Microsoft Antitrust Judgement
Posted by
michael
on Fri Nov 01, 2002 03:33 PM
from the it's-the-big-one dept.
from the it's-the-big-one dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Antitrust Judgement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1242 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.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The trial was a direct result of MS Election 2000. Had Bush not been elected, the MS case would have had a completely different outcome.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a depressing resolution. Someone is convicted of harming competition and told that they will barely get punished because the judge doesn't want to risk aiding Microsoft's "competition" (or rather, potential competition - there is no sodding competition right now.)
The message has gone out - illegally monopolise, and we'll drag you through a trial, but we will not do anything at all that might actually remove you from that monopoly. Keep your prices high enough to pay for the trial, and you'll be fine.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to check the books to figure out when they decided it, but it was probably back in 1996 when Clinton got re-elected. Delay until the next election. Makes sense, doesn't it? Nothing to lose and everything to gain. Another election gives you another roll of the dice. Clinton picked this fight - anyone else would be better.
The second tactic was a little more shrewd. Get Jackson out. The MS lawyers deliberately baited him, trying to get evidence (ie statements) that could be used to get him thrown off the case. Jackson's an idiot. He should have seen it coming and kept his dumb mouth shut. If he wanted to punish MS that bad (and it was obvious, from his statements, that he did), he should have known he'd have to be less of a glory-hound until after the trial.
After seeing Bill's videotaped deposition in '94, I thought MS lawyers were as bad as their PR and Advertising people. But they've definitely reinvented themselves...
What it reminds me of is the SNL sketch of Bill Clinton after the impeachment aquittal. He trots out to the podium, leans forward, and intones, "I...am...bulletproof." Walks away, stops, turns back around and adds, "Next time, y'all best bring kryptonite."
Personally, I think it should have been the States' strategy to, like MS for so long, delay until the next election. I am not convinced the Republicans will be in power in two weeks, let alone two years. Stupid to always give MS the initiative...
It's about as painful to watch as someone playing chess badly.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also indicates that the much trumpeted separation of powers within the US government is more an illusion than actual.
This is a depressing resolution. Someone is convicted of harming competition and told that they will barely get punished because the judge doesn't want to risk aiding Microsoft's "competition" (or rather, potential competition - there is no sodding competition right now.)
Also this trial resulted because Microsoft didn't abide by a previous court case. Usually if someone is dragged back to court because the first case didn't work they are apt to get the book thrown at them.
Re:Huh? (Henhouse clause) (Score:4, Interesting)
From the AP:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
From NEWS.COM: [news.com]
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
It seems to make some sense since the board members (including Mr. Gates) can be held personally and financialy responsable for conduct that violates the settlement.
It ain't the best, but it's still better than ICANN.
Slashdoted in record time (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations people... you just slashdoted the United States of America Judicial System.
Re:Slashdoted in record time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdoted in record time (Score:5, Funny)
Tonight on Crossfire we will have "experts" on hand to tell us what this "slash dot" terrorists organization wants. Details are currently sketchy but some sources say it may have something to do with penguins, natalie portman, and hot grits???
Re:Slashdoted in record time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdoted in record time (Score:5, Funny)
Just your luck, you probably got modded down. :)
Not necessarily 'slashdotted' (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and maybe the people working at Microsoft cared a little too.
Re:the replies to this post (Score:5, Funny)
91% - Unfunny comments labeled +5, Funny
Oh wait... that's every postboard
Re:the replies to this post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the replies to this post (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ok 2% -- Principal Agent (Score:5, Insightful)
So they end up promising not to do some of the bad stuff ever again. And, they even get to decide whether they are doing the bad stuff!
"Officer, I promise not to speed ever again. To be sure of it, I will watch how fast I'm driving, and report back if I ever drive too fast."
Sheesh.
Will any of this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly the point of Judge Jackson ruling that MSFT performed illegal monopoly maintenance: MSFT squashes potential rivals and potentially superior products and services.
Read a little basic microeconomics. All but the most ideologically radical economists acknowledge that a free market is a good thing but that free markets aren't really that great at keeping free markets free.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Free Market" is more "you're not the boss of me" kind of stuff.
"Command Economy" (e.g., socialist economy) is a third thing, where the government picks who gets what. It's not a "free market", and it's not "capitalism."
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely! That is what a government in a capitalistic economy is for; maintaining a free market by hack-and-slash methods on companies that get too big and become monopolies (Microsoft) or form oligopolic cartels (MPAA, RIAA, etc.). By definition, the US government is not interested in a free market, they're interested in corpoprate protectionism. That includes Congress, the President, and judges such as this.
The pro-capitalist conclusion to this case would have been to chop MS up into about 20 companies of 300 or fewer employees, prevent them from teaming up, and then let the wiles of the market figure it out. So much for having faith in the market.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is what a government in a capitalistic economy is for; maintaining a free market by hack-and-slash methods
Really? Avoiding the overused (but accurate) argument that you can't blame a capitalist economy when there isn't one, you've got to look at this behavior for what it is: graft/kickback/payoloa/etc.
Do governments in non-capitalist systems squeeze companies until they get the financial "recognition" they seek? The proper respect? Certainly the US isn't the only nation to treat the private sector as the government's ATM machine?
Having dealt with PTT's (monopoly phone companies) in many middle eastern and south american countries for several years, I was always mildly amused at how the deal never cared about bringing good products to people, having better rates, competition, etc. In some banana republics (specifically recalling one off the coast of Venezuela), the first words out of our PTT hosts' mouthes was "What stuff did you bring for us? Any electronics? Computers? Jewelry? Cash? Let's show what you've got." (Yea, they weren't looking for a fruit basket)
It was always about the money that'd be given to the respective PTT, its government, and the parties at the table (plus everyone they had to pay off).
Microsoft's antitrust was caused by its failure to properly recognize authority, and its successful resolution to the matter an indication that the authorities finally felt satisfied that the payola was mostly sufficient (for now).
Please, don't ever confuse this with capitalism. This is the behavior of a controlled economy.
and per:
who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
Yes, the other shoe dropping in corrupt, controlled economies. Other larger corporations got into the deal-fest too. Their congresscritters remembered their obligations to bring back some goodies for them too.
To you hopeless fools who can't figure this out, it'll never change as long as you don't blame the right source. This system was here before capitalism was ever conceived and will probably outlast it as well.
*scoove*
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Groups are actively lobbying to get laws passed that reduce or eliminate our rights as to what we can do with music once we have purchased it. That is much different than allowing MS to continue it's practices while other superior products mature enough to dominate the market.
Sure it would be nice if something could be done now, but what do you suggest? It seems to me that the leading opinion is to take a hatchet to the bastards and cut MS into either two or three companies. And then what? Will splitting Windows from the herd make a difference? Of course not. The new Windows company can still decide to only realease intimate details of how their OS works to New Company #1 and New Company #1 will still have a distinct advantage and will only write New Company #1 Word 2010 for Windows 2010.
The only solution as far as I can see is to contribute to the products that I like and use as well as writing members of Congress as well as the DOJ and telling them that I would prefer if my tax dollars were spent on items that can be benneficial to the nation as a whole.
If I believed that anything positive could ever come out of all of this, I would feel differently about the matter but since this has been going on for years, and not a damn thing has come of it yet, I'm assuming that nothing ever will. If one half of the energy that has went into trying to defeat MS from a legal standpoint had went into trying to make Linux mature faster, we would be a lot farther along than we are.
But that's just my $.02
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
What it comes down to is this:
Is Microsoft a monopoly? Yes.
Did they abuse their powers as a monopoly? Yes.
Were competitors harmed by this abuse? Yes.
Were consumers harmed by this abuse? Yes.
Is this abuse part of Microsoft's continuing strategy? Yes.
Is the federal government going to do a damned thing about it? No.
This isn't even a slap on the wrist, it's a wink and a nod.
--Dave
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have thought a lot about it.. the US has everything to gain from having a US based software company in a GLOBAL monopoly situation. The GNP is high as ever , like printing money into other countries really. US government isn't going to do anything to stop that , even at the cost of small US business.
Sucks, and unfortuantely it's not going to change until the WORLD learns to kick it's MS addiction. Until that happens, unfortunately, I don't think anything is going to change. Now, when it's more a domestic issue than a global issue, maybe we will see some justice.. but I doubt it.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
The breakup is not what's urgently needed. What's most needed is full disclosure of protocols, file formats and APIs so that competitors can interoperate. Right now, it is apparent that MS will do all it can to deny this to Open Source (particularly GPL) projects and the post on this decision indicates that nothing will be done to impede this.
Government , Monopolies and Power (Score:4, Informative)
People should really read some of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to get an appreciation about what the Government vs Monopoly thing is about. In a democracy the people are in theory in possession of a significant amount of power, though only intermittently. In a capitalist society, not necessarily a democracy, some companies will grow until they reach a point that they can take over their entire market. If they grow till they then take a large chunk of the economy or exercise great influence by virtue of their financial assets then that government has a problem. Because now it has a rival.
Traditionally there are a number of solutions. Pre-empt the takeover by nationalising the company (eventually leads to other problems), or by making the company executives politicians (worked in England with the House of Lords but not in US Senate style house which requires periodic elections) , or of course breaking up the company, in other words treating it as a rival state.
The United States is not in that position yet, but it should be kept in mind. We should remember that in the past some companies actually controlled and ran whole countries e.g. the East India Company [ucla.edu]
Anti monopoly action by a democracy should be regarded as no more controversial than getting rid of bloody lantana [abc.net.au] from your garden before it chokes everything. Monopolies are to capitalism as cancer is to an organism.
Anyway my 2 cents ... maybe I should've added a rant mode tag ... nah ... this is Slashdot the rant tag is redundant.
What a helpful article! (Score:5, Funny)
WTF? Ok, I'll put some kind of response here after you've posted it.
Before the Bell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before the Bell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Informative)
Plaintiffs
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff States of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah,
and West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, having
filed their complaints in this action on May 18, 1998;
Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") having appeared and filed its answer;
The Court having entered Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999 and Conclusions of
Law on April 3, 2000;
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit having affirmed
the District Court's finding of liability against Microsoft for violation of 2 of the Sherman Act
and the state law counterparts to 2 of the Sherman Act in the states of California, Connecticut,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and West Virginia, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, and having remanded to this Court for an order of
remedy; and
Upon the record of trial and all prior and subsequent proceedings herein, it is this 1st day
of November, 2002, hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the person of
Microsoft.
2
II. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its officers, directors, agents,
employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or
participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by
personal service or otherwise.
III. Prohibited Conduct
A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against an OEM by altering
Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced
forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of
existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to
Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that
distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating
System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with
more than one Operating System; or
3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final
Judgment.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license
with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a Windows Operating System
Product without having first given the Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the
proposed termination and not less than thirty days' opportunity to cure. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a termination notice and
opportunity to cure to any Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices during the
term of its Windows Operating System Product license.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM
with respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with
the absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of
that Microsoft product or service.
B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs shall be
pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without
limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty
for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by
Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs,
that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:
1. the schedule may specify different royalties for different language versions;
3
2. the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based upon the actual
volume of licenses of any Windows Operating System Product or any group of
such products; and
3. the schedule may include market development allowances, programs, or other
discounts in connection with Windows Operating System Products, provided
that:
a. such discounts are offered and available uniformly to all Covered OEMs,
except that Microsoft may establish one uniform discount schedule for the
ten largest Covered OEMs and a second uniform discount schedule for the
eleventh through twentieth largest Covered OEMs, where the size of the
OEM is measured by volume of licenses;
b. such discounts are based on objective, verifiable criteria that shall be
applied and enforced on a uniform basis for all Covered OEMs; and
c. such discounts or their award shall not be based on or impose any criterion
or requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with any portion of this Final
Judgment.
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the
following options or alternatives:
1. Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for, any Non-Microsoft
Middleware or any product or service (including but not limited to IAP products
or services) that distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft
Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows
Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for
applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM
from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in any list of
such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as
being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided
that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and
Microsoft products.
2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and
displaying
on the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not
impair the functionality of the user interface.
3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence or
subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or disconnections from the
Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware, except that Microsoft may restrict the
launching of Non-Microsoft Middleware which replaces or drastically alters the
Windows Operating System Product user interface.
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic
Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that
launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
5. Presenting during the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer.
6. Exercising any of the options provided in Section III.H of this Final Judgment.
4
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. For purposes of this Section
III.D, the term APIs means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces,
that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call
upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that
Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft
Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the
last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of
a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall
occur in a Timely Manner.
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
F. 1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against any ISV or IHV
because of that ISV's or
IHV's:
a. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on
any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
b. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final
Judgment.
2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating
System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's
refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft
may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use,
distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably
necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide
contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft
software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of
any agreement with any ISV or IHV, or any intellectual property right, that is not
5
inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on the condition that
such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed
percentage, any Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter
into agreements in which such an entity agrees to distribute, promote, use or
support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed percentage whenever Microsoft in
good faith obtains a representation that it is commercially practicable for the
entity to provide equal or greater distribution, promotion, use or support for
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
2. any IAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or elsewhere in any
Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP on the condition that the
IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or using any software that
competes with Microsoft Middleware.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture
or (b) any joint development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or
OEM for a new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an existing product,
technology or service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute
significant developer or other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the
object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of time.
This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft licenses intellectual property
from a third party and such intellectual property license is the principal purpose of the
agreement.
H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall:
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start
menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits)
to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons,
shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a
Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu
entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict
the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for any product in any list of such
icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as
being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided
that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and
Microsoft products; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic invocations pursuant
to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that are used to launch Non-Microsoft
Middleware Products or Microsoft Middleware Products. The mechanism shall
offer the end user a separate and unbiased choice with respect to enabling or
6
removing access (as described in this subsection III.H.1) and altering default
invocations (as described in the following subsection III.H.2) with regard to each
such Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and
may offer the end-user a separate and unbiased choice of enabling or removing
access and altering default configurations as to all Microsoft Middleware
Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft Middleware Products as a group.
2. Allow end users (via an unbiased mechanism readily available from the desktop
or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation kits), and
Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a mechanism which may, at Microsoft's
option, require confirmation from the end user in an unbiased manner) to
designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in place of that
Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa) in any case where the Windows
Operating System Product would otherwise launch the Microsoft Middleware
Product in a separate Top-Level Window and display either (i) all of the user
interface elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware Product.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may
invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
(a) that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in
interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context
of general Web browsing), or
(b) that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a
reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a
particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to
supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows
Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are
described in writing in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that
requests them.
3. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a) automatically alter
an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries installed or displayed
by the OEM pursuant to Section III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking
confirmation from the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for
an automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's configuration
until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer. Any such
automatic alteration and confirmation shall be unbiased with respect to Microsoft
Middleware Products and Non-Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft shall not alter
the manner in which a Windows Operating System Product automatically alters
an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a new
version of a Windows Operating System Product.
Microsoft's obligations under this Section III.H as to any new Windows Operating System
Product shall be determined based on the Microsoft Middleware Products which exist seven
7
months prior to the last beta test version (i.e., the one immediately preceding the first release
candidate) of that Windows Operating System Product.
I. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs any intellectual
property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the
options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, provided
that
1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary consideration, are
reasonable and non-discriminatory;
2. the scope of any such license (and the intellectual property rights licensed
thereunder) need be no broader than is necessary to ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP,
ICP or OEM is able to exercise the options or alternatives expressly provided
under this Final Judgment (e.g., an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's and OEM's option
to promote Non-Microsoft Middleware shall not confer any rights to any
Microsoft intellectual property rights infringed by that Non-Microsoft
Middleware);
3. an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's rights may be conditioned on its not
assigning, transferring or sublicensing its rights under any license granted under
this provision; and
4. the terms of any license granted under this section are in all respects consistent
with the express terms of this Final Judgment.
Beyond the express terms of any license granted by Microsoft pursuant to this section, this Final
Judgment does not, directly or by implication, estoppel or otherwise, confer any rights, licenses,
covenants or immunities with regard to any Microsoft intellectual property to anyone.
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies,
license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third
party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property
rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
8
authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or
interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
A. Enforcement Authority
1. The Plaintiffs shall have exclusive responsibility for enforcing this Final
Judgment. Without in any way limiting the sovereign enforcement authority of
each of the plaintiff States, the plaintiff States shall form a committee to
coordinate their enforcement of this Final Judgment. A plaintiff State shall take
no action to enforce this Final Judgment without first consulting the plaintiff
States' enforcement committee.
2. To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, duly authorized
representatives of the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and
subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code,
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of Microsoft,
which may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this
Final Judgment.
b. Subject to the reasonable convenience of Microsoft and without restraint
or interference from it, to interview, informally or on the record, officers,
employees, or agents of Microsoft, who may have counsel present,
regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
c. Upon written request of a duly designated representative of a plaintiff
State, on reasonable notice given to Microsoft, Microsoft shall submit
such written reports under oath as requested regarding any matters
contained in this Final Judgment.
Individual plaintiff States will consult with the plaintiff States' enforcement committee to
minimize the duplication and burden of the exercise of the foregoing powers, where practicable.
3. The Plaintiffs shall not disclose any information or documents obtained from
Microsoft under this Final Judgment except for the purpose of securing
compliance with this Final Judgment, in a legal proceeding to which one or more
of the Plaintiffs is a party, or as otherwise required by law; provided that the
relevant Plaintiff(s) must provide ten days' advance notice to Microsoft before
disclosing in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) to which
Microsoft is not a party any information or documents provided by Microsoft
pursuant to this Final Judgment which Microsoft has identified in writing as
9
material as to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such orders as are necessary from
the Court to enforce this Final Judgment, provided, however, that the Plaintiffs
shall afford Microsoft a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of
Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H, provided further that any action by Microsoft
to cure any such violation shall not be a defense to enforcement with respect to
any knowing, willful or systematic violations.
B. 1. Compliance Committee. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment,
Microsoft shall establish a compliance committee (the "Compliance Committee")
of its Board of Directors, consisting of at least three members of the Board of
Directors who are not present or former employees of Microsoft.
2. Compliance Officer. The Compliance Committee shall hire a Compliance Officer,
who shall report directly to the Compliance Committee and to the Chief
Executive Officer of Microsoft. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for
development and supervision of Microsoft's internal programs to ensure
compliance with the antitrust laws and this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall give
the Compliance Officer all necessary authority and resources to discharge the
responsibilities listed herein.
3. Duties of Compliance Officer. The Compliance Officer shall:
a. within 60 days after entry of this Final Judgment, arrange for delivery to
all officers and directors of Microsoft a copy of this Final Judgment
together with additional informational materials describing the conduct
prohibited and required by this Final Judgment;
b. arrange for delivery in a timely manner of a copy of this Final Judgment
and such additional informational materials to any person who succeeds to
a position described in Section IV.B.3.a above;
c. ensure that those persons described in subsection c.i above are annually
briefed on the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment and the
United States antitrust laws and advising them that Microsoft's legal
advisors are available to confer with them regarding any question
concerning compliance with this Final Judgment or under the United
States antitrust laws;
d. obtain from each person described in Section IV.B.3.a within 60 days of
entry of this Final Judgment and annually thereafter, and for each person
thereafter succeeding to such a position within 10 days of such succession
and annually thereafter, a written certification that he or she: (i) has read,
understands, and agrees to abide by the terms of, and has to their
knowledge not violated, this Final Judgment; and (ii) has been advised and
understands that his or her failure to comply with this Final Judgment may
result in a finding of contempt of court;
e. maintain a record of persons to whom this Final Judgment has been
distributed and from whom, pursuant to Section V.B.3.d above has been
10
obtained;
f. on an annual basis, certify to the Plaintiffs that Microsoft is fully
compliant with this Final Judgment;
g. maintain a record of all complaints received and action taken by Microsoft
with respect to each such complaint; and
g. report promptly to the Plaintiffs any credible evidence of violation of this
Final Judgment.
4. The Compliance Officer may be removed only by the Chief Executive Officer
with the concurrence of the Compliance Committee.
V. Termination
A. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth
anniversary of the date on which it takes effect.
B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found that Microsoft has engaged
in a pattern of willful and systematic violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for
a one-time extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with such other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
VI. Definitions
A. "API" means application programming interface, including any interface that Microsoft
is obligated to disclose pursuant to III.D.
B. "Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for information exchange to
accomplish predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System Product and a server
operating system product connected via a network, including, but not limited to, a local
area network, a wide area network or the Internet. These rules govern the format,
semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network.
C. "Consideration" means any monetary payment or the provision of preferential licensing
terms; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information;
information about future plans; developer support; hardware or software certification or
approval; or permission to display trademarks, icons or logos.
D. "Covered OEMs" means the 20 OEMs with the highest worldwide volume of licenses of
Windows Operating System Products reported to Microsoft in Microsoft's fiscal year
preceding the effective date of the Final Judgment. The OEMs that fall within this
definition of Covered OEMs shall be recomputed by Microsoft as soon as practicable
after the close of each of Microsoft's fiscal years.
E. "Documentation" means all information regarding the identification and means of using
APIs that a person of ordinary skill in the art requires to make effective use of those
11
APIs. Such information shall be of the sort and to the level of specificity, precision and
detail that Microsoft customarily provides for APIs it documents in the Microsoft
Developer Network ("MSDN").
F. "IAP" means an Internet access provider that provides consumers with a connection to
the Internet, with or without its own proprietary content.
G. "ICP" means an Internet content provider that provides content to users of the Internet by
maintaining Web sites.
H. "IHV" means an independent hardware vendor that develops hardware to be included in
or used with a Personal Computer running a Windows Operating System Product.
I. "ISV" means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged in the development or
marketing of software products.
J. "Microsoft Middleware" means software code that
1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating System Product to
update that Windows Operating System Product;
2. is Trademarked or is marketed by Microsoft as a major version of any Microsoft
Middleware Product defined in section VI.K.1; and
3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a Microsoft
Middleware Product.
Microsoft Middleware shall include at least the software code that controls most or all
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware. Software code described as part of,
and distributed separately to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed
Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version of that Microsoft Middleware
Product. A major version shall be identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single
digit to the right of the decimal point.
K. "Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual
Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and
their successors in a Windows Operating System Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after
the entry of this Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating
System Product
a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client
software, instant messaging software or
b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that --
i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new
Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows
Operating System Product;
12
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product; and
iii. is Trademarked.
Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware
Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of
a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of
that Microsoft Middleware Product.
L. "Microsoft Platform Software" means (i) a Windows Operating System Product and/or
(ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.
M. "Non-Microsoft Middleware" means a non-Microsoft software product running on a
Windows Operating System Product that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs
through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-
Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in whole or
in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on
that non-Microsoft Operating System.
N. "Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" means a non-Microsoft software product running
on a Windows Operating System Product (i) that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs
through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a
non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in
whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or
run on that non-Microsoft Operating System, and (ii) of which at least one million copies
were distributed in the United States within the previous year.
O. "OEM" means an original equipment manufacturer of Personal Computers that is a
licensee of a Windows Operating System Product.
P. "Operating System" means the software code that, inter alia, (i) controls the allocation
and usage of hardware resources (such as the microprocessor and various peripheral
devices) of a Personal Computer, (ii) provides a platform for developing applications by
exposing functionality to ISVs through APIs, and (iii) supplies a user interface that
enables users to access functionality of the operating system and in which they can run
applications.
Q. "Personal Computer" means any computer configured so that its primary purpose is for
use by one person at a time, that uses a video display and keyboard (whether or not that
video display and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible (or
successor) microprocessor. Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game
consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are examples of products that
are not Personal Computers within the meaning of this definition.
R. "Timely Manner" means at the time Microsoft first releases a beta test version of a
Windows Operating System Product that is made available via an MSDN subscription
13
offering or of which 150,000 or more beta copies are distributed.
S. "Top-Level Window" means a window displayed by a Windows Operating System
Product that (a) has its own window controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and
maximize, (b) can contain sub-windows, and (c) contains user interface elements under
the control of at least one independent process.
T. "Trademarked" means distributed in commerce and identified as distributed by a name
other than Microsoft® or Windows® that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or
service mark by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such as ® or (TM), in
connection with a product distributed in the United States; (ii) filing an application for
trademark protection for the name in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; or
(iii) asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a demand letter or lawsuit.
Any product distributed under descriptive or generic terms or a name comprised of the
Microsoft® or Windows® trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms shall not
be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft hereby disclaims
any trademark rights in such descriptive or generic terms apart from the Microsoft® or
Windows® trademarks, and hereby abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the
future.
U. "Windows Operating System Product" means the software code (as opposed to source
code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer versions of the products
currently code named "Longhorn" and "Blackcomb" and their successors, including
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a Windows
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
VII. Further Elements
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action such that the Court may act sua sponte to
issue further orders or directions, including but not limited to orders or directions relating to the
construction or carrying out of this Final Judgment, the enforcement of compliance therewith,
the modification thereof, and the punishment of any violation thereof.
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action and the parties thereto for the purpose of
enabling the parties to this action to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and
directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to
modify or terminate any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its
provisions.
Unless otherwise indicated, the provisions of this Final Judgment shall take effect 30 days after
the date on which it is entered.
In accordance with the imposition and affirmance of liability, the Plaintiff States shall submit a
14
motion for the award of costs and fees, with supporting documents as necessary, not later than 45
days after the entry of this Final Judgment.
VIII. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Final Judgment is intended to confer upon any other persons any rights or
remedies of any nature whatsoever hereunder or by reason of this Final Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)
Click "I agree" below to accept the terms of this Final Decree.
[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)
[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]"
Should have made the I agree part link to the goatse guy.
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft could just unilaterally declare that the contract doesn't apply to them because God doesn't like it, but that doesn't mean the argument is going to fly.
Even Microsoft can't willy-nilly redefine language so that dogs are really cats. In this case, no one is going to argue that middleware is an entire operating system.
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Interesting)
That same first year law student would also argue that the clause was not intended to allow Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs for offering computers with two operating systems, such as Windows XP and Red Hat Linux (so called "Dual-Boot" systems.)
I agree it's problematic, but it's not as bad as you think.
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Insightful)
They are also bound to make a different BOOT MANAGER, to privide option for other systems to be used.
What it's more concerning is.
1. M$ must provide API's for any middleware or protocol that's been used to communicate with M$ system or server.
(later below)
2. M$ can restrict access to any API that is concerning nature or restricted with any other party (I think they meant mainly government)
(even more below)
3. M$ can patent and charge for any API they want.
So, taken this to consideration: "What does this mean for Samba?"
They can get charged for specs, or charged for patented protocol if M$ would patent it (on the other hand in one paragraph it says they can't be, because M$ must provide specs without enforcing any liabilities). (If I'm wrong, please, do correct me)
Well, at first I think it's fair judgement, but I'm feeling it's not over.
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:5, Insightful)
They can get charged for specs, or charged for patented protocol if M$ would patent it (on the other hand in one paragraph it says they can't be, because M$ must provide specs without enforcing any liabilities). (If I'm wrong, please, do correct me)
I'm not sure, but I think you're wrong. She kept the really obnoxious paragraph III.J.2, wherein Microsoft doesn't need to disclose protocols if Microsoft doesn't approve of an ISV's "business model".
Since we all know what Microsoft thinks of Open Source [slashdot.org], I suspect that Samba is screwed.
I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
I can't tell if they announced the final decree in the Microsoft case, or if they're trying to say the employees of Microsoft caught some kind of new STD.
A massive win? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against an OEM... because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating... shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System
Good news for anyone who wants another chance at ordering a Linux-loaded Dell.
Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
Translation (as I read it): Microsoft can't stop selling Windows to my company, or stop my company from selling Windows-compatible programs, just because that my company wants to make and sell Mac or Linux versions.
Section III.H is really, -really- long to quote, but from what I read, it says that Microsoft will always offer a 'uniform and unbiased mechanism' for such things as changing file associations and setting up third-party programs to do anything "Microsoft Middleware" does. They can't ever make it so that you -can't- substitute WinAmp for Windows Media Player. As a matter of fact, they need to make it idiot-level easy. They also have to make it idiot-level easy to remove all traces of IE, Outlook Express, or MSN Messenger.
And, from what I see in III.I.3, Microsoft can't make their licenses non-transferrable. I can sell you my XP license, and no one will have any room to complain.
They're required to make all APIs used by their Middleware through MSDN or some similar mechanism. Granted, MSDN access is by subscription, so the information won't be free-as-in-beer, but Microsoft can't altogether stop that information from being public.
The enforcement seems to be in the hands of a multi-state committee. Notorious as committees are for not getting things done, still, the states have shown a strong interest in bearing down on MS.
Have to see how it goes, I guess.
Re:A massive win? (Score:4, Funny)
Proposed Final Judgement Stands (Score:4, Informative)
"...The Court suggests that the public interest would be served if Microsoft and the parties to the settlement would agree to amend the proposed final judgment to reserve for the Court, in addition to the powers presently specified in the proposed final judgment, the power sua sponte to issue orders or directions for the construction or carrying out of the final judgment, for the enforcement of compliance therewith, and for the punishment of any violation thereof. Such an amendment would not appear to work a fundamental change to the parties' agreement and would ensure that the Court retains the power intended by Plaintiffs and which the Court considers necessary to ensure effective implementation of the final judgment in this case."
"Based on the foregoing, the Court conditionally approves the SRPFJ as the final judgment as to the claims of the Plaintiff Settling States in the above-captioned case. The Court will enter final judgment upon receipt of a proposed decree which reflects the amendment described above. Such amendment shall be filed in writing with the Court not later than November 8, 2002. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion."
Final Judgement Stands w/ sua-sponte Jurisdiction (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically this says to me the judge has observed that MS has a record of working very hard to leverage ambiguity in prior judgements, coupled with the known slow pace of DOJ to evade restrictions.
Kollar-Kotelly as I read it has said here: "This court will be seeing that this history does not repeat itself. And all parties have 1 week to sign on.
go Judge!
Not a breakup, but a lot of pain (Score:3, Insightful)
This is going to give them fits to change in only 3 months though.
Re:Not a breakup, but a lot of pain (Score:5, Insightful)
"Excuse me?"
"That's not middleware."
"You're pointing to an integral part of the Windows operating system."
"It's part of our big bung^Hdle of innovative and patented technology and it would be unfair of the burdensome government bureaucracy to make us give it away to competitors in this very competitive business we're in."
"Opening up that part of Windows would allow pedophiles, terrorists and hackers to hurt you."
"Nope. That's not the middleware we were thinking about and we're sure an unbiased judge three years from now will agree with our reasonable and expert assessment."
Scooping the news sites? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scooping the news sites? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're not getting off light (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten against an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by witholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration.
Does that mean that they can't screw over OEM's that include alternative operating systems preinstalled anymore?
Re:They're not getting off light (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They're not getting off light (Score:4, Insightful)
1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
Seems to me that this covers a company Y that wants to ship a RedHat-based system, since they are distributing software (RedHat) that competes with Microsoft Platform Software (Windows).
Re:API's to be release - NOT (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft will be able to hide APIs, protocols or whatever for various reasons related to security, DRM, authentication, etc.
the quickie version (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is an attempt to provide some kind of flexibility but "restrain" them, but the Judge is obviously forgetting history: Microsoft is the Harry Houdini of legal agreements, they can wriggle out of anything.
Re:the quickie version -- 3rd party IP? (Score:5, Interesting)
hrm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is unethical - I think it clearly isn't - but mightn't it have been polite to sit on this until the stock market closed, or at least until just before it closed?
The Judgement Summarized (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft must play fair under set conditions.
Microsoft can still restrict access, hide APIs and set up questionable business practices under the guise of protecting "security, anti-virus, licensing, authentication and Digital Rights"
Re:The Judgement Summarized (Score:4, Funny)
quick info from it from the judgement (Score:4, Insightful)
1) it seemed mainly aimed at the OEM market. Saying that MS can't puinsh them for using other software with windows or even dual booting.
2) the only other thing of interest was that they are supposed to open up any communication protocol that is needed in windows (SMB for instance).
3) later on there is this though
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction."
so pretty much I think it's a slap on th wrist. maybe some more developers and lawyers can comment.
CKK accepted the state's proposal (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, and I only scanned the top few pages for information. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
5 Year Length (Score:3, Interesting)
This lawsuit has taken four years. I think five years, even with the possiblity of an extension is way too short.
And just because I thought it was interesting, here's the definition of an OS:API's (Score:5, Interesting)
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.
This is actually a big deal.
Re:API's (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. It is a big deal.
Great except... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Anything that compromises security (anti-piracy, DRM, anti-virus, licensing, encryption, authentication).
- Anything the US government allows them to keep hidden
So how much can they get away with with the fairly loose requirements of the first point?Samba? (Score:5, Interesting)
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
The big question is, can Samba benefit from this, or are the conditions of the released information going to make it incompatible with the GPL? And can the information be dirty/clean intellectually transferred between one tainted person and one "clean" person even with whatever type of NDA they put on the agreement?
Here's the nifty part: (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume this to mean that the Samba guys will get legal access to the SMB protocol specs and other related stuff. Likely could include the native Exchange server protocols too, since Outlook Express talks that protocol and has shipped integrated with the OS.
Re:Here's the nifty part: (Score:5, Interesting)
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
I assume this to mean that the Samba guys will get legal access to the SMB protocol specs and other related stuff. Likely could include the native Exchange server protocols too, since Outlook Express talks that protocol and has shipped integrated with the OS.
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction."
Any thoughts on whether MS will publish MAPI (the Exchange API)? I'm thinking they'll say it's a security issue. What's the worst that can happen to MS? Another 5 year trial with another wrist slap at the end? They'd be retarded *not* to keep fucking us.
Summary of the final decree (Score:5, Informative)
They also cannot retaliate against them for including a computer with 2 OSes (notably missing is the provision against retaliating due to not installing an MS OS)
MS must provide a uniform license agreement and fee schedule for all it's OEMs, with only a few exceptions.
MS will not restrict in the license agreement installing any other icons or programs on the desktop, distrbuting or promoting non-MS browsers/e-mail readers/media players &c. They also cannot restrict the automatic launching of any 'middleware' (browsers, e-mail readers, media players.)
OEMs may offer users multiple OSes on one machine without retaliation from MS.
Open APIs for any 'middleware' to fully interface with the OS like MS' own 'middleware' does. (This is a big one)
MS must also release any communication protocol necessary to communicate with a MS server OS.
MS cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against any vendor for developing or selling things that compete with them.
"Set Program Access and Defaults" is required.
In addition, the users must be able to enable or disable any automatic launching of MS 'middleware'.
End-users and non-MS 'middleware' products must be able to transparently replace the MS 'middleware'.
An MS OS cannot modify or alter anything that an OEM does to the desktop without first getting confirmation from the user.
HOWEVER:
No provision of the agreement forces MS to disclose anything that might hurt the OS security. (This is very vague and I predict will be the biggest loophole.)
--
I haven't read the rest of the decree, I just wanted to get this up. And IANAL, but I think the interpretations I've provided are reasonable.
Sayanora, Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or
So I think this is the first nail in Palladium's coffin. This legalese seems to imply that Microsoft is barred of collusion with OEMs that would block middleware or OSs that would compete with Microsoft. Which is, at the core, EXACTLY what Palladium would do.
Nice to see that the DoJ can kill two birds with one stone.
Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Insightful)
That didn't happen (yet).
Technicality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, how many times have we heard of companies complaining about just this thing happening to them? I hope this legislation does improve the computer market...
However, I worry on one point. The judgement states "...known to Microsoft that the OEM..." What if it isn't known to Microsoft, but it is merely suspected by Microsoft? That technicality would give Microsoft pre-emptive monopolistic powers which wouldn't be restricted by this settlement.
Dangit! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
Sheesh....there had to be catch...
Any bets on how long it'll take microsoft to declare the whole OS a rights protection management system so they don't have to give up any of the API?
Re:Dangit! (Score:4, Informative)
It's not quite so much of a catch as it first appears. They can't refuse to release it just because it's related to or involves security and such, they can only refuse if releasing it would compromise security. For instance, take domain authentication. If it's actually secure, knowing the communications protocol and encryption algorithms won't compromise it's security, only knowing the user's keys would. For MS to keep it undisclosed, they'd have to state basically that if you knew what went back and forth on the wire you could crack domain authentication without knowing anybody's keys. Ditto DRM, they can't refuse to release the info unless they openly claim that knowing how to let your files be protected but usable would break the entire system. They can be pushed pretty hard on these things in the press if they balk.
Microsoft Ads on OSDN Sites (Score:4, Interesting)
Has Slashdot reached a point where the only way they can afford to continually rant against Microsoft is by accepting money from them?
Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Micros (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Micros (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft Wins (see: fair and non-discriminatory) (Score:5, Insightful)
To summarize, there are several clauses about opening up the API's and protocols. This openess must be provided to OEM's, etc, on a "reasonable and non-discriminatory basis". This "reasonable and non-discrimantor" rule allows for charging of royalties and restricting distribution and sub-licensing of the intellectual property. So even if they provide this information at no cost or minimal cost they can make it impossible for any such information to every make it into GPL software.
So folks, I hope you enjoyed have your tax dollars flushed down a toilet.
Re:Microsoft Wins (see: fair and non-discriminator (Score:4, Interesting)
People dumped their inexpensive Apple II's and Commodores and TRS-80's because they all used IBM PC's at work and it made more sense to have the same machine at home as they had at work. Eventually the market share of these machines lead to the vast majority of software being developed for them and so they came to take over the market.
Linux distros are merely repackagers of software, slapping a user "friendly" veneers over it. There's nothing stopping a third party from slapping a better veneer over FreeBSD or NetBSD. This is what Apple did, and they're doing great because of it.
Doing great? In Q1 of 2002, Apple's market share for new computer sales was less than 3% of the market. That has been the case since at least 1999, regardless of OS X. They are hanging on to what they've got, but there's little evidence that they are going to be making any serious head way anytime soon.
I learned the painful lesson of the network effect back in the days of Atari. I an Atari 1040ST computer, and it was superior in every way to an IBM PC except for one REALLY important way. There were more IBM PC's out there. So, support for software dwindled, and my computer became worthless before it's time.
Linux becomes a viable option because it has a strong community of people around it developing for it. So even though there's not as much support amongst commercial vendors, one can accomplish a lot on Linux without them. So Linux isn't as hurt by the network effect as Apple is (especially because Linux runs on the same hardware as Windows).
But in order for linux to have real success going against Microsoft going forward, one of two things must happen. Either the nature of the computer marketplace has to change drastically or Linux has to be able to act as a drop-in replacement for Windows in existing networks. The first option is a possibility, no argument, but increasingly the second path is becoming very difficult.
What do the Samba people do when they can't implement Microsoft protocols? Do they start offering a closed source royalty laden version? I mean who would buy it when they can get that "free" from Microsoft. What happens when the people start writing
I'm not saying that somebody overthrowing Microsoft is impossible, but Linux is the best threat now. I think that this court case, had it ended in a better way, had a chance of helping out that cause. Linux may still do it on its own, but it's going to be a lot harder.
Loopholes (Score:4, Interesting)
I noticed that the security exception is still there, what about the others?
Great! (Score:3, Funny)
Granted, what I did understand looks good to me.
Question: When will we get a compiler to spit out java bytecode for this decision and install the new version into the Microsoft Corporate App Server? Because frankly, expecting a human being to follow this judgement is just as good as expecting a human being to parse parallel super computer algorithms in their head. Sure there are a few people who can do it, but they probably have better things to do with their time. At least I hope that they do.
Its a real shame that the judgement wasnt just this:
"PLAY NICE"
Yahoo! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the best part. There's a standard schedule for costs for everyone. You can't brown-nose Microsoft and get special deals, and Microsoft can't punish you by raising your costs for licenses.
You buy licenses at the same rate as everyone else (who buys in the same quantities for the same languages as you do).
This means that if Dell is the largest buyer of MS Licenses, it doesn't matter what they do, they get the cheapest rate. Likewise, any company that buys 2,000 Windows licenses gets the same rate, whether they are MS Fanboys or Sun Microsystems.
Of course, a big "in theory" is added to all this.
Game, set, match (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck.
Judge shouldn't set o+x on her directory (Score:5, Funny)
VIII. Third Party Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning...we, the average citizens, still don't get squat.
they wanted to (Score:4, Funny)
bill is selling out. (Score:4, Interesting)
See here for proof [msn.com]
That's great. I bet he saw the writting on the wall on this one. The great wall of MS is coming down!
Interesting Portion (Score:3, Interesting)
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
Slashdot to be accused of hacking.... (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks to slashdot for making us all criminals.... i feel l33t now...
Hrmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Very Unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
As several other respondants have noted, this is largely a win for Microsoft and a loss for the States. What is surprising is the Judge K-K took so long to issue it.
The big deals the States asked for were removal of the "Security carve-out" (noted by several folks), and the appointment of a Special Master to create a streamlined enforcement process. Neither of these survived, and that is regrettable.
The security carve-out will make things difficult for third-party protocol implementors, and the enforcement provisions are lengthy, expensive, and easy for Microsoft to manipulate.
I spent a good deal of my recent life on this, and I'm upset. I need to read the full decisions in more detail, but other than a very generic win for States' Rights as a principle, this is essentially a no-op.
gnetwerker - $40k poorer, no wiser
Interesting power to the states granted... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like it.
Re:No cloud without a silver lining (Score:4, Interesting)
I was initially disappointed in this decision- still am, in an emotional sense, I'd love to see MS thwacked soundly- but on reflection, I'm impressed with how cagey Colleen really was. I think this whole thing is about roping them into unwittingly going along with a settlement- thinking it is a total wristslap- except that the judgement very carefully scotches certain SPECIFIC behaviors that get in the way of anyone offering competition and unseating them. That can't be an accident...
Think about it. The judgement addresses their behavior with OEMs, and specifically blocks them from playing politics- something that they did BIGTIME and which helped kill Netscape. The judgement addresses APIs and specifically blocks them from discriminatory behavior there as well. And all the time, it doesn't do a thing to upset Microsoft apart from that.
Call it a MS victory if you want to. A breakup and Gates wailing and gnashing his teeth would have been way more fun. But to me it looks like Kollar-Kotelly thought very hard about the problem, "What can I slip past these people, who have total contempt for the law and enough money to be almost impossible to defeat in court, which they will accept, but which will damage their ability to continue their worst abuses?"
Her answer seems to be, "Certain specific and very carefully placed restrictions on how they deal with OEMs and how they publicise their APIs". I can't really argue with that- if it is true that they cannot be punished and are more powerful than the US government or the justice system, the practical question is clearly 'so what do we do?'. And we all know quite well that playing politics with vendors, developers etc. is how they managed the worst of their abuses.
Don't be too quick to call this a total MS victory. In an ideal world where Microsoft was just a nice hardworking business, it would be. In the real world, the judge has just singled out some of their most effective (and illegal under antitrust law) weapons, and forced them to deal with the world they way they claim to.
It would be difficult for them to bitch at this point and object (on the grounds that they need to be able to discriminate with APIs and pressure OEMs). They almost have to claim in turn that it's a big victory for them. But, again, that's only if they usually play fair. Frankly, they prefer to carry on like mafiosi- and that is almost ALL that has changed, for them.
Welcome to the real world, Microsoft. Announce your victory. And bite your tongue!
No punative actions taken (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention the security API. There is nothing keeping them from writing one big lump of
What a waste of taxpayers' money.
It looks like MS Won Everything They Wanted (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that the 9 states seem to have got NONE of the things they wanted. Microsoft Wins and wins BIG.
I'm not sure many of you would be as happy about those OEM restrictions the order talks about if you were more familiar with the history of this case. Those things were a baseline given.
We should now start taking bets on the demise of RealNetworks. Windows Media Player will be further incorporated into the OS now and just as they did with IE, they'll gain monopoly power in another software niche.
BWCarver
Actually, this might help OSS in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more companies are switching to Open Source Software because they're fed up with M$. If M$ were reigned in, that would reduce the frustration other companies have with them. On the other hand, since they have essentially no consequences that hurt them, as their attitude gets worse, so will frustration.
It's like being a kid in school and being beat up by the bully. As the bully's arrogance increases, he thinks he's more and more immune to what anyone can do. Eventually he tries to take on the whole class, everyone sees what he's really like, and suddenly the bully is left standing there, like the Emperor in his new clothes.
M$ attitude is a good reason for people to switch from them. The worse it gets, the more will switch. The Judge has just given them permission to show their worst behavior. Just how much of that will the market bear?
Appeals? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what about the numerous other lawsuits (such as from Sun or AOL or what not)?
Just because the judge said the settlement is ok, I wouldn't expect it to end here. Numerous other lawsuits are still out there and Microsoft will undoubtly be back in court as a competitor sues them for breaking details in this settlement (espically that withholding information for security purposes).
Got my hopes up too soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies,
license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third
party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property
rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or
interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
We're sorry, we don't consider giving binaries and source code away for free a viable business model. Go away Samba team. What? What's that about interoperating with Exchange? Yeah, right! Go away stupid free groupware project.
technical committee got axed (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry Stephen Satchell [slashdot.org], looks like you got no job.
As for the "corporate compliance committee"...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
- adam
5 years of unhindered plundering... (Score:3)
The decision eliminates the establishment of a technical committee to assess Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. In its place, a corporate compliance committee -- consisting of Microsoft board members -- will make sure Microsoft lives up to the deal, the judge said.
If this charade of "law-enforcement in the USA" wasn't so ridiculous it'd actually be funny.
Possible good things (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows' monopoly will not, should not, and shall not be compromised by this judgement alone. However, the monopoly that IE, Outlook, and Office have is now, rightfully, possible to challenge within the next five years.
However, I think a myriad of good things can come from this. Off the top of my head:
Look at this as smacking MS for abusing their monopoly, not the courts doing by fiat what Red Hat, Apple, and IBM have failed to do so far. You've got five years to out-do the "most bloated system in the world". I look foward to the results of this, even as I dread the /. bitching.
same old story (Score:3, Informative)
But seriously enough whining.
Linux/Unix/macos X are better than window. Really. I can't imagine programming/working on anything else but a unix based box right now. I don't miss windows at all.
Some of this Open source software is simply amazingly powerful. I downloaded fink (app-get for os-x) a couple days ago. Amazing how simple to install emacs, imagemagik and other open source goodies using fink. I was blown away.
There are tons of open-source programs that are simply the best stuff out there, Apache, perl, samba....
There is still lots of work to be done. Consider helping. Buy a naked pc, install linux/bsd. But a mac, install X, help port open source to it. Help out some projects, even start your own. Set up a linux server at work. Write some documentation that makes things clearer to those learning.
Sometimes opensource spawns rivalries. BSD vs Linux, KDE vs. Gnome. In someways this is bad, "competion is good", but confuses. These flame wars can become bitter and tiresome. Better solutions will be found and implimented and that is a great thing.
keep coding, keep thinking, keep using and keep giving back.
Remember this on Tuesday! (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Illinois a candidate for governor, Jim Ryan, agreed to the settlement. I wasn't planning to vote for him anyway, but I was reluctant to vote for his opponent as well -- I think this has changed my mind on that.
And of course this all happened because of the Executive's leadership in dealing with corporate crime -- the radical change in direction that the Justice Department took should be be clear to all. Bush isn't up for reelection, but his allies are. This is just one more instance where that party has shown itself an ally of corporate criminals.
Priceless. (Score:5, Funny)
"Gifts" to key government officials. ($20,000,000)
Propaganda designed to lure the public into complacity. ($20,000,000)
Getting off basically free of any real restrictions that will let you continue in basically the same manner as before, and any attempt to bring you to trial again will take another 5-10 years. Priceless.
(I'm itching to know the real numbers)
Java (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge seems to be of the impression that since Java worked on M$ OSes and M$ actively distributed its own JVM in which java applications "worked" then M$ was not really trying to kill java. Thus she accepts M$ claim (I assume this is what they claimed) that their modifications were improvements to enhance Java on their OSes.
But this neglects the mission and design of Java. If java were simply a programming language this this would be true, but Java is an environment.
The failure is with SUN and the plantifs. Though I disagree I believe she is right.
If you take the case of the windows logo in which people had to make programs run on winNT before they would get the logo for 95. Sun should have had a Java logo. M$ could never say development towards win95 only is an attempt to destroy NT.
Legal, social tragedy (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's dominance in the operating system and applications market will continue basically unchecked. Because of it, Microsoft will find it all the easier to deploy Paladium, which will help cement their dominance by using "security" as an excuse for locking out the interoperability efforts of Linux and others. This will help balkanize the Linux and Windows worlds, which will slow migration away from Windows. It will also be a useful tool for silencing a few activists who defy the restrictions with court and prison. Let's also not forget, without the trial hanging over its collective head, Microsoft will be much freer to use the bludgeon of Office withdrawal against Apple, should it not tow the line.
Paladium is the beginning of efforts towards centralized surveillance and control of all electronic media. Once it is deployed and semi-usable, the "gentle coercion" of fees, compatility, and network-effect fear will help Microsoft as they phase out and then attempt to suppress older, more open versions of their operating system (Win2k, XP, etc). Perhaps Windows Update will back-port the "content revolution." Or perhaps the death blow to Microsoft's open legacy will be a virulent worm which preys on a security hole they refuse to fix.
People will ask incredulously, "who would abuse Paladium, and how?" and the answer is, "anyone who can, in any way they can get away with."
The evolution of the operating system will keep its super-slow-mo pace. It was bad enough before; who would invest a nickle in any new technology that could compete with Microsoft now? They have the King's indulgence. In addition to the enormous "natural" benefits of their momentum and size, they are effectively untouchable. Progress in the computer sciences, and then progress in all the fields computers touch (and could touch, in a more innovative world), is hurt tremendously by this.
The threat of loss, from competition or regulation, is what drives progress. Think of it - Windows' closest competitor is written by hobbyists! And even then, it is because of Linux, and this trial (and to a far lesser extent, Apple) that Windows 2000 is more stable than Windows 98 and NT. But with the antitrust case gone, the content trusts having paved the way with the DMCA, and Microsoft already preparing new "solutions" to problems of interoperability and easy migration, there will no longer be a threat.
We are on some kind of roll. As a nation, we seem to make a new decision that betrays our standards and squanders our legacy every day. But, though people will call me a geek or claim I have an exaggerated idea of the computer's importance, I say that today's failure is particularly egregious. What all the parties have done here, the DoJ, their counterparts in the various States, the judge (CKK), and not least Microsoft itself, has left our children a disgusting legacy, and they will curse us for it. Rightly so.
Felony (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Felony (Score:5, Interesting)
Statements By Robert Bork, Ken Starr (ProComp) (Score:5, Interesting)
The decision accepts the deeply flawed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which does nothing to restore competition to the marketplace or to prevent Microsoft from repeating acts explicitly held by the Court of Appeals to have been illegal.
The net result is that until this decision is overturned on appeal, as I believe it will be, competition will not be restored.
The Court of Appeals clearly prohibited Microsoft's practice of commingling the code of Windows with that of other critical software when there is no
benefit, but rather a clear harm, to consumers. This decision fails to
remedy this violation of the law, and its reversal seems likely on this point alone.
Never before has there been a case where liability was so thoroughly established, and never before has there been a case where the Justice Department agreed to a remedy that did almost nothing of what the law and the Court of Appeals required. Today's decision represent a substantial abandonment of antitrust law as it applies to one of the most important industries in America. The Department of Justice won at every step of the trial, and then surrendered in the settlement process. To justify this surrender, the Department resorted to disingenuous arguments that it could not be statistically proven that Microsoft's illegal conduct directly caused harm to Netscape. Their post hoc rationale for a flawed settlement has been absurd. We have the corpse of Netscape on the floor, and a whole host of other technologies whose development was stopped because it did not coincide with Microsoft's business plans.
The most disturbing message of all is that sent to nascent technologies and
innovators: the Department of Justice will not protect you from predatory monopolists. That is a grave error in economic policy and will have disastrous effects for competition in this and other industries.
Judge Kenneth W. Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General and Appellate Judge
This settlement gives the green light to Microsoft to continue its monopoly practices, a disastrous result for the high-tech industry, which has lived under effective Microsoft control for too many years.
In its unanimous ruling last summer that Microsoft had violated antitrust law, the Court of Appeals stated that the remedy must "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This weak settlement clearly fails to meet that standard, and it is my belief that the Judge simply gave too much deference to the Department of Justice, deference that was not warranted given the fact that the remedy proceedings were held after a full and complete trial.
The nine states that refused to accept the Microsoft settlement proved during the remedy hearings that Microsoft's monopoly is stronger than ever and that real remedies are needed. The Attorneys General of these states are to be commended for their courageous defense of consumers, antitrust laws and free-market economy. These AGs fought on because they understood that Microsoft is poised to monopolize the Internet itself, a result made more likely by today's decision.
It is my hope those Attorneys General will continue to fight to seek immediate review of this flawed decision.
Mike Pettit, ProComp President
ProComp is extremely disappointed. This represents a systemic failure of the legal system, a failure to protect consumers, competition, and companies like Netscape whose innovations literally changed the world.
Microsoft has terrorized the industry for more than a decade. Victims of Microsoft's predatory conduct are legion. This was the moment in time when competition could have been restored; that task will be much more difficult in the future. The right case was brought and won resoundingly. Eight
federal judges ruled unanimously against Microsoft. And then what
happened can only be explained this way: the Bush Justice Department surrendered to Microsoft.
The word has gone forth from the Bush Administration to countless would-be dreamers and tinkerers: we will not protect you when monopolists like Microsoft set out to crush you. It may take a decade to understand just how shortsighted today's decision is.
Microsoft has ostensibly been on its best behavior the past few months while pretending to comply with the DOJ settlement. Even during this time, the degree and nature of their predatory conduct has accelerated. I shudder to think of what this portends for the industry, which is now almost totally regulated by the most powerful monopolist in history.
European Commission (Score:3, Insightful)
My only hope is that the European Commission will fine MS and punish them hard enough for their behaviour to get an effect.
The Honorable Mrs. K-K should retire. She did not even have a small grasp of the matters at hand or she was pressured to her decision. This is a shame for the American Legal system.
a sad day (Score:3, Interesting)
" Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and Microsoft's CEO.
Attorney General John Ashcroft also praised the ruling. "The court's decision is a major victory for consumers and businesses, who can immediately take advantage of the final judgment's provisions," Ashcroft said in a statement released Friday afternoon. "
I guess those huge campaign contributions MS made to Bush's and Ashcroft's campaigns really paid off!
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26
"Microsoft also was a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund, donating $100,000 to the gala last January."
Please people, vote!!!
The beginning of the end... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they'd gotten their asses handed to them, their new perceptions might have given MS a chance for long-term survival based on listening to their customers and trying to build better products than anybody else. By and large, they now can legally conduct business as usual.
The judge isn't wholly at fault here, DOJ (would large MS campaign contributions to Bush have had anything to do with it) wasn't fighting to win anymore. That's clear even from the public summary. She can only rule on what the opposing sides use for arguments, objective reality has nothing much to do with court decisions.
The future?
Brussels to spend 250k on Linux migration study [theregister.co.uk]
More governments and businesses refusing to put up with MS licensing terms, bad security, or the constant hardware/software upgrade cycle, and quietly converting to Open Source. They are investigating desktop as well as server, and the consultancy doing this is already rolling out "secure" Linux desktops and server systems in police stations in part of the UK.
I've been working in high-tech journalism for the last few years. Well, the bottom has fallen out of the market and won't be coming back anytime soon, so I'm changing tracks to system administration. I'm convinced enough that MS is part of the past that I won't be bothering with learning W2000/XP or IIS.
Now what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of companies are doing this already, but let's stand behind them 100% instead of whining about their lack of spine for not including flag graphics or for looking too much like Windows or any number of other cheesy gripes.
Are you people ready NOW or do you want to wait for another few rounds in court before we actually give Microsoft the competition the marketplace needs? The only thing that Microsoft has that the Free Software Movement needs is a clear direction. Yes, free men pull in all sorts of directions, but right now, we're mostly we're running into eachother.
Need New Computing Platform (Score:3, Interesting)
In truth, the remedies sought by the anti-settlement states would have had little, if any, impact on the market share enjoyed by Microsoft products. Telling Microsoft not to bully vendors who hide a few icons is not the way to foster competitive products.
Lost in all this smoke and hot air is the intimate link between Microsoft and the x86 PC architecture. Other architectures were, and are, possible. Vendors selling alternative OS's for the x86 platform may eventually carve out a stable and profitable niche, but their impact on MS will be minimal. (A decision today in favor of the anti-settlement states would not have changed that fact.)
The way to check Microsoft's influence is to create and market a personal computing platform based on a new, non-x86 platform that offers compelling capabilities that the x86 can't. This would represent a paradigm shift as significant as the original PC industry in the late '70's and early '80's.
This is probably echo'd around but here's my $.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
Can a defendant be proven guilty...
Be disrespectful to the court...
Flat out refuse to comply with court orders without legal grounds...
Not even follow their own version and interpretation of the settlement agreement...
and..
Be granted even more power than they had before. (Yeah, its illegal, but its ok for MS to do it!)
If any of us had tried to pull this kind of shit in court, we'd be like the guy on goatse.cx by now. But because its "Big Money, Corp." they can do it all day long and not even flinch. No polititions calling for reform. No legal experts throwing a fit. No public outcry. Welcome to the US o fuckin A. (smells the karma burn)
I wish I could get away with bankrupting company after company and ripping off billions with a settlement that basically said, "I promise to not do it again as long as I don't think I need to." The settlement rank and file full of contradiction after contradiction, loophole after loophole. I can honestly say, that in my life, I have never seen this large a pile of outright horseshit, and in all places, the country that is supposed to value the rights of the little guy over that of the groups. God help me, where is the United States I was told about growing up? Where is the land of tolerance and Free thought and the chance for the little guy to succeed. I'm not calling for anarchy or comunism, so to those who would reflexively accuse me so, keep that in mind. This is supposed to be the land of the Free, not the land where you are free to fuck someone over, so long as you don't piss off someone with more power than you.
I'll admit, I have been wrong before; I will be wrong again; and I may be wrong now. But right now it sure seems to be the truth to me. This is a sham. This is a shame. This is reality.
Simultaneous Ruling in Washington (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe not all is lost. (Score:3, Informative)
My first thought on reading the judgement was that Microsoft was getting away scott free, but did anybody read section VII. Further Elements.
Sua Sponte is defined on law.cornet.edu as
Lets assume that the judge is not stupid. She is well aware of Microsoft's legal history and how they will interpret the judgement. By getting Microsoft to agree to this rather open ended authority over every aspect of the judgement she can force a particular interpretation against Microsoft's wishes, and she can do it unilatrially without the participation of the DOJ or anyone else.
For example consider Microsoft's much maligned EULA regarding the specification for CIFS that prevents open source developers from using it. Section VII would allow the judge to declare that SAMBA has a "reasonable business need" for access and "meets reasonable, objective standards" regarding viability, or she could simply declare that the CIFS license is discriminatory. Either case could be used to force Microsoft to change the license.
I am sure that Microsoft knows the pitfalls of this section, but what choice do they have. This is their agreement, they negotiated it with the DOJ and argued in court long and hard that this was the best solution. Suddenly deciding now that they don't like it anymore is not a politically viable option and it would opens them up to charges of obstructionism.
I cant read minds, I don't know if this is actually the judges plan, however it would be a crafty way of forcing both a stricter settlement and a faster settlement.
Or it could simply be a drowning man grasping at straws.
Lead, follow, or GTFOTW (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to bash Microsoft and praise Linux here. But what are you doing IRL? Are you leveraging your knowledge at your company to advocate OSS platforms....or do you just weigh in here and mod posts?
When a product is truly better (as I believe GNU/Linux to be) and when some really big companies are willing to back it (like IBM and Sun), all it takes is the backing of us "computer geeks" to affect the market.
Example: The last time a coworker came to me complaining about a Windows 98 problem that kept them from being able to boot to anything but safe mode, I didn't even try to explain that one of their virtual device drivers was corrupted. I fixed the driver problem, while telling them that the problem would probably never have occurred if they were running a different OS. That person happened to be one of the VPs of my company and they are now curious about GNU/Linux.
Unless you're actively affecting change, all your bitching is just noise.
--K.
Am I the only one to see the obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Over time, Microsoft will destroy itslef. It is the nature of the corporation to grow to a point where it is no longer nimble enough to compete with smaller quicker acting companies. Breakign Microsoft up, would create dozens of small nimble companeis all with the Microsoft culture. Nobody would be able to compete. The breakup of Standard Oil and AT&T shoudl serve as a grat lesson to all about corporate breakups; all they do is create companues which treat their customers worse and are more greedy than the original monopoly. Sears, Woolworth and all the othe large companies which grew huge, got arrogant and fell should serve as an indication of where Microsoft will eventually land.
Remember when Intel was forced to open the x86 architecture, because of that clones appeared and further entrnched the x86 architecture into the pc world. Had that not happened, the superior 68k architecture just might have supplanted the inferior x86 architecture.
At least the government has learned from the past
Re:I like Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Funny)
But this is different: /. posted the story before anyone else posted anything (I just went and looked at a bunch of sources, and the story isn't out yet as of this writing). OMG: /. doing actual journalism!
Must be a sign of the Apocalypse :-)
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]
Re:I like Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool my twice, shame on me."
Please, read what I wrote and tell me if you would still support Microsoft.
and I apologize for any spelling errors. I haven't had a chance to proofread yet.
Mirror of court documents (Score:5, Informative)
In my reading of these documents, it seems that while there significant positive elements to the decision, there are many loopholes for microsoft to slither though. I'm just waiting for every license agreement to be re-characterized as a joint venture.
--CTH