Evidence Surfaces That MS Violated 2002 Judgement 204
whoever57 writes "In the Comes Vs. Microsoft case, the plaintiffs believe they have found evidence that Microsoft has failed to fully disclose APIs to competitors. If true, this would mean that Microsoft has violated the 2002 judgement. This information has become available since the plaintiffs have obtained an order allowing them to disclose Microsoft's alleged misbehavior to the DOJ ('appropriate enforcement and compliance authorities')."
Hm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure someone else here will do that for me.
Re:Hm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's such a good game!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For example, a judge can request you your hand-written journal if you are prosecuted for something, and he thinks this will help to reach a correct verdict. However, the content of your journal can not be used by anybody else, even i
Does this suprise anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it logically, a business that big needs time to change, we are not 10 people sitting in a room here...
Re: (Score:2)
Preview, not submit.... That should have been:
we are not talking about 10 people sitting in a room here...
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I'd be interested to see which APIs are being discussed here before I go off on an anti-Microsoft rant.
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
If those functions would really exist, but could be only interfaced to using an "internal" API, then Microsoft products could have faster "on screen" viewing compared to the competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this was made (I suppose) in order to accelerate the graphic operations (which will run in kernel space, not user space). Or I might be wrong, but Microsoft in known for many places where, between speed and modularity/security/... choose the former.
I remember I've read about some Microsoft employee bragging (sometime in the 1999-2000) about the way some small function, dependent on lots of things, was implemented: its code was written by h
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think its a user vs kernel space thing, more a case of making graphics card acceleration available transparently by providing a dedicated API for it. That said, I doubt that NT4 would have such a hidden API, as it predates the availability of graphics cards with gradient fill acceleration built in, but it was only an example. I can see how in general APIs that were formerly internal might be given external equivalents after someone in the Office team found them useful, but the internal API remained undocumented, leaving Office an advantage in using the feature while maintaining compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you are not the lead dog, the scenery does not change much." -
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between APIs internal to the operating system, and APIs intended to provide a userland interface. If Microsoft userland products are using the internal APIs, then those APIs ought to be released. Otherwise, I don't see the probelem.
I think you're considering this a little too much from the programmer's point of view and not enough from the legal/economic point of view. The real distinction that needs to be determined is which APIs are being used by MS in conjunction with some offerin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this suprise anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that might be why the post gave the "Convicted monopoly abuser" correction?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not MS needs time to change doesn't change the illegality of their actions.
The only "legal" allowance for extra time isn't a delay in enforcement actions, it's that the penalties imposed are not the corporate death penalty, or revocation of MS's corporate license/charter. Any extra "time" needed incurs additional fees/penalities, and that is Microsoft's sole remedy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oooh, they're a convicted monpolist this just cannot stand!".
It's so very dramatic. Unfortunately, all it means is a whole lot of...nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the most obvious ways in which the idea of corporations as "people" completely falls apart. A real person who is even accused is likely to be restricted in what they can do.
Re: (Score:3)
I love people who do this. This is not even comparable to something like raping someone.
Sure it's comparable. He just compared them. It is not, however, a particularly good or tasteful comparison. Burglary would be a much better comparison. It causes short term damage to differing people and has the potential for serious long term damage. MS is like a repeat offender burglar that is supposed to be on probation. The problem is, this burglar spent most of the money, a large chunk of which went to campaign
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather we skip the monetary fines that are becoming meaningless and go for revocation of patents. Can you imagine if MS had it's patents revoked and switched to a free-for-all? That would be nice... Ah, to dream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is like taking you (assuming you are from USA) the right to vote for a parking ticket in Mexico
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Revoking MS' patents would be more like issuing a very large fine, and forcing the company to pay it. Oh wait, that punishment might fit *exactly* to the crime! If we revoke any patents related to their violation, and begin to allow the free market to reassert itself, then MS may no longer fall afault of all the anti-trust laws that they are currently ignoring (and violating).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However, the right to vote and a parking ticket you get in a foreign country have as much in common as a patent and the API for an operating system (not much).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US Citizens can be subject to US law, even if they are not actually in the US at the time of the incident. (Even if what they are doing is perfectly legal where they are at the time.)
Second, the right to vote is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution. A patent is temporary property; the right to vote is a basic right of all citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
A prisoner loses their right to vote, as does someone that is considered mentally deficient. It is uncommon that someone is sentenced in such a way that they are permanently barred from voting.
Re: (Score:2)
How would it be any more harsh than a 3-strikes law? Microsoft has a lot more strikes than that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do see where I'm going with this though, right? We already have plenty of precedent for throwing the book at repeat offenders. Why should companies like Microsoft get a pass when they repeatedly break the law? Slaps on the wrist obviously aren't going to have any effect on a multi-billion dollar company. It only makes sense to make the punishment severe enough to act as a strong deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there were companies (based in Europe) which were fined to that extent
Re: (Score:2)
(and i thought it was serious overkill at the time)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks
They in fact are evil alien creatures from the und
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, poor Microsoft. They've only pummeled OEMs, competing software vendors, and consumers into submission with their illegal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, revocation of patent would further discredit the patent system in the US. Taking a patent is supposed to be a service you gives to the state: you disclose your invention and in exchange you receive a patent and some rights attached to this patent.
Now just imagine the shilling effect on US industry if you could have your patent revoked arbitrarily as a punishment in an *unrelated* crime
A
Re: (Score:2)
See the success in Munich (Score:2)
Would this be possible? Yes, the Munich city is moving to something else than Windows (details not so important), and is converting from a couple of years, and the complete conversion will take another couple of years maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mwahahaha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't really much point in fining an abusive monopoly. The actual would need to weaken that monopoly. At best fines do nothing, at worst they can make things worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ever understimate a fine. A fine is like brute force; if a fine (brute force) isn't working, your clearly not using enough of it!
At a certain level, even Microsoft will pay attention to a fine. Fine them $10-20 billion, and although it won't break their piggy bank, it will make a substantial difference.
Fine them $10-20 billion, and dump it into government research on open source operating system development through our national labs? That might even work.
Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
And we shall write a letter, TELLING you how angry we are!
If only they could have waited... (Score:3, Insightful)
In two more years, evidence of this might actually get somewhere with the DoJ. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it still entirely controlled by the exact same administration that let Microsoft off in the first place?
Now, if Congress could somehow manage to get involved, that might make some difference...
Dan Aris
this occurred 10 years BEFORE the settlement! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing, you got access to the evidence when nobody else did, I am impressed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
MS wont change till users change (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets and specilizations work, when large systems are broken into simpler components, the performance metrics and interface details are specified by a neutral standard that do not play favourites. Does the consumer really know the vicosity vs temperature profile of 10W-40 and 5W-40? They dont know, they dont care. The IC engine manufacturers and the lubricant oil manufacturer know it. All the rest only care about the spec name. Free market takes care of the rest and provides us with the cheapest engine oil taking advantage of all economies of scale etc.
If GM could make its cars accept only GM engine oil and keeps the spec secret and the competition out, it will do it. But it is the consumers who would refuse to buy such cars and force GM to disclose the lubricant requirements for its IC engines. If consumers are willing to buy such "closed" cars from GM, could the courts or the govt do anything to change it? The can try. But they will never be able to reach the same level of efficiency the free market does.
So dont just blame MS, blame the consumers too. All the tech columnists who should be educating the public about these things are talking fluff about the latest and greatest gadgets and widgets in trade shows. Blame them too. Slashdotters who know these things better talk to the other consumers as though they are complete idiots, creating a backlash against nerds/geeks etc. People buy MS blindly because they are not fully informed. Not because they are idiots willing to fork over their money to a large corporation without asking questions. Only educated consumers can break the monopoly. It is our duty to educate them without insulting them.
Re:MS wont change till users change (Score:5, Informative)
I'm amazed how many American vehicle owners have never heard of this puppy, y'all should read it sometime. And the next time your new car salesman says anything about the warranty, you'll know where you can tell him to stick his head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Title is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Read The Fucking Article, Slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:2)
If people read articles before posting headlines and summaries which could be considered volatile and flame inducing where would we be as a proper MS hating, Apple and Llinux loving society?
Please.. take your petty reason and logic and peddle them somewhere else, we have no need for those services here.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong!
You're reading the wrong document.
The point is that the December Report was found to potentially have missed substantive complaints. Comes v Microsoft, in January, opened the door to those complaints being analyzed by the Plaintiffs. We won't know what they are until the plaintiffs have officially filed, if they choose to do so, but the Judge in Comes v Microsoft believed they were substantial enough to merit consideration.
That's obvious... (Score:2)
Four words (Score:2)
Four words: revocation of corporate charter.
This is something that needs to start happening a lot if we ever want to reduce the problem of corrupt business damaging society.
Re: (Score:2)
and hey, who says we can't also go after Haliburton, ExxonMobile, and whoever else? revocation of corporate charter should require more grounds than "being jackasses", but repeated violation of judicial findings seems like a good basis. microsoft has that to spare; are
The Solution (Score:2)
This is a little more general and less about this particular instance of abuse but... Does anyone here have any confidence that MS will stop breaking the law unless the courts effectively intervene? Does anyone here think that MS's huge contributions to the political campaigns of those corrupt people in charge of enforcing said laws will be able to prevent them from being effectively punished for a given abuse? Does anyone think the courts can act quickly enough so that they stop all the existing players in
Who gives a F*** about API's - end per PC pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
The per-model scheme we have now is slightly better than per-processor, but still not adequate.
Ask Wine (Score:2)
One thing to do would be to compare the msys headers with the wine headers. msys only contains publically documented interfaces, wine contains everything that's actually required.
Nothing (serious) will happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding Microsoft's revenues to those of two other companies can total *almost* one percent of GDP. Check, I can believe that too. Not sure why you picked 3M and P&G -- too lazy to search for a relationship. Therefore I'm simply going to assume that you picked two other decent sized but not huge companies (Microsoft is only 48th on the Fortune 500; Exxon Mobil is first with profits of about $36 billi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what will really happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? You think that's nothing do you?
You can do all kinds of ethically questionable things within the law. You can delay justice, you can even thwart it. But the one thing you can't do, the stupidest possible thing to try, is to sashay into a court and spit in the judge's eye. They won't stand for it. Nor will they stand for you doing it to to another judge, even another judge they despise and disagree with.
Defying any court is defying the authority of every court. Judicial power is a judge's basic stock in trade. If you willfuly undermine that, you'll find the judge putting judicial restraint up on the shelf and taking down the can of legal whupass. They don't like doing that. If there is a loophole, if it can be argued to be an honest mistake, maybe they'll turn the screw just one or two turns tighter. But once it becomes clear you think you are beyond the power of the court to restrain, the judge will introduce you to a whole new world of legal pain.
Oh please let it be so.
Sco/BSF spit in the judge's eye, got away with it (Score:2)
Re:Sco/BSF spit in the judge's eye, got away with (Score:2)
The viable reasons for appeal:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you even remember why the original senatance was overturned?
The appeals court ruled that Judge Jackson had an appearance of bias, because of his media statements. In the media, Judge Jackson made a series of statements, that I, personally, loved. Here's a quote for you:
"Following the trial's conclusion last June, Jackson's statements began appearing in news stories and books about the case. His views on Microsoft executives and the metaphors he used to describe the case troubled the appea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fines seem the most likely course of action, and microsoft can either argue about those till it becomes meaningless, or pay up.
Or the Judge could order severe sanctions, like splitting the company into smaller portions so such mistakes are easier to prevent in the future. IBM did this themselves when they got into l
Corporate Veils == financial protection, not legal (Score:2)
Microsoft, being a legal entity can be charged with something, but you cannot jail a corporate entity. The veil of incorporation means that it is unlikely that individuals will be charged either
Really, I don't know why this keeps being said, as it certainly isn't true. Corporate veils [wikipedia.org] protect against financial liability to creditors, but they're no shield for illegal activity. Do you really think I could buy a get-out-of-jail-free card for the $600 it took me to set up my corporation? Do you really think that the government would grant such a "license to kill" as cheaply and easily as a few forms and less than $1000? Not a bad investment, really.
Slashdot readers seem to be generally anti-corporat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't
One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different
I disagree
and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now)
I don't agree here either.
You will, if you have to develop software targeting multiple OS/CPU vs one (and I don't mean making a web pag
Re: (Score:2)
NetBSD (just the operating system) runs on tons of computer architectures. As such, having multiple architectures is certainly possible.
Games are written for all the three major consoles - and there aren't many similarities between each other.
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem (I wonder: what IF you're the one writing the JRE... but that's another topic)
Oh my god, what is Adobe doing! They spent so much resources to port that port Flash to Linux properly, while they could've just used Java or QT!?
And all their other software! And Mac software, why isn't it all written in Java so we poor Windows users can run it?
Re: (Score:2)
You're claiming Java and QT are generic solution to the multi-OS problem...
Actually Java and QT are examples of possible solutions to easy cross-platform development. Almost all major software development houses maintain portable code because it makes for better code even if you never target another platform. It provides more flexibility for the future and other platforms are profitable right now. The real problem with cross-platform applications is not that the technology is not possible. It is that in
Re: (Score:2)
The current program I am working on I develop under Linux on the X86 and the cross compile for an ARM.
Take a look at some examples of multi platform applications.
OpenOffice, Firefox, Apache, MySQL, PostgresSQL, GIMP, Google Earth, Thunderbird, and many more.
Programs that run on multiple OSs and ISAs are getting more common.
And frankly Microsoft is scared of that and doing all it can to stop
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in your Fairy Dream Land, every OS works together and we all hold hands and sing together. The reality is that this has never happened, and if you were around during the birth of PC's in the 80's, you'd remember the nightmare of having several different platforms to develop for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. For the same reason that one species of banana is bad news. How about potato blight? Oh, biology. Doesn't have anything to do with computers. While in biology, a monoculture is a bad thing and means that a simple virus can drop a culture into famine and poverty, that simply doesn't happen in the world of computing.......oh wait.
Different code bases implementing fully documented standards is the only way we will g
Re: (Score:2)
You're misunderstanding the reason that MS is considered evil. As much as people may dislike their OS and software, their business tactics are the real problem. The DOJ had them dead to rights during the last trial. MS execs had been caught lying on multiple occasions. They had destroyed evidence. Their expert witnesses often ended up looking like fools. Everything was going great for the DOJ. Then Bush got elected and the DOJ folded and se
Re: (Score:2)
I know its popular to blame everything on Bush, but lets not re-write history. An appeals court threw out the guilty verdict after Penfield Jackson ran his mouth off to the press. Had he not done that, there would be two Microsofts right now. Bush choose not to waste tax payer money on a re-trial (Remember there was a recession during this time).
http://money.cnn.com/2001/06 [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all. If there were lots and lots of CPU architectures, OS's would have to be written to run or be ported easily to another processor architecture. This would open up competition to the "best" processor, rather than the best implementation of the X86 command line.
It probably would have forced OS vendor to be far more innovative in terms of virtualization and other technologies that we can't even dream of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read some history on Windows API issues and why this matters to developers.
This isn't about stealing code or making life easier, this is about Microsoft writing both an OS and the software that sits on top of the OS. Since they write say, Office AND Windows, they could (and have) include API calls that benefit their version of Office on Windows that are hidden from (for example) OpenOffice. The court decision was that since Microsoft has a definite mo
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust law is a joke unless applied to government granted monopolies or monopolies over scarce physical resources. The idea of applying it to intellectual property is logically inconsistent and is basically communistic. "You came up with this idea we really like, it now belongs to us in that we can dictate what you do with it".