Microsoft Seeks Dismissal with 9 Dissenting States 463
zalix writes "Microsoft is seeking a dismissal of the
case brought by the 9 States who have refused to settle. In court papers filed
yesterday Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to
bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek
sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious
constitutional questions," They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"."
This is ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
They've been caught...
They've been charged...
They've been tried...
They've been found guilty. Twice.
Someone hang them. Please!
Unfortunatly... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunatly... (Score:2, Funny)
One of my good friend's last name is Lynch. I guess he's screwed.
Re:Unfortunatly... (Score:2, Funny)
One of my good friend's last name is Lynch. I guess he's screwed.
Yes, but is he hung?
Re:Unfortunatly... (Score:2, Insightful)
That might allow him to be screwed more.
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Funny)
We have thought of using OSR(open source rope). But M$ say's that it is easy to crack and that we might end up hanging ourself and if we do there won't be any helpline to call.
***
Insanity is in the mind of the beholder
I found on (Score:2)
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:2)
Also have in mind that using rope to hang Microsoft may destroy ropes as a stable and consistent hanging platform.
Ok, I will (Score:2)
I'm so scared. I'm going to have nightmares now...
protection under the law (Score:3, Interesting)
You yankees love to linger court crap. Look at OJ and now Yeates [sp?]
I know that our court system is convoluted, but it makes more sense if you understand the reasons for it. Our system is based on the fact that 1)Everyone has the right to representation, and 2)Even criminals have protection under the law, hence laws concerning "double jeopardy" and self incrimination.
Unfortunately, it has evolved into the bloated system you see that basicly comes down to who has the better lawyer.
Every now and then, I find myself agreeing with Shakespear, where the first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. I have to remind myself how dangerous that is. With no one as an advocate for the accused, its a very short step to "guilty until proven innocent"
Good or bad, its that way for a reason. I haven't seen anything better come along.
Just a thought
BeOS/x86 flopped because of MS boot sector license (Score:2, Informative)
The states are trying to force Microsoft to release Windows without "middleware." That could seriously jeopardize the definition of an OS ... There are thousands of things that can be removed from an OS that can be called "middleware" but they're all important for a viable commercial OS.
What about the bootloader restrictions? BeOS for x86 flopped largely because Microsoft's OEM license agreements prohibited installing a bootloader that could load both M$ and non-M$ operating systems unless the OEM paid for a copy of the retail edition of the OS (at wholesale prices, which are half of MSRP but double OEM) for each computer.
Sometimes I think.... (Score:2, Redundant)
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"
Can you moderate a press release as -1 Troll?
Re:Sometimes I think.... (Score:2)
{
I guess Linux die-hards won't ever give up the "stable" issue with Windows because that's been their biggest gripe in years past. Windows 2000 is stable, like 99% of the other OSes out there. Considering all of the hardware support, ease if installation & use - they've done a hell of a job. Yes, I have my own complaints. But considering most folks on here don't even have a Windows 2K/XP machine setup, you certainly shouldn't be bitching about the stability of an OS that you don't use. Like Linux, it will work well if the user configures it properly. Hell, Linux isn't stable when I install it because I haven't the experience. So it doesn't matter much to most of the IT world because we can build stable win2k boxes. There aren't enough experienced linux users out there to warrant a company to commit to it when an experienced Linux Sys/Net-admin is going to demand more money because there are ten times as many half-way decent(sure, there's plenty of half-assed as well) NT/2K admins.
}
Re:Sometimes I think.... (Score:2)
I dont know any decent MS admin who doesnt reboot the machines on schedules, or who consolidates multiple applications on a machine. You cant do it without risking random crashes, because W2K isnt even close to anything resembling 'stable'.
Re:Sometimes I think.... (Score:2)
You're right about scheduled reboots and not consolidating services on one machine coming about from Windows perceived lack of stability.
But, to be fair, Win2K is much more stable than earlier versions of Windows. Frankly, I think the competition from Linux and other Unices was the main motivating force behind that development.
But my main gripe with the stable and consistent part of Microsofts new legal filing was the unwritten codicil that ought to have been added -
No State Injury? (Score:5, Interesting)
How can it possibly be that the states have shown no specific cases in their area? I'm sure there are many constituents in this state, or companies, that can demonstrate being harmed by some area of Microsoft actions. The states didn't just all jump on the bandwagon against Microsoft without having any cases themselves, they simply pooled their cases together. And now that the overall case seems to not be happening, they're seeking once again to address their grievances individually by state, b/c they're not happy with the settlement.
I don't see how that's unconstitutional - since the main trial already agreed that MS had a monopoly in the OS market, the states aren't seeking to make federal decisions, only to use them to help their case.
The article is a little sparse, but I don't see this being a solid argument at this point.
Re:No State Injury? (Score:2)
Re:No State Injury? (Score:3, Informative)
Not that I agree with the argument, mind you, but I think that's their point.
Re:No State Injury? (Score:2, Informative)
I'd love to see a more detailed legal dissection of this, I need to look at other posts (was too busy with work).
Re:No State Injury? (Score:2)
Exactly. Heck the trial record specifically referenced Netscape, which was based in California, which IIRC is still one of the dissenting states.
IANAL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
The essence of what the legal expert was saying was that the case was filed jointly by the states and the feds, or some such thing--not just by the feds--and so it's within reasonable limits for the states to ask for settlements separately from the feds. Basically, it had something to do with the way the case was filed to begin with.
In any event, as the legal expert went on, because of the way the case was filed, MS should have protested initially, during the beginning of the trial. The fact that they have waited so long damages their argument--if this is a constitutional problem, they should have addressed it when the case was first brought against them, and argued that the states shouldn't have separate authority as a plaintiff to begin with.
That's my understanding of this issue at this point.
A Request to Karma Whores (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you.
Re:A Request to Karma Whores (Score:3, Funny)
Other reportings.. (Score:5, Informative)
And this...... Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case, as well as one that has not yet occurred. See this link [computerworld.com]
And finally, a great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!! [usdoj.gov] Good luck!
Re:Other reportings.. (Score:4, Funny)
They're afraid people might take the piss.
"sweeping, nationwide relief" (Score:2, Interesting)
But I think it is an invalid point, it isn't the Justice department which would be applying the law, it would be the Federal court, which certainly has jurisdiction over the entire country.
Interstate Commerce Clause (Score:2)
Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (Score:5, Informative)
I never thought that Business Law class would become useful...
Each state is given the right to dictate commerce in their state from The Constitution. As interstate business took off, people saw the need for a uniformed method of trade, thus some of the lawmakers and lawyers met to propose the Uniform Commercial Code. This was a set of laws that controlled how to conduct business and defined a uniform set of rules regarding trade. Each state had to review the laws and then pass a copy of the UCC.
Today, they still need to lobby each state and ask the state to pass the law. The only reason the laws are uniform is because each state agrees to use the basic premise of these codes. The constitution still allows them to pass any commercial codes they want. If the nine states want to treat Microsoft differently, then they can. This is the same reason that the UCITA is only approved in two states. Everyone is allowed to make their own decision.
What Microsoft is really asking for is that the courts stomp over another little piece of The Constitution and ban the states from using their legal right to control commerce in their states.
IE is not a product. (Score:5, Interesting)
But they don't sell Internet Explorer. It's not a product. They don't make any money from it. Is Microsoft hereby admitting that IE is source code controlled as a way of manipulating Web standards in order to control the Internet? That they develop the product for free in order to drive competitors underwater?
Very interesting quote.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now before you flame MS, Real, Netscape and AOL all do the same thing - the product is free, but one has to do quite a great deal of cleanup after the installation.
AOL IM and Netscape - Delete QuickLaunch, Delete IE toolbar button, delete Favorite, delete Try AOL shortcuts
Real - Unassociate it with all the media types, get rid of "notifications", delete Favorites and QuickLaunch
At least in case of IE, all I have to clean out are the favorites it creates, in Media and Links. Not that bad.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they are forced not to sell it.
Netscape doesn't sell it's product because Microsoft's illegal dumping of the Internet Explorer product onto the market flooded the market with a cheap alternative and changed the rules so that to succeed, competitors had to rely on a business model that included giving their product away. They failed. Netscape is dead; AOL bought them. The only commercial browser left is Opera, who subsists on the scraps of the market.
People have lived under Microsoft's monopoly so long that they've forgotten how competition was supposed to work. It's sad.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose a OSS GPL'ed browser was super popular 5 years ago? Then Netscape *still* couldn't make money off it since people would use the free alternative.
To put things in other perspective. How much money is MS loosing to GCC or media players like Winamp?
It swings both ways!
I think what pisses trolls like you is that its MS that took advantage of it [e.g. you're stupid to not have thought of it].
Stop being a sore loser and just try to be a more positive influence!
Tom
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:2)
Basically Microsoft defeated all competitors in the market, and elimintated the ability to charge for certain software.
Now the market itself has created a competitor that operates against the same strategy of providing software for free, the GPL.
That is exactly why Microsoft is so scared of Open Source software, it takes away the competitive advantage they had used to gain domination of the market.
But then, they reap what they sow, its their own damn fault that the price point for browsers, media players, etc. it $ 0.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the word illegal in the post you responded to. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. If there'd been an OSS GPL'ed browser available at that time, it too would have suffered the fate of Netscape because of the barrier to entry on the Windows desktop. Although it might have contributed to Netscape's failure, it wouldn't have been illegal for it to do so.
To put things in other perspective. How much money is MS loosing to GCC or media players like Winamp?
If I had to guess, I'd say nothing. At least nothing significant to Microsoft's bottom line. Since they bundle Media Player, few people will go get Winamp. Since you really need MFC support to do Windows code, most developers are going to get a compiler that easily supports MFC. It's that darned "barrier to entry" again.
Go read the FOF [usdoj.gov]
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Informative)
Not true.
Netscape was giving away their product for free in the beginning to educational users - but there was no verifiable method of proving that one was or wasn't a student, so it was essentially free for all comers. This was before Explorer.
AOL has given away their software pretty much since the beginning - but they sell the service it connects to.
Opera is the only one that has had a for-profit model since the beginning. But we're used to free browsers so it's probably doomed in the end.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are going head to head with a 1000lb bear it's probably best to lay down cover your head and get trampled. At least then you live. Problem is that most companies when failing attempt to pour more money into a losing strategy instead of finding a new strategy. This was Netscapes downfall. They continued to pour money into a failing, non-compliant, buggy product (4.x). Once they began to make the turn around with NS6/Mozilla it was pretty much too late and they needed someone with deep pockets to bail them out (AOL). So now it's a battle between the evil empires. One controls software on 90% of machines, the other controls almost every other form of media and the largest group of internet/im users. Which 1000lb bear will be the one to trample us to death and bury us in a shallow grave for later consumption?
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, IE is a very useful thing for them for getting people onto MSN/Hotmail/etc.
Yes other companies are bad too. Real is a very good example - I spend ages turning off the notification, auto-updates, usage tracking, news/etc headlines, and other options after I'm silly enough to install it. Netscape (as in the browser/communicator suite) isn't anywhere near as bad though - about par for most applications (no I *don't* want that extra crap program, no I *don't* want icons on my desktop, etc). These things are normally easily disabled whilst doing a custom install and not having to fiddle afterwards. Although I have to admit I've not used it recently, so perhaps AOL's integration has got worse. Personally I do spend some time with whatever browser configuring things such as home page, display preferences, cookie settings, etc, but those are my likes and not nasty extras forced upon me. IE I probably spend least time on, but only because there're fewer options.
Not quite. You need to update it to the latest version to be secure against a large number of security holes allowing access to your filesystem. After the update it often likes to ask you about setting up mail accounts and sends you off to MSN whether you want to or not. Then there are the things you've mentioned. But you don't go far enough. You should disable the user tracking stuff too (hint: Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Enable Profile Assistant - use the ? tool to see exact what that does - nice eh). Disabling various things that tie in with IE is also a good idea (see recent security alert about unique identifier in windows media player that can be accessed via IE). Microsoft's integration is not a good thing. Finally I'll repeat my comment about availability of options - there're things I would like to change about IE but I can't (IE 6 and WMP tie-ins in particular). I'm more happy installing Real player/similar and spending some time to know that I've disabled all the "dodgy" stuff than I am using IE with the number of security alerts that appear for it.
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:2)
Re:IE is not a product. (Score:2)
Product IE or Not Product IE (Score:5, Interesting)
However according to www.dictionary.com i.e is a product.
"\Prod"uct\, n. [L. productus, p. pr. of producere. See Produce.] 1. Anything that is produced, whether as the result of generation, growth, labor, or thought, or by the operation of involuntary causes; as, the products of the season, or of the farm; the products of manufactures; the products of the brain."
It is the purpose of Ie that is called in to question by microsofts comment,"The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions,"",It is a product not intended to make money but to hold other browsers at bay, it is a tool of control for microsoft, if it were open source it would lose value as a tool of control
In my mind a
Think about this: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Think about this: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux users can't really make a monopoly as there is no controlling body, just a distributed group of independent and mostly unpaid coders that happen to be cooperating for kicks - no single company or person really has any real code, if there were such, others can take the code and go somewhere else.
Government created IP (Score:5, Informative)
If you recall, the only reason that there is the idea of "intellectual property" is because the government created this legal fiction for purposes of public good. Very similar to the existence of a corporation, actually.
You see, the government grants the special status of a corporation, and the special status of copyright. Given that those are both (useful) legal fictions, it is not unreasonable that the government can take them away or control them when these government created and granted legal fictions get abused.
Noone would stomach the government telling someone that they're not allowed to distribute the source code to their own program. What a person does is up to them (subject to constrains of law at least theoretically designed to keep people from infringing on each others' rights). A person as such has (inalienable) rights, including those of property and freedom of speech. However, a corporation doesn't even exist until the government creates it, and copyright does not exist on its own without the government creating it. Seeing as how both are their creations, is it not unreasonable that the government can direct the uses of its creation to prevent their abuses?
Re:Government created IP (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like you believe in freedom of speech. How about freedom of association? How about the freedom to contract? Can I get together with a bunch of my friends and form an association called -- say -- "Microsoft Corporation"? With contracts specifying that we delegate to the officers of the association the power to exercise some of our rights on our behalf? And contracts between that association and other associations and individuals, that agree to deal with the association as a unit as far as debts, liability, and so on are concerned? How is the government involved there?
It looks like you believe in a right to own property, by which you apparently mean physical property. What makes the right to own physical property more "inalienable" than the right to own intellectual property? Certainly there are functional arguments (ideas cannot be used up, etc.), but those have nothing to do with "inalienable rights".
There's no such thing as an inalienable right. There are only social and legal conventions. You have a "right" to free speech because the majority of society recognizes that right, and has agreed on a legal system to support it. You have a "right" to own property because the majority of society respects that right, and has agreed on a legal system to support it.
We can argue about what kind of social and legal conventions we should have. But let's not draw arbitrary lines in the sand and say some conventions are as fundamental as laws of physics and other conventions are "created by government".
In future news... (Score:5, Funny)
Under this agreement the states agree to re ammend an future litigation to include future contestment to future settlements of future points of litigation involving but not precluding any agreement in the first place.
In the event of any preclusion of an agreement to be acceptable to both or any parties invlolved are hereby resolved to the point of future litigation pending a court order with at least a 365 day warning pending aprroval of a senate oversight committee.
If these agreements are not met then proceed to Go and do NOT collect $200/month.
Seriously (Score:2)
Only a federal court can make sweeping antitrust rulings. The federal courts have already spoken, so how can a few states go against that ruling?
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Informative)
The courts have spoken, but only to the effect that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The DoJ and 9 states have proposed a settlement with Microsoft that would take the case out of the hands of the federal court by settling it. These other 9 states have refused to be part of that settlement and want the case to proceed.
Re:Seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
Well, yeah. :)
Where do I send my money? (Score:2, Funny)
For the first time in my life, I want to give money to lawyers. Can I start paying California taxes if I'm a Canadian?
Re:Where do I send my money? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, thought it might be an interesting read to go along with this story.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
They're admitting they can't compete (Score:5, Insightful)
So what they're saying here is that when free software succeeds, they can't compete. If ever one questioned whether Microsoft feared free software, this should quell such doubts. They know that as soon as the source is available better products can and probably will be made. And apparently that's competition they can't handle. (Yes, this is toll-like, but I kind of like being a troll sometimes. My next point is hopefully better.
Also, their objection seems ill-founded to me. If they wish to complain that these states shouldn't be able to bring an anti-trust action that has national implications, I'd want to know if they'd objected to the original 18 states being included. That is, wanting to eliminate states from the equation seems to say that the DoJ is the only body that should be taking Microsoft to court, in which case they should have objected to the original 18 states. Taking issue with the inclusion of any states at this point seems like wanting to change the rules you had tacitly accepted after the game has been played for several years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, they are saying they want to keep IE closed (Score:3, Insightful)
It somehow seems cheap and beneath us to be running around saying "You were a bad boy, now you need to give us all your code."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're admitting they can't compete (Score:3, Insightful)
The states' call for an open-source version of Internet Explorer would destroy "any incentive for Microsoft to invest in the creation of such new versions," Microsoft said.
Um, if IE were open-sourced they wouldn't HAVE to invest in jack. Those who use it and are interested in improving it themselves would develop it. It's that MS wouldn't get to control its development that is the problem for them.
It's hilarious that MS can be convicted of being a monopolist and still face such nonexistent regulations. It's as if you convicted a man of murder & robbery, let him off with a warning, then let him keep the gun because, after all, it is his gun and how's he going to earn money without it in the future? Back in the days of Standard Oil you could really get punished if you abused your monopoly. Ah, but this is the "information age". You can have it if you ask me.
Re:They're admitting they can't compete (Score:2)
Internet Explorer For Macintosh.
Ergo, IE *MUST* be a separate product. Or do Mac users run MSWindows on their mac?
States (Score:5, Funny)
Since Microsoft's actions do, indeed, affect consumers in every single one of the 50 states, I'd say the non-settling states have a very valid case. One could argue that any potential remedies would have to be limited to the states in question, but we all know that isn't very feasible. ("You mean I have to go to another state to get a computer without Windows preinstalled?!")
And don't forget, the judge hasn't approved the Justice Department's settlement yet. She can still overrule it as being insufficient to remedy Microsoft's conduct, and I hope she does exactly that.
If only Judge Jackson had been a bit more polite with his ruling, we might have a couple Baby Bills instead of having to go through all this...
Re:States (Score:2)
Bollocks, mate. Microsoft already sell worldwide, and have to deal with local legal issues (like Germany demanding clear instructions on removing Defrag in Win2K because it's written by a company headed by a Scientologist [wininformant.com]). This would only add one more region to their markets: US-B (for BASTARDS!).
Have they even read the constitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
To which the response should be:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
This should take all of five minutes to resolve.
Re:Have they even read the constitution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Secondly, if allowing a new state requires an act of Congress, why shouldn't secession require a similar act of Congress, since both acts greatly affect every other state?
And in my opinion the South lost any and all moral high ground when they bitched about West Virginia.
Corporate Power (Score:5, Insightful)
The hilarious and refreshing adbusters [adbusters.org] site claims that back in the day when a corporation exceeded its powers or ceased to serve the public interest, its charter was revoked and its very right to exist was nullified
Their main point is that corporate personhood--which grants corporations some rights as individuals--has effectively eroded the rights of real individuals. Since corporations have vast resources to vigorously defend their rights, they exercise more rights than you and I.
I think that we shouldn't fixate on Microsoft; there is a wider problem of corporations becoming too powerful in general. Microsoft is a symptom.
Of course they're asking for a dismissal (Score:2)
But it's not that now... (Score:2)
Wouldn't that require it be a stable platform to begin with? It's like me saying, "Eating this bag of jelly beans will destroy my ability to run the Boston Marathon in 10 minutes, 32 seconds."
Not really newsworthy (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this really newsworthy?
The obvious legal tactic when facing any lawsuit is to file a dismissal motion. And, in said dismissal motion, they come up with (make up) any arguments in support of the motion that they can. And said motions are generally denied, and the legal proceedings continue on.
BTW, IANAL
Open Source IE (Score:2, Interesting)
Not because it would hurt Microsoft, but rather so that the open-source community would be able to take hold of it and make it a better program.
You have to admit that IE is much faster than most of the competing browsers, and that it's all around not a half-bad browser.
If the open-source community could take this browser and turn it into something better, that would be awesome.
-kwishot
Re:Open Source IE (Score:2)
How would AOL handle it? Woudl they switch to Mozilla or just tweak IE to be their client?
While a good idea I suspect it would just fragment IE even more.
Re:Open Source IE (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm, I have a bunch of operating systems, and a bunch of browsers on my computer and here is what I have found.
Galeon on Ximian Gnome is the fastest for rendering pages
IE under w2k is the fastest to load
Opera is middle of the pack for both, but handles some IE inconsistencies better than Galeon/Mozilla
I haven't used Konqueror for a few revs
From seeing what happens to newer IE (5.5) on a older (AMD 350) PC with 32m RAM, I would guess that the reason it loads faster is because more of itself is already loaded as part of windows, you should see this machine hit the swap file when it runs. After seeing the Unix port of IE and it's ridiculous hardware requirements.. I can't believe how bloated it is. it's almost equal to a full win95 install just for a browser. That's nuts.
I use Galeon most, I like the functionality of it.
quick way to pronounce SRPFJ (Score:2, Funny)
Translation (Score:2)
They are right about this one (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just what I was told, so I'm going by that. I'm not an expert on the Constitution so I don't know.
Re:They are right about this one (Score:2)
Mmm, they have a point, but the solution would be to only oblige Microsoft to provide stripped down versions, or to license their IP to developers in the contesting states. That'd be inconvenient for Microsoft, but, well, cry me a fucking river. This is meant to be a penalty.
Also, it'd be a great reward for the states that have stuck to their guns: suddenly they're hot property for developers wanting a pound of Microsoft flesh.
Of course, Microsoft would claim this would be too complex to be workable. Lest we forget, Microsoft already sell their products worldwide. Splitting US into USA and USB (B for BASTARDS!) wouldn't kill them.
Re:They are right about this one (Score:2)
Re:They are right about this one (Score:3, Interesting)
While it is true that states are not allowed to make laws (or take other actions) that interfere with interstate commerce or unfairly discriminate between residents/businesses in other states, I'm not sure I see how this applies here. There is no doubt that there is local harm in each case and that local remedies are quite possible. I would think that the available remedies might be limited (e.g., break-up may not be a reasonable remedy for state harm), but that does not mean the cases should be dismissed. It simply requires more creative remedies.
Another basis for claiming the states' cases are illegitimate would be more of a federal preemption argument. Basically, stating that the Federal antitrust rules do not leave any room for state regulation of the same issues. I'm no expert in antitrust law, but I'm pretty sure that state's are allowed to have and enforce their own antitrust laws. The other issue I can think of with this would be if the states are actually trying to enforce the Federal laws on their own (in the same way that private parties may sue for other private parties for federal antitrust violations). I could see the Feds having final say there.
This might also be more of a double jeopardy/due process kind of issue. You shouldn't have to deal with the same case twice. But again, it seems like the states shouldn't be bound by a Federal settlement if they are enforcing their own antitrust laws.
I guess my observations bring up more questions than answers. There are issues here, but I doubt they are cut and dry for either side. Sadly, I'm left to pontificate, since I don't have time to study all the angles.
Re:They are right about this one (Score:2, Insightful)
If the states tried to try MS in their state judicial systems and then apply any settlement country-wide, THEN your friend would be correct. The whole point here is that the states are in FEDERAL court. Which is where any party can go to seek the Federal Governement's involvement in matters that can't be handled at the state level.
Your friend seems to feel that states are not allowed to bring suit in Federal Court. Utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
They never change their tune, do they? The "stable and consistent" quote is specifically in response to the requirement to strip middleware from the OS. Yes, yes, we've heard it before; there is no OS, it's all completely integrated, yadda yadda. I'm sure many of us are familiar with just how "unstable" (or otherwise) an OS without applications can be. That aside, it seems to me that if distros based on a stripped down OS and middleware from third parties really were to suck as much as Microsoft claims they would, then the principles of the free market would protect their fully featured version. Remember, nobody's asking them to stop selling their "all microsoft, all the way" distro, just to provide a stripped down version as well.
Sure, if they want to give up and let someone else take over the browser market, they can stop investing in IE. They're saying that if they can't play by their rules, they won't play at all. You can sort of see their point: having their IP forcibly open sourced isn't really fair. Well guess what: that's the idea. This is a punishment. Microsoft have been found guilty of using Internet Explorer as a weapon to destroy Netscape. The penalty is to disarm that weapon by making it available to everybody. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a commensurate penalty. I also note that it's not a case of Microsoft giving the source away, just making it available for scrutiny and licensing. Heck, maybe nobody will want to license it after they've seen it.
In case anyone's interested, the actual States' proposal is here [naag.org]. It makes for pretty interesting reading, mandating the distribution of a Java VM with Windows, auctioning the rights to develop Office for other operating systems to a third party, and actually complying with standards, rather than just claiming that being 95% compliant is close enough (e.g. J++ versus Java).
Before you start reading it, remember one thing: Microsoft are guilty. They are convicted monopolists, and they have repeatedly ignored previous behaviour orders. This remedy is meant to punish them, and to help their competitors at their expense. They did the crime, now they have to do the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Turnabout is fair play (Score:2, Insightful)
Justice isn't about revenge and I realize that. But you can't destroy market segment after market segment and when we finally want to penalize you for it, you whine and say you'll lose. Yeah, that's the whole point. What do they want, a slap on the wrists again? It sounds like it to me. The only constitutional issue I see is if we do nothing. Then we would be allowing an abusive monopoly to become acceptable and a part of our life. And Microsoft (avoid conspiracy theories, this is a simple fact) wants to become of our daily life as much as possible. PCs, internet, cell phones, TV, gaming systems, you name it, Microsoft wants a piece of it. They want to become one of those companies like a power or utility company - completely integrated and absolutely necessary in our life. It's not just horizontal and vertial integration of markets MS is after, but rather, integration of everything. (Making the Bill Gates Borg icon all the more appropriate, I think.) If we let them continue down this course it would be unhealthy for the american (and international) economy. No one company should be so big and have control over as many markets as MS has and wants in the future. I'm not some conspiracy freak or rabid MS-hater, these are simple facts.
Choice Quote... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Mundie said Microsoft is aware of the power of licensing pacts, but it is treading lightly for now. "If you stand in our shoes, we get enough flak just trying to get people to register their software," he said.
***
Is that so... Well, maybe people would register their software if they had some assurance that the info would only be used to send patches out. Some of the junk mail MS has sent me is just incredible. I'd bet they're selling the info too.
Re:Choice Quote... (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure they really need the thousands of dollars in revenue that that would generate.
IANAL but why the Tunney Act? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a way the judge can legally say "I have no confidence" that the proscution represnts the people anymore?
Isn't MSFT claiming that the states are making law, when in fact they are just seeking retribution under the current existing law?
Can anyone get away with murder if they find a way to restrain the prosecutions desire to explore all avenues of argument and punishment with the maximum force allowed?
I guess what I am comming back to is, if the DOJ really couldn't care less(tm) about actually prosecuting MSFT are we just screwed?
Microsoft's complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft's complaint (Score:2)
A new security hole found in MS SettlemeNT (Score:3, Funny)
The fight to preserve the Windows code begins (Score:3, Insightful)
- The states capitulate to a not so devastating settlement
- The DOJ screws up and loses one of the arguments
- Microsoft screws up and loses
It's likely that we will not see an end to this case within this decade...
Another reason for the filing (Score:4, Interesting)
MS has admited that they recognized a problem when the rest of the industry didn't step up and defend them in this case. This is their unique way of squeezing that support out of them while still staying firmly in the dominant possition.
Brilliant move if you ask me, good chance it will backfire though, and cause the pc makers to get more vocal about what they would like to see the final settlement look like.
Why do they have to agree? (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole process of Microsoft having to agree to a settlement is pointless, and a waste of time, and I don't see why they even have to agree to it, it should just be forced on them.
Lawyer: they'll lose, but they do have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
They do have a serious point: as a policy issue, individual states cannot be determining natiional issues, and shouldn't generally have standing to enforce national laws.
However, the actions also violate the laws of the individual states, and they *do* have standing to enforce those.
Additionally, taken to its extreme, microsoft's argument would seriously damage the notion of precedent. The states are suing because their citizens are damaged. They do not find the proposal by other parties to the suit adequate to solve the problem, and like any other plaintiff, can stay out of an inadequate settlement entered by the other plaintiffs. If they *do* prevail in showing a stronger remedy is proper for themselves, then the judge has the power to apply it nationwide.
Microsoft has a point, and a reasonable argument--it's just not as strong as the arguments against it.
hawk, esq.
Why do people want the source? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people want the source code to Windows?
Of course, it means you can poke around and see how they do things, but since no-one else builds a platform in quite the way Windows is, I don't really see the point. Plus, Microsoft are going to fight long and hard not to open up their code.
So, let them keep it closed.
However I would have thought that forcing Microsoft to open up, document and distribute for free the file formats they use (doc, xls, ppt and so on and so on) for then next, say 25 years, would be far more advantagious to others. In other words, they cannot lock users into their own formats ever again.
After all, once other applications can load and save Microsoft formats as well as Office can then surely then it would allow them to break onto the desktop and so foster proper competition?
perjury? (Score:3, Funny)
As an officer of the court aren't the lawyers supposed to try to tell the truth?
Re:Microsoft Struggles with Reality (Score:2, Interesting)
I never understand the hiring of someone just because they are an MCSE? Some of these people are straight from the burger fryers at McDonalds....
It is true! They have an internal version! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:suckers (Score:2)
Re:Article in favor of settling (Score:2)
"But if the "Yes, Virginia" Naderites and the others looking for presents under the settlement tree took the bronze and silver, Sun clearly took the gold in 100-meter downhill whine."
It's nice to see we still have an unbiased press in the country...
"Sun's comments get off to a roaring start by accusing Microsoft of "eliminating the ability of alternative platforms to compete with Windows." Eliminating their ability to compete? Strong stuff. Tell that to Apple's Steve Jobs."
Hey Steve, how well has Mac OS been competing against Windows on the PC platform? Can I even get Mac OS on the PC platform? No?
And how much of Apple is owned by Microsoft again?
Re:The last line. (Score:2)
"This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform."
Insert joke here.
----- 8 ---- 8 ----
why? it's not like it can get much better than what they're saying themselves
//rdj
Re:Microsoft's main defense of their actions is... (Score:2)
Which would be a bad thing because?
Re:the shoe fits (Score:2)