Microsoft Anti-Trust Rulings Due Tomorrow 533
ewhac writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will deliver her opinions on the Microsoft anti-trust suit tomorrow, after close of markets. Much speculation revolves around whether she will approve or reject the settlement negotiated by the Justice Department. Should she reject it, she can only offer suggestions for improvement; she cannot impose amendments. Watch this site for further developments :-)." Reader acacia points out that the opinions should be posted at this site, if you want a quick bookmark.
The missing element: (Score:5, Insightful)
who? (Score:5, Funny)
What does IBM have to do with the Microsoft antitrust trial?
Re:The missing element: (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's PR goons work hard to broaden this topic to derail any conversation non-lawyers might attempt, so here's the obligatory recap to head off the trolls and astroturfers:
- It is not illegal to obtain a monopoly in a particular market. However, it is illegal to use that monopoly to crush competition and move into other markets.
- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft guilty of abusing its monopoly power and ordered to company split into two entities -- one would be centered around the Windows product and the other would be centered around Office.
- An appeals court threw out the breakup ruling on the grounds that Jackson was biased (he granted interviews to reporters prior to releasing his decision, a practice that is frowned upon in legal circles but one that Jackson has championed in the past as important to keeping the public informed about the decisions made in the courts). However, it affirmed the judgment that Microsoft abused its monopoly.
- The case was sent to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in search of a new, unbiased remedy. Kollar-Kotelly initially urged the two sides (Microsoft on one side, the U.S. Department of Justice and 18 state attorneys general on the other) to reach a settlement on their own, with a highly-regarded judge arbitrating. IIRC, these talks went nowhere and the case returned to Kollar-Kotelly.
- A regime change took place (George W. Bush was appointed President of the United States, with a non-trivial amount of financial assistance from Microsoft and its employees), and the DOJ, which ultimately reports to the president, conveniently reached a settlement that:
- Microsoft tried to force public acceptance of the settlement by announcing that it has already met the conditions. However, Kollar-Kotelly has yet to approve the settlement.
- On Nov. 1, 2002, after 4:00 p.m. EST, Kollar-Kotelly is expected to announce her opinions in both cases.
My View (as a journalist and engineer who has been closely watching this case for over four years)- benefits Microsoft
- costs Microsoft nothing
- aids some consumers in the short term
- hurts all consumers in the long term
Nine state attorneys general (who feel they have more important things to worry about during their terms in office) have signed on to the settlement. The remaining nine refused to accept the settlement and the case has essentially forked.Microsoft often complains that it's being "punished for being successful" to draw attention from the focus of the case, so let's get this out of the way: I don't care about punishment. I want to see a remedy that protects the market and consumers.
When a person is convicted of driving under the influence, the authorities don't just hand his keys back and say "we'll be watching you." They take away his license for the benefit of society.
Since MS has demonstrated that it can not handle a monopoly responsibly, an effective remedy must remove the company's ability to violate anti-trust laws in the future. It doesn't get any second chances (as an an irresponsible driver might) because its illegal actions were well-planned and driven by malice (with intent to destroy its competitors, illustrated by such colorful metaphors as "cut off Netscape's air supply").
If Kollar-Kotelly announces such a remedy, Microsoft will complain that the government is inappropriately interfering with a market it doesn't understand, and it will try to discredit Kollar-Kotelly by accusing her of bias or incompetence.
No matter what her opinions turn out to be, this will not be the end of the case. Whichever of the three sides is displeased will appeal to SCOTUS and it will be at least another year or two before we see a definitive decision.
However, tomorrow's news will help shape the central arguments of the SCOTUS fight.
Re:The missing element: (Score:4, Informative)
An appeals court threw out the breakup ruling on the grounds that Jackson was biased
The appellate court actually said "we find no evidence of actual bias ". They overturned Jackson because he violated judicial standards about talking to the press which could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
-
Re:The missing element: (Score:3, Informative)
Antr-Trust Suit... anti-trust suit.. antitrustsuit (Score:4, Funny)
I'm at the point where I picture an anti-trust suit as being the last thing you'd want to wear on a blind date. Basically, the opposite of a technicolor dreamcoat.
Re:Antr-Trust Suit... anti-trust suit.. antitrusts (Score:2)
No, it's something you wear in a cleanroom.
Oh wait, that's an anti-static suit.
Re:Antr-Trust Suit... anti-trust suit.. antitrusts (Score:5, Funny)
This is new... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait to see how this turns out. I think this is the first time I've anxiously anticipated a Microsoft anything.
Re:TCan't wait to see how it turns out (Score:2)
.
Re:This is new... (Score:5, Funny)
7 years later.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully court cases can start moving at a O(1) pace instead of a O(N^2) pace.
I do however think this situation is different from the big tabbacco lawsuits that we saw from "The Insider" movie (eg they have enough money and time to wait out a 15 year lawsuit) since the comp field is far more dynamic than simple ol cigarettes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Republican bias (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft will quickly get back to their old dirty tricks of forcing their products upon consumers, without fear of government penalties. At best, they'll get a slap on the wrist, and we'll see Palladium-enforced computers at every electronics store we visit within 5 years.
Re:Republican bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge Jackson was also a Reagan appointee. And yet he took the time to "get it" (by which I mean that he managed to educate himself enough about the technology to see through the smoke screens Microsoft's lawyers put up), and his ruling ripped the company a new one.
So Judge Kollar-Kotelly may yet rule in favor of Microsoft, but her being a Reagan appointee doesn't guarantee that at all.
its our money (Score:2)
Re:Republican bias (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Republican bias (Score:5, Insightful)
> Considering that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by the very conservative Ronald Reagan
Judges sometimes show remarkable independence after being "packed" onto the bench.
> and the Justice Department is under control of the reactionary John Ashcroft
Judges don't generally suck up to whoever is running the JD.
Looking at her record would probably give a better prediction of her behavior.
Re:Republican bias (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Republican bias (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
Halloween (Score:4, Funny)
Beyond the obvious symbolic context, I wouldn't might being part of an unruly mob with pitchforks and torches storming towards the Bill Gate's version of Frankenstein's castle.
Re:Halloween (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Halloween (Score:2)
girl talk (Score:4, Funny)
This will give her to time call her good friend, Martha Stewart, first.
Re:girl talk (Score:2)
MSFT tanks all day on the expectations of bad news and after a huge sell-off.
Bad News.
Profit?
Its too big (Score:2)
But then again I was too young to know what the break up of AT&T did (in the short term), but in the long run it seems to me that it helped.
Re:Its too big (Score:2)
MS has been convicted of being a huge monopoly, and monopolies survive by stifling competition and innovation that threaten them. So hamstringing a huge monopoly is beneficial to the economy - it lets in new players, new technologies, new industries that are kept out by the big guy. Those new competitors will force down prices by virtue of their competitive products (a MS OS and an Office suite can now set you back twice the cost of the PC hardware), people will buy more technology, the recession will end, there will be peace and dancing the the streets, and dinner will be hot and on-time every day.
Go Colleen!
Re:Its too big (Score:2)
Re:Its too big (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone said my company enjoyed "Monopoly Power" and it was true, based on findings of fact, wouldn't I have to be a *MONOPOLY* to be able to enjoy "Monopoly Power"?
Based on your reasoning, it's like saying that I have presidental power, for example. Wouldn't I have to be a president to enjoy those powers?
Unless someone clarifies this for me, it's only fair to assume that in the findings of fact of Microsoft, the court did pretty much say Microsoft is a monopoly.
too true (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you might argue that increaced price competition in the software industry will only cause further harm to an already sick area of our economy, but I disagree.
For example.
Our company provides custom programming services to shopping malls. If our shopping mall clients could save $3000 dollars from their annuall operations budgets by spending less on Microsoft products then they now have $3000 more that they can give to me.
Of that $3000 bucks I give Uncle Sam $800, and now have $2200 to save of spend. I know that money sitting in the bank does our economy no good so being a good citizen I go out and buy a new iBook.
The money keeps circulating in the economy.
Money that is not spent on Microsoft products will be spent elsewhere. Trust me if Microsoft crumbles (and it won't any time soon)the economy will survive. Increased competition might even help it.
Money sitting in a bank (Score:2, Insightful)
In the market, money is a limited resource. In the bank, the money is growing. The more money grows, the more taxes the government can take in the long run.
Don't be fooled by elementary economics.
Re:Money sitting in a bank (Score:3, Interesting)
Buy money owners couldn't care less earning less from having the money sitting in the bank, they are now "safe". Also, many projects are canceled in real life, because demand falls and thus you have extra capacity (you only need capital reposition, if anything). So new projects get postponed because of lack of oportunities.
So what would be desirable? To let companies AND people that will NOT sit their own revenues or even wealth. Of course, we all know that these are companies that either do reinvest all their extra earnings and people that consume all their income.
When this start getting cold, you need the "rich" individuals to start spending money (thepoor have already DONE that! They have no choice) and the rich (=very profitable) companies as well (the others are already speding all their income!)
So your argument COULD be not wrong. But it is in fact wrong. People cannot really find very good project to start right now. And the only ones that can decide to use that money ANYWAY are the ones that own that money. That is Microsoft et al (money bank sitters).
If they don't do it, then the goverment must do it. So you can expect a lot of deficit. And many taxes raised (so they can take away profiting power from the profiters that are not spending it, and then Spend It Right Away. Of course, this hurts companies that where not very profitable). Well, all this means inefficiency and can be a very dangerous game.
I don't really know how can people speak SO HIGH when there a lots of capable human beigns unemployed all over the countries, and a lot of factories underutilized. Is this an efficient use of resources?
And no, money is a limited resource only when it is beign used! Not when sitting in banks. (and if you want to force loans at near 0 interest rates and such, you'll see banks collapsing after a while, because loaned money will be used in stupid projects that can't pay the loans back, and the low margin of intermediation will not compensate the loses.).
So no... the right thing to do is not to profit from monopoly and make it sit on the bank for the "goodwill of the US citizen". The thing is to actually have them to use the money. And they don't want that (after all, shareholders can simple just SELL the stock if they want cash).
The next "Switch" ad. (Score:5, Funny)
It devoured my judgement.
It was really a good judgement.
And then I had to do it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good. It's kind of a...bummer.
I'm Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and I'm a judge.
Of course.... (Score:3, Funny)
Basically this is going to be pointless, she has no juris-my-diction to do anything except change there closing price!! What is the point?
Ahh well, if all else fails, maybe everyone else can just convert to Macintoshes and run Darwin
Worried because of the stock price (Score:2, Interesting)
While I am hopeful, I am also fearful because Microsoft's shares rose in price today, meaning Wall street doesn't have to much faith in Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
Re:Worried because of the stock price (Score:3, Informative)
she can not impose? (Score:3, Insightful)
wow gotta love this government... Judges cannot impost judgements =)
Re:she can not impose? (Score:2, Informative)
Her recommendations, if she gives them, are simply "here's a framework for what this settlement should look like. You better be close to this next time you show up here in my courtroom".
it's a fair settlement (Score:2, Funny)
A bad omen for the NBMers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A bad omen for the NBMers (Score:5, Insightful)
The DOJ sold out on this settlement with Microsoft. I have no doubts that a Gore administration would have done just the same, but Charles James really screwed up on this one. The major indicator of how crappy the settlement was is that none of the career antitrust attorneys at the DOJ signed on the settlement. That is an act that is never done by the DOJ. The Washington Post ran a story that was obviously leaked by the career attorneys talking about how Charles James insisted that he should be the only one negotiating with MS, so he and the MS lawyer were sitting in the room together with the MS lawyer dictating what the settlement should be.
One major question that no one has thought about is how this decision will affect the races for Attorney General that are going on now. The elections are on Tuesday, and three of the resisting AGs are in very tight races. I suspect that the settlement will be rejected, and the judge will state that she thinks there should be a more stringent settlement. Microsoft will then appeal this ruling to the DC Cicuit, where her decision will be upheld. Then, the appeal to the Supreme Court will be VERY interesting.
Anti-Trust Not-Yet-News (Score:2)
Re:Anti-Trust Not-Yet-News (Score:2)
Talk about your stock gamble. (Score:2, Insightful)
Supreme court next (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually Microsoft is punishing themselves more than the court probably will with their new licensing.
SC Decides Their Case Load Not MS (Score:3, Informative)
What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:2)
How will this ruling (when it comes out) affect the 9 rebels? Will they be bound by her ruling, or will that segment of the trial continue?
Re:What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:2)
Re:What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that's not true. Judge Jackson's ruling has been thrown out, because of questions over his impartiality, and the case was sent back for re-evaluation. However, Kollar-Kotelly is perfectly within her rights to decide that a breakup is the right thing to do after all. Of course, she's a different person and may have a different opinion than Jackson, but she's certainly allowed to have the same opinion.
Re:What about the 9 dissenters? (Score:2)
My suggested ruling (Score:2, Funny)
Cheers,
Ethelred [grantham.de]
Opinion... (Score:4, Funny)
Judge: Settlement approved. Microsoft, you're naughty.
Microsoft: I want a second opinion.
Judge: Ok, you're ugly, too.
Ba doom boom...
MS is immune (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MS is immune (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, sorry, thanks for playing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzt. You lose. Microsoft is a legal monopoly. Acquiring this status does not require you hold 100% of the market; rather only something like 85%. Even this is probably a little lenient. Being a monopoly is also not illegal, as long as you don't abuse it.
Nice logic. Coke and Pepsi do bad things and aren't monopolies. Microsoft does bad things. Therefore, MS isn't a monopoly.
Humans eat food and water, and aren't cows. Cows eat food and water. Therefore, cows aren't cows.
Yeah. This should happen. You don't go quite far enough, but we're at least on the same page here.
Unfortunately, you're rather naive if you think monopolies should be left to run unchecked. In a perfect system, either monopolies couldn't happen, or they would run their natural course and die.
The problem is, this isn't a perfect system. Look at the RIAA, MPAA, even Microsoft lobbies; when corporations can fund lawmaking, legislate their business model, and outlaw their competition, the system doesn't work.
The checks and balances are there for a reason. You take those away, and everything topples. Right now, it's leaning precariously.
You know what we need? (Score:5, Funny)
A /. poll so we can guess the outcome.
What do you think the judgement will be?
Heck, that's worth wagering on. Anyone for SlashBet [slashbet.org]?
Re:You know what we need? (Score:3, Informative)
Money guarentees we won't get a proper result (Score:3, Insightful)
A report I have not seen on slashdot lately, and unfortunately I cannot confirm, is that Microsoft was eyeing major Real Estate in Canada around the time the White house and Attorney General's office was making the transistion to Bush/Ashcroft.
This action would have scared the shit out of the Clinton admininstration, even if they didn't act on it. The current administration probably felt it wasn't worth it to try to completely kill Microsoft and lose billions in tax dollars. They also probably saw that $40 billion war chest and said "Crap, that's enough money to move them out of the country, and we won't see any taxes on it."
If anyone has anything that could confirm this I would appreciate replies added (and a mod up to show them to everyone
Re:Money guarentees we won't get a proper result (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the ruling took so long (Score:5, Funny)
If it's approved... (Score:3, Funny)
OK, I guess there's Australia and Canada...
Just To Get You Started... (Score:5, Informative)
Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.
Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org [opensecrets.org]. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...
Re:Just To Get You Started... (Score:4, Interesting)
since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings
The anti-trust hearings were started under Bush Sr.
A little lesson in MS programming... (Score:3, Funny)
bool winCase();
void goAppeal() {
if !winCase() goAppeal();
}
bool winCase() {
if (current.getStranglehold()>prev.getStranglehold () && current.getIncome()>prev.getIncome() && current.getPower()>gov.getPower()) return true;
else return false;
}
What do we want? (Score:3, Interesting)
DOJ will email you the decision (Score:5, Informative)
Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
The proper way to break MS up isn't breaking it into hardware, software, and OS parts. That's idiotic, and would just create 3 more monopolies in the hardware, software, and OS areas. What you need to do is split MS up vertically and horizontally. That is, split it up by departmental lines; then also split up each department into multiple companies.
If they're to be split up, they should be split up into software, hardware, and OS components; then the software, hardware, and OS components should be split up further. This way, several MSlets would be competing in regards to an OS. This destroy's the OS monopoly.
Of course, the problem with this is that Windows is so universal that their products might still continue to dominate by inertia, even though they're inferior. Thus, careful consideration needs to be taken in deciding whether to split them up or punish them harshely.
If we're to punish them, we need to demand they release the source for their standards, and release the source for the various parts of the OS which programs directly interact with; this will allow competitors to make products which can compete against MS natives on MS Windows. We also need them to open up these specifications so other OS's like Linux can offer better emulation layers for Windows. You need to prevent MS from blackballing OEMs and the like. You need to give OEMs the right to modify Windows any way they choose before selling it. You need to ensure that MS can't enter into any contract with OEMs which would prevent or dissuade them from also offering Linux or BSD on their computer. Also, large fines should be imposed on MS, the money from which would be used to bring drivers and software to competing OS'. The only way that GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga SDK, and *BSD can compete with MS is if they have alot of software support and alot of hardware support. The problem is that software and hardware companies won't offer their software/drivers for alternate OS' unless those OS' are popular; and those OS' won't become popular unless they have large software and hardware support. Hence, a hellish cycle which favors the current monopoly, MS. The main consideration of the government should be to break that cycle and allow all OS' to compete on their merits.
Don't sell the Judge short! (Score:5, Insightful)
This judgement is not very important (Score:5, Interesting)
But this DOJ has shown no interest to enforce the antitrust law. This makes the case a farce - a conflict between two parties that basicly agree on the issues, but only want to pretend to disagree.
The judge can refuse to approve the agreement but what if she does - if the government doesnt seek sanctions she wont impose them. The best she may do is elicit another agreement, which is guaranteed to be just as inefective.
On top of everything the judicial system has responded in a very unprofessional manner. The appelate court chose not to try and overturn judge jackson on the facts ( they will need to write a good logical justification, based on the evidence, to do that) but to pummel him with ethics accusations.
The current judge knows very well that Jackson got punished for rendering a certain decision and she is unlikely to do anything similar if she cares about her career at all.
Anittrust Ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
1) No real motion to do anything about Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. They (MS) already bought most of the legal system to insure the ruling stands, regardless if it is legal or not.
So don't expect any of that to change, now or in the future. Yes, the legal system in the US is that bad, even after Enron.
2) Expect however, for Microsoft to set a number of legal precendents (such as the keeping of its monopoly power by this judge and others sure to come) that insure other very large companies to consider the same tactics to consolidate thier power in other markets in the US outside the tech industry. (i.e. clothing, energy, automotive
I expect as this unfolds, the US economy to become even MORE monolithic, and even MORE depressed as more innovation moves offshore to escape the corporate monoliths of invincibility in this country.
3) Expect other companies to use the same illegal tactics Microsoft has, and then use court rulings to either make "the law" (i.e. specifically anti trust law, cohesion, cartle laws..etc) irrelevant or insure the the legal costs are so high, defending companies will not intrude on companies with 51% market share anywhere.
Don't expect good news people. It is sad because I want my country to return to the good times. But that won't happen, when companies like Microsoft can sit on 30 Billion in capital and lock it away for the specific use to buy court rulings, and congreessional leaders. SInce this money isn't returned into the economy startups can't use it, ideas don't get funded, and little Johnny will continue to see the cost of the OS increase to the point it is 70% the cost os a home computer! (Which is comming by the way, as hardware prices continue to decline, Microsoft licenses continue to increase at never before seen rates...)
Monolithic economies, like the US, do not spur innovation, because large corporate entities who already own most of the market don't have to innovate anymore. They just sit on huge amounts of capital, and do nothing with it except harrass competition, startups, and illegally appropriate technology from other companies and figure out how to price fix thier products in the market place.
The harm that does to the technology investment sector in the US is incalculable, and the job losses are staggering.
Think about this while all you slashdot IT people sit at home unemployed.
Don't buy Microsoft products. Force Microsoft to return that ridiculously large pile of cash back into the tech sector.
Who knows, if the are forced to use all of it, maybe they will make a decent product with it, or improve the alpha quality of the
Hack
Re:Anittrust Ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
So don't expect any of that to change, now or in the future. Yes, the legal system in the US is that bad, even after Enron.
On what do you base this cynicism about the US legal system?
In the Microsoft case, for example, there's been nothing but well thought-out opinions handed down, thus far. I even agree that Penfield showed the appearance of inpropriety.
MS & Trust (Score:4, Funny)
Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Force all the head honchos from Microsoft (Bill Gates, etc..) to leave the company and to have no financial stake in Microsoft.
Of course, being as greedy as they are, they will create a rival company to Microsoft and have billions to put behind it. Now that would be interesting. I wonder if any of Bill's hired henchmen could possibly be more evil than he is?
A nice look back at the trial (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microso
This is a great writeup from a guy who had a lot of access to the players with the understanding that he wouldn't publish until after the trial. I wish it would get turned into a book.
My favorite part about this is how it shows you the isolation that Gates and others live(d) in--he really seems to think he was innocent.
Another interesting revelation in this is that Gates micromanaged the law team.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but think that the bigger PC retailers weren't exactly kicking and screaming over an exlusive arrangement like that until MS's anti-trust allegations came around. If you think about it, 1 OS was good for places like Gateway or Dell or even IBM. Only one OS to support. Computers only needed one OS installed. That one OS ran everything people wanted on their computers, including games.
If you think about it, MS didn't always have the power to dictate who can use what. I think the odds are pretty good that the retailers themselves were happy to get into those agreements, early on at least.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, IBM was soooo confused... "OS/2 Warp or Windows?"
If you think about it, MS didn't always have the power to dictate who can use what. I think the odds are pretty good that the retailers themselves were happy to get into those agreements, early on at least.
The problem isn't even really with the OS. Remember at one time it cost money for Netscape (because it was [imho:is] the premier product). If someone wanted to strike a deal with Netscape and put it right on the installed OS's desktop... they can't! AOL? Out of the question! Now you must pay more because you haven't given Microsoft the mindshare they wanted.
I guess this is why Dell complained about these things at trial?
Companies always want to be told how to do their business.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a common misconception, and I have no idea where it comes from.
For example, the Packard Bell computer I had at work in 1998 came with Netscape Navigator pre-installed.
The issues wasn't putting Netscape on there - it was that you couldn't put Netscape on there and remove the shortcut to Internet Explorer.
Similarly, most copies of Windows come with an AOL installer built in. The issue isn't putting it in there - it's that Microsoft want MSN to get the same exposure.
So it's not quite as cut and dried as you seem to want to make it out to be. The OEMs *can* do all of these things -- they just have to leave Microsoft's stuff in there as well, as prominently advertized as the alternatives.
Simon
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:3, Interesting)
So as long as you don't control the entire software bussiness, you are in risk of getting your revenue stream killed by Microsoft. If they REALLY want to, they could kill you. If you depend on a revenue stream, better not get in the way of Microsoft. It doesn't matter how innovative or well done your product is (ICQ, webmail, whatever), they will just put it free.
No wonder why AOL can't make revenues and Microsoft can. Because Micrsoft just needs 2 or 3 products to be sold to compensate ALL the loses in ALL the other fields (read: Office + Windows + some other products pay for everything).
And then they keep on "embracing and extending". That's why they must be stopped. They MUST be split, so they cannot leverage their positions. I lve Windows, I love Office, I love Explorer, I love . But I don't love them leveraging that so wipe competition. I can only lose in the long/mid term.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:3, Interesting)
Then how does Opera Software [opera.com] stay afloat?
I used to be a huge fan of Netscape. In many ways, NS3/X11 was (and still is) one of the best browsers ever made. Back when the phrase "browser wars" had any relevance, I consistently rooted for Netscape, and I have always and likely will always despise MSIE.
But the sad fact is that Netscape lost because they got overconfident and started sucking. Badly. NS4 was an unadulterated pile of tripe on every platform I've ever had the misfortune to see it running on. (I'm of the firm opinion that Netscape's sending JWZ to play on other projects was a large reason for this.)
From extremely unstable Java, JavaScript, and plugin handling, to a broken DOM, to broken font handling, to simple unmitigated flouting of Web standards, NS4 was a nightmare for developers, system administrators, and end users. And let's not forget that NS4's claim of implementing CSS, while deploying the most insane and broken implementation known to humanity, singlehandedly held back the Web by 2 or 3 years.
My experience with Netscape, the company, seems to bear this out. When I worked for a large company supposedly in a "strategic alliance" with them, they refused to even answer the phone when their phones showed it was us calling. I personally knew several people tasked with deploying Netscape products at the enterprise level, and the painful and unsupported hacks we had to put in place leave me cringing even now. We were supposed to be using the iPlanet server everywhere, but my manager had us use Apache and a third-party servlet engine after Netscape refused to implement basic Java servlet APIs and their configuration manager trashed our configs. When I later worked at a startup, we had one of the Netscape execs at our company, and he was still convinced that his old company's server products would win the day. Netcraft statistics meant nothing to him -- it was as if they didn't even exist -- and he seemed puzzled why everyone refused to mouth platitudes about it.
I use (unbranded) Mozilla now, and I'm very happy with it, but keep in mind that this is basically a complete redesign and rewrite of Netscape, years too late. Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, and other browsers may win back market share, but it is far too late for Netscape, the company, and for good reason.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:4, Interesting)
This product was intended to be installed on a system that has an existing Windows installation. What it did was add a few files to an existing Win31 setup, so that it could run under OS/2. This means that you did not have to migrate your Win16 apps to the os/2 install as well as the windows install.
Netscape
Anyone who was familiar with pre-netscape internet would probably know that browsers supported http:, and for other sessions like ftp: or gopher:, you needed other applications. Netscape integrated this into a user-friendly browser, and charged money for their bit.
Microsoft fielded IE, and charged money for it, too. But when MS did not get the market share they wanted, they first dropped the price, and then bounded it to the OS.
It's not difficult to make a Windows 95b install that has no internet browser on install. It took me an afternoon to patch the install to do it. It works quite well. It just shows that the ties are artefacial, not technical.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:2)
When did Netscape stop being inferior? It's still slow and it's a memory hog compared to IE. Not only that, but they waited 2 years to release a new version. They tiptoed along while MS was happily updating IE, making new useful features, and making it error-resistent.
Sorry, Netscape lost because they didn't keep up. Pity, they could have easily fought off MS if they had actually put some thought into fixing the problems that users found annoying.
Re:Imagine a world run by OS2 (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is that there wouldn't have been any PC clone companies were it not for MS. The only reason they exist is that MS insisted on the right to license DOS to 3rd parties and IBM foolishly agreed.
I suspect that had IBM decided otherwise, personal computers would be more expensive and Apple would have a significantly larger market share.
Re:Imagine a world run by OS2 (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM were a convicted monopolist long before OS/2 appeared on the scene. IBM is a hardware company who make software. Their software is none the less good.
For being such a loser product, it does a pretty good attempt of staying alive. Its community is every bit as vibrant as that of Linux, despite being a closed source operating system. Why. It was the firstest with the mostest. OS/2 v 3 now has USB support. Hmm. Not Windows NT 4.
IBM also complied with the antitrust people.
It must never be forgotten that the roots of Linux lies in yet another anti-trust case: that of AT&T. They developed unix, and the source code for unix was released under assorted agreements and restrictions of antitrust. This became the foundation of the open-source stuff.
On the other hand, MS tightened the screws in every way they are legally allowed to, such as using massive reserves to literally capture markets with loss-leaders. I do not trust MSFT.
What bias? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which makes me wonder. If Microsoft had really been trying to win the case on the merits, then their legal team was so incompetent they should all have been fired. I haven't heard they had, though, which makes me wonder if this all went more or less according to plan. Maybe they wanted to infuriate Judge Jackson so much that he would make just the kind of mistake he wound up making. Doesn't it seem to anyone else that from that point on, the MS lawyers suddenly started performing like the legal Dream Team they were supposed to be instead of the fuckups they'd been up to that point? If that's true, they must have been deeply disappointed that only Jackson's penalty was vacated and his finding of fact was left to stand.
This may surprise those of you who believe that conservative judges always rule politically, like liberal activist judges, but many conservative judges prefer to rule based on fairly strict constructions of the actual law rather than legislate from the bench. No less a towering conservative figure than Robert Bork, Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, believes that MS should be broken up, and he literally wrote the book on the conservative approach to antitrust law. Based on the stories I've read about the trial so far, I expect Judge Kollar-Kotelly to come down rather harsher on MS than some of you seem to fear.
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of Jackson's rulings were overturned because he violated judicial standards about talking to the press which could lead to the appearance of impropriety.
As for a proper solution, that's a tough one. Microsoft anti-competitive tactics are rampant throughout their bussiness dealings. Simply fixing the OEM licensing contracts isn't going to accomplish anything.
I don't know if a break-up is a good idea or not, but it is about the only ruling I can think of that would be sweeping enough to keep them from continuing with anti-competitive tactics that aren't on some short list of prohibitited activities.
A truely massive financial penaly might be enough to put some fear of breaking the law into them, but I think that may not be an available option.
-
Re:Considering how biased the first judge was (Score:2)
Terminology Lesson:
Tax avoidance is perfrectly legal; i.e. contributing to a 401K plan is tax avoidance.
Tax evasion on the other hand is illegal; i.e. claiming extra exemptions on your income tax.
The phrase "illegal tax avoidance scheme" is actually an oxymoron.
ObSimpsons (Score:3)
But what about tax avoision?
Re:Running XP? (Score:2)
resdcn.gtwy.uscourts.gov - - [30/Jul/2002:08:34:03 -0500] " stuff HTTP/1.0" 200 2054 "stuff" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)"
rchdcn.gtwy.uscourts.gov - - [17/Oct/2002:16:33:52 -0500] "GET stuff HTTP/1.1" 200 1184 "stuff" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)"
rchdcn.gtwy.uscourts.gov - - [16/Oct/2002:16:11:20 -0500] "GET stuff HTTP/1.1" 200 4706 "stuff" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; T312461)"
resdcn.gtwy.uscourts.gov - - [08/Oct/2002:08:26:30 -0500] "GET stuff HTTP/1.0" 200 31748 "stuff" "Wget/1.8.1"
Re:Halloween Documents 2 (Score:2, Informative)
Just as earnings statements are released after market close.
Re:This is insanity. (Score:3, Informative)
You have got to be kidding, The term monopoly in this context has a specific legal meaning. During the first trial Microsoft was proven IN A COURT OF LAW to be a Monopoly, AND to have violated the law by illegally using that monopoly position to stifle competition.
This appeal is related to determining the penalties for the abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft. The issue of whether Microsoft is a monopoly has been determined.
Why an effective monopoly is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You say "A company shouldn't be penalized for being successful...." This is entirely true, and this is why anti-trust laws were written very carefully. Companies are not punished for being monopolies. If your company makes product A so well that no one else can compete, great! However, companies are punished for using their monopoly in one market to wedge their way into other market rather than competing based on the merits of their product. This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer (which, if you remember, was distinctly worse than Netscape Navigator until Microsoft used their monopoly powers to force IE on everyone).
I'm sick of hearing from people who think monopolies are bad, or who think this case is about Microsoft being a monopoly. It's not. This case is about Microsoft abusing their monopoly to gain control of other markets. The true importance of this case only comes to light when you consider that just about every company in the US (and maybe in the world) depends on Microsoft software to run their computers, and thereby to run their business.
To put it in concrete terms: let's say you want to start a business selling widgets. You've come up with and patented a method for making widgets that are twice as good and cost half as much as those of your competitors. Now you just need to set up a computer network to control your manufacturing, sales, and distribution network. Since you're a big fan of open-source software, you've built your distribution system using FreeBSD, Linux, or your OSOS (open-source operating system; not to be confused with ZOSO, a popular name for a certain Zeppelin album) of choice. However, you find that the available talent for your secretarial pool (or, in this day and age, the temps you hire) only know Windows, so you buy them a bunch of computers running Windows FU. Suddenly you get a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft that says that under the terms of the license agreement (which the temps you hired that day clicked through when you set up the machines), you're only allowed to sell widgets if all of your computers have up-to-date licenses for Windows FU, and then you can only sell them at the prices Microsoft dictates. Suddenly you're in a position where Microsoft is controlling your business practices, but you can't tell them to sod off because your secretaries only know Windows. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but without control, Microsoft could have somewhat more subtle but no less disturbing effects on the global economy. Before being broken up, AT&T could've done the same thing. If we need laws to make sure that the companies supplying phone service obey common decency, then why should we be surprised to need similar laws in the computer industry?
Re:This is insanity. (Score:2)
no, really flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
If Microsoft gets torn apart, their stock is going to drop like a rock. The people whose 401Ks and 403Bs hold MSFT will take the brunt of it.
Since when were people assured that their money was safe in stocks?!?!?! No one is forcing you to be involved with microsoft's stocks, only their software
There are a lot of people rooting for Microsoft. The people who root against them are the same as people who rooted for the beating of Reginald Denny.
Oh lord, I can't get over this quote. Reginald Denny was a fucking INNOCENT!!! Microsoft is the AGGRESSOR!!! This would be a lot more like the grand dragon of the kkk getting pulled out of his truck and beaten, and yes, I would be loudly applauding that. I didn't applaud the beating of Reginald Denny, and unlike you who seems to hold some reservations on the subject, I thought it was an utter disgrace. To me, racism is racism. You don't attack innocent people because of their race, period. Anyway, now I'm as off-topic. It seems like everyone thinks the economy will tank even further if microsoft is broken up. What we're all failing to notice is that microsoft is stifiling competition in the market. They're also sweeping into new markets. If anything, breaking them up will HELP the economy. There'll be more market to pass arround, and trust me, there are a lot of companies out there that can do a lot better than microsoft has in the OS market.
Re:Post this again (original thread parent went -1 (Score:4, Insightful)
OK Anonymous Retard, listen up. I live in LA and was watching in abject horror in 1992 as Reginald Denny was beaten by a group of thugs. I didn't like the verdict but the riots were inexcusable.
As far as the starving retirees, widows and orphans who might be inconvenienced by an adverse verdict against a very deserving Microsoft: there was ample warning that MS had done something wrong, they could suggest to their broker to put them into something that did not contain the offensive stock. There were literally YEARS to prepare for this moment. Besides, anyone who didn't get out of tech stocks in 2000 was a fool.
Besides, all indications are that MS will only get a slap on the wrist and a half-hearted "don't DO that!" They 0wn the Department of Justice. Who's to say they haven't already bought and paid for a favorable verdict here too?
Re:courts fair and balanced? (Score:3, Interesting)
Great idea!! (Score:4, Funny)
Think of what the world would be like if there wasnt a newer version of windows, in an year or two.
I would have to use my old version of windows. I wont have a new version of windows to painfully slow down my comp while i am writing email. So then i wont need to buy a new comp. I will not be able to take advantage of innovative licencing schemes where i periodicaly pay microsoft money.
So I will be forced to live with thousands of dollars of extra money burdening me.
This is too painful to just contemplate. Please anything but that.
PS i havent even mentioned all the new viruses that I might miss out. And dont get me started on palladium.
Re:Great idea!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you patch for a windows exploit you usually create a new exploit. Some times you might even get a new "rights manegment" feature.
By the way when you say "Gates would probably enjoy the satisfaction of telling the govt. to shove it" it shows that you dont understand what is going on. The government is currently trying very hard to make gates happy. They just want to do it while mainting a pretense of rule of law. Gates has no reason to be pissed at them right now.
Re:History Lesson? (Score:5, Informative)
But as for developing a
(1) Nobody wants to migrate their entire application base, especially if it's impossible because the devs won't port it because the market is too small (Catch-22 here).
(2) Nobody wants to lose access to their documents or ability to exchange files with others, when the porting fails and nobody successfully, completely re-implements the different formats.
If you can't interoperate with the dominant software (e.g. Microsoft Office and its document formats, WordPerfect w/n the legal domain) you'll have serious problems spreading.