The MS vs. DOJ case arguments end 193
BlackICE writes "Ding dong the witch is dead-The trial portion of the case is over, and now both sides will have about a month to prepare closing statements. Expert opinion seems to be that the government will win, but what the final outcome will be in terms of reforms or injunctions is still up in the air. " Reports have also been hinting at settlement talks as well - maybe that will get everything over with sooner. Of course, following this comes the appeals, so my kids should be somewhere in grad school by the time this really finishes.
Case has already had its effect (Score:4)
"Microsoft has already changed its behavior," Kovacic said. "They've backed off some of the contested practices. Their competitors have been emboldened to do things they may not have done before the trial. The government has gotten a lot of what they wanted. The company is not swinging away like they used to."
Corel's CEO, for example, has described the anti-trust trial as creating a window of opportunity that allowed Microsoft competitors to push onto the Linux platform without fear of retaliation. And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Personally, I hope the trial lasts another 20 years. As a lawyer, my recurring fantasy is that Judge Jackson will find Microsoft in violation of the anti-trust laws, then take another year or two of proceedings to decide what to do about it, which is entirely possible.
With a violation ruling in place, the sharks can unload on Microsoft in follow-on cases, where Microsoft's violation will be taken as established as a matter of law (through a little-known provision of the Clayton Act), leaving only the amount of damages to be decided in those cases.
Decades from now, I suspect the legal historians will regard as Microsoft's biggest mistake the decision to butt heads with the government rather than cut a deal early on. The Clayton Act's provision requiring the violation to be taken as established in other cases kicked in the moment the trial itself started. From that point on, not even a settlement could get Microsoft out from under that requirement.
pem@televar.com
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
No way: that's totally unacceptable, and your ignorance is not an excuse, and while value neutrality is fine and good there is always a limit.
In the event that AOL and Microsoft _are_ finding it better to divide up ownership of the world by using this convenient opportunity to pretend to be battling while simultaneously buying up everybody else out there, only to turn around when the dust settles and go 'tadah! There Can Be Only One'- what, exactly, do you propose to do about it? Your attitude is totally unhelpful _before_ the disaster. Do you have any better plans for _after_ this seizure of power (it's lovely how the appearance of _two_ huge powers seems to make it OK for those powers to be eating up everything else- lovely until they turn out to be cooperating in this...), or are you simply going to retreat to a fscking armed compound with no electricity or phone service?
'scuse the ferocity, but I hadn't considered how effective MS/AOL collaboration would be for both companies- they're somewhat orthogonal and could help each other, and pretending to fight _now_ is one hell of a smokescreen- and the instant I get tipped off by MOSR to consider the idea, I come here and suddenly there's no such thing as trusts- feh!
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:1)
Jon Postel is dead. I'm not sure whether I'm happy he doesn't have to see this, or sad that he isn't around to fight it. You simply don't know your danger. What you are moving towards is feudalism, top-down government without representation or recourse, and you only like it because computer geeks get to be the feudal barons. If somebody suggested that your state Senator (assuming you're in the USA- I think you must surely be, Europe loves feudalism less as they actually live with it here and there) ought to become your King and take all authority from the federal government, you'd flip out! How dare he!
I think the way the US government works, particularly in this case, is deeply flawed but probably the best we can expect.
Re:Fallacy of lassaiz faire capatalism (Score:1)
This decline was not an easy natural thing. The reason antitrust law exists is to help these things straighten out _without_ so much shattering of families, loss of life, hired thugs charging picket lines with sawed off pool cues or shotguns.
You are underplaying the simple historical fact that these, too, were undeclared wars- of a savagery we are not used to in our present day society- with acts of desperation that we are not driven to.
Yet.
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:2)
Basically, Bill Gates ushers in his reign of terror by condemning hobbyist computer users for copying his software, his intellectual property, and how in God's name will he make money if people don't buy it?
Re:Worried about the trial (can't happen) (Score:1)
1) RedHat's $80 is not predatory pricing
2) The qeustion of the case is not "does MS have a monopoly?" but "is MS using its monopoly position to stifle competition?". MS is trying to defind point #2 my trying to declare that they are not a monopoly at all, thus making the question moot.
Point #2 is very important, because according to the law (IANAL), it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it *is* illegal to use that monopoly power to maintain the monopoly. The govt is trying to prove that through MS's predatory pricing and contracts, that it is trying to maintain a monopoly.
Re:Trial (Score:1)
Except that this time the investigators didn't blow the case by having an anti-computer nazi "find" all of the incriminating evidence.
LK
Re:Top X Things GUARANTEED To Be Determined at Cou (Score:1)
8) Never, Never, NEVER start your defense by pissing off the judge.
No attacks, just a question (Score:1)
I have a question: What would prevent Microsoft from using their current anti-competitive tactics without laws against them?
Unless I totally misunderstand the concept of anarchy as a political system, it seems to me that Microsoft would be free to use bribery, extortion, and intimidation to maintain a dominant market position.
Please explain how anarchy would lead to increased consumer protection. And yes, I know that any increased consumer protection resulting from MS vs. DOJ will be incidental at best.
I do want to keep this polite, so I won't address the comment about sitting in my nice home in front of my expensive computer...
Re:Worried about the trial (can't happen) (Score:1)
Standard disclaimer: IANAL
Additionally I think they broke the law when they used their existing monopoly (the OS market) to gain market share in a new area (the browser market). Wasn't this part of the trial too? Or was that just the Netscape v. Microsoft trial?
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
Murder *is* about intentions. That's why we have various degrees of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, etc. *Real* bad example there.
Bust them up (Score:1)
It's good for the industry as other technology will have a chance to flurish, it's not really bad for M$ (it never hurt standard oil) or their share holders as they start with a huge lead over all their competators.
This is the only solution that will solve the problem, which is that M$ can and does use it's two monopolies to support each other and drive competition out of the market place.
Re:Free market (Score:1)
> public school systems and I don't hear any
> motions to stop that
Darn, I must have gone wrong then when I voted for my local microsoft board member. Oh wait, I don't *get* to vote for microsoft board members...
--
Re:Trial (Score:1)
But seriously, this could drag on much longer. I hope they just settle, split the company into OSes and Apps, document all the Windows calls, support other OSes, port their apps, or something. That's what should have been done before, anyhow.
However, I read that if it goes up to the Supreme Court, this could last another four years. Windows 2000 already integrates much more than Internet Explorer, so I wonder what will happen if Microsoft loses... will they have to tear the browser out of the OS, and redesign it? Can they use an HTML help system? Where do the components end...
That's what I like about Linux: clear division and versioning of libraries and applications...
Re:Trial (Score:1)
The actual dangers are that people don't necessarily know that much about it--they think that Internet Explorer is the Internet, and that the Internet is slow and crashes a lot--or that they have a choice, and they don't realize why some web pages don't work or look right under Netscape (maybe they were created with a Microsoft product) or Internet Explorer... (maybe they were written with Netscape extensions...)
Both parties are guilty of pushing incompatible extensions, protocols, services... (Frames, ActiveX, DHTML, etc.) If we didn't have two competing browsers, maybe we could just stick to the open standards. At least Mozilla is trying to do a better job of being standards-compliant.
Re:Trial (Score:1)
However, I've tried browsing with Amaya, and I like standards-conformance. I like it when a browser doesn't read past the
It's a shame that people can't implement the agreed-upon specs. This works for languages, mostly, and good extensions sometimes get folded into the next version of the spec. I'd even be happy if there was a box to check in your browser that enabled standards compliance with a particular HTML spec... I've seen web page filters that do this, so it can't be that difficult.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
See my earlier post [slashdot.org] on this subject.
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
No they don't have contracts that force an OEM to ship only Microsoft OSes. They can't do that yet because they don't yet have enough power in the server arena. They do however have contracts that force OEMs to pay for Windows on every desktop machine they ship, whether it ships with the software or not. Since the OEM can't afford to be paying for software that the customer isn't paying for, they only allow the customer to buy a computer with the Windows software which the customer must pay for. Hence the lack of consumer choice arguments.
Re:Doesnt the DOJ have to prove that.... (Score:1)
Illegal anti-competitive acts are considered to automatically harm consumers. Many consumers aren't far-sighted enough to see it now, but it is understood by most economists and the courts. If the DOJ can prove that Microsoft tried to prevent competition, then they don't have to prove direct harm to consumers. Even if they did have to prove direct harm, they could easily use the Windows Refund Day incident as a good example of customers who were harmed by Microsoft's practices.
That's how I understand things to be, but since IANAL I expect anyone with better insight into this to correct me.
Do you just read headlines or what? (Score:1)
Microsoft no longer has contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine whether it ships with Windows or not.
You are absolutely correct in this statement. BUT, I will say it again, I'm not saying they require them to pay for Windows on EVERY machine that is shipped. As I said in the previous post, they don't have the power in the server arena to do this yet.
The per processor licensing issue was part of the original DOJ case in 1994 that was resolved by the consent decree. It was not an issue in this trial.
I didn't say they were using "per processor" licensing, did I? I said "per machine." Actually, "per model" would be a bit more specific. You see, they now have contracts that require OEMs to pay for Windows on every machine of a particular model if any machine of that model ships with Windows installed. So, if Compaq wants to ship any Deskpro model with Windows, they must pay for Windows on every Deskpro machine that ships, whether the customer wants Windows or not. That is how Microsoft got around the "per processor" wording in the consent decree and is one of the reasons that the consent decree was such a joke. That's also why the DOJ is professing its determination to have an airtight resolution to this case. They don't want Microsoft to be able to weasel out of it on a technicality... again.
The current DOJ case revolves around the question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and if they do, whether they used that monopoly illegaly in an attempt to gain control of the browser market.
I'm well aware of what this case is about. I've been reading transcripts and following it very closely. I read everything I can find that is written or said by an anti-trust attorney. This case is about a lot more than just browsers, but that has become the most understandable and obvious part of the case and so became the focus of the DOJ. It's kind of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. They use what they know they can make stick in court. If they tried to show all of what Microsoft has done, they would probably just confuse anyone who doesn't already understand what's been going on. It gets too technical and people, including the courts I would think, don't have the patience for it.
Wait a sec.. back up... (Score:2)
The government can slap Microsoft down because the government gave Microsoft the power to get where it is today. People tend to assume that our free market system is perfect and should not be interfered with because it will correct itself. I don't buy that. I can't think of a single thing our government has set up that is perfect and I don't think that this system is any different. It needs constant attention to keep it running properly.
If it weren't for government laws that allow Microsoft to buy and control intellectual property, and for the advantages that come with incorporation, Microsoft would not exist today. In return for these privileges, Microsoft must obey certain laws. Microsoft allegedly (*cough*yeahright*cough*) hasn't done that and now they are in trouble. It's fine for a company to profit by using the system, but it's not ok to abuse the system. I look forward to many lawsuits against Microsoft. I hope to see them pay for their arrogance and abuse. They will hopefully end up coughing up a lot of the money they've ripped off from consumers over the years. If that happens, I might regain some bit of faith in the legal system... not much mind you, but some.
I don't think anyone can raise a stink about Linux. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. It's hard enough to make charges against Microsoft stick, and they've been about as blatantly abusive as any company I can think of. They wouldn't have a prayer of making any kind of case against Linux.
No moderation is called for here (Score:1)
Re:Linux the only OS, hahaha what a joke! (Score:1)
Get real. It really looks like the only argument guys like you can make for BeOS is nothing but the same old tired Multimedia Rulez Bullshit that ended up sinking the Amiga.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
Me too.
Which is why I resent governments forcing private citizens to bow at the point of a gun. Make no mistake, political force is nothing but physical coercion. If the DOJ wins, it sends the clear message the US citizens have no rights, and exist only at the whim of thugs and their sycophants.
"A government of laws, not of men" - if only this was true.
Re:Oh geez (Score:1)
IF is the point. The antitrust laws are so vague that it is almost impossible to know if and when you have broken them, until you are taken to court.
I remember studying the famous US vs ALCOA case, in which a judge ruled that providing better products at a lower cost than your rivals was anticompetitive, and found ALCOA guilty. Their crime? They were successful and popular. The punishment? Restriction of ALCOAs business. The consequence? A chronic shortage of Aluminium during WW2.
The problem is simply that the antitrust laws can be interpreted to punish anyone for anything, retroactively. That's right - even if it wasn't illegal when you did it, you can still be found guilty anyway.
Laws should be definite and objective.
A MONTH! (Score:1)
No wonder courts are clogged.
Free market (Score:1)
I can't understand why the government hates monopolies anyway. After all, the gov has a monopoly on your public school systems and I don't hear any motions to stop that. (Yes, I know there are private schools, but in most states we still have to pay school taxzes even if all your kids are in private schools).
Finally. (Score:1)
I was harmed too. (Score:1)
Then there was the QuickC incident. .
You know... (Score:1)
On the other hand, WinNT is more stable under VMWare/RH6 software emulation. Go figure!!!
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Irony Defined (Score:1)
Seeing a banner ad for MS Office 2000 on the worlds biggest Linux advocacy sites, at the top of an article about the MS vs. DOJ case which speculates that MS is getting ready to lose.
Odd.
If Microsoft is willing to pay for slashdot banner time... at least it pays the bills.
Re:Amusement Factor (Score:1)
Listening to multi-billion dollar corp.
execs sound like they found this money
under a rock is truly intertaining!!
Re:Top X Things GUARANTEED To Be Determined at Cou (Score:1)
Re:Top X Things GUARANTEED To Be Determined at Cou (Score:1)
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
They may not currently have such contracts, but its not for want of trying.
Re:Trial (Score:1)
> we could just stick to the open standards.
Doubtful. Any time you only have one primary implementation of something, that implementation (with all its flaws) will supercede any defined standards whether or not they are open.
It's sad but true: no matter who the coders are, if they don't need to worry about interoperability with other implementations, they aren't going to give a shit about adhering to standards, open or not.
This is as true for Free Software authors as it is for Microsoft.
[ think about it: if Mozilla was the _only_ web browser to exist, do you seriously think they _wouldn't_ start making extensions/modifications to the standards that would be adopted as the de-facto new standards? (although likely they'd document them properly and keep them open, as well as putting them through the proper standards processes eventually) ]
---
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:1)
> for free. Dammit, I want to develop an AIR
> product and sell it, but all of this free air
> stuff is narrowing consumer choice and stifling
> innovation in the air market.
That argument reminds me of Gates' infamous "Open Letter to Hobbyists", which ushered in the current age of proprietary software.
---
Re:Haha. (Score:1)
Possibly the worst that could happen would be for Microsoft to get off scot-free; if this were to happen, it would vindicate all their prior practices and forces other companies to follow their practices 'or else'. The potential LART wielded by the courts has made them behave themselves, that's all.
--
I wonder if... (Score:1)
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:3)
Linux is free as in freedom of speech (and free as in price). Linux is not owned by a monolithic company that has tried it's damndest over the last decade or so to foist it's garbage onto the world as THE one and only True Standard. The Linux community is not bullying the IBM's, Compaq's, Dell's, etc. by threatening them with OEM sales price increases. The Linux community is offering these companies liberation from that Redmond company's stranglehold. We aren't forcing IBM to adopt Linux - the IBM's etc. of this world are doing this - yes, for commercial reasons (they are a company after all) - but also because they have been given this
No one - be they governor, lawyer, or any other official in power could in their wildest imaginations be able to justify a statement to the effect that Linux is introducing "predatory pricing" to cut off all other competition - how could they?
Re:Trial (Score:1)
Biggest hope: Jackson will rule that Microsoft must fully disclose (1) file formats, (2) APIs, and (3) protocols -- and that the disclosure must continue until he decides that remediation has been accomplished. This will treat Windows as the "essential facility" that it is and allow competitors to compete on an even basis, while preventing Microsoft from immediately releasing Office June 2000 with All New File Formats to eliminate the hard work done by, e.g., the Wine development team.
Biggest disappointment: Judge Jackson, unaware of the magnitude of the economics at play, finds that Microsoft has done all the Bad Things they're accused of, and settles the issue by fining them the "massive" sum of 5 or 6 billion dollars. Business as usual, profits take a one-quarter dip.
Biggest fear: Microsoft is found not to possess monopoly power, and Judge Jackson thanks them for their generous time and apologizes for their inconvenience. Linux suddenly vanishes from the pages of the ZD publications. OEMs regretfully announce that their sales of machines with Linux just aren't high enough to justify the cost of supporting them and therefore Linux will be discontinued as an option. Microsoft integrates every program ever written into their flagship operating system.
As for the author who felt disturbed by the fact that so many people think this trial is nothing more than "IE or Netscape, who runs the Web?", one should never forget that most people have the brains of week-old banana pudding and for them, active involvement in civic life means spitting on the grass in the park instead of on the sidewalk.
Re:How about... (Score:1)
Now assume that one of those companies wanted to make their OS not compatible with the others. Do you think everyone will flock to the new incompatability? Would it be advertised as "New! Can't run old programs or any existing programs, but we'll sell you some new ones!"?
No. People wouldn't buy it, and the company would suffer-- they know this already. Instead, companies would have to compete by finding ways to increase stability, efficiency, and *standards* support without breaking legacy code. That effect is the desired one. Competing products tend to converge until they are difficult to tell apart, not diverge.
Don't believe the "support nightmare" FUD-- for it is just that. In the end, any small (And I do mean small-- the Windows children could not be vastly different from each other or else they wouldn't sell) extra cost would be worth the immesuarable value of the freedom we attain and the value of the better code bases.
The three (or more, but at least three) seperate-but-equal groups with the same IP solution should be the solution that the government goes for. Another solution -- say, splitting off the apps from the OS -- would only cause the two monopolies to collude with each other and continue their practises.
Re:Not all Microsoft's fault (Score:1)
A real microkernel cannot do this. Odd how people run around claiming that NT is a microkernel? Well, it's not. It's a layered kernel -- but that doesn't have the same buzzword compliancy!
Re:Free market - what are you talking about? (Score:1)
I meant "mixed command/free market" system. Sorry for the confusion.
Re:Free market - what are you talking about? (Score:3)
There is no such thing anymore as a true free market in a successful capitalist country. We have a command/control economy, just like every other successful "free" nation in the world.
Having a monopoly in and on of itself is not illegal. Trying to be more profitable is not illegal. But trying to increase those profits by temporarily taking a loss in order to kill out all of your competetion IS illegal. 'Accidental' monopolies are fine and just, but taking actions to actively secure that monopoly by killing out all of your competitors is not just... and should never be just. I daresay that without GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS etc the country as a whole would truly be in a great deal of trouble-- for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?
And no, MacOS doesn't count. It can't run on our machines.
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:1)
Who to go after? Pft! That's easy! (Score:1)
Completely irrelevent explosion (Score:1)
(bitter, bitter, bitter)
- B
Re:Problems with Capitalism (Score:1)
Re:Not all Microsoft's fault (Score:1)
An improperly written user-mode driver can bus-lock a machine just as easily as an improperly written kernel-mode driver. Running in user-space only lets you catch certain classes of errors more easily.
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
Also, if they have do Windows, they aren't allowed to modify the start up..so no multiboot, or anything like that.
But, yes, no one's forcing them to ship them...just pay for them.
Re:Doesnt the DOJ have to prove that.... (Score:1)
On Slashdot: Microsoft Overcharged Computer Industry US$10 Billion [slashdot.org]
or bullied
Also on Slashdot: IBM & Microsoft rift [slashdot.org] (discussing a deposition by IBM execs over Microsoft "punishing" IBM for selling products that compete wth Windows)
by big companies.
Jay (=
Re:Doesnt the DOJ have to prove that.... (Score:1)
Good point. The Windows Refund Day would have been a better example of consumers being bullied by MS.
Jay (=
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
This is a trial in which Microsoft has had every opportunity to prove that they were not breaking the law.
Except that the law is excessively vague and over-reaching. The best evidence for this is that Microsoft is not arguing that they did not do the things that they are accused of doing. They are arguing that what they does not fall under the bounds of the law. In other words, they are not asked to prove their innocence. They are asked to prove that the judge should interpret the law in their favor. This kind of "flexible" law is a recipe for tyranny.
The Sherman Act is full of phrases like "combinations in restraint of trade" and "attempts to monoplize." This is Orwellian doublespeak: government lawyers can twist this to apply to pretty much anything. The interpretations change with every judge and every prosecutor, because there is no rational basis for deciding what is and is not a crime. Basically, it boils down to prosecuting any company with a large market share who does unpopular (not necessarily unethical or otherwise illegal) things.
So "proving" that Microsoft did not break the law is impossible, because strictly speaking, every large corporation breaks antitrust law simply by trying to maintain their market share. Companies are punished not for specific acts deemed illegal, but for being large and unpopular. It's a blank check for the DOJ to harass pretty much whoever they want.
"Libertarian socialism???" (Score:1)
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
I don't see how any of these actions violate the rights of their competitors. no one has a right to write Windows apps, and no one has a write to make OS's for any particualr computer. So I would argue all these should be legal.
This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets.
OK, how about this: let's write a law that reads: the government shall have the power to punish people who do bad things. Then we never have to write any laws again. Our all-knowing DOJ will simply decide who does bad things, and punish them.
This is the heart of the problem: even if I accept that the above practices should be illegal, there was no way for Microsoft to know they are illegal. Apple does many of the same things, yet no one is going after them. It is arbitrary, which means that it gives the DOJ nearly unlimited power to harrass successful companies for things that were not previously considered crimes.
Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
The intention of microsoft is irrelevant. If they did something wrong, whether they did it for "good reasons" or "bad reasons" is irrelevant. When's the last time you saw a murder defendent argue he meant to perform "good, clean" murder? Law should limit actions, not intentions.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:1)
A "field for competition" would seem to be a right held by MS competitors. And a free market is a market without gov't interference.
No one has a special right to write a browser for Windows, but everyone should have an equal opportunity in the market to distribute their browser and let the market pick the best one.
How has this been violated? Anyone who wants to is free to download Netscape and install it. It is true that Microsoft has given its browser a lot of publicity and support, but so what? Netscape has a right to write and distribute their browser. They have not been prevented from doing so.
If Apple is acting illegally to create a monopoly, then it should indeed be prosecuted. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, so I'm afraid I can't come up with an example here.
Well, Apple has a monopoly on the Macintosh market, and has "bundled" MSIE with Mac OS as the default browser. Is this monopolistic? I see no principled difference, excpept that Microsoft is bigger, so it is ok to beat up on them. Furthermore, its subsidiaries create a word processor, (Claris) a database program (FM) etc. Are these illegal?
I would argue that under antitrust law they are, but that the DOJ is not prosecuting them because Microsoft gives them more publicity. The fact is, that if you combine all the justifications that have won antitrust cases in the past, you could convict literally any major corporation. It is bad law.
Of course we don't want a law to "punish people who do bad things." That is an over generalization of what I said. Throughout U.S. history the courts have interpreted the laws (as is their function under the Constitution) and they will continue to do so.
But the difference between "people who do bad things" and "combinations in restraint of trade" is only a matter of degree. They are not specific actions, but class of actions, and no clear test is provided to tell which actions fall into that class. So a clever lawyer can find actions by pretty much any successful company that can be twisted into a "combination in restraint of trade," just as you can arrest pretty much any individual that "does bad things."
This history of case law and decisions sets a precedent, and the precedent is taken into account in future cases and as new laws are written.In some cases there are arbitrary laws, but they are refined over time by the precedents set by trials such as this one and as new laws are enacted as a result of those trials.
This is a bad thing, because it is simply Congress shirking its responsibility to define what is and is not illegal. Courts enforce the law, they should not have to write it. Obviously, courts should interpret minor points that were accidentally left unclear, but major points should be laid down ahead of time to make it clear. Courts usually follow precedents, but they also sometimes break precedents and decide that a whole new class of actions is illegal. When that happens, a bunch of businesses will suddenly find themselves criminals, despite the fact that what they did was legal when they did it. This is what antitrust advocates like to call "flexible" law--law that can change to fit the circumstances. What that means it that it gives the courts the power to convict companies for things that were not previously crimes.
So *any* law that must go through the process you describe is bad law. It is the job of Congress to clearly spell out what is and is not illegal, and if they don't they are creating an opportunity for oppression.
government vs corporations (Score:1)
Now consider the government. Imagine for example if the government wins its case and sets up a "software review board" to make sure that MS lives up to its obligations. This board restricts the content of MS's OS. After a while, MS complains that its competitors have an unfair advantage, and so the board is expanded to regulate all OS's. Now you have a *permanent* stagnation of the OS industry. You tell me: which is scarier.
The fundamental difference between a government and a corporation, is that a corporation can never force you to do anything. If you simply refuse to accept its products, it can't do a thing to you. Only government can be described as "Orwellian" because only government can act like Big Brother. Corporations can make lousy software, and might even make it more difficult for you to get a competing product. But there are *always* alternatives.
Thus I am willing to accept a great deal of "monopoly" from MS before I sanction government action. I have a Mac, and Microsoft can't keep me from using it or keep Apple from making new hardware or software. The government conceivable could. Therefore the government is the only entity whose actions can properly be called "Orwellian."
Predatory pricing (Score:1)
Essentially, the government (or plaintiff) has to prove that the price you're selling your product at is less than it costs to make it. So if my widget costs $5 and it takes $10 to make, it's bad. But you ALSO have to show that the pricing is calculated to drive the competition out of business so you can raise the price of your product above the market rate. (You need a reasonable chance of success for a conviction. IIRC the leading case in this vein is Matsushita, but Antitrust is a faint haze right now.)
Because of the GPL, Linux will always remain free (as in beer). It would be impossible to charge a monopolist's price for Linux, as long as anyone else could take the source and distribute it for essentially nothing.
The only way I could see problems in the far future is for value-added companies developing proprietary elements that become essential to businesses. But all of Redhat's products are pretty much GPL'ed also.
Disclaimer: IANAL (yet).
Anarchy, anti-trust, and other ramblings (LONG) (Score:1)
Anti-trust laws were passed to fix an economic system which was becoming increasingly dysfunctional as monopolies and trusts continued to form and abound, destroying the very competition and built in price and quality controls which a free market is expected to promote, and upon which the success of capatalism is dependent. The laws were not designed to eliminate all monopolies (although one can make very strong arguments that laws which would disallow monopolies could, if implemented correctly, be a very good thing), but to curb what monopolies do and to limit the methodology whereby monopolies could be achieved. The result has been less monopolies, more competition, and a more robust economy. It isn't perfect by any means, as the current state of Microsoft demonstrates, but it is far better than nothing at all.
Government is a powerful and dangerous thing, I agree. Alas, as things currently stand, an unrestrained marketplace is not only ultimately dysfunctional from an economic perspective, but also fraught with dangers of its own, including but not limited to anti-labor and ecological excesses, and some very nasty implications with respect to individual rights and liberties. (Just thing what an unregulated employer could coerce you into doing, simply by threating your livelihood. A person will do many things they otherwise would never consider to prevent their family and children from starving, and not everyone is as employable as we are.)
A very interesting discussion would be what kind of non-governmental framework could be devised to replace governmental regulation, which would have the following characteristics:
1) "democratic" feedback mechanisms which would allow concerned individuals as well as concerned interest groups/corporations to participate and effect the outcome (The free market succeeds here initially, but fails miserably in the long term, as once a monopoly is in place the consumers ability to effect change is reduced to zero, especially for critical items such as food, water, housing, etc.)
2) neutral stance, not favoring one corporation over another (again, an unregulated free market fails as it favors large players over small players, and ultimately favors monopolies over everyone else)
3) redress - a mechanism whereby a party which has been wronged can seek redress. Examples would include companies from which property (intellectual or otherwise) has been stolen, which have been the victim of unfair trade practices, or targets of unethical coercian a la' the Mafia, could obtain financial recompense from the offendors, or individuals harmed by gross negligence (health problems due to toxic waste dumping, etc.) could be redressed. Obviously, an unregulated free market has no mechanism in place to address these issues.
4) Protection of individual rights against corporate coercian. This includes labor issues, but also free speach issues ("you say anything but what we want and you'll starve!"), and so forth.
5) Is not a government -- or at least, not a monopoly of power, which arguably any government currently in existence is.
6) Facilitates free trade, by discouraging practices which limit competition and providing a framework which allows businesses and individuals to enter into contracts with one another with confidence and enforcability.
7) Protects individuals and business entities from fraud, overt coercian such as protection rackets, and so forth.
8) Provides equal access to education opportunities (arguably government fails miserably here, at least in the USA where higher education is an expensive privelege rather than a right).
I'm certain there are other desirable characteristics I have overlooked.
Disgovernance is an appealing notion (it certainly appeals to me), but trading away a democratically elected government for a rampent corporate oligarchy isn't really a very pleasant solution. On the other hand, if individuals could "subscribe" to the government of their choice (or some other framework which provides for justice and protection of individual rights) would be an interesting alternative. However, designing something with these characteristics is by no means a trivial excersize, and simply leaving the details to a free market without serious consideration of the consequences, and a method for dealing with dysfunctions as they arise is a recipe for disaster.
I am not against disgovernance, or against government regulation per se. Neither is a panacea, and both have serious implications along with significant dangers which need to be very carefully thought through.
Re:How about... (Score:1)
You are, of course, missing the point. The point is that the REVIEWERS and early adopters saw it, and spread the word that Windows didn't work with DR-DOS.
Because they are reviewers and the bleeding edge types in companies, their views were at least heard by the PHBs who make the decisions.
Another fantastic marketing stroke of genius by Micros~1. (Hardly the first, and certainly not the last)
--
Re:How about... (Score:2)
For example, here's an exchange I had with technician in about 1993:
Goon Tech: "You're running IBM DOS on your PS/2. Only MS-DOS is 'supported' here." (Starts to type FDISK
Me: "What do you mean 'supported'? Everyone here runs IBM Microchannel machines, and the MS EMM386 doesn't even work right on Microchannel! It crashes and won't recognize all of the memory!"
Tech: "Orders is orders. Ooog." (SYS)
You think it would be any better with off-brand Windows? IBM-brand Windows?
(And don't start going off about the DR-DOS detection code. It was in the Windows 3.1 BETA only. Not many saw it. Many folks successfully ran the Win3.1 with DR-DOS. There was a nice "Thank you for upgrading from OS/2 to MS-DOS 6.0 message", though.)
--
Re:How about... (Score:2)
I'd guess the "Buy MS-DOS, get Windows for $5, the only catch is that your AUTOEXEC.BAT has to end with WIN" deal probably had much more effect than the Windows 3.1 beta.
It's not like Windows 3.1 was a highly anticipated product by techies, who by in large saw it for the crap that it was. Most end users started using it in companies in open revolt against the MIS staff.
--
Trial Aims Already Accomplished (Score:1)
Consider: by bringing the action lots of companies and individuals have been a) made aware of a lot of interesting facts and b) been given breathing space because MS is temporarily shackled.
Not all Microsoft's fault (Score:1)
If Micron can't write a decent graphics driver (and it's possible, as lots of other graphics drivers _do_ work), that's Micron's fault, not Microsoft's.
A lot of the faults I see (as a tech support person) relate to buggy sound, video and printer drivers provided by 3rd person manufacturers.
Microsoft is nowhere near perfect, but they aren't to blame for _everything_.
Samael
Re:Trial Increases Bill's Net Worth? (Score:1)
Re:Fully aware of how Linux came to be... (Score:1)
cjs
Penalties (Score:2)
Lastly, I like McNealy's idea of barring them from making an aquisitions for the next 5 years
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:1)
Re:How about... (Score:2)
If you call it a feature they will. Isn't this how it worked for web browsers? Remember, we won't be talking about a totally incompatible new system, just one with new Baby Bill ActiveSomething!
Splitting them up into multiple smaller companies with the exact same products won't work nearly as well as it did for Ma Bell, because there's no way to restrict the baby Bills to separate geographical markets. We would just end up with three smaller clones, but since they can all tie their Windows to their apps, either one of them will eventually become a monopoly again or the government will have to do some intrusive regulation of Microsoft's business, just like they do for the local phone companies now.
Separating the apps, internet, and OS components of Micros~1 would work better because it would break up the quasi-vertical monopoly that MS has in several different software arenas. Also, this would force their products to fully disclose their APIs, and then other companies could compete and be sure that their apps are fully Windows compliant (remember DR-DOS?). Besides, part of the case against MS (the most important part, IMHO) concerned their use of an OS monopoly to try to gain a web browser monopoly. Splitting up MS along product lines would prevent this sort of monopoly-spreading.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:2)
I'm not sure that the rights of MS competitors are exactly the issue here. It's more a question of ensuring a level playing field for competition and encouraging a free market, rather than deciding exactly who has a right to do something. Microsoft's actions don't just attack their specific competitors, they also destroy the free market and reduce consumer choice, which is bad. It doesn't really matter if IE or Netscape wins the browser war, but the winner should prevail because they offer a better browser and the consumer preferred it, not because they are made by the OS manufacturer. So in a certain sense the Sherman Act recognizes a "right" to a free market for all competitors in that market. But this is just as much Microsoft's right as it is Netscape's right. No one has a special right to write a browser for Windows, but everyone should have an equal opportunity in the market to distribute their browser and let the market pick the best one.
Your second argument has a very good point: if Apple is doing the same thing, why aren't they being prosecuted? The answer to that is twofold:
Of course we don't want a law to "punish people who do bad things." That is an over generalization of what I said. Throughout U.S. history the courts have interpreted the laws (as is their function under the Constitution) and they will continue to do so. This history of case law and decisions sets a precedent, and the precedent is taken into account in future cases and as new laws are written. In some cases there are arbitrary laws, but they are refined over time by the precedents set by trials such as this one and as new laws are enacted as a result of those trials. If the law is too arbitrary, it will be thrown out by the courts, but at least so far the courts seem to feel that the anti-trust laws are constitutional and thus that the law is not too arbitrary for a law-abiding corporate citizen to follow correctly.
You have a point as far as intent goes. Although in some trials intent is a significant mitigating factor, you are correct that it isn't necessarily one here. This is because normally intent matters when a crime could have been committed accidentally, or it could have been committed in cold blood with malice aforethought. However, I don't see how Microsoft could have accidentally taken the actions that we've heard about during the trial, or how Microsoft could have taken those actions believing that they would be in the best interests of free trade. Their intent was to use their desktop OS monopoly to become a monopoly in the web browser market, they abused their monopoly power to act in the restraint of trade, and they knew they were doing it. So in a way their intentions are the important factor here, because if they didn't have intentions to act illegally, they wouldn't have just accidentally done so, and we wouldn't be having a trial.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:2)
A "field for competition" would seem to be a right held by MS competitors. And a free market is a market without gov't interference.
Not quite - MS also has a right to an even playing field. In this regard there is no difference between MS and any software company. And a market without any government interference is going to be full of monopoly pretty quickly in most cases. Businesses are not people; they are allowed to exist and do business at the sufferance of the government and ultimately the citizens. Government needs to broker disputes between businesses just like it does between people, and it also needs to make sure that business doesn't take unfair advantage of the citizens who allow business to take place. If you don't agree that some amount of government regulation is necessary, then I don't think that either of us are going to convince the other.
Netscape has a right to write and distribute their browser. They have not been prevented from doing so.
They were prevented when MS made deals with OEMs only if they did not include Netscape on their desktop, for example. Since when should MS be dictating anything like that to OEMs - they are clearly using their dominance in the Windows market (which the OEMs are dependent on, because there is a monopoly) to increase their dominance in the browser market. Sure, anybody can download and install Netscape, but we both know that those actions are beyond many users. Microsoft was smart to try to get onto the startup screen; their only mistake was using their Windows monopoly to do it. If Microsoft had made the case for IE solely on the basis of the features and cost of IE, then there would be one less argument against them.
So a clever lawyer can find actions by pretty much any successful company that can be twisted into a "combination in restraint of trade," just as you can arrest pretty much any individual that "does bad things."
I'll agree that a good lawyer could make it look like that, but that doesn't make it so. It is the court's job to determine whether a combination in restraint of trade really occurred, just as it is with any other trial. Sometimes laws are found to be so vague that they are unenforceable and are thrown out of court - for example, some Internet censorship laws meet this fate. Anti-trust laws can suffer the same fate if the courts think that they are too vague, but this has not happened yet. Therefore, the court system feels that there is enough specific information in the law to divide companies into two classes of illegal monopolists and legal ones.
Courts usually follow precedents, but they also sometimes break precedents and decide that a whole new class of actions is illegal. When that happens, a bunch of businesses will suddenly find themselves criminals, despite the fact that what they did was legal when they did it.
There are two different issues here. You normally cannot be held accountable for actions you took which were legal when you did them. Nobody has changed the wording of the anti-trust laws behind Microsoft's back, and even if that had occurred they would not be legally accountable for their (now illegal) actions that were made before the law was changed.
On the other hand, you make a good point that the interpretation of the law can change, so that at one time someone may be found to have followed the law and later a different person may be found to have broken it for doing the exact same thing. Unfortunately this could happen with any law; for example (and I use this only as an example, I don't want to argue about this here) the laws concerning abortion continue to be reinterpreted and sometimes completely thrown out by the courts (Roe v. Wade, etc). Three things affect reinterpretations such as this:
You argue that the anti-trust laws are too vague, to which I can only reply that they have not been vague enough to be thrown out by the courts yet. I say yet, because there really hasn't been a huge number of past antitrust cases for precedent in the U.S. The law has only been on the books about 100 years and there certainly hasn't been one case a year since then, has there? This isn't much of a precedent compared to murder cases, for example. So it is possible that the interpretation of the law will change. However, the DOJ attorneys have done fairly well at showing that MS actions fit into what the laws and the prior precedents describe as illegal behavior. It is to the disadvantage of the DOJ to try to set a new precedent; it is much easier to bring a case under the current interpretation of the law because the courts really don't want to reinterpret if they can avoid it.
It is the job of Congress to clearly spell out what is and is not illegal, and if they don't they are creating an opportunity for oppression.
It would be wonderful if Congress could do that now, and it would have been astonishing if Congress 100 years ago had made provisions in the antitrust laws for the kind of business deals which companies are making today. However, business isn't static and so the interpretation of the law must also change to keep up. If the laws become too out of date, they will be thrown out by the courts or updated by Congress.
It's not that I'm necessarily in favor of vague laws, but rather laws which don't have to be revised every time there's a new way of doing business. The antitrust laws are more detailed than just "combinations in restraint of trade", but they don't need to describe every possible action that you could take, just like a law about murder doesn't describe every way you could kill someone. All that matters is you did it, you knew you were doing it, and you had every intention of bringing about the outcome that occurred. Here's a hint: if you negotiate with OEMs and the public on a basis of the price, quality, and features of your product, you're usually doing OK. If you negotiate on the basis of fear of your competition, your strength in other markets, and deals that are "too good to be true", then you might have some problems. I can't believe that one of the richest companies in the world doesn't have enough lawyers to tell them that bribing OEMs not to include Netscape might be over the edge.
Re:perhaps the same outcome, then? (Score:4)
OK, I'm in.
Whoa there. There is a different (as many other posters here have kindly pointed out) between the ways that different corporations can maintain and improve their market share. Remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to gain monopoly power by illegal means, or to use monopoly power (even if acquired legally) to act in restraint of trade. With that in mind, let's consider some legal ways for companies to increase market share:
Here are some illegal ways:
I'll admit that the anti-trust laws are not the most clear-cut in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. This made sense when the laws were drafted, because markets can change rapidly and we don't want to rewrite large laws like this every year to take into account market changes and entirely new markets. Like many other laws, the question is ultimately the intent of Microsoft, and I don't think anyone at this point can argue that Microsoft's intent was only to have a good, clean competition and provide the best products for their customers.
Trial (Score:1)
Re:Case has already had its effect (Score:1)
That's what everyone thought after the consent decree.
MS cannot be permitted to continue unharmed. Tehy don't get the sense of whats going on... and as long as they don't understand, more players will die... (My next bet is on RealAudio going the way of Netscape). MS has to be stopped... or at least hit hard enough that by the time they recover they'll have to fight for any space in the market.
Re:Free market (Score:1)
The government can't stand competition.
Monopolies can't stand competition.
Re:Worried about the trial (LONG) (Score:1)
(Disclaimer: Dammit Jim, I'm a geek, not a lawyer.)
This would actually be pretty difficult to argue. The reason the "predatory pricing" argument is used against Microsoft is because of the government's (perfectly reasonable) argument that pushing IE onto the desktop was a good way to enforce dependence on Microsoft and their retail products. If Microsoft had just ceded the browser market to Netscape, people might have started moving to other platforms which Netscape supported, which would have been disasterous for MS.
The interesting thing here is that the reverse of the argument doesn't apply to Linux. MS hopes that if you're using IE, you'll stick with Windows, and drop a bundle on the MS stable of products (including Windows). Linux distribution companies - Red Hat, Debian, etc. - can make money off their manuals, recoup the cost of distribution media, and sell tech support, but they can't actually charge for the OS. The ancillary costs for the consumer are all tech-support costs, something which just about every major software company charges for at some level.
In other words: when a company engages in anti-competitive practices, then violates a consent decree [usdoj.gov] they signed to stop doing it, the answer is to let them make billions off of it, because sooner or later they'll get clumsy and not be able to do it anymore.
I'm not sure I buy that.
As fashionable as it may be to declare the immanence of the dawn of a post-political era, it's worth keeping a couple basic things in mind. (Warning: strong personal bias follows)
All the DOJ is doing is trying to uphold the laws we have, and the consent decree that Microsoft signed four years ago. You call it an example of top-down government. I call it the state reminding MS to follow the rules it agreed to.
More is Better (Score:1)
Huh? When you say "didn't have two" do you mean it would be better if there was just one, or if there were more than two?
I hope you mean the latter. The more browsers you have, the more likely they are to follow the standard. There used to be a time when one browser (Netscape) had a very dominant position, and that is when everyone started breaking standards left and right, by relying on Netscape extensions.
I'm actually glad that Netscape and MSIE are somewhat incompatable, because it forces a lot of web authors, who want to cater to both camps, to stick closer to standards. Maybe those authors are doing it for the wrong reasons (and they'll still use extensions that Netscape and MSIE both support), but in the end, it still makes things easier for me, since I tend to use standards-compliant but non-mainstream browsers, like AWeb.
Re:Worried about the trial (LONG) (Score:1)
Agree 100%. The original argument that they should be allowed to continue their behavior until they fall on their own is completely ridiculous.
I mean, who needs police? We should just let criminals steal anything and everything they want, and someday when they realize how horrible society is like that, they'll change. Uh-huh.
----------
Re:PLEASE DON'T SMOKE HERE (Score:1)
- JB
I became a Linux convert the day that NT crashed five times on me.
Re:Microsoft and Justice Department Met 3wks ago.. (Score:1)
If that ain't a monopoly, I don't know what is. When the government feels there is nowhere to turn, and breaks its own laws because they believe nothing else exists in the market, THAT is truly a monopoly.
But hey, who cares. Regardless of the ruling, the trial has done more for the technology world than anything else in the past 10 years. Notice that since the trial began, all sorts of technology has been booming? Wonder what would have happened to all this cool tech if MS had not been hindered by a trial...
Take a guess. It's an easy question.
Re:Fully aware of how Linux came to be... (Score:1)
Fully aware of how Linux came to be... (Score:2)
My only message was that governments (and other coercive monopolies) generally do a lot more harm than good. If you look to them for help today, don't be surprised when they start taking away your freedoms tomorrow.
Worried about the trial (Score:4)
Imagine it's 2008 and everyone uses Linux, which is free (as in beer). Imagine some entrepreneur raising a case that this "predatory pricing" prevents him developing a new OS and narrows consumer choice. Some bureaucrat might just go for it... and once again we'd have know-nothing governmental noses in our world.
I'm no coder, just an end-user who's switching to Linux because I finally got tired of the proprietary brittleness of Microsoft's stuff. (With a lot of pain, of course, but with gain too.) Government action against Microsoft isn't the answer to anything. The answer is to LET the Microsofts make their billions - let them become fat, stodgy and arrogant. Because this sows the seeds of their own destruction. Resulting in their ideal target buyers, guys like me, becoming dissatisfied and escaping when smarter, more creative people build something like Linux. And the Microsofts start to die.
In a webbed world, top-down government is unnecessary, and relying on it to "solve" our problems just perpetuates this outmoded system known as politics. Let's hope it's not many more years before the mass of people realise this, and strip back governments worldwide into the minimal scraps of social plumbing they should be.
$0.02 worth of predictions... (Score:2)
Microsoft will be found absolutely guilty on all counts.
However, since their business and product is seen as very important to the world economy, their penalty will be a trivial slap on the wrist (a fine that to Bill Gates would look like a couple of bucks to someone like me), and an admonishment to clean up their act, which, of course, they will ignore.
However, Microsoft's days as an all-encompassing software monopoly are numbered, and this trial is only one small part of the reason why.
I believe that the average computer literacy of the general populous of the world has finally reached a level where Microsoft can't just bullshit people with any lie they care to spread anymore. The trial has laid bare some of the ugliness within Microsoft, so it has contributed to their demise.
However, general enlightenment of the masses is a more important factor. With the instantaneous conveying of information made possible by the internet, Microsoft's heretofore most powerful weapon, FUD, is severely diluted. With the 'net, as fast as they can dish out the FUD, enlightened people can refute it.
In addition, the 'net, for the most part, has clued in a lot of "Joe and Jane Average's" to the fact that Microsoft DID NOT invent the computer operating system. In fact, they've rarely done anything but sloppily copy something invented (and done better) by someone else and then slickly marketed what they copied.
Through the enlightenment of the computer using public, Microsoft's days as an overwhelming monopoly are truly numbered. Oh, they'll be serious contenders for many years, but with maybe 75% of the OS market, not 99.9%.
The trial is only one small part of the crumbling of the dynasty, nothing levels the playing field like enlightened consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What happened?" you ask. (Score:3)
Bullocks, you say. No bullocks. Since Microsoft can no longer enforce its monopoly through dirty tactics, as that would cause it too much grief at the trial, new competitors, like Linux, BeOS, and the hardware manufacturers who sell them have all benefitted. It's surprising Apple hasn't regained more market share than what it did with the imac.
What makes this possible? Well, the simple answer is the two biggest bullies, the Government and Microsoft, are duelling, and doing it on the Governements terf. I'm not predicting a first round knock-out, in fact, no knock-out at all. But while Microsoft's legal (bully) department is locked up in the trial, that's less time to make mayhem for the competitors. That they bribed Richard Shmaleese with $200,000 and forged tapes, and even continued some "questionable" tactics while the trial was going on, all hurt the case. Microsoft doesn't want to lose the case, but it also can't win it unless they stop bullying people around, thus losing market share. The biggest effect of the trial, in America's messed-up justice system, is the fear of losing everything t o sustain the trial itself.
Also, since Microsoft's pathetic Operating Systems took up WAYYY too much CPU for what it did (which was always Window's biggest disadvantage) better OS systems like Linux and BeOS can easily make affordable boxes for the rest of us. And without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
-Ben
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:2)
Re:Fully aware of how Linux came to be... (Score:2)
Linux, like the Internet is bigger than any government. Either will eventually topple any attempts to reign them in. Governments will try to put both on a leash; the world will see who is taking who for a walk.
Re:Free market (Score:2)
The government can't stand competition.
Re:Free market (Score:2)
That's what I said. The government can't stand competition. What is the government if not a monopoly?
Antitrust:Free Market::Memory Protection:OS (Score:4)
Legal: Crushing your competitors and establishing an unassailable strategic position though better products, service, distribution and aggressive pricing (provided you make a profit).
Illegal: Crushing your products by threatening their distribution channels with retribution, effectively "cutting off their air supply.". Using your monopoly position to scare off potential customers with vaporware. Buying the competitors is also a no no.
Really, it's not asking too much, IMO. The law simply requires that you don't do things expressly for the purpose of cutting off your customers' access to competitors; the customers must be free to decide what is the best product for them.
The "free market" is not some kind of a benevolent god put there for our protection; it is simply a computational mechanism for setting prices and distributing resources. Like any other mechanism, it only works when used within certain parameters. That is to say, the market only operates freely when its users are constrained to work within its operating limits (example: forming a cartel damages market operation). Saying DOJ should back off of Microsoft is like some DOS weenie saying that you are limiting his programming freedom by not allowing him to write into another program's address space. Literally, it is true, but nobody with any sense really wants to live in a world like that. A good operating system shoots down proesses that misbehave, for the good of the other processes on the system, and for the ultimate good of the users and programmers of the misbegotten process.
To say that the "free market has a nice way of settling this stuff out" is naive because the "stuff" in question damages the operatoin of the free market.
Oh geez (Score:2)
Yes, that's correct. If the government is successful in its case against a predatory company that is in obvious violation of existing anti-trust laws, we can expect to see the tanks rolling down Elm Street any day. Better throw down your guns and start waving white hankies!
Give me a break. If Microsoft broke the law, they must be held accountable. You can't picket the courthouse and scream "But I like that chatty paperclip!" and expect to get them off the hook.
Re:Possible penalties...... (Score:2)
Naw, just strip them of their fortunes and make 'em work in soup kitchens.
Or, since we should probably distinguish between what the corporation has done and what certain people at the top of the hierarchy of that corporation have done, we could always break apart Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and, oh, say Ed Muth (nice try at the trial, Ed) into several parts. Then, as is happening with AT&T and the "Baby Bells," years later we could see some sort of Frankenstein-like combination of Bill, Steve and Ed come back to terrorize the peasants ...
Uhh, on second thought, let's not do that =)
Re:Worried about the trial (Score:2)
Who do they go after? Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and anyone else who makes a commercial distro? MS is a definite target, and there's definitely some small group of individuals who benefit by their practices. But as long as GPL-type stuff continues to dominate in the Linux/BSD community(-ies), there's no one who benefits like an old-time robber-baron. The future Linux World-Domination will come about, if it comes about at all, through grass-roots activity, not top-down corporate decisions. The government wouldn't know how to handle such a thing except maybe by brutal physical repression (read the last week's UF for details).
Think of it: even if there were a single target (Linus Torvalds?), how is any U.S. government going to make a case against them (yes, even the one that appears to be prepared to pass an amendment against flag-burning, as if that's such a freaking pressing issue that it deserves to be on the legislator's "to do" list ... grrr... but that's another issue)? It's like trying to legislate against people in the US speaking Spanish among each other; pass all the laws you want, but they're not going to do anything to stop people -- and of course such laws are egregiously unconstitutional.
The fact that the inevitable Linux worldwide OS hegemony will be based on individual choice and not ultimately on top-down decisions made by back-room executives makes all the difference.
Oh yeah, and while I like Linux as much as the next guy, I also don't think it will ever dominate to the extent that MS has -- the point has always been about choice.
Microsoft and Justice Department Met 3wks ago... (Score:2)
Part of the reason Microsoft may want to talk settlement again has to do with the way Judge Jackson structured the endgame in the trial: He has said he will issue an initial finding on the facts in the case before a final ruling. If that first ruling finds that Microsoft may lose on key points, as seems increasingly likely, the software giant will have a strong incentive to settle before a final judgement comes.
...
In settlement discussions so far, Microsoft has said it is willing to accept new restrictions on its business practices in order to end the case. But the government has countered that Microsoft must go further and says the evidence of Microsoft's monopoly that has come out in the five month trial demands a sweeping and air tight remedy.
--snip--
Hopefully they'll be much more air tight than the first two attempts.
Re:Free market (Score:2)
I'm puzzled by your claim that the gov has a monopoly on public schools. What gov: federal? state? Local/municipal? The truth is that the federal government has very little to do with public schools (although they would like to) -- it's more of a state/local issue.
Back on topic, however, it is also important to realize that *being* a monopoly is not illegal; *intent to monopolize* is. This is because not all monopolies are the same, i.e. public utilities necessitate a certain amount of gov-sanctioned monopolism in order to be practical. Public utilities are much different from Microsoft, which in all likelihood broke (bent?) the law to gain an unfair advantage in the "uber-ware" market (thereby demonstrating 'intent to monopolize'). The government's duty is to stand in the way of such behavior, and although I don't particularly like government to solve everyone's problems, this is one of the few examples where it is the gov's responsibility to step in to ensure the viability of the free market. IANAL, but I play one on tv.
Top X Things GUARANTEED To Be Determined at Court (Score:5)
2) The Sun rises in the east. Or is that the west? In either case, it makes Java.
3) Bill Gates is a gigantic prick. But hey, so is everyone else in the biz. Go Woz!
4) If you're a high executive at a major corporation, it's a good idea not to write emails with any meaningful content. Ever.
5) OJ did it.
6) Corporate types in the computer biz are like corporate types everywhere else. Cute and cuddly!
7) You will cooperate with the state with the good of the state and for your own survival. Cooperation will be rewarded. Insubordination will be punished. You will be released into society after confessing your crimes. Do you have any heart conditions I should be aware of?