Slashdot Log In
Evidence Surfaces That MS Violated 2002 Judgement
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jan 18, 2007 08:12 AM
from the rutroe dept.
from the rutroe dept.
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')."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading ... Please wait.

Hm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure someone else here will do that for me.
Re:Hm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's such a good game!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Preview, not submit.... That should have been:
we are not talking about 10 people sitting in a room here...
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I'd be interested to see which APIs are being discussed here before I go off on an anti-Microsoft rant.
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
If those functions would really exist, but could be only interfaced to using an "internal" API, then Microsoft products could have faster "on screen" viewing compared to the competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this was made (I suppose) in order to accelerate the graphic operations (which will run in kernel space, not user space). Or I might be wrong, but Microsoft in known for many places where, between speed and mo
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I love people who do this. This is not even comparable to something like raping someone.
Sure it's comparable. He just compared them. It is not, however, a particularly good or tasteful comparison. Burglary would be a much better comparison. It causes sh
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather we skip the monetary fines that are becoming meaningless and go for revocation of patents. Can you imagine if MS had it's patents revoked and switched to a free-for-all? That would be nice... Ah, to dream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Revoking MS' patents would be more like issuing a very large fine, and forcing the company to pay it. Oh wait, that punishment might fit *exactly* to the crime! If we revoke any patents related to their violation, and begin to allow the free market to reassert itself, then MS may no longer fall afault of all the anti-trust laws that they are currently ignoring (and violating).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However, the right to vote and a parkin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, revocation of patent would further discredit the patent system in the US. Taking a patent is supposed to be a service you gives to the st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mwahahaha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
And we shall write a letter, TELLING you how angry we are!
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:MS wont change till users change (Score:5, Informative)
I'm amazed how many American vehicle owners have never heard of this puppy, y'all should read it sometime. And the next time your new car salesman says anything about the warranty, you'll know where you can tell him to stick his head.
Re: (Score:2)
Title is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Read The Fucking Article, Slashdot editors.
That's obvious... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you even remember why the original senatance was overturned?
The appeals court ruled that Judge Jackson had an appearance of bias, because of his media statements. In the media, Judge Jackson made a series of statements, that I, personall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it weren't Microsoft...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all. If there were lots and lots of CPU architectures, OS's would have to be written to run or be ported easily to another processor architecture. This would open up compet
Re: (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
Re: (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 pick