![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
DOJ Argues in Favor of MS Settlement 530
hpa writes: "It is described in this article on CNET the Department of Justice is arguing in favour of the proposed settlement, because the government's case was too weak to impose additional penalties on Microsoft. Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..." There's also an AP story.
Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's amazing what a few million dollars under the table can do...
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:2)
I can almost certainly state that he loves big business, because big business loves him.
GWB likes being in power. He knows that BB put him in power (paid his way) for a return. He knows that he better provide a good return for BB or else they'll find someone else who provides better return.
Now what GWB _believes_ he's doing may be another thing. But I can't help him with his self deception.
Lady Liberty might as well have a sign on her butt that reads - "This space for rent - best offer."
Cheers!
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Check my source here [opensecrets.org].
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Funny)
So our elected representives are not only whores, but cheap whores at that.
(Not that I can come up with the money to buy my own congresscritter. But as things go, that's popcorn money.)
Re:Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
The real answer is, no. It won't.
The real agenda of campaign finance reform is this:
1. Create populist support for Republican Sen. John "20% of the Keating Five" McCain, and several of his cohorts in the Democratic Party.
2. Expand the power of unions, who are not bound by the new rules.
3. Expand the power of corportations who happen to own media outlets, because producing a 30-minute hatchet job on a candidate on "20/20" or "Nightline" is Free Speech, but a private citizen (or group of citizens) buying 30 minutes on the radio to do the same thing is Soft Money. Ditto for the difference between a two-page editorial and a one-page ad.
4. (and most importantly), Drastically expand the power of incumbents running for re-election, because the new campaign finance law effectively makes it illegal to make critical statements about what your congressman is doing, in any way that costs money to get the word out, within 60 days of an upcoming election.
All of this should get knocked down by the Supreme Court as a clear violation of our First Amendment rights, and most experts agree that it probably will. Any politician that is getting behind it with any enthusiasm is really only doing so to puff up thier image as "fighting for the little guy", and knows full well that they are feeding you a load of BS.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
John apologized on national TV for his misjudgements in the S&L scandal. He also had little do to with leaning on any regulators to let the S&L's do as they wished.
Next JM is a Republican. I'm sure you are too, and find that JM's ability to do as he sees fit, rather than tow the party line annoys you.
I disagree with your view of campaign finance reform, but so be it. BUT when people think that spending unlimited amounts of money running adverts to elect our officials is a RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, I just want to throw up. It's not!
A reasonable limitation, and clear lines of who the donors are, are reasonable restrictions.
Free speech advocates would be better served to find a reasonable limitation to campaign contributions, and defend that. Instead they defend the outrageous status quo, and have no meaningful reform that can or will pass.
Cheers!
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, that's what it says. (Score:2)
I'm afraid that that argument blows my suspension of disbelief.
.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
There was no need to take them to court.
Yes, well we tend to give people a trial before hanging them. Usually, anyway. The problem isn't the trial. The problem is the fact that the DOJ want to give them a settlement that will be utterly inneffective.
It's all up to the states now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because the DOJ are wusses doesn't mean that MS is totally in the clear.
the doj arent wusses... (Score:3, Offtopic)
have you seen the amount of contributions given to Ashcroft in the Missouri Senate race by MS? 2nd biggest, right after enron.
This has little to do with partisan politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, Microsoft is a major corporation and, yes, a considerable influence on our economy. No administration (that can actually get elected) is going to gleefully attack them, because they fear the economic effects (yes, I realize that any negative effect would likely be short-lived, and would be more than made up for by the subsequent explosion of new entrepreneurship, but many people don't see things this way).
Re:This has little to do with partisan politics (Score:3, Informative)
Remember when that settlement was proposed: 1994.
There was no windows95 yet. Clinton had been President for about one year. Not exactly footdragging on the part of his DOJ.
Some of the complaints heard in the subsequent trial had not even happened yet. For that matter Microsoft was not yet the colossus they are today overshadowing almost every industry.
But more importantly the industry was not yet willing to cross MS and bring specific allegations against them in a courtroom. This is key. You cannot have prosecution of a monopolist without the supporting testimony of its victims. We are all MS' victims, yes, but most of us don't know anything that isn't hearsay. You need the testimony of the ISVs and PC OEMS as well as industry competitors. People have to get up on the stand and say Mr Smith of MS met with with me in my office on June4 1996 and said clearly to me: "You will crosslicense your technology to MS in exchange for knowledge of the blahblah interface or we will see to it that no OEM ever bundles your application and that it will never run correctly on Windows" Things like that. In 1994,the participation of other computer industry companies in the Tunney phase of the initial proposal was limited to an anonymous Amicus brief. It's difficult to convict someone of a crime when the witnesses won't come forward to tell their stories. The Amicus brief preserved the anonymity of the Doe companies and dealt with general problems with the proposed settlement --why its provisions were inadequate to restrain MS and why it was unenforceably ambiguous-- shying away from specifics about MS armtwisting. In 1994 they just weren't yet willing to talk. By 1998, some of them were. In between, the policies of these companies was to avoid any conflict with MS, or in the case of the top tier PC makers, to actually defend MS in public comments by their CEOs, at MS love-ins, Congressional hearings, etc. Also in between 94 and 98 the first settlement was denied, the denial was appealed the settlement was kicked to Judge Jackson for signature, Jackson then tried to oversee implementation of the settlement and eventually found MS in contempt of the terms, then he was reversed by the DC Court of Appeals, and eventually the whole settlement thrown out by them. It may appear to someone without knowledge of the case timeline that nothing much was happening from the time of the initial settlement to the time of the new antitrust action, but that's mainly due the slowness of appeals processes. The settlement hadn't been in place long at all when Judge Jackson found MS in contempt of it for tying IE to Windows98. But you have appeals on either side of that interval. The Clinton DOJ acted early, but in a twist of fate they might have acted with greater result had they waited until after windows95 came out to launch the suit. The climate in the industry changed and they would have gotten much more support from witnesses. But who could have predicted that?
When the DC Appeals Court threw the first settlement out, the Clinton DOJ swiftly began a whole new antitrust action against Microsoft which they prosecuted vigorously I think you will have to admit, winning their case and leaving the successor administration with a very strong hand going into the present rounds of appeal and settlement.
If the new administration chooses to throw that strength away and negotiate a toothless settlement as they announced they would with the tobacco companies, that's hardly the fault of Janet Reno or Bill Clinton. Except of course I forget that it's always Bill Clinton's fault; for he is the Anti-Christ.
If you're looking for a villain for the strange run of good luck that MS had against the government in court during the 90s, you might turn a skeptical eye towards the DC Court of Appeals. They are the hand that has actually set Microsoft free to pillage the world not once but at least 3 times now. And they stand ready to do so again, I'm sure, if MS and the Ashcroft DOJ complain to them that Judge Kollar-Kotelly has demonstrated bias against guilty people.
They vacated Judge J's remedies and thus gave MS yet another chance to settle, this time with a new adminstration which almost certainly never would have brought an action against MS in the first place. ("My administration will always favor innovation over litigation" - G. W. Bush on the day of Judge Jackson's FInding of Fact,speaking to a room of investment bankers. "Micrsoft's monopoly has materially benefitted the consumer" Atty Charles James, Bush DOJ chief of antitrust division speaking on McNeil/Lehrer News Hour.
Re:It's all up to the states now. (Score:2, Informative)
Unless of course you live in Florida.
ba da boom.. pissshhhh
sorry..I'll go away now
Re:It's all up to the states now. (Score:2, Offtopic)
The guy in N Dakota should not have 1.5 times the vote worth as the guy in California. Do the math comparing the elctoral votes to the population and you will see what I mean.
The reason noone wants it changed is two fold. One side likes it the way it is- it hinders the third party and independants. The other side are afraid that various interests will get involved and make things worse.
Re:It's all up to the states now. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're just upset because your guy lost.
No, you only think that because you don't know what you're talking about. Too bad, really - since "your" guy won and you don't even know how. Funny and sad, all at the same time. *sigh*
Re:It's all up to the states now. (Score:3, Interesting)
Population of CA: 33,930,798
Electoral votes: 55
People per electoral vote: 616,923.6
Population of WY: 495,304
Electoral votes: 3
People per electoral vote: 165,101.3
Ratio of WY voting power to CA voting power: 3.7:1
It gets even worse when you realize that almost every state has a winner-take-all system. So when FL is won by a few votes, the electoral vote goes 27-0 rather than 14-13. On the other hand, a vote in a landslide state like MA or UT is pretty much useless. Last election, a UT vote had around 1/900 the decisionmaking power of a FL vote, even before looking at the overall vote totals.
I know what happened (Score:4, Funny)
DOJ: Yes, he did. He committed lots. Look, we have evidence.
Defense: Your honor, our client has committed crimes and is sorry.
Judge: Oh, well, in that case.
DOJ: Your honor! We demand a punishment!
Defense: A punishment? Are you some sort of barbarian, with your "punishing"?
DOJ: Your client will be punished!
Defense: Will not!
DOJ: Will too!
Defense: Will not!
[...3 hours later]
DOJ: Will not! I mean! Wait, that was no fair I...
Defense: Ha! Sucka!
Judge: Case dismissed!
-l
Couldn't make it stick? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems odd to me, considering that they did "make it stick" --- MS was found to have violated the law, were they not?
Re:Couldn't make it stick? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft violated the law. That much was clearly proven. But the violations that were proven weren't the major ones they were accused of. They never even proved the tying claim that the case was bassed on. They can either go back to court about those things, or just accept what they won and settle.
The most significant thing that is likely to come out of this case is that Microsoft was found to have a Monopoly in Intel PC based operating systems. That's something that Microsoft's competitors couldn't afford to try and prove on thier own, but can now use in their own lawsuits. It's very questionable if consumers are really the ones that are going to benefit from splitting up Microsoft, or the proposals that the disenting States are bringing to the table. It's not the Justice department's job to look after the interests of Microsoft's competitors. They can do that on their own. I don't think my tax dollars need to be spent so that Netscape can make a bunch of money making poor quality products again. If they really have a case, let them sue Microsoft on their own.
Sad state of affairs (Score:4, Insightful)
This government has bowed to corporate interests at every turn. I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests. This is yet another side effect of the US's desire to remain an economic superpower. It has changed from a Representative Democracy to a colossal beauracratic corporation. Perhaps we should call it The United States of America Inc.?
Remember folks, a government that tramples the rights of the citizen is a tyrannical government. There is no leeway for arguement in that.
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what's pathetic is when someone attempts to make an analogy between cutthroat business practices and terrorism. When's the last time you saw a Microsoftie plow an airliner into a skyscraper, torch a research facility, or form a mob to take to the streets during a meeting?
Godwin's Law ought to be updated...the Nazis aren't the only ones used in flawed reasoning anymore.
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:5, Insightful)
You said "When's the last time you saw a Microsoftie plow an airliner into a skyscraper, torch a research facility, or form a mob to take to the streets during a meeting?"
Slavery often ends brutally as well. Most Americans make us slaves though indifferance towards minority opression. Sensory depervation or water torture are definatly brutal when spread over a long enough period of time, yet do not need to utilize a angry mob of teenagers or a violent act. Class economics removes hope and independance from our future. Class economics are at the root of the Talibans power over their soldiers and are behind the inability of an individual with merit to sue a company without being wealthy to start with.
Our classes are no longer earned on a generational basis but inherited. Another name for that is a caste system. A caste system is bloodline slavery mixed with religion (of greed in this case). Given enough time slavery is always brutal. Our system can be a brutal as the 11th but not with such force in the span of an hour. Does that make it more humane?
His argument was poorly put but not toothless. Americans need to wake up to the fact that they can never Bill Gates without being rich to start with. He is not the American dream, but a generation of a legacy. Each person should have the means to make his own way, and they won't need a three generation head start.
Re:You Disgust Me, calling peaceful protest terror (Score:2, Flamebait)
I wasn't aware that throwing rocks through shop windows and fighting with police was considered "peaceful" by some. In that assumption, I erred.
Go crawl back under your bridge.
Re:You Disgust Me, calling peaceful protest terror (Score:2)
How does this exercise in deliberate obtuseness get moderted "insightful"? The parent to your post (which although intemperate is not a "troll" as it has been moderated) asserted that the majority of the "anti-globalization protesters" were peaceful and that only a few individuals ("randoms" in the words of the parent) were violent.
Your response to that was to misrepresent what was said. You are correct that Microsoft's business practices are not the same as as what happened on September 11. By that same token, exercising free speech rights by participating in protests where some people cause property damage and/or fight with the police is not the same as what happened on September 11 either. They are not on even the same continuum. When you implied they were similar [slashdot.org], you were the one trolling.
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:2)
That's not what I implied...well, at least not in two out of three examples, anyway.
Maybe a competitor had some technology it wanted for whatever reason. Are you saying that two companies shouldn't be able to enter into agreements (whether it's licensing or an acquisition) that they find mutually beneficial? How is that destructive toward the smaller company, if it's getting something it wants? If they don't want to cut a deal with Goliath, they're free to not do so. ALF torching a lab doesn't have quite the same beneficial effect for the lab's owners.
As for Microsoft buying something to take it off the market...I haven't heard of that happening, but if they want to throw their money away by doing that, why should I have a problem with it? It's that much less money that they'll have to do other stuff. I would think they would be smarter than that. (I could be wrong, though.)
How does this differ from what any other company, interest group, etc. does? If you have a problem with politicians accepting cash from organizations you don't like, perhaps you should consider replacing the politicians.
(For the record, I think the so-called "campaign finance reform" measures that have been proposed are horrible attempts at stifling speech that incumbent politicians don't like. If you're worried about crooked politics (and who isn't?) but you're also concerned about free speech, what you should really favor is unregulated donations combined with full disclosure. If you don't care much for Microsoft and you know that they donated $1 million to Joe Schmuckboy's campaign, maybe you'd think twice about voting for Mr. Schmuckboy.)
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:5, Informative)
I think that you're reading the causes of this wrong. The DOJ is basically giving up because there's been a change in administration. The Clinton administration, while not exactly tough on monopolies, apparently felt that the case was worth pursuing. The Bush administration, OTOH, seems to view antitrust law as being an obstacle to business and would probably drop the case completely if it wouldn't cause too much political fallout. It was widely argued before the 2000 election that Bush would almost certainly water down the Microsoft case if he won. Now he has won and the case has been greatly watered down. If this is a big surprise to you, you need to pay more attention.
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:3)
I'm not saying Microsoft is Mr Squeeky-clean or anything but your argument that they're "terrorists" flat out sucks.
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:2)
No, terrorism is a tool that involves murder, physical injury or destruction or direct threat of such. If it doesn't involve that, it ain't terrorism. "Economic terrorism" is a null phrase, used by people who define "terrorism" as "stuff I don't like".
Chris Mattern
Re:Sad state of affairs (Score:3, Flamebait)
Terrorism? What kind of social retard are you to compare a ruthless monopoly to murderers. I want you to stand in front of anyone who's lost a loved one and tell them that you're in the same boat because you have to pay a hundred bucks extra on a PC, and that operating systems progress has been held back. I'm not a violent person, so really the tragedy in that might be that you'd end up getting beaten before the realization got beaten into your head that your comparison is full of shit.
Unbelievable.
May not be big money at all (Score:2, Interesting)
The Cato Institute does not really support Microsoft in its defense. It just believes the government should not have antitrust laws nor enforce the ones they have.
To be honest, it is most likely not the money at all.
Of course, telling the judge that the DOJ did not try because she would not order a more appropriate remedy is a waste of breath. One of the reports suggested that the judge was asking if the DOJ position is not at odds with the appellate decision. It clearly is. And, she knows it. She went on to ask "why?".
Re:May not be big money at all (Score:2)
They admitted to perjury. They confessed to the theft of the Stacker code. Those aren't monopoly laws, those are supposed to be illegal no matter who you are.
I'm sure that there are other crimes that have been admitted to, but I can't call them to mind right now. But the management of MS at the time was guilty at minimum of accessory to grand theft after the fact, and that's just based on public information. Some of them had to be guilty before the fact, but I don't know which ones. And that's been let slip for several administrations. Now it's true, this happened before MS started its "lobbying" campaign, so simple bribery isn't what's going on. And the Democrats were as accepting as the Republicans. But "equal justice under law"??? Not hardly!
OTOH, last month (or so) I read about a chemical company that knowingly (as documented by their internal records) and with intent (i.e., to save money) killed hundreds of americans and poisoned yet more. I think that the EPA spoke harshly to them about that. I didn't hear that they were even forced to stop doing it, however. (Possibly a class action law suit is in the works, but that should be a criminal offense, not just a civil offense.) So MS isn't alone in being let of extremely easy.
.
It all boils down to... (Score:5, Funny)
The DOJ was supposed to come down on Microsoft, but they went down on them instead.
;o
Seriously, this does not suprise me at all, given the priorities of the current administration.
Re:It all boils down to... (Score:2)
Whore out Lady Liberty to corporate America. I mean hey, we've got the best elected officials that money can buy.
So just shut-up and take it like a good consumer!
Cheers!
GWB (Score:5, Insightful)
It was all down hill after GW Bush started to use the term "inovation" when referring to Microsoft. The conspiracy theorist in me says that he was bought out. Maybe he slipped when he said it?
Re:GWB (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GWB (Score:2)
It's a compound word. As in "no innovation".
Re:GWB (Score:2)
Did his speechwriters misspell it? Or did he manage to misspell a word he said aloud?!
Re:GWB (Score:2)
When will the release of Microsoft World Government be on the shelves at Best Buy? I'm sure the stores in Washington D.C. will be sold out within a week.
Re:GWB (Score:2, Funny)
Re:GWB (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another reason why the FCC should limit the kinds of commercials that are broadcast during children's programming.
Re:Excuse me but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GWB (Score:2)
watch 'distinguished gentleman' (Eddie Murphy) -- "if you're for, i got money coming in from suger manufacturers. if you're against, i got money coming in from candy manufacturers." ... "put me down for 'for'".
The DOJ's case was so weak.. (Score:5, Funny)
Knowing When To Say When (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you expect anything else? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The tarriff is important... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The tarriff is important... (Score:2, Offtopic)
t_t_b
One opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
When they should have ignored that completly. They should have attacked their business policys because that's what the problem really is. The problem with MS is that they used their position to destroy all other oses. DR-DOS, IBM-DOS, OS/2, etc. all dissapeared because MS played dirty pool and wouldn't let computer manufactures sell PCs with those OSes without penalizing them for doing so.
It doesn't matter if IE can be removed or not, if MS wants to make it part of their product then so be it. If they want to integrate Office with their os then so be it. It's their product, if you don't like it, complain to MS or don't buy it.
I feel that linux is now a real alternative to windows on the x86 platform. And if you really don't think so, then go buy a Mac. They are also good machines.
I don't know how they can pay for the deaths of the other software they killed by being a monopoly. I don't think that this settlement is enough punishment, but that's a biased opinion.
MOD parent up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't think MS was inherently wrong by tying the browser to the OS. Maybe it was bad engineering (crippling the OS on purpose), but having an integrated browser did benefit me as a consumer.
Konqueror, for example, benefited me more as a Linux user, because it is a better integrated browser. I would also prefer a lightweight, less-buggy, integrated browser in Windows, but I don't see releasing a crappy product as an anti-competitive maneuver.
Forcing the market to accept a crappy product AND REJECT competition is an obvious anti-competitive maneuver. There is no way MS could give that the "benefits the consumer" spin. The BeOS case was a much more obvious evidence of monopoly abuse than anything Netscape-related.
It's not clear it's monopoly abuse to alter your product to compete with other companies. It is monopoly power to force legislation (OEM contracts) and/or artificial technical constraints (false incompatibility error messages with other OSes) upon the market.
Declaring MS a monopoly for the wrong reasons just makes it less likely for it to ever receive the punishment appropiate for the "right reasons".
Re:One opinion (Score:2)
I agree though...who cares if IE comes with the OS or not. They go so hung up on that one thing, which even if you remove the blue E, it'll still the HTML control will still be there in every file window.
But they missed all of the dealing that MS has done - all so a computer company could ship Netscape or something instead - not that any company in their right mind would do that.
Re:One opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
However, putting an integrated browser into their OS was also a strategic move that not only hurt Netscape but more importantly was the beginning of much more sinister plan. Specifically it was their first maneuver to use their monopoly power to gain control over Internet services. Something that they knew would be VERY lucrative.
They continue to strategically bundle software into their OS. They call this innovation but in reality it is a thinly veiled attempt to use the dominance of their OS to extend power into additional markets. It makes competing products irrelevant and thereby destroys the competition.
I find it ironic that most companies that have been destroyed by Microsoft used Microsoft tools to develop their software. Then when Microsoft realizes that one of its customers is about to take a lucrative piece of some market they rush in and destroy. Kind of like being a crop that will be harvested at some point.
Re:One opinion (Score:2)
Any perjury prosecution in the offing over the forged evidence?
Any grand theft over their stealing the code from Stacker?
Any prosecution at all for any of the crimes that they are known to have committed?
Then I can't buy this whitewash either.
.
Re:One opinion (Score:2)
OS/2 is kind of a different story. It was relatively hard to configure, had a lot of compatibility issues with software from many different vendors, and the advanced features it provided over Windows really didn't mean that much to customers at the time. IBM has a long history of making some great products, but not really knowing how to market them, or when and how to bring them to market. OS/2 pretty much died on it's own because Windows met most user's needs as well if not better, and people were more used to it. NT filled the needs of those that Windows didn't. OS/2 just never really offered people something they were looking for.
You are right that the key to Microsoft's unfair competition has been their licensing. Microsoft should be allowed to add products to their OS/opperating environment. That provides a benefit to customers. It was especially important when few people had broadband. A lot of applications have been built apon the middleware that Microsoft has added to Windows. Without that functionality being integrated into Windows, every vendor would have to create that functionality themselves, or license it from someone else. Even if the middleware is provided for free, there would be conflicting implementations and configuration issues. Consumers wouldn't benefit from this, and it isn't the justice departments job to make life better for Microsoft's competitors at the expense of consumers.
Microsoft's licensing agreements are another story. There's no reason ISP should have been forced to use IE if they wanted to be listed in MS's connection wizard. There's no reason that Microsoft should be able to demand that multi-boot systems not be sold by vendors.
I'm not sure that multi-os systems are really in vendors best interests due to support costs, but it should be the vendor's decision, not Microsoft's.
Charles James (Score:2, Interesting)
The day Bush won, US v. MSFT was essentially over.
Re:Charles James (Score:2)
And today, look at the terrible things IBM is doing to us all because of this!
This is not the settlement you're looking for.... (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Glates : This is not the software you're looking for.
TK429 : Ok, this isn't the software we're looking for.
Gates (waving his hand) : We may procede.
TK429 : Ok, these guys look clean, move along.
Re:This is not the settlement you're looking for.. (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, Microsoft got their hands on the new speedpass watch! This thing is more powerful than we thought.
mark
Re:This is not the settlement you're looking for.. (Score:2)
Gates: If you strike me down, I shall only become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Uh-oh. Thanks alot Jane...
Can the DOJ be taken off this case? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my belief, and i know the belief of most of the people on slashdot, that the DOJ is currently neither acting in the best interests of the american people or acting to see the law of the united states of america upheld.
Whether from "contributions" or bribes, or from the simple republican belief that laws should keep quiet and go play alone in their room and leave the nice Important People alone when they're trying to make money (now run along now. shoo), the DOJ seems pretty clearly to me to be currently of the belief that microsoft is doing a good job and should be let loose from the responsibilities of the good of the american people or either the letter or intent of the antitrust laws. Put plainly, the executive branch is currently against the idea of antitrust regulation.
However, it is not the executive branches job to make the law. That is the job of the legislative branch. And the legislative branch has declared anticompetitive behavior to gain monopolistic control over a market harmful and illegal. And it is not the executive branches job to decide whether extant law is valid and worthy to be carried out. That is the job of the judicial branch. And the judicial branch seems in this case to want the law to be carried out.
But it is the executive branch that is currently trying to end this. So i ask: can they be removed from this? In any way? I know nothing of law-- this is why i am asking. Can citizen groups sue to state that the prosecution of this case should be taken out of the hands of the DOJ and into the hands of the EFF or some specially-appointed board? Can the judge appoint some kind of Special Master or Special Prosecutor or someone who will be picked to actually attempt to push for the most stringent judgement possible for microsoft? (REMEMBER, it is NOT the job of the prosecutor to decide what is just. It is the job of the prosecutor to argue for the strongest judgement possible, the job of the defendant to argue for the weakest judgement possible, and the JUDGE to ensure all arguments are reasonable and find the most just and legal balance behind all. The judge should be unbiased. The prosecution is not really intended to be someone unbiased against the defendant, so it doesn't matter if the prosecutor is someone picked by Sun or Oracle or whoever; whether biased or no, the prosecutor should *act* biased against the defendant, because that is their *job*.) Can we declare John Ashcroft tainted because he recieved campaign contributions from microsoft, and have him chineese-walled away from the case?
Don't police officers and judges and FBI agents and Attourneys General of the United States of America have to swear to protect the american people and uphold the law? If the people currently trying to short-circuit the case against microsoft make it clear they are against in this case the upholding of the law, are they violating those oaths? Can there be legal repercussions for them in doing that?
A quick note to those responding: I am not *particularly* trying to start a flamewar (flamewar bad. informative comments good. HULK SMASH) on whether the doj SHOULD be blocked out of the microsoft antitrust case. I am not 100% convinced it is the best thing (just mostly
Re:Can the DOJ be taken off this case? (Score:2)
Only if the courts are willing to prosecute - you can't remove someone from elected office at any time just because you don't like their policies; you have to wait for an election.
You would have to prove that there was actual malfeasance or dereliction of duty and provide concrete evidence in order to get any charges to stick. The burden of proof is on the accuser in our court system, so you would need the equivalent of Holy Writ and the Hand of God to get any of our current administration on those kind of charges.
Basically, it's a no-win situation if you want to go up against Bush and Ashcroft - they can do no wrong right now in the public view. The political tide has turned in favor of corporations and PACs for the time being.
Stand back for a while and resume the fight when the tide is more favorable.
Re:Can the DOJ be taken off this case? (Score:2)
Public opinion is not going to change overnight, nor should you expect it to. Keep up pressure for a while, but remember that we have a very pro-business administration and a president from a state known for it's friendly attitude toward big business.
Add that to the current conflagration, and I think they think they've got other fish to fry.
Re:Can the DOJ be taken off this case? (Score:2)
Unfortuantly I can't remember the name of the cat. rand act maybe?not sure.
Death Sentence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Death Sentence (Score:2)
What? You're still reading Slashdot? That is so 2001.
K5 & adequacy.org are where its at now.
Re:Death Sentence (Score:2)
The business side may have played hardball, but nowhere do I see MS being accused of assaulting, maiming, or killing anyone.
Chemical companies, and manufacturing companies that have third world factories on the other hand...
This really just boils down to MS threatening a few companies in the market and those companies using political pressure as a weapon against their competitor which happens to be MS. In the grand scheme of things, the government has probably spent more money fighting MS than it has trying to find Osama Bin Laden. Why shouldn't they want to get this case over with and take a vacation?
Re:Death Sentence (Score:2)
Unfortuantly I can't remember the name of the act. Rico act maybe?not sure.
I have an alternative punishment for M$ (Score:3, Funny)
In Other News... (Score:2, Funny)
First, yesterday's news that the Vatican Endorses .NET Messenger Service [bbspot.com], and now this!
Politics (Score:2)
The DOJ of a Republican administration is implying they'd like to impose stiffer penalties (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) if only the DOJ of a previous Democratic administration had done a better job arguing their case in earlier phases of the trial.
That's some fancy political jujitsu.
Re:Politics (Score:2)
Perhaps you should go into politics. We could use more tech savy people in government. any government.
Everybody is missing one key point (Score:5, Interesting)
The settlement can not have as its purpose "punishment" of Microsoft. The court documents are littered with precedents that companies found to have violated the relevant statutes (Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, Clayton Act) cannot be per se punished for the violation. They can be required to "disgorge" (such an interesting word) the fruits of their acts, but the finding cannot be punitive. Even this doesn't really apply to Microsoft, because they were found to have gained their Windows monopoly legally (it's legal to have a monopoly, believe it or not) buy to have used illegal means to maintain that (desktop OS) monopoly. Unfortunately the argument about illegally tying IE was overturned by the Appeals Court.
Any future settlement of this case must focus, as a matter of law, on preventing Microsoft from continuing its illegal acts. This is why 99% of the Tunney act responses were more or less thrown out.
Re:Everybody is missing one key point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Everybody is missing one key point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Everybody is missing one key point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Everybody is missing one key point (Score:5, Interesting)
We could tell them to simply obey the law.. it has everything in it already to keep them from maintaining an illegal monopoly.
Unfortunately, they've already shown that the law doesn't mean anything to them (see consent decree). So in civi^H^H^H^H our society we put people who repeatedly refuse to obey the law in jail or to death.
So how do we kill Microsoft? Easy - break up or revoke corporate charter, but the prosecution has shown it doesn't want to pursue that matter any further. (Note appeals never ruled it out completely, just said that the evidence/arguments presented so far were not enough to merit that kind of punishment - the DOJ has chosen not to pursue other arguments (like the consent decree) that might show it's warranted.)
So how do we jail Microsoft? Well, the jail metaphor doesn't really work since people can continue to live separately from society, but corporations can't. Let's go instead with a guard metaphor; some group with the express purpose of watching all of Microsofts actions to ensure they don't break the law again. The settlement provides for this in a very limited way, but gives the guards far too little power, and Microsoft too much influence over them.
Methods:
1. The inmates don't choose their keepers. Microsoft should have *no* input into the selection of the review committee. They've shown a willingness to break the law, they've shown they can not be trusted, so they forfeit any input into the selection process. They get the guard that the people appoint - just like in any jail.
2. Visitors are limited. No mergers, no buy-outs. They develop their technology on their own. They can contract work from other companies if required, but they can not take any IP rights of that work, and cannot require NDA's of those companies involved.
3. Cell-checks. The guards must have the ability to check on what Microsoft is doing. This means technically competent people must be employed (paid for by MS), and if a complaint is recieved those people review the products in question to ensure no monopoly leveraging things (hidden APIs, competition breaking behavior, etc) are present.
This doesn't require that the complainant have any access to the Windows source code whatsoever, but does require that those who think that Windows is engaging in anti-competitive behavior be ready to provide their source and their reasoning as to what they think is going on. The independant reviewers take it from there.
Also note that this requires that all future versions of Windows maintain full backward compatibility. The third party application package (or MS application) you buy today should run perfectly on whatever version of Windows is released (with appropriate MS provided patches) at the end of the settlement period.
4. No contraband. No exceptions for "security protocols" Inmates aren't (or shouldn't be) able to hide stuff in their underwear and claim privacy restrictions. Microsoft shouldn't be able to either.
I fail to see why people prefer MS to Linux (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I fail to see why people prefer MS to Linux (Score:2)
Other than Detleff Schrempf as the basketball player identified as "Linux" in a recent series of IBM ads, when was the last time you saw the word "Linux" in an ad on television?
I'll tell you: never.
Most people are sheep.
Sheep graze on Micr$oft products.
But they don't know any better, which is why the word "sheep" is a pejorative for...
t_t_b
Re:I fail to see why people prefer MS to Linux (Score:2)
No.
Wrong.
The vast majority of people have no idea what an operating system is, let alone that there may be another operating system besides Window$.
The vast majority of people have no idea that Linux even exists.
I don't have the link handy (memo to self: go find it...) but months ago I posted the thought that in five years, in the minds of elementary school-age children, the word "microsoft" will be synonymous with "computer" -- in fact, they'll call it a "microsoft" and the word "computer" will have fallen into disuse...
You heard it here, first...
t_t_b
Lawyers lead the way towards violence (Score:2)
So the lawyers give up? When peaceful legal avenues are closed, the only recourses left are violent and/or illegal. What we have here is more like a "software mafia" than legal corporations.
A Couple Points (Score:2)
I am not in favor of this settlement by any means, but...
(1) Department of Justice is arguing in favour of the proposed settlement, because the government's case was too weak to impose additional penalties on Microsoft.
Of course the DOJ is "arguing in favor" of their own settlement. They helped draft it, for goodness sake, and now they must defend it before the judge who will either accept or reject the deal.
(2) Somehow this seems like a very odd thing to me, effectively the prosecution is pleading on the part of the defendant..."
I believe this comment could be applied to many court settlements. After all, a settlement is generally when the two parties make concessions with one another. But let's be fair: This is indicative of the US judicial system, not just the Microsoft trial.
In any case, based on the AP article, the settlement has yet to be sanctioned by the judge, and indeed, she is making certain that the DOJ is thoroughly explaining why they *did* settle.
And let's not forget that AOL is taking legal action against MS. Even if this horrible settlement goes through, MS's battle is far from over. Just a shame it has reached this point...
Middleware definition (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they don't. Here's how they define it:
link [microsoft.com]What, praytell, would this "multimedia middleware" be? From all descriptions, it appears to be none other than Windows Media Player, or a subset thereof.
Makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)
DOJ probably figure take what we can, and hope we don't lose that in the Supreme Court appeal that will be MS's next step. This thing isn't over and won't be for quite awhile.
The people behind this case didn't study MS's history in situations like this, MS will delay and delay until whatever is done won't matter any more.
slip of the tongue (Score:2)
Oooooh. That one is a stinker. Two bites at the Apple. Har har. Try three or four. Microsoft is taking bites out of everything in their path. Wedging into the server room and coming to a family room near you!
The pendulum sure is swinging faaaaarrrr to the right these days. Next the gov't will agree to pay MS legal fees as compensation for disturbing their business</joke>. Even though they have still been found guilty, the gov't feels they don't have enough of a case to seek penalties?
I committed criminal acts, in order to secure my well-being. I am guilty. But thou shalt not punish me. Where is the accountability???
Rich guys help rich guys. Big surprise for whom? (Score:2)
Is it any surprise that they didn't also buy the loyalty of his chief policy makers, like the DOJ.
What I find so richly ironic about the obvious political biases of the Republican DOJ is the constant nattering the Replublicans have done throughout time regarding the political activism of the Supreme Court.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the law, not do it selectively or caprciously.
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a point I've always been a bit upset by in this whole saga. I feel it is wrong to say Microsoft has a monopoly. Clearly, there are/have been plenty of options - Linux, Apple, Be, *BSD, etc. However, Microsoft has enjoyed and abused monopolistic powers. That is, MS have a sufficiently large market share such that abuse in a monopolistic manner can occur. Much like Standard Oil wasn't strictly a monopoly, MS is not a monopoly. However, when one company becomes a large enough part of a large market, that company can hold (and usually will abuse) monopolistic powers. I've always worried about MS getting out untouched because of the semantic error of labelling the company a monopoly.
RagManX
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think that is great for you. And I try to do the same.
But I can't read most of what is emailed to me from a business perspective without MSFT. Heck! I couldn't even submit a resume for a job working on Unix without the document being in WORD. That's whacked.
To take it further -- I can't read Word from Linux unless someone has managed to hack out the latest variation of the DOC format.
Netscape has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Wordperfect has died as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
Lotus is mostly dead as the direct result of Microsoft intervention.
And now through SSSCA, all GPL software stands a chance of dying too. Then you will only have Microsoft to work with and you will be labelled an enemy of the state, part of the Axis of Evil
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Informative)
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
This is a common misconception of anti-trust law (IANAL). Unlike what we were taught by Parker Brothers, a monopoly isn't defined as a 100% market-share. According to the way anti-trust law is applied, a monopoly exists when the average consumer believes there are no viable alternatives. In this particular case, MS has an OS monopoly because the cost of switching is prohibitively high for most end-users. Saying that you can give up most of your existing apps to switch to Linux, or ditch your hardware to switch to Apple is no answer for users.
Actually, the metric is... (Score:3, Informative)
[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2
So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their index would be upwards of
Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.
The DOJ, at least here [usdoj.gov], uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is the same thing, only without the decimals. So, while the Herfindahl index goes from 1 (total domination of market) to 0 (atomistic competition), the HHI goes from 10000 to 0. According to the site, anything above 1800 (or, by the other scale,
Re:Actually, the metric is... (Score:2)
Interesting. I based my explanation on what I managed to glean during the trial. Admittedly, I didn't read the economists' depositions, but everyone else seemed to be saying that there was no "hard and fast" rule for determining the line between successful company and monopolist. Perhaps that was just how they explained it to poor lay-folk like me.
Now, if only everyone on /. can be convinced that the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't illegal...
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:2)
a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes [usdoj.gov] which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.
This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
Thalia
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Moving to another country where AT&T wasn't a monopoly.
2) Buying all the land in between their own, and those people they wanted to call, for the purpose of building their own comm system.
3) Writing letters.
4) Doing without. It's not like telephones are a necessity.
So, I guess the courts were wrong back then, they obviously weren't a monopoly after all.
Besides, Linux wasn't an option when Microsoft committed their crimes. Microsoft had, and still continues to have, better than 85% of the marketshare, and is guilty of using it to try to kill both Apple and Linux, and for that matter, everything else which is even remotely a substitute. They're guilty of attempting to turn the internet into a big, sad AOL clone (.NET, IIS extensions that are incompatible with competing products, abuse of html standards) and for no other reason than this would give them more of an iron grip over how you use the net and your computer.
They are guilty, even legally guilty. They are a monopoly not only in the practical sense, but also as defined by law. The executives at M$ don't play fair, and worse, when they force their products onto everyone, those products aren't even half as good as the now dead competitor. So you tell me, how could you ever possibly defend them?
Re:But... (Score:2)
You are aware that "honest lawyer" is an oxymoron, aren't you?
Re:Why a settlement at all? (Score:2)
They're probably looking for a settlement because, with the record in the Court of Appeals being what it is *and* the previous judge being a publicity-loving jackass who got himself tossed out of the case after giving the appearance of partiality (no evidence required -- merely an appearance of such taints the whole shebang), they DON'T want to basically have to spend another decade wrangling over the proposed remedies.
Re:Why a settlement at all? (Score:2)
Uh, plea bargains are generally arranged *before* the defendant is convicted.
Chris Mattern
Re:Why a settlement at all? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it's more like "We find the defendant guilty. Now for the sentence...
Prosecution: "Hmmm, I just don't think we have a strong enough case."
Someone sane: "But you won!"
Prosecution: "Well, we're willing to settle because we don't really have a good case."
Someone sane: "But you... what?"
No, they are proven guilty already, that's the crazy thing. We're just supposed to be deciding the punishment.
I've been banging my head against the wall about this for so long, it's getting misshapen.
mark
Re:How the fuck is anyone suprised (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)