Antitrust Regulators To Monitor Windows 7, But Not Later Releases 105
CWmike writes "Gregg Keizer reports that federal and state regulators have struck a deal with Microsoft under which any version of Windows released after May 2011 will not be subject to the scrutiny mandated by a 2002 antitrust settlement. As previously promised, however, Windows 7 will be put under the microscope. Yesterday, the DOJ filed documents (PDF) with US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly asking that she extend her oversight by at least 18 months, until May 12, 2011. Although Microsoft has consented to the extension — and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months — Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request."
Present admistration (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the present admistration has the same relationship as the last one.
At least it's non-partism
Re: (Score:1)
Given that this is a 'deal' and not a gift, what exactly does Microsoft give up/pay in return for no longer being monitored by regulators?
Re:Present admistration (Score:5, Insightful)
They give up their right to oppose any extension of the Final Judgement due to expire this year which would leave them without being monitored by regulators on November 12, 2009, when the previous two-year extension of the judgement is due to expire. Under this agreement, the Final Judgement would be extended by another 18 months from the currently scheduled expiration, with another 18 month extension possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "non-partisan" you mean that both sides are equally bought and paid for, then yes...
When our government can't follow it's own laws, rules and procedures, we can't expect them to change anything without motivation because NO ONE changes without motivation especially when what they are doing seems to be working so very well for them. (And to be clear, the problem isn't the corruptible people in office it's opportunity and lack of consequences. You or I would probably do exactly the same crap in the sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about? did you expect then to take a microscopic look at all MS OSs forever?
seriously, that would be completly asinine.
Re:Present admistration (Score:5, Insightful)
What was asinine was not breaking the company up when it was convicted.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
What was asinine is the recent overuse of the word 'asinine'.
Re: (Score:1)
Since when do those found guilty get to negotiate?
when they have billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why saying that MS is a "convicted monopoly" is such disinformation. MS wasn't "found guilty" because it was a civil case they lost, not a criminal one. Those found guilty in a criminal case can't negotiate but those who lose a civil case can.
Why was it a civil case instead of criminal one? Probably because the DOJ didn't think they could win a criminal case. That's my speculation but only those original DOJ lawyers (whom MS haters think are so great) can say for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking up the company would have been an insanely ridiculous overreaction that only out-of-touch Slashdotters would have cheered.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Present admistration (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? did you expect then to take a microscopic look at all MS OSs forever?
Yes. All monopolies must be regulated because market forces do not apply. At the very least they should be monitored and there should be price controls.
seriously, that would be completly asinine.
So you think we should trust M$ and other companies do the right thing when they have a strong business imperative not to and no checks and balances? How asinine.
---
Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been monitored for almost a decade now. There's a thing called innocent until proven guilty, and eventually the government will let up, only returning if there's a reason to.
By the way, did you actually use the term "M$" in 2009? You're completely biased and thus your opinion isn't worth paying attention to.
You know what that means... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that means there will be a new mandatory version update of windows7 out in June 2011 then.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, they call them "Service Packs."
I use Ubuntu, so I don't really care what Microsoft does.
Re: (Score:2)
good idea.
I'll file the papers immediately.
Seriously though, at the time including a browser or media player was a big deal. They were seen as additional programs, similar to Word, Excel, etc. that should be sold separately. Since MS bundled them we have all come to expect these programs to be free, thus "hurting" other businesses.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, at the time including a browser or media player was a big deal.
Rubbish. At least two OSes (OS/2 and MacOS) were already distributed with a web browser when Microsoft started doing it, and media players have been included with OSes (or freely available) even longer.
The simple fact is that neither web browsers, nor media players, have ever constituted significant and independent markets. They've always been either freebies, or leveraging tools for other products.
Saying Microsoft shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Talk about revisionist history! (Score:5, Informative)
No, I think that you're dead wrong on your history.
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit - the issues were that Microsoft was either not allowing vendors such as HP and Dell to distribute Windows with non-IE browsers (loss of contract) or requiring a contract change that was basically punitive in the extreme.
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
And that's when the shit hit the fan, as far as the plaintiffs and the court was concerned.
I get that this is /. and there's no need to RTFA, but how about the other reference? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123 [slashdot.org]
This wasn't about browsers, it was about an illegal monopoly.
And, on a side note - you have got to be kidding me about ftp downloading, even back in the day. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I didn't actually know that, and was not intentionally misleading. I guess I was kind of relaying what I heard/thought was factual. Thanks for correcting me.
AD came with Windows 98 actually. And I think the issue is not whether a monopoly is legal, but whether they abused their monopoly power. I definitely would agree that they abused their monopoly back then but the situation now is very different. OS X includes a lot more built in than Windows, and it's steadily gaining market share, so the decisions
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - the flames come out of my ears on this subject, they weren't intended towards you personally.
You're right, kindly allow me to amplify. That Apple and others weren't capturing the market's heart at the time, giving Microsoft an effective monopoly was not Microsoft's problem - in both meanings of the phrase.
That they used that power to price-control others, was illegal.
It wasn't Apple that brought the suit. Apple was sitting back, and schizophrenically laughing at Microsoft while thanking their luck
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up interesting history not strictly related to the antitrust suit - but still terribly interesting.
All of the Apple / Microsoft dealings were so inbred in those days! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft [wikipedia.org]
In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing their Office and other software for the Mac for the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.
But I think you're right, I recall there being more to this than the wikipedia entry allows. At some point, the MS Mac Business Unit (MBU) stopped providing updates for IE on OS X, and I recall the MS web talking about it in relation to Office. Next surprise, an upgrade came along and
Re: (Score:2)
The part about bundling browsers being ok and the EU about not allowing bundling of media players.
These guys have opened all sorts of cans of worms for us. We can holler about software patents, but the major players do not play fair on cross-use or cross-licensing of their products. We suffer.
I'm glad that Apple won't sell OS X separately - I predict they'd become an instant MS in terms of predatory practices. The Apple QT package takes care of Mac users, but seems to bone MS users in the installation.
An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By tying IE to Windows, making it free, and threatening OEMs and partners not to do allow Netscape, MS did engage in some illegal behavior.
MacOS and OS/2 were already being distributed with web browsers before Microsoft started doing it with Windows. Why should including functionality provided by competitors, and in growing demand by end users, be illegal ?
Re: (Score:2)
MS then came out with the Active Desktop, showing that IE was just absolutely, completely technically required for the latest OS release - I recall dimly that it was Win2k.
Windows 98.
If you installed IE 4(?) into Windows 95, you essentially got Windows 98.
Re:Talk about revisionist history! (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Active Desktop was included in Win98. I have several fond memories of setting my roomate's desktop to random porn sites and then listening to his cries of agony as he was bombarded with popups and malware installs shortly after.
Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be Windows 98.
Re:Talk about revisionist history! (Score:5, Funny)
Which gives k=49.
Re: (Score:2)
Never used 98, explains my error. Totally agree about twm, btw.
Re: (Score:1)
Dunno about you, but I still use ftp. Regularly. It can be a lifesaver when you *need* to DL a certain package for an otherwise broken box. Just sayin...
Re: (Score:2)
The dig was a reply to the remark about ftp being hard to use. No soup for you! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, I was downloading Netscape and other browsers for free at the time of the lawsuit
This is also slightly revisionist. Netscape was only free for noncommercial use. If you used it in a commercial setting, it was something like $30. Opera was ad-supported or cost money. That said, most ISPs prior to the release of IE licensed either Mosaic or Netscape and gave out free copies to their customers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right - sorry. More ignorance than revisionist on Netscape.
As for Mosaic - I have a book somewhere with a disk included of its source code and makefiles - that was all available for free download. Did the appropriate mods myself, compiled it on my DEC ULTRIX machine, and later did same on my ISP's *nix machine in their /tmp area (can't recall the *nix). Found source for a server in Europe somewhere, DL'd that, ditto build on ULTRIX.
Downloading browser and server sources wasn't hard - I might have
Re: (Score:2)
I remember it differntly. I remember Netscape being a steaming pile of s*** and feeling liberated by IE. Finally a browser that was usable... and FREE!
Re: (Score:1)
I guess that your "usable" IE wasn't versions 1-3.x. IE4 was only barely there.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that your "usable" IE wasn't versions 1-3.x. IE4 was only barely there.
Navigator 3.x vs IE 3.x was a toss-up (Navigator generally won by virtue of inertia). IE 4.x was vastly superior in pretty much every measurable way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There certainly was in 1998. Just because you were probably still crapping your pants back then (who knows, maybe you still are) doesn't mean that it wasn't an anti-competitive act then, or that Microsoft has really reformed itself. The OOXML fiasco shows the only way to deal with Microsoft is to cut it into pieces, or at least hold massive fines over its head and force it to play nice, not to go "Oh well, we don't care any more".
Kollar-Kotelly (Score:5, Funny)
It might be tough going through life with a name that sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
Windows 8 -- Coming Soon! (Score:1, Insightful)
Citing astounding technological advances (Clippy now mostly works), Microsoft expects to release Windows 8 just one week after the release of Windows 7. "We made a lot of significant and fundamental changes that support this new release" said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Windows 8 would then be subject to the antitrust judgement since it was released before May 2011.
Would it surprise anyone (Score:2)
Microsoft and Antitrust (Score:2)
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC? If ATT had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed/marketed UNIX differently?
Re:Microsoft and Antitrust (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
You know, they might have. They might have even started by contracting Microsoft to write it for them. They might have even developed a special PC and collaboratively called the operating system OS2. They might have even discovered that Microsoft burned them with an excruciating POS. They might have watched in horror while Microsoft used OS2 as a launch point for an OS that had none of OS2's bugs. And they have gone berserk when Microsoft called their new product Windows.
And they might have decided to completely re-write the operating system on their own. And they might have succeeded. And they might have called it OS2 Warp. And they might have gotten lots of press FUD while their OS completely blew Windows 95 out of the water.
We only know that IBM was the target of an antitrust action and that they developed a great (in its day) PC OS. We don't know if they wouldn't have were it not for the antitrust action.
But they were on board with the idea of moving away from the command line - Apple's sales in those days were nothing to sneeze at. And we know that in those days, IBM was feeling the sting of being victimized by their own greed in the MS contract that allowed MS-DOS to support clones when they'd thought that had the market sewn up with PC-DOS and their machines.
So, they tried it again with the PS2/OS2 lock in. The PS2 gave us some great tech for its day. But the combo, frankly, sucked. OS2 Warp was fab - ran on clones - but you only get to screw the market so much before it moves on.
The market believed that it was IBM alone screwing them, Microsoft slipped in under the radar. Remember, in those days, Microsoft was quite the darling of the CP/M and Apple (pre-Mac and early Mac) communities. Apple and CP/M good, IBM bad. Looked like Microsoft would save us with MS-DOS.
See where that got us.
So the answer to your question seems to be what we all already know - antitrust rulings don't stifle technology, monopolies do.
(PS - Nothing personal about the sarcasm - I just get that way on this subject in general.)
Re: (Score:1)
earlymon may have missed the point, but the point was absurd since IBM outsource to get to market early, not to avoid anti-trust problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct - moreso, as basically, the entire 5150 was outsourced - see http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA187350.html [tmworld.com]
I think that they got the keyboard wrong - I recall that IBM bought out the company that came up with those beasts, as it was going nowhere with that monster.
Re: (Score:2)
So IBM would have outsourced even without antitrust? OK. I believe that earlymon understood me.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're right about me, but I don't think so. You're incorrect about the driving force to use Microsoft (kindly see Daengbo's and my follow-on comments, above).
I was trying to give the GP the benefit of the doubt - so I used PC as a generic term, and asked myself which PC-type machine was actually designed by IBM in those days rather than simply integrated - and as I recall, that was the PS/2. In those days, the only thing "protectable" or proprietary, really, about the IBM-PC was its BIOS - hence th
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid Slashcode AC'ed me.
They might have even discovered that Microsoft burned them with an excruciating POS.
OS/2 was as much IBM's work as Microsoft's.
They might have watched in horror while Microsoft used OS2 as a launch point for an OS that had none of OS2's bugs. And they have gone berserk when Microsoft called their new product Windows.
In no way was OS/2 a "launch point" for Windows (either DOS-based or NT).
And they might have decided to completely re-write the operating system on their own. A
Re: (Score:2)
In no way was OS/2 a "launch point" for Windows (either DOS-based or NT).
You and history disagree on this point - I have only (sadly) wikipedia at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 [wikipedia.org]
Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.
Unless by launch point I mean - renamed a rev of OS/2 to WinNT.
As for OS/2 Warp not being a complete re-write, your objection to my language use may be correct - the re-write was complete and features such as true preemptive multi-tasking appeared in Warp. So, my comment stands - the hallmark of the completed re-write corresponded to the name change. BTW, the multi-tasking improvement in
Re: (Score:2)
Unless by launch point I mean - renamed a rev of OS/2 to WinNT.
The OS that was released and marketed as OS/2, is in no way similar, derivative, a "launch point", or anything else with regards to Windows NT. They are completely different OSes and code bases, who share nothing except a deprecated API and - for an early alpha of Windows NT - a product name.
I remember the history quite well. In the early-mid '90s I was a (younger and more foolish) fervent OS/2 user.
As for OS/2 Warp not being a complete r
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the history quite well. In the early-mid '90s I was a (younger and more foolish) fervent OS/2 user.
Well - I *thought* I remembered the history quite well. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'm not going to argue, I'm going to learn - I wasn't talking completely out of my ass.
My impetus was that the whole antitrust issue, as quoted from TFA in the summary, TFA itself, and in many statements in this topic (and elsewhere) - are all rife with revisionist history.
The last thing I want to introduce a different revisionist history.
So long as you're using arbitrary phrases...
Three things - 1 )I was trying to make a point by shortcut of a single example, an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If IBM had not been subject to antitrust rulings, would it have developed its own OS for the PC?
Under no circumstances. The PC project was fast and needed as much outsourcing as they could get in order to get to market within a year. IBM had no chance to develop its own OS because the project didn't have the time for that.[1] [wikipedia.org]
None of this had anything to do with an anti-trust ruling. It's more like Gates' hurried adoption of the BSD TCP stack in NT. "Would MS have developed its own if it hadn't been under scrutiny by the DoJ?" Absurd!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. IBM wrote the BIOS code and developed the board layout and case design, but the PC was built entirely from off-the-shelf components (apart from the BIOS) and was intentionally crippled so it didn't eat into the minicomputer market. IBM saw operating systems as a commodity, and thought that they could easily replace DOS with CP/M or something else in a later version if they needed to, because backwards compatibility for software was something only mainframe customers cared about (and if anyone did
Not quite accurate (Score:2)
That's not what the document says, however. It says that a "Windows client operating system" commercially released after the final judgement expires (whether that is May 11, 2011 or 18 months later given the pr
Even more revisionist history! Good summary alert! (Score:2)
From TFA:
At that time, however, she left the door open to continued monitoring, and Microsoft agreed that she could extend it for up to three more years, to Nov. 12, 2012.
and
Although Microsoft has consented to the extension -- and acknowledged that the regulators can later ask for another 18 months -- Kollar-Kotelly must approve the request.
Microsoft agreed and Microsoft consented - my ass.
Good summary alert! This link is in the summary, kids - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/01/2034207&tid=123 [slashdot.org]
And I found this post - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43989&cid=4582608 [slashdot.org] - by VivianC, who read and quoted the full text of the AP and news.com relevant articles:
She also eliminated a technical committee that would have enforced the settlement terms. In its place, a corporate committee - consisting of board members who aren't Microsoft employees - will make sure the company lives up to the deal. The judge also gave herself more oversight authority.
Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
How could the language in the computerworld.com article shill any harder? Answer - not much - not much at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I realize that my links are from 2002 - the andecent - for a reason.
Again - Microsoft agreed to an extension...... What do you think happened?
DOJ: Uh, Microsoft, can we please do our thing?
Microsoft: Oh.... OK, because I like you, you big, whacky DOJ, you! Now get over here and give me some sugar!
Or:
1. Microsoft is compelled by court....
2. Microsoft complies
3. Shills in the press say the new word for comply is agree
Re:Good summary alert! (Score:1)
in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.
when i read that i laughed so hard i shit myself...
Good to hear! (Score:3, Funny)
It's good to hear that Microsoft is now a trustworthy company, and will now be making products with the features we need, and fairly competing with other companies.
Have they announced a built-in spellchecker in Windows 7 yet?
Re: (Score:2)
I would love a spell checker.
But you have to admit. Porting over the Microsoft OFFICE spell checker to Microsoft WINDOWS would be a pretty ironic request from someone commending Microsoft's new found non-monopolistic efforts. Including Microsoft Office product features would seem to me be a return to 'old Microsoft'--which I was perfectly happy with. (Hated Netscape's POS browser).
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that Microsoft has no problem developing features like DVD playback, and recording television and inserting them into the OS, crushing competition and innovation in those markets, but a simple, basic, ubiquitous feature like a spelling checker might devalue their mighty Office suite, therefore it will never happen.
No one complains about Microsoft wrecking competition in the mouse driver business. Some software just doesn't need to be rewritten every time. The spelling checker is that kind of fe
The market is a better regulator... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously! When the EEE PC came on the scene, Microsoft was forced to dump Vista and go back to the old Windows XP and release a Service Pack to make it work. And likewise Downgrade Rights from Vista to XP.... which is now continuing with Windows 7 to XP as well.
And now, Windows 7 actually consumes lesser resources and is faster on the same hardware, compared to the previous version Vista. This has happened not because of the regulators, but the market realities. And likewise, the success of Firefox has made the different releases of IE and artificial restrictions of OS versions and IE versions meaningless in the market.
Honestly I cannot imagine a single useful thing achieved by these regulators. Better wind the whole organisation up and move on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that Linux has helped MS in more than one way: it's provided a plausible scrapegoat for problems (damn Linux hackers fucking up the internet!), provided an example of "competition", and provided an example of "bundling" that, in the future, MS will be able to use to say "see, everyone does it now!" (referring to all distros + MacOS).
Antitrust (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Talk to the bodies littering the road MS has trod on -- business "partners" who were later leveraged into an obituary column inch reciting their demise.
If I am ever found to be a criminal (Score:2)
I would like to have the ability to consent to the details of my punishment. "Yes, you may search my apartment, but this is the last time".
Re: (Score:1)
Since the original punishment was negotiated between the DoJ and MS, I guess the extesion should be, too. O_o I mean, it wasn't a plea bargain -- they'd already been found guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like the federal legal team are the judges. MS wasn't broken up by a neutral judge because the case didn't warrant it.
The problem from the beginning was that the DOJ was really representing the interests of those who lobbied for the case (e.g Sun, AOL) rather than consumers. The result was those companies got a big payday from MS.
The most important issue from a consumers perspective was the OEM agreements, but instead they focused on desktop Java and one-hit-wonder Netscape.
.009K years should be enough for anyone (Score:2)
That is all.
Lesson learned: (Score:2)
If you are big enough to stall long enough, the government loses interest.
Seems Both Microsoft and the terrorists have learned this.
We now have a release date for Windows 8 (Score:2)
May 13, 2011.
Though it might slip up to 18 months for "technical reasons".
Re: (Score:1)
Flamebait? I think it's a fair question. Here's the difference - take the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. Apple doesn't have the monopoly power to force the music industry to only use their technologies.
To accomplish that monopoly, here's what Apple could do: give the entire music industry the tools to create music using Apple's technology for several years. Keep upgrading these tools to gradually only work with Apple products and technical advances. Promise the music industry members a place on iPod/iTunes which ca
Re: (Score:2)
I just re-read your post for some reason. They were right - it's flamebait if you knew what a monopoly was, but I don't think you do so I'm going to give you a pass. There's a difference between monopoly and success.
OS X and Apple manufactured products are not a monopoly. You can load other operating systems on Apple hardware and Apple even gives you the tools to do it. They don't choose to support OS X on every random hardware combination so they try to limit where you can install it, but they don't comple