US DOJ Says Jackson Not Biased 174
the_rev_matt sent in linkage to CNN talking about how the DOJ has said that Jackson was not biased in his Microsoft Ruling. Now mind you since
nothing will ever happen as a result of his ruling, I guess it doesn't really matter either way.. I mean, many people think Microsoft is a monopoly. But doesn't appear that anything will change.
yeah but that little old deaf and blind lady (Score:1)
Re:The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:1)
Only a lawyer could call 150 pages "brief."
Re:You don't? (Score:1)
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:1)
Even in context the quotation is appalling.
Just observant... (Score:1)
Talk about bias... (Score:1)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1)
Reminds me of an insightful comment I saw on alt.tasteless:
---
he might have been calm, but he sure was viscious (Score:1)
Lets spend at least $5 million investigating Bush to see if he actually served those couple years in the Air Guard, and another $5 mill for those rumors of an illegal abortion.
Re:biased... (Score:1)
Yeah, it's off-topic. My Karma is really really high.
-B
This also just in (Score:1)
Oh my. Who to believe??
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:1)
If you want to speak a dead language, try picking up Latin.
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:1)
In context, it looked far less like humor than an attack, and I'm just tired of people calling other people stupid as if it were a valid argument - so I thought I'd produce something of a counter argument to the rampant flow of 'poo-poo head' comments. Sure I come off as a humorless buffoon, but that's the kind of risk I'm willing to take to make
1) You come off looking like you're really into shiny things, if you catch my drift.
2) It was marked up, with the
3) I am sorry I had to stoop this low, but like you say it was funny out of context! It just lept out at me.
4) It's like the "Banannarama" song - you just can't have so many similar words appear so close together withough a reader chuckling at least a little.
For instance! (Score:1)
But, try saying "I misunderestimated the scope of work to do... and now I'm done early!" Everyone in the room will be thinking about you for a good long time after that (after they stop laughing) - and remember, no press in bad press! You come off looking eccentric and mysterious, as well as creative.
Re:Bush will not change anything (Score:1)
OK, granted, but it doesn't stop the DOJ from fighting with them.. (as in "we should just fine them $100" or something stupid like that.
2) The DOJ won a resounding victory in the trial. Backing off would make you look like an idiot.
Come on, this is the Shrub we're talking about - this is the same guy who said to Dick Cheney "Find me the best person to be my running mate", then Cheney comes back and says "Umm, it's me!" - and the Shrub just says "Oh, OK!"..
I can just see some infighting between the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court siding with MS.
But doesn't appear that anything will change. (Score:1)
What it means it that nothing will stay the same.
The legal system appears too slow (and seemingly too fucking stupid) to cope with the internet.
My guess is that micros~1 will look completely different in 5 years time, and not because of any anti-trust case. Either their recent stupidities will backfire with consumers, and/or they morph into something new and different.
Time will tell.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:You don't? (Score:1)
Why not give them the right to vote, idiot?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
OT Re:Double Click Adds on Slashdot (Score:1)
Re:The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:1)
Re:better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased (Score:1)
Re:That is a completely moot point... (Score:1)
Hmmm a reality check here (Score:1)
And the majority of the people neither thinks Microsoft is a monopoly nor do they care.
Re:I don’t get it... (Score:1)
Antitrust generally has nothing to do with product quality and everything to do with business practices. And frequently, practices only in a narrow range of a company's activities.
Re:You don't? (Score:1)
Washington - Microsoft, Dell and Unisys Executives Jailed for Treason After Announcing New System That Will Make Voting as Reliable And Easy to Use as a Home Computer.
_____________
Re:Umm.... (Score:1)
There argument doesn't float.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:1)
If money and value are conserved, then how does the Treasury Department and the banking system increase the money supply, and why is it possible to have inflation that increases far faster than population growth and any possible demand could outstrip supply?
.
Re:I don?t get it... (Score:2)
Re:The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:2)
Today was the today when the DOJ was required to submit their rebuttal of MS's appeal statement; the case is still going and on time, as the appeal court is expected to rule on this by the middle of the year.
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:2)
Re:That is a completely moot point... (Score:2)
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:2)
But why stop there? Newspaper editorial boards, columnists and book authors should also be regulated because they all have opinions. In fact the jokes I make at work, or comments I make to friends should also be regulated as campaign contributions.
Personally I find the notion silly and to some extent quite repulsive. As an US Citizen, my right to speak out against those who hold and are running for political office is not only protected, it is encouraged.
Re:It's not what's not going to happen... (Score:2)
Microsoft is going through a reinvention of itself, partly because of this court case, but also because of the change in the industry. This is not untypical of any corporation which matures.
Corporate executives who start a company rarely stay forever, but leave when the climate changes. There is a big difference between being part of a small company and a large behemoth, and it takes a different kind of executive.
It was inevitable, the challenge for Microsoft is to keep the momentum going with new blood.
Uhh, the geeks are jealous of Microsoft's success. Come on, people aren't attracted to Linux because of it's technical superiority, they are attracted for the same reason people pierce their tongues. It's a desire to be different, to be cool, whatever.
Larry Ellison is one of the primary motivators behind this anti-trust lawsuit, and he's certainly in this game because of jealousy.
I wouldn't look too deep here for vindication of your beliefs because in the long run you'll be sorely disappointed.
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:2)
--
You don't? (Score:2)
Unisys Corp
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 1999-2000
To Democrats: $0 (0%)
To Republicans: $141,300 (100%)
Total: $141,300
Dell Computer
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 1999-2000
To Democrats: $125,549 (26%)
To Republicans: $353,300 (74%)
Total: $480,599
Microsoft Corp
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 1999-2000
To Democrats: $916,792 (43%)
To Republicans: $1,236,964 (57%)
Total: $2,153,756
---
Re:You don't? (Score:2)
I dunno, just sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
---
Case ends with multi-million settlement? (Score:2)
Given that Bush thinks the entire case was politically motivated, I think what we may see is that once Bush takes office within 90-120 days there WILL be a settlement out of court on this case.
Very likely, MS will pay a multi-million US dollar fine, and the entire case will be settled at that point.
Sure, one Michael Dell can give more than lip service to Linux, but the vast majority of Dell desktops, laptops and servers go out pre-loaded with Microsoft software. They'd rather see MS still be around for revenue reasons. People forget that Dell is a HUGE contributor to the Republican Party last year.
Re:for example: (Score:2)
--
for example: (Score:2)
"This is the beginning of a new chapter in this case," Gates said at the time of Jackson's ruling. He called the decision inconsistent with past court decisions and with the realities of the marketplace.
aren't just Gates reading a press release prepared by his lawyers, but rather him asserting his own opinion of the facts (he researched anti trust law, etc, and was absolutely convinced the law was on his side).
Perhaps the most striking thing in the article is how it shows that Gates really appears to believe what he says. He appears to have been genuinely confused as to why his own government came after him. You can fake a lot of sincerety, but I doubt someone like Gates would go as far as faking tears in front of the company's board [wired.com].
--
RTFA!!(read the f*cking article) (Score:2)
For more into RTFA! I'd say more, but I don't want to be flamebait.
Re:Ah, but what about... (Score:2)
Value can increase too.
Ralph has a chunk of wood. Useless and valueless by itself. If ralph cuts it up and makes it into a birdhouse, however, it now has a value and can be sold.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2)
Because money and value are not conserved. In a capitalist system, wealth is not just re-distributed--it also can be created.
Re:Rodney King? (Score:2)
As long as you're talking about humans, there is always the possibility that there is bias one way or the other. I remember just a couple months ago, businessweek, or some similar magazine, did a survey on Americans' attitudes towards business. A rather alarming percentage of those polled showed definite suspicion against companies in general. That's a bias right there. If the situations were different, if the accused was a black person and the jury, white, with a majority having suspicions of black people then you'd never hear the end of it.
This is not to say that i'm sympathetic towards MS at all (i'm not), but I'm simply making my point. Juries are not guaranteed to be impartial, never mind intelligent, sophisticated, intellectual, educated, etc. In fact, quite the opposite, they tend to be less capable than society as a whole. Furthermore, on the balance, most companies PREFER trial by judge, not jury. It removes a great deal of unpredicability.
Rodney King? (Score:2)
Second, one of the fundamental aspects to a jury is the right to have a jury of your so-called peers. No single person is nearly as wealthy or pervasive of MS. Hell, no one on any jury is even going to remotely approach Bill Gates' wealth. How is the average jury supposed to know the difference between, say, 50m dollars and 5b dollars to a companies bottom line? If you look at a great many tort cases, some clearly haven't the foggiest idea.
Third, just because a case requires some sophistication to fully comprehend doesn't mean it is not worth while. If we're going to talk about, say, medical malpractice, then we want someone that understands medicine or, if not that, at least someone that has enough sophistication to understand junk science and poor logic.
Fourth, many of us as consumers _know_ MS broke the law. That doesn't necessarily mean we want to convict a company or a person soley on that basis, but to say we don't "know" before a jury tells us a poppycock. That's like stating that a rape victim doesn't know she (or he) was raped until the jury says so.
oh well, that's enough for now
Re:Umm.... (Score:2)
Depends on whether he made those statements before or after evidence was presented. Being able to reach a conclusion isn't necessarily a sign of bias.
---
Re:Bush will not change anything (Score:2)
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:2)
Now, if you just stick to saying GW is sheer Evil (or even a liar) then I have no cause for complaint (though I or others might dispute some facts you offer up), as you might very well believe that is true given what you believe in and what he believes in. But saying someone else is stupid (or a "retard" - when do you graduate grade six?) quite frankly gets a lot more paint on the painter than the canvas.
The the only point I'm trying to make here and in my original post is not so much defending GW, it's that calling people an idiot (especially based on quotes alone) is just noise and offers nothing of value. How can we have interesting discussions if we all sounds like preschoolers arguing at recess?
Re:Umm.... (Score:2)
"Bill Gates is very Napoleonic"
"I think Bill Gates is one of the worst [ever]"
"Bill and his company obviously have monopoly traits, no, no doubt about it"
Hmmm.... only the last of those quotes comes anywhere near fact (and even that's dubious). What you see above is what's known as opinion, and in a legal trial, opinion generally means squat unless there's facts to back it up.
Either way, opinion == bias.
define irony (Score:2)
Re:DOJ trying to move away from politiking (Score:2)
Re:better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased (Score:2)
Re:better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased (Score:2)
"There is a very strong need and desire to have single operating system running on all computers worldwide." -- Steward Alsop.
"it's clear the best product doesn't win." -- Scott McNealy, talking about the desktop market.
Re:DOJ trying to move away from politiking (Score:2)
Re:Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you (Score:2)
Subliminably.
Re:The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:2)
Also using your arguments, both defendants and plaintiffs are baised so why should they be in court?
There is always baiseness(is this a word?) in court cases. That is the point. Someone is defending there point while at the same time disproving the other parties point! Did you even read the article? I read it on Friday 1/12/2001 (but I didn't bother to submit it because my submissions get rejected).
I did like some of what Jackson said. I like the section where Jaskson compares Bill Gates to Napoleon and said Microsoft "executives behave like children"
Seriously, does Schnedt Microne's comment deserve a 5? Watch, I get marked down for pointing out the flaws in his argument.
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:2)
How about
racially motivated nullification [harvard.edu]?
Or the time and effort spent on jury consulting? It's done for a reason -- because jurors DO bring biases, and some of them are fairly predictable based on things like social class, race, gender and so forth. The evidence ranges from presentation details (dress the defendant in a suit -- which SHOULDN'T matter to an unbiased jury deciding solely on points of fact and law) to peremptory challenges based on probable biases and so forth.
Jurors are people. People are biased. You can't escape that.
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:2)
It used to be that juries sat on all criminal proceedings.
First, this is not a criminal case. Secondly, a jury is a random selection of people. If we start with the premise that some people are biased, a statistical sampling plus the juror elimination process (assuming competent representation for both parties) will only guarantee that we have good odds that the jury that is not overwhelmingly biased one way or the other.
Juries are excellent at deciding simple criminal matters like "does the glove fit?" or evaluating the evidence and deciding what it shows. However, the lay person is not qualified to judge sophisticated legal matters like Antitrust law is. Even the legal experts are divided upon whether Microsoft broke the law here or not.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2)
I don't pretend that the wealth of the richest 1% was rightfully obtained. But you make no argument to show that it wasn't. It would be just as stupid to presume that it wasn't rightfully obtained just because.
You don't have a RIGHT to own a car, or a house, or fancy clothes. You are given those rights by your peers (in terms of money) in return for your contribution (in terms of a job, selling what you produce, services, etc.) to them. If you're not doing anything that's benefiting the rest of society then you don't automatically have a RIGHT to benefit from the fruits of their labors.
That's how capitalism works, brother. Now go out there and be useful and stop expecting to leech off other peoples endeavors anytime soon.
Jackson made his biases clear... (Score:2)
So yes he was biased, TOWARD Microsoft. The fact taht even he was convined they were a predatory monopoly that needed controlling by the end says a lot and will be hard for MS to overturn using this tact.
They might do better in their PR battle with this line, though. The 2 minute memory of the American people never ceases to amaze me.
moot point... for this reason too (Score:2)
Besides I really don't think Bush's cronies want the polticial heat they'll get by suddenly dropping this.
Suggestion for CmdrTaco et al. (Score:2)
A recommendation, though; quit with the 'one-line editorials.' If you're going to comment on a submission, then either write a _real_ comment, or don't bother at all. These silly little comments tossed off (i.e. the whole "Now mind you since nothing will ever happen
PRE- judice (Score:2)
Let's keep something in mind. At a jury trial the judge is a traffic cop making sure that the presentation of evidence to the jury is in accordance with the rules, and is there to make sure that the lawyers and the jury don't do anything that is not in accordance with the law.
Here, Jackson was deciding whether Microsoft did it, and is supposed to be not PRE judging the case. Juries are not supposed to be PREjudiced either. However, judges and juries are allowed to be pissed at a defendant AFTER hearing all of the evidence.
Really, when a judge is setting the penalties for illegal acts he is allowed to be upset at what was done. Think about it, the judge or jury was convinced that the defendant did something illegal. It is to be expected after that, a judge will have a bad opinion of a defendant that he thinks (and/or the jury thought) did illegal things.
Surely, Jackson could have behaved better, because he is not supposed to comment on cases going up for appeal. Is he not supposed to get angry when he sees Bill Gates denying on videotape that he knows what the word "browser" means? Can't recall anything related to any email he ever read or authored? When Microsoft and/or its attorneys doctored a demonstration video on a key point of proof?
I really don't think that judges have to be punching bags. If you go out of your way to make a judge hate you, then well, golly gosh don't be surprised when he does!
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2)
That is almost my point. The richest 1% of the population controls more wealth than the other 99% combined. I'm all for capitalism, but there is only so much money to go around. The separation between the richest of the rich and the poor continue to grow without bounds.
The richest people have bank account balances with 10 - 16 figures. The poorest of the poor eat rice and water for dinner, if at all.
This country was forged on the backs of poor immigrants. Labor unions slowly ended unfair working conditions. We have evolved into a consumer culture. How is the population to combat monopolies like Microsoft? Consumer unions?
That is a completely moot point... (Score:2)
The outcome of the anti-trust trial against Microsoft really depends on the new Attorney General, and, of course Bush's agenda.
Maybe someone should find out what the NRA would like to see happen to Microsoft, that may provide some insight into what Bush might do.
Re:Rodney King? (Score:2)
This is an excellent point. A good example of biased juries (and I don't mean this as flamebait) were the all-while juries that were used to perpetuate racial injustice in the old South. They would vote not guilty for any crime perpetrated by a white against a black and guilty for any crime allegedly committed by a black against a white. The only facts that mattered were the skin colors of the defendant and victim.
And, of course, there are people today who seem just about as biased on the issue of corporations as those old South juries were on race. There are some corporatists who seem to think that companies should be allowed to do anything they want as long as they're trying to make a buck for their shareholders. Of course there are also people who think that corporations are all inherently evil and that any action they take is suspect. I'm sure that we'll hear from both sides within this very discussion, as we always do whenever there's a Slashdot article talking about potentially bad corporate actions. I'm also quite sure that some people with one view or the other would lie during jury questioning in an attempt to get on the jury in a case like Microsoft's just so that they could vote their preconceive notions about the case.
Umm.... (Score:2)
"Bill Gates is very Napoleonic"
"I think Bill Gates is one of the worst [ever]"
"Bill and his company obviously have monopoly traits, no, no doubt about it"
And THAT'S not biased? Yikes.
------------
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:2)
Start with a random group of schmoes, remove anyone capable of thinking up an excuse, then give each side the opportunity to get rid of any juror which the lawyers think cannot be convinced of their side's case. You can't get people inherently biased towards your side, because the other side will get rid of them, so the optimal solution is to get the most gullible people, and rely on your persuasion skills to bring them round to your side. Both sides want gullible people, because both sides think they can argue the best.
Result: A collective jellybrain.
Nothing will ever really happen... (Score:2)
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
M$ forced deals where distributors and manufacturers of computers had to sell every machine of theirs with Windows on it, or else they couldn't sell any machines with windows on them. If they wanted to sell a machine without Windows loaded, they still had to pay for the license.
This put a lock on manufacturers to only use Windows. Then, M$ levered this agreement to declare what software would be allowed in the preload of those computers.
M$ and IBM fought tooth and nail, and M$ threatened to charge IBM more for Windows, because IBM included Netscape and Lotus Millenium Suite in their software preload.
That's M$ taking illegal advantage of monopolistic power.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Grandfather clause stays! RE: Battery vs. Gasoline (Score:2)
I drive and preserve these so-called "30-year-old land barges."
They are a beauty to behold, a pleasure to drive, and part of our history worth preserving.
Do I think everyone should be driving one? Not so. Do I think you have the right to legislate that I can no longer drive mine? Definately not.
I'm doing more for the environment in two ways by driving my two 38-year-old cars.
First of all, I'm doing my part to keep from adding to landfills and junkyards.
Second of all, my "dinosaurs" as you call them, when well-tuned and maintained, put out less emissions than computerized emissions-controlled autos.
Even more importantly, when a computer-emissions controlled car does begin to pollute, it pollutes WAY more than my 38-year-old cars do when poorly tuned.
People who stand behind this elimination of grandfather clause notion have a few motivations for it, and the environment isn't one of them, typically. They want me to junk my perfectly suitable automobiles not because it's good for the environment, but because it's good for the economy.
First, they get money pumped into the auto manufacturer's pockets. Then they get higher vehicle taxes. Then they get to charge high prices for emissions testings, not to mention fines if a part fails on the many-component emissions equipment. (EGR, catalytic, o2 sensor, computer, solenoids, etc...)
It's far more economical and evironmentally considerate for everyone if I keep driving old vehicles and keep them finely tuned.
Sometimes, older is better. If I can help avoid buying into new technologies, I can continue to live in the fashion I prefer. No exhaust tests, no dynamometer, just lights, horn and wipers.
No accutest sniffer-mobiles to flag me down and fine me.
Older is better: no CPRM, no HDTV with copy controls.
Some technologies have too steep a price.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
The judge formed an opinion - so what? (Score:2)
To claim bias based on the judge's expression of opinion after the trial is quite ridiculous. After all, it was his job to form an opinion.
Righto. (Score:2)
Or, for that matter, if the appeals court had ruled that Penfield Jackson was or wasn't biased...well, that would have been more newsworthy. But just the fact that the DoJ made an argument...uhm...I was kinda figuring they were going to do that here sometime...
Music? (Score:2)
Not really front page news (Score:2)
Now, CNN used just about the same headline, "U.S. denies judge who ordered Microsoft breakup was biased". Perhaps the headline "U.S. Justice Department Files Brief" would have been better, but the title was accurate. Flamebait for Slashdot, but accurate.
Perhaps a better title for the Slashdot story would have been "Microsoft Anti-Trust Case Continues". The story probably is not front-page news, but deserves to be posted somewhere - it will be interesting to see what happens in what may be the last days of this case (with a Bush nominee potentially yanking the DoJ off the case). Another interesting story would be how much Microsoft / Bill Gates contributed to the Republican campaign, and how it was done.
Re:The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:2)
It boggles the mind why this completely obvious point warrants a headline on Slashdot.
Hey, at least they spared us "Microsoft declares Judge Jackson biased!" a couple months ago!
biased... (Score:2)
Ah, but what about... (Score:2)
As an example: Ralph has $2. Ralph needs milk and bread, total cost = $2.50. The money supply may expand, but at the moment that Ralph needs that extra $0.50, it won't. Ralph would have to wait, meaning he has to go hungry and thirsty for whatever amount of time it takes for that extra $0.50 to appear. Also, at the same time the money supply may expand that extra $0.50, the price might also rise [inflation after all] another $0.25, so poor ralph has to wait still longer. In the end, you get the infinite series that never goes to zero, so poor Ralph dies of thirst and hunger.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:Umm.... (Score:2)
That video did more to hurt the M$ case then anything before or pretty much after it.
Kierthos
Monopoly doesn't matter... (Score:2)
--
This just in (Score:2)
Jackson Quote (Score:2)
Re:Bush will not change anything (Score:2)
2)
I think it's a little late for ol' Dubya to be worried about looking like an idiot.
"There ought to be limits to freedom..." - Gov. George W. Bush
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" -- George W. Bush
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." -- George W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2000
"They misunderestimated me." --George W. Bush
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." --George W. Bush
"They want the federal government controlling social Security like it's some kind of federal program." --George W. Bush
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --George W. Bush
Re:DOJ trying to move away from politiking (Score:3)
That's *exactly* what Microsoft is trying to do - they think that because Jackson was biased from square one, that they should be granted a new trial with a new judge, prefferrably one assigned by the (business-compassionate) appeal court. What the appeal court has to decide is if Jackson's bias drastically altered the outcome of the case such that if an unbiased judge was in place, the outcome would have been different. And IMO, that answer is no: as long as the judge was familar with how computers work in addition to legal facts, the evidence that was presented at the trial was heavily against MS.
What's the diff between this and his judgement? (Score:3)
If, however, these opinions as expressed were formed as a result of the case, then what is the difference between these opinions and the judgement he rendered as a result of the arguments presented?
I do agree that the tone of the comments is a bit more flamboyent than one would expect from a jurist, but it helps to show why he gave the sentence he did. These statements alone do not show a prejudice on the part of Jackson.
Re:better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased (Score:3)
There are some hard questions here, and for that matter, some
questions that in my view need to be answered. And I am delighted
that Mr. Gates, whom, as he knows, I genuinely admire and respect, is
here to present his views. For the reality is that the future of
innovation in the software industry depends in large part on the
power, practices, and arguably the success of Microsoft.
Gee, let me think about this...
Clarify? (Score:3)
But doesn't appear that anything will change.
Odd comment, considering that either MSFT gets broken up (which sends a pretty strong message to business, and should make companies think twice about imitating them), or the DOJ and the states get smacked (which sends a pretty strong message to DAs and the DOJ about the standards required for sustaining an anti-trust case). Either way, something's going to change.
And, even if somebody believes that Bush would be sufficiently pro-MSFT and brazen enough to pull the DOJ off the case -- which seems unlikely given its high profile -- don't forget that there are plenty of states in on the case that wouldn't drop. Remember the Big Tobacco settlement? The Feds weren't really involved on the plaintiff's side until they smelled money; it was pretty much all handled by the states.
Bush will not change anything (Score:3)
1) The states are co-prosecutors. They do not, and many have stated they will not, withdraw.
2) The DOJ won a resounding victory in the trial. Backing off would make you look like an idiot.
3) The number one senator in favor of the monopoly ruling is Orrin Hatch, the Republican Senator from Utah who is also chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Recall Caldera is in Utah, and they've already had their case with DRDOS against Microsoft. If there is one Republican Senator that can exert an enormous effect on judicial appointments, it is Orrin Hatch. Bush cannto piss him off.
It is the mission of the Attorney General, as prosecutor, to seek the STRONGEST ruling possible, and then the settlement/punishment that is in the best interests of the state (or country). The Microsoft case will be prosecuted to the fullest extent in the appeals case.
If the appeal is less strong than the initial ruling, which seems likely, then expect the Attorney General, maybe Ashcroft, to take some pro-Microsoft action. But he must be careful to do that in a way that keeps the states on board.
Here, here! (Score:3)
Dear Prudence... (Score:3)
However, if he really wants his decision to stand, he certainly is not being very prudent about it. Every inflamatory statement he makes about MS increases the chance that they will win on appeal.
Seems to me like he did as good a job as he could with the case. Now if he could only shut up while it crawls through the appeal process.
Microsoft as a Public Utility (Score:3)
The end result could be, via the .NET initiative, that Windows is an empty shell. And the government is left with an empty victory.
That being said, does this open the door for Microsoft to be regulated as a public utility. With the use of Microsoft services, all those businesses depending on MS to be up and reliable 100% of the time, there is going to be one huge stink if it isn't close to 99.999 percent reliable (about 5 minutes of down time per year)
Microsoft, I am sure will have all kinds of legal language absolving them of any and all possible damage for using their system. This is what lawyers are for, and is very standard these days in EULAs. With enough outrage, and law suits, regulation would be sure to come.
It is easy to imagine a new kind of public utility, based on information technology. It would be interesting to see regulated prices for software services, since they are a monoploy.
I wonder if this would have to be done via local commitees on a town by town basis, for example. something similar to cable tv.
Actually, the time for action on something like this would be now.
Re:Bush will not change anything (Score:3)
1) A presidential pardon for Microsoft's "efforts to innovate" would trump any state cases that the scorned co-prosecutors might bring back home.
2) Bush is an idiot. It's right up his alley.
3) Orrin Hatch would turn to face the flag if His President asked him to join in forgiving Bill Gates.
(4)) The new Attorney General, from all indications, will be a card-carrying member of the Schutzstaffel who would take great glee from forcing Windoze 1.0 on the world for another fifteen years, as long as the DoJ had their backdoors installed in the Crypto.
No, I don't know which way the Bush administration will walk on Microsoft. The divestiture proposed is weak (I wanted them broken up into five companies: 3 OS companies with equal starting code bases, 1 MSN, and 1 apps company; then you'd see some competition). Could be this is what they want, forgoing real punishment.
There hasn't been a lot of fire and brimstone from Redmond since the ruling. I suspect we have Br'er Gates and Br'er Ballmer saying "oh lawdy puleeez don' trow us in dat Sherman patch" to Br'er Jackson and Br'er Boies.
As with Florida, this one isn't being decided where you and I can redact the sellout.
--Blair
Re:This is why we need to use juries more (Score:4)
From my understanding, as long as the trial is only on civil charges (which is what this case is) and the defendant being a business, the jury by peers is dropped for practical reasons. If this were a criminal case (for example, rumored bits that the CEOs of Ford and Firestone might have been brough in on criminal charges related to knowingly distributing bad tires), then a jury of peers would have been called. IANAL of course.
It's not what's not going to happen... (Score:4)
Now mind you since nothing will ever happen as a result of his ruling, I guess it doesn't really matter either way.
I urge you to read the "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" article from Wired a couple months back. My take on it is that progress really did get made through this lawsuit. Two important things happened. One was that a bunch of Microsoft people were finally confronted with reality (rather than Bill's version of reality, which, pity the poor billionarie, he really appears to believe) in a credible way, and they reacted by leaving. That had to have had some effect on the faith of the remaining true believers there.
Second, though, was that it marked an important turning point for non-geeks. Much of our ranting about things that Microsoft has done was easily dismissible by the teeming masses as "jealosy of Bill's wealth" or whatever. The findings of the court finally put some of that in the public's face in a significantly less deniable fashion.
The public, of course, will soon have or has already forgotten, but I think a lot of industry types have had the huge morale boost of seeing the giant stumble. That in itself is probably already changing the way things are being looked at and planned.
But even if you don't agree with any of this, at least take the first suggestion and read the article. Not only will it bring back a lot of interesting things about the trial you might have forgotten, it contains a wealth of information that was really juicy but under embargo until the end of the trial.
--
Anyone can look like an idiot - quotes from you... (Score:4)
'Computers are supposed to make everyone's life easier, not harder. That's why we need pretty dialog boxes.' - Xenomech
'Has the rush to commercialize the web destroyed its commercial viability?' - Xenomech
'I don't get any anymore.' - Xenomech
'"No" means "No". It does not mean "No, but, in a little, while assume I meant 'Yes' and tell me to say 'No' again if I *really* meant 'No' the first time".' - Xenomech
The point is not that you are an idiot, obviously you are not. The point is that if you want to, you could pull a choice selection of quotes from just about anyone and make them look like an idiot (I'm sure you could find a bunch from my posts) - I personally think that the more creative someone is, the more likley you are to get a bunch of slightly messed-up remarks. That doesn't mean they are an idiot, and might mean they can approach problems with a little more creativity than others...
By buying into and propigating the myth that ANYONE at that level of politics is an idiot, you are just a tool of the media AND even worse you are underestimating the other side and presenting a weaker argument than you might otherwise. How could someone really be an idiot and get to that level? They ovviosuly have some skills, even if one of them might not be perfect diction.
For instance, I didn't like Gore but I didn't go around saying he was an idiot or made of wood or any other juvinile things that other people come up with. I disagree with his methods and personally find how he uses his intelligence to be quite dangerous (Clipper chip). I pointed that out instead of calling him a woody drone.
If you want to attack Bush, try basing it in reality and cease the mindless flaming. All I've heard from the other respondents is 'Of course he'll try and stop it, he's an idiot'! You look like a mindless pack of (poorly programmed) attack trolls. Show some creativity and thought in your arguments!
Well... (Score:4)
</sarcasm>
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
The DOJ is biased, though. (Score:4)
It boggles the mind why this completely obvious point warrants a headline on Slashdot.
This is why we need to use juries more (Score:4)
But more importantly, juries by definition aren't biased. Juries are composed of laypeople who have no political motives one way or the other. They're a legitimizing force for the government (hence why the king of England originally instituted grand juries) because they're as close as we can get to the intrinsic truth. Any case that we're not willing to put before a jury of our peers isn't worth pursuing. And any case that we have to resort to getting a paid career judge to decide is tainted with suspicion.
Microsoft probably did break the law. But we'll never know for sure, because they weren't tried by a jury in the proper tradition. You should feel outraged. I know I am.
DOJ trying to move away from politiking (Score:5)
I think the DOJ's rebuttal to MS's appeal arguements is trying to remind the court that facts have been put in place from the lower court proceedings, and that is the heart of the issue: did Jackson misintreprete the evidence to achieve those facts? Doubtful - the evidence was plainly against MS and regardless of how much bias a judge may have, the only intelligent conclusion from the evidence was that there was a monopoly and the abuse of that position involved. Maybe his final verdic was one where he had some bias involved, but it probably was also one where he realized that there would be rounds of appeals including him possibly seeing the case, and that the true final judgement against MS would probably be smaller than any initial penalty he might state. Therefore, he used a rather damaging penalty as a starting point, expecting that a final penalty will be reduced from that, but still significant.
better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased? (Score:5)
I think this transcript [cnn.com] of the Senate hearings on Microsoft & their potential anticompetitive practices would have been a more interesting topic for discussion, since Sen. Ashcroft asks Bill G. a number of pointed questions, and says at one point "I think we all agree here that Microsoft has a monopoly." Will the DOJ under Bush (and, presumably Ashcroft) be as friendly towards Microsoft as people predicted before the election?
Just my 2c.
I get it!!!! (Score:5)
judge is biased.
DOJ:
judge is not biased.
and in other news...
RIAA:
Napster is stealing.
Napster:
Napster is not stealing.
Marsha Clark:
OJ did it.
Jonny Cockren:
If the glove don't fit...
Coke:
Pepsi sucks.
Pepsi:
Coke sucks.
I don’t get it... (Score:5)
"Yeah, you're a huge monopoly, we're going to fsck you up! Oh, by the way could you do our voting system? We'll pay you tons of money!"