U.S. Adds Years To Microsoft's 'Probation'

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Justice Department has added another two years to its agreement with Microsoft, extending the protocol licensing program that is part of the company's penance for anti-competitive activities. The organization feels Microsoft is providing documentation too slowly to its licensees." From the article: "At one time, the Justice Department and several state Attorneys General had sought a breakup of Microsoft in order to prevent it from abusing its Windows monopoly. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson at one point ordered such a move, though his ruling was later reversed on appeal. Ultimately Microsoft settled with the Department of Justice, agreeing to far more modest restrictions, including the protocol licensing program." Relatedly, regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements. They examined the OS on concerns an added search box may have given the company a home-field advantage.

Probation?

[Trelane (16124)]

I thought that probation was about...
well... you know...
keeping you from doing the stuff you got in trouble for .

Re:They called Clinton crazy

[Trelane (16124)]

but there just has to be a middle ground between estabishing monopolies on the one side, and punishing success of the other side.

I had to address this too.

Microsoft is not being punished "for succeeding". Being a monopoly is never illegal. It is, however, illegal to use your monopoly status to leverage your way into new markets and to keep competitors out.

Thus, this anti-trust stuff is the middle ground you seek . It's perfectly fine to be a monopoly, but punishes abuse of the monopoly status (e.g. pushing OEMs to sign deals to exclude BeOS boy I wish that OEM licensing deals would see the light of day!).

harsh penalty

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

"You haven't supplied the information you were required to as part of the terms of settlement, so instead of doing something about it, we'll give you more time."

two more years

[by Anonymous Coward]

Two more years of looking the other way.

A new concept in software design

[Dunbal (464142)]

regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements. They examined the OS on concerns an added search box may have given the company a home-field advantage.

      First software was designed to do stuff because it was needed.
      Later, software was designed to do stuff that was cool.
      Still later, software was designed to make money.
      Then software was designed primarily by marketing departments
      Now, software is designed by lawyers and the judicial system?

      What a great world we live in.

Uh, no.

[jd (1658)]

The court case was intended to stop Microsoft designing OTHER people's software by means of lawyers and judges. (That's why they refer to "anti-competitive".)

I don't approve of laws designing software, but I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with stopping people abusing laws to prevent software from being designed. I also have no problem with laws that enforce progress.

(The State of Oregon recently received some thinly-veiled threats from Microsoft's CEO over Oregon's active support for Open Source - both towards Oregon and towards all Microsoft shops in Oregon. Although not a part of the DoJ lawsuit, and therefore probably not a part of this review, I would feel a lot more comfortable if States receiving such threats reviewed their legality. Last I heard, "demands with menaces" was not considered an OK activity.)

Slap On The Wrist: Part Deux

[Foofoobar (318279)]

Well maybe this signifies that the Justice Dept now realizes WHY Microsoft was brought before them and that their measures taken thus far have proven futile in getting the company to change their tactics.

Ah ha!

[AWhiteFlame (928642)]

Here, here -- A toast, to two more years being everyone's favorite illegal monopoly!

Cheers!

Bureaucratic waste

[Toby The Economist (811138)]

What a complete waste of time.

Has the State involvement in this issue achieved anything?

And how much did it COST?

We're all sitting here paying tax through our noses.

Who's spending this money?

What are we getting for it?

How many millions have been spent on this excercise which has had no significant impact on the MS monopoly?

Re:Bureaucratic waste

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Well, things were moving along pretty nicely and for a moment it looked like something was actually going to be done. Then in 2001, everything changed for some inexplicable reason...

Links to findings

[KwKSilver (857599)]

Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here [gpo.gov]. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here [gpo.gov]. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).

Penfield's remedies are here [gpo.gov]. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here [usdoj.gov]. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.

More on this and other MS litigation over here. [groklaw.net]

Links to EU situation

[xixax (44677)]

Meanwhile over in the EU, Microsoft has been accused of exaggerating what is being asked for [nwsource.com]
  and the difficulty of providing it [groklaw.net].

Xix.

Microsoft and its so called standards

[camcorder (759720)]

I can only dream of a computing experience, which has lack of unknown formats. I would really be a lot more happy to see wmv files to be played without any problem, or office documents openning flawlessly in various applications.

Real question is why should we stick to just one application for any format. If every unique application made their own file format, nobody would be able to share anything, and why does Internet ever exists if we won't be able share our documents.

That's not an open source issue, or free market problem. It's the lack of mentality for sharing of information. People really suffer from these compatibility problems, and if someone made a research about the lost and or wasted time related to these issues, it would be easily seen that it's very huge problem that computer users experience. And with the growing trend of DRM and stuff we will just suffer this more and more.

People should convert, open, edit any format with any application coded for them. To let this, those willing to create a format, should clearly state specifications for these formats, or clearly state that this format is just for a specific application and should not be shared so that users won't use those files for sharing. A .doc file created with 200x version of Microsoft Word is just like the feces of this application. And if we don't want to make Internet or our networks sewer we should definately stop sharing those crap (literally) through the wires.

Noooo!

[suv4x4 (956391)]

Relatedly, regulators have cleared Vista of anti-competitive elements.

Nooooooo! That means the search box remains with MSN selected by default!

Why can't Microsoft be "fair" and set Google default like with the other browsers!

I'm devastated.

so, since the DOJ judgement

[yagu (721525)]

What I don't understand is that since the DOJ judegement against Microsoft they've had time to rewrite their entire flagship OS from scratch, yet still haven't been able to document it? How naive does the government have to be?

One word...

[gardyloo (512791)]

How naive does the government have to be? ... "nucular".

Real Issue

[by Anonymous Coward]

(rant mode)

I dont know if this issue has been looked at by the US or EU but it is much more of a concern to me that MS is activly releasing / selling software that is so insecure to the point that it seems to go out of its way to prevent techies and end users from properly securing it in order to keep (often confidential) data safe from malware, viruses etc.

There is also the wider issue of MS through their lack of a proper security model facilitating the creation and operation of botnets which are used to the detrement of users, businesses and the internet at large.

I use Windows and find it annoying that I need to apply 3rd party apps in an attept to minimise security risks to my computer when the OS maker should have secured the software before release.

Its not that I hate MS for their propriatory nature etc but I find myself trying a few Linux distos in an attmept to find a viable alternative although I am into the frame of mind that for my next computer purchase I will go for a mac depsite the high prices and the fact that I enjoy building my own systems.

If Windows worked properly and had a good security model then I would be happy; I think MS are wasting their time trying to fight the "pirates" and that their real problem (and as such priority) should be to make an OS that is suitable for widespread use. They should secure their software and if they feel the need add an "anti-piracy" function like activation, genuine advantage etc then whatever but make the software safe for people to use first.

(/rant mode)

What a bunch of Crap

[RedHatLinux (453603)]

When the average person violates probation, they go straight to prison. They dont get a trial or a hearing to prove their innocence, nor does the state give them more time to get it right, or get their affairs in order.

Settled

[bblboy54 (926265)]

The best word in the whole article is "settled" ... Microsoft settled with the government. This means if I get pulled over for speeding, I can settle with the office by giving him $50 and him leaving me alone, right? When you settle in court, you settle with the person you wronged.... You can't settle with the enforcement -- or at least shouldnt be able to. Your punishment is your punishment.

Unjust

[fishbowl (7759)]

So, Microsoft violates their probation. What *should* happen is this:

The company should be disbanded, all its assets forfeited and sold at auction. Anyone on the executive committee of the company, and anyone else who knew or should have known that this violation would have occurred, should be sentenced to at least ten years in prison, and their personal assets forfeited and auctioned off.

Nothing less that that would happen to you or me and the company we controlled, if we purposely used our company to violate federal laws. The last thing we'd hear from a judge is "I see you are having trouble complying with the orders of this court. Perhaps if we give you a few more years to work on it you can get back to us on how you're coming with the whole court-mandated actions thing, okay?"

You and I wouldn't get that treatment. We would go to prison, our assets woudl be seized, and it wouldn't make the news.

The issue is NOT bundling

[KidSock (150684)]

That legal strategy was designed by Real, Netscape and others to yield compensation dollars. The problem with Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior has to do with Inter Process Communication (IPC). A file is a form of IPC. A network message is IPC. If the details of the various forms of IPC are widely available products can interoperate and that is bad for Microsoft's market share. I believe that if a product is completely dominant in a market (e.g. Exchange / Outlook mail system on corporate intranets) the details regarding it's IPC should be made available so as to reduce the liability associated with using that product. In this particular case that liability is the unfair business practice of forcing other companies out of a market by leveraging undisclosed IPCs. Secondarily there are a number of other very good reasons for having alternative programs that understand the same IPCs but it's not clear that they have legal bearing.

"High-Priority Update" forces MS's Harshest EULA.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

Those who try to document Microsoft's abuses find that there are too many to investigate and explain.

For example, Ed Foster's Gripelog has a story about Microsoft's Harshest EULA [gripe2ed.com]. Windows users who download the "High-Priority Update" called Windows Genuine Advantage Notification are required to agree to a new contract. Ed says, "Not only does Microsoft place restrictions on your right to criticize the software, it won't allow you to uninstall the software or to test it in an operating environment."

EULAs are a unique kind of contract in that they supposedly allow one party to the contract to force new contract provisions on the other. Contract law has always held that forced contracts are illegal.

If you buy, agree to the terms of use, and install Windows for your company and train your staff to use it and applications you buy for it, your total cost is far greater than the cost of Windows. Yet EULAs supposedly allow the software provider to change the contract provisions at any time, with no restrictions whatsoever. Your only option if you don't agree to the new contract provisions is to lose all the money you have invested and stop doing business until you can get new software. This is especially severe when a company has a monopoly on the operating system your business software needs to run.

The concept of fairness is completely absent from EULAs. Those who write EULAs believe that they can do anything they like. If you go to your kitchen and find a Microsoft employee eating your ice cream, check your EULA; maybe Microsoft has decided that Microsoft employees can raid your refrigerator.

Re:Windows is fine in one piece, TYVM.

[DragonWriter (970822)]

If Google made an OS and integrated Google search technology would everyone cry foul?

No, at least not with the justification they have when Microsoft does it, unless Google, instead of Microsft, had a desktop OS monopoly. The legal objection is based on leveraging a monopoly in one market to negate effective competition in another market. If Google, say, put together their own Linux distribution tomorrow, they could integrate whatever they wanted with it before they established an OS monopoly. If they ever did, though, their ability to leverage it to gain traction in other markets would be constrained by law.

Probably not, the hypocritical zealots.

Its only hypocritical when you are ignoring the central (monopoly) element of the objection.

Re:Parent is right - but no one listens

[KwKSilver (857599)]

The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.

The real problem is that MS broke the law in order to succeed. In the eyes of many, it is continuing to break the law whhile thumbing its nose at those trying to get it to obey the law. Or do you believe MS should be above the law? How is allowing MS to use illegal methods to exterminate the competition in any field going to help the consumer in the long run? When they have finished crushing everyone else, they will be able to charge $100, or $200 a month, or $500 a month for their OS, and there won't be anything you can do about it, except to pay up or quit using your computer!

Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.

Oh really,how about a SPARC? or a ppc-Apple MAC? Seriously, hand Joe-Sixpack an OEM disk and ask him to install it on a blank hard drive, and get everything sound, video etc working right. Bring some sandwiches & a thermos of coffee... or a case of beer & a couple of pounds of pretzels... whatever floats your boat. Should be a full day of amusement. OTOH its 20 or 30 minutes with Mepis [mepis.com], Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] or even PC-BSD [pcbsd.org]. Chances are good ol' Joe won't have to know spit--or even be sober. Actually, the last time I installed FreeBSD took less time than the last time I installed XP, even including writing the .xinitrc file and enabling sound--both of which required less time than loading video or sound card drivers for XP.

Not fair at all

[commodoresloat (172735)]

It's sad. Dick Cheney shoots someone in the face and nothing happens to him.

Bill Clinton does the same thing and he gets impeached.