Microsoft Proposes Lengthy Appeal Period 151
ackthpt writes: "Yahoo News is carrying this short article indicating Microsoft's preference for a five month appeal process."
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
Re:guess what happens in 5 months? (Score:1)
Or Gore... doesn't matter who ends up in the oval office; it'll be a new face, and another chance at gaining the sympathies of the head of the executive branch.
On a side note, while I think Bush might favor big business more than Gore, I also think that Gore would sell his wife to the highest bidder if it meant a campaign contribution. While I'm fairly sure that Bush is probably no more trustworthy or fair minded than Gore, at least he hasn't actually demonstrated himself to be the world-class screwup Clinton-wannabe looser that Gore has.Appealing so soon? (Score:4)
________________
Re:Monopolies are natural (Score:1)
Re:You'd think (Score:1)
Re:fast changing industry (Score:1)
I am of the opinion that the best thing that can happen to microsoft - from the point of view of their products - is to be split as Judge Jackson recommended. Then they may actually get to writing good OS software and good app software instead of blending the two into the abortion that they are producing at the moment.... not to mention providing a good platform for other software packages - so leveraging their OS.
just makes sense that way.
Re:You'd think (Score:1)
Re:One weak point (Score:1)
This might be mistaken for a flame because I'm exagerating the situation, but that not what I intend. I realize there are defined tasks in the court, but I wonder where the line is. Clearly we can't have judges performing their own intensive investigations, and I suspect that the MS lawyers could (also) protest that Judge Jackson is not a computer expert.
--
Re: "If I were Microsoft" (Score:1)
--
Re:Again... (Score:1)
Honestly: back in the time when a Pentium 133 was a hot-rod, I know that a German PC-vendor called Vobis [vobis.com] sold their Highscreen series with OS/2 preinstalled. I'm really sure of it because a friend of mine bought one (Hi Krissyboy!).
Believe it or not, but most people ditched it for the largely inferior DOS/Windows combination. I know, I'm probably a bit biased because I *liked* OS/2
That's why we like banana's (Score:2)
Re:Monopolies are natural (Score:1)
Many airlines... low prices
I suggest you switch to name brand heroin. The bargain stuff just isn't the same quality it used to be.
Windows is as easy to manage.... (Score:2)
Seriously, a lot of vendors are handling the 'broken software' support problem (when a vendor sells a pc w/ oem windows on it, it's the VENDOR who has to tech support the damn software, not Msft) just by 'reimaging' the disk. Just wipe it out and start all over.
If your claim of market dominance due to ease of use and managability were actually true, the Mac would have outsold DOS & Windows LONG ago.
Completing the thought (Score:2)
Re:I propose... (Score:1)
I can hear the crowd now "hit him, kill him, hit him back you fool...."
OS/2 was really cool... (Score:2)
Re:I propose... (Score:1)
Can we throw Bush, Jack Valenti, and Hillary Rosen in there too? Please?
-RickHunter
Re:Of course! (Score:2)
Has the anti-trust case against Microsoft slowed down this company? Perhaps yes. But I think that MS also knows that they can't behave in the same fashion as IBM. After all, MS knows that they are where they are today because IBM didn't move fast enough.
Re:You'd think (Score:1)
Sounds like a normal Microsoft Schedule (Score:2)
a five month appeal process? (Score:1)
I tought IBM had learned it's lesson by then (Score:1)
Actually I found your comparison with playskool toys pretty weird: I tought that playschool was childproof and that swallowing the toy would be the equivalent of a KernelPanic/BSOD/Bomb(Mac). Now, if you hold the comparison with Windows then it is more like giving a fork to the kid to play around with. I have yet to meet a normal user whose PC is still fully functional after 1 year of use (with Windows of course).
Now, even being a non-open-source-OS-by-big-bad-IBM, I still like OS/2...in it's time it had a chance, but medriocity won. Sadly.... My new hopes are in Linux, but it's not yet ready for the average desktop user.
Evidence (Score:1)
Re:Windows is as easy to manage.... (Score:2)
Or more likely a Glass box or something as fragile.
Of course it's put in there to keep inexperienced users from accidentally messing it up - like if there were a knob on your dashboard for injector timing, a lot of cars would be towed in for service because someone twisted the knob and didn't know how to adjust it properly.
Putting the knob there totally negates any poing of the box in the first place. An analogy with all the settings easily available in Windows which really should be kept out of reach of the end user.
You'd think (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
Re:I can see it now.. (Score:2)
Probably not a bad idea, they when they break the law it's far easier to bomb them rather than messing around with lawyers.
Maybe some dissatisfied customers could club together to get hold of a second hand B52.
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
How is MS "bundling" of internet explorer any different than say linux "bundling" telnet, or apple "bundling" email or quicktime?
It's not, from a practical or technical perspective. It's also not any different from KDE bundling Konqueror, or GNOME bundling a browser compon, or Red Hat shipping with Mozilla.
Are we a society of crybabies?
Apparently.
--
Again... (Score:1)
Re:That's reasonable (Score:1)
You DID read them page for page, right? I did. and as a highly accomplished professional engineer who has watched the whole MS tyhing develop since the first PC I was frankly ASTOUNDED at how clearly the court understood the cogent issues.
Frankly, IMO they demonstarted a better grasp of both the market issues and the computer science then many a slash-dot-poster. (Jackson's office, among other things, clearly defined why most of Windows ISN'T OS code, something most of us knew but were hard pressed to explain.)
fast changing industry (Score:1)
This may part of MS's strategy, but the main reason to lengthen the process is to make Jackson's remedial solution no longer pertinent in the fast changing computer industry. That's it. This is not a criminal case where one is simply punished for performing a crime. This is anti-trust. The final solution is one that restores competition in a framework of the consumers that were harmed by the illegal actions of the monopolist.
As long as this case is being decided, MS stock value will remain relative low. Furthermore, MS can't be the predatory shark that they usually are. They have to be a little bit more subtle.
Remember why MS "integrated" the browser into the Windows98. It was to make the previous Jackson ruling non-pertinent.
Re:Five months not so outrageous (Score:1)
breif (Score:1)
new slahsdot pole:
under my pants i wear:
[]briefs
[]shorts(boxers)
[]nothing
[x]bill gates
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Everyone will jump on the anti-MS bandwagon, bu (Score:1)
The MS case is probably the biggest legal decision this court that the tech industry will have for at least a decade. Given that antitrust cases tend to wind on forever, this is still a quick pace.
In a fair court, by a fair judge who listened to months of evidence, and asked questions of both sides (did you follow the case day by day on cnet like I did?) they were found guilty of criminal conduct that violates the laws of this land.
While I'm inclined to agree with the district court's decision, I don't know if we can really characterize the trial as fair. A judge who reads anti-MS books in his spare time? No hearings at all on the penalty? Wow, if this were some guy charged with murder, we'd all be complaining that his rights were violated even if it was obvious he did it.Re:Everyone will jump on the anti-MS bandwagon, bu (Score:1)
Re:I can see it now.. (Score:2)
Re:uhhm what??? (Score:2)
I'm not arguing in favour of a centrally planned economy. Just saying that some parts of it are better managed centrally. More efficient, less duplication. Imagine having 70 different companies vying for your sewer business. The cost of switching providers and the inefficiency of having 70 sets of pipes is ludicrous. The same could be said for many other areas of infrastructure, where the cost of finding a substitute works against any price reductions that competition might bring. This is the famous "barriers to entry" argument about competing operating systems. You ought to know that.
You sound like you're one of the cardboard "right wing" hosts of some CNN news program. You're saying "Oooh -- communist bad, capitalist good" without responding to what I said. I could just respond exactly in kind -- "You're saying that Capitalism is good. Everybody knows that's wrong." Nice try though.
Re:Monopolies are natural (Score:2)
Abusing a monopoly hurts consumers, which is why infrastructure elements like power grids, highways, railways, banks, and other institutions that allow trade and commerce to thrive, should *never* be privately owned. There's lots of other places where commerce and competition provide real consumer benefit without putting people (and the economy) at the mercy of stock markets.
Straight forward factual evidence can show whether or not a corporation is abusing its monopoly, but making them stop abusing it is something much more difficult. In a case like Microsoft's, it may never be possible to stop them without causing injustice (by short-circuiting due process) or economic harm (by hurting Microsoft's shareholders).
On my computers, I can run any number of operating systems, so I fail to see how this can be said to be a natural environment for a monopoly.
Your sample is too small. Your results are skewed in favour of experienced computer users.
Re:Five months not so outrageous (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
2. Linux companies do not necessarily make the telnet et al that are bundled. MS makes all of their pieces (i.e. if they had bundled IE, Netscape, maybe Opera, and set it up so that you could choose whichever one you wanted, they wouldn't be accused of bundling)
3. Sherman & Clayton Acts (approximately 100 years old, it isn't new law).
4. They actively sought to use their monopoly to put competition out of business (Read Findings of Fact). This is what they're accused of, not having a monopoly (which is legal).
want me to continue?
One weak point (Score:2)
At one point in the trial Microsoft testified that 'such and such' was impossible - Judge Jackson went home and tried to perform the action on his computer and found that Microsoft was lying; he was able to do it. He came into court the next day and stated what he had found.
While this sounds like an eminently reasonable thing to do - surely anyone with technical knowledge would likely have done the same thing - it is a violation of 'due process'. Judge Jackson was supposed to rule only on evidence entered at trial not on independent investigation he or anyone else performed outside of the courtroom. The Microsoft lawyers objected but Judge Jackson overruled their objection.
The fact that the judge caught Microsoft lying, even the fact that they were lying is legally irrelevant; remember, the essence of the law is 'straining at gnats while swallowing camels'. This may be the gnat of reversible error on which the ruling against Microsoft is overturned at the appellate level.
In other news... (Score:1)
Axel
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:1)
Yes, he would. Which brings up an interesting point: Judge Jackson placed interim procedural remedies on M$, which he lifted when the Justice Department applied to have the procedure "fast-tracked" to the Supreme Court. Now that the whole mess has been sent back through the normal appeals procedure, shouldn't the procedural remedies be reapplied?
Re:More beauracracy (Score:1)
Also, there are no "multiple levels" of courts between the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court, unless "multiple" is permitted to mean "one." After the District Court -- Jackson's court -- there is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. The end.
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:2)
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:guess what happens in 5 months? (Score:1)
Re:guess what happens in 5 months? (Score:1)
Re:Five months not so outrageous (Score:3)
The standard is not clear error; it is egregious error, error so profound that it violated the Constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. If you have a reference where a court has merely overturned "clear error" in a Finding, I invite you to post it here.
Too late for that (Score:1)
What people don't realize is that suits like these always drag on this long. In that respect, it's more like civil law than criminal law.
Monopolies are natural (Score:1)
We should shit or get off the pot here, folks. Either we accept the fact that monopolies are good for consumers and leave them be, or we nationalize them and get it over with. This twiddling around and bullshit is a waste of time -- someone's got to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes on. Anyone who thinks competition is going to make all the boo-boos better is dumber than a sack of wet diapers.
Consensus makes interoperability possible and monopolies are the most economically efficient way to achieve consensus. The only question is who will own the monopoly. Will the monopoly serve the needs of many or the needs of just a few?
The pursuit of Microsoft by the DOJ is as much an attempt to rescue the tattered legend of the American Entrepreneur as it is to enforce the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what the court's doing: (Score:1)
Re:Fair and Speedy Trial (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
Actually, MS licences a bunch of peices that are included in the OS. It's normally the utilities and codecs though. One example is the "Imaging" program is from WANG. In win2k the degragmentation software is third party too. Hyperterm is probably the most obvious third party peice. In the case of a web browser, opera wasn't around and netscape refused to make a version that could be embedded in an app the way a key peice needs to be in the windows platform. However it would have been cool if there was some form of api standard for being a web browser, such that anyone could have plugged in. Of course on a testing perspective that would have been a nightmare for anyone writting an app that used it,
Re:a five month appeal process? (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
1. Monopoly in law does not mean 100%. MS is a monopoly, so found in Finding of Fact. Look up the history of Sherman & Clayton act, including all previous trials. No one (even Standard Oil) had 100%, and were still found guilty.
2. Despite what you might think, the Supreme Court (who have final say in it) has found that the Sherman & Clayton Acts are constitutional. Don't like it? Get Congress to repeal the Acts. Until then, they're the law of the land. (btw: whether other laws are legal or not isn't the issue, it's whether the Sherman & Clayton Acts are. Nice try at redirection).
3. Regardless of what others do, it's Microsoft on trial, Microsoft that is charged. If you believe others are violating the Sherman & Clayton Acts, talk to the Justice Department.
Re:Here's what the court's doing: (Score:1)
And even in cases where there are both kinds of issues -- constitutional and nonconstitutional -- the Court will try to decide the case by resolving only the nonconstitutional question if it can.
Re:a five month appeal process? (Score:2)
Re:Appeal, appeal, appeal, ... ... ... (Score:1)
Re:Tell me. (Score:1)
Tactical considerations??? (Score:2)
Re:Again... (Score:1)
It's not pointless (Score:1)
Re:Who's calling the shots? (Score:2)
Remember that: no matter what lawyers say, the judges are the ones who are ultimately controlling everything. Judges also have better sense than to hold press conferences during the time when a trial is underway (don't even mention Lance Ito to me; good grief, he was an embarassment to the legal system).
Lawyers serve two purposes. The first is to represent their client's interests in court, and the second is to represent their client's interests outside of court. Every time an attorney gives a press conference, they're going to do everything in their power to convey that their side is the one that's winning in the courtroom, that they're calling all of the shots. The reality is they are both presenting arguments to a judge (or judges, in the case of appellate work), and the judges are the ones who call the shots; and the judges are so good at calling the shots that they only have to call them once, when the verdict is handed down.
During US v Microsoft, Microsoft lawyers were holding daily press conferences saying how much ass they were kicking in the courtroom. It was totally laughable, given how badly they lost, but they still did it anyway. They're attorneys. They represent their client's interests, and it's in their client's interests to look good to the media.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: (Score:2)
Business is Conflict of Interest (Score:2)
Re:O.J. Simpson Trial (Score:3)
I hope so! It would be cool to see live chase of Bill Gates in a white Bronco driving around for hours threatening suicide. Then, after the trial is over he could devote himself to finding "the real monopolist". If
Nicely put (Score:2)
1) They want to look like they are taking it seriously - that's why the coverage has had the number of pages listed ("Wow they really do have a lot to present!")
2) They want to look like they are the mature, responsible ones - if the government comes out spitting on this "reasonable" request - MS look like the adults.
3) The want to perfect the 10 gajillion pages of tripe they are going to dump on the court - if you're gonna dump sewage on someone's doorstep and get away with it - that sewage had better smell pretty good. Either that or run really fast.
4) They want to have grounds for appeal if it goes south again - "We didn't have time to prepare bwah bwah..."
5) They will take any chance they can get for the political climate to change, their product line to change, the industry to change so that it all becomes academic. "But it's all one system - look you can't pull the +class of software here+ out without the whole thing collapsing. The media player is built in to the kernel."
6) They want to change public opinion.
7) Insert your fave conspiracy theory here.
I can't stop thinking of that ruling made against Microsoft in their temp employee case - their press release said they were "reviewing" the judgement. Imagine the luxury of being able to "review" judgements instead of being bound by them like everyone else............
just long enough... (Score:2)
May the highest bidder win! (both/either the
presidency/chance to (not) breakup microsoft)
Let 'em stall. Let 'em win even. But make it COST! (Score:2)
They'll sink faster that way when people want something that doesn't need to run in a 'fridge or set fire to their desks and their wallets.
Meanwhile the lawyers will pick their bones clean and we can all move on to better things.
Re:Five months not so outrageous (Score:2)
Remind us again who all those people were?
--
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:2)
It really doesn't take much analysis. If I got busted for robbing a bank, no one would be surprised if I wanted to stay out of jail for five more months so I could enjoy my reapings, would they?
--
Five months of paper pushing... (Score:2)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Of course! (Score:2)
Who knows - maybe in 10 years, when the Justice department finally gives up, MS will be a huge supported of OSS, just like Big Blue.
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:2)
What exactly is brief about a document that takes 5 months to prepare, and is twice as long as normally allowed?
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:2)
Re:O.J. Simpson Trial (Score:2)
Then I'd give him a TV tuned permanently into the LIFETIME channel, or TNN, or anything that will encourage suicidal thoughts.
Delaying the inevitable? (Score:2)
I propose... (Score:4)
Re:Monopolies are natural (Score:2)
Besides, monopolies only make sense where a choice of providers is very difficult, for example in the case of a rail network, there is generally only one set of track between two adjacent stations. Hence a monopoly is natural here. However in the case the monopoly should be regulated to prevent abuses such as that envisaged above.
Where a choice of providers is possible, I believe that the choice should be encouraged, it generally works out being better for consumers and for the companies themselves (because of the need for training and true innovation to try to keep ahead of the competitors).
On my computers, I can run any number of operating systems, so I fail to see how this can be said to be a natural environment for a monopoly.
Re:I propose... (Score:2)
Re:Five months not so outrageous (Score:2)
Who's Bob Lande? I think CNet will take just about anyone who can sound officious enough =P
For the humour-impaired: that was a joke =P
--
Re:This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:2)
--
Everyone will jump on the anti-MS bandwagon, but.. (Score:2)
Microsoft may be big and greedy, but even the most reprehensible of felons deserves a fair trial. Give Microsoft a fair day in court; you won't regret it later.
That's reasonable (Score:4)
I'm all for a breathing period to pull together reasonable, comprehendible cases if it will lead to an informed decision by the court. Regardless of which way the decision goes, the last thing we want is another vulnerable-to-appeal misfire like Jackson's.
guess what happens in 5 months? (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
5 month BRIEF period, not apeal (Score:2)
Oh and they want yhose briefs to be three tiems teh size normally allowed i na hearing like this.
Can you say Staaaaallll?
Thought you could.
Re: "If I were Microsoft" (Score:2)
The Findings of Fact actually contain some pretty blatant errors, and I would hardly call the government's case technically adept.
However it's also a fault of Microsoft that they did a pretty lousy job at pointing out the technical ineptitude of the government's case.
So I'd really have to say both sides bungled this job.
That you claim it's cut and dry is solely because of your prior bias.
Re: "If I were Microsoft" (Score:2)
Also add to your list perjury. Just about every executive of MS lied under oath and rightly belongs in court on criminal charges. There was also at least one case of evidence tampring if any DA is brave enough to actually enforce the laws.
It's probably all for moot if G.W wins though MS has him in their pockets.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:guess what happens in 5 months? (Score:2)
The one where G.W hasn't raised a 100 million dollars from sleazy big money, where his rich texas buddies are not buying ads suggesting John McCain is in favor of giving breast cancer to women and he routinely does not confuse facts and misprounce words?
Too bad Clinton is not allowed to run again he would whip dubyas ass just like he whipped his daddies ass.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Five Months (Score:2)
Re:Five Months (Score:2)
But however long it took a person would be in jail not carrying on as though nothing had happened.
Re:Again... (Score:2)
Windows being easy to use is a very subjective claim as for managing or understanding. Windows certainly isn't easy at all. It lacks remote access for one thing also documentation is a chargable extra, if it is even available at all.
Re:Again... (Score:2)
Or for that matter any kind of support or been any kind of sysadmin.
It merely has a large market share therefore it's idiosyncracies are more commonly understood.
Or its work arounds or the appropriare rite, such as the "reinstall it all and hope it works"...
Re:uhhm what??? (Score:2)
Also why monopolys tend to be highly regulated.
What I'm left wondering is... (Score:3)
This isn't really "lengthy" (Score:5)
Of course, if the government responds quickly to the Microsoft brief, then the case can be heard sooner rather than later.
Under the circumstances, I do not feel that the government will argue against this. Microsoft's attorneys have been working on a brief for a very long time, and the government won't get to see it until it has been filed with the court. While arguably, Microsoft does not need 60 days, the government will want 60 days to respond.
Also, the idea that Microsoft is delaying the case so that George Bush can get elected and drop the whole matter isn't really critical here. Under ordinary civil procedure rules, the case would not be heard before the appellate court until after the election anyway, and any decision, either for or against Microsoft, is going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the final analysis - I just do not see that this story is indicative of a Secret Microsoft Plot to Rule the World.
Now Microsoft Bob on the other hand - that was just plain evil.
Five months not so outrageous (Score:5)
(There's a colorful bit of caselaw about overturning FoFs: according to caselaw, the sheer magnitude of the error must offend the senses like a three-day-old fish in order for it to be overturned.)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, Judge Jackson gave the government almost everything they could have asked for in his Findings of Fact. He also detailed, at length, the legal reasoning behind each of his findings. Even if the Appellate Court disagrees with Jackson's Findings of Fact (which is very likely), the Appellate Court will not be able to overturn them unless Jackson's FoF fails the three-day-old fish test.
Microsoft's number one job right now is to figure out how to make the FoF fail the fish test. This is going to be an uphill battle for them, and probably doomed to failure.
Then the Findings of Law (FoL) has to be scrutinized. This is where the Appellate Court has the most opportunity to hand it back to Jackson. The Findings of Law are where Jackson says "this is what the law reads, and this is what it means"; the Appellate Court can say "well, Thomas, we like you a lot and all, but you need to talk to your dealer about the purity of your rock." That's going to be Microsoft's second target. Unfortunately, Jackson's FoL was very well researched; this, too, is going to be an uphill battle.
If I were Microsoft, I'd be begging for a full year for the appeal process.
Next, compare this to other large appeals, like the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. That one bounced around the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for the better part of a year. (The TRA involved just about every long-distance carrier in the country, and a lot of the local carriers. While it didn't have the cachet of the Microsoft case, it had a comparable amount of legal wrangling going on in it.) While the TRA appeal lasted a lot longer than people would have liked, it does show that five months for an appeal of a case of this size isn't entirely unreasonable.
The wheels of law move excruciatingly slow; but, on the plus side, they grind things up excruciatingly well.
Finally, keep in mind that this is what Microsoft is requesting. It's not what the government is going to request, nor is it going to be what the appellate court finally grants. The appellate court may well decide to grant more than five months' time; remember, the judges have dozens of other cases to hear as well, and their schedule may be so overfull as to require US v Microsoft to be pushed back.