Microsoft Settlement Comments 343
GreyPoopon writes: "I'm sure somebody has already sent this in, but what the heck. According to Excite, it looks like a summary of the comments on the Microsoft settlement only show 5 of the 47 released by the Justice Department in support of the settlement. Does this mean that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will rely on only these 47 to make her decision?" The comments that the DOJ describes as "major" are now published; the procedure the DOJ wants to follow for publishing all of the 30,000 comments received is contained in a court filing. (The Federal Register, if you don't know, is a dead-tree, daily publication of the doings of the U.S. Federal Government. The Department of Justice is arguing that there are simply too many comments to publish on paper, despite the legal requirement to do so.)
Next, Ashcroft will file suit on BEHALF of M$ (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Next, Ashcroft will file suit on BEHALF of M$ (Score:2)
I liked the part about the "colors of evil".
Slashdot for Government! (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it is time for the Government to create, adopt or otherwise standadize a system to allow registered voters to discuss and debate on current issues and policies.
Something like Slashdot, but the people who run the show would be our elected politicans instead of our current dictatorship
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also a major problem in all online communities I've participated in
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
On a discussion forum, the cost in money moves to zero and the people with the most time & people resources will be the "vocal minority."
That is until someone creates the ultimate discussion-bot that analyzes and attacks every oppossing message methodically and quickly. Kind of like P.R. flaks but smarter and you don't have to pay them.
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
isn't the already the case??
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
Tuesday and Thursday, however, we are anti-establishment, we support the opening of all software, the bypass of all copyrights, we're anti-
read the slashdot bylaws before you post next time =)
!z
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:3, Funny)
"Frist Ps0t! I 0wNz j0o Ge0Rg3 \/\/!"
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
You actually had a decent chance of being included in the comment base if you took the time to actually write an intelligent thoughtful comment. Form letters were tossed as obvious attempts to flood the channel. It probably winds up being similar to the number of comments in any number of Slash articles, and reading everything above 0. 15,000 submittals that were not trolls, flamebait, etc, and which actually had some content is probably not that bad."
probably better than here at slash. 47 comments that rated a 5+ - too bad their weren't any threads. "
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:5, Funny)
Something like Slashdot, but the people who run the show would be our elected politicans instead of our current dictatorship
And on the floor of the US Senate:
"Mr. President Pro Tem, I would like to point out that many of my constituents are 1337 h4xx0r5 and want the president to post his rear end in a "goatse.cx-ian" manner!
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
F1R5T P05T!!!!!
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
You have a gift for understatement comparable to calling the Grand Canyon a "ditch".
"It isn't who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
- Various versions of which have been attributed to Lenin, Stalin, and historical references going back to American political cartoonist "Boss" Tweed in 1871.
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
- Various versions of which have been attributed to Lenin, Stalin, and historical references going back to American political cartoonist "Boss" Tweed in 1871.
Perhaps I should elabourate: there would be some hefty perks to the government owning that network, such as the ones I mentioned. I sure as hell wouldn't allow some corporate bastards to be trusted to deliver my votes!
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
I sure as hell wouldn't allow some corporate bastards to be trusted to deliver my votes!
Nahh, you'd allow some government bastards to be trusted to deliver your vote, which they highly appreciate since they're far better positioned to exploit control of the vote than any corporate bastards would be.
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is not a good idea.
The problem is that under this approach there's no way that the vote can be completely anonymous and uncoerced. It's possible you can secure the transmittal, storage and count of the votes (although as a professional security and cryptography expert, I would say that doing so is beyond our current capabilities), but how do you prevent a man from forcing his wife to vote for his candidate? For that matter, how do you prevent the local union from forcing all of their members to vote in a certain way. If there is any way for a voter to demonstrate conclusively who he or she voted for, there is a way to coerce that voter.
Because of this, it is critical for the integrity of democracy for voting to be done in complete privacy. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this means that voting must be done in a public place, where everyone can see that only one person enters the polling booth at a time.
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
Who is to say that it'll be a private company doing it? Crown corporations aren't a myth, you know, and could see the government starting one up to get it into every household.
Maybe "every household" is a misnomer...How about every household that matters? Sure -- there are households without radios or telephones, but people that reclusive probably won't miss not being able to vote.
Ideas are how innovation comes about -- I know in your little world others do the thinking for you, but the rest of us need to concieve and implememnt these things.
Re:Slashdot for Government! (Score:2)
Give the people willing to talk a voice? I see no problem there.
The best part is that the mere installation of media could allow this to happen. Install the cable for free, sell a device at a loss(we're talking a dollar or two here) which would allow for voting without a PC (just a yay/nay button and a screen for displaying the issues). In this case, the only people who aren't going to vote are the same ones who didn't want to pay for gas to get to a voting booth the social equivilant, and these same people wouldn't have a voice at all in a democratic republic.
Re:s/for/the/ (Re:Slashdot for Government!) (Score:2)
It's fun to read some of the pro-MS propoganda^H^H^H^H comments. For example:
COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY refering to the settlement: ...However, it is carefully crafted to ensure that Windows will remain available to consumers as a reliable operating platform.
Hmmm. I thought the court case was to prevent Microsoft from engaging in anticompetitive practices. I didn't think that keeping windows as a reliable operating platform was part of the court case. If anything, allowing for some competition *WOULD* make Windows into a reliable operating platform.
Probably won't matter (Score:2)
It might help sway her against the settlement, but a two-thirds majority overall is a fairly strong case for vacating the settlement.
Any way you crack it, the public has shown that the settlement was inappropriate given the charges.
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
However, since comments were voluntary, and there is a considerable amount of emotion in the arena, the sample is guaranteed not to be random.
It could be that MS tried to form a grassroots campaign (In fact, this did happen)
It could be that Sun and Oracle and Netscape tried to form a grassroots campaign, along with slashdot and the OSS movement (In fact, this did happen)
One side having more people who could write a convincing argument doesnn't have a big effect. You have no idea in what proportions the original 30000 messages were. It could be 30000-46 messages that said "Microsoft should be let off the hook" and 46 messages that went into detail as to other methods.
Further, the popular opinion doesn't (or shouldn't) rule, the actual facts in the case should.
Note, I am not saying that MS is in the right, or that they are in the wrong, just that your argument doesn't work out the way you want it to.
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the post on Slashdot. [slashdot.org]
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2, Informative)
Max
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2)
However, if the opinions are meant to be a sample, should they not be somewhat representative of the population they are drawn from?
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2)
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2)
the simple fact that the judge wanted any letters that didn't have good detail and arguments about the case or appeared to be form letters should eliminate alot of the astroturfing... of course this just leaves "expert opinion" type letters left (which have their own biases)
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2)
The article says that the proportion was about 2:1 against the settlement. I.E., a two-thirds majority against. Didn't you read it?
Re:Probably won't matter (Score:2)
Judges are trained to decide based on right/wrong arguments, not what is popular. The Judges are their precisely to make sure that the political branches, that operate off popularity, stay between the lines. They are supposed to be independent, and counting the comments as votes is not independence.
Common Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, this is all just conjecture. I could be dead wrong.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
But is the government going to send these huge paper copies out to these computerless individuals? No, of course not. These documents will be available for review in public places - courthouses, public libraries, etc. Since these facilities already have computers (mostly, anyway) persons unable to view the CDROMs would only have to pop down to their local public library and browse the ones provided to them there. It's the same trip they'd have made for the paper copies, too.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2)
sPh
[1] Yes, I know the Federal Register is printed on high-acid toilet paper. I am assuming they print one good copy on rag bond. I could be wrong about that.
Re:Common Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but it shouldn't take much more than a federal judge issuing an order allowing the DELAY of publication while the legal issues of the method is resolved.
Re:Common Sense (Score:2)
I expect that the courts will respond in kind: "You must publish the results, as the law requires you to; but We recommend the law be changed."
Re:Common Sense (Score:2, Informative)
Saving public money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Saving public money (Score:2)
Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
No kidding, it's hard to believe whoever wrote that has a PhD in anything. For instance:
Fiction #1: Microsoft is a "monopoly." There is no such thing as a private monopoly. Only the government can forcibly prevent competitors from entering a market.
I guess the Government-enforced copyright monopoly doesn't count? And in my economics classes, I learned that a monopoly is a company with concentrated market power, which may or may not be harmful to society. Any RATIONAL thinker would agree: of course Microsoft is a monopoly in the PC operating systems market, their product is used on a vast majority of PCs. A is A., and Microsoft is a Monopoly.
This economic power, the power of voluntary trade, is fundamentally different from political power, the power of the gun.
To quote George Will (was it George Will?) Capitalism is a government program. Let's say hardware Company X decides they don't like to pay microsoft for machines that don't have Windows installed. IE, they break their contract and sell their own machines without Windows, but don't pay Microsoft. Guess what types of weapons will be carried when their headquarters are raided after Microsoft sues them for breach of contract? That's right! Guns! Or maybe the company should just blow up their unsold PCs, Howard Roark style.
Ayn Rand took the valid and noble concept of rational self-interest and turned it into a sophomoric caricature, an unrealistic and simplified viewpoint that applies to everything yet is completely irrelevant here in the "real world".
Kindof like how this post has nothing to do with Microsoft, oops..whatever..
Re:Nice (Score:2)
The only monopoly granted to Microsoft by means of copyright law is the monopoly on Windows. It's not much different from the monpoly that the trademark office has granted to Kraft for Philadelphia Cream Cheese. But neither is a monopoly, because you can get other operating systems, or other cream cheeses.
Not surprising, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to make myself out to be a MS-basher. That would be hypocritical, since I use MS products in my job as a programmer and at home (mostly for gaming). But even someone who is adamantly pro-MS would have to acknowledge MS's unfair use of it's size and power to not just compete with others in MS's markets, but to crush them.
I used to argue that MS hasn't done anything any other company hasn't done or wanted to do. With the exception that no other company has been in quite a parallel set of circumstances, I still more or less believe that. But MS has become so large and powerful that the decisions those in power make do indeed hinder competition. When MS decides to "embrace and extend" something (like, say, a communication protocol), sure, it protects their business - which is a basic drive of all businesses. But that kind of manuveur by MS just hurts the industry as a whole as manufacturers scramble to make MS-compliant hardware and software developers scramble to implement MS-compatible solutions. And we all do the same dance again when MS Protocol X is revised with (typically buggy) version N.0
It's good to see that the people who aren't agreeing with the settlement are excersizing basic business logic.
Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is not. It is a testament to the fact that people are much more likely to complain than they are to compliment. Ask the manager at your local grocery store or a restaurant owner which they get more of.
The fact is that a lot (not all mind you) of the respondents are either companies that have a vested interest in the destruction of Microsoft (AOL, Oracle, Sun, etc.) or anti-Microsoft zealots. I think that if you polled the whole country you would find a lot more Microsoft sympathizers than these comments would indicate.
I am not saying I am one of those so please don't flame me.
Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:2)
- substantive
comments (non-form letters, legal filings, etc). The rest (with the probable exception of the porn) will be published on CD or available for download.Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:2)
on the overall whole, i think, the judge should look at the arguments involved as to WHY, rather than just the stastitical value of the numbers when she forms her opinions time to pull out the BS-Meter
Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to sound elitist, but the vast majority of people in this country aren't qualified to have an opinion on the settlement. Anyone with a 'net connection could change that for themselves with a couple hours research, but we know how unlikely that is.
First, this is wanton speculation on your part, since the comments haven't even been published; I bet you haven't even read the ones in the link (neither have I).
Second, these companies and "zealots" do not have a vested interest in the destruction of Microsoft. Could you even imagine the utter chaos that would insue if Microsoft were to cease to exist? AOL would tank, for one. What these folks do have a vested interest in is a market economy free from the ravaging predation of Microsoft.
What they (and I) are asking for is simple: (a) enforce the laws on the books and (b) try to restore competition. If they'd done it 5 years ago it would have been easier; 5 years from now it'll be harder still.
Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to sound elitist, but the vast majority of posters on slashdot aren't qualified to have an opinion on the settlement. Are you a lawyer? Are you qualified to comment on the law in this case? Just because Microsoft wasn't shattered into a million tiny pieces does not mean the law as not followed. Your rhetoric indicates your position, but don't confuse your opinion with law.
Re:Not surprising, really... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's reword that a little: most everyone in the software and IT industry has a vested interest in the destruction of Microsoft. A fair number of consumers do too. We have a lot to gain from a market where one player is powerful enough to consistently tip things to their own advantage, whether their solutions are superior or not.
But I'm still not sure my rewording is precise enough, so I'll try again: most everyone in the software and IT industry has a vested interest in a Microsoft that obeys the laws they've been convicted of violating, and seeing true restorative measures come about, rather than the perhaps-well-meaning-but-leaks-like-a-legal-sieve proposed "settlement". This doesn't have to include the destruction of Microsoft -- just some precise measures with real teeth. That's what most of us want.
Why is this so complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is this so complicated (Score:2, Funny)
-- The World
Re:Why is this so complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
So they now have a need for this to be in digital, but no regulations to govern its implementation.
Re:Why is this so complicated (Score:3, Funny)
The way things are going, you'll probably need Windows Media Player to read the comments.
Steve
Too bad for Catavault (Score:2, Interesting)
from: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00033650.htm [usdoj.gov]
Too bad guys, you're gonna die. Not the first and not the last.
I know why... (Score:3, Funny)
Naah, the real reason is who wants to see a printed version of the goat sex dude 600 times?
Although, what ever floats your boat
being a kde fan... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00028788.htm [usdoj.gov]
Re:being a kde fan... (Score:2)
www.usdoj.gov [netcraft.com].
Netscape on Solaris. Quite nice, thank you. I'm very happy to see they're not running IIS on Win2k...
Re:being a kde fan... (Score:3, Informative)
The proposal is a full 22 page document and goes way beyond a KDE introduction. Look a little closer, maybe.
Too much paper? (Score:2, Insightful)
There more data going over the internet in an hour then there's data contained in the library of congress.
What's 30000 comments? My PDA can probably hold that.
Canadian government fulfilling its obligations (Score:2, Funny)
Frontpage (Score:3, Funny)
Hopefully the DOJ doesn't use FrontPage to publish.
Interesting. (Score:2, Interesting)
Settlement already decided... (Score:2)
sPh
Re:Settlement already decided... (Score:2)
Sony's reply (Score:3, Interesting)
Lack of RMS, and ESR and AC!!! (Score:2)
I was happy to see all those compelling arguments.
the Judge is going to have a very hard time.
I was unhappy however to see certain groups coming out for MS.....I know the ACT is an MS group so I was not suprised, but I did not know that compTIA was pro MS.
I also was not excited to see a comment about how the turrney act is for the good of the consumer and not the good of the competitor, especialy since so many MS competitors wrote in.
well, we shall see I guess
lack of AC? (Score:2)
"W00t! F1r5t c0mment!"
Nice to see a bunch from individual techies in the 47, though.
RMS is represented by Eben Moglen, his lawyer (Score:2)
Eben Moglen is the FSF's lawyer, and his comment (which made the cut: it's one of the 47) is the official FSF proposal.
Re:Lack of RMS, and ESR and AC!!! (Score:2)
That surprised me too, since they do have the Linux+ and other non-MS specific exams.
It's a shame that they have some of my money from previous certifications. From now on, though, they are on my _hit list and won't get a dime or a positive comment.
Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone else find it rather odd that supporting opinions from the Associate for Competative Technology [actonline.org] and the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism [moraldefense.com]? Maybe not. But then they also were both formed in 1998. Call that a coincidence. Also, the Computing Technology Industry Association [comptia.org] was formed in 2000 (as far as I can tell).
I didn't bother searching for the other two opinions for the settlement. Here's hoping that the judge can read between the lines here. Lord knows I can't figure out just who is the main contributer to these organizations.
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Yes, they have some of my money.
No, they won't get a dime more.
What it means (I think) (Score:4, Informative)
"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
If I understand this [usdoj.gov] correctly, the DOJ still intends to post all 47 + 15,000 + 7,500 comments on the Web, and publish them on CD, and index them in the dead tree Federal Register. (They're clever enough not to publish e-mail addresses, to the disappointment of spammers everywhere.)
I read your comment, and ... (Score:2)
WHY OH WHY??? (Score:2)
Man, could you imagine what it would have been like if these responses were written using common everyday english?
I can dream I guess....
Zz zzz zz z z z z z (Score:2)
Interesting reading.... (Score:2)
Every letter that is in normal english, isn't trying to be superior or twist the english language into a mess of convolution is an excellent insight into what the public pulse is on this issue. Every letter that looks like a legal draft or you need a 4th year degree in law or political science should be thrown out and burned.
Kudos to those that chose to be honest and framk with the court and didnt try to tell the court what they already knew... (Cripes one letter went over the entire trial and findings and probably included what the judges and lawyers ate for lunch.)
Sony's response interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Sony argues that in the past, they have added language which would strengthen their claim to it's intellectual property.
Now that Microsoft is renegotiating with Sony, MS claims that in order to be compliant with the settlement, they cannot accept Sony's modifications of the license. -which only strengthens Microsoft's ability to extend it's monopoly.
and here I thought that was one of the safest proposals of the settlement!!
KDE League -- Protecting global competition (Score:2, Insightful)
"In addition, many Open Source developers live in other countries, making it extremely difficult for them to obtain any redress through the courts. (Here it is important to bear in mind that while these developers live in other countries, their software is freely available to American consumers, and hence any harm visited upon these international developers results in direct harm to the American consumers which the Antitrust Laws are designed to protect.)"
Sad... (Score:2)
...
...Like I said. Sad.
Re:Sad... (Score:2, Informative)
Hrm, let's see.
You paint a pretty picture, but try stepping back into the real world for a moment. Be is gone because it was a one-horse company. They bet it all on their OS, then later on their Internet Appliance stuff. Neither panned out, they're gone. DEC had much more than DR-DOS, and the death of DOS isn't what killed DEC in the end anyway. And Caldera (the current owner of DR-DOS) picked it up too late to make a difference. If anything, the only thing that hurt them in the whole situation was buying DR-DOS in the first place. But IBM is still around. They're huge. OS/2 is still in use, but overall I think IBM is happier being out of the desktop OS market.
Microsoft didn't "crush" any of these. They all lost on their own merits, or because the companies behind the products screwed up on their own. Conspiracy theories can be fun, but sometimes you have to come up for air and live in the real world for a while.
And now, the Pro-settlement comments. (Score:5, Informative)
There is also one comment against the settlement, rejects the settlement as a violation of Microsoft's property rights. [usdoj.gov]
Are there any more that I'm missing?
Yes, you missed CompTIA (Score:2)
Your list overlaps mine a bit [slashdot.org].
They really did get the best 47. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an example from Mark Alexander, pseudo-randomly chosen b/c he's the first individual listed (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/m
Mark: 4) The primary beneficiary of the settlement, other than Microsoft, is the OEM rather than the consumer.
Me: Great point. I spent much of my comment saying OEMs should have the right to bundle Java VMs or dual booting machines without penalty. How does giving OEMs the *right* to do this ultimately ensure something positive for the consumer? I don't know that it does. This wasn't just a good comment for the settlement, but even for other comment writers like myself.
Mark: IV - D: Coverage for OEM should not be limited to just the largest volume 20, but should include all the smaller OEM who by nature of their size have less of a bargaining position with Microsoft to begin with and as a group represent a large portion of licenses sold.
Me: Another great point. I'd allowed the presentation of the settlement in the media to greatly influence what I wrote and never bothered to break the whole thing down line by line. Talk about your misinformed and underinformed public (aka "me"). Let's face it, Mark did his homework. I didn't realize smaller OEMs didn't receive similar/the same protections.
Anyhow, I find the individual responses to be quite interesting, moreso than, say, RealNetwork's response which was obviously put together by "real" lawyers (Can't imagine being able to say "IAAL!"). Take a look. Whoever sifted through did very well.
Senate Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI
I didn't vote for this guy as one of my senators, but I'm thinking seriously about voting for him the next time he comes up for re-election. I like the way he thinks. He hit the nail right on the head.
I'm disappointed that the only "major" responses are mostly from corporations or lawyers. Perhaps this case will introduce a new section in high school English -
"How to respond to a proposed settlement against Microsoft".
I'm sure this isn't the last one we'll need to protest...
Re:Senate Comments (Score:2)
A way to fast track the case? (Score:2)
Sure, there are parties who would like to drag on, like lawyers, MS, politicians in the MS camp, MS lobbyists.
But as the case drags on, the big loosers are: American citizens whose tax money is used to prosecute the case, Europeans (for the same reasons, as they are also in the same situation), citizens of the whole world who end up paying more for PC softwares as MS continues its bullying tactics with its monopoly, other software companies that get crushed by MS bullying tactics, employees of those crashed companies, potential companies/project that are afraid to get in MS's way... and the list goes on.
There's not even an injunction that itemizes what MS _can't_ do while the case is in prosecution. So, MS keeps doing the same thing.
By the time the case is over (in 10 years? 20? 30?), the economic (and probably competitive, hopefully) landscape will be very different, and the whole argument of the case probably won't make sense anymore. People would probably have forgotten the purpose of the prosecution already.
And during all these times, almost everyone is loosing big, except those who benefit from the drag.
WordPerfect (Score:2, Interesting)
Where is the Public in all of this? (Score:2)
What's wrong with this picture?
5 in favor? (Score:2)
I just scanned through the documents on the site and, though I may have missed something in the legalese, this is what I saw.
The responses by Joseph Bast and the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism support the settlement but seemingly on the grounds that antitrust is a bad or obselete thing. Therefore, these seem to assert that the settlement is good because it is an ineffective remedy.
The responses by CompTIA and Nicholas S. Economides seem to support the settlement but still allow for some form of antitrust.
The response by John V. Tunney appears to be a clarification of the procedure that bears his name and has little to say about the settlement.
So, I see only two that support the settlement as a remedy. Have I missed something?
Tunney (Score:2)
Part of the Tunney act, besides the public commentary, is that the defendant has to disclose any lobbying associated with the case. Microsoft argued that this didn't include lobbying of the Executive branch. Former senator Tunney's letter mostly explains that it (obviously) covers that as well as legislative or judicial lobbying.
Supporters of the settlement (Score:5, Informative)
Since the bad-guy list is short, here's a complete(?) list of those who submitted one of the 'major' papers saying the settlement was appropriate;
Washington Legal Foundation: "The United States has said it best: "[T]he [Proposed Judgment], once implemented by the Court, will achieve the purposes of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct, preventing its reoccurrence, and restoring competitive conditions in the personal computer operating system market, while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a litigated remedy."(19) We support the Proposed Judgment. The matter is long overdue for resolution, and the States that have declined to join the settlement should, in our judgment, be urged by the Department and the Court to reconsider and adopt it." [usdoj.gov]
Soap box conspiracy theories (mod away). (Score:2, Interesting)
First: Only the major comments are receiving any attention. Only corporations and funded organizations are able to devote the time and resources required to prepare a reply worty of attention. I haven't seen any numbers but I wonder how many individuals are considered in the 47 major comments. Could they take into account a random selection of other opinions? This would allow for minimal goat sex, but a chance for the average Joe with two lines to say get heard.
Second: The DOJ is the one doing the sorting. Isn't this their proposal being commented on? Isn't it in their best interest to limit the number of responses? Why bother sending in comments if the DOJ gets to remove them? Again a random selection of other comments would help. You'ld get a better idea of the true number of people for and against the proposal.
That said, (step down from soap box) I'm glad to hear that the opposition to the agreement seems to have been able to have their say. I'm also very glad that this is a system that allows for public comments on a hot topic. It could have been settled behind closed doors without any knowledge of the proceedings much less any influence on the outcome.
Nader's comments on GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify the "authenticity and viability of its business," while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights system and the future of research and development.
It seems odd that Microsoft would be allowed to choose to withold secrets based on how viable they thought the other business would be. In other words, they could say (and they have said) "Linux is not a viable/authentic business", and then they would no longer be required to share information with them.
It shouldn't be up to Microsoft to decide who their competitors are, anyway.
-Mike
Nader and Love get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Their first complaint about the settlement is "there is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too many opportunities to undermine the free software movement."
Exactly. Most of the other comments that oppose the settlement, including the nine litigating states, think that Microsoft should be forced to continue to develop Office for Mac, and some want to force Microsoft to develop Office for Linux and other unices. What they don't seem to understand is that that will simply move Microsoft's most important monopoly from operating systems to office suites (i.e. applications). In fact, this would do Microsoft a huge favor. It is becoming more and more clear that consumers will not be so dependent upon using the same operating system as everyone else. Instead, what most people care about is the ability to share Word files. If the centerpiece of the remedy is to force Microsoft to develop Office for all competing operating systems, no one will be freed from essentially forced use of Microsoft products; we will simply be freed from forced use of Microsoft operating systems.
What Microsoft needs to do is exactly what Nader proposes: open up their file formats so that competitors can produce software that can read and write Office files as well as Office itself.
Nader is also the only commenter that I saw (I've only looked at four or five of the comments, and haven't read all of any of them, given the length) who recognized the strength that the PFJ gives to Microsoft by allowing them to exclude developers whose "business viability" is not certified by Microsoft, i.e. open source and other not-for-profit developers.
May Nader continue to watch out for consumers' interests (but may he try to effect change in the Democratic party through the primaries and other methods rather than by throwing the presidential election).
Re:Let's See... (Score:2)
I'd guess about 80% less than the silicon valley cartels have bought.
Simon
Re:Evil bastards (Score:2)
Sounds like a conspiracy to me - Linux Today has been running advertisements for Windows XP for a couple of weeks now, as well, and of course, months ago "Linux" magazine got a lot of grief for running Microsoft advertisements...
They're everywhere! Everywhere, I tell you! I was wondering why the black helicopters flying overhead had the colorful MSN logo painted on them lately...
Re:I Care (Score:2)
From the comment solicitation page [usdoj.gov]:
(emphasis DOJ's).