Judge Says Microsoft Must Give States Windows Code

murphro (along with many others) writes, "Reuters is posting a story describing how the Judge has ordered the release of Windows code to the states seeking antitrust sanctions. I doubt it will actually happen (because MS will fight it this to the end). But if it did, do you think we commoners would ever see it? And if you did get your hands on the code, what would you do with it?" Here's the Yahoo link. (The same Reuters story is on dozens of other sites, too.)

it's all just slight of hand

[pennsol]

"One interesting aspect of the judge's order is that the States are specifically being given access to Windows XP embedded code, as they are of the view that this particular class of Windows can be used to show that Windows can be customised. The Register's view is that embedded versions of Windows are considerably less customised and embedded than Microsoft actually lets on, but we'll see."

and of course they'll fight it tooth and nail.

Re:Hopefully not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not actually a crime you know, copying it is a crime ... seeing it under NDA and using that knowledge is a crime. But if you can see it without being bound to keep it a trade secret you can do what you want with any knowledge derived from it (unless it infringes on patents, but thats pretty much a side issue).

Re:I may be wrong but......

[mESSDan]

You are wrong. A judge's order to release the code in no way puts it into the public domain, or part of the public record. (IANAL)

As for not finding some parts of the code, simply provide a court order to one of the universities [microsoft.com] who already have it.

Purpose

[pergamon]

Before everyone offers clever comments about what they'll do with the source code when they get it, note that individual average citizens won't be getting the source code (at least not as a result of this ruling, except in the case of leaks). They're not talking about handing over the code so everyone can see it, it is only to be used for a specific purpose by specific people. The "states" will get it, meaning the people representing the states involved in the case such as the attorney generals, other lawyers, and most importantly expert witnesses. They're not getting access to the source code to determine whether it sucks or to help the Samba team out, but only to determine the validity of one specific argument made by MS:

Nine state attorneys general had argued that they needed to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim it could not offer a simpler version of the Windows personal computer operating system, stripped of features like the Internet Explorer browser.

CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE!

[Knunov]

Go to CNN.COM [cnn.com] and scroll down to the bottom of the main page.

On the bottom right there is a poll asking the question, "Was a judge correct in ordering Microsoft to reveal the coding for its Windows program?"

As of a couple minutes ago, 69% of respondants were saying 'NO'. That majority is probably comprised of clueless MS users and a voting bot running at Redmond right now, but still.

And no, 'Cowboy Neal' is not a choice.

Knunov

Re:I may be wrong but......

[teaserX]

IANAL either but I think the code *would* be public record but kept as a sealed document, ie. public record exempt from public disclosure.

Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ!

[nosfucious]

I think we need a few more programs like IEEradicator. Microsoft have already produced enough of thier own versions to spare.

Let's just think of the various MS programs and what they hoped to achieve:

DOS = CP/M Eradicator
W3.x = DOS App Eradicator
W95 = OS/2 Eradicator
W98 (with IE) = Netscape Eradicator
NT4 = Novell Eradicator
Office DLL/kernel integration = Wordperfect/Quattro Pro/Dbase Eradicator
Visual Studio = Borland Eradicator
W2K Server = Samba Eradicator (not while I'm alive!)
Media Player = RealPlayer Eradicator
XP = Privacy and "Fair use" Eradicator

How FOIA Really Works

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So, Anybody feel like using the Freedom of Information Act to get all the lisence keys for i dunno, some lame department that is never up to any good?

Not feasible. A quick check at EFF turned up A Citizen's Guide to FOIA [eff.org], which in turn gives some pointers:

The FOIA requires agencies to publish or make available for public inspection several types of information. This includes:
(1) descriptions of agency organization and office addresses; (2) statements of the general course and method of agency operation; (3) rules of procedure and descriptions of forms; (4) substantive rules of general applicability and general policy statements; (5) final opinions made in the adjudication of cases; and (6) administrative staff manuals that affect the public. This information must either be published in the Federal Register or made available for inspection and copying without the formality of an FOIA request.

All other "records" of a federal agency may be requested under the FOIA. However, the FOIA does not define "record". Any item containing information that is in the possession, custody, or control of an agency is usually considered to be an agency record under the FOIA. Personal notes of agency employees may not be agency records. A document that is not an "record" will
not be available under the FOIA.

But later, we find

Of course, not all records that can be requested must be disclosed. Information that is exempt from disclosure is described below in the section entitled "Reasons Access May Be Denied Under the FOIA".

And later

An agency may refuse to disclose an agency record that falls within any of the FOIA's nine statutory exemptions. The exemptions protect against the disclosure of information that
would harm national defense or foreign policy, privacy of individuals, proprietary interests of business, functioning of the government, and other important interests....

• Exemption 1: Classified Documents
• Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
• Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other Laws
• Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information
• Exemption 5: Internal Government Communications
• Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
• Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
• Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
• Exemption 9: Geological Information

As an aside, that last one is the oddest, IMHO:

The ninth FOIA exemption covers geological and geophysical information, data, and maps about wells. This exemption is rarely used.

Strange, although one imagines this might take on new significance in the post-9/11 world.

Re:CNN/Gallup Poll on this topic - GO VOTE!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's thousands of people in universities and corporations that have Windows source code licences. and it's probably been leaked already. It's not big news just because their source code is not all that interesting. Especially without whatever jerryrigged build environment they use.

If there were incriminating comments or something ("//Break Samba", "//Make Oracle run slow here"), it certainly would have gotten out by now.

The real victory

[Paul the Bold]

The real victory here is Judge Kollar-Kotelly's attitude. She has been an unknown for many months, and we are now starting to see her attitude. I like it. She is not going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but she is not going to appear partial to the states. She is going to be fair, and she is not going to be easily fooled. The outcome might not be my pipe dream ("Bill, fetch me another mocha."), but I have faith in the judge.

As for the debate ensuing here, I have my answers:

Is the code in the public domain?
No.

If it were, would it be ethical or legal to use it to make our open source projects better?
No (we do not want to make Microsoft a victim in any way).

Are there faked nude celebrity photos of the judge on the internet?
Give it time, young grassshopper.

Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ!

[colinm1981]

Actually, that entry in the Add/Remove Programs is kind of misleading. All it does is remove the shortcuts to IE from your Start menu/Quicklaunch bar/desktop/whatever. The program itself and all associated DLL's continue to sit happily on your hard drive.

Re:You don't need the sourcecode to tell MS is rig

[Anonymous Coward]

From Microsoft's perspective, that was excellent design. Look at the market situation back in the mid 1990s -- The number of Internet users was growing exponentially. Most users stuck with whatever browser someone gave to them, and Netscape was way ahead. Thus Microsoft had to use every legal or illegal channel to get their warez out into the hands of the consumer before Netscape did.

By turning IE into what SSM calls 'Windows Internet Shell Upgrade', they encouraged classic Win32 developers to use the "nice shell enhancements" in their apps.

Now originally, if a 3rd party developer did this, they had to ship IE with their software media -- for the first year or so, Microsoft changed their "redistributable" DLL licence so that you couldn't just ship the upgraded "system" DLLs, you had to ship the whole IE package. But, in order to do that, Microsoft demanded that you include special "IE Enhanced" features on your website (things like DHTML or Channels). Later on, they relaxed these requirements, but core intention of getting millions of copies of IE onto 3rd party media was successful.

Furthermore, you can see how they almost anticipated telling a Federal Judge that it was unremovable. Anyway, you can see how MS's software design is dictated by the geniuses over in marketing.

Re:Of course IE can be removed... READ!

[ryusen]

personally, i never cared for real player either... but shortly after i tried wmp7 i promotly got rid of it for the same reasons i got rid of real player... i've been using wmp6.4 since...

the enemy of my enemy is just as bad as my enemy

so now we have two irritating bloated programs that are trying to take over the media sphere...

Re:In your dreams

[cduffy]

If that were true, big companies would never lose lawsuits against smaller parties or individuals. That's simply untrue. Janes v. Wal-Mart, Vizcaino v Microsoft (on appeal), Sunkist v. Fisher -- all of these are examples of companies with more money to spend on lawyers losing court cases to individuals with far less -- and they're the first three cases I found!

If you wish to be cynical, fine -- but at least try for some factualism while you're doing it.