. This was the same Justice Department, after all, that "demonstrated" how it could remove Internet Explorer by deleting the icon from the desktop.
Watch for more tomfoolery...