Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

States Filing Alternate Remedy Proposal for MS Anti-Trust Case 420

Posted by michael
from the on-hemmed-in-ground-resort-to-stratagem dept.
cbull writes: "News.com reports that 9 states and the District of Columbia will be filing an alternate remedy proposal in the Microsoft case later today. This would close some of the loopholes, better define middleware, require Microsoft to continue Office development for Macintosh and to develop a version of Office for Linux, among other things." There's also a Cringely column about the case. Somehow the phrase "Microsoft Office for Linux" has gotten people all fired up. Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

States Filing Alternate Remedy Proposal for MS Anti-Trust Case

Comments Filter:
  • by webword (82711) on Friday December 07, 2001 @05:31PM (#2673163) Homepage
  • by dcgaber (473400) on Friday December 07, 2001 @05:31PM (#2673166)
    go here [ccianet.org]

    This could have some real teeth in it and is not riddled with the loopholes that plague the M$/DoJ crafted settlement
  • by epepke (462220) on Friday December 07, 2001 @05:37PM (#2673221)

    is that Microsoft would have to sell, by auction, a minimum of three licenses to enable third parties to produce versions for other operating systems "such as Linux."

    It does not mean that Microsoft has to produce a Linux version. Nor does it mean that the third parties have to produce a Linux version. What it means is that at least three companies will have the right to produce a version of Office for whatever other environment they want to.

  • by inimicus (194187) on Friday December 07, 2001 @05:37PM (#2673224)
    Nevermind... the addresses can be found here [usdoj.gov]:

    E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov [mailto]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.

    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937

    Mail:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Fax or e-mail are suggested...
  • Re:Office for Linux (Score:5, Informative)

    by jimhill (7277) on Friday December 07, 2001 @07:43PM (#2674007) Homepage
    I wish everyone would take time to read the states' proposed judgment before commenting; it would ensure that we are all discussing from a position of knowledge.

    To address the "intentionally making it suck" argument, Microsoft would be required to license the necessary code to third-party vendors to do the OS ports -- Windows version code, Mac version code, whatever the licensors need. Said licensors, having paid for licenses, would have every reason to make the port as good as possible.

    To address the "get around to" argument, Microsoft would be required to pre-announce upcoming releases and to provide enough information to the licensors that they can have their ports out in a timely manner. That's timely as the Court defines it, too.

    This remedy is almost everything I wanted. It's better than Jackson's breakup and it's DAMNSHO better than that platter of shit served up by Ashcroft and James.

    The address for comments is microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov. Owing to the anthrax hysteria, DOJ is actually asking for email rather than snail, so there's every reason to fire off a lucid, spell-checked comment to the government. Granted, the fix is in so the DOJ won't act on the feedback, but they are required to bundle it up and give it all to Judge K-K for her perusal before she ultimately decides. With enough public support for the dissenting states and contempt for the US/pet states proposal, she just might go for it. Or somewhere in-between, even. Write, write, write. Please.
  • by Natak (199859) on Friday December 07, 2001 @07:56PM (#2674058)
    But what the states are asking for is lame. Come-on, I'm from Utah, Utah is only thinking of Novell and WordPerfect, Cali is only worried about Sun, and Oracle. I think the states have the right intentions, but they are asking for the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

    First off Java for Windows? I've never had so much fun watching the windows sun fight over the last few years. First Sun makes Java, then Windows supports it, then MS extends it in a stupid way to support COM, then Sun bitches and says its platform dependant and take away their logo (Its just the logo Sun can bitch about, I mean anyone can make a piece of windows software that can do anything, but if you want the Windows logo on your box you have to do it MS's way, same thing with Java). So MS says they will take the logo off the box. Sun still bitches, so MS stops making Java. Then Sun starts making stupid platform dependant API's for Java themselves (same thing they got upset at MS for doing. The API I'm talking about there is the first gen of the 3d api). So let me get this straight, if MS makes a new Java API, they are just trying to ruin it, but if Sun does the same thing they are just adding features? Then Sun says they don't want MS to do any Java. MS says fine and sticks to just supporting one old version. Then Sun says then need an updated SDK. MS finally says, you know what we just will not even include Java period, too much hassle. Now Sun is bitching because Java is not included in Windows. Man this shit is funny. Now 9 States want to force the government to include Java. Guys its just a stupid download, my hell. MS may be likened to an greedy, sneaky asshole, but Sun is like a 4 year old kid who doesn't know what he wants.

    Lets talk about the donation to the schools. I can see how Apple wants to bitch about it come on, half of their money comes from Schools, so if MS gives stuff to them for free, then why would then spend money on Apple? Apple will lose a nice percentage in sales.

    Now lets talk about a stripped down version of Windows. This is lame too. I've hated all of the strong arm crap MS did (and still does), but I've always supported their rights to includes features they wanted. Does anyone remember the lantastic days? MS had windows 3.0 and DOS out, no networking support. Lantastic finds a nice niche market selling networking addons. Then MS includes it in windows for workgroups. Now Lantastic wonders who the hell is going to buy their product if its build into windows. Good question, but networking should be in the OS. Now days we have the same damn thing going on, every feature MS puts in will question some 3rd party product. That's not going to change. Should a basic explorer come with the OS? I think so? Hell every Linux distro I've ever installed has included at least on browser, sometimes even more than one.

    As far as I can tell, all of these deal issues are meant to benefit other companies in other states. Nothing here is meant for the consumer. You can't tell me that the anti trust vision of everyone having to go to the store and buy 10 different products just to run a basic computer is in the consumers best interest. You can't tell me that schools getting free hardware and software is not in the consumers best interest. This case is no longer about consumers, it's about other businesses and their own self-interests. Could you image the press MS would get if it spent time trying to convince the government to make changes to Java? Or to Linux? Just so MS could be benefited.
  • by Reziac (43301) on Saturday December 08, 2001 @01:20AM (#2674927) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, I have to agree that WPWin6.0 did a serious job of turning people off WP, often for good -- it was a mess (slow, unstable, display problems). Novell fixed most of what ailed it with v6.1, but that was a year after Word6.0 came out and it was too little too late. WPWin7 had stability problems and that turned more people off. So by the time WP8 arrived (very good, stable, fast -- causes me *ZERO* support headaches with my clients) the market had forgotten WP entirely.

    Most people aren't aware of this, but you can run the current WP Office in M$Office mode, whereupon it looks and writes documents exactly like M$O. I haven't actually tested it, but the compatibility with M$O is supposed to be VERY good.

    Well, WP2002 came out before OfficeXP, so if M$ changed their file format *again*, naturally WP2002 won't yet have filters for it. Conversely WP's document format is compatible among ALL versions from 6.1 (DOS or WIN) thru the present.

    BTW I paid for most of my WP copies (the first was borroware, a few were trash-rescues -- gods know why I need WP4.2 for some ancient UNIX, other than as a collector's curiosity :) but the sole copy of Word was a freebie (gift from a client who was a M$ employee), and tho it was my first GUI word processor, it was never well-liked -- it was too limiting even compared to WP5.1 for DOS!!

    As to M$O being "stagnant" -- LOL, that is so right! Here's a laffer for ya -- Word97 *finally* does watermarks -- via the same kludge we used with WP5.0 DOS in 1988!!

    OTOH, as of Office97, the venerable Word/Excel leave-a-file-open-and-trash-it bug (a legacy of DOS4.x) has been upgraded to trashing the entire FAT -- beyond recovery.

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...