All MS Settlement Comments Now Online 267
Sundance writes: "The DOJ has published their answer to the Tunney Act comments on the Microsoft settlement. The gist of it is that, basically, they like the settlement agreement the way it was written and won't change much of it, if at all. Choice quote: "A number of commentors are concerned that Microsoft will deny disclosure of APIs and Documentation, or licensing of Communications Protocols, to open source developers on the grounds that the developers do not meet the "reasonable business need" or "authenticity and viability of business" criteria of Section III.J.2.(441) The United States believes that the requirements in Section III.J.2 are no broader than is necessary to prevent misuse or misappropriation of intellectual property." I guess that crimes pays, after all -- provided that you're rich enough to start with." hbo adds: "The comments are
indexed by comment id. There is also an alphabetical list of commentators. To find a particular comment, look it up in the list, then find the comment id in the index. Finally, click on the particular comment to view it."
Damn! (Score:3, Funny)
Heh.
Re:Damn! (Score:2)
Incorrect link in the post. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-alpha.htm
I don't HREF it because the page is very heavy (1.9 Mb) and useless.
It starts
Public Comments on the
United States v. Microsoft Settlement
Alphabetical List of Individuals or Entities Who Submitted Comments
Comments are listed in alphabetical order by the name of the individual or entity submitting the comment. Each comment is identified by the comment number, number of pages, and submitter's name (as provided in the comment).
To view a comment, go to the Master Index of Comments and look up the comment by the comment number (MTC number).
MTC-00018130 0001 (u)
MTC-00029203 0002 --
MTC-00012751 0001 1157587@concentric.net
MTC-00010476 0001 16fort36@cs.com
MTC-00028611 0001 1miler@dragonbbs.com
MTC-00021140 0001 2trash
MTC-00000850 0001 3211@usa.com
MTC-00028710 0001 78455@attbi.com
MTC-00004269 0002 a
MTC-00013489 0001 A GOP Loyalist
MTC-00019734 0001 A. Walter
and ends
MTC-00028529 0002 Zukowski, Tom
MTC-00016442 0001 Zulaski, Stan
MTC-00012479 0001 Zuschlag, Mary
MTC-00005343 0001 Zwierzycki, Walt
MTC-00000649 0001 Zygmont, Justin
MTC-00023199 0001 Zygmunt, Steve
MTC-00014085 0001 Zylanoff, Phillipa
MTC-00009122 0001 Zynski, Bud
MTC-00024478 0002 Zyphur, Mike
MTC-00008199 0001 Zyskowski, Mike
Note: Every effort has been made to accurately reproduce the comments on this web site. Some comments were converted into text using optical character recognition (OCR) technology and then tested for accuracy. Nevertheless, some differences may exist between the original document and the text version on this web site. The PDF images of these documents most accurately reflect the original submissions; the HTML versions are provided to facilitate browsing and searching.
Anybody believe MS will not try something? (Score:3, Insightful)
A child gets in trouble for cheating
The parents find out and sit the child down to talk about punishment
The child says "I won't do it again unless it's unreasonable."
The parents laugh and say "You will NOT do it"
This is clear and understandable and is appropriate because it's the child's judgement that was flawed in the first place that led him/her to cheat.
Leaving any leeway is irresponsible.
Ever as a teenager try to get out of being punished for something that your parents told you not to do, by interpreting their directions obviously wrong?
Didn't work then but in a courtroom I could see it work and that's not justice that's Microsofts obvious hope.
Obfuscated Indices (Score:5, Insightful)
This system invites unnecessary load (in the form of reloads on that index file), makes it difficult to look up comments, and makes it impossible to search them. These are all problems that the worlds of library science and computer science have solved many times over, and the solutions are not being used.
Ignorance? Deterrence of public participation? Slap-dash job? Gross incompetence? The world may never know.
Re:Obfuscated Indices (Score:2)
If you do this you want to be sure you have someone who actually understands what makes sense on line. Otherwise you could end up with a straight translation of a paper system (quite possibly an ancient system as well). Indeed this may well be exactly what is going on here anyway.
Re:Obfuscated Indices (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps. So now some perl-savvy Slashdotter should write a script to mirror the site into a database, and post the resulting URL. Shouldn't be more than an hour or two of work for someone who has the skills...
Re:Obfuscated Indices (Score:3, Funny)
Done... (Score:5, Informative)
http://weston.canncentral.org/msdoj/lookup.php [canncentral.org]
This lets you look up any comment by name, or comment ID (if you know it).
I also threw in the ability to let you look up comments by minimum number of pages.... this lets you look at "substantive" comments quickly.
The code that I used to do all this is located in the directory. Feel free to take and mirror
(Alas... I lost my mods for this thread when I decided to post this... my apologies to the parent poster and the sibling poster who made the comment about database programmers sleeping in -- at first you both amused me, and then you inspired me...)
Re:Done... (Score:2)
have you looked at the responses? (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/public
Every one of them was exactly the same, SAME EXACT WORDS!
and guess what, they all supported the settlement.
damn republicans, i wouldn't mind so much IF bush actually won..
damn microsoft, damn microsoft.
Re:have you looked at the responses? (Score:2)
If someone downloads the comments, do a search to see how many of them have "@inetgw" or a duplicate message.
Re:have you looked at the responses? (Score:2)
not like it matters (Score:1)
it doesnt matter what the settlement is, microsoft has already abandoned this monopoly for another one:
My comment's not there (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't find any permutation of my name or email address in the 'public comment' list.
Did this happen to anyone else, did you mail a comment but it's not showing up there?
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
Reading the DOJ response, though, it's obvious that it doesn't matter who said what. They basically took all the objections and said, "You're wrong, we're right, and we're going to go ahead with the settlement, and if you don't like it, tough shit." Of course, given that their ultimate boss (Shrub Bush) was installed in the White House by a very similar process ("We don't care who you actually voted for, we're going to do what we want, and if you don't like it, tough shit") I suppose it's to be expected.
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
Looks as if they printed it, scanned it, and created a PDF file [usdoj.gov] with a program from a company named "Pixel Translations," [pixtran.com] and (for the index) typed the name by hand.
These are the folks we're expected to believe have sufficient understanding of technical issues to rule correctly on this case? No; these are the folks who settled; it's the judge whose judgement we're relying on now.
Anyway, I'm glad my voice had an opportunity to be heard.
P.S.: My e-mail address does not appear, thank goodness (though that Yahoo! Mail address already gets about twenty spam messages a day).
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
That's theory one. But ironically enough, my comment [usdoj.gov] (yes, i finally found it, they misspelled my last name) reads *correctly* on the comment page, even though it is misspelled in the index. Which indicates that they *paid someone to manually type in all the names to generate the index*. Even the names from the emails.
I guess it's hard to change a bureaucracy. And the opinion that resulted is probably not that surprising by an agency so technically inept.
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
Along with my email address and phone number, etc. which I included to make sure that someone could verify that I was a real person... Didn't dawn on me that my personal info was going to be available in an easy to SPAM collection of addresses.
Also, I guess I won't think about applying to work at Microsoft now... this is like the ultimate anti-MS blacklist. And I won't be surprised to find various upgrade problems in the future if I ever decide to buy M$ products again...
-Russ
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
There seem to be more than one of us. Is this grounds for a legal complaint of some sort? They are *required by law* to post *all* of their responses.
Mine's missing too (Score:2)
Nope, it's there. (Score:2)
I do appreciate this level of openness by the DOJ, but it would be more convenient for all involved if they just put a "We're goddamn morons" disclaimer at the top of the page, rather than requiring us to perform significant investigation to ascertain that ourselves.
Re:My comment's not there (Score:2)
My only hope is that it is part of the official record that the judge (or her lackeys) will be using, and that the version published to the web is incomplete. But my hopes are not real high right now...
Found Mine (Score:4, Insightful)
MTC-00004462 [usdoj.gov]
Any US citizen who didn't comment on the "settlement" doesn't deserve to be able to bitch about the outcome. My comment is actually a copy of someones elses writing, but at least I took the time to email it. The part about the DOJ saying "We really like our little agreement with Sata^H^H^H^HMicrosoft, so we're going to ignore all of your comments and continue as we are" REALLY SUCKS ASS! Damnit! If there ever was a time to talk revolution, this is it. The DCMA and probably the SSSCA soon have done more to undermine the constitution and the bill of rights than all of the communists that ever existed! God, this boils my hemmoroids! I've never felt this helpless. What is our great country coming to? An ever widening spiral of lost rights and freedom? I say to the Congress, DOJ, FBI, CIA and whoever else is with the Fed reading this, tread lightly where our freedoms lie, for you shall feel the wrath of those you wish to step on. Not a threat, but my god given right to protest and make for change. It's written down, right in the constitution. Don't ever forget that.
PHEW! That was one of my better rants. Back to eating my MacDonalds breakfast now...
Re:Found Mine (Score:2)
Wow, too bad. Words did not fail you here.
The problem is that duplicates under different names will look like a robot mailing unless you prefaced it with something of your own that's more that, "I completely agree with this". Microsoft got themselves burt for just this kind of thing lately. I wonder what part of the advertising budget whent toward filling that list up with bullshit from non persons. There were plenty of comments that would have been marked down as obvious trolls here. I'm waiting for someone to do a study on those letters to nail M$ for stuffing the box again.
Next to comments about how wonderful microsoft is for consumers because it works so well with all sorts of devices and costs so little and works so well (poster takes a moment to vommit), your simple and honest statements about the DCMA and SSSCA undermining the constitution would have been welcome. The letter you quoted was good, I wish that you had the time to make it your own. Yes, even the part about boiled hemmoroids, which kind of validates your claims of being in IT and a biker.
Re:Found Mine (Score:2)
This is similar to the mantra "if you don't vote, you can't complain" - it amazes me that people who say this think they're deciding anything for themselves when it comes to voting. It's clear that they are highly susceptable to outside influence (such as the one that implanted that statement so deeply into their minds). IMO, that is a far worse situation than someone choosing not to vote at all.
Re:Found Mine (Score:2, Interesting)
You realize, don't you, that even WinXXX cannot 'faithfully' read and write Microsoft documents? Your Win9x users, for example, will not be able to read or edit a Word doc sent from Office XP. The same is true for the other MS propriatary formats. This is all part of Bill's scheme to force users of older WinXX OSs to "upgrade" and such a tactic is prima facia proof of a monoply. If users had a real choice they'd switch the moment Gates first tried such an onious tactic.
With StarOffice, OpenOffice and AbiWord they now have a choice, but the vast majoryity don't realize it because of the control MS will CONTINUE to have over the PC OEMS.
However, recent events at Walmart give me hope. Now that one can buy a PC for $399 sans OS, or $599 with XP, one can see the MS tax in action. Hopefully, these prices will force Dell, Gateway and Compac to lower their prices too, rendering the MS tax obvious to all and breaking the monoply.
Re:Found Mine (Score:2)
Red Avenger, I had exactly one sip of Mountain Dew when I wrote that. I was damn lucky to even be able to focus, much less remember an acronym. Actully, I consider myself to be a conservative. Decidedly *NOT* holy roller right, closer to gun totin' right. Think NRA. Anyway, no offense taken.
Finally, the perfect troll! :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
To:Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With all due respect to the DOJ Anti-trust department, this case should
have never been pursued in the first place. I thought that anti-trust
legislation was to protect the consumer, not to appease competitors that
are losing in the marketplace. Has Microsoft always been a perfect
angel? I don't think so. Microsoft should face no penalties that
involve changes to their product or by "releasing" information about
their source code. The future of computing is not a bunch of different
systems that aren't compatible but a global network of computers
seamlessly exchanging information. Microsoft is working on this goal.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Luby
Re:Finally, the perfect troll! :-) (Score:2, Interesting)
Validation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Validation? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid for the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
And for all this, they're effectively being given a slap on the wrist and told 'don't do it again.' Microsoft has learned a very important lesson: laws can be broken. Just like speeding tickets don't physically prevent you from speeding, consent decrees don't prevent Microsoft from undermining other companies. They've learned that as long as they can drag out court proceedings, they can keep doing business as usual. It's even better if they can frame the battle as 'the evil government and evil competitors versus Microsoft's innovation, freedom, and all that's good for consumers!'
What's more, they're growing increasingly independent of other companies and outside standards. They tried to break Apple's Quicktime by suddenly dropping support for Netscape-style plug-ins; fortunately Apple was able to quickly release an ActiveX plugin. They decided that since Sun wouldn't allow them to 'embrace and extend' Java to lock users and developers into the Windows platform, they'd make their own replacement instead, and now Java support requires a separate download that most users won't bother with.
My biggest concern with
The real danger with Microsoft is that they have so much money to throw around that they can buy any market they want to buy. Whatever the Next Great Thing is to come down the pipe, mark my words: Microsoft will either buy the company responsible for it, or copy the ideas and give them away for free until the company is dead. You don't agree with me? Tell me how to compete with Microsoft. Say you have a great idea for a technology which will be as much of a leap forward as GUI's were over text screens, what's the use of bringing this to market if you know Microsoft's only going to bundle a workalike with Windows?
It's no longer possible to compete with Microsoft. They own the industry, and the government won't even slow them down.
It is far worse than that (Score:4, Insightful)
And for all this, they're effectively being given a slap on the wrist and told 'don't do it again.' Microsoft has learned a very important lesson: laws can be broken.
If that had been all they had learned, freedom and progress might still have had a chance in the United States. Unfortunately, Microsoft has learned much more. They have learned that, not only can they break the laws they don't like without any repercussions to speak of, they can purchase new laws to actively legislate their monopoly into perminance.
Consider: Microsoft owns most, if not all, of the patents on DRM technology as applied to computers. Microsoft is the only major software company promoting the SSSCA that will mandate this technology into every PC sold in the United States, while every other player in the industry, bar none, vehemently opposes this legislation.
We are about to make the Microsoft Monopoly the only legal operating system in the United States, modulo those unthreatening "competitors" they might choose to license the patents to, for a heafty fee. Anyone taking any bets on the survival of GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, or any new OS startups within the United States if and when the SSSCA passes?
It will soon become time to emigrate folks, I kid you not.
Re:I'm afraid for the industry (Score:2)
A better analogy might be a driver caught speeding who's licence has previously been cancelled by court order due to habitual speeding.
This is the point Microsoft is not a "first time offender", with "wrist slapping" being proven ineffective.
They've learned that as long as they can drag out court proceedings, they can keep doing business as usual.
Even though there are plenty of ways the DOJ could have prevented Microsoft doing so, even completly shut down Microsoft, until the trial process was complete.
Re:I'm afraid for the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
The key here is that Microsoft is funding the development of this free software with the huge revenues it makes from its operating system monopoly, and then it's tying the free software to its operating system so that you have no choice but to get it and little reason to go to the trouble of replacing it.
Say that one grocery store has a monopoly in America -- every street corner has a Brian's Groceries, and it's enormously profitable to me. Now say you have a wonderful idea for a tasty frozen dessert, and you go into business to make and sell it. But I decide that I want that market, so I copy your recipe and give it away for free in my stores, while refusing to carry you product. How are you going to compete, or even stay in business?
Automessages.... (Score:2)
Gonna take a while to slog through all these... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems everything in the 8,000 range is from MS employees and other non-living entities. I thought some random twit slipped through at comment 8432 (AOL address), but no, that's from MS as well, and from obviously someone good at public writing (read: propaganda).
I'm still hunting for the case-widening and case-lengthening posts, along with the pr0n link they admitted receiving, Ashcroft-snotting posts and other crap from the people here.
Haven't found a Taco OR Hemos post yet (nor Rusty or Ino). Found mine, though. Also found some Ayn Rand-spewing nutter with the same name as my father who wrote a rather disjointed diatribe but I think was pro-MS.
woof.
Hmmm,.. tax dollars at work (Score:2)
somehow, they managed to butcher it very badly - the last letter of my username was wrong, and the domain name has a dot where there should have been an 'o'. At first I thought this was some clever anti-spam technique, but other email addresses seem to be valid. Lets hope the DOJ doesn't screw up the settlement too (fingers crossed).
Heh, I found this comment on their site... (Score:4, Funny)
First Comment!
Word Perfect (Score:2, Interesting)
This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
I realized I'd not seen anyone post anything in WordPerfect in years! Gosh, I wonder why they did that.
Improved index (Score:5, Informative)
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/mscomment/ [harvard.edu]
Re:Improved index (Score:2)
There's also an index of the Government's papers analyzing and responding to the comments at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/ [harvard.edu] (along with the revised proposed final judgment and most of the other filings in the case)
Re:Improved index (a search form!) (Score:2)
Important lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the sheer number of people who simply signed off on a form letter. Look too at the large number of people who, in their own words, condemned the antitrust suit as 'sore losers picking on nice Microsoft.'
What this means is that people have been buying Microsoft's propaganda. Lots of people. It also means that people have no idea there are any alternatives other than Windows.
More clearly than anything else I've seen, this shows the uphill struggle Linux is going to have -- or that anything will have, if it ever wants to unseat Windows.
People have been hit by Windows viruses and Outlook trojan horses, they've had to put up with all the nastiness and instability which is an inherent part of Windows, they've had to deal with exorbitant upgrade pricing and heavy-fisted licensing practices... and yet they still sing the praises of Microsoft.
As long as this continues, we will never have justice.
Re:Important lesson (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it seems as if the DOJ is going to ignore
the arguments against MS by the public, discounting
the majority of even the well structured arguments
as being "Bill Gate Sucks!" posts.
This is very disappointing, especially
since many of the anti-MS comments seem to be the
most informed, pointing to past cases involving MS
basically laughing at decisions and penalties imposed on them.
I think it is blatantly obvious that there is
a huge influence under Dubya's administration
to basically render the finding of guilt
absolutely useless. Repeatedly I hear stories of "pressure" being placed on the Judge to go along with the DOJ's settlement. I think it is fairly
sickening that the balance of power between the
Executive and Judicial branches are failing in
this way.
Re:Important lesson (Score:2)
I never cease to be amazed by how many
The plain fact is that if MS decided to charge $300 per year for a Windows licence most consumers would happily pay and think that they were getting a great deal.
If you still find this hard to understand, just stop and think how stupid the average person is. Now, consider that half of the population is more stupid than that!
What can we do? I am sorry, but I have no idea. My own solution is to use Linux for as long as possible. If I finaly have a choice of giving up computing as a hobby or switching to fully DRM controlled Windows, I will give up computing and take up model engineering (assuming some clown hasn't decided that no-one can own a lathe because they might make a gun!).
Re:Important lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Netscape 2.0 and 3.0 crushed anything MS had going for it. It was also free as can be, even though it was boxed in shelves. I don't know anyone (laymens included) who ever purchased NS.
When Netscape 4.0 came out, and I wasn't too impressed with the "Layer" tags and other non-W3C crap as they tried to have their "own" DHTML. When IE 4.0 came out, it had it's problems, but eventually (after a few updates) I humbled myself and made the religious switch. It was faster, supported a lot of the W3C recommendations, and was easier for me to develop for.
The reality of the situation, was that MS made the better browser. You should note that most IE4.0 browsers where downloaded (just like NS) since Win98 was not even released yet. Most copies of Win95 being sold still had IE3 AND Netscape on it. Really, by the time Win98 came out in June of 1998, IE4 already had made huge gains, based on consumer choice. Furthermore, many remember that at the time most all ISP software packaged Netscape as the exclusive or preferred browser, yet IE still gained marketshare. Again, remember that this is all before IE packaged with Windows.
Finally, a commercial browser called "Opera", which costs money (unless you want to deal with annoying ads) is gaining marketshare even in the current "unfair" environment. They make a great lightweight browser that is faster then IE or even current versions of NS. It doesn't quite render as well as IE but it is pretty darn close. It already has 5.6% marketshare in Europe and is gaining popularity internationally.
The real problem is, people on
Re:Important lesson (Score:4, Informative)
First off, Netscape WAS NOT FREE. Granted most people chose to ignore the Shareware-like license and just download and use the product. I do know many people who actually did go and buy it. That, however, is not the real problem.
The problem came with Microsoft's licenses with OEM, ISP's, and Application Developers. Microsoft illegally used the leverage that it had with the Windows license to force Compaq to stop bundling Netscape on their machines. (Something that Compaq was paying for becaue they felt that their customers wanted it.) Microsoft offerred "bounties" to ISP's for getting their customers to change from Netscape. Finally, Microsoft signed restrictive contracts with Application Developers to allow them access to necessary technical information about Windows 95.
All the while Microsoft was pouring Billions of dollars into the development of IE and artificially welding it into their OS.
As to your algebra and worries/questions about whether things are clear or not, that was what the whole trial was for. Microsoft presented their side of the case, the DoJ presented it's. Microsoft "lost" (found guilty of the various violations). At this stage of the trial, the only question is the N punishments. The X things wrong have already been established. (The DoJ did have the opportunity to press for additional things wrong, but decided to forego that for reasons unkown.)
Re:Important lesson (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, actually Netscape has some of the best arguments against Microsoft when it comes to breaking antitrust laws.
Antitrust being defined as "when a company with a monopoly uses their monopoly proceeds to undercut their competition in other markets by selling below cost." For example, Standard Oil did this in the earlier part of the century (when gasoline was a new market, kind of like software is today) by obtaining a monopoly in certain cities, then jacking up the price of gasoline so that they could undersell everyone else in other cities, repeating the process as needed. They could have easily extended this monopoly ad infinitum to completely different markets, like cars or electric razors if it pleased them, and noone would have a hope in hell with competing with them. Thankfully the DOJ bitchslapped them and broke up Standard Oil before they started making electric razors. Microsoft used the funds they generate in operating systems to fund development of Internet Explorer. Microsoft then gave Internet Explorer away for free, among other things. This is a product that Microsoft has spent millions of dollars developing, but "out of the goodness of their hearts" they gave it away for free. You might argue from a completely subjective point of view that "noone ever bought Navigator" but Netscape Inc says otherwise, with the books to prove it (which were used in court as evidence by the way). Navigator was a significant source of revenue for Netscape right up until they had to give it away to compete with Microsoft.
Now, you also argue that Netscape died due to its own bungling and IE's technical superiority, rather than because Microsoft went out of their way to kill it, but you might have noticed that development of IE has slowed drastically since Netscape was bought by AOL. Why is that? Microsoft has already clinched the market through exclusive licensing deals, their control over OEMs and "special deals" with big businesses that ensure that they wouldn't dare buy another browser from anyone else ever again. They no longer have to invest in a money-losing market by actually developing software. The internet explorer design team now probably consists of five guys in a forgotten office somewhere who occasionally fix bugs not when CERT says it's a good idea, but after a billion script kiddies take advantage of some security flaw, bringing the internet to its knees with unintentional DOS attacks. (Okay, maybe that's really exaggerating, but to say the least, MS doesn't care about IE much anymore, and is allowing it to stagnate because there's no competition and there never will be either.)
So the process? Microsoft spends millions of dollars on a product that eventually stagnates, for no other reason than to put Netscape out of business. Those millions of dollars didn't come out of thin air, they came out of the lucrative monopoly Microsoft has on the desktop. And that's Antitrust boys and girls.
Re:Important lesson (Score:2)
I would almost agree with you that my tax dollars were wasted on this but only because the guilty party is being allowed to continue leveraging their monopoly power to gain additional monopolies.
It was also free as can be, even though it was boxed in shelves. I don't know anyone (laymens included) who ever purchased NS.
I'm not surprised that you don't know anyone who bought Netscape. I'd bet that you steal most of your software and the only thing you've ever paid for has been windows because it was included into the cost of your pc.
The reality of the situation, was that MS made the better browser. You should note that most IE4.0 browsers where downloaded (just like NS) since Win98 was not even released yet. Most copies of Win95 being sold still had IE3 AND Netscape on it. Really, by the time Win98 came out in June of 1998, IE4 already had made huge gains, based on consumer choice. Furthermore, many remember that at the time most all ISP software packaged Netscape as the exclusive or preferred browser, yet IE still gained marketshare. Again, remember that this is all before IE packaged with Windows.
The actual reality of the situation is that your version of history is a flight of fancy. *You* should note that hardly anyone downloaded IE4 over a modem just like Netscape. The vast majority of users used what came bundled on their pc or on their AOL or Earthlink or whatever diskette that their ISP sent to them. And that was almost always IE because of the exclusive deals that microsoft's OS monopoly allowed them to strongarm out of the providers.
You must have slept through the mid-nineties. The only choice that most consumers made was to not download 10-20 megs of software over their 14k or 9600 baud modems and then have to install a big scary windows program and that was if they even knew there was an alternative and where to get it. Also, IE was packaged with windows in all OEM versions. Only the original packaged version did not contain IE by default and that was soon changed.
Netscape is down to a measly 20% share. But is it any wonder? Who wants to use a browser that hasn't had any serious development work done on it since 1996? (I am only referring to 4.x here, obviously Mozilla will be making waves pretty soon.) How could Netscape afford to spend tens of millions developing a program when a $16B monopoly making 65% margins was burying their development costs in Windows (forcing consumers to buy it) and giving theirs away for "free".
Yes Opera is gaining a small share, no thanks to you. But what a coincidence that 10% of US families now have high speed internet access making the multi-megabyte download fast and painless. Users are also more sophisticated today and are not as afraid to install software by themselves. And as you grudgingly admit, Opera is free software.
You can laugh today because Microsoft is off the hook. Billion dollar lawyers, political donations, and legal maneuvering has won the day for another of our nation's rich law-breaking corporate entities. But I am still laughing at you tshak because your MSFT stock hasn't increased in value in a long, long time. In fact if you bought it about 3 years ago at $120 a share then you have lost half your investment.
And now that Enron has been caught doing some of the same things as Microsoft [billparish.com], don't expect to see your shares split anytime soon. 8^D
Re:Important lesson (Score:2)
How many of these people actually exist and actually "signed off".
Maybe some of these are "astroturf"...
George Bush (Score:2)
There is a fairly complete list of links to stories about the whole mess [grani.ru].
Can't find the right link, but it sticks in my buffer.
What's the odds (Score:5, Informative)
Comment MTC-00021678 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021680 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021682 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021678 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021694 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021702 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021704 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021705 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021706 [usdoj.gov]
Comment MTC-00021710 [usdoj.gov]
What do they think? They take DOJ an idiot who wouldn't notice this? Oh wait...
I'm too tired to list them all, but I'm sure there's much much more.
(This line is inserted to get around the lame-o lameass filter, blah blah blah blah lameass filter is lame, blah blah blah blah)
Or.... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, we've never done that on Slashdot for copyright laws, have we?
Re:What's the odds (Score:2)
You'll find them all throughout the comments, if you look. Although the example you used isn't the particular letter I sent a copy of.
What I find interesting is how the Linux zealots are in complete denial that there are actually people who are happy with Microsoft products and think this court case is a sham. Considering we are the majority of US citizens, I do find this very odd indeed that you think we all work for Microsoft.
Your Rights Online (Score:2)
Mine's there, but where's Rob's, etc.? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's up with that?
Re:Mine's there, but where's Rob's, etc.? (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Comments were only welcome from US citizens (though as others have mentioned little attempt appears to have been made with verification). Many open source developers are not US citizens.
Education should be the answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
When you let Microsoft rule and set arbitrary rules for a 'universally' accepted operating system, including, giving them the right to add and remove software to your computer, then you're asking for trouble. I'd guess that about 90 percent of the people who use windows don't understand the ramifications and consequences of this, and these are the people who are more likely to bend over without the lube and let MS jam it up their ass.
These are the same people who want to outlaw simple compilers and linkers because "They should be outlawed". (This was my CS prof's wife who made that comment) Unless we educate people, show them in terms that they understand why Microsoft is evil, and show them alternatives (linux with X Windows and KDE/Gnome with StarOffice and Mozilla as a web browser) that are as easy to use, then we might get somewhere.
My Missing Comment!!! (Score:2)
From: "Timothy Rue"
To: USDOJ
Subject: Public Comment on MS vs. DOJ
Date: 20 Nov 2001 22:05:06 GMT
RE: Public Comment regarding the anti-trust case of Microsoft vs.
the Department of Justice.
Protecting consumers is what this case is supposed to be about
and finally there is the opportunity for consumers to speak up.
I have no idea how well this process will work but I do know
that it is not likely the courts are able to undo the damage
done by Microsoft. To tell a company to change, even if they do,
they have already gained much in developing an unfair advantage
that the court system really doesn't seem to have a way to undo.
How did this happen? How is Microsoft, or any company, able to
stay one step or more ahead of the law and court system?
To understand how this may be possible, understanding the nature
of software and creating it is in order. It the simplest of terms,
it's a task of creating words and meaning of these words as well
as redefining words as needed. It's what a programmer does when
they create a function. It is what you could call abstraction
creation and manipulation. And as it's all for the goal of taking
some input and translating it into something different on output,
you could also add the word "translation".
So from creating a product to advertising it for sale to providing
support, you are dealing with the ability to create, manipulate and
translate words and their meanings. Certainly that is enough to be
able and desirable to include a companies legal department in the
practice of interpretating the words of the law.
I'm sure Microsoft is not the only company guilty of wrongful
manipulations that have lead to what I call "consumer entrapment
abuse." But I do believe that Microsoft is so well focused at it
that to some extent, they do not know the difference between right
and wrong. In short, I don't believe the current directions of how
to handle Microsofts guilt of anti-trust is going to be at all
successful.
I don't believe the core problem started by the hands of Mircosoft
or Bill Gates, but sometime before Mr. Gates got involved in
computers or programming. Though I haven't yet pinned the source
events down, I do believe it originated from IBM, perhaps even
related to some government contracts. But what had happened was a
distraction or detour of genuine computer science caused by the
lure of easy money.
Let me put it this way. Given that programming is the process of
automating complexity and repeatable processes, so to make it easy
for the user to make use of, how is it that the software industry
has managed to automate most any other industry and field but is
so totally unable to automate software creation beyond some crude
level (as compaired to all else that has been automated) ???
Perhaps the best current presentation of intent to move in this
direction is IBMs open system and source autonomic computing effort
but in contridiction to this is their patenting of "html Templates."
- http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/
- http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/17/00523
Which suggest to me that they intend on abusing open efforts so as
to patent any and every "autonomic" process such open efforts
identify. Again not really supporting a genuine computer science and
engineering direction.
So in essence you have departments of the government (USPTO and
other lawmakers) providing incentive to software businesses to
obtain and apply "cannot" based Intellectual Property law to a field
of distracted science which has not yet identified it's own natural
laws of the physical phenomenon of abstraction creation and use.
In other words: The injustices that are going on today against the
consumer, from the software industry, are as a result of failing to
define the computer science of what amounts to automation, including
the automation of software development.
For computer science automation to be genuinely defined would mean
that the concept of difficult to create software would not exist,
nor would the long running "software crisis". Instead it truely
would be up to genuinely creative people to create increasingly
productive software, rather than being trapped in consumer
entrapment abuse by an industry that apparently is more interested
in the dollar and getting it from the consumer than in establishing
genuine computer software science.
Untill the core issue is addressed, there will be a continuation of
consumer entrapment abuse by the computer industry and regardless of
what conclusion the MicroSoft vs. DOJ case has.
The consumer and users of this technology need to be honestly told
software development is not a flat earth and difficult to do, but
rather that it is a round planet and can be automated and made easy
for the consumer and user to do it for themselves, and then done so.
And as having such reasonable options, Microsoft nor any other company
would be able to so abuse the consumer.
I am the consumer, the end user and I damn well know I wouldn't
write any of the above if I were not absolutely certain about these
things. But I suppose the real question is whether or not the DOJ is
really looking out for the consumer enough to seriously consider what
I have communicated here. Not to mention understanding that I realize
this consumer response needs to be much shorter then it would be had I
included all the supporting references.
In conclusion: you have a bigger problem to solve first, before it's
even possible to find a reasonable solution to the MS vs. DOJ case.
Respectfully,
Timothy Rue
threeseas@earthlink.net timrue@mindspring.com
The comments make me ill... (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States is populated with sheep. I can't wait to leave...
Email addresses posted (Score:4, Insightful)
Spelled my name wrong...grr (Score:2)
What is odd is that the only previous time that I've seen that mispelling is in the credits to the movie Showgirls. Kinda makes you wonder.
Thad Beier
Re:Spelled my name wrong...grr (Score:2)
Re:Spelled my name wrong...grr and grrr again (Score:2)
Well, its all a bit of a joke isn't it. (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes a nonsense of the rest of that section since it is based on the premis that OSS companies will be able to obtain licenses for Microsoft APIs and network protocols. What are they going to do with them? Since access to that information is restricted they won't be able to release the results as open source.
At the end of the day, we might as well accept that the US government (and most US citizens) would be entirely happy with a world where Windows was the only operating system which could either run on modern computers or connect to the internet.
So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
The ignorance of some stupid commentors is noted. "Would you rather be using anything else", and "there's nothing else easier to use" predominated among MS-supporters. Had MS not been a monopoly and had an unfair advantage with OEMs, BeOS would have superceded it by now and become the standard desktop OS.
The incompetence of the Justice Department is easily discernable through comments such as these:
174. A few commentors argue that, under Section III.C.2, Microsoft has control over what non-Microsoft products may be promoted by an OEM because Microsoft could define what "impair[s] the functionality of the user interface."(183) Section III.C.2 applies only to shortcuts, but it allows those shortcuts to be of any size and shape. Potentially, these shortcuts could be so large as to cover key portions of the Windows user interface (for example, the Start Menu). As the Court of Appeals found, Microsoft has an interest in preventing unjustified drastic alterations of its copyrighted work. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 63. The limitation preventing shortcuts from impairing the functionality of the user interface was designed to respect this interest, while still giving OEMs considerable freedom to promote Non-Microsoft Middleware.
No, actually, its not possible to for shortcuts to "be so large as to cover key portions of the Windows user interface (for example, the Start Menu)". Even if it that would be MS' fault for design flaw. Furthermore, MS should only be allowed to sell OEM's its OS. The OEM's should have the freedom to modify it as they will. MS should not be allowed to HURT consuemrs by preventing their OEM's from tailoring their OS to their needs.
Granted, this proposal is better than nothing at all; but it doesn't go far enough to punish MS for past illegal deeds, rectify the monopolistic situation created, and prevent MS from future monopolistic deeds.
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
I tried installing BeOs and Linux had better PnP then BeOS did (which is pretty bad). I mean, I really liked the concept of a lightweight GUI, and there was some really cool music related software that was exclusive to BeOS, but I could not see the average consumer even caring about it let alone being able to figure out how to use it.
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
AMD K62 266 w/64megs RAM
3Com 905C
Creative Soundblaster PCI
S3 video card (forgot what model)
EPox motherboard
Win 95SE had no problem with this hardware, Linux had little problem (some video issues at first, but at least it got on my network automagically) and BeOS could not, for the life of it, work properly. Other peers have had similar issues as well.
Really, I liked a lot of what BE was doing, but they didn't have the maturity or R&D to make a good OS. Look at Apple. They do have the R&D, and they are still coming out with a great OS. I have yet to see a good consumer level OS get hampered by MS. The real issue is that the only other OS other then Windows that's suitable for consumers is OS X. Others (BE, OS/2 Warp, Linux, etc.) have fallen short in major areas.
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
BeOS superceding Windows? If you were standing in this room I would apply the Grand Boot of Reality to your fat ass.
Re:So basically, they ignored all suggestions (Score:2)
And in some cases offered legal arguments as to why is would be so.
But this is expected. The Tunney act was instituted precisely to prevent large corporations from buying out the Justice Department, which is pretty much what is happening now.
It really is up to the judge (and staff) to discern that this is all a load of bull. Should be interesting to see it all sort out - but don't really expect anything revolutionary.
interesting (Score:2)
The United States believes that the requirements in Section III.J.2 are no broader than is necessary to prevent misuse or misappropriation of intellectual property.
Basically, they are saying: the US government created the Microsoft monopoly via copyright, and the government doesn't feel like taking it away. I guess those MS tax revenues are pretty hefty.
Oh well. Here in America we have a curious sort of "Non-Laissez-faire Capitalism".
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Tunney Act being met? (Score:2, Insightful)
Step One: Release a bad settlement
Step Two: Accept public commentary
Step Three: Modify the bad settlement slighty to give the appearance of having listened to the commentary in order to get the settlement originally desired, not allowing the public to comment on it
Step Four: Laugh all the way to the bank
I think there should be a new Tunney Act period for the new settlement. But hey, what do I know anyway. It's not like they listened to my original comments...
-Mike
As if the DOJ cares what the public has to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let me start by saying here's mine [usdoj.gov].
That said, I don't think the current DOJ gives a rat's ass about the public's opinion on the case (duh). Republicans repeatedly criticized Clinton for using public opinion polls...I guess they think that those corporate campaign contributors are much more worthwhile to listen to (DISCLAIMER: I am not a Clinton supporter or apologist, nor do I believe for a second that Clinton wasn't beholden to corporate interests...I'm merely pointing out a hypocrisy). Those $4M USD in campaign contributions will grab the attention of the DOJ over the public interest any day.
Someone with time on his/her hands should index these comments and come up with some statistics: how many of the comments were (a) for or against the settlement, (b) how many were form letters, (c) how many were submitted by corporations vs. individuals. Not that these are terribly meaningful, but they would shed some light on the DOJ's summary comments [usdoj.gov].
By the way - notice the .htm extension on all these pages. Netcraft [netcraft.com] says they're running Netscape-Enterprise 4.0 on Solaris, but I wonder if they didn't use Front Page to create these pages...
They published my name? (Score:2)
I *know* that if Microsoft is broken up, it will mean bad, bad things for the company I work for.
I also know the difference between right and wrong. And if punishing the wrong means my company suffers, and I lose my job because of that, so be it. But now I'm worried that having my opinion and real name exposed publicly like this might be a threat to my career.
Re:They published my name? (Score:2)
No doubt whenever a major gangster or terrorist organisation is taken down there are innocent people and businesses who are harmed. Indeed in these cases there is probably more moral ambiguity because gangsters and terrorists can be adept at creating legitimate "fronts", so those who deal with them might have no idea at all that their "major business partner" is actually Osama Bin Laden or whoever.
Microsoft however dosn't hide who it is when it deals with people and it's record is well documented. No wolves in sheeps clothing with Microsoft, just wolves...
Rather interesting... (Score:2)
MTC-00001595 0001 root@usdoj.gov
MTC-00019283 0001 root@ut6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000209 0002 root@wt4.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000673 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000252 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000290 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002095 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00001577 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002191 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00009661 0001 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000292 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000301 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000669 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00001125 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00001791 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002038 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002499 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002523 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002671 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00002732 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00004479 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00004530 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00004581 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00004710 0002 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00001067 0003 root@wt6.usdoj.gov
MTC-00000127 0001 Root@wtb.usdoj.gov
MTC-00025815 0003 root@wtg.usdoj.gov
Guess they're counting mailer-daemons or the likes.
Looks bad for Free software.. (Score:2)
From Disclosure Of Communications Protocols [usdoj.gov]: Right. No point stopping them from leveraging their desktop monoply into a server monopoly, huh? I thought that was EXACTLY wht this case was about - leveraging one monopoly into another. Right. No point letting those Commie Free Software and Open Source people in on the info, even though in many areas they constitue the ONLY remaining competition to Microsoft - because this settlement isn't about punishing or limiting Microsoft. It's about making the case go away by doing as little as possible because the jagoffs running our government don't believe in antitrust law.
Classic maneuver by Republican regimes - if you disagree with a law or regulation that you can't get overturned legitimately, just appoint assholes who will refuse to properly enforce it.
The only explanation is that Fucking DOJ is so far into Micorsoft's pocket that they taste dick everytime they open their mouths.
what they should have done (Score:2, Interesting)
any comment which has a body exactly like another comment should be thrown out.
why wasn't this done?
then again... it's not like my [usdoj.gov] comment ultimately matters in this case.
:(
588 (Score:2)
-
A few interesting parts of the DOJ response (Score:2)
This sucker is BIG. With one exception (the first item), I worked from the bottom of the document and therefore only cover the FOOTNOTES.
(236) IE or the IEAK [Internet Explorer Administration Kit] free of charge or even at a negative price
DOJ specificly permits Mocrosoft to charge MORE for buying a version without InternetExplorer.
Every item below here is a DOJ FOOTNOTE:
(50) The United States does not believe that there are determinative documents in this case
Legally, we have to show the public the evidence that proved Microsoft is guilty. There isn't anything that proves Microsoft is guilty. Therefore we don't have to show any evidence to the public.
(68) Nor may relief in a civil antitrust case be punitive.
Our job is only to restore competition. Microsoft gets a free pass on anything they've already done.
(70) "terminat[ing] the illegal monopoly" and "deny[ing] to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation"
Microsoft did illegal stuff, but uhhh... none of those illegal things 'increased or extended Microsoft's monopoly'. So we can't end the monopoly or remove the 'fruits' of illegal behavior.
(256) < would Section III.G.2 have protectd Netscape while IE was under developement? > if Navigator did not compete with IE because IE did not exist, then Microsoft would have no reason to give an IAP benefits on the condition that the IAP not use Navigator.
This one basicly says it's OK for microsoft to play dirty while they are developing a product. Competition does not exist yet. We only protect competition.
(292) Maddux 13 (Microsoft should be required to publish on Slashdot (slashdot.org) and Freshmeat (www.freshmeat.org).
LOL! Had to include this one!
(338) < re: Subsection III.I.1 > United States does not believe that the circumstances support royalty-free licensing. Compulsory licensing, but with a reasonable royalty, will be sufficient to achieve the remedial goal of ensuring access to necessary information for interoperability.
Our only goal is to restore competition, no matter how restricted it may be. And Microsoft may earn profits on it. We don't give a damn about that free software nonsense.
(383)the suggestion of an open-ended decree, subject to review after five years (see Gifford 9; Litan 73), or contingent upon Microsoft's market share decreasing (see Thomas 6), would create undesirable uncertainty in the market
And uncertainty in the market is a BadThing. We are at war, remember?
The source for this footnote is "Antitrust Division Manual's general guidance that 'staff should not negotiate any decree of less than 10 years' duration although decrees of longer than 10 years may be appropriate in certain circumstances."
(384) Contrary to these commentors' assertions, the possibility of the two-year extension of the RPFJ's requirements and prohibitions will help dissuade Microsoft from violating its terms and conditions. The United States believes that this potential sanction, which is supplemented by its traditional enforcement and contempt authority, will provide a significant incentive for Microsoft to comply.
Our plan is good enough. We're tired of reading letters from idiots that keep saying they don't trust Microsoft. We've been eating lunch with their lawyers every day for months. They say it's long enough. We believe them.
(404) originally alleged that Microsoft engaged in unlawful monopolization, in violation of Section 2, with respect to Microsoft Office. However, the States dropped this claim prior to the trial.
Any "bad behavior" that was dropped before trial, not proven at trial, or in any way hampered by the appeal ruling is off-limits for remedy.
This minimalist view of what they can/will do seems to a recurring theme.
-
Re:MS sucks.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:MS sucks.... (Score:2)
So dosn't this mean that the judgement should at minimum include a fine of at least $35 million plus interest. (Since this has been going on for nearly a decade that is rather a lot of interest.)
Re:link 404's (Score:2, Funny)
The DOJ has sold the public down the river by not breaking up Microsoft.
Breaking the company up would not have lessened its assets only its MONOPOLY
POWER. The DOJ has partnered with George W. Bush to repay Bill Gates for
his generous campaign contributions to him and the GOP party. There is
nowhere the public can turn anymore now that our Justice Department has sold
out to politics. There is no other explanation the public will believe.
You've made your bed with Bill, now sleep in it. A monetary fine means
nothing to the world's richest man - losing his power over the industry
does. As you attempt to settle with him, he is already targeting LINUX for
the Internet market - he has learned nothing, except whom to contribute to
for favors. You people can spin it anyway you like, we, the public, see it
for what it really is. There is no longer equality under the law, there is
no longer equal enforcement of the law, the law is Dubya.
I'm betting that there are alot of posts like that, I wonder if 30,000 gun toting MS-Bush bashing people are enough for a revolution....
Quick overview (Score:2)
Re:link 404's (Score:2)
I doubt it, since all the gun toters voted for Bush.
Re:link 404's - the correct link (Score:2)
Re:One Colossal Loophole Unclosed (Score:2, Informative)
From paragraphs 91 - 93:
That code shall be deemed Microsoft Middleware if it is identified by a new major version number, i.e., a whole number ("6.0") or a by a number with a single digit to the right of the decimal point ("7.1").
Per standard software engineering practices, Microsoft assigns every change to the code a new version number, and the importance of the change is designated by how far to the right the number is. For instance, a tiny change may be designated by an increase from 5.011 to 5.012; a slightly larger change is designated as going from 5.01 to 5.02, and a major version is designated as 5.1 to 5.2.
The only way for Microsoft to hide an API indefinitely is to never release a new major version, which historically has not happened and is not likely to happen in the future.
Re:Looking back on my comment (Score:2)
Re:DOJ trying to lose case (Score:2)
Is there no justice? Oh right, I forgot.
Re:I read their reply. Well, sort of. (Score:2)
Exactly how have they defined these "major" commenters? In terms of the number of points they raise or in terms of who they are? If the latter they appear to have missed a rather important document, known as "The US Constitution".
Anyway, the points of mine I didn't see addressed had to do with the ease with which it appears MS can technically exploit the loopholes of the settlement. For example, MS Office is not middleware,
Is the term "middleware" actually used in computing outside the context of this court case?