Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Microsoft Appeal Schedule Set 86

Quite a few people have submitted the the information that the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case has had its schedule set. Nov. 27 is the deadline for a submittal of MS's brief, which will be limited to 150 pages. The Justice Dept has until Jan 12, 2001 with 125 pages. can read the rest.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Appeal Schedule Set

Comments Filter:
  • Oops, make that 150 pages. (I knew I saw 125 somewhere...)
  • Some legal documents require bizarrely nonstandard paper sizes which means you need to diddle your margins in Word

    Which is why most legal offices still use WordPerfect. Note the file format that the DOJ has used. Yep, WP.

    Also, I've heard that Word dosn't count the words in a brief the same way that WP (and the courts do). Something about not counting the words in footnotes which *do* count for legal brief lengths.

    Wouldn't it be ironic if MS submitted an overly long brief because they made the lawyers use Word?
  • I find it interesting that the court ordered all briefs to also be filed on CDROM in PDF format with Hyperlinks.
  • I dont think so. You are wrong, I believe.

    Most OEM CD's I have seen (worked with dozens so far) will only recover a pre-loaded version of Win2k... the CD cannot generally be used for a 'clean' install...

    Some OEMS now have taken to limiting the CD to only recover with the orignal hardware (motherboard detection scripts, i believe). So you cant restore a Compaq image to a mom-and-pop machine.

    Microsoft is not counting on repurhasing - but the license now states that you cant transfer from one machine to another. If you buy Win2k with a machine now, and later upgrade to Whistler or Win2k+1, then you pretty much lose the Win2k license - you cant install it on another box, that has, say Win95 on it.

    Its not a fun idea, or a ggood practive in my opinion, but I dont think its illegal or wrong. People can look at the situation, asses the costs and risks of Win2k, and choose it or not. They are by no means limited to only Win2k or Microsoft products.

    So why get the DOJ or government involved in what most consumers with a brain can clearly see is a scam, albiet a legal scam?

  • Seriously, the court has standards about such things. Pica, double spaced, 1.5" margins, etc. This might have been relaxed a bit for desktop publishing realities, but I'm quite certain the 1-point type is right out.
  • It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?

    post the original on slashdot, browse at -1, copy, paste

  • Didn't the proxy say that it's already publically itemizied, and this would just be a silly duplication of effort?

    What am I missing here?
  • Umm..

    Why shouldnt Bush take contributions from Microsoft employees? Are they not citizens and voters? Cant they express their opinion? You make it seem very sinister that MS employes are donating money to GWB!

    I think the government is on the wrong side here - MS is a big bad company - but really now, which OS are you using? Slashdot is a perfect place for people to realize there are alternatives. I have friends who have been MS free for YEARS. Me? I use MS products because I choose them. Not because they are forced on me.

  • The states sued separately from the U.S. Gov. Why should they have any effect on how much the US Gov gets to say? Am I missing something?

    Well, the states wanted in on the DOJ's case, filed briefs in the original case, and forced Microsoft to settle with *them* and the DOJ -- not just the DOJ.

    According to my sources, and public statements from the DOJ, Posner and Microsoft, if the States hadn't been there, a settlement *would* have been reached.

    However, they were there, and because of that, they're part of the DOJ's 'team'. So their briefs become a part of the DOJ's brief.

  • Had to play the devil's advocate, sorry. =)

    That's called trolling on slashdot, and it's not allowed.

  • 640K ought to be enough for anybody's brief.
  • No really? Obviously HTTP is an update-by-request protocol. You have displayed your profound ability to be the Master of the Obvious. I want to know of any timed-update programs that integrate into Windows NT 4.0 in a fashionable way, fully customizable and equipped with a sound alert. But because my application for a brain is still in HR processing I didn't realize how futile an attempt is asking for help on the slashdot/nerd/geek haven of information bigotry.

    The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.

  • Somebody mod this guy UP... This is the most intelegent post I have seen on /. in a long time.
  • by Veteran ( 203989 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @10:20AM (#714326)
    Redmond WA Microsoft (msft) today announced that the number of people working on Appeal (V2.0) had been doubled due to production problems.

    Although the original spec for the project called for 150 pages, Microsoft announced that they had decided to delay release by an additional 3 months to allow the increased staff to deliver a 450 page product. The new projected release date for Appeal (v2.0) would be February 27th 2001.

    A Microsoft spokesman said "We didn't feel that we could do a very good job on the product in only 150 pages, so we decided to push the release date back from the original end of November target to the end of February next year. We believe that we can include considerably more functionality in Appeal (V2.0) in 450 pages than we could if we limited ourselves to the original target."

    Microsoft also pre announced Appeal (V3.0) which spokesman said "would be over 3000 pages - a considerable increase." One source close to the Appeal (v3.0) team said that over 1000 pages of Appeal (V3.0) would be a reprint of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged with the "John Galt" character name being changed to "Bill Gates".

    Mr. Gates said he was pleased with the progress on Appeal (V3.0), which he said could "revolutionize the legal industry". He strongly hinted that Appeal (V2.0) was a "stopgap" release, and that Appeal (V3.0) would be the release everyone should wait for.

  • >But might it be possible that if Gore is elected, that we continue to have serious problems in the mideast - like the escalation in violence and OPEC posturing (as well as Hussein's posturing) we've seen over the past 3 months?Might it be possible that they (the Palestinians, Saudis, and Iraqis) don't want Leiberman in the White House?

    Please clarify your statements here a bit more. Are you suggesting we should give in to terrorist pressure and not vote for Leiberman because he is Jewish, and a foreign muslim community doesn't want him in office?
  • So if I post an opinion different from that of the majority of slashdotters, I'm a troll? How does that attitude promote open debate? If everyone is expected to conform to the anti-Microsoft orthodoxy, what's the point of even having a discussion system? Why not just incorporate the official slashdot line into the text of the story and forget about any messy discussions or disagreements?

    The link you gave seems to be just a picture of the front cover. I'm not about to go out and buy the magazine just to refute your post. Besides, I doubt it talks in detail about the economics or history of antitrust law, which is what I'm most interested in.

    Hint: it does not apply when two products have always been sold together.

    I.E. has pretty much always been bundled with Windows. And Apple *has* sold hardware without Mac OS (A/UX, for example) and Mac OS without hardware (cloners) I don't see a difference.

    Besides, why should that distinction be legally relevant? Are you saying that Microsoft would have been just fine if they had chosen to integrate IE into Windows from the start rather than allowing it to be downloaded separately?

    In any event, the purpose of a forum like this is to discuss ideas. I'm sure others have hashed out most of the arguments on both sides elsewhere, but if slashdot participants don't have the opportunity to peruse those materials online it doesn't contribute much to the discussion. If the Wired article does such a good job of refuting the points I made, then surely you can briefly sumarrize those refutations for me.
  • If that happened, you'd realize how they bought off all the politicians

    As opposed to Netscape and Sun, who lobbied like hell to get the DOJ to go after them? I don't like lobbyists, but Microsoft would be foolish to ignore the government now that it has shown that it's not willing to stand by and let the free market take its course. If Microsoft's competitors are willing to use the law to beat them, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire?

    Microsoft was largely apolitical prior to the antitrust case. They believed that they could focus on their products and not worry about political lobbying. The antitrust case proved them wrong, and has prompted them to spend extra to make up lost ground. So they buy up representatives.

    One of the biggest costs of the antitrust case may be the politicization of our industry. The Federal government is a 600-poung gorilla. Once it gets involved in high tech, it's not going to leave. And it's a far greater threat to innovation that Microsoft could possibly be.

    So even if Microsoft did do some sleazy things, it's far more important that the computer business remain unpoliticized than that we get a futile breakup. The more companies use the law to win after losing in the marketplace, the more we will come to resemble every other industry, in which those with the most money have the most influence, and innovation and small businesses are squashed.
  • ... that's the reason they are in court!

  • You are almost right, but ibm did not really support gates that much. -Msdos: Bill stole dos for IBM(ibm-dos) and then wrote his own dos(ms-dos) as well. -Windows: windows was stolen from Xerox, who wanted to design a new interface for their copiers. Never to be released xerox basically gave this away(they said to the developpers that it was not usable). Sorry to correct you, your point is offcourse correct.
  • It's likely not possible. Lawyers are among the hardest people to satisfy, typogrpahically. When you submit a brief, it has to be on a certain size of paper, with certain margins and a certain point size and spacing. Anything not up to spec will be summarily rejected just as if it were hand-written on college-ruled notebook paper. Some legal documents require bizarrely nonstandard paper sizes which means you need to diddle your margins in Word and then make heavy use of a paper cutter. IANAL, and my father isn't either, but he's filed enough documents in his day to run into some of the strange technical vagaries of the judicial system.
  • Offtopic, but click here [] to see the article slashdot didn't want you to see (it was up on the main page today for approximately 5 minutes).
  • I'm not sure, but it looks somewhat like the court gave Microsoft what the feds requested for MS, while it gave the feds what MS requested for them. In the process, MS ends up on the short end. A subtle way for the court to tell MS not to play games?
  • by Benjamin Shniper ( 24107 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @07:59AM (#714335) Homepage
    Federal Judges are appointed by the President, as are supreme court justices. It probably matters who you vote for, as GWB has accepted campaign
    contributions from microsoft employees (and opposed litigation sometimes. A consultant for him worked at M$) .html

    while Gore spoke AT Microsoft in FAVOUR of litigaton: tm

    In other words, those who are looking for government to give M$ a well deserved slapdown are going to be better supporting Gore.


    P.S. I don't like public health programs and the current Social Security laws. I'm still voting for Bush.
  • The states sued separately from the U.S. Gov. Why should they have any effect on how much the US Gov gets to say? Am I missing something? (My comments generally make more sense after consuming large quantities of 'shrooms. LSD and particularly bad weed has been known to produce similar results.)

  • How is this article the least bit interesting. Everyone who does not live in a cave knows about the Microsoft trial, and the link goes to a 1/2 page story with almost no information. There's really nothing to *discuss* in this story.

    I'm starting to think the /. crew is intentionally posting lame stories to keep the trolls amused.

  • by WillSeattle ( 239206 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @08:01AM (#714338) Homepage
    Ms believes that it is above the law.

    Well, as a shareholder in MSFT, of course they do. Heck, they're trying to defeat a shareholder proposal to require them to itemize all their campaign contributions. If that happened, you'd realize how they bought off all the politicians and why they want to drag it on as long as possible, so that they can get their congressmen to kill actions against them.

    The law is only for the poor and the middle class. Didn't you learn anything from OJ's trial?

  • Sorry friend.. but two years, or three years, or even four years is not a long time in the court rooms of America. From start to finish, 4 yrs is nothing. Ten, twelve, and more years - thats getting long. My dad was a laywer in NJ - he was involved in ligitation with insurance companies that lasted the better part of 5-6 years. Those were small cases (verdicts of about 1-2 million). MS case is by no means any type of record. IF final action is taken by 2002 it would be closer to a record for the shortest anti-trust breakup, not the longest.

  • WHAT WordPerfect? How can that be! Word is the standard because it was forced down the throat of the world by the evil MS monopoly! WHAT? How could some one else be using another product?

    Oh, I forgot. People have *choice*. Calm down. I almost forgot about choice - that would have been a damn shame.

  • by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <> on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @08:48AM (#714341) Homepage
    You know, I really dont think M$ should be broken up, in all honesty, they did what they did on their own, they started from scratch and built an electronic empire.

    I'm a opensource-ish kind of follower, yeah, but, let opensource dominate microsoft fairly, as it will in time.

    Yeah, but they built that empire in part by using their monopoly power illegally. Remember that Microsoft isn't being broken up because it's a monopoly. It's being broken up because it used it's monopoly power in restraint of free trade by, for instance, setting pricing policies that essentially required companies to pay Microsoft even when they didn't install a Microsoft OS. It's great that Free Software may eventually be able to beat Microsoft by competing fairly, but that day's going to come a lot sooner if MS is forced to compete fairly, too.

  • I'm for Gore, but let's not be silly -- both sides INCLUDING Democrats -- have accepted contributions from Microsoft. As Bill Gates has said, this case will be resolved in the legal system and people should vote their conscience.
  • From, the same transcript:

    GWB: ...I talked to my little brother, Jeb -- I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of -- I shouldn't call him my little brother -- my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas...

    JIM LEHRER: Florida.

    GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida. The night before...

    I guess he meant it when he said "I know I'm ready for the job, but if not, that's just the way it goes".
  • Microsoft is excercizing its rights under the law. They have every right to mount a vigorous defense of the actions.

    Personally, I don't blame them. Antitrust law is so vague and fluid that there's pretty much no way they could obey it and still be competitive. Antitrust law is continually twisted to fit the circumstances of whoever the current victims are. The defendent is then asked to come in and prove that they didn't do things that weren't considered crimes when they did them.

    Antitrust law applies a new set of rules to companies once they cross a magic threshhold into the realm of "monopoly." There is no clear definition of what constitutes a monopoly, and in practice the determination is entirely determined by what the judge determines is the "relevant market," for which there are no clear or consistent guidelines.

    Microsoft hasn't done anything that other companies haven't done many times before. Apple, for example, clearly has a monopoly on operating systems for PowerPC computers. Not only that, but they have a monopoly on Mac OS hardware as well. In other words, they are "tying" their hardware to their software. How is that any diferent from what Microsoft is doing?

    The only difference I can see is that Microsoft has a larger market share. This seems to me a ridiculous basis on which to make law. Equality before the law is fundamental to our system of justice, and I see no reason why a large company should be held to a different set of rules than small companies are.

    Antitrust law should be repealed. They are arbitrary, over-reaching, and vague. They change with every company, court, and prosecutor. And ultimately they serve only to protect incompetent companies from more capable competition. This can be seen in all the major antitrust cases-- Brown shoe, Standard Oil, Alcoa, etc. Market forces will inevitably erode monopolies that are inefficient. No government intervention is needed, and in practice it only makes things worse.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @10:42AM (#714345)

    Both sides are trying to both appear neutral (so as to not to be seen as interfering in legal matters) and at the same time trying to attract\reassure voters with a few hints.

    For example, Al shows up on Microsoft's campus, declares that he can't talk about the case and then proceeds to talk about how big businesses who abuse their monopoly power should be stopped. Heck, even Bill Gates would have agree'd with what he said literally but when he said it in the context of a visit to Microsoft it comes off as support for Reno and the DOJ.

    With George he says almost the same thing, "big businesses who abuse their power, blah, blah, blah..." but then says on PBS "I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America". Microsoft, innovative??? Hmm...

    Of course, what both these guys are trying to say is "I agree with whatever you believe - please just vote for me" and has little (or nothing) to do with what they'll actually do should they get elected. That's politics folks.

  • does that date take into account the amount of time it takes to deal with M$ Word's "features" while preparing briefs?

  • It was just a simple question on what power the president actually has over cases pending in the DOJ.

    Thanks for the wasted moderation point.


  • With all the delaying and appealing that MS will be doing in the months to come, this process will take years before it produces any kind of outcome that will benefit/impact any consumer....

    So all of us Windows 2158 users will not be forced to use an operating system that has Internet Explorer 27.1 integrated? Go, go, DOJ.

  • by EricEldred ( 175470 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @11:18AM (#714349) Homepage

    Larry Lessig presented oral arguments before the same court on Thursday, in Eldred v. Reno.

    I sat in the front row and was impressed by the court's computer network that allowed judges to send messages back and forth to their law clerks, who sat to the side. Judge Douglas Ginsburg used his frequently, but the other judges didn't have laptops before them.

    Larry was close enough to notice that the laptops were all Apple Powerbooks. Microsoft will have an interesting time there!

    The 1999 annual report of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals includes a lot of information about the technological revolution in that court. See the PDF file [].

    This ought to show that this circuit court can handle advanced technological arguments and information and that there is no need for special courts for computer-related cases. I would have liked to have seen the case go directly to the Supreme Court for answers to some important points of law, but I for one feel this court can render a fair verdict and make the higher court's job easier.

  • Didn't the proxy say that it's already publically itemizied

    Oh, c'mon, do you really believe everything you read in the proxy? Boards never want you to vote for shareholder proposals.

  • Yes, the poll _would_ look like that. Possibly just a, b, and c ;)

    However, everything else you're talking is nonsense. Microsoft is not profitable in its core business- it is running a pyramid scheme on its stock valuation and literally makes more money issuing its own stock than it does on sales of its own products. Pyramid schemes are of questionable value, because they always crash in the end, perpetual geometric growth being impossible. And finally, it's hardly been decided on a whim, that is absurd: read the Findings of Fact and consider that the judicial system took months to figure out that statement of the situation, starting with someone (Jackson) so unbiased that he didn't even understand the tech details and learned them through the course of the case (I suppose it would be better if the judge was a Debian hacker? No, wait, how about an MCSE? _That_ would be unbiased eh?).

    Face it, the ruling for breakup was fair, reasoned, sensible, measured, and the only reason it's in question now is because Microsoft lawyers will (in violation of lawyer ethics?) practice a 'screaming baby tantrum' method of their craft, in which they don't care the slightest for the truth of the situation (that is surely obvious to them) but will practice their _craft_ on behalf of their client right over the edge of falsification, nonsense and obstruction of justice. They will claim _anything_ that will obstruct the guilty verdict, and are. It's the legal version of the same practices that dragged MS into court repeatedly.

    The legal process may only _appear_ to mirror MSFT's wish for an outcome. It's had to deal with this sort of psychotic legal advocacy before, and understandably, the course through wild baseless accusations of unfairness and vigilanteism is not to rush out a verdict, but to drop into low gear and crank on the torque- OF COURSE things slowed down, OF COURSE they sort of spilt the difference between the DOJ's demand for normal procedure and MSFT's wild insistence on four times the normal resources. This is _procedure_ not outcome. It's the same thing as Jackson's splitting his decision into findings of fact (wildly unlikely to be overruled because they do not _come_ with results) and findings of law (which of course are being appealed until MS lawyers are blue in the face). In this case, the decision to allow absurdly long times for the appeal and expanded resources- just as if it were a retrial but with the FoF still admissible- is another cornerstone in the eventual thrashing MS will be getting at the hands of the Supreme Court, because the bottom line is- Courts are not terribly impressed with wild baseless contempt for their decisions. MS going through judges like a wood-chipper is NOT REALLY HELPFUL to them- because judges are aware of what happened to previous judges, as Jackson was with Sporkin, and it makes them dig in their heels, focus on the hard core of legal justice, and to build their responses in such a way that the out-of-control defendant has little leeway to cause more damage, as Jackson did with the FoF.

    The slower the wheels of justice turn, the more finely they will grind. Microsoft seems to not understand this- and they are setting themselves up, and the economy at large up, for a very nasty fall. Imagine, _after_ .NET gets shoehorned into every area of net commerce, _after_ MSFT illegally seizes control of world communications and most of the IT functions of most governments, having them get brutally broken up by the Supreme Court! I am afraid the Supremes take legal process pretty seriously- the idea of them being 'bought' is stupid, and even if they fumbled things this time MS would only get sued _again_ and inevitably either MS _becomes_ the government or gets broken by the government for rampant contempt for the law- there's no middle ground, just a delaying of one or the other outcome.

    Talk about messy, furrfu.

  • ...fight the power...
  • Will this have any effect on Microsoft? No. Ms believes that it is above the law.

    The Microsoft Pyramid Scheme Continues []

  • by 11223 ( 201561 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @07:45AM (#714354)
    I can hear the judge now: One point type? I didn't even know Windows allowed one point type.

    So that's why Epson just came out with a 2880x720 dpi printer....

  • At least the playing field is fair, DOJ gets twice as much time to prepare. =)
  • both due on Nov 27

    The article didn't say that. See below.

    The appeals court ordered Microsoft to file its first brief, of 150 pages, on Nov. 27. The U.S. government gets 125 pages to reply

    It doesn't say when the government's reply must be in, but I would guess it is not Nov. 27. How can you write a 125 page reply to something the same day you see it?

    Anyone have an actual date for the gov. reply?

  • Would that by any chance be related to the identical article that's sitting on the main page right now?
  • Well, breaking up one of the most valuable and profitable companies in the United States shouldn't be something that's done on a whim. If it were decided on Slashdot it would be a poll resembling:

    "After reviewing all the evidence, do you think Microsoft should be broken up?"
    a) Yes
    b) No
    c) CowboyNeal.
  • by Masem ( 1171 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @08:06AM (#714359)
    Because this means that there will be a change in President by the time the trial actually starts, MS might have gained another advantage (in addition to the one of having the appealate court take the case before the SC). While obviously Dubya will want to try to remove the case, Gore has hinted at stopping the nonsense as well (not because he's pro-Microsoft, but more laisse-faire). Only the third party candidates seems interested in chasing the issue, and they have little chance. So new Prez may nudge the DOJ into dropping the case, which could be a major vicitor for BillG.

    However, remember that there are 19 states still following this up, and the new Prez can't tell them to drop it. Yes, without DOJ support, the states' case have a bit tougher time of winning, but they've already gotten past the key issue ( the finding of facts) with the DOJ's help.

    Another thing in BillG's favor is that there's suggestions that the appealate court might send the case back to the federal level, with the stipulation that Judge Jackson cannot preside over it because of bias he stated in interviews after the trial (and during the trial if rumors are right). Mind you, a new judge could be worse for MS, but I think they'd take their chance with that.

    But of course, MS wins mainly because we are now looking at any resolution to this (after appeals and SC hearings) no earlier than Q4, 2001, approximately the scheduled release of .NET. And if Win95 with IE was a problem, .NET would be even worse, and asking MS to halt the use of .NET would be like telling Napster to shut down -- they *could* claim they will go out of business with any unfavorable/breakup/C&D ruling, and most likely, we'll end up with another slap on the wrist case. The DOJ and others need to put pressure on the court system to speed this case up to still allow it to be fair, but to make sure that MS 'innovation' doesn't suck in too many ppl when the ruling is handed down.

  • Actually the the new President will have been elected by then, but he doesn't take office until some time in mid-January. There won't be any shake-ups at DOJ until after that.

  • If I read the article correctly, it is actually very fair. MS has X amount of time to prepare a statement, and then DOJ has an equal amount of time to respond (but fewer pages). MS then has the oportunity to respond to the DOJ response.
  • Everyone predicted that Reagan would axe the anti-trust case against
    AT&T when he took office. He didn't interfere. My guess is that,
    unless the candidates make a pre-election commitment to axing the
    current case, they will have more to lose by interfering than by
    leaving the case to take its course.
  • I understand that this is total flamebait and offtopic (moderators do your worst). But you brought politics into this discussion (what was this one about anyway?)

    But might it be possible that if Gore is elected, that we continue to have serious problems in the mideast - like the escalation in violence and OPEC posturing (as well as Hussein's posturing) we've seen over the past 3 months?

    Might it be possible that they (the Palestinians, Saudis, and Iraqis) don't want Leiberman in the White House? Or might it be possible that Bush wouldn't be broken-hearted to see oil at $50-$100/bbl, seeing as how he has seriously heavy-duty ties to domestic oil interests?

    Again, I blame the morons who didn't vote for McCain. You're to blame. And we're all going to be paying the price for the next 50 years.
  • This was a parody of Heston's anti-gun control, pro-Bush TV commercial running in some states. Charlton holds a rifle in the air while delivering these lines. Charlton's demeanor as a mean and scary old man enhances the effect. It is truely one of the Halloween season political commercials no matter what side of gun control you are on. If you are pro-NRA, Clinton-Gore-Reno is the monster. If you are anti-NRA, Heston is rather threatening.

    I could imagine Gates holding a Windows CDROM in the air while squealing out these lines in his high-pitched voice.

  • Is there a way to notify me when a new comment has been posted on any particular topic or article, in real time?

    The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.

  • Ouch! I missed that. Remind me, who *is* the governor of texas?
  • by Chalst ( 57653 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @09:25AM (#714367) Homepage Journal
    There's an online transcript [] of an interview with George Bush from April which says clearly
    that he supports anti-trust law, will yield to the judges opinion on
    the anti-trust case, and dismisses speculation that he is in the
    Microsft camp.

    Unless people have better information, I think this should put to rest
    the `Bush will axe MS case' rumor.

  • Wired referred [] to the court as having "technical savvy" for putting details of this case up on a web site []. What they don't mention is that the web site is not only running IIS [], but the documents are accessed via a "microsoft.asp" page.
  • Damn people... read more than the first line of the comment before you moderate: he's asking a question which is valid, not trolling. Jeez. This should be modded-up, not down.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if he'd want to do so, at least not in that manner. I'm not sure if he even can tell the DOJ to stop it, but if he could, and did, wouldn't it look a bit suspicious to the rest of the country? Stacking the court is one thing, obstructing justice is another.

  • Damn I thought it was a joke; but it's REALLY in the transcript!! Wow!!!


  • I think politics should stay the hell out of the courts. If Microsoft broke the law, they deserve to be punished. We shouldn't let them get off with another slap on the wrist. That didn't work last time and I can't think of any reason it would work this time.

    I use MS products because I choose them. Not because they are forced on me.

    And you probably consider the fact that Dell, Compaq, etc, preinstall Windows on every desktop machine to be a convenience for you. Or at least you don't mind it. Whereas someone who does not want to use Windows cannot buy from any of the top ten or more major OEMs because they cannot purchase a computer without also purchasing Windows. The OEMs don't like this. The customers don't like this. So why is it done? Because Microsoft decided that's how it would be done.

  • Nixon was impeached for less. (He resigned only because impeachment was a certainty.)
  • The presumption is that MS had many of their ducks lined up before they even filed their appeal. Remember that they've actually (hopefully) been preparing their application since the original decision went down. This schedule simply gives them a deadline for filing what they've put together.

    Until MS files their arguments, the DOJ can only guess at what MS is going to argue. Some arguments are probably easy to guess. For the ones they didn't think about, they'll have to wait for MS's filing before they can start their research.

  • With microsoft HTML generator's idea that <FONT SIZE=0> means 'default font size' and not "Why, hello netscape, please render this font as an unintellible series of dots", how much can they fit on 150 pages? Do legal documents have to be a particular number of words per page? Presumably they are on 'legal' paper (how do I know, I'm from Europe where we have highly descriptive paper sizes like 'A4'). Will MS lawyers be able to resist using all those new truetype fonts all over the page?

    I ask only for information.
  • With all the delaying and appealing that MS will be doing in the months to come, this process will take years before it produces any kind of outcome that will benefit/impact any consumer....
    Sigh... so much for the justice system...
  • by windex ( 92715 )
    You know, I really dont think M$ should be broken up, in all honesty, they did what they did on their own, they started from scratch and built an electronic empire.

    I'm a opensource-ish kind of follower, yeah, but, let opensource dominate microsoft fairly, as it will in time. Don't chant "Die, Microsoft, DIE" just because of some shoddy business practices, if you think what M$ does is bad, you should see some of the overseas clothing factories, or perhaps those poor mylasian children who make most of your cpu's. (I think you guys forget these things..)

    Had to play the devil's advocate, sorry. =)
  • If all the parties involved had a content management system, or a weblog (er... Slashdot-ish type thing)... Then I think we'd get back to what the US Constitution calls for: A speedy Trial!

    Our legal system is more complex than ever. Why can't we use technology to better it for all involved? This MS case will drag on... and on... and at the very least Slashdot is going to be flooded with Microsoft trial stuff... [] and that makes my karma whore days sort of iritating. I have to keep coming up with stuff. Get some tech f00lz! ;)


  • Never mind. It was on the page earlier today for five minutes than taken down for about an hour. Guess they wanted to confirm it wasn't FUD.
  • The recovery cdrom cannot re-install the windows operating system if the harddrive has been either formatted or wiped by a virus, hence the customer is forced to go retail to purchase thier os at full price. The cost to make the recovery cdroms is high, yet they offer these at dirt cheap prices compared with the oem windows cdroms. MS knows vendors will do the cost effective thing, and ms is counting on repurchases by people stuck with recovery disk.
  • by Ken Broadfoot ( 3675 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2000 @08:09AM (#714380) Homepage Journal

    What can George do to derail this thing?

    If George Bush wins he said he would do something to "end this anti-trust nonsense" or something to that effect.

    Is there anything he can do as Prez to stop this? Could he appoint people to the DOJ to "drop all charges" ??
  • This case is sick and never ending and by the time it ends people will probably start sueing Microsoft for boring them to ilness and the cases will go on and on. Maybe the guiness book should record this case. It would have surely broken many records. Or perhaps its already featured . Will someone find out?
  • The government can take my monopolized terror of the market from me when they pry it from my cold dead brain. If terrorizing markets from a monopoly position is illegal, only outlaws will terrorize the market from a monopoly position.

  • Hmmm, maybe they could ask some suggestions from AOL users?

    Quote 125 pages and add... me too?
  • A minor point, but the right to a speedy trial refers to the amount of time someone can be held on an indictment before their trial starts. The prosecutor must be ready to start the trial within X number of days (with all sorts of arcane allowances and accounting methods), or the person walks. I'm not sure how it would apply to a corporation, but it is moot once the trial has started and also during appeals, since during an appeal the last ruling stands until the appeal is decided.

    BTW, anyone have any educated guesses as to how close "125 pages" is to the 56,000 words that M$ wanted?

  • Taking an average of word counts from a 12pt, double spaced documenter, there's about 300 words a page. So MS will get about 37,500 words, which, IIRC, is midway between the typcial 1x,000 and MS's 56,000.
  • s/there/they\'re

  • but the license now states that you cant transfer from one machine to another

    Does the license offer any additional rights that the customer would not otherwise already have? If not, then customers have no reason to accept the license, and MS will have a hard time proving (or even suggesting) that they have accepted the license. Therefore, the terms do not apply. You are perfectly free to transfer Windoze from one computer to another.

  • Its not a fun idea, or a ggood practive in my opinion, but I dont think its illegal or wrong. People can look at the situation, asses the costs and risks of Win2k, and choose it or not. They are by no means limited to only Win2k or Microsoft products
    i agree. when i think about what the boss or the secretary would do if you slapped a dell/redhat box down in front of their desk instead of a windows machine, i think they would tend to do much the same that they've always done: play solitaire, check email, browse the web, and pester internal support with stupid questions.

    really, to most people, what's the difference? they'll be missing the basic tidbits like being able to download realplayer8 or whatever and have it automagically work (they may have to fiddle a few things and pester internal support a bit), but my basic point here is that they'll learn a little bit, achieve a basic modicum of skill with the environment they're working with, and most likely not go very much past that point. they'll put in their 9 to 5, tell their coworker that they just don't understand how this stupid computer works (something they'd do anyway), put the phone on busy, and go home.

    just my $0.02...

  • The current Wired has a 50-page article which covers each of your points in detail & refutes them, Mr. troll.

    You can read it on the newsstand now or here when it's released: The Truth The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth []

    As for your silly example of Apple: look up the definition of tying. Hint: it does not apply when two products have always been sold together.

  • Hey, you can read all about this issue over at

    Microsoft's funny money []

    A spunky shareholder resolution
    demands that the company account
    for its political campaign

    - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By Janelle Brown

    Oct. 10, 2000 | It's hardly a secret
    that Microsoft is the fifth-biggest
    contributor of "soft money" to politicians
    -- funneling hundreds of thousands of
    dollars into the "non-federal accounts" of
    political parties and lobbyists, thereby
    bypassing campaign contribution limits.
    According to, in 1999 and
    2000 Microsoft handed over $1,732,575 to
    various Democratic and Republican committees
    -- a number topped only by AT&T and three
    union organizations.

  • s/there/they\'re/

    When you correct someone else you shouldn't need to be meta-corrected.
  • PAPERCLIP: You seem to be writing a brief in the anti trust case - how may I help you today? [BUTTON]Insert diatribe on 'Freedom to Innovate' [BUTTON]Delete all incriminating email [BUTTON]Auto-generate friendly independent user comments
  • Oh, c'mon, do you really believe everything you read in the proxy? Boards never want you to vote for shareholder proposals.

    I'm a bit new to proxies.

    It looks itemized here [] at the very least. I'm mostly curious what extra this could provide that isn't already known, or is this some form of feel good thing, cause they aren't asking for a change of behavior.
  • The first set of briefs are both due on Nov 27.

    MS gets a 75 page responce in January, final breifs from both sides Feb 9, with oral arguments at the end of that month.

  • Pointing to worse situations doesn't justify MS one bit. Yes, all large companies are wrong and abuse their power once in a while, BUT Microsoft does it blatently and show no intention of acknoledging it much less stopping. When someone with in their position with so much power acts that way, action must be taken swiftly. (fat chance)

  • Hmm, let's see. 125 pages from the feds + 25 pages from the states who are also suing = 150 pages. Gosh! That's the same as the court is allowing Microsoft. Who'd a thunk it!

  • 1: Microsoft is not in jail. There is no rush.

    2: Microsoft is drawing out the procedure. There the ones slowing it down.

  • Wow, Micro$oft's Appeal Schedule 1999. is so interesting!

    I can't wait for Appeal Schedule 2000 to come out! Will it have new and innovative features like drag-case-on-forever plus?!


Thufir's a Harkonnen now.