Massachusetts Holds Out On MS Case 407
Cubase de Pilsen writes: "Massachusetts' attorney general said his state would not sign on to a proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft because it does not protect competing software makers." Several other state AGs as well are angling for more restrictions on Microsoft, but some are prepared to sign on to the current version of the settlement.
Amen to that.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Last Days (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's look at ways to provide consumers with better options. For example, Mandrake 8.0 Powerpack edition comes with a number of games. 3 of these, including the enticing TuxRacer, crash my machine on startup.
Until we can have a simple Linux install (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that doesn't come with any broken components (which they've flubbed), the regular consumer won't switch
Citizens of NC, please respond. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
By denying sale in the state, they effectively circumvent the local legislators - and by encouraging out-of-state vendors to sell to people in MA they "prove" the market demands their products... very much a win-win if they can pull it off...
Not that I'm saying this would be a good thing, of course...
It's a bad deal to begin with (Score:3, Insightful)
A good solution would be to restrict Microsoft in those actions that they were using to crush competitors: exclusive and restrictive contracts with hardware manufacturers. Restricting MS from entering into these contracts would be a simple and effective method of freeing up the market place for other operating systems and bundled software. It would effectively eliminate their monopoly leverage point without taking away their de facto monopoly.
Microsoft wouldn't need to release their business plans 5 years into the future, and they would be encouraged to keep their software current in order to remain competitive with other products that could possibly be bundled by OEMs.
Dancin Santa
Consumers never had a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Pack in Linux instead of windows with every PC sold and users will be using Linux.
Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are some of the states not "signing on"? Perhaps they, like many of SlashDot's audience, are unhappy that Microsoft won't be paying out as much cash as hoped...
States like Massachusetts depend a lot on tax money. Like it or not, it's a by-product of their liberal government style, big promises means big governement costs, and like businesses, government always passes its costs on to its "consumers", i.e. taxpayers. But, raising taxes is not "in vogue", so they are constantly scrambling to find other cash sources to pump their constituents full of pay-ou... err, entitlements.
Here we have Microsoft, the ultimate Tech cash cow, and they did a BAD thing, so naturally our government stepped to punish them. We cheer that the government recognized that they were acting against market forces, but government is cheering for new-found cash...
Compare this to the government's recent lawsuit on Big Tobacco. They lost, the people won, right? The corporations were forced to pay millions for bad advertisements, and that money was supposed to go to the states for education, right? Where did that money go? Studies show at most 10% of the states have actually created anti-smoking programs with the money, everyone else threw it into the "general fund" so they could pad their pet projects.
Don't be surprised that some states are "holding out", just understand that they aren't doing it for the reasons you think.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
First off all, it's a trade commission issue over there, not a years-long court case. They can even use Jackson's original FOF as evidence, and expand the scope of the ruling to consider MS's more recent behavior that the US court case was unable to consider. Then, they can just make a decision, and implement it. And, they've already figured out what
EU Trade Law Fun Fact: Under some circumstances, bundling is just flat-out illegal. If you have Product A and B, you are allowed to bundle them, but if you do, you also have to make them available as separate products, and you can't charge drastically more for the separates. The French are making noises about going after MS for bundling DOS 7 with Win95, and under French trade law, that bundling actually constitutes fraud and actual executives actually do actual jail time for that kind of thing in France.
Another consideration for Europe is that MS is overwhelmingly American in structure. About 90% of their structure exists purely in the US, and their profits therefore go mainly to feeding the US economy, and not Europe. It'll be a lot easier for the EU to dick MS than it would be for them to screw with GM or Ford.
I think you're missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Sam
Re:way to go (Score:1, Insightful)
... derail the U.S. economy to the tune of several billion dollars a year
... kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support
... put thousands of people out of work
For what? Some misguided notion of a social agenda that accomplishes God only knows what
You, sir, are a danger to society. Not because of your ideas, but because you would actually put them to use and quite possibly irreparably damage the lives of thousands just because you are disgruntled.
Re:Citizens of NC, please respond. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you take the time to write it out and snail mail it, too? Otherwise you can be almost certain that it won't recieve more than a glance to make sure it's not a death threat. Expect a form letter reply, or email, at the very most if that's the case.
(Want to really get noticed? Sprinkle some powdered sugar into the envelope. Of course, you may not like the kind of attention they give you...)
Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
I think this is in the proposed settlement. I saw something about 3 outside auditors. They need to be there, since if you can't verify that the settlement is being implemented, then it isn't an effective solution.
2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.
There would need to be provisions for bug and security fixes, so they could be implemented in less than 90 days, but this issue could likely be worked out as long as this can be monitored by a third party for compliance.
3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
The trick part with this one will be internal APIs. Windows, like other OSs, uses internal APIs that are not intended to be exported to application or even driver developers. Hiding these APIs allows changes to be made to Windows without breaking outside developers code. These APIs exist so the the internal parts of the OS can communicate in a structured way, and are not meant for use by outside developers. Other people using those APIs would likely result in software breaking everytime Microsoft changed some inner working of Windows. There have already been enough examples of developers using functions that Microsoft did not consider to be part of a public API, and then the developers complaining whe Microsoft changed the API. The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.
4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.
I'm not sure the OEMs would like that very much. I think that they should have to share the details of such agreements with independent auditors, but OEMs don't want competitors to know details like what kind of volumes they are buying, or planning to buy from Microsoft. An alternate solution of having Microsoft have a fixed volume pricing schedule for all OEMs might be a more reasonable solution, though it wouldn't really be fair to void the current agreements Microsoft has made with OEMs (fair to the OEMs that is).
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
I agree that OEMs should have the choice of selling "dual-boot" systems. I'm not sure that a lot of them will choose to do so because of increased support costs, but they should have the choice.
The one problem I do see is that OEMs will sometimes bundle crappy software (because it was cheap). Microsoft should have some right to insist that it be obvious to the trained eye that the software isn't part of Windows. Microsoft does have a brand name to protect, and they should only have to suffer for the failures of their software. Otherwise they will have little encouragement to improve the quality of their own software. Their software is in need of some quality improvements, but they have been making some progress, and I would like to see that continue.
6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
I agree that Microsoft shouldn't be able to disallow the use of software based on it's licensing.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
This is simply the prohibition of free speech. I can't support this remedy. Microsoft, and especially the people who make up Microsoft, have the right to speek their mind, and lobby for ligislation. Free speech is a constitutional right, and our government shouldn't even attempt to take that right away from anyone as a condition of a settlement in a civil case.
Write letters!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The hand-written word carries a good deal more influence. Take the time to lick a stamp and mail out a physical letter, and it will carry more weight.
P.S. I just realized that this post might sound like an insult to mjh. It's not. Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Write letters!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given all the paranoia surrounding snail-mail these days, politicians & their staffs might not want to read much mail.
In these days, email just might get more attention.
BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready. (Score:2, Insightful)
cp
/etc/init.d/lpd restart
Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead? Perhaps granny should just have a backdoored system so that the helpful ISP admin can fix it for her, and everyone else can use her as a warez site? Granny is going to need help, and I'm not going to chase that Windoze crap for her. Man files, text configs and what not that don't change each time M$ needs additional income or wants to break some other program are so much easier.
Oh yeah, my wife calls the shell "the foot" because Red Hat gave her a button for gnome terminal emulator. She has come to understand the concept of a root account. Forced to do a little for herself, she is getting good at it. Neither of us can make 98 work our printer anymore, but it works just fine under Red Hat. The rest of my machines run Debian. Nothing could be finer or easier. Be gone, Troll.
Re:Punish the Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft was found guilty of illegally mainaining its monopoly status. That is a finding of law, in other words, it's the crime of which they are guilty.
It is possible to find that my company holds a monopoly in its market, but that I have done nothing illegal to maintain that monopoly. In that case, my company is not guilty. This is not what happened in the MS case.
The Appeals Court did not, in any way, overturn the findings of fact, nor fault with the findings of law (the verdict). It only overturned the remedy, because the remedy may have come out of personal bias on the part of the judge. The Court did not say that another judge without bias could not find the same remedy appropriate.
Another example: it is legal for me to bundle products if my company is not a monopoly; it would be difficult to prove that I am using a bundled browser to give my OS an unfair advantage in the market. If I held an OS monopoly, however, it could be proven that my browser has an unfair, unearned advantage because I bundle it with my OS.
A company with a monopoly must be much more careful about bundling, because the rules that it must follow are different than those for other companies, and bundling, api-hiding, and so forth are tools that MS uses to leverage their OS monopoly to kill competing browsers, media players, or office suites.
That, to my understanding, is the spirit of the law. There is a reason convicted criminals get up on the stand and apologize at sentencing; they want to get a lighter sentence. MS could have admitted that their actions were in line with Jackson's findings, but it was that refusal to do so (and evidence tampering, and lying in depositions) that made Jackson think that MS had repeatedly put its interests above the law. If he had not granted interviews with the press (a judge is really not supposed to talk with reporters about cases, ever), his ruling might have stood, because it would have been harder to prove bias. In a jury trial, a judge has to keep from laughing and so forth, but with no jury but himself, a judge can snicker when a defendant lies and that alone is not grounds for overturning his findings.
Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these (or maybe all) are not original with me, just given as an example.
I saw something about 3 outside auditors.
Not sure that's enough. Plus, whoever it is will have to have some technical savvy. Many auditors lack that.
The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.
The problem is that MS is notorious for having undocumented API calls that give them advantage. If it's callable from a program, it gets documented, I'd say. If it hurts MS, so much the better. They are guilty until proven innocent.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes....
This is simply the prohibition of free speech.
Yes it is. Individuals who are convicted felons lose the right to vote and to bear arms. This is a reasonable prohibition for a corporation which is a convicted felon. MS has proven time and again that they have no business influencing the legislative system. They have behaved in bad faith so often, it clearly is part of the corporate culture. (And while I'm at it, just what is Bill Gates's problem, anyhow. He's already the richest and one of the most powerful men on earth. Why is he willing to lie, cheat, steal for more? Are the jokes about the name of his company true?)
I do agree that some of my points need work and you had some good suggestions - I'm not trying to be belligerent. But MS is BAD and they need to be slapped down HARD. And if it costs them some or most of their stock value or market share, well, that's actually a good thing. (Guess I'm a fanatic after all.)
Re:I think you have it backwards (Score:2, Insightful)
Far more important to regulators is the manner in which the monopoly power was obtained. If I compete in a perfectly fair, competitive manner and my rivals fail only through their own mismanagement or other failure, the monopoly power was obtained legally. If, however, I use anticompetitive behavior such as exclusionary dealing, bundling, and other techniques, then I have obtained monopoly power illegally.
MS has committed criminal acts and therefore is subject to penalties. One part of any settlement should therefore impose large fines on MS for their past actions. The second issue the final resolution must address is how the monopoly will be regulated in the future.
In short, any serious resolution must address two issues: punishing them for prior criminal behavior and controlling their monopoly power in the future. Fines alone will not do much against monopoly power, and publishing API and other technical specifications does not impose a real penalty for past behavior.
Re:It depends on the state leaders (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing the result of that poll would be quite different. I think the Gallup wording was biased towards Microsoft by omitting that MICROSOFT WAS CONVICTED OF ABUSING MONOPOLY POWER! Say what you will, the fact is they were found guilty and the appeals court upheld those findings. To let them off now would be to make a mockery of our justice system. What is the point in convicting people if there are no consequences to being convicted?
The original wording for the Gallup poll was:
Sounds Right to Me (Score:3, Insightful)