Evidence Surfaces That MS Violated 2002 Judgement 204
whoever57 writes "In the Comes Vs. Microsoft case, the plaintiffs believe they have found evidence that Microsoft has failed to fully disclose APIs to competitors. If true, this would mean that Microsoft has violated the 2002 judgement. This information has become available since the plaintiffs have obtained an order allowing them to disclose Microsoft's alleged misbehavior to the DOJ ('appropriate enforcement and compliance authorities')."
Hm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure someone else here will do that for me.
Does this suprise anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it logically, a business that big needs time to change, we are not 10 people sitting in a room here...
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is like taking you (assuming you are from USA) the right to vote for a parking ticket in Mexico
If only they could have waited... (Score:3, Insightful)
In two more years, evidence of this might actually get somewhere with the DoJ. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still entirely controlled by the exact same administration that let Microsoft off in the first place?
Now, if Congress could somehow manage to get involved, that might make some difference...
Dan Aris
this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement! (Score:5, Insightful)
MS wont change till users change (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets and specilizations work, when large systems are broken into simpler components, the performance metrics and interface details are specified by a neutral standard that do not play favourites. Does the consumer really know the vicosity vs temperature profile of 10W-40 and 5W-40? They dont know, they dont care. The IC engine manufacturers and the lubricant oil manufacturer know it. All the rest only care about the spec name. Free market takes care of the rest and provides us with the cheapest engine oil taking advantage of all economies of scale etc.
If GM could make its cars accept only GM engine oil and keeps the spec secret and the competition out, it will do it. But it is the consumers who would refuse to buy such cars and force GM to disclose the lubricant requirements for its IC engines. If consumers are willing to buy such "closed" cars from GM, could the courts or the govt do anything to change it? The can try. But they will never be able to reach the same level of efficiency the free market does.
So dont just blame MS, blame the consumers too. All the tech columnists who should be educating the public about these things are talking fluff about the latest and greatest gadgets and widgets in trade shows. Blame them too. Slashdotters who know these things better talk to the other consumers as though they are complete idiots, creating a backlash against nerds/geeks etc. People buy MS blindly because they are not fully informed. Not because they are idiots willing to fork over their money to a large corporation without asking questions. Only educated consumers can break the monopoly. It is our duty to educate them without insulting them.
Re:Publicity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what will really happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? You think that's nothing do you?
You can do all kinds of ethically questionable things within the law. You can delay justice, you can even thwart it. But the one thing you can't do, the stupidest possible thing to try, is to sashay into a court and spit in the judge's eye. They won't stand for it. Nor will they stand for you doing it to to another judge, even another judge they despise and disagree with.
Defying any court is defying the authority of every court. Judicial power is a judge's basic stock in trade. If you willfuly undermine that, you'll find the judge putting judicial restraint up on the shelf and taking down the can of legal whupass. They don't like doing that. If there is a loophole, if it can be argued to be an honest mistake, maybe they'll turn the screw just one or two turns tighter. But once it becomes clear you think you are beyond the power of the court to restrain, the judge will introduce you to a whole new world of legal pain.
Oh please let it be so.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think its a user vs kernel space thing, more a case of making graphics card acceleration available transparently by providing a dedicated API for it. That said, I doubt that NT4 would have such a hidden API, as it predates the availability of graphics cards with gradient fill acceleration built in, but it was only an example. I can see how in general APIs that were formerly internal might be given external equivalents after someone in the Office team found them useful, but the internal API remained undocumented, leaving Office an advantage in using the feature while maintaining compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Re:Hm. (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's such a good game!
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read some history on Windows API issues and why this matters to developers.
This isn't about stealing code or making life easier, this is about Microsoft writing both an OS and the software that sits on top of the OS. Since they write say, Office AND Windows, they could (and have) include API calls that benefit their version of Office on Windows that are hidden from (for example) OpenOffice. The court decision was that since Microsoft has a definite monopoly in the OS market, its unfair competition to not allow their competitors equal access to the API that they have IN THEIR NON-OS development divisions.
That is to say, I should be able to with equal talent and innovation create an equal product sitting on Windows to Microsoft's own and they shouldn't be allowed to unfairly hamper me or benefit themselves in the process using the Windows API.
That's why one of the court recommendations was to split Microsoft into OS and application divisions, and why tying of IE and Windows Media Player are a big deal.
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who gives a F*** about API's - end per PC pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
The per-model scheme we have now is slightly better than per-processor, but still not adequate.
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If only they could have waited... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're saying the DoJ is still controlled by the Clinton administration?!? Or are you blaming Bush1? Or maybe even Reagan (per-processor licensing was happening as far back as that, I think)?
There is nothing special or unusual about Bush2 administration, in terms of looking-the-other-way on antitrust violations. And your thought that somehow we'll have fair government in two years, shows your naivity. We're not going to have fair government until people decide to vote for it, and so far, about 99% of the public is opposed to the very idea of it. And Congress?! Congress is even less accountable than the president. Congress does slimey shit all the time, but it's always the white house reporters whose pieces you'll ever actually see on TV.
Re:Hm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing (serious) will happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding Microsoft's revenues to those of two other companies can total *almost* one percent of GDP. Check, I can believe that too. Not sure why you picked 3M and P&G -- too lazy to search for a relationship. Therefore I'm simply going to assume that you picked two other decent sized but not huge companies (Microsoft is only 48th on the Fortune 500; Exxon Mobil is first with profits of about $36 billion -- i.e. almost the size of Microsoft's revenues; at #13, Berkshire Hathaway is more than twice as big as Microsoft). Combined, your three companies are smaller than Citigroup (8th on the Fortune 500). Not sure what your point was. Why combine those three companies? Is there some reason that breaking up the Microsoft monopoly would automatically affect the other two?
See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/ full_list/index.html [cnn.com] for Fortune 500 data.
If Microsoft's revenues went to zero, it would significantly harm the US economy. Basis? I don't believe that. Consider that defense use to make up about 6% (6.2% in 1986) of US GDP. It dropped from 4.8% to 3.7% between 1992 and 1995. In general, those were considered to be good economic years. From 1995 to 1999, it dropped a further
Of the twenty-nine agencies and departments listed in the 2005 federal budget, thirteen are larger than Microsoft's revenues.
Defense % of GDP from http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative- size.php [truthandpolitics.org]
Historical budget numbers from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/ [whitehouse.gov] (in particular, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf [whitehouse.gov] ).
It's also worth noting that no one is talking about sending Microsoft's revenue to zero. In fact, because of the way monopolies work, the normal result would be to *increase* revenues while decreasing profits. A monopoly only produces up to the point where marginal revenue (from sales) exceeds marginal cost (of production). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly [wikipedia.org] -- in particular, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e f/Monopoly-surpluses.svg/250px-Monopoly-surpluses. svg.png [wikimedia.org]
The green line represents marginal revenue. The red line represents consumer demand. The blue line represents marginal cost of supply. Note that marginal revenue is positive for at least part of the distance between the monopoly quantity produced and the competitive price. Also note the yellow region. This is the area where the economy *gains* as a result of switching from a monopoly to a competitive market. It comprises the benefits of increased production minus the costs. The blue rectangle (i.e. the part above the Pc line) is gain shifted from producer (Microsoft) to consumers.
To reiterate:
1. Microsoft is not really that big a part of the US economy in terms of revenue.
2. Even if it were, no on is seriously argui
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
A business this big has change to spare - it desires to give away spare change. With all it's possible implications, Microsoft desires to give spare change to the European Union.