Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Government Responds To Microsoft's Appeal Process 102

AftanGustur writes: "Just a day after Microsoft proposed a lengthy appeal process, the government has responded. The article has a lot of info on how [such] things are normally carried out. Saying that the government is not at all happy with Microsoft's idea is an understatement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government Responds to Microsofts Appeal Process

Comments Filter:
  • can we assume that 5% of their 56k words are also buggy and/or incorrect?

    I'd bet that its more like 50% or more is buggy and incorrect. Remember that in m$ eyes they have done nothing wrong..heheh

  • Good point. I think it was less of a "free all the information" thing and more of a "I'm incredibly lazy" thing. Another example of why I should not post before lunch. Not enough thinkin' through of things. Thanks, though, for not calling me an idiot (however deserved that moniker might be! )
  • by cluge ( 114877 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @04:10AM (#732621) Homepage
    Here are a few interesting quips from the CNET article

    The government said Microsoft's proposal "is excessive and would delay resolution of this appeal unnecessarily."

    Microsoft's proposal also far exceeds what would be considered standard procedure with the appeals court, say legal experts. "The normal statutory period would be 40, 30 and 15 days," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor at Howard University Law School. "That's what's normal under the federal rules of appellate procedure."

    This begs the following questions : If you make a contract and then break it and are taken to court is the court case thrown out if the other party no longer exists by the time you get through the appeals process?

    If you make many changes AFTER said wrong doing does it change the original charge, and should you not be charged with anything?

    Can your changes be introduced as new evidence in an appeal?

    This is a typical tatic from Microsoft. They got caught doing something wrong, and by using massive delay tatics blunt the prosecution. Technology moves much faster than the court system, and MS has hinted that this case is no longer relevant and should be let go. With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.

    The sad thing is that MS should have taken the higher ground. Large companies like Intel and Cisco to name a few have changed some of their practices that were considered "anti-competitive". They are still large and thriving companies.

    Some of the business practices of MS are the SAME practices that caused many workers to unionize during the industrial age. Long hours with no compensation, lack of insurance etc. Companies like Cisco doesn't hire tons of workers for 364 days and then drop them when it's time to start paying for health insurance. I think that the biggest danger to MS is if it's low level employees unionize. We are in a tight labor market, and a strike of some type would really hurt. Of course that would force MS to start treating it's employees with a modicum of respect.

  • This is what we used to refer to as: "If you can't impress them with facts, baffle them with bullshit."

    You can put a lot of BS in 56,000 words.

    My impression, with the length of appeal period and and size of M$'s brief would be an effort to obscure the truth and the issue, sort of the way someone with a really weak argument drifts the topic over to something they feel more confident with.

    Jackson: You broke the law!

    Gates: We innovated and made the world a better place by integrating every product known to man, including BUBBLESORT.DLL and INFINITELOOP.DLL into Windows.

    It would be innovative of me to rob a liquor store with a bazooka, but I'd still be breaking the law.


    --
    Chief Frog Inspector
  • Yes, don't take it personally. All stress has dissipated. It's pretty much the only reason I come here nowadays, to let off a bit of steam. If I want serious debate, I visit the other site.
  • One further point...as a warning to others: I've found that any time I've bitched about anything on Slashdot I've been in the wrong. Bitching, whining and complaining are usually counterproductive and don't usually add anything to a discourse. A general thanks to all the other /.'s for smacking me whenever I stray. Much appreciated.
  • May I ask which other site? Or am I missing the subtle hint that my input isn't really "ready for prime time"? ;)
  • Is there anything the US government can do that MS can't just say 'bog off' to? If MS refuse to do whatever the government 'tell' them to presumeably they'll have to slap sales embargos on MS products. Watch the global economy take a manic nosedive as noone can update or upgrade their existing NT systems. Then the rest of the world blames the US government for being too restrictive. And then what? War?

    Maybe it won't go that far, but if Microsoft refuses to comply then theres nowt that can be done.
  • That link that was in the story let me thru without any sort of login.. maybe you should try it first before bitching...
  • ...the gov't wants this done before Chri$tma$ whlie m$ wants this to drag on for 5 months. If Bush gets office it's a given the case will disappear.
  • You mean they forgot to integrate BOGOSORT.DLL into the standard Windows libraries?!

    Now I KNOW Microsoft sucks!

  • Why is it that government is stuck on MS software? Why is it that wizzbang Al Gore has not created standard document, spreadsheet and database structures for the federal government instead of letting MS "standardize" everything for them? This is not rocket science. It's bad enough that private industry has been screwed around with changing file formats and all the rest of the upgrade treadmill, but the whole country? Uncle Sam has the size to demand what it wants.
  • I for one find it poetic justice that Microsoft is using this sort of delay tactic against the Clinton administration. After all, that's the same tactic they used to squirm out of all sorts of legal wrongdoing. Delay until no one cares and then say "let's just move on, mmkay?"

  • Or, you could just screw with their data by having *everyone* use the same account...like, say user: anoncoward pw: anoncoward
  • Why is it that government is stuck on MS software?.......Uncle Sam has the size to demand what it wants.

    What you're saying makes sense, but keep in mind that much of the work being done that is 'sensitive' is done by private companies (Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnel Douglas and others).

    These private comapanies must be able to trade files with their privately owned clients as well as their government clients. It's not feasable (technically or probably financially either) for a company to conform to two standards - one for the private world, and another for the government.


    I've grown sick of the world and its people's mindless games
  • The DOJ brief [usdoj.gov] is straightforward. DOJ has most of the case documents [usdoj.gov] online.

    Microsoft is lucky this isn't a criminal antitrust case. The Department of Justice has a press release on one of those this week, titled ADM Executives Resntenced to Serve Additional Jail Time. [usdoj.gov] That's the famous Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing case. Their top executives just got another year in federal prison.

  • Although I would label what Jackson allowed to happen in his court then "bums rush". The trial followed bizarre new interpretations as to how trials are to be held. Including allowing any hearsay evidence dragged in off te street, Jim Barksdale's perjury about being foreclosed, ignoring the recommendations of the "Friend of the Court" Lessig when he said that Microsoft must prevail if the Appeals Court Test is applied. Jackson did not even bother to read about the trial. He just rubber stamps what ever the DOJ put in front of him. It is really too bad because now the trial is finally about to begin in earnest. Everything up to this point has been a farce. Jackson should be disbarred.
  • New evidence can not be introduced in the appeal.

    er, my not-so-informed take was that an appeal would be granted only if there was new evidence to present. I'm sure different judicial levels have different rules though.
  • I think you point out the main reason capitalism isn't working here - most end users don't care or know better than to use MS. i.e. If 70% of users realized the problem with MS then there wouldn't be a problem because they would seek alternatives. Maybe the only way this will be settled is for this discovery to happen naturally?
  • It would make sence to me that Microsoft would need longer briefs than most -- I mean their programmers need way more lines of code to write any app than most software vendors; Maybe their lawyers have the same problem!

    And I'm almost willing to bet, that brief from Microsoft would be filled with useless and uninformative garbage, but would be wrapped in a pretty cover.
    The next generation search engine -- TRY IT!

  • July 4, 1996, I think.
  • MS will assign this task to their engineering team. SO we're assured that it will be 65 million lines of (legal) code.
  • I tried it, and I got:

    Couldn't find your Subscriber ID or Password. Please re-enter them.

    Obviously, they want everyone to have a UNIQUE id so they every individual can be TRACKED! Where are the privacy advocates when you need them?

    --
  • I remember seeing a cartoon, where Godot actually appears saying 'Dont even ask...'
  • Are you sure about that? This info came to light yesterday (Tuesday, Oct. 3). Or are you talking about MS's proposal (Monday Oct. 2)?
  • Actually, they could also do other things like declair it public domain, or refuse to prosecute anyone pirating it. I'm sure there are even much better things they could come up with which m$ wouldn't like.

    M$ breakup would be good for all of us...even those of us who use windows would benifit by a separation of application and os (or marketing and programmers)
  • I'd rather this come to a close much sooner. I think Gates and Jackson should have a dual to settle this thing once and for all. I know that won't happen, so I guess I'll have to watch Gates shoot himself in the foot during the next few months in court.

    Oh well,

    Justin

  • No then we'd just "Blame Canada!"
    Sorry too easy.
    -cpd
  • Mildly Offtopic...

    Anyone else extremely annoyed with the NY Times requiring a login to read their articles? Let us unite, my brethren, and not link to any more NY Times articles until they relent! Together will we crush them or choke their rivers with our dead!

    MorboNixon in 2000
  • Monopolies, probably.

  • With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.

    Better yet would be "If you killed a terminally ill patient (with less than 5 years to live) 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted."

  • But wouldn't that just keep things from getting worse? The last three upgrades have each introduced more problems than they have fixed.

    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • Here is a link [nytimes.com] to the story that doesn't need a login.

  • Yeah, of course. The other site is Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]. On there Slashdot is refered to as the other site, so I thought that if you'd been there you'd get the reference.

    Try it out though.
  • Honestly, what would you expect M$ to do? The remedy that will be imposed will most likely be harsh (deservedly so), so as a company they are in no hurry to receive it. If Bush wins the election and they can delay these proceedings (by whatever means) until >Jan 20, then this antitrust action will disappear.

    This is the only logical tactic that they can employ at this point.
  • These big technology antitrust cases have a way of dragging on until they become moot -- by the time the case gets anywhere, the technology at issue is obsolete. Microsoft obviously hopes that will be the case this time. I think they're probably right -- but they won't profit from the fact.

    I came to this conclusion after reading Secrets and Lies [slashdot.org]. Schneier considers NT to be the most insecure OS possible -- encryption and certificates are password-based (see his comments on "entropy"), the API is horribly bloated, nobody outside of MS has ever reviewed most of the code ... well, I'm preaching to the choir. The point is, nobody who cares about security should use NT on a public network. Period.

    By the way, Scheier also has some nasty things to say about Linux. Not as bad (open source, much smaller API) but bad enough. But I digress.

    Now, consider the extreme size and explosive growth of the Internet. And consider how many ordinary people are deciding they can't live without Internet access. And in a few years, most Internet users will have a high-speed connection.

    Now, Microsoft dominates the desktop, so they seem well positioned to make sure that most of these end-user Internet nodes will be NT, CE, or whatever replaces ME. But millions of insecure nodes is an open invitation to a huge distributed attack. (There's rumor [slashdot.org] that this has already started, but I'm sceptical.) At first, we'll probably just see DDoS attacks against major web sites, like we've seen before but on a bigger scale. But sooner or later, somebody is going to realize that infecting millions of computers gives you access to a huge number of computing cycles. And all of a sudden, a lot of semi-secure systems owned by banks, the military, what have you, are open to brute-force attacks. How much is a complete list of Citibank credit card numbers worth?

    When that happens, having an insecure computer on the Internet will be considered very bad citizenship. It may even be illegal.

    I think we're talking 5 years for this scenario. About how long it will take the courts to handle the final appeal of US vs. Microsoft.

    __________

  • There was a good article on one of the news sites about two weeks ago about how exactly software is catagorized based on security, done by the DoD and a few other organizations. The rankings go from D1 to A2 (worst to best security), and the DoD has mandated that anyone in their employement must use a system that has cleared at least a C1 rating. The only operating system that has been *tested* and cleared for this is NT. MS likes to use this claim to say that it's more secure, but the fact is, no one has taken the inititive to test the other OSes including Solaris and Linux. Therefore, most DoD systems are NT-based. As as the DoD generally gets the largest cut the budget, every other department tends to follow them.

  • The cypherpunk login wont work for me now, did we (tinw) burn it out?
  • There's also login: slashdot2001 PW: slashdot2001

    and the cypherpunks post one every now and then.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @05:43AM (#732658) Homepage Journal
    What can the government actually do?
    Is there anything the US government can do that MS can't just say 'bog off' to? If MS refuse to do whatever the government 'tell' them to presumeably they'll have to slap sales embargos on MS products


    You're way off base here.

    What can the government do if MS just decides to ignore them? They can send federal marshalls in to put chains on the entrances to all MS facilities and pull the plug on their internet and telephone connections. They can declare that the stock is split up into several companies and stockholders will wake up the next day with several baby bills replacing their MS stock in their portfolio, after fining the company down to the last farthing. They can haul Microsoft's corporate officers off to jail.

    This is not going to happen (though 'tis a consumation devoutly to be wished) because if the court does order a breakup MS will comply. They are arrogant, but not stupid. The legal, political and law enforcement establishments will close rank against them if they try anything so brazen, the public and other governments around the world will support them. What they will try to do is to win their case in a more friendly court (best case for them) or to drag this out as long as possible causing as much political damage to their enemies as possible.
  • I know many people who were staunch supporters of Microsoft in this issue. Believing in a free market, they felt that Microsoft had simply outperformed the competition and deserved the rewards for their efforts. The also felt that the case brought against them was a last-ditch effort by fussy childish millionaires to compete with Gates in the only arena they could.

    But as this case has proceeded, much attention has been drawn to Microsoft's lame whining arguments and brutish tactics. These former supporters of Microsoft have questioned their beliefs and envisioned the long-term effects of an entity like Microsoft. They have taken the time to digest some the Open Source litany. Some of them turned completely against Microsoft, fdisked away Windows, and dove head first into Linux et al. Others still use grudgingly still use Windows because they now despise Microsoft but they still see the Windows/Office juggernaut as superior tech for them.

    The longer this trial drags on, the more exposure people in general will get to the ugly side of Microsoft. The longer this trial drags on, the more time Open Source developers will have to create better answers to the question, "if not Microsoft, then what?".
  • ..Microsoft will use Word to produce it's briefs...

    They might as well give up on that and use Wordperfect, now that they own Corel.
    --
  • They've consistently said that there were 10 zillion flaws in the case and they intend to mention every one of them in those 56,000 words (presumably with their innovative legal obfuscation technology).

    I can think of no strategy more certain to lose an appeal. Appellate courts despise shotgun compilations of errors. There are ALWAYS errors at trial, often many of them. The question isn't whether the trial was free from error, but whether a particular error is reversible. If Microsoft hopes to reargue the facts on appeal, it has all but admitted that it lost -- likewise if the thrust of its appeal is the AMOUNT of little errors. Their best shot is a solid, one, two or three-issue appeal, perhaps littered with footnotes to raise subordinate issues.

    But, clearly, I don't represent Microsoft and they alone will decide how they will manage their appeal. After all, they managed their trial so well, who am I to make suggestions.
  • Just noticed this on Cnet [news.com]. I wonder...
  • Is there any consideration by the DoJ that breaking up MS would bring about a world-wide depression? There was a brief put out by MS claiming that very thing; an economic penalty of billions and billions of dollars, not to mention that it would make us vulnerable to foreign attacks.

    Every day MS delays, is what, hundreds of thousands of dollars? Millions? It's not hard to see their rationale. My question is: Why do the folks at DoJ put up with it? I thought they were more hard-headed than that.

    Bluesee
  • Hm. I could be thinking about the proposal.

    Basically I was reading on there, followed a link from some article (one of those 'recent news' type boxes they have down the side) and found out that not only does MS want to drag things on forever, but that the DoJ had a hissyfit over it.

    --
    rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

  • I received an email at one of my throw-away addresses from NY Times confirming the change of email address to another user. c'est la vie
  • Hope the court has a good demoronizer, too.

    --
  • Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. If Microsoft is forced to take an agreement they don't like, they'll simply move to another country. Then won't the Americans be sorry!

    I can't see how Microsoft is a monopoly. There are plenty of other operating systems, word processors, e-mail programs. Hell, they don't even have an instant messenger monopoly! Microsoft is pretty pathetic when you think of it. Forcing them to split up could destroy that fragile company. I mean, think about it, they don't actually even make anything, just imaginary 1's and 0's.

    Whatever happened to American entrepeneurship and free-market capitalism?
    ---

  • Hey, we all have to wait (interminably, daily) for Microsoft.

    Why should the government be special?

  • Gore: I can fix medicare, save the enviroment, and make everyone happy!
    Bush: I can do everything Gore says he can but TWICE as good.

    Microsoft: We think this should take 5 months for a preliminary review, and documents filed by each side should be allowed to be twice as long as the Government wants.
    Government: We think we can wrap this up by Christmas, and documents should be half as long as Microsoft wants.

    With no Dark Side, there is no Light Side.
  • Screw uncertainty. MS shareholders would be better off with two smaller monopolies anyway...

    -Nev
  • How would it be innovative for you to rob a liquor store with a bazooka?

    Normally a handgun or sawed off shotgun is sufficient, not military hardware. The innovation is in using something for a purpose for other than it's original intent.

    OTOH: If you've ever closely examined an Uzi, it's a simple to manufacture gun with a minimum number of parts, very effective for mowing down lots of people very quickly. It was designed and originally manufactured in Israel, draw your own conclusion about that innovation.


    --
    Chief Frog Inspector
  • I'd rather this come to a close much sooner. I think Gates and Jackson should have a dual to settle this thing once and for all.

    Let me give my friend Jerry a call. He has this talkshow...

    Martin

  • I knew about this monday. ZDNet has a DOJ vs MS website at http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/spec ial /msdojendgame.html [zdnet.com] that keeps people who just gotta know up to speed.

    --
    rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
  • Heh...as much as I want to M$ broken up, I realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The lawyers involved are enjoying being in the spotlight too much. So here is what I predict happening:

    The lawyers from the govt & M$ argue for the next 6 months about the appeals process, then they decide on a 5 month appeal process.
  • The appeals court has been looking at this for years. Whoever's timetable they agree to may indicate how they will ultimately find. It's not like any new evidence is going to come up in the appeal.

    -Ben
  • The last I heard the only OS that met the CIA's (not DoD) stringent security requirements out of the box was UNICOS (Cray OS)


    I've grown sick of the world and its people's mindless games
  • Wait for microsoft ? I'm getting sick of waiting for my win2k machine to be up!
  • > I know this is an obvious troll, but I'm bored.

    I dunno, looked like an attempt at a [+1, Funny] to me . . . at least I hope it was.

    The comment states first that " If Microsoft is forced to take an agreement they don't like, they'll simply move to another country. Then won't the Americans be sorry!" and then later "Microsoft is pretty pathetic when you think of it. Forcing them to split up could destroy that fragile company."

    Yup, I'm pretty sure that Americans are always sorry when "pathetic" and "fragile" companies move elsewhere. Personally, if Microsoft packed up and left for (Canada/Mexico/Equador/Tahiti) it wouldn't bother me in the least. I'd be sorry in about the same manner most people are when the paper mill or hog farm down the road packs up and moves to the next county over because your county wants 'em to clean up their act.

    ----
    "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."

  • Replace 'www.nytimes.com' with 'partners.nytimes.com' and watch your login woes flee like cockroaches as the lights turn on.
  • Oh yeah, I can't sleep at night thinking about it. It's terrible isn't it, giving away something for free in electronic form that you normally have to PAY for in paper form. Where do they get off?

    Idiot.
    • Anyone else extremely annoyed with the NY Times requiring a login to read their articles?

    Not me. I'm really happy to have quality NY Times reporting available for free.

    Hey, I think it's a pretty darn clever way of avoiding deep linking. Without something like this, any shmoe could setup an on-line news site which would get all the advantages of NYT reporting for nothing.

    Do people here really feel that information should be so free as to remove all incentive to those who produce it?


    -Jordan Henderson

  • Its Bob Ross, dammit. Happy little tree here, happy little tree there, Bob Ross got that afro hair...

    Bob Ross rules. :o)
  • Wow, how come no-one else has thought of that one?

    Do you even know the comparitive booting times of Win2K and other O/S's?

    Or are you just trying to be funny.
  • I think M$ has the right concept, delay till its no longer important to your average person. Give marketing more time to brainwash the masses into believing that m$ is god and they should worship at thier feet.

    This is a good tactic concidering that the majority of the people don't know any better and really don't care. The longer they get this delayed the more people loose interest and when they hear about it again they wonder why this is still happening.

    The overkill on their documents is to add confusion that adds more delay. I don't know about anyone else, but it would take me a good half year to read and process 56k words. More on the process what its saying but its just another delay tactic.

    Regardless of the outcome its going to take a while. I am actually begining to believe that, unless they actually are charged with some of the blatent violations of the law they are still doing, they will not be broken up. After the appeals court gets done it will go to the supreem court, and that will take a good year or more.

    Basicly, we seem to be stuck with them for a long while yet.

  • Thanks! Y'know I've heard about it peripherally for a while now, but never got around to checking it out. I'm there in 3, 2, 1....

  • Watch the global economy take a manic nosedive as noone can update or upgrade their existing NT systems.

    Or, they could get smart and move to OSS, so they don't have to worry about a single programmer/vendor/nation having a chokehold on a key infrastructure component.


    Your Working Boy,
  • It is strange that Microsoft feels it needs so much time to prepare, or that this case would be so unusual, after going to great lengths to deny the specialness of this case to the Supreme Court.

    No, Microsoft is being consistent here. They've said all along that the case was "too complicated" for the Supreme Court to handle (how insulting!). They've consistently said that there were 10 zillion flaws in the case and they intend to mention every one of them in those 56,000 words (presumably with their innovative legal obfuscation technology).

  • Amazing! Even Microsoft's legal briefs suffer from bloat!

    Maybe they should be running MS Legal Lite!


    Viv
    -----------
    I Use Napster. I use DeCSS. I buy over $1000 a year in CD/DVDs.
  • The show DATELINE recently did a feature about the ADM whistleblower. The parallels really struck me, considering how otherwise unrelated the cases seem...

    The negotiators for competing companies, holding the world supply of Lysine, were to meet in Hawaii to forge their collusion. They laughed openly at the irony of the situation:

    • These competitors, by enforcing high prices, had become great friends, (Could this now be true of Apple and Corel?)
    • The customers were instead regarded as "the enemy."
    This adversarial stance now seems consistant with Microsoft, in their EULAs and registration obstacles, in their "customer service," and in all their legal attempts to leverage an unfair advantage. It's not a hot war of bombs and missles... It's a cold war where the casualties and compromises are discretely pressured.

    - Twisty

    Active Desktop is proud to announce that we at Microsoft LOST YOUR COMPUTER SETTINGS once again. Click here [microsoft.com] if you like us to recover that which you cherish. Otherwise, just do nothing, and you'll be saving us the work that we should otherwise assume you desire of us.

  • Saying that the government is not at all happy with Microsoft's idea is an understatement

    Well... that really suprised me.... NOT. This case has 2 sides: MS (A) and the US Gov (B). If (A) does something, (B) is against it and vice versa. That has been the case (pun intended) in this whole trial.

    Both sides should work things out to get an agreement (settlement) as Jackson also suggested. However, if either side does a proposal, the other side is against it, doesn't like it and rejects it, most of the time for reasons not clear to any living soul.

    The first round was for the US Gov. The second round will probably for MS. Now that are some scores the world can build on! Get a life, (A) and (B) and settle this crap, so the rest of the world can go on with their daily work.
    --

  • Technology moves much faster than the court system, and MS has hinted that this case is no longer relevant and should be let go. With this logic if you killed somone 5 years ago you shouldn't be prosecuted.

    Your analogy doesn't hold. Antitrust laws aren't about punishment; they're about restoring competition. As much as /. readers may want to see someone put the hurt on MS, this trial isn't where that happens. The goal of an antitrust penalty is to make the market competitive again. If the market becomes competitive during the appeals process, then MS wins by default. There is no value to any attempts to "restore" competition where it already exists, and even if their past actions are ultimately condemned by SCOTUS, there will still be no penalty.


  • Remember the AT&T breakup? After years of wrangling, they got exactly what they wanted, the jettison of local phone service and the retention of long distance.

    The IBM case went on for over a decade. Despite occasional appearances, scandals, and when it all boils down, we're still largely (and thankfully) a nation of Law.
  • 56k is very brief when its your connection speed :)
  • by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @08:47AM (#732694) Homepage Journal
    According to this wire story [yahoo.com].

    Bob Brammer, a spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General, said. "We are full partners and have full status as plaintiffs in the case, and we will continue the case."

    Regarding M$ attempt to extend the appeals process, the CT AG said "Prolonging the (appeals) process creates additional cost, uncertainty and harm to consumers."

  • Can your changes be introduced as new evidence in an appeal?

    Absolutely not. New evidence can not be introduced in the appeal. There are exceptions, e.g. DNA evidence in a murder appeal, but they are rare.

    FYI: IANAL
  • 1. Microsoft Delays
    2. Bush gets elected as Prez
    3. Bush chooses new Supreme Court Justices
    4. The delay is running out, so Microsoft bubbles up to the (new) Supreme Court, to be met by a (new) system that it bought
    5. Microsoft gets a slap on the wrist
    6. Continue to answer the question "Where are we going to find rubber pants our size?"
  • Necropuppy,

    That is funniest goddamn .sig I have seen in weeks. Putting it in a thread about the M$ appeals effort is just brilliant 8).

    And now back to our regularly scheduled M$ bashing.....

  • Why whine about the lawyers. If theyh keep on dragging this out we might be lucky enough that they'll bankrupt MS.

    Do I smell a conspiracy coming on?
    Come see my website.
    http://come.to/streiff
  • by Rasvar ( 35511 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @03:57AM (#732699)
    This thing reminds me of the old show, Name that Tune.

    MS: We can name that legal issue in 56,000 words.

    DOJ: We can name that legal issue in 24,000 words.

    MS: We can name that legal issue in 40,000 words.

    DOJ: Wait a minute, you are suppose to go lower than us!

    MS files another appeal with the judges to study the matter!

  • looks like they lawyers write bloated just like their programmers :)

    can we assume that 5% of their 56k words are also buggy and/or incorrect?

  • by NecroPuppy ( 222648 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @03:59AM (#732701) Homepage
    ...Microsoft will use Word to produce it's briefs... I just wonder if they fixed that 'feature' in the word count where it didn't count the footnotes/endnotes.

    I remember seeing an article a while back about this, and how one Appeals circut court said briefs couldn't be filed if they were written with Word because of said incorrectness of the word count.

    Apparantly, those judges are right anal about how long legal briefs can be; supposedly they've rejected briefs that were one word over...

    NecroPuppy
    ---
    Godot called. He said he'd be late.
  • Even if the company were to "move" to another country if they still want to do business here in the US they will have to have be incorporated in some way in the US. Hence the government can still stick it to them unless they completely pull out of the US market. Since that isn't going to happen, your arguement is meaningless.
  • In this case, they are leaving people alone. They should not leave buinsess alone though.
  • by Erk ( 17215 )
    The one thing that I find amusing is that M$ is proposing 56,000 word briefs. I mean, c'mon! I doubt that there are 56,000 words that can be said about this!

    "Bill Gates is good. Bill Gates did nothing wrong. You like Microsoft."

    I mean it's garbage. Utter garbage. And to think of the dead trees! To quote the painter-guy-with-a-fro: "Little Happy Trees".
  • Since when is 56k words brief?

    Come see my website.
    http://come.to/streiff
  • ...they still want to do business here in the US they will have to have be incorporated in some way in the US.

    Let's also not forget that the US government is the largest software customer in the world (of all the money spent on software in the world, the US government spends ~50% of it). Let's also not forget that the US government is stuck on Microsoft products (like the rest of the world), so they have to keep buying the latest versions (like the rest of the world) in order to maintain support.

    If MS were to move out of the country the government would be forced (by its own laws and regulations) to remove MS products from any computer that stores 'sensitive' information (Word97 is a US Military standard) since the product would then be foreign made. And, frankly, if you're going to remove a product from these computers, you should remove it from the rest as well to maintain compatibility.

    MS is not going to move away from its biggest customer.


    I've grown sick of the world and its people's mindless games
  • Thank for the tip. I'll do that. So, it's possible for folks here to link to partners instead? That'd be ideal (for lazy people like myself).

    Thanks.
  • If you are like me and HATE registering, use slashuser0, pw: slashuser0.
  • doesn't work for me. I thought someone mentioned that they locked that down a long time ago. I just don't read NYT stories - that login page is dumb.
  • I know that my my win2k machine boots slower then my linux machine, with the same hw execpt the linux box has a 150Mhz slower processor. It also loads more software.
  • I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. I usually read the Washington Post online and they don't seem to need to have you create a profile for yourself in order to read their free reporting. I understand that NY Times probably uses the information gathered from these profiles as a means of support (i.e., selling the info. to advertisers). Perhaps this could be done less intrusively with cookies? Well, anyway, I'm sorry that you were upset by the post. I hope any built up stress has since dissipated...
  • Sadly, Bob Ross no longer rules (but he did rule!). He passed away July 4th [virtualave.net].
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • That is funniest goddamn .sig I have seen in weeks. Putting it in a thread about the M$ appeals effort is just brilliant 8).
    Wait for me.
    -Godot

    --

  • Is there anything the US government can do that MS can't just say 'bog off' to?

    If it so chooses the US government can disolve MS in a second. The concept of corporations as "people" is simply one that government came up with.
  • by mpe ( 36238 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @10:38AM (#732716)
    If Microsoft is forced to take an agreement they don't like, they'll simply move to another country. Then won't the Americans be sorry!

    Unless they were to choose China they might as well give up. The moment they cease to be a US company it won't be the DOJ who will be after them it will be (at best) the CIA.
  • by Rurik ( 113882 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @04:01AM (#732717)
    I know this is an obvious troll, but I'm bored.

    I can't see how Microsoft is a monopoly. There are plenty of other operating systems, word processors, e-mail programs. Hell, they don't even have an instant messenger monopoly!

    First of all, it is a monopoly. Everyone knows that, everyone knew it, and everyone's fine with it. You're allowed to have monopolies in this country. The law allows it. What the law doesn't allow for (which the entire case is about, if you were following along?) is using your monopoly in one field to create a monopoly in another field. In Microsoft's case, they were using their Operating System monopoly (which is fine and good) to create a web browser monopoly.

    Now, if they created a web browser monopoly through fair business practices, there would be no problem. If they just bided their time, and let Netscape vs. IE war on, until one was the winner, that'd be no problem. But once you start pushing your product to people, and not give them a choice, is when the DOJ steps in, and we have what we had here today (which is the way He wants it ... and well, He gets it!)
  • Whatever happened to American entrepeneurship and free-market capitalism?

    It's in hiding, because if you do anything that competes with MS, you can't get VC, and you are likely to get squished like an annoying bug.

    To make it worse, MS uses it's monopoly power to leverage it's way into new market segments and create monopolies there.
  • by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2000 @04:05AM (#732720) Journal
    The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth in great detail the timetables for filing notices of appeal, serving demands for records, filing of initial, answer and reply briefs -- the whole smack. They spell out page limits to the word length (and no special treatment is made for the bug in Word that doesn't count words in footnotes).

    While the Court may vary the rules on motion of the parties, such motions are highly disfavored, even when they are joinly made by the parties, and are generally denied.

    It is strange that Microsoft feels it needs so much time to prepare, or that this case would be so unusual, after going to great lengths to deny the specialness of this case to the Supreme Court.

If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein

Working...