Evidence Surfaces That MS Violated 2002 Judgement

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.

[Macthorpe (960048)]

So by my reading, they've been given the right to talk to the DoJ about something they have found that may or may not prove that they have broken the law? It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I'll be waiting for the next story along in this chain before I start jumping to conclusions.

I'm sure someone else here will do that for me.

Re:Hm.

[Hijacked Public (999535)]

Enjoy your lonely stay in the land of reason and restraint.

Re:

[BecomingLumberg (949374)]

"I'll be waiting for the next story along in this chain before I start jumping to conclusions."

But it's such a good game!

So...

[styryx (952942)]

If the allegations are true, and it turns out that MS might somehow not be the shining beacon of Justice and Honour that we've come to regard it as (okay, I'll cut the sarcasm now), what is the worst that will happen to MS? And are they really concerned...ever?

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:

[Calinous (985536)]

A punishment must fit the crime is applied to. While the punishment applied by US Justice system might seem unfit for the wrongs of Microsoft before the verdict, revocation of patents is a totally unfit punishment for not publishing an API.
      It is like taking you (assuming you are from USA) the right to vote for a parking ticket in Mexico

Re:So...

[aaronl (43811)]

No, that is really not the same at all. First off, the parking ticket would have occurred in a foreign country, and so you shouldn't be punished for it in the US. Second, the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. A patent is temporary property; the right to vote is a basic right of all citizens.

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:

[gutnor (872759)]

Monetary fine proposed by EU were nothing meaningless: 2 Millions EUR per Day just for a start for 1 violation.

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 state: you disclose your invention and in exchange you receive a patent and some rights attached to this patent.
Now just imagine the shilling effect on US industry if you could have your patent revoked arbitrarily as a punishment in an *unrelated* crime ...

A

Re:

[sqlrob (173498)]

You mean they don't already?

Uh-oh

[TomatoMan (93630)]

If this is true, we shall be very angry!

And we shall write a letter, TELLING you how angry we are!

If only they could have waited...

[danaris (525051)]

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!

[ghbyrkit (879348)]

Based on a reading of the email offered as 'evidence' of this transgression, it occurred in 1992, 10 years before the settlement! So this is old evidence of a 'transgression' that allegedly occurred before the settlement. It is NOT evidence of a transgression that occurred AFTER the settlement. So it may not be 'new news' by any measure. Nothing to see, just a wookie, keep moving!

MS wont change till users change

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Microsoft's user base is very very large and their technical knowledge varies significantly. Most of them dont know where the OS leaves off and where the applications kick in. They dont know the difference between the browser and MS Office. They are willing to pay whatever MS demands. Under these circumstances MS can get away with anything.

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

[multipart/mixed (163409)]

At least in the US, GM could not require GM oil, coolant, or service... not because of consumer demands, but because of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1976.

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.

Title is wrong

[NineNine (235196)]

Actually, if any Slashdot "Editors" read the actual document, you'd see that the document is actually favorable, and says that MS is making good headway with documenting and hand-holding their competitors. The document says that MS has somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 people working to get this documentation done, and that there have been no substantive complaints about MS's compliance.

Read The Fucking Article, Slashdot editors.

Who gives a F*** about API's - end per PC pricing

[pyite69 (463042)]

There is only one important thing to do to make the operating system market competitive - END THE PER-PC LICENSING. Every computer should have the option of having either Windows or another OS - the government should simply make sure that Microsoft doesn't discriminate against companies that offer an alternative. If I were the judge, I would have gone further and forced Microsoft to price Windows as a commodity so they would have to offer the same price to everyone - with stiff penalties for any sort of marketing kickbacks.

The per-model scheme we have now is slightly better than per-processor, but still not adequate.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Calinous (985536)]

A business this big doesn't need time to change - it needs desire to change. With all its (possible) evil implications, European Union seems to give Microsoft a desire to change.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Short Circuit (52384)]

It doesn't surprise me, but not for the reasons you might think.

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?

[Calinous (985536)]

There are some graphic capabilities (in gdi.exe) that exist only in newer operating systems. Not using them would force one to use (supposedly slower) hand-written functions (by example, filling application areas with a gradient is not available in Windows NT, but is in Windows XP).
      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:Does this suprise anyone?

[jrumney (197329)]

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:

[rlp (11898)]

Yes! Bill Gates was so surprised that he dropped his monocle onto his white cat.

Re:

[tolan-b (230077)]

"Convicted monopoly abuser". Monopolies aren't inherently illegal.

Re:Does this suprise anyone?

[Dan Ost (415913)]

But abuse of monopoly power is.

Re:

[govtpiggy (978532)]

There is such a thing as bad publicity. Bad publicity is only good publicity if it's getting an unknown name into the news. There isn't anyone reading this who hasn't heard much about that Microsoft-thing.

Re:So what will really happen?

[hey! (33014)]

Will they get anything more than a contempt charge?

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:If it weren't Microsoft...?

[Ash-Fox (726320)]

We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?

I don't

One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different

I disagree

and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)

I don't agree here either.

So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.

No, having interoperability and standards is better than one major OS in my opinion.

Maybe we'd all run on FreeDOS, or AmigaOS4.. I don't know...

Might want to think about a bit less inactive projects.