Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

USvMS Ruling Expected Today 309

Posted by CmdrTaco from the brace-yourself dept.
An anonymous reader noted that a website is up for the official release of Judge Jackson's findings in the MS/Doj case. The release will supposedly occur at 6:30pm Eastern on an "Undesignated Friday" which is rumored to be today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USvMS Ruling Expected Today More

USvMS Ruling Expected Today

Comments Filter:
  • The problem isn't standardization, per se. It's standardization on file-formats and protocols (which are really sort of the same thing, for this argument).

    If everyone standardized on a file format, and if all the various applications could use the same format PROPERLY, then we'd have a very rich diverse choice of platforms. (XML, anyone?) but when one company bends the standard, and bundles that "extension" with their product, it forces people to unnaturally stick with that product, so they can conform to the extended standard.
    So it's the company that bends the rules, and force-bundles the extension to their product that causes uninteroperability - the bandaid solution is to standardize on that product, but it causes worse problems long-term, because no matter what you do, you're NEVER going to get the whole world to standardize on one software product, because no software can be all things to all people.

    Now, Microsoft made a damn good effort at eliminating all commmercial competition, in the name of standardization, to HELP it's customers with the interoperability problems caused by standardization (one of your clients uses Sun? Fine, we'll eliminate Sun!). Of course, this brings about all kinds of abuses when one application vendor dominates, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Let's assume Microsoft's intentions are all good, that all they want to do is solve the interoperability problem by eliminating competing applications, and therefore allowing people to ensure that their application will always interoperate with any other person they might have to deal with. But the natural order of things emerged when folks started using a system that could survive all commercial attacks. Linux. (Darwinism in action). You can't starve an animal that doesn't need to eat.

    So now we KNOW, that the philosophy of standardization via elimination CAN'T work, and is broken. So the alternative is interoperability - and all we need to do is standardize the file formats (XML) (XML) (XML), not the applications.

    Is it better to have a single species dominate the ecosystem, or is it better to have biodiversity?

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • ah, but Nutscrape DOES have some of it's own quirks that cause cruft. (ever use IE and Netscape on a Mac? Tell me it's Microsoft's fault Netscape is slower!)

    For instance, Netscape still holds displaying any table content until the entire table loads - thus, tables, being the main tool used for layouts, cause pain on pages with lots of text. Plus, when Netscape redownloads the page when you simply hit the back button when the fscking page is taking up space in the \cache directory anyway. I really hate that.

    PS. Netscape NT GPFs on me about 3 times a week (if I don't reboot after the GPF, relaunchin Netscape, the average survival time before my next GPF is about 10 minutes, which is about how long it takes my NT box to reboot).
    Netscape Mac, doesn't crash unless I print, and I guess I can probably blame the CRAPPY-ASS Epson printer drivers.
    Never saw Netscape Linux crash, but it does go into lala land a lot.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • Not to mention, PDF allows the author to LOCK a document, preventing the user from changing it (cracks aside).

    It's just a damn shame that the economic barrier towards CREATING PDF documents is way beyond 95% of computer owners, otherwise it could become THE standard (like Adobe says it IS).

    Oh yeah, PDF can be read on Solaris too. (not sure about WP).

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • I sympathize. I'm oddly exicted and nervous et al. The one thing that I keep coming back to though is that this industry can't get any more screwed up than it is....

    It's an industry where (for the most part) the unknowledgeable make the desicions (accounts, PHB, etc.), absolutely everyone is an "expert". (Oh yeah, I can program see I have a computer and a copy of VB for dummies), and for the last ten years the better technology has been beaten in the marketplace. Let's face it, this is one fsck'd up industry.

    Could it get worse? Probably, whether MS wins or loses we are probably going to see more changes in the next 10 years than we have seen since the advent of the Altair. We are about to enter an age where computers are so cheap, and so small that there are going to permeate(sp?) our lives. It's going to be an exciting, thrilling and confusing time. And hopefully, when we are done, we can look at one and other and go "Whooooo! Good Job!"

    Are people (MSCE's and the like) going to lose jobs? Some, maybe if they are really bad... but I doubt it, your employeer already has a lot of time and money invested in you. (that's a general you not the specific :) ) It's highly unlikely that they are going to bring in a Linux Guru to rewrite your product when it's going to be cheaper to just train you in linux since you know the requirements already.

    Also, the one thing I keep seeing (or maybe it's my imagination) is the idea that the finding of fact (or penalties or whatever) is going to come out and MS is going to curl up and die... Even after all the appeals and so on, some form of the Windows franchise will still be here. The best we can hope is to profit from the confusion and doubt about the future. I don't mean FUD, good lord I hate FUD....

    What I mean is when people say things like "Sure I don't like windows, but what else is there." (a phrase I here almost daily from non-techs) TELL THEM. Don't preach, don't sermonize... just say, "Well there's Linux, BEOS, Mac, FreeBSD, ad nauseum." (If I forgot anyone I'm sorry!). If they are truely interested, try to show them a demo of a couple different OS's (and with linux a couple different wm & (KDE | GNOME) packages). See what happens... you might be suprised and how few people actually know there are alternatives!

    Well I've rambled on and on and on and on... I think I'm going to go do some work....
  • Word was ruled as not to be used to create legal documents as the word counter does not work correctly and there was some law that if your over a certain amount of words your in trouble.

    I'm sure someone who knows will explain better (or tell me I'm wrong :)

  • Justice would be nice, but for me, that's icing on the cake. What I really need to see is Microsoft leashed. Prevented from making these "hard nosed business deals". Prevented from being a dishonest player, prevented from withholding information, prevented from strongarm tactics, prevented with unrestrained bundling and price gouging (and ironically, dumping).

    In short, I want to see a level playing field, where some startup (like Be perhaps?) could come up with a great new OS, and have more than a snowball's chance of succeeding (ok, many here will argue that Be did succeed - but only by sucking off the other Don of the industry, Intel).

    Is that too much to ask?

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • close but no cigar ... in fact, the courts are well aware of the point you make and draft judgements accordingly. Anyone who tries to get round an antitrust judgement by "co-operating" between the split up companies will find himself right back in court, and this time the charge will be contempt.

    Oh yeh, and companies exist to make money for their shareholders considered only as their shareholders. They're not allowed to take into account any other interests that their shareholders might have. Otherwise, with so much of the USA owned by pension funds (ie owned by workers), we might see something really strange -- what Peter Drucker calls "pension fund socialism"

    jsm
  • Microsoft, however, is largely ignoring the past and basing its entire defense on the notion that the industry has changed so much that Microsoft will never be in a position to do this again. It's a dubious assertion which would have been patently false if the trial had never happened in the first place... but it's like OJ Simpson defending himself by saying, "Your Honor, with all the attention drawn to me now, do you honestly think I'll ever be able to get away with killing anyone in the future?"

    The logic, I think, is this: They're saying, "See how much and how quickly the industry has changed? Our position was always this vulnerable to new developments, therefore we didn't have monopoly power and were not subject to antitrust laws."

  • could've had it before MS bought it
  • If this happens, it will mean Windows might actually become a GOOD product (however unlikely). This has been one of the problems, that Windows has been in development along with other things made by the same company. I have the feeling that if Microsoft had stayed with making one product (aka, windows) the whole time, Windows would be a MUCH better product than it is today. So if Windows becomes a good product, why should we care if Windows use is increased? The reason most of us use Linux is because we wanted something better. If Windows becomes better, what's the problem?
  • Right, just because your wife died five years after you beat the crap out of her and put her in a coma, doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished for wife beating. Actually, by that time you should be charged with murder. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out, there's no corporate equivalent to the death penalty in America. Not even "breaking up".

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • WP has had special legal editions for years. I think that they had massive supremacy since their 5.1 DOS versions of it, and have been able to keep that specific market base. matt
  • The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial.
    I don't think breaking up Microsoft
    would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been
    under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.


    If I read you correctly, what you are saying is that Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold on the industry, and that breaking them up would deprive consumers by rendering a powerful competitor hors de combat.

    I agree that the public good should be considered very strongly in considering what punishment to mete out, but I don't think that this means that nothing should be done.

    There is a very important factor that has to be considered:justice. Did Microsoft do something that was wrong and benefit by it? If the findings say this is so, then Microsoft and its executives should be punished -- really punished. Letting somebody get away with a slap on the wrist simply because he is rich or widely admired is a travesty of justice. Basically the message you send is that abiding by the law is for losers.

    This really strikes at a basic tenet of our civilization; we restrain our behavior and in return we get the benefit of others restraingin theirs. What is the moral imperative not to "steal" proprietary software, when the producer of that software is given a license to break laws that are inconvenient for it?
  • If it's split along OS, application, etc. lines, then each individual company has to make agreements with the others regarding things like APIs, etc.

    Best way to split up Microsoft would be to have 2 OS companies, 2 application companies, and so on. That way Windows, Inc, can't go to Dell and say, no more Windows for you unless you sign this exclusive license. With multiple companies competing with the same base product, they'll do what they can to get business. This means allowing OEM's to preload other OS's, to get their contract.

    Having one company still selling Windows, doesn't correct the problem that they have an undesirable amount of control over their clients. It would probably prevent them from preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape, but wouldn't have done much when IBM preloaded OS/2 along with 95.

    -Brent
    --
  • According to CNBC & CNN, the Finding of Fact in the DOJ vs MS trial will be released today at 6:30pm (EST). The statement will be avaliable at http://usvms.gpo.gov/ [gpo.gov]


  • Actually putting it on a Friday to stop shock effects in the stock market doesn't say much: while MS stock would fall if the ruling is harsh, it would likely shoot up if not. Either way you have a shock effect.

    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
  • It appears that the verdict won't be announced, but what has been found out in the case will be announced. Is this going to be a verdict?
  • "we'll most likely end up in a
    situation that was common in the desktop computer industry circa 1976 to 1985, when everyone had to
    purchase the operating system as a separate cost item."

    -and of course, that would be fscking GREAT. But, you know Microsoft will just start charging like $150 where they used to charge OEMs like ~$30 (or whatever), and consumers will feel the pain, though most folks will still be compelled to buy Windows because they NEED to because it's the standard (blah, blah, same tired but effective argument) - and MS will blame "govt. interference" as to why they HAD to raise the price, and whine about how it ruined the industry by stepping in and not permitting "innovation".

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • OS/App split won't work.

    two words:
    Define "OS".

    NT kernel = OS
    command.com = OS
    explorer.exe = um, OS.
    Internet Explorer = um, if you say so, Bill, I mean, Netscape's already dead anyway right?
    Notepad.exe = um - er, that's a toughie, OS.
    Calculator.exe = um, I've always wondered why there aren't any software companies out there making a decent calculator software for the PC. . .
    Outlook Express = um, hey it's part of IE right? no? okay, Application.

    See? it gets REAL gray and fuzzy, REAL fast. It's not the problem that the OS dominates. The problem is the PLATFORM.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • Sun and Apple both do OS and Apps.
    And Hardware.

    And, they're both pretty damn big.
    Apple may not have the market cap of MS, or the marketshare, but they are a bigger corp.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • This is correct. In other words he could say
    "Internet Explorer was bundled unfairly." or he could say it wasn't. This is more important, from a business standpoint, then the actual punishment.

    It is like a judge saying "Bob really did steal that $100 from Jim."

    The judge could say Bob pays Jim back $100, or Bob should go to jail, or Bob should get off with a warning.

    But what people really care about is whether Microsoft's actions constitute stealing, more than they are interested with what the Judge will do with it.

    -Ben
  • I agree. None of the proposed remedies seem workable or realistic.

    So my remedy (unfortunately, the US legal system doesn't provide for this) is:

    Hard Time.

    Let Bill Gates and his cronies dominate the license plate manufacture industry.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • The URL points to the annual report, but I can't find figures for operating income by product type or division. The page at http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar99/mdna .htm [microsoft.com] has revenue by division, but it shows Apps and Dev Tools as earning consistently higher income than Platforms.

    1999 Platforms: 8.50 Apps & Devtools: 8.82
    1998 Platforms: 6.28 Apps & Devtools: 7.02
    1997 Platforms: 4.92 Apps & Devtools: 5.62

    (Sums are in billions of dollars)

    Now, perhaps using the word "much" twice in my original posting was excessive, but platforms do earn less than apps for Microsoft, and have done so consistently.

    I can't find a page breaking out expenses by division either, but I'll bet the platforms division costs quite a bit more to operate than the apps division. Microsoft's advertising expenses alone totalled $3.2 billion in FY99, and the most expensive part of that is likely to be TV ads. It's been a long time since I saw a TV ad for MS Office or other applications - it's all Windows and IE. This leads me to suspect the bulk of ad expenses belong to the platforms division.

    "Cost of Revenue" is another big minus on the MS balance sheet ($2.8 billion). This is distribution, unpaid tech support, shipping and packaging, and I suspect also a major cost with Windows and a smaller one for other products.

    I also suspect R&D ($2.9 billion) is tilted towards the OS and not the applications.

    This has the effect of making the gap between net income from platforms and net income from apps even greater.

    The OS is profitable, but less so than applications and development tools - at least that's what the information I can find in their annual report suggests. I can't find a URL with the figures you name at all.

  • ME:

    Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds.

    PWH:

    That's exactly the argument used here in the UK in defence of selling Hawk fighters and riot control equipment to Indonesia. It doesn't wash. Microsoft's collapse may have bad effects, but that's no reason to stop it happening.


    MY RESPONSE:

    I didn't say think about that and then give up. I said, think about it and then post. Just be aware that there are consequences to this action. Real people, not just Bill Gates will be hurt.
  • I wonder what the judge is going to say? Are we going to have Baby MSes? A Dismissal, or just a huge fine? Or...possibly...quite possibly....is this the beginning of the end? Ahhh...one can dream....


    BTW...first post?
  • Of course they will support M$, this link explains their beliefs on capitalisim. Definition of Laissez-faire [optonline.com]
  • Legal offices have a long history of preferring Word Perfect for their document processing. I don't know the specifics of why, other than perhaps conservatism (time was when Word Perfect was the preferred word processor on PCs) and not wanting to convert all their boilerplate. There may also be technical reasons, legal documents have some particular formatting requirements.

    And PDF of course is a popular way of distributing docs on the web.

    The lack of a Word format copy isn't necessarily a deliberate slight against Microsoft.
  • I've spent the last decade awiting for a good outcome today.

  • Okay (Score:2)

    by vlax ( 1809 )
    As with Standard Oil and the interdiction of owning both oil wells and gas stations, I suspect such a ruling would end up only apply to those with large market shares. Still forcing those two to divest wouldn't especially bother me.

    I doubt it'll happen anyway.
  • > I don't know history too well, but I think AT&T didn't have any competition, but Standard Oil did.. They would have ended up owning the oil market if no one had stepped in, or at least they would have been in a position to dictate costs, as Microsoft clearly is today.

    It's pretty clear your first phrase is true. The case against Standard Oil was brought in 1905. By that time their market share was 40%, down from 90% twenty years earlier. New competition from foreign fields combined with a too-aggressive refinery buyout strategy had already destroyed their market share. It was Russian and Texan competitors that 'stepped in' and humbled Standard Oil, not the government.

  • I think it's cute that they aren't posting the findings in Word, only Word Perfect 6 and PDF.

    Very diplomatic :)

    Dana
  • Ayup at aprox 6:30 PM PST today we get to see it. MS and DOJ have their copy already. Here come the SpinMeisters now
  • Here's what I don't understand about the whole trial: the DOJ's accusations and Microsoft's defense just don't match up.

    The DOJ has trotted out ample evidence that Microsoft has abused the law rampantly in the past decade or so, that its competitors have suffered because of this, and that Microsoft's actions have directly resulted in a reduction of competition in the marketplace.

    Microsoft, however, is largely ignoring the past and basing its entire defense on the notion that the industry has changed so much that Microsoft will never be in a position to do this again. It's a dubious assertion which would have been patently false if the trial had never happened in the first place... but it's like OJ Simpson defending himself by saying, "Your Honor, with all the attention drawn to me now, do you honestly think I'll ever be able to get away with killing anyone in the future?"

    What I'm most worried about is that if Microsoft gets away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, it's a clear sign to Microsoft and other large industries that you can get away with *anything* as long as you tie your competitors up in litigation until what you did doesn't matter any more.

    Or, to put it a different way: "Okay, your honor, so my client murdered the victim... but what good is it to punish him for it now, since she's already dead? Besides, she was probably going to die young of cancer or something, anyway."

  • Does anyone know if this is his 'final solution' or just some sort of summing up?
  • (Moderate the parent comment up, please.)

    Hear hear! The worst headaches in computing come from a lack of interoperability--that's one reason why they have an ANSI standard for C and C++ among other really important things.

    The danger people have to beware of here is "Well, it works on my box, and the box I use at work; why does it need to work anywhere else?" That attitude is widespread, although I'd say the Net is taking it apart... slowly. (standard HTML, PDF, JPEG, PNG, XML)

    Is it better to have a single species dominate the ecosystem, or is it better to have biodiversity?

    Hmm. The situation with computers today makes me wonder whether this should be worded as, "Is it better to have French, German, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic... or should we point guns at people and make everyone speak English?" Native file formats, like native human languages, make sense in some cases. However, there should be some sort of standard format (Esperanto? :-]) which most everything could be translated to/from with minimal information loss. Here's hoping XML fits the bill.

  • This is just the findings that they will release correct? Not the actual punitive part? I believe this will only tell us wether the judge thinks that M$ is guilty or not and on what charges. I don't think this will tell us what the judge thinks should be done about it. Anyone have better info?
    -cpd
  • There was another case of this where MSWord didn't count words in footnotes like it should. Some laywers using it wound up turning in a brief that wasn't and they were punished by the court for going over the N word limit.

    Overall, is sounds like MS doesn't care about the laywer market. Ironic, eh?
    -- I'm omnipotent, I just don't care.
  • A breakup of MS will simply never happen. No matter what Jackson rules MS will tie it up in appeals for years -- where it will almost certainly win. MS will spend more years in appeals court than a person on death row.

    I wish I could read the coverage on CNN, but I can't because the Javascript they use crashes my Netscape browser (and on about 30 other sites). Thank goodness I can turn to Microsoft's superior product.
  • The ruling will be available as wordperfect 6 or in pdf format. Whatever the outcome, they didn't use microsoft word to tell us :-)
  • It was rumoured to be last weekend too.

    I suspect that it will be rumoured to be every Friday until it is actually released.

    BTW, the reason for announcing it at 6:30 on Friday is to minimize the affect on the stock market, now that MS is part of the Dow Jones index. I can't think that that bodes well for Microsoft.

  • While I truly hate most EULAs, this is not the time to take them on. Stopping only one company from using them is not what needs to be done. What should be done is to prevent Microsoft from using Windows prices as a club to beat on the OEMs and keep the competition shut out as much as possible. That would go a long way towards letting competition return to the industry.

  • It's just findings-of-fact, not a final punitive ruling. If the judge finds that MSFT is indeed a monopoly in violation of anti-trust law, then there will need to be another phase to determine what action to take. *Then* such issues as whether the company should be broken up are decided...
  • I have an HTML version available on my box here [penguinpowered.com].
  • Hmmm. Standard Oil was on the DJIA when it was broken up. Actually, they still are. They changed their name to Exxon, though.
  • Yes, but this more a fight between M$ and a the Department of Justice. While I have many problems with the DOJ, when it comes to interpretting the law and the Constituion, and how they apply to events and new laws. They generally do a pretty damn good job (a few notible exception aside) note how the higher courts have ruled several times favoring encyption as free speach, and other intelligent things of that manor. Mainly its the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (in that order) that I dislike mostly, oh yea... and the IRS branch -grin-
  • What's even funnier is reading all the justifications given in reply for not having it available in HTML. Especially now that the Web site reads: The document will be available for download from this page in three formats: WordPerfect 6, Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), and HyperText Markup Language (HTML). =)

  • The district court confirmed [yahoo.com] it'll be tonight.

  • man (Score:1)

    by fuerstma ( 15683 )
    fuck this government.

    to be enlightened, read ayn rands "anthem" [gutenberg.org] thanks to my boys at project gutenberg.

    After that if you've got extra time spend a few bucks and buy fountainhead or atlas shrugged... you can see where our sad little government is taking this country. pathetic.

  • I hated WP for DOS. WP 6.0 was a buggy dog. Novell's WP 6.1 was only a little better. Corel's WP 6.1 looked the same as Novell's, but actually was useable. WP 7.0 was better. WP 8.0 for both Windows and Linux has proved to be an excellent program, much more pleasant to use than Word. Apparently WP 9 (2000) is beginning to suffer a bit from feature creep -- due to Corel's desire to not let MS get too far ahead in the bells-and-whistles competition.

    If you had actually used WP over thew past 5 years, you would know the product has improved plenty -- without any need to make radical changes in it's file format every few months.

    Michael Kerpan

  • yes, you can read it that way. But when it comes time to write briefs for the appellate court, or discuss different portions of the paragraph,you will need to be able tof find the exact line.
  • They musta read your post, becouse soon after, it read this:

    "The document will be available for download from this page in three formats: WordPerfect 6, Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), and HyperText Markup Language (HTML)."
  • >I am a lawyer, this is not advise, etc.

    >This is correct. In other words he could say
    >"Internet Explorer was bundled unfairly."

    That's a bit farther than he can go--he can get as faras "Internet Explorer was tied to Windows 95", but he can't get as far as "unfairly."

    So far he is still only deciding what happened (fact). To get to legality (unfairly), he will need to decide if these facts violate the law. *that* will not be decided at this point; there will be at least one more round of briefs--and another encouragement to settle.

  • You are morally Obligated! (Score:3)

    by jelwell ( 2152 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @08:19AM (#1560917)
    The Moral Defense of Microsoft [moraldefense.com]

    Wow, I had to do a whois on the domain to make sure microsoft wasn't running it themselves. But it's connected to capitalism.org [capitalism.org]
    Joe.
  • >That appearance is more important than content is
    >only one of the things wrong with our legal
    >system.

    How in the world did you get from "formatting is important" to "appearance is more important than content"???

    The format means that we can all agree on what is on page 5, line 7, so that we can intelligently discuss the content. HTML does not have this feature, by design.
  • >If Microsoft gets split then all components
    >may be removed from the Dow, maybe just one,
    >maybe neither, who knows? No one knows.

    Yes we do :) The DJ will continue to contain 30 stocks, meaning that at most one piece remains in the average.

    >The only person in the country (unless there's
    >been a leak) who knows what will be in the
    >finding of fact is the Judge.

    And all his clerks, and his secretary, and maybe a special master (was there one in this case? I don't think so, but there could be)

    hawk, esq.
  • mochaone trolled:

    Here's What the Judge Should Do...
    Nothing.
    No, he should release his findings of fact as promised, followed by his judgement a while later as promised. Luckily, he listens to his own guide rather than to you, so he is likely to do something rather than nothing.

    That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen.
    First off, it is a "Finding of Fact", not a fact of finding (sword of slaying +2?). Secondly, his conclusion of a fact of finding should say nothing of the sort. Possible remidies should be given in the judgement, not in the finding of fact. The finding of fact is just that, a determination of which facts are "Truth" as far as determining the judgement is concerned. I expect the findings of fact will probably declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not suggest anything as to remidies. This way, there is no easy way to appeal the finding of fact. The judgement, to be given later, will certainly be appealed if it is anything more than a slap on the wrist for Microsoft.

    The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
    Again, you have to wait for the judgement for that. What evidence do you have that such a remedy would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you have that more would not? The court of appeals that would hear any appeals in this case is very pro-corporate, but I certainly don't know enough about their legal opinions to make a guess here.

    The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general.
    The computing landscape always changes, such is life. Since the case was filed, Microsoft has picked up a few more percent desktop market share, so they're now more of a monopoly. Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know.

    A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it. This would be ugly but not a disaster since the Free Software community will get stronger no matter what happens to the guys with the plastic wrap.

    Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
    Any changes due to the trial have been trivial. A few OEM's have bent their license agreements a little bit. Nothing major has changed to make legal action against Microsoft any less important. If anything, the tying of IE with Windows 98 makes the complaint more pressing.

    ----
  • Vertical integration is producing all of the parts; horizontal integration is the combining of manufacturors of the same product.
  • I'd love to see Microsoft either broken up or forced to divest either the apps or the OS. I'd love to see MS divest from Windows by releasing the source for the OS and keeping the apps. It would be the most just and most effective way to end monopoly practices in software. It would set a precedent as effective as the Standard Oil decision decades ago: Thou shalt not possess both an OS and the software to run on it, at least, not if you're big. It makes sense, MS Office is a major cash cow for MS, Windows is a much, much less profitable business.

    It won't happen. Few judges in this day and age have the nads to take on big business, even if they have the knowledge to adequately judge the computer industry. Any substantial reorganisation of Microsoft will fail on appeal.

    At best, Microsoft will be forbidden from entering into certain businesses or forced to more widely license the Windows source. Anything beyond that is unlikely. If Microsoft is hit with more than a slap on the hand, you can be sure MS will appeal the decision and leave it unenforced for years, maybe decades to come.

    But, if the Finding of Fact is sufficiently embarrasing to Microsoft, it might be possible to start a genuine public campaign against them. Nike, Monsanto and all the big car companies, among a long list of others, have suffered from well publicised discoveries of guilt, sometimes even when they haven't broken the law. I'd like to see something along those lines done to Microsoft.

    But I'm not holding my breath.
  • Right... The original poster of the thread said something to the effect of "Well, since they used WordPerfect, obviously there's not a monopoly there.

    90% (what you say Standard Oil had once, and what MS has in both OS's and Office Suites) is monopoly power, even though "competition" (that other 10% everyone fights over) exists.

  • Not yet... (Score:3)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @05:40AM (#1560950)
    Today's ruling is supposed to be a "findings of fact" ruling, where the judge basically explains what facts that were presented in the case that he believes to be true.

    According to CNNfn:

    "Later this year, after further arguments following the findings of fact, Jackson is due to issue another ruling in which he is expected to say whether Microsoft violated antitrust law and has liability for doing so."

  • CNNFN news blurb:

    A U.S. federal judge ruled Friday that Microsoft Corp. wields monopoly power in personal computer operating systems and has issued a decision highly favorable to the government. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision on the facts of the case, due to be officially released shortly, set the stage for a later ruling on whether the Redmond, Wash., software firm's actions violated antitrust law.
  • Should we designate some ribbon that we could all put on our pages in celebration?

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • I find myself, surprisingly, against breaking up MICROS~1. In light of recent decisions levying honking fines agains major coprorations, it's likely that a fine of (let's say) 5-10% of their market cap would pass muster on appeal. Due and payable next year, but held (drawing interest) until final resolution.

    Peanuts, you say? Perhaps, for many companies. In MS' case, though, that's several years' revenues even with their funny accounting. Also, it won't go down based on subsequent events, so if (as looks likely) they've pretty much hit their zenith then by the time the USSC slams the gavel a little matter of $5E10 might just finish them off.

    OK, so I'm not the forgiving type. Deal.

    PS: Ya gotta love Judge Jackson's sense of humor. How many of us knew that he read Mathematical Games, much less that he would actually find a chance to play a variant of the Unexpected Hanging?

  • Not available in MS Word format (Score:3)

    by |DaBuzz| ( 33869 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @05:50AM (#1560987)
    This is pretty funny: The document will be available for download from this page in two formats: WordPerfect 6 and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF)

    My next question is ... what does the DOJ have against HTML?!
  • The winners: the world's consumers (yes, and some lawyers)

    The losers: some crooks in Redmond, some innocent people who thought to get rich on MS stock, some people who want to be techies but don't want to have to learn anything beyond VB.

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • Para 18:

    Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.

    Sorry, I've only got the first 6K.

  • Actually, the reason's not what you think. There has been a big tiff between Microsoft and the Legal community over the fact the MS Word just WILL NOT generate the standard form of legal footnotes. I'm not sure of the exact details, but apparently Wordperfect will generate said footnotes. As such most legal professionals choose to use Wordperfect.
  • Read this to get the word from the horse's mouth. [uscourts.gov]
    I would put money on that it will be this Friday, though.
  • I hope the judge gives a negative ruling, Microsoft appeals, etc., etc., etc., so that the case drags out for years. IMO it's the existence of the case ("the police car in the rear-view mirror", as some have described it) and the public revelations of some very questionable behavior by various MS execs, that are now loosening MS's stranglehold on the OEMs and encouraging individuals and corporations to consider other alternatives, such as Linux and *BSD.

    I doubt that any remedy that the court would actually order will actually work, but I do think prolongation of the case will produce the desired results.

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • I hope they are found guilty on all accounts, fined one dollar, and lose the ability to have any sections of their far reaching EULA's enforced. The result might be Microsoft would be forced to offer worthwhile services to compete in the marketplace. Else it will continue to strongarm upgrades and solutions from Microsoft/SPA raids due to unlicensed warez that creep into businesses from homes.

  • It's strange... (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @05:58AM (#1561022)
    I always thought I'd be happy when this day arrived. For everything Microsoft has done, it deserves to be smacked down hard, and I hope it is. It's done things that, if it were a human being, would have landed it in jail years ago. Simply because it's a corporation (which is treated not unlike a person under US law) doesn't make it exempt from justice.

    But there's doubt in my mind, I suppose. Not in Microsoft's guilt, mind you; they're guilty as charged a thousand times over. My doubt stems mainly from the fact that, after all, it is the US Government that's trying this case. I'm afraid they'll go too far and screw up the industry even more. The hell of it is, I'm not even sure what "too far" is yet. I suppose we'll see tonight...
  • It's comments like "And even though Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways" that make me think that the readers of /. need to spend some time away from their computers.

    Yes Microsoft put out some software you don't like. Big deal. Like most people here, you don't have to use it!

    Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds.
  • Para 33:

    "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without loosing an unacceptible amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
  • Destroying Microsoft shouldn't be a goal. Like it or not they have done a lot (both good and bad) to shape the computing landsape into what you see today. Microsoft didn't usually innovate anywhere but they've had an uncanny ability to time the introduction of their version of various innovations at a point when the market would embrace it. Some of their tactics were predatory and anticompetitive and that is what was on trial and is under consideration.

    If Microsoft dissolves tomorrow where would the millions of people who's productivity depend on Microsofts products be? There are no realistic alternatives in a lot of cases, either because their market share has been eroded (usually due to Microsoft) or because a solution in that area isn't available.

    I actually don't use any Microsoft products, other than MS Word and MS Exel at work but I've seen how much easier interoperating in a large company has become over the last decade because of standardization.

    Maybe someday there will be an Open Source competitor (or even platform agnostic closed source, I'm not a zealot, I just want solutions that work) but right now there isn't any well integrated package.
  • Um, I don't know where you live, but here in the US, the government belongs to the people. In theory, anyway. That's called democracy.

    So it's not "my" money, it's "our" money.
  • ...or a broken Window.
  • Nothing.

    That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen. The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.

    The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.

  • This case already obselete?? (Score:3)

    by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @06:07AM (#1561049)
    Folks,

    Despite the sound of the crowd wanting blood, I think US v. Microsoft may have been rendered obselete before its time.

    The reasons are simple: a LOT has changed in the computer industry since the May 1998 filing. The fact that America Online continues to attract users, AOL has purchased Netscape, alternate devices to get onto the Internet has started to surface, and the rapid rise of everyone's favorite OS (Linux) in the last 24 months has reduced the potential influence that Microsoft could have had on the Internet.

    The most equitable outcome of this trial is NOT a breakup of Microsoft; we'll most likely end up in a situation that was common in the desktop computer industry circa 1976 to 1985, when everyone had to purchase the operating system as a separate cost item. That way, there will be a level playing field for everyone in the OS industry, and whoever can be successful in terms of price and ease of use will win hands down.

    Also, given the fact this case will be appealled to the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, DC almost immediately, not to mention finally ending up in the US Supreme Court, don't expect a conclusion to this case until at least late 2001 to early 2002. And given the pace of change in "Internet time," who knows what will be the state of Microsoft in 2002, either.
  • "...Bill Gates should get the chair for his evil ways..."

    Dude, calm down. It's just business. That attitude is what got Microsoft where it is today. ;>

    Bill Gates didn't kill anybody. He hasn't prevented you from living your life, nor expressing yourself. His business/ethical decisions, while perhaps not to the standards we would like, are a far cry from murder, child abuse, or other crimes that might in fact be worthy of the death penalty.

    Grow up.
  • If Judge Jackson releases his findings today, will the first person to download it please POST THE WHOLE DOCUMENT HERE?

    This will be a public document, unencumbered by copyright, so lets PUT IT HERE and avoid redundant bandwidth hogging.

    In this case, the responsible course of action is for Slashdot to be a broadcaster.

  • Hmmm, I always thought that the reason was that most law offices like to spend very little money on computer systems, and consequentally just missed the big DOS->Windows and WordPerfect->Word conversion everyone else underwent in the early 90s. Note that the format is WP 6 and not WP 7, 8, or 9.

    Anyway, lawyers use WordPerfect for the same reason everyone else uses Word - because if they send a document they want to be sure the people they work with (other lawyers) can read it.

    As a side note, the Starr report was posted in either WordPerfect 5 or 6 format. When the media converted it to HTML with a modern version of WordPerfect, several deleted footnotes reappeared, including one with comprimising information about Walter Mondale's daughter. (To be fair, MS Word has had the same kind of problem over the years.) Not the kind of thing you want to have happen in a legal document!

    --
  • I actually think this is WHY the judge is handling it the way he is. He really, really, REALLY wants a compromise to be reached, becouse he KNOWS this will end up in appeal for years to come.

    And as far as the OS, I'd take it one step further and say they can't bargain 'deals' with the price, aka, selling it at a loss to some, while extremely high to others, simply to push mindshare and get usagage of their products locked in.
  • I'm always amazed when people offer AOL's purchase of Netscape as a sign of Microsoft's weakness. I mean, once, Netscape was going to change the computing world. Now, they're just fodder for the Internet for Newbies company.

    --

  • "Spend a few minutes wondering what will happen to the people who would get thrown out of work by a Microsoft collapse. Try to figure out the consequences on the economy, and the real life fallout will ensue. After you spend a minute or two thinking about that, then post your screeds."

    That's exactly the argument used here in the UK in defence of selling Hawk fighters and riot control equipment to Indonesia. It doesn't wash. Microsoft's collapse may have bad effects, but that's no reason to stop it happening.

    Consider what kind of a society you live in where, in order to maintain the status quo, you have to allow entities like Microsoft to break the law...
    --
  • Do you work for Microsoft or are you just a Microsoft Solutions Provider?

    Your statement is akin to saying "What's good for Microsoft is good for America. Everyone in the know knows that Microsoft can't get split up."

    A decision to include in the Dow has nothing to do with the outcome of this litigation, better or worse. It's about capitalization, shares traded, volume, etc. Microsoft is considered a "Blue Chip" stock and a good candidate for the Dow. If Microsoft gets split then all components may be removed from the Dow, maybe just one, maybe neither, who knows? No one knows. And no one will make that decision until it must be made (if ever).

    The only person in the country (unless there's been a leak) who knows what will be in the finding of fact is the Judge. Given the contents of the finding no one knows whether MS and Justice will settle (which is one of the reasons a finding of fact is presented). If they don't, no one knows the outcome of the trial, and no one knows what remedies might be taken. If you had any true insight you'd make a very very good living as an analyst in the matter.

  • Ummm yes it does!

    A monoploy does not mean 100% control. It just means having a huge amount of influence. Competitors can exist. Monopolies are okay too, so long as they don't abuse their power.

    I don't know history too well, but I think AT&T didn't have any competition, but Standard Oil did.. They would have ended up owning the oil market if no one had stepped in, or at least they would have been in a position to dictate costs, as Microsoft clearly is today.

    If they came out and said they were doubling MS Office's price, surely home users would start to look elsewhere, but many corporations, I believe, would look around and see that there's nothing completely comparable, wince, and pay the price. Same goes for Windows. They can essentially charge whatever they feel like, and people WILL buy it. Linux is not there yet. When MS releases office for linux, it will be, but that won't happen because then they'll lose their Windows monopoly
  • Yes Microsoft put out some software you don't like. Big deal. Like most people here, you don't have to use it!

    this is, in fact, not the case.

    1) many people work for companies who insist on a standardized IT environment. this often means Microsoft products, leaving these people with no choice but to contend with 98/NT, Office, etc.

    2) many /. readers work in tech support or systems administration. we may not be forced to use Microsoft products in our day to day lives, but we are often compelled to fix them when they break (which, as any sysadmin can tell you, is the worst part of dealing with them).

    3) and the most significant reason why the above is not true: due to Microsoft's large market share and user base, they have no strong motivation to make their software compatible with others. thus, one often runs into real-life situations in which the only way to get something done is to use a Microsoft product, with all the unpleasantness that entails, or if there is some non-Microsoft way to get the job done, then nobody else will be able to read what you've done because they're all using non-compatible Microsoft products. issues like this one are what spurred the original antitrust investigation in the first place.

    -steve
    (remove EEEEEP to reply)
  • We'll all know if it's today by 4:00PM EST. They agreement is that both sides will be informed with two hours notice before the release, at which point they can alert the general public to their liking..

  • Re:Judgement Day (Score:5)

    by SoftwareJanitor ( 15983 ) on Friday November 05, 1999 @06:42AM (#1561109)
    Has no one really considered the implications that no more microsoft would mean?

    Yes, but that isn't what is going to happen. Even if Microsoft loses the case (which seems plausable), it won't come to that.

    Think of all the businesses depending upon them for tech support etc.

    Like losing technical support from Microsoft would be a big problem? Their technical support is not only grossly overpriced, it stinks. There will always be someone there to provide technical support to those that need it. Most likely if companies were forced to shop around they would benefit from finding a better and cheaper support provider.

    Let's face it, Microsoft is so entrenched in, well, everything, that destroying it would likely manage to cause major economic consequences to the whole country.

    Oh please. Microsoft is no more entrenched than AT&T was before they were broken up. The breakup of AT&T didn't cause dire economic disaster for the country. Customers have benefitted, and competitors to AT&T have flourished. AT&T is still around, and seems like it is going to be around for a long time to come.

    Destroying MS by a court ruling would be a *horrible* action.

    Even if that is true, who says Microsoft would be destroyed by being broken up (probably the most harsh action that could be taken as a result of this case)?

    You are going to leave many, many consumers in a sticky situation.

    Why? The copies of Windows and MS-Office they have now won't suddenly disappear. Its not like you couldn't still buy Windows or MS-Office, you would just have to buy them from seperate companies.

    People didn't suddenly not have phone service when AT&T was broken up. People weren't suddenly cut off from their supply of gasoline when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.
    AT&T didn't go belly up. Their business has changed, but they have still managed to be fairly profitable. Standard Oil is still in existance and profitable.

    There is no reason to think that Microsoft would be completely destroyed if they were broken up and forced to play ethically. Predictions of the end of the world are gross exaggerations at best.

    If anything, the risks to the economy from problems of Microsoft would probably be reduced because it would be several smaller companies (although probably still pretty large) instead of one huge one. Failure of any individual divisions wouldn't have consequences to the others anymore.

  • Re:Judgement Day (Score:3)

    by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <bmetzlerNO@SPAMlive.com> on Friday November 05, 1999 @07:12AM (#1561114) Homepage Journal
    Look again.

    You made a lot of true points. But does that mean that Microsoft should be let off because they did some good things. That's like not punishing a murderer because they always paid their utility bill on time.

    Microsoft has had failures all over the place in market segments they have tried to diversify into.

    Absolutely. Maybe it's not something that people recognise, but it's true.

    The problem I have with all the anti-Microsoft paranoia is that it's all based on hype.

    It's not all based on hype. Do you think that charging IBM 4 times what they would have if IBM didn't sell OS/2 was hype? How about preventing OEM's from bundling Netscape. That was hype, right?

    MSN isn't going to wipe out all the independent ISPs. (another near-Monopoly, AOL, does that nicely, thankyouverymuch)

    AOL is definately *not* wiping out independent ISP's. And they definately aren't trying to by using anti-competitive practices.

    Microsoft isn't likely to take over the Enterprise Database market (a few huge firms, including Oracle have that field tied up)

    You are right. But they sure do make noises claiming that they will. But they won't.

    Of course, some people need a big monster to point to, to excuse their failures.

    This is a knee-jerk reaction. You show me just one example where Microsoft is used to excuse someone else's failure. It wasn't a failure on Netscape's part that OEM's were forced to unbundle their browser, or lose licensing agreements. This is what the case is all about. Microsoft unethical practices.

    -Brent
    --
  • mochaone wrote:

    So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to gather evidence to support my suppositions, yet you are allowed to postulate as to what Judge Jackson is going to do?

    No, you were postulating about what the appeals court would do, and I asked for some evidence for your postulations. I too was postulating, and in spite of your sarcastic tone, I will take your statements as a request for evidence on my part.

    You seem to be questioning two points of mine: I expect the findings of fact will probably declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not suggest anything as to remidies, which is really two points: I expect the findings will declare monopoly, and I expect they won't suggest remedies at this point. The other point is A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it.

    First, I expect the findings of fact to declare Microsoft a monopoly because that is far from controvertial. The rule of thumb is a company is a monopoly if it has more than a 70% market share, Microsoft has a 90% market share. The controversy is over whether or not Microsoft used its Monopoly powers illegally, and I did not speculate on what Jackson would find there.

    I expect the findings of fact to suggest no remedies because there is no other reason for Judge Jackson to split the findings of fact from the Judgement. Microsoft asserted that they will appeal any negative judgement very early in the trial. The purpose of separating the judgement from the findings of fact is to shield the facts of the case (which are harder to appeal) from being dragged through the mud during the appeal of the judgement. Suggesting remedies during the findings of fact would defeat the purpose.

    Lastly, as for Microsoft killing the proprietary software industry, here is some good material to support my opinion:
    Caldera v Microsoft Complaint [caldera.com]
    Reiser v Microsoft [idiom.com] on allegedly illegal product tying
    A Rutgers University analysis [rutgers.edu] of Microsoft's use of predatory pricing to destroy competitors
    A Reuters Article [essential.org] describing Microsoft's pressure on Acer to not sell competitors applications

    In all, Microsoft is clearly trying to encompass as much of the industry as they can get away with, and kill any competitors that stand in their way. If they're the only provider of proprietary software, it's no longer an industry, hence they would have killed the industry. Personally, I don't think it's a great loss, since Microsoft is a big fish, eating all the little fishes (other proprietary vendors), while the rest of us are learning to farm kelp (Free software).

    Hmm...I guess since you're saying it, "evidence" isn't needed to prove your point?
    No, I was saying evidence was needed to prove your point. As you can see above, there's lots of evidence to support my point.

    PS: I was completely baffled by your talk of movies and heads. What were you trying to say there?

    ----
  • Who's worried about the stockmarket going up?

    People who have put money into shorting stocks, or people who have money in investments that tend to go down when the stock market goes up. People who work in businesses that tend to slow down if the Fed raises interest rates (as they tend to do when the stock market goes up too much), etc. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone rejoices when the stock markets go up.

  • ... to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils; M$ and the U.S. Government. :^)
  • We've been through this before... There's a time and a place for VB, but it isn't going to solve the world's software crisis. And there seem to be a lot of folk on the Internet dissing Linux and other systems that would compete with Windows on the desktop if opportunity arose, because they've been making a buck on a one-vendor solution, and broad adoption of Linux et al. means they'll have to either (a) learn to write portable software, or (b) have their market trimmed down. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them; if they can't adapt, they shouldn't be in IT.

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • I wish I could read the coverage on CNN, but I can't because the Javascript they use crashes my Netscape browser (and on about 30 other sites).

    That is strange because I have no problems with reading the CNN site with my Netscape browser.

    Thank goodness I can turn to Microsoft's superior product.

    Thankfully I run an OS where Microsoft's inferior product is not an option.

  • IMHO (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    The judge is apparently going to ONLY say what he thinks is true, and what he thinks isn't. It does not take a genius to figure out some of it.

    (Felton's test, and Microsoft's "upgrade", convinced the judge that, at the very least, Microsoft had been less than 100% honest. Bill Gates' testimony is likely to get shredded, too.)

    On the other hand, there is NOTHING to suggest that the judge will pass any kind of sentance, or even declare a judgement. =ALL= he'll be doing is commenting on what's fact and what's fiction. That's all.

    Now, having got all that out, I would like to see Microsoft =vertically= split, with no private sales between the companies permitted. That won't happen, but it would be nice. (Vertical splits would allow genuine competition and genuine diversification. A horizontal split, seperating OS from app development probably won't change anything, as the OS writers only need to provide an "integrator" system for VARs, and the end product will be the same as it is now, without any APIs ever being public, or competition being allowed. If anything, it'd be worse.)

  • I don' think this is entirely accurate. My understanding is that in the past charters were revoked by the courts in cases where it was found that a corporation had harmed the people in the area in which it was chartered. Hasn't been done for a long time though, and the law may have changed. But if there's a constitutional death penalty for people, it seems like a double standard to not have one for corporate citizens.
  • No, I'm cheering a process that is having the desired effect in a situation where the "ideal" solution probably wouldn't work. Fine them a billion dollars and they'll laugh it off. Order them to behave and we'll get some more tee-hee's about a Chinese wall. Break them up and we'll get multiple new heads for the hydra, who will undoubtedly cooperate behind the curtain. If you've got a fix that you think would really work, I'm sure I, the /. readership, and the judge would be delighted to hear it.

    It's neither harassment not vindictiveness, and competition and fairness are precisely what it's about. But you're right about one thing: I am virulently anti-MS. With good reason, as I see it; though you're welcome to present a case here as well.

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close