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.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also of note that the judge has to sign off on the deal being "in the public interest". If she comes to the conclusion that Microsoft has a demonstrated history of violating and/or ignoring conduct remedies, therefore a pure conduct remedy will probably be treated likewise, therefore such a remedy is equivalent to no remedy, and the lack of a remedy is not in the public interest...
Re:ah Illinois (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting commentary (Score:3, Interesting)
In recent weeks, we have seen Microsoft remove its support for Netscape extensions, forcing Apple to scramble to revise its QuickTime plug-in so that it would work with the Windows version of Explorer (and making us wonder if this also had something to do with Microsoft's desire to push its own Media Player [windowsmedia.com] format). At the same time, it omitted Java support from Window's Explorer [see previous item [slashdot.org]]. Then there is XP's reduced support for the MP3 format (again in favor of Microsoft's own alternative), plus the countless ways XP coerces you to MS-approved web sites [see this item [cnet.com]]. Add to all of this the recent controversy over MS blocking access to MSN by web browsers other than Explorer (see next item). We could go on. But you get the point. Yes, it certainly appears that Microsoft has been humbled by this lawsuit.
My take on the court case all along...
Microsoft's defense: "No, Your Honor, we're not responsible for murdering the victim! We only pointed the gun towards him and pulled the trigger -- it was his fault that he wasn't strong enough to deal with that! Besides, he was someday eventually going to die anyway! And there's no point in punishing us now, since he's already dead."
DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."
slow to respond (Score:3, Interesting)
ME:
Greetings,
I am a not resident of Florida, but I wanted to send my
support for your case against Microsoft. I think that
the proposed settlement does not go far enough, and
that harsher restrictions need to be made against
Microsoft, and that particular attention needs to be
brought to bear on the newly released Operating
System, Windows XP. Please accept my support of your
work thusfar on this case, and continue to do the good
work you have been doing. Your work is much
appreciated in the technical community.
Nate Baxley
THEM:
Thank you for taking the time to email the Florida Attorney General's Office regarding our involvement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. As you may be aware, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently upheld a federal trial court's finding that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly.
One of the many duties of the Florida Attorney General's Office is to enforce Florida's consumer protection laws, which require us to protect the consuming public and legitimate businesses from those who engage in "unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices" in commerce. (Section 501.202(2), Florida Statutes) The Attorney General is also authorized to bring actions to protect consumers against violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
In accordance with our statutory duties and the recent Court of Appeals decision, we are currently working with the federal government and other states to reach an acceptable settlement to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations. Our overriding goal in this effort is to restore healthy competition to the marketplace so that Microsoft can no longer use its clout to illegally impose its will on consumers and would-be competitors. The trial court has given all sides until today to reach a resolution with a mediator. If no settlement can be reached at that time, we will prepare for a trial that would start next March. We remain hopeful that a settlement can be reached, and will do everything we can to find a resolution that protects the interests of Florida consumers.
Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated and will be considered as we enter the remedy phase of United States v. Microsoft. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.
Re:Such BULLSHIT! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of.
Mandrake- I haven't used Mandrake, but I've used Slack, Debian (potato and woody), RedHat, and Caldera, and I'll tell you that not one of them is ready for the home desktop.
Linux in general- Even if the OS came pre-installed on a desktop box, the average home user will most likely not be able to install any new software. If they're lucky enough to find the program they want via Red Carpet, they have to hope that it was put into the proper menu (and why, the user will ask, do I have to have a root password to install this? WTF _is_ a root password, anyway?)
As a matter of fact, I just upgraded my printconf via RC this weekend and was confused as hell when my printer wouldn't work afterwards. It turns out that my
cp
Just to get her printer working again. It's not going to happen.
I hate to use these examples, but anyone who thinks that Linux is ready for the average home user that doesn't _want_ to know anything about their computer needs to hop on down to a PC retailer and check out OSX and WinXP. These two OSes are on the right track, or at least far more so than any Linux GUI project to date.
3 cheers for capitalism! (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, it might work, and then we'd be stuck with this desktop monopoly for the forseeable future.
I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame.
But a consent decree, that M$ will of course subvert or ignore as they have all previous such, should be a good thing.
It'll inspire more people to work towards a better alternative, and better alternatives will encourage non-techies to get off the monopoly teat.
--Charlie
PS- Be kind, I forgot my asbestos underwear today.
--C
Re:I think the settlement should be accepted, (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering MS has $39 billion in cash I don't even see this as being punative. If my AG doesn't hold out for that I want him removed.
Personally, I hope this dies during the proceedings for the Tunney Act. This reeks of politics and selling out. Yeah, ditch the original legal team and put a bunch of newbies on the case; get the decision almost entirely re-affirmed on appeal then abandon key areas of the fight. Finally (as if), meekly agree to a toothless settlement that isn't even nearly as strong as one that was rejected. A settlement where the monopolist makes the rules and some puppet advisory board gets to pretend that they can enforce the agreement. All for the grossly mistaken assuption that if we leave this convicted monopoly alone the decimated tech sector will bounce back.
Yeah, just give me another tax refund so I can go buy a copy of WinXP. At least then my Passport information will be safe. :P
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not even a two-way breakup would really help. The companies still have the same leadership and thus the same tactics. What needs to be done in cases like this is throw the leadership out and replace them with people at the bottom. Or even offer the positions to leadership from other companies deemed non-competitive that Microsoft squeezed out of the OS market. If Bill Gates were to find out that he could lose ownership of his own company and indeed even be barred from entering Microsoft headquarters and owning Microsoft stock he'd unbundle software from Windows so fast you could see the bits fly.
Sound harsh? That's exactly what the leadership at Microsoft did to owners of other companies with their tactics. They kicked the competition out market. In turn, the court should kick them out of their own company.
Of course, they won't. But they should.
Re:It's a bad deal to begin with (Score:4, Interesting)
A) Document all APIs, protocols, file formats, etc. This would seem to be the primary use of an operating system, and it would dramatically increase competition.
and/or:
b) Eliminate licensing altogether, and move them back to the standard copyright: No copying for distribution. You can make seventy-five copies and store them in your attic if you own a legitimate copy, but you can't compete with MS (for profit or for free) with their own software.
CA and NY are key (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that if this drags on a little longer, unlike before, this will be a plus. The reason is that I've heard many economists on the government side hoping that XP will revive the economy as win98 did in 98. I think XP is not living up to that bill at the moment and in a month or 2 this will become apparent even to the DC big honchos. At that point restricting M$ won't quite look like shooting the economy in the foot...
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The perfect remedy would be to force full disclosure from MS.
That is: All API's and file formats need to be accessible by the general public at least three months before it's released. No need to break them up, or to force them to reveal their source code. As any large company, they're already documenting their API's and file formats internally, so it's no extra work on their part.
Historically, MS has used it's monopoly to hinder competition - this will eliminate that ability, and level the playing field completely - MS is free to "innovate" whatever it wants, it just has to give everybody fair notice beforehand.
If MS uses an undocumented API function, they're in breach of federal law, and are subject to something harsh - maybe a complete seizure of all income until the three month period has elapsed, or $1 Million fine per unit shipped per day (this will "encourage" them to play along.)