Massachusetts Holds Out On MS Case 407
Cubase de Pilsen writes: "Massachusetts' attorney general said his state would not sign on to a proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft because it does not protect competing software makers." Several other state AGs as well are angling for more restrictions on Microsoft, but some are prepared to sign on to the current version of the settlement.
Amen to that.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also of note that the judge has to sign off on the deal being "in the public interest". If she comes to the conclusion that Microsoft has a demonstrated history of violating and/or ignoring conduct remedies, therefore a pure conduct remedy will probably be treated likewise, therefore such a remedy is equivalent to no remedy, and the lack of a remedy is not in the public interest...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
Or maybe the corporation could just be seized and dissolved, all its assets made property of the government (for physical stuff) or public domain (for intellectual property). Now, that would send a message, one that the Bush administration would have a hard time overturning - especially if the Supreme Court backed up the seizure. It'd help if it was spun to the public as "you get free Windows from now on": sure, the more knowledgable people (like most Slashdot readers) would know the further implications, including down sides, but most Americans would selectively perceive only that their neighborhood computer vendor could now sell computers for cheap, and given them a bunch of choices for what comes on it (even though they may well wind up picking what they already do: the option to perceive and ignore bad choices has inherent value, to them).
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
Which would then be overturned in the SCOTUS as being a completely unreasonable punishment for whatever crime was commited.
It's amazing how completely out of touch with reality people are.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
That's all doable, though I'll admit the last one is not a cakewalk like the first to. That said, if all that is proved in front of the SCOTUS, even they might well uphold the punishment.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
That's enough for today.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
I also see a bunch of lawyers realizing that they can't get away with blaming the computer vendor for their mistakes so much. Perhaps those who view business as "who can I sue" instead of "provide value to the customer" will find their jobs that much more difficult...but I see that as a good thing.
As for actual harm coming from such an act? I see lots of pontification, lots of angry and confused people of great self importance. But for the people who actually have to work with the stuff, I don't see that much of an immediate change, and what little there would be, would be positive.
In short: yes, I have thought about this. IMHO, it could be an immediate benefit from the moment it goes into force.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
That's just wrong.
Since they threw out the remedy for bias, they never reached the merits of Jackson's proposed remedy. They cannot rule on an issue that is not before them, and they remanded for a new remedy after "vacating" not "reversing" on the remedy.
All of the states and joined the DOJ in saying that they would not push for a breakup. There would be no reason for them to do this if it was a mandate from the Appeals Court.
Re:Amen to thaReat.... (Score:2, Informative)
Further, Read their rejection of MS' appeal on tying and motion to stay pending Supreme COurt action on Petition for Cert. They specificall said that NO REMEDIES WERE PRECLUDED from their June decision.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not even a two-way breakup would really help. The companies still have the same leadership and thus the same tactics. What needs to be done in cases like this is throw the leadership out and replace them with people at the bottom. Or even offer the positions to leadership from other companies deemed non-competitive that Microsoft squeezed out of the OS market. If Bill Gates were to find out that he could lose ownership of his own company and indeed even be barred from entering Microsoft headquarters and owning Microsoft stock he'd unbundle software from Windows so fast you could see the bits fly.
Sound harsh? That's exactly what the leadership at Microsoft did to owners of other companies with their tactics. They kicked the competition out market. In turn, the court should kick them out of their own company.
Of course, they won't. But they should.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:3, Informative)
Going along with your leadership comments and what was in the book, it's my belief that Gates runs the company head to toe, rubbing off on his top execs, and collectively causing the problems that the company has had with the FTC and DOJ for the past 5-10 years.
my belief is that tossing out the leaders wont do anything, and it would make DoJ look bad. Assesing a fine that encompasses all of MS's gains that came as a result of their violation of the Sherman Act is a minimum (the current settlement lets MS off the hook financially), imposing guidelines on how the company should behave in the market concerning contracts (a consent decree of sorts), and mandating those leaders to take classes in business and legal ethics.
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2, Interesting)
The perfect remedy would be to force full disclosure from MS.
That is: All API's and file formats need to be accessible by the general public at least three months before it's released. No need to break them up, or to force them to reveal their source code. As any large company, they're already documenting their API's and file formats internally, so it's no extra work on their part.
Historically, MS has used it's monopoly to hinder competition - this will eliminate that ability, and level the playing field completely - MS is free to "innovate" whatever it wants, it just has to give everybody fair notice beforehand.
If MS uses an undocumented API function, they're in breach of federal law, and are subject to something harsh - maybe a complete seizure of all income until the three month period has elapsed, or $1 Million fine per unit shipped per day (this will "encourage" them to play along.)
Re:Amen to that.... (Score:2)
Yep, they can stop paying for it. State attorney generals are going to have a hard time justifying the huge costs of continuing this legislation in a recession. Up until now, the Feds have been footing most of the bill.
go figure. (Score:2, Funny)
For about 10 years, the president of the state senate was the kid brother of the major local mafia boss. I kid you not...
Hmm.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Last Days (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's look at ways to provide consumers with better options. For example, Mandrake 8.0 Powerpack edition comes with a number of games. 3 of these, including the enticing TuxRacer, crash my machine on startup.
Until we can have a simple Linux install (which Mandrake has almost perfected) that doesn't come with any broken components (which they've flubbed), the regular consumer won't switch
Consumers never had a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Pack in Linux instead of windows with every PC sold and users will be using Linux.
Why would they return? (Score:2)
Did they return windowsXP because XP was new?
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
...and I wonder how quickly said legislators would U-turn after having irate retailers and/or citizens pester them...
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
By denying sale in the state, they effectively circumvent the local legislators - and by encouraging out-of-state vendors to sell to people in MA they "prove" the market demands their products... very much a win-win if they can pull it off...
Not that I'm saying this would be a good thing, of course...
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
I think they know it'd backfire just that badly. But I wouldn't bet my life on Microsoft's intelligence...
good (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
First off all, it's a trade commission issue over there, not a years-long court case. They can even use Jackson's original FOF as evidence, and expand the scope of the ruling to consider MS's more recent behavior that the US court case was unable to consider. Then, they can just make a decision, and implement it. And, they've already figured out what
EU Trade Law Fun Fact: Under some circumstances, bundling is just flat-out illegal. If you have Product A and B, you are allowed to bundle them, but if you do, you also have to make them available as separate products, and you can't charge drastically more for the separates. The French are making noises about going after MS for bundling DOS 7 with Win95, and under French trade law, that bundling actually constitutes fraud and actual executives actually do actual jail time for that kind of thing in France.
Another consideration for Europe is that MS is overwhelmingly American in structure. About 90% of their structure exists purely in the US, and their profits therefore go mainly to feeding the US economy, and not Europe. It'll be a lot easier for the EU to dick MS than it would be for them to screw with GM or Ford.
Re:good (Score:2)
Re:good (Score:2)
That's OK :-)
Despite my comments [slashdot.org] on Prime Minister Blair the European Union as a whole looks likely to stand a lot firmer than President Bush.
However if Microsoft were a French company, well, who could say what the EU would do then?
- Derwen
Re:good (Score:2)
I assume that this is sarcasm in light of the track record [internet-magazine.com] of one EU country's leader [vnunet.com]. :-)
However some European countries are flying the flag [ofset.org] for Free Software [schule.de] and open standards
- Derwen
OT -- State funding for Linux in Europe (Score:2)
I did say it was OT, but what the hell - mod me down anyway ;-P
- Derwen
Re:NY state previously said it would persue this (Score:2)
as for my Europe comment: I'm talking about how the EU wont take this case as lightly as Bush's administration suddenly is.
Call your attorney general (Score:5, Informative)
Minnesota attorney general's number (Score:4, Informative)
If you're in Minnesota, your attorney general is Mike Hatch. His office is 651-296-3353. The person who answered was very courteous, and happy to hear my opinion.
Re:Call your attorney general (Score:3, Informative)
They are closed right now (4:30 Eastern), but I would urge you to call tomorrow.
Re: AG contact info for NY and Calif. (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a Californian, the contact info is here [state.ca.us] for California attorney general Bill Lockyer- you can call toll-free (800) 952-5225 inside California.
Given that MS has a history of astroturfing [aaxnet.com] again [computerworld.com] and again [eetimes.com] pretending to have a grass-roots movement in its support, it would be a good idea to express bona fide concern about how fair the settlement is at a time when it might make some difference.
Citizens of NC, please respond. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citizens of NC, please respond. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you take the time to write it out and snail mail it, too? Otherwise you can be almost certain that it won't recieve more than a glance to make sure it's not a death threat. Expect a form letter reply, or email, at the very most if that's the case.
(Want to really get noticed? Sprinkle some powdered sugar into the envelope. Of course, you may not like the kind of attention they give you...)
Write letters!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The hand-written word carries a good deal more influence. Take the time to lick a stamp and mail out a physical letter, and it will carry more weight.
P.S. I just realized that this post might sound like an insult to mjh. It's not. Snail mail does get noticed more, though, that's all.
Re:Write letters!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given all the paranoia surrounding snail-mail these days, politicians & their staffs might not want to read much mail.
In these days, email just might get more attention.
Re:Write letters!! (Score:2)
While I agree that this dounds logical, it simply wasn't true in the congressional office I worked in. Emails and letters were tallied and responded to (by letter) in exactly the same manner. Of course only constituent emails and letters with valid addresses in the constituency were counted.
Re:Write letters!! (Score:2)
History repeats itself - and Massachusetts gets it (Score:5, Informative)
Pre-1994, MS licensed their software based on how many units an OEM sold. Sell 100,000 PCs, pay for 100,000 licenses, even if 1,000 of those PCs has DR DOS on them. The consent decree outlawed this practice. Microsoft then (and now) licensed their software based on model lines. Sell 100,000 Model 50s, pay for 100,000 licenses. OEMs could sell PCs with other OSs without paying the licensing fee, as long as the PCs were in a model line that did not EVER have MS software installed. Naturally, such model lines were rare.
Pre-1994, Microsoft knew exactly how many PCs were sold by each OEM. Post-1994, they knew how many PCs were sold within each model line at each OEM. They could analyze pricing, advertising, hardware and software loads offered in each model line and determine what the public bought and how much they paid.
No one else can match this level of intelligence. No one else knows what people use their PCs for to the degree of detail that Microsoft knows. This resulted directly from the 1994 consent decree. I'm waiting to see what advantage MS will gain from this one. I'm glad at least one state AG gets it; without stringent behavioral guidelines, MS will alter their behavior in exactly the wrong direction.
The best read ... (Score:4, Funny)
The last paragraph says it all particularly well.
Re:The best read ... (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
It's a bad deal to begin with (Score:3, Insightful)
A good solution would be to restrict Microsoft in those actions that they were using to crush competitors: exclusive and restrictive contracts with hardware manufacturers. Restricting MS from entering into these contracts would be a simple and effective method of freeing up the market place for other operating systems and bundled software. It would effectively eliminate their monopoly leverage point without taking away their de facto monopoly.
Microsoft wouldn't need to release their business plans 5 years into the future, and they would be encouraged to keep their software current in order to remain competitive with other products that could possibly be bundled by OEMs.
Dancin Santa
_de jure_ monopoly (Score:2)
Re:It's a bad deal to begin with (Score:4, Interesting)
A) Document all APIs, protocols, file formats, etc. This would seem to be the primary use of an operating system, and it would dramatically increase competition.
and/or:
b) Eliminate licensing altogether, and move them back to the standard copyright: No copying for distribution. You can make seventy-five copies and store them in your attic if you own a legitimate copy, but you can't compete with MS (for profit or for free) with their own software.
Re:It's a bad deal to begin with (Score:2)
Maybe you should go read the section titled Prohibited Conduct. Pay attention to subsection A and G.
new remedy proposed (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are some of the states not "signing on"? Perhaps they, like many of SlashDot's audience, are unhappy that Microsoft won't be paying out as much cash as hoped...
States like Massachusetts depend a lot on tax money. Like it or not, it's a by-product of their liberal government style, big promises means big governement costs, and like businesses, government always passes its costs on to its "consumers", i.e. taxpayers. But, raising taxes is not "in vogue", so they are constantly scrambling to find other cash sources to pump their constituents full of pay-ou... err, entitlements.
Here we have Microsoft, the ultimate Tech cash cow, and they did a BAD thing, so naturally our government stepped to punish them. We cheer that the government recognized that they were acting against market forces, but government is cheering for new-found cash...
Compare this to the government's recent lawsuit on Big Tobacco. They lost, the people won, right? The corporations were forced to pay millions for bad advertisements, and that money was supposed to go to the states for education, right? Where did that money go? Studies show at most 10% of the states have actually created anti-smoking programs with the money, everyone else threw it into the "general fund" so they could pad their pet projects.
Don't be surprised that some states are "holding out", just understand that they aren't doing it for the reasons you think.
Re:Microsoft ... like "Big Tobacco"? (Score:2)
That being the case, I think it's more likely that Mass. is holding out for better reasons. They see the loopholes in the current agreement and decided it would not be an effective barrier to Microsoft continuing its illegal practices.
Proud to be an American from Massachusetts,
Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:5, Informative)
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin
Here's what I sent to the Attorney General in my state:
"
I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:
1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.
3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.
"
Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:3, Troll)
Corporations that meddle in governmental affairs should be treated like the felons they are.
1) Felons lose the right to vote. Corporations should lose the right to lobby. Make it a criminal offense for anyone involved in government to be associated in their official capacity with a worker from that company or under that company's umbrella. It would be nearly unenforcable (more wine, Mr. Rumsfeld? Now let me tell you about our new missile system...) in all but the most blatant situations, though.
2) Felons, once convicted, always have the 'mark' on their record, which is ultimately the worst punishment. One thing that would be nice to see, if not entirely constitutional, is for the SEC to 'mark' a company as having not played fairly, and adding a fee to any equity deals, or even capping the price of publicly traded share of the stock. The SEC is who lets these companies get so big, they need to start taking responsibility.
3) Take a cue from Megan's Law. Have companies convicted of monopoly abuse be forced to carry notices on their products or wherever their products are sold, "This company has been found guilty of unfair practices by the US Dept. of Justice". But still, let them be sold. The American way is to let them compete, but also for the people to be informed.
4) Have the FCC place decrees that keep the companies from advertising in broadcast media, or have their ads be censored for a period of X years. Convicts submit to this, businesses can to.
A corporation lives and dies by its goodwill; when you start taking that away, then they'll really get scared. And when you take away their freedom to screw consumers, they fall in line rather quickly.
Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
I think this is in the proposed settlement. I saw something about 3 outside auditors. They need to be there, since if you can't verify that the settlement is being implemented, then it isn't an effective solution.
2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.
There would need to be provisions for bug and security fixes, so they could be implemented in less than 90 days, but this issue could likely be worked out as long as this can be monitored by a third party for compliance.
3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
The trick part with this one will be internal APIs. Windows, like other OSs, uses internal APIs that are not intended to be exported to application or even driver developers. Hiding these APIs allows changes to be made to Windows without breaking outside developers code. These APIs exist so the the internal parts of the OS can communicate in a structured way, and are not meant for use by outside developers. Other people using those APIs would likely result in software breaking everytime Microsoft changed some inner working of Windows. There have already been enough examples of developers using functions that Microsoft did not consider to be part of a public API, and then the developers complaining whe Microsoft changed the API. The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.
4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.
I'm not sure the OEMs would like that very much. I think that they should have to share the details of such agreements with independent auditors, but OEMs don't want competitors to know details like what kind of volumes they are buying, or planning to buy from Microsoft. An alternate solution of having Microsoft have a fixed volume pricing schedule for all OEMs might be a more reasonable solution, though it wouldn't really be fair to void the current agreements Microsoft has made with OEMs (fair to the OEMs that is).
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
I agree that OEMs should have the choice of selling "dual-boot" systems. I'm not sure that a lot of them will choose to do so because of increased support costs, but they should have the choice.
The one problem I do see is that OEMs will sometimes bundle crappy software (because it was cheap). Microsoft should have some right to insist that it be obvious to the trained eye that the software isn't part of Windows. Microsoft does have a brand name to protect, and they should only have to suffer for the failures of their software. Otherwise they will have little encouragement to improve the quality of their own software. Their software is in need of some quality improvements, but they have been making some progress, and I would like to see that continue.
6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
I agree that Microsoft shouldn't be able to disallow the use of software based on it's licensing.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
This is simply the prohibition of free speech. I can't support this remedy. Microsoft, and especially the people who make up Microsoft, have the right to speek their mind, and lobby for ligislation. Free speech is a constitutional right, and our government shouldn't even attempt to take that right away from anyone as a condition of a settlement in a civil case.
Re:Write the Attorney General in your state now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these (or maybe all) are not original with me, just given as an example.
I saw something about 3 outside auditors.
Not sure that's enough. Plus, whoever it is will have to have some technical savvy. Many auditors lack that.
The real problem will be determining exactly what needs to be public, and what Microsoft has a right to keep private.
The problem is that MS is notorious for having undocumented API calls that give them advantage. If it's callable from a program, it gets documented, I'd say. If it hurts MS, so much the better. They are guilty until proven innocent.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes....
This is simply the prohibition of free speech.
Yes it is. Individuals who are convicted felons lose the right to vote and to bear arms. This is a reasonable prohibition for a corporation which is a convicted felon. MS has proven time and again that they have no business influencing the legislative system. They have behaved in bad faith so often, it clearly is part of the corporate culture. (And while I'm at it, just what is Bill Gates's problem, anyhow. He's already the richest and one of the most powerful men on earth. Why is he willing to lie, cheat, steal for more? Are the jokes about the name of his company true?)
I do agree that some of my points need work and you had some good suggestions - I'm not trying to be belligerent. But MS is BAD and they need to be slapped down HARD. And if it costs them some or most of their stock value or market share, well, that's actually a good thing. (Guess I'm a fanatic after all.)
Mass. is a Commonwealth! (Score:2, Informative)
(no, it doesn't really matter)
Interesting commentary (Score:3, Interesting)
In recent weeks, we have seen Microsoft remove its support for Netscape extensions, forcing Apple to scramble to revise its QuickTime plug-in so that it would work with the Windows version of Explorer (and making us wonder if this also had something to do with Microsoft's desire to push its own Media Player [windowsmedia.com] format). At the same time, it omitted Java support from Window's Explorer [see previous item [slashdot.org]]. Then there is XP's reduced support for the MP3 format (again in favor of Microsoft's own alternative), plus the countless ways XP coerces you to MS-approved web sites [see this item [cnet.com]]. Add to all of this the recent controversy over MS blocking access to MSN by web browsers other than Explorer (see next item). We could go on. But you get the point. Yes, it certainly appears that Microsoft has been humbled by this lawsuit.
My take on the court case all along...
Microsoft's defense: "No, Your Honor, we're not responsible for murdering the victim! We only pointed the gun towards him and pulled the trigger -- it was his fault that he wasn't strong enough to deal with that! Besides, he was someday eventually going to die anyway! And there's no point in punishing us now, since he's already dead."
DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never to do it again! Here's your gun back."
Re:Interesting commentary (Score:4, Informative)
XP doesn't have reduced support for MP3. It plays MP3s just fine, just like it has ever since Media Player came out. In fact it has enhanced support for MP3 over previous versions because you can buy a $10 plugin that'll let you encode in that format.
If you don't agree... Prove it. Show me an older version of Media Player which had better support for MP3 than what ships with XP.
Answer: You can't, because you are spreading FUD.
Just like the Netscape plugin issue, the JVM issue, etc. FUD FUD FUD.
Re:Interesting commentary (Score:2)
The point was, the complaints about this issue were FUD, pure and simple. It's a case of Sun claiming victory in the battle, but losing the war and then whining about it.
IE and JVM (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand it, this is not quite right. Microsoft is not being forced to remove a JVM because they never had one in the first place. There were selling something which was like Java, and largely compatible with it, but broke the standard in a number of respects. So the thing that came with IE was not Java, but Microsoft was calling it "Java" anyway. Since that's Sun's trademark, Sun demanded they stop.
I don't think anybody is stopping them from bundling Sun's JVM, or even their own implementation of a true JVM which implements Sun's Java standards. Help me out, folks, am I wrong here?
Sounds Right to Me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting commentary (Score:3, Funny)
No no- you mean:
DOJ: "Yes, you're right, we're sorry. We're going to punish you by telling you never t... no... no, we're going to punish you by saying publically that it would be nice if everybody was nice, not implying that YOU aren't nice or anything, okay?"
"Here- have another gun."
slow to respond (Score:3, Interesting)
ME:
Greetings,
I am a not resident of Florida, but I wanted to send my
support for your case against Microsoft. I think that
the proposed settlement does not go far enough, and
that harsher restrictions need to be made against
Microsoft, and that particular attention needs to be
brought to bear on the newly released Operating
System, Windows XP. Please accept my support of your
work thusfar on this case, and continue to do the good
work you have been doing. Your work is much
appreciated in the technical community.
Nate Baxley
THEM:
Thank you for taking the time to email the Florida Attorney General's Office regarding our involvement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. As you may be aware, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently upheld a federal trial court's finding that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly.
One of the many duties of the Florida Attorney General's Office is to enforce Florida's consumer protection laws, which require us to protect the consuming public and legitimate businesses from those who engage in "unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices" in commerce. (Section 501.202(2), Florida Statutes) The Attorney General is also authorized to bring actions to protect consumers against violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
In accordance with our statutory duties and the recent Court of Appeals decision, we are currently working with the federal government and other states to reach an acceptable settlement to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations. Our overriding goal in this effort is to restore healthy competition to the marketplace so that Microsoft can no longer use its clout to illegally impose its will on consumers and would-be competitors. The trial court has given all sides until today to reach a resolution with a mediator. If no settlement can be reached at that time, we will prepare for a trial that would start next March. We remain hopeful that a settlement can be reached, and will do everything we can to find a resolution that protects the interests of Florida consumers.
Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated and will be considered as we enter the remedy phase of United States v. Microsoft. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.
3 cheers for capitalism! (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, it might work, and then we'd be stuck with this desktop monopoly for the forseeable future.
I don't think people would've built all the wonderful new OSes (and jump-started moribund BSD back to life) if the dominant OS wasn't overpriced, amorally marketed, and basically lame.
But a consent decree, that M$ will of course subvert or ignore as they have all previous such, should be a good thing.
It'll inspire more people to work towards a better alternative, and better alternatives will encourage non-techies to get off the monopoly teat.
--Charlie
PS- Be kind, I forgot my asbestos underwear today.
--C
CA and NY are key (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that if this drags on a little longer, unlike before, this will be a plus. The reason is that I've heard many economists on the government side hoping that XP will revive the economy as win98 did in 98. I think XP is not living up to that bill at the moment and in a month or 2 this will become apparent even to the DC big honchos. At that point restricting M$ won't quite look like shooting the economy in the foot...
Re:CA and NY are key (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a Californian, the contact info is here [state.ca.us] for California attorney general Bill Lockyer- you can phone (800) 952-5225 from inside California.
Obviously... (Score:3, Funny)
Ximian powerful enough to take on MS?!?!? (Score:2)
Are you crazy? Ximian doesnt even have 1 billion dollars in the bank. They are a very small company, millions sure, but Microsoft has more like 100 billion.
Microsoft not out of the woods (Score:2)
Wired [wired.com] has an article [wired.com] about the settlement allowing dual-boots. An addition at the end says that Senator Pat Leahy intends to have Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to review the settlement.
Also, the EU is still going forward with its investigation [cnet.com]
Finally, Sun [sun.com] is mulling the possibility of a civil lawsuit [cnet.com] of its own.
Contact the DoJ via Email (Score:3, Informative)
From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm [usdoj.gov]:
If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov [mailto]
Impress them with your eloquence. That's how democracy works.
Either that, or... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:way to go (Score:2)
I read somewhere recently that MS has upwards of $30 billion in cash reserves. Losing %60 of that would hurt, but would do nothing to change their behavior. Besides, they would never pay it out in a lump sum anyway. They would work something to pay it out over 5-10 years minimum. In the end, you would need something on the order of the tobacco settlement to really hurt MS financially and I doubt that will ever happen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:way to go (Score:2, Informative)
The GDP of the United States is 9.3 trillion dollars. May I inquire how a few billion dollars will derail the economy?
kill Windows XP WITHOUT a viable alternative of equal quality and support in both software and human support
Could that be due to a monopoly in said software field, I wonder?
put thousands of people out of work
Now, THAT's a good reason to keep Microsoft around... not!
You'd think that the antitrust suits against the steel industry, the railroad industry, AT&T, IBM, etc. would teach you something...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:way to go (Score:2)
The only people who will be irreparably damaged will be the top executives and other investors of Microsoft - since Microsoft has already been found guilty, irreparable harm is legally justified - and those who place excessive faith in said company - "excessive faith" of the type that causes ongoing untold damage (such as relying on IIS to be a stable, secure Web server). Hopefully, damage to the latter group would be less than the self-inflicted damage that this action would help stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Political Reality strikes. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It depends on the state leaders (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing the result of that poll would be quite different. I think the Gallup wording was biased towards Microsoft by omitting that MICROSOFT WAS CONVICTED OF ABUSING MONOPOLY POWER! Say what you will, the fact is they were found guilty and the appeals court upheld those findings. To let them off now would be to make a mockery of our justice system. What is the point in convicting people if there are no consequences to being convicted?
The original wording for the Gallup poll was:
Re:It depends on the state leaders (Score:2)
Also, the article mentioned that if the coalition breaks, tbe remaining states can either go on themselves or force the hand of the other states.
You're right, it all comes down to the leaders. If other states join Massachusetts and hold out, they may be able to get a better deal done.
On October 30, two interesting things happened: My Karma surpassed my IQ; and I got the +1 Bonus,
I think you're missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Sam
Re:I think the settlement should be accepted, (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering MS has $39 billion in cash I don't even see this as being punative. If my AG doesn't hold out for that I want him removed.
Personally, I hope this dies during the proceedings for the Tunney Act. This reeks of politics and selling out. Yeah, ditch the original legal team and put a bunch of newbies on the case; get the decision almost entirely re-affirmed on appeal then abandon key areas of the fight. Finally (as if), meekly agree to a toothless settlement that isn't even nearly as strong as one that was rejected. A settlement where the monopolist makes the rules and some puppet advisory board gets to pretend that they can enforce the agreement. All for the grossly mistaken assuption that if we leave this convicted monopoly alone the decimated tech sector will bounce back.
Yeah, just give me another tax refund so I can go buy a copy of WinXP. At least then my Passport information will be safe. :P
Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem! (Score:2)
So, some day we will have a software industry that is not dominated by lawsuits, but it won't be by unilateral disarmament.
Re:Such BULLSHIT! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of.
Mandrake- I haven't used Mandrake, but I've used Slack, Debian (potato and woody), RedHat, and Caldera, and I'll tell you that not one of them is ready for the home desktop.
Linux in general- Even if the OS came pre-installed on a desktop box, the average home user will most likely not be able to install any new software. If they're lucky enough to find the program they want via Red Carpet, they have to hope that it was put into the proper menu (and why, the user will ask, do I have to have a root password to install this? WTF _is_ a root password, anyway?)
As a matter of fact, I just upgraded my printconf via RC this weekend and was confused as hell when my printer wouldn't work afterwards. It turns out that my
cp
Just to get her printer working again. It's not going to happen.
I hate to use these examples, but anyone who thinks that Linux is ready for the average home user that doesn't _want_ to know anything about their computer needs to hop on down to a PC retailer and check out OSX and WinXP. These two OSes are on the right track, or at least far more so than any Linux GUI project to date.
BULLSHIT? No, Linux is ready. (Score:2, Insightful)
cp
/etc/init.d/lpd restart
Oh sure, I suppose we should tell her how to hack her binary registry instead? Perhaps granny should just have a backdoored system so that the helpful ISP admin can fix it for her, and everyone else can use her as a warez site? Granny is going to need help, and I'm not going to chase that Windoze crap for her. Man files, text configs and what not that don't change each time M$ needs additional income or wants to break some other program are so much easier.
Oh yeah, my wife calls the shell "the foot" because Red Hat gave her a button for gnome terminal emulator. She has come to understand the concept of a root account. Forced to do a little for herself, she is getting good at it. Neither of us can make 98 work our printer anymore, but it works just fine under Red Hat. The rest of my machines run Debian. Nothing could be finer or easier. Be gone, Troll.
Re:Such BULLSHIT! (Score:2)
"Lindows- It's like Linux, but you use it to run Windows apps. Here's a novel idea: Run your Windows apps... IN WINDOWS. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've yet heard of."
Your msg is biased, you refuse to accept any linux thats like windows, However the only linux to actually be useable by the average user must be like windows. DUH!
Lindows will do just fine, its better than windows, yet it runs windows files, this is what people want, people dont care about GNU or linux, they just want something better than what they have yet still runs their files.
Also (Score:2)
What stops Lindows or another linux from being commandline free? completely gui?
Re:Such BULLSHIT! (Score:2)
Re:Punish the Crime (Score:2)
I can see it now.
Customer: I don't understand this. I specifically ordered this system with Windows XP to be loaded on it. Why isn't Windows XP on it?
Dell rep: I'm sorry, but your machine shipped towards the end of the day and we had reached our quota for Windows XP. So we decided to install a substitute operating system.
Customer: But I didn't want AOL X! I don't even use AOL as my ISP. I can't do anything with this computer now! I'm sending it back!
Dell rep: Sorry, we don't offer refunds. The choice of your OS has been mandated by the Government. If you don't like it, talk to your State Attorney General.
Customer: ARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!
I think you have it backwards (Score:2)
Re:I think you have it backwards (Score:2, Insightful)
Far more important to regulators is the manner in which the monopoly power was obtained. If I compete in a perfectly fair, competitive manner and my rivals fail only through their own mismanagement or other failure, the monopoly power was obtained legally. If, however, I use anticompetitive behavior such as exclusionary dealing, bundling, and other techniques, then I have obtained monopoly power illegally.
MS has committed criminal acts and therefore is subject to penalties. One part of any settlement should therefore impose large fines on MS for their past actions. The second issue the final resolution must address is how the monopoly will be regulated in the future.
In short, any serious resolution must address two issues: punishing them for prior criminal behavior and controlling their monopoly power in the future. Fines alone will not do much against monopoly power, and publishing API and other technical specifications does not impose a real penalty for past behavior.
No. (Score:2)
However, you are confused.
Bundling is not a crime. Exclusive contracts are not a crime. They got in trouble for being a monopoly.
Exclusive contracts and bundling are a crime if you're a monopoly. Being a monopoly is perfectly legal.
Re:Punish the Crime (Score:2)
BZZZT! And thank you for playing! Here's [sjgames.com] your lovely parting gift.
MS did not get in trouble for being a monopoly -- that's perfectly legal. They got in trouble for abuse of said monopoly... using their monopoly in the OS space to obtain a second monopoly.
Re:Punish the Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft was found guilty of illegally mainaining its monopoly status. That is a finding of law, in other words, it's the crime of which they are guilty.
It is possible to find that my company holds a monopoly in its market, but that I have done nothing illegal to maintain that monopoly. In that case, my company is not guilty. This is not what happened in the MS case.
The Appeals Court did not, in any way, overturn the findings of fact, nor fault with the findings of law (the verdict). It only overturned the remedy, because the remedy may have come out of personal bias on the part of the judge. The Court did not say that another judge without bias could not find the same remedy appropriate.
Another example: it is legal for me to bundle products if my company is not a monopoly; it would be difficult to prove that I am using a bundled browser to give my OS an unfair advantage in the market. If I held an OS monopoly, however, it could be proven that my browser has an unfair, unearned advantage because I bundle it with my OS.
A company with a monopoly must be much more careful about bundling, because the rules that it must follow are different than those for other companies, and bundling, api-hiding, and so forth are tools that MS uses to leverage their OS monopoly to kill competing browsers, media players, or office suites.
That, to my understanding, is the spirit of the law. There is a reason convicted criminals get up on the stand and apologize at sentencing; they want to get a lighter sentence. MS could have admitted that their actions were in line with Jackson's findings, but it was that refusal to do so (and evidence tampering, and lying in depositions) that made Jackson think that MS had repeatedly put its interests above the law. If he had not granted interviews with the press (a judge is really not supposed to talk with reporters about cases, ever), his ruling might have stood, because it would have been harder to prove bias. In a jury trial, a judge has to keep from laughing and so forth, but with no jury but himself, a judge can snicker when a defendant lies and that alone is not grounds for overturning his findings.
Re:Being a monopoly is NOT a crime. (Score:2)
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. Next time I'll use a sledgehammer.
What bugs me about the antitrust laws is that justice is turned on it's head. The blindfolds have been taken off of Lady Justice, so that she now says "tell me who you are and I will tell you what laws you must follow". Seeking a competitive advantage is a natural, legal, ethical and moral course of action for companies, unless you have been declared a monopoly.
I am a firm believer that laws should apply to everyone equally. If something is illegal for you, it should also be illegal for your congressman, and if your congressman has a special legal priviledge, then you should have it as well. Likewise, if a action is legal if performed by Sun, IBM, Apple, or the ISP down the street, then it should be also legal for Microsoft.