Public Comment Period In MS/DOJ Battle 204
PacketMaster writes: "Somthing that I didn't know, and perhaps many others didn't know is that now this settlement by the federal government and some of the states will go back before the judge and be opened for a 60 day commentary period by the public as required by the Tunney Act (See Sec 5,USC Sec 16). This is a great opportunity for everyone to send in their intelligent and informed opinions on the matter. If some of the major developer groups (i.e. Samba) would put together a well-thought-out and easy-to-read commentary on their concerns, maybe we as a community can affect the process. See the ZDNet
article for more information." No forum for public comment is up yet (first, the proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register), but should be in the near future.
Central website? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyways, are there some sort of comprehensive website that explains in lay-man terms what has happened in this case?
Reading court documents and simular isn't too thrilling, especially when I don't understand half of the legal mumbo-jumbo, and I also find that much of the info that I _can_ read is spread across a zillion websites.
Re:Central website? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Central website? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Central website? (Score:2)
I also hope that Osama Bin Laden will appear on national TV with a naked Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, renouncing Islam and proclaiming Christ's love, while munching on a bag of pork rinds.
Hey, we can dream.
kmfms (Score:2)
what does it stand for?
Kein Mitleid Für MicroSoft
or... No Pity For Microsoft
if you've ever wanted to know What's so bad about Microsoft? [kmfms.com], then check em out.
MS is screwed anyway (Score:1, Flamebait)
So if Linux wins, the competition issue is moot?? (Score:2)
Regarding Ryan_Singer's remark: Personally I don't think we need the goverment to bring M$ down, capitalism will do it, Linux is inherently better and cheaper, people will find the better way to spend money.
You know, I'm not a fan of the Microsoft monopoly, but the point is that it's a monopoly, not that it's bad software. (Whether it is bad software is an opinion that people can reasonably disagree about.) I fail to see how the mere presence of Linux, as a single option, makes things better.
In their own ways, both Microsoft and Linux seem to me to be barriers to new market entry. Microsoft both because it is so commercially large and because of how it got there. Linux because it is so low-cost that it acts economically the same as if competitive "dumping" were occuring, making it hard for a radically different new market entrant to arise because it might have to be free also.
It seems to me that each of these contributes to locking out new competition other than that which happens due to incremental modification from Linux, probably the only option that can be accomplished cost-effectively. I worry that such incremental modification will lead (and has led) to a "hill-climbing" problem. I don't see new companies rushing to offer non-Linux competition, and I don't think it's because Linux represents a total optimum in the operating system design space.
A new company, wanting to offer a whole new approach, is at a major disadvantage in a market where an enormous amount of development cost of the competition (Linux, in this scenario) has been contributed free. The new company, not yet its own religion that attracts hoards of people wanting to contribute commercially valuable time just out of starry-eyed love, will have to pay salaries. And if one company has to pay salaries for development and another doesn't, that puts it at a competitive disadvantage to the Linux community, which seems to me to be its own kind of monopoly on contributed free work.
It's not enough to say "Linux is winning, so who cares about MS." The problem is lack of community that promotes true competition, not lack of an alternate operating system. Linux by itself is not proof to me that a community open to true competition really exists. If the world has only Linux, some may be happy, but those comfortable souls should not make the mistake that Bill Gates has made so many times when he says "The reason people buy our products is that they like us so much." Some people do buy Microsoft for that reason, and some people buy Linux for that reason, too. But if there are never new choices, some are buying because they have to get something and this is all they have a choice of. And that will be all the more true, not less, if Microsoft falls.
Re:So if Linux wins, the competition issue is moot (Score:2)
I don't think it is because of the GPL. Obviously somebody can write an os without using the GPL code in Linux. MicroSoft did, and all the other big computer compainies have an old Unix lying around they can fix up. Even things like Atheos seem to be written from scratch.
The lock-in is due to hardware support. Basically if you want any hardware acceleration, or even the ability to run much hardware at all, you either have to use MicroSoft or Linux. Even BSD is in trouble. On Linux itself this hardware support has kept all attempts to replace X on the sidelines.
The lock-in is also due to programmer's knowledge. Making a new system that is "innovate" by definition means it must be different than Linux or Windows, and that means there are no expert programmers for it. It also means it is hard to port code to it.
In a lot of cases Linux is causing exactly the same trouble as MicroSoft.
Re:So if Linux wins, the competition issue is moot (Score:2, Insightful)
Does Linux add an extra hurdle? Of course. As does every single other alternative OS. The size of the hurdle depends on the features they offer. One of Linux's features is that it's free. For some, this is an excellent feature. For many, as we see by the current marketplace, this is not as important as ease of use and universality of applications.
A commercial alternative does have several advantages over a free system however. One being that improvements to the system are generally uniform throughout distributions. In Linux, developers make solutions to what they need, which is great, but trying to support these various combinations of solutions, some of which are better done than others, is a nightmare. A second advantage being a central point of reliable contact for problems and support. Companies like Redhat are trying to offer this, but they have to deal with the vagaries of supporting a system they really don't
control. Third, when money is involved there becomes a reason for complaints to be dealt with. If you're not a programmer and you have a problem with obscure function x, you're basically screwed unless some programmer person decides they're going to fix that problem. With a central point of contact, complaints can turn into action based on something other than a programmer's largesse.
These are just some of the reasons I think your statement is false. If Microsoft falls, competitive OS's will be able to arise that compete by including the features Linux does not possess. BeOS was growing for a time, so much so that they managed to convince major OEMs to include them on their systems. Had it not been for Microsoft's anti-competitve practices keeping that OS hidden from the purchasers, it may have become a serious contender in the OS world.
Re:So if Linux wins, the competition issue is moot (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your meaning, but you do know that it's is perfectly ok to sell GPL'd software, don't you? After all, that's what SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake et al do. You just can't use GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code, nor can you take it 'closed' then sell it.
However, regarding your main premise, which seems to be: Linux (and FS in general) present their own boundary to entry due to the fact that you can get the software for no monetary cost, provided you have internet access. This lack of monetary cost precludes a commercial entity from offering an alternative to Microsoft because if someone is going to switch from MS products, why would they pay when there is a (F)(f)ree alternative?
I think this concept is a valid one, but there is a reason why it is so. I think it goes right back to Microsoft in the first place (and other closed/commercial OS vendors to a much lesser extent). Windows (and now Office and Internet Explorer) have such a high monopoly barrier to entry that the only alternative product that could be created and survive is a Free one (or actually several Free ones, if you include the BSD's).
Please recall that there used to be 'traditional' commercial alternatives to Windows: From CP/M to DR-DOS, to OS/2 (and others I'm sure I'm omitting). They were all run out of business by Microsoft's predatory use of its monopoly (this point can obviously be debated, but the Appeals Court agreed with this premise unanimously, 7-0, and this was supposed to be the one court in all the US that was most likely to come down on Microsoft's side) Since there was no more commercail competition (short of $5-10,000+ Unix boxes), the market came up with an alternative that could not be killed or bought out. IMO, Microsoft created this situation by its behavior.
I believe that markets (or any large group of people) react very similarly to biological organisms. In this case, Microsoft is a bad element (I hesitate to use emotionally charged words like cancer or virus that carry their own ulterior connotations) which is controlling an inordinate portion of the market/organism, so the rest of the organism has been trying to take it down a notch or two. Finally, the only choice seems to be to "cut off their air supply" by attempting to kill their 2 main sources of revenue/sustenance: Windows and Office.
If these forces were to succeed absolutely and kill off Microsoft (highly unlikely and certainly not necessarily a good thing), then the mainstream software components we all use every day (OS, word processor, email, browser, etc.) would be Free, commodity products, and commercial vendors could focus on providing something tangible that actually requires true manufacturing: hardware (this is, of course, the main business of many of MS's competitors: IBM, Sun, Apple)
Summation: I think you're basically right, but the situation was created by Microsoft itself. Linux simply grew out of the situation as it existed. Regardless, there's certainly nothing that can be done about it now.
Cheers..............
Just how much waight ... (Score:1)
Especally those from none US organisations and organisations.
What happens to MS affects not only those of you in the US but also a large amount of the rest of the world.
Would the US Judisary take account of none US Citesens
Re:Just how much waight ... (Score:2, Insightful)
None whatsoever, when coming from people whose spelling and grammar makes Taco look like even parts OED, "Little, Brown Handbook" and "AP Style Guide".
This is not a flame, people. If you can't/don't spell correctly, your comments will be ignored. Welcome to life. It doesn't matter if English isn't your native language -- if you plan to use it in any serious or official capacity, then use it correctly.
Yeah, I follow my own advice. I work a lot harder on anything I write in German, which isn't my native language, but is the language of the country of my residence.
BTW, non-US opinions -- except those from companies doing business in the US and affected directly by the ruling -- will also be ignored. This is a call for opinions from "interested parties": those who do related and affected business and those whom the Justice Department purports to represent (i.e., US citizens).
woof.
OTOH, ThePilgrim did manage to use "affects" (verb) properly, rather than the oft-misused "effects" (noun). Accident? Subtle humo(u)r?
Re:Just how much waight ... (Score:2)
In a case about that's between the United States and Microsoft, a U.S. domestic corporation?
To be honest with you, none. Microsoft's business dealings abroad are, under our legal system, best dealt with by the governments of those countries in which Microsoft does business. Basically, the U.S. court system doesn't think it should meddle in the affairs of other sovereign states, and both the history of precedence and written law confirm that sentiment. And I think rightly so. If Microsoft is behaving badly abroad, it would and right should be up to your government to deal with that in a way that it sees fit.
The U.S. government should go around telling other countries how to run their affairs. (Ok, you can stop snickering now!
Re:Just how much waight ... (Score:1)
Consider if British Govermenrt decided Microsoft should freely make available all API etc. Do we think Microsoft would
a) Comply with the ruling
b) Tell the British Gov where to get off and drop the English market.
The question thus is what markets are BIG enough to make microsoft comply. How much of a market loss would Micosoft be willing to take.
Remember Microsoft can delay having to drop a market by repeted apples and just non complience. Can Microsoft afford to just pay/take any penalties.
Re:They won't take you seriously if you can't spel (Score:1)
Be Kind
digitalunity said so
Take your chance (Score:1)
Re:Take your chance (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can participate.. (Score:3, Informative)
Cheers...
Re:Of course you can participate.. (Score:2)
Re:Of course you can participate.. (Score:2)
You are undermining your own cause when you do stuff like this. Even one case of a fake address or astroturfing will make all the other letters sharing an opinion seem suspicious and they will automatically lose some value in the reckoning of whoever is looking at them.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
US laws affect how business work WITHIN the US. The EC has its own laws and regulatory practices which affect business within the EU.
The bottomline, however, is that regardless of whether or not you feel you have a right to affect the decision, if it is found that some of the letter writers were not americans or that the addresses were fake it will greatly undermine the value of other letters that share that opinion - not in my mind but in the mind of the legislators - and that's what matters!
Do you really want someone to be able to go up to the legislators and say "All these anti-Microsoft letters are from those damn europeans who hate anything american - they are not from your constituents!" or "Look! This letter doesn't even have a real address - Sun/Oracle are faking these to look like people don't like Microsoft"?
Re:Take your chance (Score:2)
Except that the US has all sorts of fancy mechanised voting systems. Which are not infrequently less reliable than simply putting crosses on paper...
Forum for public comment (Score:1)
No forum for public comment is up yet (first, the proposed settlement must be published in the Federal Register), but should be in the near future.
Surely Slashdot qualifies as a forum for public comment, especially for anything regarding Micro$oft.
Best way to contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bother telling the Judge that part.
What we can tell her that the Court might actually listen to is this: how can Microsoft wiggle through loopholes? A consent decree is, when you get down to it, code. Legal rather than computer code, but code nonetheless. Let's apply the famous myriad eyeballs to finding bugs in the code here, and tell the Court in clear terms (as the Samba team have) just how it's broken.
Let's tell the Court what they don't know about this deal.
Re:Best way to contribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's just it. It won't be a consent decree, it will be a court-imposed penalty. What penalties the court will be allowed to give is unclear to me, but I'm fairly certain that the court-imposed penalties will be much harsher than anything the DOJ and Microsoft and 19 states were going to work out together.
Of course, the ruling itself will be like code, yes. The question is, how good is the judge at writing said code? Because Microsoft, unlike in the case of a consent decree, will have no say in what goes into that penalty whatsoever. But neither will the DOJ or anyone else but the judge really, unless she solicits their opinions on what the penalty should be or unless she adopts the consent decree in draft form, but I don't see either one of those happening.
Also, said ruling won't be available until the judge writes it. Which AFAIK won't be until *after* the 60-day comment period mandated by the Tunney Act.
So we could pick apart the consent decree, but there's no guarantee that's what she'll use and in fact it's probably NOT what she'll use.
But then again, IANAL either.
Re:Best way to contribute (Score:2)
I realy don't get all of this and iff you could explain it to me it would be greatly appreciated.
Re:Best way to contribute (Score:4, Interesting)
It's much better for all concerned to enter into a settlement, because each party will get something that they want, since this is a negotiated contract. And it's better for the court system, because the case will be off the docket and not tying up the court system needlessly.
While Micros~1 and the DOJ agreed some terms for this consent decree, several states still refused to sign off as of yesterday (Tuesday). That was the deadline that the judge gave for the parties to settle before she would continue with the case and enter the penalty phase.
So as of Today (11/7), several states still have not signed off. THat means that the judge will continue into the penalty phase. There will be no deal, no consent decree. The judge will arbitrarily rule what must be done, unless she adopts the consent decree which was written. That is not likely to happen, because several of the plantiffs (the states), refused to sign that consent decree, so that means if she adopts that, those states will either appeal the case or ask that the verdict be set aside, a new judge be assigned (on the basis of bias, most likely) and the case retried. Nobody wants this, so she's likely to write her own ruling.
Re:Best way to contribute (Score:2)
Re:Best way to contribute (Score:2)
Well, regardless of what happens now, informing the judge about the loopholes is still a good thing to do. She will have to write her ruling eventually, and the more she understands about what needs to be covered, the better.
Here's what you can write: (Score:5, Interesting)
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin
Here's what I sent to the Attorney General in my state:
"
I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:
1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made available to any parties requesting them.
3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application Programming Interfaces).
4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as "trade secrets" must be disclosed.
5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems,
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a
monopoly.
"
Don't Forget File Formats! (Score:3, Interesting)
I was reading Antipatterns the other day and ran across the "Vendor Lock-In" anti-pattern. The suggested solution for this anti-pattern was to create an isolation layer on your network, so that interfaces on one side of the layer would not depend on interfaces on the other. Microsoft's behavior with .net, Kerberos and other networking protocols seem aimed at marginalizing the isolation layer that TCP/IP provides.
Re:Don't Forget File Formats! (Score:3, Interesting)
But that has nothing to do with this case! No evidence was presented that Microsoft has a monopoly in the office suite market, and none of the judges have found that to be the case. Sure, we all 'know' that MS has a monopoly in this market, but it just doesn't matter -- that's a different trial -- this one is about OEM deals and that niggling concept of 'middleware'.
So when writing your letters, please stay on target and keep the remedies within the context of what the courts have found (no MS Office, no XBox, no VisualStudio...)
[Yes, I know that MS probably has nefarious plans to link Office to the
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a very important part. I'd suggest a few additions:
- the clause must include also file formats used in any Microsoft products
- the documents must be made available for free at the Microsoft web site, not just in MSDN nor through some other expensive service or licensing.
- the documentation must be released at least 60 days before the publication of the product, and also 60 days before the publication of any updates.
- Microsoft itself must follow the documentation and not make any unpublished private extensions on top of the published protocols
- the clause must apply also to any security protocols or fileformat encryptions
The fileformat documentation is very important, because they are also "communication protocols" used when communicating content between application instances. This would be especially important for MS Office, as it is strategically essential component of the infamous application barrier. Microsoft has an effective monopoly in Office products, which work properly only in Windows, which is the single most influential factor in creating and maintaining the OS monopoly.
There might still be loopholes for protocols requiring pantented or otherwise closed or proprietary third-party components. Microsoft should be forbidden of using such 3rd-party components to circumvent the requirements.
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to bear in mind that MS is a public company, with a responsibility to share holders: making money. The DoJ/MS deal is not about punishing MS for past offenses, but about bringing MS in line from this point onwards. But it still has to bear in mind that MS must be allowed to act as a business.
While I appreciate the sentiment in your comments, I feel some are an overreaction, verging on a penalty. Forcing MS to disclose its APIs, formats and protocols in advance of their publication is not going to happen; from a purely economic point of view it will be laughed at by the judge, let alone the implications on MS's rights to trade.
It would be reasonable to force MS to disclose this information AT THE TIME of publication. This does mean that MS will be ahead of the rest of the market, but that is NOT the problem! The problem is to disallow MS from preventing the market from "catching up".
If MS brings out a new product with new formats and protocols, it will attract some attention from the market. Within a few months competitors will have compatible products, so the bulk of adopters will not be forced down the MS path.
Regarding Office suites, there are several competitors on Windows, including Corel and Lotus.
As for prevention of using 3rd party components, this is a difficult one to justify. While there is no doubt that MS could circumvent requirements in this manner, such a limitation would force MS to use only open standards. Although I strongly support open standards and wish MS had to use them, it simply does not always make good business sense to avoid patent-encumbered technologies.
Please realise that any submission to the judge needs to have some level of balance. Recommending ridiculous or unworkable 'solutions' will not assist, and will likely get your comment into the ignore pile rather quickly.
penalties are justified (Score:2)
Since Microsoft was found guilty via the findings of fact, why should their not be a penalty?
Or do you believe that companies that do things wrongs should not ever be punished? or we should make an exception for MS?
The dead bodies of companies and the wreckage of personal lives are out there for all to see. and we should ignore this?
feh
Competition is judged to exist not by the mere fact of the existance of the product, but the percentage of the market. The fact the Lotus and Corel do exist does not mean they are effective competition.
If you want to find out about the extremes this can go to, check out the histories of company towns, etc.
Agreed, some folks like having comfortable lives, with someone else doing their thinking for them. But ultimately this is not the best for the society. The profits obtained from this are in many cases only short term, and then you get blind sided when you need a lot more people with initiative, and all you got is a bunch of drones.
Re:penalties are justified (Score:2)
The DoJ settlement is not ABOUT punishing MS. It is widely accepted that punishment will be useless. Ref. the other reply to my comment (the Sherman Act): MS can bat off a $10mil fine without feeling a thing. What then?
This settlement is about correcting the future, not making up for the past. As such we have to be proactive in ensuring that the situation of monopolistic abuse does not arise, but at the same time respect the rights of MS (which has rights as a juristic citizen) and its shareholders.
There are ways to balance that. Unfortunately most people who have the brains to see how much damage MS has done are too anti-MS to consider a route in which they aren't totally removed from the planet.
Re:penalties are justified (Score:2)
As the professor put it, past settlements have at least attempted to force the guilty party to part with the fruits of its illegal behavior.
A substantial fine and strong restrictions on future behavior are both warranted in this case.
Re:penalties are justified (Score:2)
Problem is that a fine appears to be limited by statute. A better solution would be selective voiding of patents and "public domaining" of currently copyrighted material. Which is both unlimited and made available to the US Federal Government through the US Constitution.
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:2)
Maybe on your planet, but here they're as much a competitor to Microsoft Office as Linux is as a desktop OS.
The Sherman Act provides for penalties (Score:4, Interesting)
ugh... (Score:2)
It wasn't a good idea for them to hard code the monetary values into the law. The value of money can change significantly over time. Ten million is a drop in the bucket for Microsoft. Of course the jail time sounds interesting.
Let them do their own work. (Score:2)
If the 'shareholders' want to make a living, let them get fucking jobs.
Im tired of all this 'share-holder' value bullshit.
I work for a company that is SERIOUSLY faultering right now, and our (newly replaced) CEO kept up with the 'share-holder value' shite right to the end... while all of us employees constantly said "HEY, What about us poor bastards who do all the work!!!! Nevermind shareholders - I need this job to feed my family!"
Bottom Line: Fuck the Shareholders.
Re:Let them do their own work. (Score:2)
Bottom Line: if there were no shareholders, you wouldn't have a job in the first place.
I've been in this situation before. I worked February this year and didn't get paid because the company liquidated at the end of the month, and never bothered to inform the employees of its financial situation.
There is a concept called "fidiciary duty": A manager (CEO, whatever) has a duty to THE COMPANY to ensure that THE COMPANY survives; just as a person's survival instinct is a driving force. A manager who ignores making money to appease the employees is ignoring this duty, and endangering the longevity of the company. OTOH a manager who ignores employees by forcing the money issue even when it will hurt the company (either by being a bad business decision or losing employees which are valuable) is also ignoring this duty.
Its a fine line to walk, but ultimately you need money (from shareholders) to make money (from customers) to pay money (to employees).
End of Ecnonomics 101.
Re:Let them do their own work. (Score:2)
"
Yes but that does not give you a licence to commit crimes and does not excuse from punishment once you commit crimes.
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:2)
And no passport either (Score:2)
Worth nothing ... the source code for Windows CE is available for completely free on the Microsoft website. I have a copy. However it is nearly useless because:
So you'll also have to point out delivery method, format, redistribution, and licensing.
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:2)
You forgot prohibiting them from taking a share in competitors, and divesting their current interests. Remind me, how much of Apple do Microsoft currently own?
Microsoft's "freedom to Innovate Network" (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, the irony.
Nice to see that they've had a good sense of humor during all this litigation.
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:2)
Re:Here's what you can write: (Score:3, Interesting)
If any other of my American neighbours correspond w/ their congresscritters I suggest they include, when discussing the 'dual-boot issue', mention of preventing M$ from hindering a system from dual booting.
If MS is forced to "allow dual-booting", in its present form, they will simply change the OS to *not* boot unless it is solo on the box... Ill leave it as an exercise for the reader as to how this may be accomplished bonus prizes to the person who includes a DRMscheme that precludes dual-booting...
MS: "We had to prevent those other OSes from the machine else we would be in violation of the DMCA" - no, im not joking.
Santa Clara County Blues (Score:2)
This is impossible. As most people, who are opposed to American Plutocracy understand, you cannot hinder corporations this way. You see, they are full and equal legal persons protected under the constitution - which is the ROOT CAUSE of the corporate domination of America... this is why there is no political will to break up the MS monopoly... the Plutocratic Government of America knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it... there can be no political will, now or ever in the future, to control capitalism (via anti-trust laws or anything else) as long as this situation remains in America.
See here: The Santa Clara Blues [iiipublishing.com]
IANALBPOO/. (IANAL but play one on slashdot) but I understand there is ANOTHER ruling (much more recent) which gauranteed that corporations are entitled to spend money, without interference to "lobby" (read: bribe) the political system... is anyone farmiliar with this case? I understand it uses SantaClaraCounty as a its legal foundation...
Keep up the pressure (Score:5, Informative)
What bugs me with the proposed US 'settlement' is all those opt outs - the register eloquently outlines the many flaws [theregister.co.uk]. Once again the the excuse of 3v1l h4X0rs is used to allow M$ to hide 'security sensitive' information - who decides what's sensitive? Why M$ of course!
Re:Keep up the pressure (Score:2)
Nah, if the EU ever made Microsoft to pay for their abuse of monopoly, and enforce some penalties, Microsoft would lobby the USA to use WTO to declare the penalties as baseless import regulations.
Then, the US import tolls of European bananas would go up again (remember the hormone meat case?).
You like bananas, not?
Intelligent and Informed, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong! (Score:1)
Re:Intelligent and Informed, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
But you're absolutely right. That's why it's time for slashdotters everywhere to unite and create (and perhaps eventually, when we learn to spell, even present)
1. Why does Microsoft suck?
The issue could be succinctly summarized in two words: anticompetitive behavior. More expressively: effective anticompetitive behavior. Lots of software companies produce offerings that, for whatever reason, some people just don't like. Lots of software companies would like to behave anticompetitively. But only Microsoft seems to be effective in their drive to make sure nobody is using anything else. For those of us that like to make choices about what software we use, this is profoundly disturbing. Those who have already chosen Microsoft or simply don't care may, of course, find this point of view hard to understand. But Microsoft's business plan is simple: whenever possible, don't give the customer a choice except using their software. And they're pretty good at it.
2. Is there any evidence to support the idea that Microsoft is effectively anticompetitive?
There are several court cases that point to this -- most recently, the findings of fact issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Some consider Jackson biased towards Microsoft and therefore feel that his findings might also be biased. Others feel that perhaps his bias was influenced by Microsoft's behavior during the trial.
3. You're just jealous of their success! You'd tear down anyone who was at the top! This is a classic case of jealousy!
Sorry, you must phrase your question in the form of a, well, question.
4. Um, OK. Isn't this sort of thing likely to be a problem with ANYONE who's at the top of the heap?
Yes. But we don't have a problem with applying these standards to anyone. We'd prefer to see companies compete in terms of the merits of their offerings and marketing skills, rather than their ability to lock up and strong arm distribution channels.
Bottom line: most of us don't have a problem with Microsoft's existence, we just a have a problem with them manipulating OEMs and other corps -- heavy-handedly in some cases and illegally in others -- to place themselves as the exclusive purveyor of software/software services in the world.
You wanted intelligent hu... punk?? ;-) (Score:4, Insightful)
What NEEDS to be adressed is the passport system and the
In the end of it, this will mean that we will simply be forced to use Microsoft products because we need a way to authenticate to microsoft servers.
I Really feel that nobody is adressing this problem anywhere, microsoft will just get small tap on hand again but nothing more...
anyone agree or am I just pouring out pure crap?
Missing the Point... (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as the court case goes...Our legal system is doing the best they can to deal with this problem, for which the trial started...I believe 3 years ago.
We want M$ to get more than a slap on the wrist...unfortunately this takes time. I'm sure if the
And remember...if you were innocent, you wouldn't want to be proven guilty cause some fat judge needed his big mac fix. -Corwin StormSinger
Dumb Question (Score:3, Interesting)
the Tunney Act allows/welcomes commentry from non-US citizens?
While I'm here: how does any legal solution rendered in America
affect Microsoft's offshore activity?
The reason I'm asking is, as a British Subject(sic), I'm becoming
increasingly concerned that if thwarted in it's march across
America, Microsoft will increase it's corporate presence in
Britain. Blair and Gates are already pretty chummy so the idea of
Microsoft seeking political exile is a distict possiblity IMO.
Re:Dumb Question (Score:1)
Re:Dumb Question (Score:2)
B. One thing is known for certain: if you don't submit your comments, they won't be read. If you do submit them, they may or may not be read, but at least the possibility exists.
sPh
Not a big enough market... (Score:2)
Moreover, two other factors are involved: the european government, and other companies.
If Microsoft continued to behave badly in Europe after being forced into submission in the US, the European government would no doubt act. Also, other American companies would likely turn around to the American courts and say "see! Look! They're still misbehaving in Europe, and that's costing us customers there!"
However, first we have to see if they actually get any penalty or restrictions, or if they get handed a license to kill.
Davenet on MS (Score:3, Informative)
Dave Winer (co-creator of SOAP among other things, so he has dealt and continues to deal with MS on the interoperability front) has a few things to say [userland.com] about what Microsoft stands to gain, what it stood to lose from the settlement but didn't, and a (plausible, and hopefully incorrect) prediction of what the Government stands to gain from Microsoft controlling the greater Internet. (think Hailstorm/XP plus Carnivore)
I think Dave would be a good person to provide suitably knowledgable 'public comment' for this bill. Read his blog; he's a decent guy to boot :)
Re:Davenet on MS (Score:1)
Let's celebrate the downfall of the USSR by making ourselves like them.
Remember (Score:1)
try openlaw.org (Score:1)
History of abuses (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone written such a history?
Don't just submit comments; MAIL them... (Score:2)
You want a real opportunitiy to make your voice heard? Revert back to pen and paper, write a well-thought-out letter detailing the issues you have with this and send it. If nothing else, the actual writing process seems to stimulate a lot more thought.
Just this once.. bypass the submit button. Kill a tree. Stick a mountain of paper on someone's desk.
Re:Don't just submit comments; MAIL them... (Score:2)
And then FAX it. They are less interested in mail these days.
Re:Don't just submit comments; MAIL them... (Score:2)
Re:Don't just submit comments; MAIL them... (Score:2)
my simple complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
When we talk of monopolies we do not mean that the consumer has no other choice, which is absurd, but rather the consumer is in a position to be lied to and coerced. IBM might have invented FUD, but Microsoft has made an artform and a successful school of marketing based on it. And to make matters worse they direct it not on enterprise level businesses that should know better. But to John Q public, there should be no expectation that john Q should know better.
Some argue that it is just good business, that Microsoft has 85 percent of the Desktop market and should do everything in it's power to maintain it. But that is not the whole story. The same trite crowd that thinks that Microsoft has earned it's position in the market and thinks that it just "out-businessed" the competition would do well to inspect how Microsoft earned that 85%, how it crushed better technologies with it's FUD+Vaporware campaign of the early to middle nineties. And how the badly consumer was cheated.
As the Microsoft apologists argue that Microsoft brought computers to the masses, that windows 95 allowed the blue collar worker a powerful and intuitive OS on inexpensive harware. A counter argument could be made that the competition, if allowed to compete on a playing field that while not level, was fair by the rules of business as established in a post WWII America, would have brought to market more powerful, more intuitive and more accessible technologies.
The horror stories of Netscape and Apple and Stac electronics... etc. etc... are telling, but it is interesting how most companies have dropped the complaints to a large degree because Microsoft is now so monolithic that it is better (more lucritive and "safe") to just cut deals and work with them to bash ones head against them (Read: Apple)
Microsoft became this monolith by stealing, buying, intimidating and coercing. This is not opinion, this is public record and is in the testimony. The reality of Microsoft is that they are now a cornerstone to the technology industry and perhaps even the American economy. Which is sad only in somuch as they will never be forced to atone for the damage they did to innovation and inspiration that the shops they obliterated could have brought to market.
As i type this, there is a talking head on MSNBC, she is talking about airport security, she has just said, "Bill gates could probably come out with a system where a button is pressed and information is brought up on a screen...". Heh, Bill Gates has somehow marketed his name to be synonymous with applied software solutions... That is what the uneducated public thinks, when they think about computers and technology.
Re:my simple complaint (Score:1)
Then you think wrong, assuming that you mean dissolved. I am firmly of the belief that it was the only thing that - in combination with strict no-preferential-treatement remedies that applied to each split up segment in its dealings with the others - would have actually achieved the desired goals.
So, you're saying that Microsoft has such a dominant market share that it's unthinkable to make a major change to that position? What do you think antitrust laws are for? Breaking up small monopolies?
You mean whatever you like, chum, that's exactly what I mean. I mean that when the average consumer goes into the average computer store to buy an average machine, be it Dell, Compaq or anything other than Apple, it comes with Windows, only Windows and always Windows. You and I know better, but Jane Public doesn't, and she shouldn't have to spend weeks (minimum) gaining the basic know-how that is required to source bare components, build a box, and install another OS. Sure, buy a Mac if you like (running only MacOS, which is just as abusive as Wintel, but it's not a monopoly), but remember that Microsoft own 35% of Apple anyway.
I agree with your other points, but there's no need to position yourself as a moderate by saying "Microsoft ain't that bad..." before explaining why they are so bad. ;-)
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
then i realized that there are a lot of retirees, mutual funds, credit unions, pensions etc... etc... that are vested into microsoft so heavily it is scary.
yes, perhaps they should know better, but all to often they really don't. and as bad as i hate Gates and Co. i don't want to hear about anyones grandmother eating Friskies because she took a brokers advice.
that's about the only reason i don't want to see redmond tanked. on every other strata. my vitrol is solid...
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
The way I figure it, it a break-up were to take place, the people invested into Microsoft would be given an option: Equivalent stock in one (or both) of the new companies, or cashing out and taking the value of their stock. Of course, with news of a break-up, stock prices would fall, so option two may not look so good. So I would assume that most people would take the stock option. Assuming two companies created, either wouldn't be all that bad. The OS half would still control 85% of the desktop market, and the other half (which I assume at this point would center around services, ala
However, at this point I doubt that a breakup will happen. Microsoft will, IMO, be allowed to remain a single company. Hopefully, it will be a single company acting within the limits of U.S. and international law (for the first time a long time).
I ain't no freakin' Nostradamus ova hea, but that's the way I see it. Feel free to disagree, call me an idiot, and write nasty things about me on bathroom stalls (I'll never see 'em anyway, what do I care?).
This comment not intended to be interesting, informative, or insightful. If these qualities are discovered, please inform the poster so they can be removed,
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
Now wait just a damn minute. This has been going on for years, and in the public eye. Any broker or individual who is still invested in Microsoft is taking a gamble, at their own risk. The value of shares may fall as well as rise, yadda yadda.
As the intention of an illegal monopoly remedy is (indirectly) to allow competitors to gain market share, that will hammer Microsoft anyway, just over a longer timescale. How many last chances to bail out do we want to gift to Microsoft investors? Isn't the message that if you invest in a company that's clearly been running an abusive monopoly, you're culpable? Ever hear of ethical investment?
Gaining from shares is a gamble, not a right. When share prices fall, someone loses their gamble and takes a beating. Let's not over emotionalise it by assuming it'll be Jane Grandmother.
All this is moot anyway; if I held Microsoft stock right now, I'd be laughing my arse off, because it's only going up from here.
Hurt the economy my ass (Score:2, Insightful)
growth like we have never seen before would occur. This would in turn revive the job market in the tech sector. Spending would be diversified amoung competing companies not the entire IT budget going to on company as it does today.
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
Wasn't this also an argument this the same argument used by cotton growers to argue against the emancipation of slaves?
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
It just ain't so.
How is Microsoft a "cornerstone to the technology industry"? Has Microsoft actually introduced any technology that wasn't already out there? Ok, I have heard that there is something called "Microsoft Research" that supposedly does real research, but whatever it is that they come up with, is at best obscure, and certainly not widely deployed enough to merit being called a "cornerstone."
How is Microsoft a cornerstone to the American economy? Does Microsoft actually contribute to the gross product? Have they actually produced any wealth? Think about that. Some examples of true productivity would be
- A construction worker who turns raw materials into a house.
- A programmer who writes a program that lets people do their work faster,
so that they either spend less time diddling with their computer, or
get more productive work done in the same amount of time of diddling.
- A doctor that turns a sick person into a well person.
- An oil company that that sucks fuel out of the ground, so that is can be
used to move a truck full of food to your grocery store.
- A tobacco company or a crack dealer or a prostitute, who
.. well .. at a
minimum, at least gives people a few minutes of happiness. (Happiness does
have positive economic value; non-mystic materialists (like me :-) would even
say that's what the whole whole ball of wax is all about. Whether these
particular industries actually deliver it, is questionable, so there should
be varying opinions about whether they belong on this list.)
(I got pretty generous near the end of that list.) If you look at Microsoft in that light, it's not a pretty picture.All I see is money being diverted away from productive industries (and other people), into Microsoft's pocket, and those victim industries getting nothing in return. Their computers aren't helping them any better than they were 15 years ago (and in fact, they do less work per dollar spent, when you look at the support costs), so what did they get for all those thousands of dollars that they spent in the '90s? Is it even as much as the fleeting few minutes of pleasure that a crack dealer's customers got?
Microsoft is a parasite that contributes nothing. Killing them would result in a net benefit to the economy. I'm not saying that justifies killing them -- a non-fascist government's job isn't to optimize the economy. Only Microsoft's crimes justify punative measures. But I wish people would quit using the delusional consequences of killing Microsoft, as an excuse for not doing it.
I'm not going to call you a "Microsoft apologist" because it's clear you're not one, but you are still giving them way too much credit and respect. I just think that when people are faced with overwhelming absurdity (such as Microsoft), they just can't believe what they're seeing, and try to somehow make sense out of it, if deluding themselves is the only way to do it.
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Real World: No it's not. Blood is red.
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Real World: Well, _I_ thought blood was red- at least that's what I learned in school.
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Microsoft: Blood is blue!
Real World: All right all right. Let's be reasonable here. You can't have it all your way...
Real World: ...therefore, blood is purple. Oh... and Microsoft contributes something to the economy.
Just because Microsoft claim continually that they are indispensable to the economy doesn't mean they're not outright lying. What if the destruction they've done to the tech sector paved the way for the recession we now have? Do we let them cause even more destruction until we're in a fullblown Depression, except for Bill's bank account?
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
Reality (Score:2)
After major breakups, the stockholders almost always made more money than before the breakup. The combined value of the two (or more) companies after the breakup is usually more than the value of the original company. Don't cry for the stockholders, they'll make a killing.
Re:my simple complaint (Score:2)
At the moment there is little way this can happen. Remove Microsoft and their software will still be there. (However let them move in the direction of
Calls for a 10 questions Interview (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Calls for a 10 questions Interview (Score:2)
I am sure some wordsmith out there can actually make /. sound at least a little impressive. :-)
I can't belive nobody has purchased my Micropoly shirts. It is a hilarious melding of the Monopoly logo with the M$ logo. I am thinking of making these shirts Open Source... Get them here [poundingsand.com]
I agree. Mod up parent. (Score:3, Interesting)
-Free Open File Formats
-Free Open Communication Protocols
-Free Open APIs
-No prorietary 3rd party file formats, API's, and communication protocols.
-60/90 day free an public pre-notice documentation of all changes and additons to Microsoft file formats, communications protocols, and APIs.
-Public Disclosure of OEM agreements
-"Flat rate" OEM agreements, so OEM's can bundle Windows any legal way they want and Microsoft has no recourse.
-Restriction of Licenceing agreements to "Copyright Only"
-Stop all bundleing with the OS. All aplications must be sold as a seperate package, or at least put on a seperate CD.
-Microsoft for a period of 5 years should not be able to invest in/buy out other companies.
-Microsoft must make public all agreements with hardware manufactures.
-The price of Windows must be artificialy price capped using a formula like PRICE = COST_OF_PRODUCTION*1.25 This will ensure that the consumer is paying a true "market" price for the product.
-Auction the rights to develop each Microsoft product for platforms that Microsoft does not support. Microsoft will then give the winner of each auction full acess to the product's source code under a NDA.
-No spinnoff of a Microsoft division can be made into a seperate company for the next 3 years.
I have to disagree.... (Score:2)
Some of the suggestions are quite good. Others are not so good. If you've read my other posts, you know I firmly believe MS is guilty, but that I also want to see the situation fixed properly. I don't want to see the court or the media distracted by unworkable or absurd suggestions.
-Restriction of Licenceing agreements to "Copyright Only"
Not likely. It would be too restrictive, especially in areas where MS does not posess a monopoly. Let them put what they like in the EULA, as long as they comply with the court's decisions on the important matters.
-Stop all bundleing with the OS. All aplications must be sold as a seperate package, or at least put on a seperate CD.
This has been debated to death. There is no objective way to decide what should be included with the OS and what should be a separate application. This is just unworkable.
Microsoft for a period of 5 years should not be able to invest in/buy out other companies.
I'm not qualified to comment on the legality of this point, but it does seem questionable. Now I know that when a company is split, it can't re-merge for some period of time. But I'd like to hear what others have to say on this issue. What pitfalls are there? Are there any precedents for this?
The price of Windows must be artificialy price capped using a formula like PRICE = COST_OF_PRODUCTION*1.25 This will ensure that the consumer is paying a true "market" price for the product.
Umm... it's not a "true 'market' price" if it's set artificially. Correct the other factors that allow them to price their product artificially high and coerce consumers, and this price-setting will be unnecessary.
Auction the rights to develop each Microsoft product for platforms that Microsoft does not support. Microsoft will then give the winner of each auction full acess to the product's source code under a NDA.
If you make their APIs, protocols, and file formats open, this problem goes away.
No spinnoff of a Microsoft division can be made into a seperate company for the next 3 years.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. Although there should be a clause in the ruling that would make these rules apply to whomever receives transfer of Microsoft "intellectual property." Just so that they can't simply sell Windows off to another corporation without transferring the obligations as well.
I have a better idea. (Score:2)
(wipes the coffee off the screen) (Score:1)
I gotta stop doing that...
Not politically motivated--the current deal when the DOJ was inexplicably *cowed* despide their victories left and right?
I don't know, but I recall hearing "Those that do not engage in politics, will invariably be done in by it".
Sadly, this is the current situation with the tech sector/slashdot crowd. Heck, I'm just as guilty of "being too busy" or "I'll never make a difference" kind of defeatist thinking.
I'm going to finish the articl and clean the coffee off my work area, and then I'll think of a question that should be asked.
Fantastic oportunity. Where's the central site? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't use any MS software to make your complaints! (Score:1)
Serious question.. please reply constructively.. (Score:3, Interesting)
My question to all North Americans: does it bother you that the USA legal system (as this case confirms) seems to consist of nothing more than 'who has more money eventually wins regardless'?
If Microsoft were a small company or individual with no substantial wealth, this case would have been concluded years ago and a more fair and justified judgement would have been in place. Just what is it that makes it possible for Microsoft and other huge companies to effectively stall and convolute the US legal system until the situation becomes favourable to them?
As a European, I practically dismiss the US legal system as merely a tool for large corporate bodies to use in a similar way as they use other available mechanisms for economic jousting. In a similar way, the 'lobbying' system the USA has in politics (we normally call this 'bribery' here) seems to be another fine tool for the comporations to use.
Wrong number, please try again (Score:4, Funny)
If by "intelligent and informed" you mean "half-baked and uninformed", then you've got the right place. Otherwise, you should note that your email was inadvertently posted to Slashdot.
:)
Heh.... (Score:2)
Some Points (Score:4, Informative)
Any written comments relating to such proposal and any responses by the United States thereto, shall also be filed with such district court and published by the United States in the Federal Register within such sixty-day period.
2) The act does not actually require responses to be listened to. All that is required is that they be published in the Federal Register.
3) The biggest problem with the government case is the behavior of the judge.
4) The second biggest problem is that the case the DoJ made in the trial is not the one made out on Slashdot.
5) The appeals court reversed substantial parts of Jackson's 'findings of fact'. In particular they rejected the view that they were bound to consider a statement to be a statement of fact and not a conclusion. As a result Jackson's findings of fact mean very little because most of the findings slashdotters are enjoying are conclusatory opinions that would not have been binding on the new judge in the retrial.
Somewhere along the line the DoJ was captured by Sun, Netscape et. al. The legitimate case against the MSFT licensing arrangements was not given anywhere near the attention it deserved in the trial. Instead the DoJ case was largely made on the basis of Netscape's view of the injustices Netscape felt had been done to them.
It is not surprising then that the remedy is not what many on Slashdot would want. The DoJ did not bring a case against MSFT integrating the Web browser APIs deep into the operating system. In fact the DoJ explicitly denied that it was doing so because by doing so it could claim that MSFT was lying when it said it could not remove IE from the O/S. As a result we now have a court rulling that requires the user to be able to remove the IE user interface application but not the dlls it calls. The IE platform is absolutely untouched by the settlement.
Re:Reference please? (Score:2)
"I didn't read the judgement but the reports of the judgement I read on slashdot said that the court decided Gates was the antichrist"
I read the judgement, as reported in most of the press it overturns the finding that integrating IE into windows was illegal tying.
The main, best option... (Score:2)
would be to require M$, from now to infinity, to publish ALL the protocols/APIs/perversions they make to standard communication protocols AND do the same for any completely M$ created protocols under GPL.
I don't give a crap for their software, per say, but I would like to see a termination now and forever, of "embrace and extend" simply for the purpose of breaking what is fully working and OK - in order to lock people in to M$ shitcode.
If M$ can't produce propriatory APIs or communication protocols, they would have to accept real competition because ANYONE could produce fully interfunctioning alternatives to any M$ app. Only the best would survive and M$ would actually have to work and, for the first time EVER, innovate and produce robust code. They would never again be able to artificially lockout an alternative app because the app doesn't (and cannot) know the communication protocols.
here are states that reportedly settled: (Score:2)
- Ohio
- North Carolina
- New York
- Michigan
- Kentucky
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Louisiana
- Wisconsin
and the nine states that did not are:Decision should NOT be Linux-centric. (Score:2)
- All agreements and contracts between MS and computer manufacturers should be declared null and void. The court should force Microsoft to enter into a fair agreement with PC vendors that does not force them to make users pay a "Windows tax" if they do not want Windows preinstalled on their new CD.
- The court should enforce that users of MS operating systems should be allowed to EASILY change or remove any default software component not needed for regular OS operation. This includes Internet Explorer, Virtual Machines (ie Java), Windows Media Player, firewalling software, etc.
- Microsoft software should be changed so that it does not "trick" users into signing up for features and services that they don't actually need, such as Passport.
- By default, all "net reporting" by Microsoft Software to MS should be turned OFF. Windows XP
activation codes should be disabled.
- Microsoft should be forced to open all of their protocols that are essential for connectivity between Windows and non-Windows machines.
This will prevent the "TCP/MS" situation that was rumored a few months ago.
Take it easy! (Score:2)