Microsoft Antitrust Judgement 1242
An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
Before the Bell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the replies to this post (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though... reading court decrees is about as exciting as a prostate exam. We need a legalese -> english converter asap.
the quickie version (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is an attempt to provide some kind of flexibility but "restrain" them, but the Judge is obviously forgetting history: Microsoft is the Harry Houdini of legal agreements, they can wriggle out of anything.
hrm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is unethical - I think it clearly isn't - but mightn't it have been polite to sit on this until the stock market closed, or at least until just before it closed?
Re:Scooping the news sites? (Score:4, Interesting)
5 Year Length (Score:3, Interesting)
This lawsuit has taken four years. I think five years, even with the possiblity of an extension is way too short.
And just because I thought it was interesting, here's the definition of an OS:API's (Score:5, Interesting)
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.
This is actually a big deal.
Samba? (Score:5, Interesting)
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
The big question is, can Samba benefit from this, or are the conditions of the released information going to make it incompatible with the GPL? And can the information be dirty/clean intellectually transferred between one tainted person and one "clean" person even with whatever type of NDA they put on the agreement?
Re:Release of APIs? (Score:2, Interesting)
And this is only effective for 5 years. What happens after that?
Re:the replies to this post (Score:2, Interesting)
to find the 2% who actually read it and have something interesting to say, now please stop adding to the noise.
Sayanora, Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or
So I think this is the first nail in Palladium's coffin. This legalese seems to imply that Microsoft is barred of collusion with OEMs that would block middleware or OSs that would compete with Microsoft. Which is, at the core, EXACTLY what Palladium would do.
Nice to see that the DoJ can kill two birds with one stone.
Re:Not a breakup, but a lot of pain (Score:3, Interesting)
They're going to argue that they already have complied with it in XP SP1, and the various releases of information that have trickled out so far. Whether the data they share is of any use at all (such as the worthless SMB documentation they released a bit ago) is something else entirely, and something that you'll have to take them back to court for.
This changes nothing from the state of things today. Whether it changed something from 4 years ago is another argument.
Public Interest Order (Score:2, Interesting)
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is a proposed consent decree submitted by the parties
in the above-captioned case. Following application of the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), and
upon a finding pursuant 15 U.S.C. 16(e) that, with the exception of VII of the proposed final
judgment ("SRPFJ"), entry of the SRPFJ as the final judgment in this action is in the public
interest, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 1st day of November,
2002, hereby
ORDERED that the SRPFJ is conditionally approved as the final judgment in this case;
and it is further
ORDERED that, in order to obtain final approval of the SRPFJ, Plaintiff and Microsoft
shall submit to the Court a proposed amendment to VII addressing the concerns described in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion; and it is further
ORDERED that such proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Court not later than
November 8, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
Dangit! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
Sheesh....there had to be catch...
Any bets on how long it'll take microsoft to declare the whole OS a rights protection management system so they don't have to give up any of the API?
Re:the quickie version -- 3rd party IP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Interesting)
That same first year law student would also argue that the clause was not intended to allow Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs for offering computers with two operating systems, such as Windows XP and Red Hat Linux (so called "Dual-Boot" systems.)
I agree it's problematic, but it's not as bad as you think.
Microsoft Ads on OSDN Sites (Score:4, Interesting)
Has Slashdot reached a point where the only way they can afford to continually rant against Microsoft is by accepting money from them?
Bill Gates just sold 2 million shares of Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I like Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft has done absolutely NOTHING to make my life easier; in fact, they've done just the opposite. I'm FORCED into working with their products at work; in fact in ANY work place I would go to. There is no choice, I can't simply "avoid" them. At home, I'm -almost- forced to endure the Microsoft legacy--klunky PC hardware (although Mac OSX gives me reason for joy). For a DECADE or more any real alternatives have been squelched and killed by Microsoft.
If I could avoid them, I would. But I can't. It's pretty much impossible. That's why I despise them. When I got into computing, it was a world full of possibility and wonder. In 10 short years it has been reduced to a smoking ruin, ruled over by a despot. Computing is NOT fun anymore, and Microsoft is the reason.
Re:Not necessarily 'slashdotted' (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you need to go learn what journalism is, I'll give you a hint, it's not sending out a few links to a few hundred thousand people. It's, get ready for this, reporting. Reporting the events of history pertinent to your viewer base, which
So please, and I mean this as nice as possible, but stop mindlessly cheerleading and learn what journalism and reporting means.
Disclose APIs to only a select few? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
As I read this, that means that you or I (or the Samba team) will not get to see those APIs.
Loopholes (Score:4, Interesting)
I noticed that the security exception is still there, what about the others?
Did you notice this... (Score:2, Interesting)
representatives of the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and
subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
Wow, wouldn't we want to be on a States duly authorized represantative for our state? Call you congressman and then call Microsoft and say "Show me the code!!!!"
Yahoo! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the best part. There's a standard schedule for costs for everyone. You can't brown-nose Microsoft and get special deals, and Microsoft can't punish you by raising your costs for licenses.
You buy licenses at the same rate as everyone else (who buys in the same quantities for the same languages as you do).
This means that if Dell is the largest buyer of MS Licenses, it doesn't matter what they do, they get the cheapest rate. Likewise, any company that buys 2,000 Windows licenses gets the same rate, whether they are MS Fanboys or Sun Microsystems.
Of course, a big "in theory" is added to all this.
Has the other consent decree run out? (Score:2, Interesting)
The language in the new ruling states that Microsoft must publish a standard schedule of fees for all OEMs. The former loophole should be effectively eliminated.
Perhaps (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps, but any ISV that works on Samba will have access. Further, it should be quite easy for the Samba team to organize as a not-for-profit corporation to qualify as an ISV if they do not already.
More worrisome is the RAND licensing provision.
Re:I like Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool my twice, shame on me."
Please, read what I wrote and tell me if you would still support Microsoft.
and I apologize for any spelling errors. I haven't had a chance to proofread yet.
bill is selling out. (Score:4, Interesting)
See here for proof [msn.com]
That's great. I bet he saw the writting on the wall on this one. The great wall of MS is coming down!
Re:API's (Score:2, Interesting)
So does this mean that they must IMMEDIATELY disclose all this API information?
Interesting Portion (Score:3, Interesting)
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
Plaintiffs get a dressing down (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:bill is selling out. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not necessarily 'slashdotted' (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL: Would trading on this be insider trading? (Score:2, Interesting)
If one had purchased MSFT stock based on the early release of these documents, would that have been insider trading? Do hidden links referenced in a slashdot post count as public information?
Disclaimer: I didn't read this story until after the markets closed at 4pm, and I have no position in Microsoft stock.
Re:Before the Bell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting power to the states granted... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like it.
Re:Here's the nifty part: (Score:5, Interesting)
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
I assume this to mean that the Samba guys will get legal access to the SMB protocol specs and other related stuff. Likely could include the native Exchange server protocols too, since Outlook Express talks that protocol and has shipped integrated with the OS.
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction."
Any thoughts on whether MS will publish MAPI (the Exchange API)? I'm thinking they'll say it's a security issue. What's the worst that can happen to MS? Another 5 year trial with another wrist slap at the end? They'd be retarded *not* to keep fucking us.
No punative actions taken (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention the security API. There is nothing keeping them from writing one big lump of
What a waste of taxpayers' money.
Re:Game, set, match (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that they've laid the groundwork for hiding a whole new legally-protected operating system inside their now-semi-open operating system... in essence they've successfully dodged the remedy.
Also, they won't get hauled into another (massive) court case for at least another 5 years because of this. MS has emerged unscathed. It's open season now.
Call me a troll, I don't fucking care. I'm pissed about this. The US justice system is broken, and the corporations are offically running amok, and it's fucking obvious. It depresses me.
Final Judgement Stands w/ sua-sponte Jurisdiction (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically this says to me the judge has observed that MS has a record of working very hard to leverage ambiguity in prior judgements, coupled with the known slow pace of DOJ to evade restrictions.
Kollar-Kotelly as I read it has said here: "This court will be seeing that this history does not repeat itself. And all parties have 1 week to sign on.
go Judge!
Appeals? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what about the numerous other lawsuits (such as from Sun or AOL or what not)?
Just because the judge said the settlement is ok, I wouldn't expect it to end here. Numerous other lawsuits are still out there and Microsoft will undoubtly be back in court as a competitor sues them for breaking details in this settlement (espically that withholding information for security purposes).
Re:Before the Bell? (Score:5, Interesting)
He sells ALL of the time (Score:2, Interesting)
If you will scan down the recent listings [yahoo.com], you'll see that Gates sells blocks of shares in round millions all of the time.
Todays sale is not particularly relevant. He owns 616 million shares, selling a few million means nothing to him - probably program trades, cash for quarterly tax payments, a new yacht, etc.
(Officer Barbrady voice) :
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.
Re:No cloud without a silver lining (Score:4, Interesting)
I was initially disappointed in this decision- still am, in an emotional sense, I'd love to see MS thwacked soundly- but on reflection, I'm impressed with how cagey Colleen really was. I think this whole thing is about roping them into unwittingly going along with a settlement- thinking it is a total wristslap- except that the judgement very carefully scotches certain SPECIFIC behaviors that get in the way of anyone offering competition and unseating them. That can't be an accident...
Think about it. The judgement addresses their behavior with OEMs, and specifically blocks them from playing politics- something that they did BIGTIME and which helped kill Netscape. The judgement addresses APIs and specifically blocks them from discriminatory behavior there as well. And all the time, it doesn't do a thing to upset Microsoft apart from that.
Call it a MS victory if you want to. A breakup and Gates wailing and gnashing his teeth would have been way more fun. But to me it looks like Kollar-Kotelly thought very hard about the problem, "What can I slip past these people, who have total contempt for the law and enough money to be almost impossible to defeat in court, which they will accept, but which will damage their ability to continue their worst abuses?"
Her answer seems to be, "Certain specific and very carefully placed restrictions on how they deal with OEMs and how they publicise their APIs". I can't really argue with that- if it is true that they cannot be punished and are more powerful than the US government or the justice system, the practical question is clearly 'so what do we do?'. And we all know quite well that playing politics with vendors, developers etc. is how they managed the worst of their abuses.
Don't be too quick to call this a total MS victory. In an ideal world where Microsoft was just a nice hardworking business, it would be. In the real world, the judge has just singled out some of their most effective (and illegal under antitrust law) weapons, and forced them to deal with the world they way they claim to.
It would be difficult for them to bitch at this point and object (on the grounds that they need to be able to discriminate with APIs and pressure OEMs). They almost have to claim in turn that it's a big victory for them. But, again, that's only if they usually play fair. Frankly, they prefer to carry on like mafiosi- and that is almost ALL that has changed, for them.
Welcome to the real world, Microsoft. Announce your victory. And bite your tongue!
Java (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge seems to be of the impression that since Java worked on M$ OSes and M$ actively distributed its own JVM in which java applications "worked" then M$ was not really trying to kill java. Thus she accepts M$ claim (I assume this is what they claimed) that their modifications were improvements to enhance Java on their OSes.
But this neglects the mission and design of Java. If java were simply a programming language this this would be true, but Java is an environment.
The failure is with SUN and the plantifs. Though I disagree I believe she is right.
If you take the case of the windows logo in which people had to make programs run on winNT before they would get the logo for 95. Sun should have had a Java logo. M$ could never say development towards win95 only is an attempt to destroy NT.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
for Microsoft..."
If we were talking about phone companies or power companies, I'd agree with you. In MS's case, I would disagree. MS's scenario is unique because it provides a standard (de facto that is) for developers to make their apps run. For example: If a game company wants to make their game for the PC, they only have to worry about Windows. If Linux were a strong competitor to Windows (in terms of users) then it would spread the game company thin. This has been observed in the console market.
"Now, if Microsoft is able to
convince you that it is in your interest for
them to continue as a monopoly, then the problem
is you beeing so impressible."
I came to that observation on my own. I have no particular love for MS, but when I think about IBM giving up on providing Linux with their systems I can't help but think it was because they were happy to only worry about one OS. MS has done a lot of shitty things, no doubt about that, but you cannot argue that when PC's are less confusing they're more attractive for customers to buy.
Re:API's (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. It is a big deal.
Felony (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Felony (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that's a weak case since the supreme court set the precedent years and years ago that the first amendment is limited... a bad precedent, but a precedent.
The DMCA is likely constitutional. It's going to be hard to make a constitutional argument against it, in light of a hundred years of case law that uphold the idea that the 1st is limited, combined with the 2600 case also supporting it.
Maybe you meant a different part of the bill of rights. If so, let me know.
Statements By Robert Bork, Ken Starr (ProComp) (Score:5, Interesting)
The decision accepts the deeply flawed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, which does nothing to restore competition to the marketplace or to prevent Microsoft from repeating acts explicitly held by the Court of Appeals to have been illegal.
The net result is that until this decision is overturned on appeal, as I believe it will be, competition will not be restored.
The Court of Appeals clearly prohibited Microsoft's practice of commingling the code of Windows with that of other critical software when there is no
benefit, but rather a clear harm, to consumers. This decision fails to
remedy this violation of the law, and its reversal seems likely on this point alone.
Never before has there been a case where liability was so thoroughly established, and never before has there been a case where the Justice Department agreed to a remedy that did almost nothing of what the law and the Court of Appeals required. Today's decision represent a substantial abandonment of antitrust law as it applies to one of the most important industries in America. The Department of Justice won at every step of the trial, and then surrendered in the settlement process. To justify this surrender, the Department resorted to disingenuous arguments that it could not be statistically proven that Microsoft's illegal conduct directly caused harm to Netscape. Their post hoc rationale for a flawed settlement has been absurd. We have the corpse of Netscape on the floor, and a whole host of other technologies whose development was stopped because it did not coincide with Microsoft's business plans.
The most disturbing message of all is that sent to nascent technologies and
innovators: the Department of Justice will not protect you from predatory monopolists. That is a grave error in economic policy and will have disastrous effects for competition in this and other industries.
Judge Kenneth W. Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General and Appellate Judge
This settlement gives the green light to Microsoft to continue its monopoly practices, a disastrous result for the high-tech industry, which has lived under effective Microsoft control for too many years.
In its unanimous ruling last summer that Microsoft had violated antitrust law, the Court of Appeals stated that the remedy must "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This weak settlement clearly fails to meet that standard, and it is my belief that the Judge simply gave too much deference to the Department of Justice, deference that was not warranted given the fact that the remedy proceedings were held after a full and complete trial.
The nine states that refused to accept the Microsoft settlement proved during the remedy hearings that Microsoft's monopoly is stronger than ever and that real remedies are needed. The Attorneys General of these states are to be commended for their courageous defense of consumers, antitrust laws and free-market economy. These AGs fought on because they understood that Microsoft is poised to monopolize the Internet itself, a result made more likely by today's decision.
It is my hope those Attorneys General will continue to fight to seek immediate review of this flawed decision.
Mike Pettit, ProComp President
ProComp is extremely disappointed. This represents a systemic failure of the legal system, a failure to protect consumers, competition, and companies like Netscape whose innovations literally changed the world.
Microsoft has terrorized the industry for more than a decade. Victims of Microsoft's predatory conduct are legion. This was the moment in time when competition could have been restored; that task will be much more difficult in the future. The right case was brought and won resoundingly. Eight
federal judges ruled unanimously against Microsoft. And then what
happened can only be explained this way: the Bush Justice Department surrendered to Microsoft.
The word has gone forth from the Bush Administration to countless would-be dreamers and tinkerers: we will not protect you when monopolists like Microsoft set out to crush you. It may take a decade to understand just how shortsighted today's decision is.
Microsoft has ostensibly been on its best behavior the past few months while pretending to comply with the DOJ settlement. Even during this time, the degree and nature of their predatory conduct has accelerated. I shudder to think of what this portends for the industry, which is now almost totally regulated by the most powerful monopolist in history.
Re:the replies to this post (Score:3, Interesting)
from the executive summary... (Score:2, Interesting)
to have been illegally maintained. Therefore, rather than termination of the
monopoly, the proper objective of the remedy in this case is termination of the
exclusionary acts and practices related thereto which served to illegally maintain
the monopoly.
How on earth did she come to that conclusion?!
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is what a government in a capitalistic economy is for; maintaining a free market by hack-and-slash methods
Really? Avoiding the overused (but accurate) argument that you can't blame a capitalist economy when there isn't one, you've got to look at this behavior for what it is: graft/kickback/payoloa/etc.
Do governments in non-capitalist systems squeeze companies until they get the financial "recognition" they seek? The proper respect? Certainly the US isn't the only nation to treat the private sector as the government's ATM machine?
Having dealt with PTT's (monopoly phone companies) in many middle eastern and south american countries for several years, I was always mildly amused at how the deal never cared about bringing good products to people, having better rates, competition, etc. In some banana republics (specifically recalling one off the coast of Venezuela), the first words out of our PTT hosts' mouthes was "What stuff did you bring for us? Any electronics? Computers? Jewelry? Cash? Let's show what you've got." (Yea, they weren't looking for a fruit basket)
It was always about the money that'd be given to the respective PTT, its government, and the parties at the table (plus everyone they had to pay off).
Microsoft's antitrust was caused by its failure to properly recognize authority, and its successful resolution to the matter an indication that the authorities finally felt satisfied that the payola was mostly sufficient (for now).
Please, don't ever confuse this with capitalism. This is the behavior of a controlled economy.
and per:
who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.
Yes, the other shoe dropping in corrupt, controlled economies. Other larger corporations got into the deal-fest too. Their congresscritters remembered their obligations to bring back some goodies for them too.
To you hopeless fools who can't figure this out, it'll never change as long as you don't blame the right source. This system was here before capitalism was ever conceived and will probably outlast it as well.
*scoove*
a sad day (Score:3, Interesting)
" Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and Microsoft's CEO.
Attorney General John Ashcroft also praised the ruling. "The court's decision is a major victory for consumers and businesses, who can immediately take advantage of the final judgment's provisions," Ashcroft said in a statement released Friday afternoon. "
I guess those huge campaign contributions MS made to Bush's and Ashcroft's campaigns really paid off!
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26
"Microsoft also was a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund, donating $100,000 to the gala last January."
Please people, vote!!!
You (Steve McGeady) paid your way as a witness? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I'm not mistaken, you're Steve McGeady of Intel, who did Set Top Boxes with Gosling at SIGGRAPH '95 [acm.org].[1] Why didn't Intel put up the $40k to cover your expenses as a witness in the government's case [com.com], especially in light of what Microsoft did to them?
__
[1] FWIW, mad props for keen vision etcetera; and isn't it interesting how that prospect was also killed off by Microsoft?
Now what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of companies are doing this already, but let's stand behind them 100% instead of whining about their lack of spine for not including flag graphics or for looking too much like Windows or any number of other cheesy gripes.
Are you people ready NOW or do you want to wait for another few rounds in court before we actually give Microsoft the competition the marketplace needs? The only thing that Microsoft has that the Free Software Movement needs is a clear direction. Yes, free men pull in all sorts of directions, but right now, we're mostly we're running into eachother.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think that if you gave Joe Sixpack a Linux PC, that could use all of the software that Windows does, in the same fashion, that he wouldn't care that it was Linux running it. Windows at this point is nothing more than a brand name taking a chunk out of everyone's pie because no-one wishes to rock the boat.
Of course, we have no way to test, so it's just MHO.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you really think Microsoft can declare war on it's customers and come out on top? History has repeatedly shown that when an affluent company starts focusing on defending itself from its customers it looses them in time. I think we are all just being impatient; some justice isn't dramatic or swift. This applies to the RIAA, the MPAA, and anyone else that treats customers like livestock.
By definition, the US government is not interested in a free market, they're interested in corpoprate protectionism.
You can't just blame the govenrnment because the government is just a reflection of who we are as a nation. If you see the government as a bunch of corporate whores, it's probably because we're a nation of corporate whores.
Need New Computing Platform (Score:3, Interesting)
In truth, the remedies sought by the anti-settlement states would have had little, if any, impact on the market share enjoyed by Microsoft products. Telling Microsoft not to bully vendors who hide a few icons is not the way to foster competitive products.
Lost in all this smoke and hot air is the intimate link between Microsoft and the x86 PC architecture. Other architectures were, and are, possible. Vendors selling alternative OS's for the x86 platform may eventually carve out a stable and profitable niche, but their impact on MS will be minimal. (A decision today in favor of the anti-settlement states would not have changed that fact.)
The way to check Microsoft's influence is to create and market a personal computing platform based on a new, non-x86 platform that offers compelling capabilities that the x86 can't. This would represent a paradigm shift as significant as the original PC industry in the late '70's and early '80's.
This is probably echo'd around but here's my $.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
Can a defendant be proven guilty...
Be disrespectful to the court...
Flat out refuse to comply with court orders without legal grounds...
Not even follow their own version and interpretation of the settlement agreement...
and..
Be granted even more power than they had before. (Yeah, its illegal, but its ok for MS to do it!)
If any of us had tried to pull this kind of shit in court, we'd be like the guy on goatse.cx by now. But because its "Big Money, Corp." they can do it all day long and not even flinch. No polititions calling for reform. No legal experts throwing a fit. No public outcry. Welcome to the US o fuckin A. (smells the karma burn)
I wish I could get away with bankrupting company after company and ripping off billions with a settlement that basically said, "I promise to not do it again as long as I don't think I need to." The settlement rank and file full of contradiction after contradiction, loophole after loophole. I can honestly say, that in my life, I have never seen this large a pile of outright horseshit, and in all places, the country that is supposed to value the rights of the little guy over that of the groups. God help me, where is the United States I was told about growing up? Where is the land of tolerance and Free thought and the chance for the little guy to succeed. I'm not calling for anarchy or comunism, so to those who would reflexively accuse me so, keep that in mind. This is supposed to be the land of the Free, not the land where you are free to fuck someone over, so long as you don't piss off someone with more power than you.
I'll admit, I have been wrong before; I will be wrong again; and I may be wrong now. But right now it sure seems to be the truth to me. This is a sham. This is a shame. This is reality.
Three things. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Wins (see: fair and non-discriminator (Score:4, Interesting)
People dumped their inexpensive Apple II's and Commodores and TRS-80's because they all used IBM PC's at work and it made more sense to have the same machine at home as they had at work. Eventually the market share of these machines lead to the vast majority of software being developed for them and so they came to take over the market.
Linux distros are merely repackagers of software, slapping a user "friendly" veneers over it. There's nothing stopping a third party from slapping a better veneer over FreeBSD or NetBSD. This is what Apple did, and they're doing great because of it.
Doing great? In Q1 of 2002, Apple's market share for new computer sales was less than 3% of the market. That has been the case since at least 1999, regardless of OS X. They are hanging on to what they've got, but there's little evidence that they are going to be making any serious head way anytime soon.
I learned the painful lesson of the network effect back in the days of Atari. I an Atari 1040ST computer, and it was superior in every way to an IBM PC except for one REALLY important way. There were more IBM PC's out there. So, support for software dwindled, and my computer became worthless before it's time.
Linux becomes a viable option because it has a strong community of people around it developing for it. So even though there's not as much support amongst commercial vendors, one can accomplish a lot on Linux without them. So Linux isn't as hurt by the network effect as Apple is (especially because Linux runs on the same hardware as Windows).
But in order for linux to have real success going against Microsoft going forward, one of two things must happen. Either the nature of the computer marketplace has to change drastically or Linux has to be able to act as a drop-in replacement for Windows in existing networks. The first option is a possibility, no argument, but increasingly the second path is becoming very difficult.
What do the Samba people do when they can't implement Microsoft protocols? Do they start offering a closed source royalty laden version? I mean who would buy it when they can get that "free" from Microsoft. What happens when the people start writing
I'm not saying that somebody overthrowing Microsoft is impossible, but Linux is the best threat now. I think that this court case, had it ended in a better way, had a chance of helping out that cause. Linux may still do it on its own, but it's going to be a lot harder.
Am I the only one to see the obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Over time, Microsoft will destroy itslef. It is the nature of the corporation to grow to a point where it is no longer nimble enough to compete with smaller quicker acting companies. Breakign Microsoft up, would create dozens of small nimble companeis all with the Microsoft culture. Nobody would be able to compete. The breakup of Standard Oil and AT&T shoudl serve as a grat lesson to all about corporate breakups; all they do is create companues which treat their customers worse and are more greedy than the original monopoly. Sears, Woolworth and all the othe large companies which grew huge, got arrogant and fell should serve as an indication of where Microsoft will eventually land.
Remember when Intel was forced to open the x86 architecture, because of that clones appeared and further entrnched the x86 architecture into the pc world. Had that not happened, the superior 68k architecture just might have supplanted the inferior x86 architecture.
At least the government has learned from the past
Re:Huh? (Henhouse clause) (Score:4, Interesting)
From the AP:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
From NEWS.COM: [news.com]
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
It seems to make some sense since the board members (including Mr. Gates) can be held personally and financialy responsable for conduct that violates the settlement.
It ain't the best, but it's still better than ICANN.
Re:No silver lining (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the watchdog. Not the committee. The committee is a figurehead- or a directive as to how to comply, and who is to be hands-on with complying with the judgement. She's having members of the board of directors get their hands dirty with it- possibly as a set-up in case they do continue to misbehave, so they can't claim ignorance.
I think Judge Kollar-Kotelly is pretty damned smart, really. Instead of doing squat to them now, she's setting up a situation in which IF they immediately reform, they get off scot free. And if they persist in misbehaving, it can backfire on them in more ways than you could imagine. She seems to have set it up that way- perhaps in the belief that, if she had acted more directly, the appeals court would overturn her remedy too? Note how she sucks up to the appeals court.
Re:Will any of this make a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are probably right, at least under a US right winged government.
Cross the ocean, watch Europe. The antitrust department here was waiting for the US justice final decision before issuing its own... In Europe, Microsoft has near *zero* political (financial) influence. You can't buy politics here (well, not as blatantly as in US..).
Europe is also commissionning a U.K. enterprise (I can't remember its name) to evaluate technical and financial solutions to get rid of MS "solutions" in favor of free or open source ones...
This is happening in lot of countries, as Microsoft is effectively abusing its monopoly, wether US justice admits it or not...
Two major points are motivating this migration patern : the cost progression of MS software, and the control over sensible data formats...
The way I see it : MS is at a peek in OS+Office software monopoly control. From here, there is no other way left than down.
Re:Dangit! (Score:2, Interesting)
MS is already covered on that one. It wasn't so long ago that they told a judge "our code is so buggy that making any part of it public would compromise national security" or some such twaddle.
Looks almost like they were expecting that provision in the Final Judgement.