U.S. Faults Microsoft Licensing Compliance 241
An anonymous reader writes "In a written report card on how well Microsoft is complying with its 2001 antitrust deal with state and federal prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly." The DOJ's court filing is online if you want to wade through it.
Well, what did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is a second lawsuit going to produce? Another slap on the wrist? If so, I will begin to think that the judges were... easily persuaded.
What happen.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole settlement was a joke anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Their answer as seen from the settlement, and the lack of compliance is "Not very much."
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's substantial contributions to George W. Bush's 2000 campaign fund were very helpful in getting him into the White House. Bush returned the favor by allowing Microsoft to escape unscathed from the big antitrust suit.
Now, Mr. Bush has begun the process of raising funds for his 2004 campaign, and it's time for Microsoft to pay up again.
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Normal people think MS Windows and MS Office are what makes the computer industry, by that logic any action against MS would be an attack agains the industry, so they don't want to do anything.
Re:You call this a capitalist society? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remeber, having a monopoly is not illegal, having a monopoly and abusing your influence, such as the case of Microsoft, is illegal. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised for the courts to find that Microsoft has "pierced the corporate shield" with all of the tactics and tricks hey use.
Then again, the republicans are in power ... ;/
--LordKaT
From the no-one-is-really-surprised dept (Score:4, Insightful)
John Ashcroft, do your fscking job!
Appeasement only buys short term security (Score:4, Insightful)
Though drawing parallels between brutal dictators and Bill Gates may seem harsh, the principle is the same. If people think they're safe now from Microsoft's monopolistic practices, they've bought into a false sense of security.
Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Bobby to criminal: Stop!! Or I'll say 'stop' again!!
Except here we have:
DOJ to MS: Comply!! Or we'll say 'comply' again!
Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: new features & bug fixes! All multiplayer. Go play.
Re:You call this a capitalist society? (Score:5, Insightful)
People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?
Guess what? Not everyone wants to have so much money that they could never spend it within their lifetime. I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion. Personally, all I need is food, clothing, shelter, and something to do with my time that I enjoy. I don't need a fast/expensive sports car, an automated do-everything house, or my own aircraft.
Shock and awe (Score:5, Insightful)
They have been busy leveraging their monopoly into new markets (cell phones and games consoles to name but two) and reverse-leveraging their new market share in these industries back into the PC market for greater lock in (Outlook integration that is closer than 3rd parties can obtain for example).
They have been investigating hardware lock in techniques (palladium style) and trialling them on consumers (Xbox) to prepare for the next wave of monoplising efforts. They are busy fundng other companies attacking their competators (SCO). They are proping up Bush econmic policy (share dividend at an advantageous moment) in return for special consideration (legal proglems decrease).
Lets hope to God this triggers another investigation - there is such a huge increase in their deliberatly destructive antics now that even a half blind judge would break them up.
Except that they will prbably buy him off too.
Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders. (Score:5, Insightful)
And on the 4th of July, too (Score:5, Insightful)
A day when we celebrate victory in a civil war that began as a protest about taxation without representation.
Say, how much representation do your taxes buy you? Wouldn't it be neat if we could all choose to pay "campaign contributions" to buy laws and fat federal contracts, instead of paying taxes to whoever we decided was probably the least bad of two candidates?
I'm in agreement with George W that the only way to deal with oppressive unelected regimes is to replace them forcibly. I just think we should clean house at home before building any more aircraft carriers.
Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders (Score:4, Insightful)
Your theory also requires that the judicial system and administration be corrupt.
Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
More phone companies have also been able to form, allowing users more choice than ever.
Imagine where the celluar phone industry would be with only one company. Calls would cost upwards of a dollar a minute. The networks would not be so big. Cell phones would be as rare as car phones were.
The government has an interest in controlling monopolies. Microsoft has used it's monopoly on operating systems to stifle competition. Just look back to this [slashdot.org]. Microsoft commits actions like this all of the time, but the DOJ has just turned the other way.
Re:OEM licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
-B
Re:Well, what did we expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. I expected a woman (Kollar Cotelly) would be a good judge, and would make us proud.
2. I expected MS would be fined $2 bn., ordered to open the source for public inspection.
3. I expected "Breakfast with Bill" would mean Bill comes to my place, and fixes my system with the latest Service Pack CD.
4. I expected that the judgment would be in the best interests of the world computing community, and not just a narrow American interest.
5. I expected His Billness to say "I'm sorry"
6. I expected RMS, Linus, ESR and a few others to have received meritorious awards from the Presidents of the respective countries.
7. I expected that MS would stop naming OSes after years, as if they wrote different ones every year.
8. I expected that
9. I expected Java would be fast, flexible and open source.
10. I expected more of the Slashdotters to have seen that the whole trial was just a farce - 9 States dissenting was a stage-managed stunt, the female lawyer was not 'randomly' selected, that the evidence shown and arguments had no effect or relevance on the judgment and compliance.....and, and.. well: I expected all of these would have been obvious to all but the few astro-turfing MS apologists and shills that infest the forums over here. In short, I expected justice,dignity and fair-play from a gorilla, and I was a fool - just like most of us.
Re:OEM licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes time for the OEMs to jump on board. You need to find a good distro, negotiate with the company, test it with your machines to make sure everything works properly, train your staff so they know what to do when some customer calls with problems about it, then finally decide how to market the thing! You also need to wait to make sure that MicroSoft is actually playing nice before you risk seriously screwing yourself by ticking off the supplier of the OS for every machine you sell. Remeber the story about the scorpion and the frog? If I were an OEM I would eb damm careful before messing with M$. Still as we've just seen they are coming out, it's just a matter of how long and what kind of response HP gets from both the comsumer and M$ to see if more machines come out with linux pre-installed
Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The donors in the top 100 above MS are interesting in and among themselves, but they're not software companies (possible exceptions of AOL and AT&T).
Do you have an opinion yourself on why the DOJ backed down?
SB
Re:You call this a capitalist society? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could just as easily say that laws that force companies not to lie to investors are state intervention, and befitting of a command economy.
A free market requires certain things to work: Educated consumers that can make rational choices about products, and the possibility of even making a choice.
The average person faced with buying an Intel compatible computer has little choice, and generally lacks the education to make a rational choice about the products.
Then, once they get the computer, all the little things MS does to lock out other software competitors bite them. They might try an alternate to Office, but when they realize they can't easily exchange files with peers, they will probably see no choice other than to buy MS office.
I hope that government intervention isn't necessary to break the MS monopoly, I think we are making great progress toward those ends with only technical means. That said, even as a Libertarian, I am not totally opposed to the government compelling MS to stop engaging in anti-competitive behaviours.
Re:Microsoft is immune to their whiny court orders (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not illegal to hire very very good laywers.
Its not illegal to convince, through media, private conversations, arguments, that a politition should think in a certain way.
Its not illegal to use all the resources available to you to its fullest extent.
All of this can be done without relying on corruption. Just playing by the fullest extent of the rules.
Re:Well, what did we expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The whole settlement was a joke anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about Bell here, not AT&T. IIRC, it's only with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Baby Bells have really been able to get into the interstate long-distance market.
The Baby Bells are essentially in control of intrastate long-distance (ie. within the same state), which IIRC have been more expensive than interstate long-distance calls for quite a while now.
Umm, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reminds Me of the English Bobby Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
If it wasn't life or death, then the cop shouldn't be firing in the first place. And for the most part, they are very, very careful. Because if it wasn't life or death before the first shot, it sure is after.
Re:You call this a capitalist society? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The US Constitution itself gives congress the power to regulate the economy. This was written into the body of the document, not as an amendment. One of the first fruits of that was the 1800s Interstate Commerce Act. A number of institutions were formed directly from this clause of the constitution. Most failed, but many survived, such as our federal reserve system, which is a model for central banks for nations the world over.
2) The 1860s act which preceded the explosion of immigration to the west, established agricultural universities, required every state to map out its land and to make property public records, and the extension services farmers use today is a farm subsidy.
3) Some states, like Oklahoma for example, allows kids as young as 14 to be licensed to use the country wide road system during the summer for the purpose of farming. Our very school system which gives kids summers off is intended to give farmers use of their kids. All of these things can be considered farm subsidies, but they are not.
4) A 1790s law passed by congress gives publications a break in postal rates is considered to be a subsidy for the press, in a nation where getting news to the participants of a representative republic essential.
Most of these laws and policies were established before Marx was sperm rolling around in his daddy's sacs, and are so old, so well considered, and so well put to use that no one even thinks of calling them antithetical to a capitalist country.
This is the 4th of July. If you are an American try having a litle pride. It won't hurt, I promise.
By the way: The depression of the 30s was a deflationary period for the world. It was a problem of glut, such as what we have right now. Government regulation didn't cause it. It made it far worse than it had to be and extended the recession for years longer than it had to be.
Read the history: the federal reserve board's immediate reaction to the stock market crashes of the late 20s was the constrict the money supply. Hoover was rightly blamed for failing to exert any kind of influence over the Federal Reserve.
The proper reaction for government of that era should have been to cut taxes and spending, sort of what has been done now except for the spending part. It appears that as long as government spending continues to remain at historical highs, we won't be out of this stagnation any time soon.
But to give FDR credit for helping the nation out with his spending and his tax policies is like telling someone who sells a drunk who is still drinking an aspirin, he is now the drunk's personal physician.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
It is by no means simple for the majority, and Microsoft knows it.