Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement 595
JeffMagnus writes: "MSNBC is reporting that the tentative settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct. A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity." The New York Times appears to be the original source for the settlement stories; there's also an AP article.
Better than two companies... (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice that the agreement came just a little bit after XP's launch.
Re:Better than two companies... (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly with Exchange, IE, NT or Office 5 years ago. But it did have a lock on the home user market. all of sudden, new applications appear in Windows, integration only really works when you use windows, so before you know it, all of these markets fall apart and become absorbed in the Microsoft monolith. If they had been an Internet -applications company, a business-productivity applications company and an OS company, I doubt that Microsoft would be the single ruler of all of those markets.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better than two companies... (Score:2)
Outlook [Express] is indeed the dominant mail client.
Java an OS?
Microsoft the ruler of no markets? Hel-lo? Being a Microsoft Apologist is easier when one doesn't talk nonsensically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better than two companies... (Score:2)
An adversarial system is key to our overall economic health.
No, it's the key to the economic health of a tiny majority of the ultrarich. Who then try to convince us what's good for them is good for us.
Re:Better than two companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
I trust the point is clear. Even in hard, nasty, brutish, and short competitions there have to be some ground rules, or society just goes back to the prehistoric concept of "whoever can kill the most men and rape the most women wins". Which is how it often is in the animal kingdom, but I thought we had agreed as human beings to try to do better than that?
Much of what Microsoft did was fair competition. Novell, for example, shot itself in the foot. But Microsoft also slipped little Christmas presents into Windows and Office service packs that deliberatly broke standards Novell had set for the whole industry (and from which Microsoft had taken benefit) for 10 years. That was not legitimate competition.
Similarly, threatening to withold Windows licenses from manufactuers who wanted to put Netscape on the desktop was not fair competition, when Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows.
So let's not be so brutish, eh?
sPh
But the states may hold out (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the critical point. The feds have backed off because they received instructions from the White House (read Bush) to do so. However, the states may decide to persue this on their own.
It's not over yet.
Re:But the states may hold out (Score:2)
Since we don't know what the US Govt and MS have settled on, we don't know how equitable it is. Since MS, in the past, has rejected anything that prevents them from bundling anything they want, well... We'll just have to wait and see.
The three person compliance panel concept is interesting. Of course, it depends on who is on it.
Three people? (Score:5, Insightful)
They better get some help. It's the little things people miss that gets me. Who's gonna help them?
I think it is the consumer's responsibility to take action--why else do you think it's taken so long to get this far? Because they're so big, and so few people are acting!
Yes (Score:2)
If you have 3 full-time paid professionals reading articles, interviewing competitors and reviewing Microsoft's business plans, that's more than enough resources to keep track of them.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
This is basically a sham deal. As people point out, they are Guilty of using a monopoly position and leveraging their competition out. That stands firm. Probation is the equivilent of a light slap on the wrist, and a warning not to blatently abuse people anymore (though subtly doing so is ok)
Let's not forget (Score:2, Flamebait)
Americans let's remember this when it's time to vote again in a few years. Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale. He's too close to the business and too far from the people. Finally, he doesn't understand the issues.
This isn't meant to be flamebait. Heck, I voted for him (sorry about that). I'm just saying it would be foolish to fail to consider that he instructed to courts to back down when it's time to vote again.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let's not forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Please point to one piece of paper (and not some republicans opinion) or one shred of evidence that this suit was started because MS did not fork over the money.
"This is purely a case for behavioural rememedies. Futhermore most people at large and most legal types would probably tell that if held today, those hearings that led the finding of fact would fall strongly in the corner of MS. The market isnt the same today as in 1995, mostly because of Linux and other Free Software projects."
More nonsense.
First of all it does not matter what the market is like today. they are on trial and have been found guilty of breaking the law. You can't argue that the circumstances are different now and that the law should let you go (unless you are the riches man in the world of course).
Besides circumstances are not really different. MS still has a monopoly, it still abuses that monopoly, it still bundles, it still uses monopoly products to gain monopolies in other markets. XP is a prime example of this. The entire purpose of XP is to get people signed up on passport, using MSN, using MS media formats etc. It has nothing to do with being an OS and everything to do with delivering advertising to windows users.
And even if we were to buy your ridiculus arguments how does a consent degree enforce behavioural rememedies. Bill Gates has already shit on the last remedy and Ballmer is getting ready to piss on this one as we speak. This punishment is a joke and everybody knows that. The justice system in this country is corrupt beyond belief.
The end result of this case will be formal acknowledgement that Bill Gates is officially above the law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's not forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Also was not at least part of the reason for this trial that they broke their "probation" from previously being found guilty. If a regular person did this they probably wouldn't even get a second trial.
But here is where the idea of corporations as "people" breaks down fundermentaly.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides (Score:2)
Re:Besides (Score:2)
link... [cnet.com]
link... [siliconvalley.com]
link... [infoworld.com]
Yep, looks like $1 billion spent only on Linux to me. Just go to google.com and search for "ibm billion linux" and you'll find literally dozens more articles discussing it. Seems that, since you're a Slashdot regular, you'd have your facts straight on this particular issue.
LNUX (linux) stock tells the story right there.
Yeah, right, the stock price of one company sure tells the whole story, doesn't it? Yes, Mr. Canada, I know, several Linux-based companies have seen their stocks go in the tank. Everyone know that people are still trying to find the right business plan. It's no piece of cake trying to sell free software. (although IBM seems to be doing all right. They're selling TONS of server hardware with Linux on it)
People should do what a friend of mine is doing: put together complete, custom solutions that specifically fit their customers' needs. With the thousands/millions saved using OSS (you saw the Amazon.com article, right?) they can pretty much charge what they want.
Ahhhh, I'm probably just talking to a wall, here...
Re:Besides (Score:5, Funny)
Now the current commercial where a room full of mainframes are replaced by a single box running Linux by IBM, now that is good.
No it's not flaimbait. It's just factfree! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bush, more so than any administration I can remember, is for sale."
So you can't remeber all the way back to '96 and the Buddhist Monks? Or the White House coffees? Or renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? Or the donations from the Chinese military, Or the money from the Lippo group? Or the money from Loral Aerospace or the ....
"he instructed to courts to back down"
The president can't instruct the courts to do anything. You obviously han't mastered basic civics. Given that I'll take your up for sale comment as drivel.
Re:Let's not forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush didn't sell out to MS - he just saw a bigger picture. IF MS got blugened, broken apart, fined, etc. that would mean problems with every software developer in the nation who writes apps for MS. If MS can't keep upgrading OS's - software companies can't keep upgrading applications. Everyone loses money and jobs. End of story
Political arguments on slashdot are usually stilted to liberal Neuromancer cum Utopian technologists (at least, mine are!) Bush doesn't care about
Re:Let's not forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's not forget (Score:2, Insightful)
What a stupid fucking thing to say.
Yes, Clinton was a whore, a cheat, a liar, and a creep. That doesn't make Bush's cheating, lying, and selling-out "right."
Two wrongs don't make a right. Wrong is just wrong.
Clinton's wrongs don't cancel Bush's wrongs, nor vice-versa.
You deserve better. Demand that your leaders behave with honour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's not forget (Score:2, Offtopic)
Intellectual elitism at it's worst. If you're so smart and good, why aren't you president--wouldn't your vast and overwhelming intelligence be better for us all??
Scott
Re:Bush has a MBA from Harvard, what about you? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bush has a MBA from Harvard, what about you? (Score:2)
This just goes to show that you don't need to be intelligent to get an MBA. Most higher education just requires hard work and discipline. There's nothing wrong with that, it's probably how it should be, but don't mistake a degree for intelligence.
Perhaps it's also evidence that the education you get from an MBA, while perhaps useful for running companies, doesn't help you to lead a country.
Brooke Shields has a degree from Princeton. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voting Ain't What It Used To Be (Score:4, Offtopic)
I thought the last election was broken, not fixed.
fool me once... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:fool me once... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually they're nowhere near the richest company in the world. They're number 201 on the fortune 500 [fortune.com] list.
With revenues of only $22,956 million a year, they're a tenth the size of Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart or GM. The top 3 on the list.
Re:fool me once... (Score:2)
Re:fool me once... (Score:2)
Feds to MS: We're sorry...Let's make up (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's comments that they "wouldn't accept any prohibitions against bundling new features into windows" seem to indicate that they will continue their predatory business practices in the future.
The feds are really bending over and mooing on this one, cash whores that they are. Look on the bright side, though: They could've offerred to pay MS' lawyers fees too.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? So let me get this straight: if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, the deal will be extended so that Microsoft can violate them for two more years. ??? Tough on crime we are today, ain't we?
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. As far as I know the "findings of law" from Judge Jackson's part of this affair still hold up. That basically means that the defendant has been found guilty of criminal actions, and put on some kind of probation, but if he/she violates that probation, the probation will continue longer.
OJ may have the title for "most obvious perversion of justice by a single man", but I think MS just got it for perversion by a corporation.
If I ever get found guilty of a crime I'll have to suggest this one to the judge. "Your Honour, I'll agree to do 5 years of community service, but if I decide not to do that community service, I agree you can pretend I'm doing it for 2 years longer. Sound good?"
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
>actions, and put on some kind of probation, but
>if he/she violates that probation, the probation
>will continue longer.
Hmm... I don't know about you but... where I come from - if you violate probation... they put yer ^&(^*! in jail.
So, if Microsoft violates probation then they should be stiffly fined and or have their requirements expanded in scope.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has signed consent degrees before and broken them. They were not fined for it.
Microsoft will break this consent degree, and they will not be fined for it.
In 2007, Microsoft will sign yet another consent degree. They will break it, and will not be fined.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You certainly don't get a secont trial and more probation
So, if Microsoft violates probation then they should be stiffly fined and or have their requirements expanded in scope.
Except that a fine isn't analagous to jail. You'd want something more like freezing of all assets and suspension of corporate charter.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Wow! A Consent Decree (Score:5, Insightful)
Office formats? (Score:2)
In my mind, when the various open source office suites can read and write MS Office fluently, then there will be a real choice on the business desktop. Open Office can hold a conversation, but it isn't fluent.
It also doesn't say anything about Java. One of the specific findings was that MS was anticompetitive by deceiving developers with its embraced and extended Java. I think they should be forced to include a Java VM in their browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Office formats? (Score:2, Informative)
See, the anti-trust trial was not dealing with Microsoft Office, or their perceived monopoly in the office suite application space. Therefore, any remedy addressing Office would have been extraneous to the suit, and would not have been accepted by Microsoft. Furthermore, ther DOJ and Attorneys General know this, and thus would not have suggested such a remedy in the first place. The compromise addresses Windows (via OEM licensing practices and bundling of things like Media Player) and IE (opening of some of the source code, supposedly) because those were the two things the suit was concerned with (Microsoft leveraging its Windows monopoly via OEMs to push their internet browser to kill Netscape).
Having a monopoly IS NOT WRONG. It's not bad, and it's NOT illegal. Abusing it is. And when such an abuse occurs, you address that abuse, and that abuse only. It doesn't matter whether Microsoft happens to have a monopoly in the office suite space, because that had no bearing on the browser market. Period. Case closed.
Trick or Treat (Score:2, Informative)
...and in other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Shameful (Score:4, Insightful)
Cynicism (Score:3, Funny)
-Brian
Re:Cynicism (Score:3, Funny)
-Brian
you know what, your right. they will put neutral people on that pannel. just like they did for the warren commision. nice and neutral...yep.
Re:Shameful (Score:3, Interesting)
> Watch concerns over "the economy" and vague "terrorist" tie-ins put the brakes on the states actions.
Too late [yahoo.com]: Once more, the "national tragedy" is invoked as an excuse to give the powerful what they want.
Re:Shameful (Score:4, Funny)
Gee...if I'm ever found guilty of a crime, will I get to tell the court what penalties I find unacceptable?
You're right. "Putrid" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Don't Forget... (Score:2)
Short on details but sounds like crap (Score:2, Interesting)
"Microsoft officials also have warned they wouldn't accept any broad prohibitions against bundling new features into Windows."
Since when does the party found guilty in a criminal case get to set terms on the sentence? This is crap!
"Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing."
Again, this is crap! Like every other product on the planet, more features should cost more or the same and the only discounts should be based on quantity.
Re:Short on details but sounds like crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you see Dell et al. getting calls from Grandma and Grandpa asking where their windows was and what this penguin was??
Scott
What did you expect? (Score:2, Troll)
Did you think they would rip all of this apart to save companies like VA Linux and Novell?
Tentative Settlement (Score:2)
Another consent decree? (Score:2)
There's something rotten in Denmark.
Re:Another consent decree? (Score:2)
And the Panel will be: (Score:4, Offtopic)
RMS
Steve Jobs
We'll take care of this monopoly business in no time.
Re:And the Panel will be: (Score:2)
Re:And the Panel will be: (Score:5, Informative)
Monte was one of the three authors of the famous Altair Basic that Gates and Allen get credit for. Monte evidently wrote the math routines. He's now a software and systems consultant (Alluvial Software [alluvialsw.com]). It appears he does works on several platforms, including Multics.
He knows the business, and more importantly, he knows Bill.
-Paul Komarek
Where's the penalty? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the AP story (paraphrased):
-Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
A very reasonable restriction but is this a penalty? No.
-Banning restrictive contracts but allow financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
Gee, that's what I thought they were doing before the trial. Bill said "you can do it our way or you can't do it at all". Instead he'll say "you can do it our way or pay more". As if anybody hasn't noticed, given the choice between paying one price for something or paying more for the same thing, which is the typical consumer going to pick? PC vendors have a choice of doing it Microsoft way or coming up with a great song and dance routine to make the exact same box running the exact same software appear to be worth more money. Is this a penalty? Hell no!
-Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows source for its Internet browser, but not Windows.
Huh? Who the hell wants the source to IE? What good is it going to do since Microsoft already illegally monopolized the market? Is this a penalty?
Found guilty by the trial court with that verdict upheld by the appeals court I ask for the last time, where's the penalty?
Re:So everyone uses Linux and AMD then? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are all in denial (Score:2)
Get real folks, Microsoft is more powerful than ever. This only solidifies their empire. They are the world's most powerful corporation by a long shot, and they have almost a complete stranglehold over the consumer computing experience.
For consumers, its boiled down to two choices - AOL or Microsoft. Take your pick, everyone else is chump change at this point.
Re:You are all in denial (Score:2)
Now, if you're talking about power in the computer industry, yes I would agree it's the most powerful. However, AOL also has a lot of power, however they don't control the platform. It kind of reminds me of the TMBG poll on slashdot some time ago asking "Who is the most powerful?"
Ian
Re:You are all in denial (Score:2)
BZZT! Walmart employs three times as many people (1.2 million compared to 380k at GM).
GM has huge revenues, (WMT is near but a little less), but WalMart and many others have vastly more income than GM. Walmart hd income of 3 billion, GM has 386 million in the last recorded quarter.
Doesn't really matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
It made companies brave enough to piss of Microsoft by trying out alternatives. The IT industry is once again interested in investigating other solutions, some of which Microsoft can't destroy or bury through anything else but providing value per $ spent on thier products.
I'm happy - I'm Microsoft's customer again, not thier biatch-yesman-mouthpeice to my companys upper management. I have a choice again - and more choices coming with each passing day, when new code gets posted on myriad CVS servers across the Internet. More choices coming with companies that were heartened enough by the DOJ case to actually develop new, great products that don't require Windows and in some cases directly compete with Windows.
Roll up your sleeves, people, and get back to work. We are the competition.
Soko
Worthless (Score:2)
No deals with OEMs is great, but I'm SURE they'll still do it...all it takes is one guy with a suitcase full of $100s.
What a worthless trial that was. Thanks Bush. Fucking asshole. Oh well, maybe the terrorists will get him. Or Gates.
How 'bout this (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should be punished for their misdeeds by being fined billions and billions of dollars. (I like to call it the Sagan treatment.) This will send a message to the shareholders to make sure that they don't break the law anymore and suffer further punishment, and have the delightful side effect of severely reducing Microsoft's ability to buy near-monopolys in related fields such as cable tv, etc., as well as putting a lot of money into the government coffers to allow the meeting of expenses such as part of the cost of fighting a war without having to increase taxes or federal debt quite as soon or as much.
Halloween Story (Score:2, Insightful)
Evidently Microsoft manage to "Trick" us all by providing "Treats" to the right politicians.
Halloween Documents (Score:4, Interesting)
Source code for browser, eh? (Score:2)
The keyword for selecting the source codes to open is intercompatibility. IE follows open standards reasonably well, and any of it's own web standards are open (or otherwise no one could write html for IE), so it's not so much of a problem, not at least yet.
The most important source code would be for Office, especially for its file format, and also for the data structures (i.e. headers). Office is the most important source of the infamous Application Barrier mentioned in the Fact of Findings.
Other pieces would be other file formats, such as those handled by Media Player.
Another yet more useful would be requirement that any hardware drivers must be opened. This might be somewhat more difficult to get as it would require that also other companies than Microsoft open their drivers. It could be formulated in a way that Microsoft must require that any hardware drivers be licensed with an open license (with "open" I don't mean Open Source but a minimal source license that allows reading the code to attain intercompatibility).
And of course,
I knew it would come to this (Score:2)
I personally thought long ago that the settlement of US v. Microsoft would involve Microsoft offering Plain Jane versions of Windows that allows an end user or OEM to install their own additional software.
As such, my prediction has become reality. Don't be surprised that we may see an AOL Plus Pack for the Plain Jane Windows XP Home Edition that includes Netscape 6.x (using final Mozilla 1.0 code), Real Network's Real One media player, AOL IM or ICQ, and so on. And this add-on pack will include full support for RoadRunner cable modems, too.
Oh No, Mr DOJ! (Score:2)
What a coincident! (Score:2)
My universities was replacing SUN workstations with NT workstations til we found out the hidden contract they've with M$. *SIGH*
DOJ solution: Half the OS at twice the price! (Score:2, Funny)
Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Microsoft can do anything it wants, as long as it also offers a lobotimized version too...
Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features...
Microsoft can't force people to buy the version they want to push...
but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
but the lobotimized version can cost twice the price!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the part that actually does something:
Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software
A yup... that'll fix 'em it will! No more worries about dirty tricks from Microsoft, yeehaw!
How about PRISON (Score:2, Insightful)
When you break the law you go to PRISON. Period.
Instead, the "punishment" is to vaguely ensure that they don't break the law anymore ?
Who gets to be interoperable? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Under the settlement proposal, Microsoft would be required to make that information available in a "secure facility," where representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified could study the Windows programming code and ask questions."
"Carrying out the technology-sharing provision remains one of the sticking points in the settlement talks. The government wants to make sure it is effective, while Microsoft wants to make sure it can protect its intellectual property."
This sounds a little dodgy in terms of open source programmers being allowed a peek for compatibility purposes. And if the code they write then reveals a Microsoft "secret" what happens?
CALL YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL!! (Score:4, Informative)
I suggest you call your own state attorney general and tell them not to give into this federal get-out-of-jail free card...
CALL THEM THURSDAY MORNING FIRST THING AND TELL THEM!!
Here is a site with the phone numbers for most all of the states aj offices..
http://www.naag.org/about/aglist.cfm
Here are the 18 states still involved as complantants in the case..
Connecticut, Iowa and New York have generally been viewed as the three states championing the case. Also involved are California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Also call California and New York because they have the most power and have been the 2 most outspoken against the results of this case so far..and call IOWA because Tom Miller the IOWA AG is the spokesman for all the 18 states involved.
The law don't mean shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The law doesn't mean a thing. Well, not really. The law means a lot, but only to little people. Those with expired tags ("And maybe perhaps could we check inside your vehicle, sir"). Those with less insurance than they need ("You should have opted for the 'Act of God -- but only under duress' clause, sir..."). Those who can't afford a lawyer ("One will be provided for you should you not be able to afford one"). Families with sudden tax burdens ("Actually, it's guilty until proven innocent in a non-jury trial, sir -- get out of your house immediately"). For large corporations and individuals, the law doesn't mean shit.
The law is what you've paid for. It's not what is right, or true, or just... or even what's wrong. It's what's been paid for. It's been this way ever since we've had governments. PoliSci 101: Those with power wield it primarily in order to gain more. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I had to say it. And in a capitalist society, power is money. Therfore, money is politics. Like I said, back to day one of class and nothing new. This is just the most astonishing example of money making government we've seen recently. It's a Morgan or Hearst-like thing.
And since the I have the soapbox out, here's some advice: Fuck Microsoft. They're petty, awful people and I feel that one day soon other people will find it in their best interest not to bet their careers on them.
I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, and stongly against any spurious government interdiction in the free market. But I'm also a realist and realize that there has to be some form of interaction. Shoddy products can be dangerous, after all. But the real power is held by the people: The people that buy stuff for IT departments. I beseech them to look at alternatives to MS prodcuts. They will likely save money (and their jobs) in the long term.
Again, all this is so old it's cliched. But that makes it no less true. Although it's so late in the story du jour that nobody will every see this, so it's all one hand clapping....
-B
Re:The law don't mean shit (Score:2, Interesting)
It is the people who apply the law, the people who write the law, the people who vote for the people who write the law that "mean shit". I guess I am an optimist, I think that even if the states agree to this the Judge will throw it out.
I mean she is not bought and paid for and it is clear that this preliminary remedy does not address the infringing issues. After all another federal court judge from her circuit found Microsoft guilty.
I too am a libertarian, but I advocate a limited penalty not one where the government is actively monitoring the company with a panel of some sort. This is just ripe for endless headaches.
Re:The law don't mean shit (Score:3, Insightful)
But I would clarify you post a bit. Our legal system is controlled 100% by the legal profession. How many congressmen are NOT lawyers? How many Supreme Court justices are NOT lawyers? Heck, how many judges of any level are NOT laywers? How many members of the executive branch below the cabinet level are NOT laywers?
The problem is clear to me: conflict of interest. Normally it is not a problem, and quite efficient, for an industry or profession to be run by its practioneers. We want our medicine delivered by physicians. We want our children taught by educators. We want our software written by programmers. But the law is an exception. The law is raw naked power. And we have given the monopoly over that raw naked power to a single profession.
Take the legal system out of the hands of the legal profession. Lawyers need to stick to representing their clients and judges need to stick to arbitrating disputes. Let congress be composed of the ordinary people. I want to see congress composed of farmers, educators, physicians, programmers and automotive engineers.
Wow a 3 person panel (Score:2, Insightful)
States hire power lawyer for just this reason (Score:5, Interesting)
They've hired a power lawyer to get more for all their trouble. We can expect them to contest this settlement, in it's current form, I think.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
MS monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Sound and fury (Score:3, Insightful)
* Letting Microsoft add new features into its flagship Windows software, but requiring the company also to offer a version that doesn't include those additions.
Full OEM version: $30
Stripped OEM version: $80
Profit margin from each system $60
If your losing money on each system, you'll never make it up on volume.
* Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing.
How does this differ one iota from how MS cornered the market? Put MS-DOS on on all of your systems and get a price break equal to your profit margin. Install even a single copy of DR-DOS, and you pay full price. The month after MS implemented the policy, DR-DOS sales tanked!
* Forcing Microsoft to reveal parts of its Windows blueprints relating to its Internet browser software, but not the blueprints to Windows.
So everything is now defined as being part of Windows, and IE is now just an interface to some system libraries. Hate it for all those out there who wanted to actually display pages written by FrontPage on an alternative OS.
This has got to be one of the biggest paper tigers since Reagan's immigration bill in the 80's, the reason you now have to 'prove' you're American or have a VISA to work here. Illegal immigrants can produce a photocopy of a drivers liscense and the Human Resource drone at the cleaning company checks off on the form. These rememedies, whether you agree MS is guilty or not, are full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing.
Random Facts (Score:3, Interesting)
Some random financial facts about Microsoft [smartmoney.com], compared against the biggest company in the world (by revenue) Exxon Mobil [smartmoney.com]. Scary Stuff:
Basically, even though Microsoft has approx 1/10th the revenues of each of the top 3 corporations in the world (the others are Wal-Mart and GM) it has approx half the profits they do.
In June 2000 Microsoft's pre tax profit margin was 60.2%. After taxes it was 41.0%. Seeing as Bill Gates owns 13.3% of Microsoft, every dollar spent on a Microsoft Product -- actually let's make it every $100 because $1 won't buy anything MS sells. For every $100 you spend on a MS product, Bill Gates gets on average $5.33.
There are sites that try to try to put is wealth in perspective [google.com]. This is the google cached version (don't wanna melt the poor guy's server) but it's pretty much up to date.
Re:would a breakup be better? (Score:2)
I think this is more Linux's problem than Apple's and Microsoft's (although Linus would probably argue that this isn't a problem at all, because, atleast this is what I've been hearing, he's not interested in taking down microsoft and colonizing home computers with linux for every day Joe's).
F-bacher
Re:would a breakup be better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft would like the world to believe that the fate of the economy rests on its shoulders. If that were true, MS would not be looking for new and exciting ways to milk money from people (auditing impoverished schools and children's charities, forcing people to pay to keep their software running, etc.) just to keep the company fed. Back in March and April of this year, upgrades of Windows 98 were outselling Windows ME, and Apple's OS X was outselling Windows 2000 upgrades. With all the reasons to hate or fear Windows XP, and all the anger MS's latest license policies are rousing, Microsoft is going to have a tough time selling Windows XP. Add to that the low PC sales (= OS sales) and MS so conveniently trying to overextend itself going for new markets (web services and game consoles), and you get a Microsoft that is weaker than it has been in years. It is ripe for its competition to unseat it, and removing its stranglehold on the market would free up a lot of room for real innovation that would actually spark growth. Microsoft is an ugly, smelly, half rotten weed. It is making the computer industry very sick.
Yes, Apple does make things user friendly (as opposed to MS merely making them user annoying). They have taken that talent, and applied it to an operating system based on an open source version of BSD Unix (plus the Mach kernal and a proprietary user interface). The result is the powerful, but easy to use, OS X. Finally we have a Unix that is as easy to use as Mac has always been, that runs Quicken and the Sims, is as powerful as Unix, and has a Terminal application that the brave can use to access a real Unix shell prompt. The result: Mac users who have never seen a command line before are eagerly rushing to acquire "mastery of the Terminal app", and are posting tips about their favorite cryptic command line like game cheats or easter eggs! OS X is quite capable of filling in Linux's weaknesses on the desktop. OS X makes the Mac a very credible threat to Windows, especially since Apple is the strongest of the desktop computer makers at the moment. Microsoft does not realize the danger here (Shhh, don't tell them).
Linux is nothing to be sneezed at either. It is doing very well against Microsoft on the server side. It is not out of the running on the desktop side either. Linux is a good choice for the enterprise desktop, in cases where commercial apps aren't needed, and MIS has competent people to administer the users' machines. Linux is also good for embedded systems.
Java is supposed to overtake Visual Basic and Visual C++ next year. The success of an OS depends on its developers. If the developers are moving to system independent Java, that weakens Windows and threatens
The alternatives are here now, and ready to roll. Microsoft is either going to have to learn how to compete, or they are going down the tubes, and dragging with them any PC maker stupid enough to not find themselves a better OS. Somehow, I don't see MS learning how to make bug free programs that do what the customer wants any time soon. If I were IBM, I'd start making the rounds of the software companies and get them to start turning out Linux applications.
As for the antitrust trial, this is getting ridiculous. Microsoft has been found guilty of doing nasty, illegal things with their monopoly. Shame. Shame. To even consider "settlement" talks during the penalty stage of a trial is bad enough. Agreeing on the exact same thing that MS violated years ago is idiotic! MS already thinks it is above the law. Letting MS off is going to make it think it is the second coming.
Time to appeal to a higher court: the consumer. Punish Microsoft for their wicked ways by taking your business elsewhere!
Homage to Godzilla, King of Monsters, on the occasion of his 47th birthday this Saturday.
Re:Finally this reched a conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
"Terms of the prospective settlement were closely guarded, and people close to the negotiations cautioned that precise language was still being worked out even between Microsoft and the Justice Department."
which means absolutely nothing has been worked out. We all knew a deal would eventually be worked out, but without specifics it's still quite up in the air.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surpised if the Justice Dept. found the recent "concessions" by Microsoft (allowing icons of Internet Explorer to be removed; allowing the user to easily change the default browser on the Start Menu) to be enough. This was the same Justice Department, after all, that "demonstrated" how it could remove Internet Explorer by deleting the icon from the desktop.
Watch for more tomfoolery...
Re:What is the sound of one hand slapping? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Clinton Administration... (Score:2)
Remember also that the government uses Microsoft products. They have no interest in turning off what is eventually going to be their biggest IT supplier, if Microsoft is not already.
Its pure fantasy to believe that the government ever had any real notion of destroying this company...they know that Microsoft has wormed itself far too deep into American consumer life to be yanked out violently. We're just going to have to live with them until something better comes along that consumers actually spend money on.
Re:Clinton Administration... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, MS didn't pay any taxes [ecommercetimes.com]. I did, but they didn't.
Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
First, read this [cnet.com].
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
Re:ugh (Score:2)
Re:States Carry On (Score:2, Informative)
You can bet that MS would work that angle for everything it was worth if the situation arose. They don't need to worrry about losing or even about attempting to win if they can manage the situation such that they can stay out of court in the first place. "Business as usual" then.
Re:Alternative proposal for sanctioning MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is my proposed consent decree:
1.).Net Framework: Microsoft must open source (BSD license) the
2.)Incorporation of Nonessential Functionality in Products: Microsoft must offer a simple means of avoiding the installation of or removing the following functionality post-installation: a.) all applications or network-based services not integral to the proper operation and maintenance of the Windows operating system (i.e. explorer, movie maker, photo editor, imaging software, media player, messenger, games, MSN Explorer plus whatever
3.)Privacy Management: Microsoft must not distribute any information it gathers about its customers/users to any third party without the explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent of that user. Microsoft must provide a simple, secure method for any customer/user to view all information that Microsoft has gathered with respect to that user and permit the customer/user to delete any or all of such information. Microsoft must use its "best efforts" to secure such information from accidental divulgence to third parties. Absent explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent, Microsoft must demonstrate that it does not utilize internally or distribute certain user information including contacts, calendar, and financial information except as absolutely essential to the provision of that service.
4.)Pricing/Marketing Restrictions: Microsoft must offer standardized, openly published pricing to any customer for a given volume of products. Microsoft must not enter into any agreement which would have the contractual or de facto result of exclusivity for Microsoft.
5.)Compatibility with Other Office Programs: Microsoft must offer the OpenOffice XML file filters for the following Microsoft Office versions: 97, 2000 and XP via a download from its Office support website and must bundle these filters as one of the default supported file formats in any future Office version or any service pack for an existing Office version. Further, Microsoft must publish the file formats for the following desktop applications: Office including FrontPage and Publisher, Visio, Project, and Money including the current version, two past generations, and all future versions (three months prior to commercial release of a product utilizing the new format). The DOJ would reserve the right to add to this list of products.
6.)Open Source Device Drivers: Except to the extent that such incorporates third party copyrights, Microsoft must release the technical specifications and open-source (BSD license) its source code, to every extent possible, for all devices and peripherals supported by the current version of Windows (i.e. scanners, printers, sound cards, video cards, hard drives, USB devices, controller cards and chips). Program management for this effort will be similar to the open source