Microsoft Loses Delay Appeal 278
cheesethegreat was the first to submit that Microsoft has lost their appeal to delay their case by requesting a review with the Supreme Court. We mentioned the appeal a few weeks ago. The link doesn't say much more than that the appeals court denied the delay.
Who said anything about competition? (Score:1)
Re:Who said anything about competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who said anything about competition? (Score:2)
This suggests a possible remedy, though: leave Microsoft just as it is, but _jail_ every single leader and 'culture setter' in the place. Gates, Ballmer: everyone giving the orders.
The Allies did something similar with Volkswagen after WWII: they kept the factory, had it attempt to build cars (the British loved the early Volkswagens and fought like tigers to protect the factory from scavengers and seekers of war reparations!) and a British Army officer was de facto head of the company until they brought in Heinz Nordhoff as CEO- who promptly got busy and built Volkswagen into what it was today. But the point is, Volkswagen was effectively run by the British Government for a brief period after the war, because the people originally in control of Volkswagen (the Nazis, obviously) were criminals and removed from that position.
It's worth noting that _in_ the context of Volkswagen, the Nazis were primarily concerned with bringing a 'people's car' to Germans, though they also set up a rather nasty payment plan (hardly consumer friendly- didn't even guarantee you got a car after paying in all the money, just a 'certificate of ownership'). Their crimes were not directly related to Volkswagen, but they were still removed from society and from the leadership of the company.
It is possible that the specific _acts_ of Ballmer, Gates etc. directly relating to Microsoft are not all totally evil and wrong. However, the sheer amount of assault they are committing on the legal system and the sheer determination they show to control information technology for the world suggest to me that they still need to be removed from control of the company. Jail the fuckers. Let's have a new breed of Microsoft leadership that aren't megalomaniacal royalty at heart...
They can't wait (Score:2, Interesting)
clarification (Score:2, Redundant)
Presumably, by the time a new trial-court judge is chosen and a new trial is scheduled, the Supremes will have a chance to either take up or turn dwon the appeal.
Re:clarification (Score:2)
Why? Are the Supremes talking about a tour?
Personally I've always been more partial to "Gladys Night and Pips".
Bill Gates makes everything clear (from CNNfn) (Score:4, Insightful)
Then..
It's a wonder his nose hasn't grown a yard by now. Is anyone still unclear on _why_ Gates and Microsoft enjoy such a negative following on Slashdot?
Re:Bill Gates makes everything clear (from CNNfn) (Score:1)
Re:Bill Gates makes everything clear (from CNNfn) (Score:1)
According to the law, you don't have to have 100% market share in order to have a monopoly. You must simply have a large enough share of the market that you can engage in anti-competitive manipulation without fear of losing your market share in the near term. I'd say that MS comfortably passes that test. If they decided to double their prices tomorrow, the vast majority of users would bend over and take it because they need Windows to maintain compatibility.
I have a solution ... (Score:1)
1. fire all the top level executives and all mid-level legal department heads (wholesale) - require that MSFT replace them from a list of people who work in other software firms but have not worked for MSFT (they pick from the short list)
2. require all specs and interfaces be fully documented and available to all other US and Canadian firms. Every new code release, have an independent auditor scan new code to make sure no unpublished code interfaces are used. Until it's golden and good, it won't go out.
3. Replace the current board of directors with one where no board member may hold more than 0.1 percent of MSFT shares and recieves no more than $50,000 in options, priced at date of grant stock price.
4. Put Bill Gates in a dunk tank in Westlake Mall in Seattle, with cream pies (non-toxic) and dunk balls for free, to all comers, for 8 hours a day, 2 days a week, for a six week period. The dunk tank should be heated if the outside temp drops below 70 F or 18 C and towels provided. Prison means nothing to him
5. Require community service by all managers and execs remaining of 8 hours of coding per week for 8 weeks for Open Source code on a recognized project. Peer review is sufficient punishment.
6. Require an FTC agent be present at all times for a five year period (exception - when going to bedroom with spouse or significant other) for all executive of VP and above. Any chargable offenses to be charged on execution of said offenses. All monitors and PDA screens to be visible to said agents at all times.
Personal opinion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Other things that I feel should be done are.
Not a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
The common-law tradition is, in some strange way, like the open-source development process -- it tends to favor "working code". There is a strong bias in the system against mucking with what lower courts have done, and this is done only when the lower court does something that seems to be way out of line. You can see this in what the Circuit Court did to the trial decision -- it found that Judge Jackson was out of line in how he determined the remedy, but didn't throw out the findings of fact (and tossed it back to a different judge for the penalty phase).
I think that the fact that the Circuit Court's "en banc" decision was *unanimous* cut a lot of mustard with the Supreme Court.
PS - When I started this post, there were no posts. Since I tried to actually put some (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I was saying, I guess this wont be a "First Post". I tried, though...
Re:Not a surprise (Score:2)
Re:Not a surprise (Score:2, Funny)
I wasn't aware that Diana Ross had anything against Microsoft.
Funny cuz it's true (Score:2, Funny)
Seems like that one would work too
Better Article (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody suggested the simplest remedies... (Score:3, Insightful)
But instead, quite simple:
To begin:
All COTS software used by the US government will exchange data in fully documented, non royalty encumbered formats. Only special-order software may use proprietary or secret formats, and special order software may not be used where the function exists in COTS equivalents.
All wired and wireless protocols used by the US government for public exchange of information will be fully documented and non royalty bearing. Exchange of secret data will be fully documented and non royalty bearing, but that information will be classified to the same secrecy level as the data, and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Microsoft Windows has achieved "utility" status in the PC marketplace. To that end:
All terms of all contracts regarding sales and licensing of Windows will be available for public scrutiny.
Contracts for sales and licensing may not contain terms that exclude competitors and potential comptitors, such as per-system or exclusive usage.
Simple, but effective. (IMHO)
And in other Slashdot news (Score:4, Funny)
I question whether MS really even has a monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever. They don't have a monopoly (yet) on server OSes. They don't have the embedded market wrapped up (even though they're trying). They don't make the omst popular pvr (tivo). They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86. The resources are there, and available. All thats standing in the way is consumer demand and the market's desire to relative uniformity and compatibility. If the market loses interest in MS, MS loses its hold. the market is still in power, not the company. This isn't like oil or the phone lines - microsoft doesn't have all the raw mateirals locked up. There is a freaking difference.
End rant.
BTW - I'm no MS troll. I can't stand most MS products (earlier versions of word and to an extent win2k aside) and find its business practices offensive (just not illegal).
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2, Interesting)
A monopoly is not bad or illegal until a company *abuses* that monopoly. IMO, Microsoft has. If you don't believe so, please inform Be and any other now nameless O.S. companies that have been applied any pressure to not deliver.
Also, Microsoft *abuses* their monopoly by leveraging that monopoly into their other products. Whoever controls the Operating System usually can control *what* can actually run on it and *how* those applications run, including but not limited to that application's performance. Microsoft has pressured OEM's to *not* load software onto the computers that the OEM sells. How? By leveraging the monopoly of their desktop Operating System.
And what are they doing with XP? Integrated MSN Messenger, Media Player and other applications. While doing that, they *again* pressure OEM's not to include competitor products, even though they say, "it's what the consumer wants". *THAT* abuses their monopoly. I *will not* have a company tell me what I do or do not want.
So what? They don't control anything but the x86 Desktop market... Of course, they'll *never* try to leverage their desktop Operating System onto other chips (Itanium, Alpha, Mips).. No, they would never do that. They are like the Borg: take a planet(x86), then move on to the next one and conquer it(Itanium). It must be nipped in the bud.
The government has every right to interfere when a company *abuses* their position in the market place. I'm glad everyone doesn't follow the libertarian point of view of "no government interference"... the economy would die in short.
Though I appreciate your opinion, I whole-heartily disagree with it. That's what makes countries like the US good, IMO.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:5, Interesting)
The server market is just not significant. Very few people run their own servers, and companies don't upgrade their servers/routers/firewalls that often. The cash-flow, per unit time, is very small, even though servers (per se) cost a great deal.
The embedded market is also a limited one. Many embedded systems are embedded precicely because replacing the hardware or software would be prohibitive. As such, there's just no money in it. It's less a well, and more a puddle.
Whilst it is true that anybody "can" write a desktop OS for the PC architecture, in order to be competitive, you MUST have OEMs who support it and software houses who develop for it. Many a good system has died, because it was useless to the users. But OEMs are under intense pressure (and have been placed under contracts later ruled illegal) to ONLY supply Microsoft products. Software houses, such as Netscape, SpyGlass, etc, have either been pushed out of business, bought out completely, or had their products stolen. (Microsoft has been found guilty of software theft, in the past, most notably with the disk compression system in DOS 6.0.) Under those conditions, no competitor can thrive, or even survive.
Microsoft pretty much owns TV-based Internet access, via WebTV. And that means that it has a very strong grasp on Internet-aware appliances, once those develop. After all, that is what WebTV essentially is.
As for the market deciding -- it no longer has the power to. For the market to decide to switch away from Microsoft, EVERY SINGLE COMPANY, organization, household, etc, that uses Microsoft products would have to change at the same time, in the same direction, to an alternative that already supports the current Microsoft standard. Failure to do so would mean total chaos. Documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc, would be unreadable. Networks would stop working. Printers would stop printing. In short, civilization is as hooked on Microsoft as any heroin addict is on their drug. Microsoft-specific protocols, such as SMB and NetBEUI, and Microsoft-specific file formats, permeate everything. Any attempt to go "Cold Turkey" would be every bit as lethal as it would be for that addict.
THIS, in my humble(?) opinion, is the great threat Microsoft pose. Their products are just products. The label isn't important. And money, for corporations, is just play-stuff, anyway. The numbers mean nothing more than the numbers on a pinball machine.
BUT the addiction factor. Now, that CANNOT be escaped. Microsoft can tell the market exactly what to do, and the market will respond. The price of failure would be too great.
IMHO, this trial's focus on the Sherman Anti-Trust laws is all fine and well. But the real issues that keep getting mentioned are those addictive ones. Has Microsoft made withdrawl just too dangerous for anyone to contemplate?
If the answer is yes, then the Government damn well better "interfere". A Government exists to prevent dictatorial power-blocs from forming, where that dictator has created conditions such that refusing to be dictated to carries a penalty sufficiently high that your average person will comply.
I dislike the "libertarian" notion of removing "Big Government", alone. It creates a power vaccuum. Such a vaccuum created the monstrosity we know as Microsoft. Power vaccuums are BAD. Even if the power that was in them was "bad", the space left behind when that power is gone is MUCH worse.
TRUE Libertarianism would have to include limiting ALL entities, not just the Government. Otherwise, you replace an elected evil that has legal limits with an unelected one that has no limits at all.
I don't want to live in William Gibson's Neuromancer nightmare, or the sickness of Max Headroom. You might, and that's your choice, but frankly the thought of corporations becoming the latter-day Feudal Lords and Barrons is terrifying to me. You really, truly don't want to back-slide into a Feudal society. You just don't. If you aren't sure why, look through some English history books, some time. Specifically, look up events such as "The Peasents Revolt", the massacres perpetrated by King William and King Rufus, the endless horrors of the Tower of London, and the numerous regional wars (such as the Wars of the Roses).
If companies such as AOL and Microsoft are not subject to law, what's to stop them from buying up a bunch of mobile rocket launchers, and wiping out all who oppose them?
Am I going too far? Maybe not. In the end, what is the difference between destroying a competitor through intimidation, deceit, and industrial espionage, or destroying them with a short-range ballistic missile? The missile would probably work out cheaper, have a much higher chance of success over a shorter time-span, and be much more influential in how other companies act in future.
If the corporate wars have no bounds, then sooner or later, it's going to expand beyond mere price wars, verbal threats and forged video tapes.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
Another good question is how much scope the corporations have to _act_ as police themselves: for instance, unexpectedly raiding companies and looking for pirated (sic) software (gee, who is acting more like a pirate there?) and, if any is found, turning the victims over to the 'real' police. If the raiders get the capacity to cuff the victims themselves, they _are_ police to all extents and purposes, just a sort of 'feudal' police with their own agendas.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
>x86 architecture, in a desktop-type mode.
You are incorrect. You couldn't even say that
99.9% of the human popluation is familiar with the concept of refrigeration, or has seen a telephone. 99.9% of the human population would
not even be able to parse the meaning of the Roman/Arabic characters "X86".
They might, on the other hand, recognize Mickey Mouse, and might be able to associate the colors
red, white and blue with a particular idiom: Hilfiger.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
Damn dude, where's all that code red stuff coming from then??
Also, since Apple controls at least 7% market share, you can't say that 99% of everyone runs x86. You can't. Besides that you make some interesting points, but... missiles? Missiles? BILL GATES IS GOING TO BLOW UP APPLE! OF COURSE! Come on, man!
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:3, Interesting)
This can't be allowed for many reasons. First the consumers of product 'X' are harmed. They loose choice, and demand no longer has any effect on price. Also there is no incentive to improve or maintain the quality of product 'X'. Marketplace innovation is stifled. Secondly, there is no incentive for new companies to go into business to create other new innovative products if there is any chance that this random large company could glue an identical product onto theirs. Innovation is further stifled, the business marketplace and economy suffers, and the consumer gets fewer new innovative products. It's unfortunate that something so subjective like fairness has to be enforced, but to some extent the system has to enforce fairness as a form of self preservation. Plus it's the freedom of individuals that matters, not the freedom of companies, right? You need to enforce a level of "fairness" on competition between companies to guarantee the freedoms of individuals.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not. The government has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, Microsoft, as a corporation, is the creation of the government. Its very existence is due to law, and the power the government has to regulate commercial matters. You can argue that the Sherman act is unconstitutionally vague (and I'll agree with you there), but it isn't possible to argue with a straight face that the government has no right to regulate Microsoft, or to pass and enforce antitrust law.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever.
Sorry to break it to you, but those platforms are mostly targeted at entirely different roles than the x86. They're just a different market. Even if you include MacOS, Microsoft has more than enough market power to qualify as a monopoly. For the millionth time: 100% market share is not necessary to be a monopoly.
They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
Desktop OS's. Web browsers. Office suites. Development tools. Would you like me to go on?
They monopolize a hell of a lot more than one area. And I assume you meant limited, given that it's the OS monopoly that's allowed the others.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86.
Sure, they're free to. They're also free to watch it tank, since no one can compete with Microsoft's MONOPOLY. How many significantly superior products have utterly failed to compete with Microsoft due to the power and cash the OS monopoly has given them? OEM lockins. Infinite cash flow allowing them to keep incrementally improving substandard software that would have been long sincecancelled by any other company. Leaning on the trade press. The fact that no other OS has enough volume to make it profitable to sell applications for it. All of these are barriers to entry erected by Microsoft's MONOPOLY status. No matter how superior an OS, a browser, an office suite is, it will never gain more than niche status on the desktop. And the number of markets dominated or destroyed by Microsoft will only increase. You don't have to be prevented from supplying a product, you have to be prevented from watching your product succeed. Much like the current conditions of the desktop OS market, hmmm?
Finally, the extremely Microsoft-friendly appeals court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Deal with it.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
Since the cost of conversion from one OS to another - in time and money - is prohibitively high for most users, you have the same effect as if the cost of the raw materials were locked up: new entries into the market cannot compete on merit alone.
BTW, note that it's not against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to be a monopoly... you just can't use a monopoly in business domain A to create a new one in business domain B. This practice is what MS was found guilty of.
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
* You've paid $$$ for lots of MS-only software: will it all run?
Which was a choice we all made (remember, MAC's used to have more software availble for them then PC's).
* If not, how will you read/edit all your existing files?
What existing files? My XML or HTML files? My
Re:I question whether MS really even has a monopol (Score:2)
This is not explicitly true. While the clueless computer newbies perpetuate the proprietary file formats explosion by typing every 3 line memo/note in Word. It is the choice by MicroShaft et. al. to make these proprietary formats that causes the problem in the first place.
Question: Why didn't Microsoft propose an open standard for documents and put it in the public domain? Note I'm not talking about the source code just the document format.
Why? because it is not in their business interests to do so.
consumer's choice like hell.
what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:2)
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:2)
If you have got MS stock, sell out fast!
Re:what do m$ spend all the pc tax $$$ on? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I'm a karma wh0re, before you ask.
The point is bundling (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about bundling. Windows XP bundles replacements the top software of the past year, in an attempt to kill it. CD burners, audio players w/ plug-ins, audio/video codecs, web browsers. This is why they have monopoly power. See where realaudio, winamp, EZ CD Creator, DIVX, Netscape/Mozilla are in 3 years when everybody has XP. Why bother to buy/download those products?
Splitting MS into Office & Windows doesn't resolve it. The their apps, tools, utilities, and development software must be split apart.
Not like this means anything... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not like this means anything... (Score:2, Funny)
the text of the ruling (Score:4, Informative)
ORDERED that the motion be denied. In order to obtain a stay of the mandate pending its petition for certiorari, Microsoft must show that the "petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A); see also D.C. Cir. Rule 41(a)(2) (movant for stay of mandate must provide "facts showing good cause for the relief sought"). For the reasons stated in the appellees' response to the motion for stay, it appears that Microsoft has misconstrued our opinion, particularly with respect to what would have been required to justify vacating the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as a remedy for the violation of 28 U.S.C. 455(a). We need not decide, however, whether Microsoft's objections constitute a "substantial question" likely to lead to Supreme Court review, because Microsoft has failed to demonstrate any substantial harm that would result from the reactivation of proceedings in the district court during the limited pendency of the certiorari petition. See Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate seven days from the date of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b).
(PDF here [findlaw.com].)
Hopefully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Split off the Office software company
Share O/S source amoung no less than two new companies (Competition should make Windows _way_ better! Look what it does for Linux distros ;-)
Split MSN/NBC into a seperate company
Allow Gates to hold controlling intrest in no more than one of these companies for a period of 2 years.
That oughta do it. Did I leave anything out? IMHO each of these pieces would be immensely strong and profitable short term, how they fare among the rise of the competition they've cheated nearly to death (Word Perfect, Lotus, Netscape, Novell, etc.) should provide great products.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
Yeah.
Ballmer, Alchin, Mundie, and no doubt others are every bit as evil, and exert even more control over Microsoft's illegal activities.
The problem is, if Bill can only hold one of the baby-Microsofts, then the others might behave legally and play nice.
But if you put one each of the above named evil directors in control of each baby-Microsoft, then competition will be ensured. Each MS will then compete with the others to see who can top the other's acts of evil, spite, greed, control, extortion, control, etc. Additionally, we as consumers would enjoy the advantages of the baby Microsofts being able to act in concert with each other because of the old-boy network of the guys in charge of each piece.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rule that the "you can't sue us" clause in their licenses is null and void.
That's it; no other intervention is necessary from the government.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Splitting windows is STUPID. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Office would continue to stomp everyone else into the ground, because its OFFICE. Everyone would know its "really Ms"
MSN/NBC is not a threat to anyone except to those who hate MS for no logical reasons.
Bill Gates isn't the threat either, but a small mind works wonders when it can focus on ONE PERSON to blame.
Sorry, but they won't give rise to competition. Netscape died because its buggy and could not even follow stanadards. WordPerfect, sorry guys, it deserved death. Novell, for the same thing people bitch as Ms for - you could not run on Novell without their certification.
So get real, I'll lose karma over this, but I really don't care. How in the hell this original stupid post made it to a 4 is beyond me. It offers nothing but the standard "Stoke the Linux faithful" by feeding them the bs you expect a politician to feed welfare slaves.
Instead of smartassed no-thought solutions why not come up with something effective. Ms got this way because of their marketing, it must be curtailed in the future on pcs, networks, and the internet to prevent them from doing so again. Office and Windows were merely what was being marketed.
1. Make it illegal for them to require their product placement over that of others on the desktop. Only operating system required icons can be required, and for windows that usually means system and trashcan. However any thing added to the desktop by a vendor should clearly state it is not supported by MS. I would also go as far to say they should have the right to have the name Windows and their Microsoft logo displayed on ANY startup screen.
2. Place no restriction or penalty on the cost of windows for companies that sell computers with other operating systems.
3. Create and monitor window wholesale costs so that it is sold to resellers of similar volume at the same price. This should not be public information, but monitored by an independant board appointed by the court.
4. Require that any software installed by a competitor be allowed to become the first choice for operating on the media (I think this already occurs)
5. Allow for removal of non-required components via the Windows Software Add/Remove. This means you can one click access away for IE, WMedia, or anything else.
6. Require Microsoft to show a good-faith effort in correcting incompatibilities caused by a software update on their part with a competitors product. Perhaps have an outside board judge the effort.
In the case of the solutions provided above, the court would appoint or see to the appointment of any monitoring agency. Microsoft would be required to pain a reasonable fee to maintain funding of this board for the duration the court sets forth.
Those are better solutions, do not take solutions which only serve to help those who have lots of Ms stock (any split would be amazing to them), and hurt consumers by introducing confusion in the market place.
Remember, any financial penalty is coming out of John Q. Public's pocket anyway.
Re:Splitting windows is STUPID. (Score:1)
One advantage the UNIX community has is that diversity over the years has forced developers to plan for portability from the ground up. Portability does create more work for the developers, but the software is better for it. It's one of those things that people can look back on and be thankful for as they now can use maintainable and widely useful software.
If Windows software developers are forced to rethink their designs to keep things working after a split in MS, so be it. It will be tough, undoubtedly, but the benefits will be: less reliance on the Registry, fewer files installed under C:/Windows, less code depending on specific "features" (bugs) in the OS, and on and on.
Windows really has an in-bred quality to it. The monopoly has allowed really bad software features to survive and become dominant as would occur with genes in an inbred human family. It just isn't in the best intrest of our future (who wants kids with 11 toes and blue skin? Unfortunately, Windows already has 15 toes, goat fur, and two heads!).
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, splitting up the company is a very simple and pragmatic way of solving the problem. Consider what the problem is: Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems and they're illegally using that to expand their monopoly to other kinds of software by bundling that software with Windows. There are basically three things that you could consider doing to remedy the problem:
IOW, far from being the most intrusive and legally costly strategy for dealing with Microsoft, splitting the company in two as the government proposed is likely to be the least intrusive. It cuts to the very heart of their illegal actions and should be effective in stopping it from happening again in the future. Seems reasonable to me.
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2, Funny)
Why am I so instantly reminded of the "political officer" in Hunt for Red October, you know, the one that gets killed in the first 15 minutes?
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2)
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2)
Two companies with the same intellectual property with no recurring cost would not be able to survive. There is no market differentiation as there was in the case of the Baby Bells. Instead, each company is trying to sell the same product to the same consumer. And now that all the code has already been written, what do you think the marginal cost of printing the CDs would be? In fact, if the price of Windows in such a situation did NOT come down to about $5, you would have a very strong case of oligopolistic collusion between the companies to unfairly raise prices.
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
the baby bell worked because they were constrained by regions, MS would not be since they sell a product not a service that depends on phone lines and cables.
the best thing to do is to open the file formats and APIs, then foce MS to document any and all changes well so anyone can use them, also, forcing MS cese its browser design and to uncomingel it from the OS would be a plus to the web as it would hinder MSs ability to deploy
with software companies you need to weeken them not split them.
Re:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2)
- will
benefit. If there's one thing that the dot.com bubble has demonstrated, it's that long-standing economic laws continue to pretty much hold upRe:Splitting Windows... bad idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully... opening API's (Score:2)
I do believe this is one of the solutions which has been bandied about, since 1989. Part of the problem with it, as you note, is that they could still change an API on a whim (Use R&D To Your Advantage 101: See how your competitor does it then change the interface so your competitors method works very very badly) and have the lead time of their product working with the *new* API. I think this has been one of their most successful methods.
Consider for a moment splitting the O/S unit among 2 O/S competitors. Each will embrace Office, however, they are also free to embrace Lotus, WordPerfect, (a windows version of) Star Office, etc.
Also, ponder the recent decision to not ship a Java Virtual Machine, bundled. Smacks of vindictiveness, could be argued that they are simply not favoring one vendor over another, like the critics say they do (conveniently forgetting that they are a competitor and favoring themselves.) One O/S company embraces Java, the other chooses not to. This now looks like a really poor business decision, as opposed to the prior practice.
BTW the API's are probably the very core of their recent disfavor of Open Source and GPL, as these API's and the ability to control them are a vital part of their Intellectual Property which they have fought long (since '89 at least) to protect. Opening them up would probably introduce some competition, but against a 95% marketshare it'll take just too long for anyone to make a dent in it, all the while they nimbly change the API to keep the threat off balance.
Re:Hopefully... opening API's (Score:2)
Re:Wake up.... (Score:2)
Changing startup screens and desktop presentation is one thing, I would never trust an OEM to modify anything in the OS.
Fracture the market is exactly what it would do, as well as raise support costs for everyone involved to out of this world numbers.
Let them package it, by changing icons, bundled software (which could me Java, QT, and Real), but NEVER EVER let OEM's inside.
ACK!
What do you mean "lost their appeal"? (Score:4, Funny)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
A delay would have put this trial off by what, a couple of weeks? Wonderful. This trial, and mark my words, will last longer than the O.J. debacle. This will be a 3-year long trial, while Microsoft calls in experts, and the DoJ calls in rebuttal experts, on and on ad absurdium.
We're never going to see a just resolution to this, so what does it matter if they aren't delayed a few weeks?
Re:So? (Score:1)
...you say that like it's a bad thing! After all it'll keep slashdot supplied with stories
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe longer. But the important point is that they are trying to put it off in order to prevent justice. If they can get XP into the market place before a new remedy is pronounced, it gives them a big advantage.
This will be a 3-year long trial, while Microsoft calls in experts
This is what Microsoft wants, not what is good. It is good that the court isn't going to let MS stall this out forever.
Microsoft...., trying to protect the money that they fought so hard to earn
trying to protect the money they fought so hard to extort from us. Everyone is so happy to pay higher prices for lower quality.
We're never going to see a just resolution to this
Sure we could. Nuke the MS campus.
so what does it matter if they aren't delayed a few weeks?
Because MS might be able to rush XP out the door to further remove competition and prevent innovation.
--
Our father who art in Redmond,
Microsoft be thy name.
Thy monopoly come, thy chokehold be complete,
throughout the earth as it is in the US.
Give us this day, our daily license renewal.
And forgive us our bug reports,
as we forgive our system crashes.
And lead us not into competition,
but deliver us from innovation.
For thine is the control, and the power,
and the greed forever.
Amen.
Re:So? (Score:2)
[Gates, petting furless cat] Or, shall we say, one billllion dollars! [bites pinky]
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? OJ connection... (Score:5, Funny)
But in this case, the glove not only fits, but it comes bundled with the bloody knife and bodies.
Re:So? OJ connection... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes... but in order to actually open the bundle and see the contents you have to agree to the EULA which requires you to find in favor of MS for all criminal and civil cases.
I'll get you and you're little Justice dept. too. (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda makes it sound like XP is some sort of evil master plan instead of some grand improvement on Windows.
I can picture it now (swirly effect)
Steve: Master Bill, the Justice dept. is coming to attack us for our evil marketing practices and thwart our release of XP.
Bill: Call my Flying Lawyer Monkeys. (speaks to head lawyer monkey)This Justice department *must* be stopped. Take your Flying Lawyer Monkeys and hold them off until Oct 25 (Dec 21:). If we can't get an appeal, then make sure we can get a delay. Because after Oct 25, XP will be released and our power solidified. Then the world will be powerless against us.
Fly, my little Flying Lawyer Monkeys, fly!
Re:I'll get you and you're little Justice dept. to (Score:2)
I think we're OK here... (Score:3, Funny)
Going by Microsoft's track record, they'll probably work as well as C. M. Burns' monkeys.
Eee, EEEE, Thud!
Bill: Continue the research.
screaching monkeys, you got their number! (Score:2)
Then again, it's not like MS needs anything more from their lawyers than a screaching monkey. It's not like anyone there has taken any legal advice. All their lawyers have been able to do is spew more PR bull about "innovation" and ham sandwiches and what not. Go, monkey go!
Some companies have whole anti-trust divisions that they listen to.
Re:I think we're OK here... (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft spends more than $5.3 Billion on R&D per year.
And now we know where it goes - Flying Lawyer Monkeys. Or maybe it goes to research into a different advanced type of lawyer [schlockmercenary.com]?
Microsoft delay appeal? (Score:2)
Judge Jackson's last laugh (Score:5, Interesting)
Fact one: Jackson split off his statement of facts from his statement of law. The statement of facts was very competent and comprehensive.
Fact two: He didn't start talking to the press until after the statement of facts had been filed.
Fact three: This case is huge; it's the biggest anti-trust case in 100 years. There is an enormous amount of money behind Microsoft. Jackson knew that there was zero possibility that the case would be a slam-dunk on appeal. The higher courts have to answer to that much money to some extent; it's impossible to ignore it in a capitalist culture, particularly when soft money elects (read: appoints) Congress and the President.
BE IT RESOLVED, that Jackson had to throw a bone to Microsoft. He gives something for Microsoft to chew on, and he gives the higher courts a way to appear that they are carefully considering the legitimate interests of Capital.
So Jackson threw a fake drug-store doggie bone to Microsoft by talking to the press. They chewed happily on it for a year, virtually ignoring the hefty record of facts that had been compiled at the trial. The issue of Jackson's prejudice was highlighted by Microsoft in their appeal, setting the stage for the Circuit to unanimously affirm almost all of the important facts, while slapping down Judge Jackson.
All the media bite down on the same fake doggie bone. Microsoft thinks they won, because the appellate decision was superficially ambivalent so that the media don't bother reading the record. Meanwhile, the important facts are upheld unanimously, and it seems unlikely at this point that the Supremes will even hear the case.
Here we are, 15 months after Judge Jackson's structural remedy. The remedy is thrown out, but the case was so big that something had to be thrown out in any event. Jackson's victory is that he got the least significant decision he made thrown out, by carefully orchestrating the appearance of prejudice according to a precise time table.
Here we are, 15 months later, and Microsoft has run out of delaying tactics. A new judge will be appointed who is required to do something major, because the facts have been affirmed unanimously and are not within his purview to challenge. He has merely to appear fair-minded, and his decision with respect to remedies will stick.
Stick that in your ear, Microsoft.
Arrgh, the feds are hypocrites.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey you stupid feds: JUST STOP BUYING MICROSOFT'S STUFF
The federal government should just move to a different competitor. I read that all fed agencies shovel over a billion a year at Microsoft in various license fees. Imagine how much a billion a year would help another software company become a viable competitor to Microsoft.
They don't need the courts, use the damn marketplace...
bold, idealistic and unworkable plan (Score:2)
A) All federal agencies make their decisions seperately. The justice department can't make the decision for the other departments.
B) All have programs and procedures for Microsoft Products that lock them in.
C) No clear competitor exists to replace all government programs.
D) Even if successful, this won't affect Microsoft's dominance in home PCs, where you can't even buy a mainstream computer without MS software bundled (even Apple has some bundled!). Let alone convince people against it.
It's like asking the government to fund a competitor to Bell Telephone when they owned vitually all the phones in the US. Not workable.
-Ben
Re:bold, idealistic and unworkable plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it took a long time, and no one expected it quite to work that way, and it's not quite there yet...
Re:Arrgh, the feds are hypocrites.... (Score:2)
Exactly. Remember Novell? Word Perfect? Lotus 1-2-3? dBASE? Borland?
Once upon a time they were #1 in their areas. Now they are all but dead. There is no real competition. That's the problem.
You don't see any potential issues with having our entire government dependant on software written by a company they are trying to sue?!
Why not move to Macs? There has to be an office suite besides Microsoft Office on the Mac for example. No? If not, that's pretty scarey...
Re:Arrgh, the feds are hypocrites.... (Score:2)
OK, here's a weird, wacky idea.
I think the Feds should fund the development of an operating system and office suite. The products, once done, would be released to the public, including source code.
It's a positively crazy idea, but bear with me.
My reasoning is this: simply put, an OS and office suite is IMPORTANT. Damn important, like roads, and telephone service. Like those other infrastructure elements, it makes sense to have some kind of government supported offering. We already rely on the Post Office to send out mail across Federally-funded roads... and nowadays computer documents are critical too. Why not get some support for them from the gov't?
The idea is not to give the government control of OS technology though... the goal is to give US something WE can use, for nothing more than a couple bucks each in taxes. GovOS would give people a way to write a paper for school, or look at the web without being FORCED into buying an OS from some other big company. It would be an ideal solution for basoc gov't employees -- those people who do nothing but prepare documents and send email all day.
Of course, we would ALWAYS have the choice to go with MS or Apple or whoever, but GovOS would be ideal for poor people, or for schools that otherwise would have to lay out a fortune in OS licenses.
The GovOS should be made compatible with as much hardware as possible. Its office suite should be made as interoperable as possible with all the current document standards. Businesses that want to do work with the government would be required to submit files in GovOS-compatible format.
Before y'all flip out, this really isn't any different that the current Free Software philosophy that permeates this site. I'm just saying, let's go a step further and throw some tax money at the problem. How much could it possibly cost to start with Linux, or FreeBSD, and create a decent OS and office suite? A few hundred million? Like, the price of a few warplanes? It's nothin'. We're paying for far less useful things already. And someone else posted that the gov't pays like a BILLION clams a year to MS for licenses. With just half that, couldn't they develop some software to replace a lot of the MS fees with?
GovOS isn't about restricting freedom. It's about incresing it, by providing a tax-funded public domain desktop computing infrastructure. OS plus office suite, with some well-paid professional developers behind it, in the public domain... It sounds good to me.
Injunction against XP (Score:2)
Why don't we make this simple... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, then there would be 3 MS's to hate.
Re:Why don't we make this simple... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why don't we make this simple... (Score:2)
Because the key problem is the fact that to foster "innovation", Microsoft claims that it's vitally important that they be able to bundle any application into their operating system, especially applications that compete with other companies' apps (who don't have the advantage of being able to get their apps on the desktops of all PC's in the universe, virtually for free, bundled with the OS).
By splitting it into three identical companies and giving them the same code base, you'll have three companies doing this, and not one. So the old Micros~1 had all the PC's in the universe, but the new Micros~[123] each has 1/3 pc the PCs in the universe. It's still a barrier to competition if you aren't a Microsoft.
And who says the user base gets divided into thirds, anyway? What if Microsoft puts the best third of their developers and marketing people in Micros~2? Within five years, most of the user base will gravitate toward that one, and we have the same problem.
Separating the OS development group from the Apps group, and putting strict rules on how the OS group can partner with Apps developers (perhaps even forcing MS to spin off the OS development into a not-for-profit research corporation or a consortium funded by the Apps Writers, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that idea) is the only way to insure that all MS Apps development is done on a level playing field.
this give a whole new meaning to... (Score:2)
That their greedy and paradoid view of software should be thought of as normal is a demonstration of the power of adverts. Really, how many other proffesionals are so concerened about others profiting from their work that they would deliberatly reduce the quality of their products? Pitty the poor VB serf who thinks of it as a career.
Re:this give a whole new meaning to... (Score:1)
spell checker (Score:2)
me too.
When I'm not in a hurry, I'll try to use: http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/cgi-bin/ispell.pl [ncsu.edu]. It's so hard to get things done right under NT. :)
Awww, shoot. It did not work and I hate using a mouse only to have Word or Outlook screw up my formating. I have not been able to make ispell work on this stupid work NT box yet so that I can check text text file spellings like a human being.
An Oldie, But A Goody. (Score:2)
Microsoft should be split into 3.14159... pieces. So that everyone can have a piece of the PI.
This won't delay XP (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see how the legal system can move fast enough to stop something already in motion.
Microsoft delayed things long enough and have focused on the prerelease while everyone else is concerned with the October ship date.
What are they going to do remove the OS from pc's after the fact. Not likely.
It would seem they have been smarter than the rest of us again.
It may (Score:2)
The DoJ will ask the district court to issue a preliminary injunction against XP. That is, the injunction to be issued *before* the trial actually begins. The judge will do it if 1) he has strong reason to believe that he will arrive to the same conclusion after the trial and 2) DoJ can demonstrate irreparable harm if injunction is delayed. In this case, it's easy: 1) MS continues to use exact same monopolistic practices they were sued for, and 2) if injunction is not issued immediately, XP will be released and it will be too late. So yeah, DoJ has a good chance of stopping XP release.
sorry (Score:1)
For those hoping for an injunction..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, eventually Microsoft will lose several cases and exhaust all appeals, but I firmly believe that by the time the first case is finally over I (17 year old high school Senior) will be out of college and possibly even a husband/father. The Open-Source and Free Software community can not sit arround hoping for the courts to "kill" Microsoft. Instead, Microsoft must be "killed" by the production of incredible Free Software that totally blow any proprietory products out of the game. There is no reason why this cannot be done, after all Open-Source projects have the advantage of having MANY more developers than any company can hope for. If more developer put forth a serious effort to better existing projects those projects could easily outshine any proprietory competitors.
The main problem with most Open-Source software is it is always playing catch-up to proprietory software. Open-Source developers need to design original and innovative features as well as incorporate existing features. A great start would be Linux Only games, but not just any games, incredible FPSs, RPGs, and Racing Games. Trust me on this, make a great word processor and Joe Sixpack won't give a flying fuck, make an advanced and extremely gory FPS thats only available on Linux, and Joe Sixpack will have the newest copy of Redhat (or any other Distro) with 2 hours of the announcement.
In conclusion, the fall of MS will only be brought about by the development of great, solid, and innovative Free Software (especially in the entertainment areas), not by the courts.
Re:For those hoping for an injunction..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading your message made me start to think about why open-source and/or free software has not made more inroads than it has...
Star Office is about the best example I can think of at this point. If the os or free commmunity want people to begin using their software it must be baby steps for the end user. Myself, I am comfortable hacking my way through my PC. The rest of the users in my office couldn't do it. Why not focus some attention on software for Windows? I know this sounds like blasphemy, however, if you can get users to get used to the application on Windows then the switch to Linux/something else on the desktop would be significantly easier if the interface was the same for the application. The problem is people are being asked to give up *everything* they already know, OS, Apps, and more to make the change to Linux. If there was a Windows-based office suite for starters (Star Office... maybe?) that could compete with MS Office in terms of usability and compatibility without rocking the boat in terms of interface, I could deploy it to my users and have them accept. Then when it comes time to replace their PC I can consider Linux because they are familiar with the application and we've taken one step already.
Re:For those hoping for an injunction..... (Score:2)
Will it make a difference (Score:2)
Another thing that's surprising is that IE6 isn't released yet, rumour was that IE6 was due for a Wednesday release but it's still in beta. Netscape 6.1 [netscape.com] was released a week before IE6's alleged launch date, and 6.1 is a lot nicer than the joke that was 6.0, it's now some real competition for IE. I don't think it's gonna suddenly give Netscape advantage in the browser wars but it's good to see their competition has not given up.
So courts, if you want an injunction get it now, otherwise for the good of everyone just don't bother.
Re:Will it make a difference (Score:3, Funny)
Another link (Score:3, Interesting)
Here [yahoo.com] it says
Not a lot more info. Are the court rulings public documents?
Re:Another link (Score:3, Informative)
CNN has a PDF of the court decision here [cnn.com]
No real issue for appeal (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not a novel issue of law, circuits are not split on the issues involved, and its not a important constitutional question.
Re:Positive or negative? (Score:4, Interesting)
This should not delay XP and that would be harmful to consumers.
What needs to happen with this is that equilibrium needs to be restored in the computer marketplace through restraints put on Microsoft limiting how they can limit customers: Namely that hardware vendors that integrate the Windows operating system have every right to modify the desktop, add/remove programs, or develop relationships with other companies for cross-promotion. In Dell starts shipping computers with desktops full of third-party tools, and they replaced IE with Mosaic and removed notepad, then so be it: Let reviewers hash them out and sell the benefits versus detriments to the massive number of vendors which we as consumers get to choose from. Personally, while I don't like Java myself, I think it would be great if vendors preinstall the newest Java Runtime Environment for their customers.
Re:Positive or negative? (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that every company should be sueing Microsoft, but rather that vendors should have ZERO restrictions when installing Windows, and if they decide that as a value added they'll replace Solitaire with Megataire, then so be it: Let customers decide among true options rather than letting Microsoft dictate that even if it's beneficial to the customer, vendor Y can't do anything because that might give them a "in" into the software market. For too long Microsoft has dominated through brute force, and their domination has led to lots of software companies that have , and that's just sad. [joelonsoftware.com]
I have massive respect for the folks in Redmond, and personally I love a lot of their product, but the reality is that they are a monopoly and they have been using that position to stop competition from ever taking root. As a Microsoft apologist for many years they have gone too far too many times, and I no longer find their actions acceptable.
And normally I'm a Microsoft apologist (Score:2, Insightful)
Right now users are getting a lot of stuff included for free.
___NOTHING___ Microsoft "gives away" is free (well, unless you're a pirate. Oy matie! [would that be a Jewish pirate?]), and it upsets me to hear that being said or perceived. Every single widget or fancy that Microsoft builds to wipe some company out of business COSTS CONSUMERS. Windows Me, which is a minor facelift of Windows 98SE, which was a minor facelift of Windows 98, which was a minor facelift of Windows 95, costs $180 new or $90 as an upgrade, despite the overwhelming majority of the technology being paid for many times previously (and despite the presumed efficiency of numbers), but Microsoft needs to continue to rake in the dough to put all of those other companies out of business with the "free" IE, the "free" Media Player, the "free" Netmeeting, etc. The problem is that even if the user does opt to buy and install 3rd party software, most of it doesn't exist because Microsoft has abused their monopoly position and pushed companies in many other software fields out of business as they provide their services "for free", and the customer is already paying for the "free" software that Microsoft is providing. Even if you don't buy or use Microsoft software, Microsoft also subsidizes their monopoly with the Office suite, so think about the costs that countless businesses you do deal with are paying to subsidize putting Netscape et. all out of business.
Microsoft is not like any other software company out there: They control the desktop space, they have enormous money, and they have shown a willingness to abuse their monopoly will little regard for perceptions or legalities. Comparing Microsoft with a car company, of which you can choose between Ford, Honda, GM (many brands), Toyota, Hyundai, etc. etc. etc. (and of each of those you have countless models to choose from) is pure folly.
Let me give a better analogy: Say your telephone company, of which there is only one and there is no real competition (sure there's a couple of other companies with a micro portion of the saturation, but if you sign up with them you can only call customers on their network, and because all your friends and neighbours use the monopoly you stick with it...the old chicken/egg, and it's the concept of a monopoly to begin with), decides that they feel threatened by the local newspaper (maybe the newspaper has supported competing phone companies, or they've talked about legislation) so they start providing a "free" newspaper to all of the cities residents versus the outrageous $1 a day of the competitor, and, oh yeah, coincidentally they have to raise rates 20% because of "increased costs". NOTHING that ANY business "gives" away is free, and whether you realize it or not you are paying for it. The outrage comes if you are being forced to pay for it because of an abused monopoly position, and that is why the situation is as it is right now.