How the DOJ/MS Settlement was Reached 274
Drek was among the many who wrote in to tell us about the following: "Wired is running an article about how the MS/DoJ settlement was reached. More importantly, the DoJ has set up an email address where citizens can send comments about the case: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov. This might be a good way for Slashdotters to do their civic duty."The address has been around for a bit, but still, a renewed call for comment.
Well, it does say something... (Score:2)
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, they're legally required to respond. As I understand it, every 'valid' email sent to that address
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:1, Informative)
i think the laws require that they have a 30 day period for citizens to voice their opinions, they, in the light of our tech oriented society, have set up an email address in addition to their faxes, phone #, and addresses...whatever
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:2)
*like, directly involved in the case
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:2)
but they also have to be forwarded to the judge- who is legally required to consider the public interest when approving the decision.
What I always wonder is, in a context like this, what exactly does "consider" mean? It obviously can't mean that the decision has to be entirely determined by the feedback, since that's what the judge is for, but then how much discretion does the judge have? Is there some kind of standard for how much weight should be given to such things? Is there any protection against the judge satisfying the requirement by simply saying "Okay, I considered it."?
When you were a kid asking your parents for some new toy, how much difference did it really make whether they said "No." or "Hmm. Lemme think about it. No."?
Did I just write a post in which every unquoted sentence is a question?
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:2)
> What I always wonder is, in a context like this, what exactly does "consider" mean? It obviously can't mean that the decision has to be entirely determined by the feedback, since that's what the judge is for, but then how much discretion does the judge have?
Simply getting a few thousand messages from people who bluntly state that they think the case was thrown due to political meddling will give the judge -- and administration -- something to think about.
Hopefully the judge will carefully consider the merits of whatever feedback comes in. The administration will most certainly consider the political fallout.
Re:Well, it does say something... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Fairly soon I'll be unable to watch any online media content without paying an MS tax. If that does come to pass it'll be specifically because of this settlement.
- I'm unable to start a business in any field might even vaguely compete with MS, because no VC in their right mind will give me money.*
- If I were offering a competitive product in another field (like NS did or the PS2 is) I'm unable to sell product at a price that actually reflects the cost of production. If it were a japanese car or steel company, that would be called dumping.
And this is just what I came up with in a few minutes while on the phone. It's quite clear, from the acts of Congress, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and the writings of the Founding Fathers that we have a legal right to conduct commerce and communicate without the obstruction or cost of a monopoly. And that right is clearly being violated.Luis
*No comment on what that says about our VCs
The what department? (Score:4, Funny)
I've been staring at that for a few minutes now... what in the hell were they trying to type?
the real chrisd... (Score:1)
****
WARNING: The rest of this poster's comment will be replaced by an automated response:****
Q:
I've been staring at that for a few minutes now... what in the hell were they trying to type?
A:
And how does the hell were they trying to type make you feel?
Spambait (Score:1)
Re:Spambait (Score:1)
> Silly DoJ, they should've spam-protected their email address.
The actual address is microsoft.NOSPAM.atr@usdoj.gov. They figured spammers would never think to add "NOSPAM" to an address.
Taking away their monopoly (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, yes, we all want Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to be burned at the stake and Microsoft to be blown into a million pieces and split among Sun, Oracle, and AOL/Netscape.
How far should the government go in cases like this? Imagine it was a company whose products you liked.
Re:Taking away their monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but it is Microsoft, and Microsoft has an outrageous monopoly and indulges in outrageous misbehaviour! Turn your question on its head ... If Microsoft were not a misbehaving monopoly, would we be so zealously seeking its death? I think not.
How far should the government go? As far as it is required to maintain (create) functional competition in the market in which the monopolist misbehaves. That was the original intention of Anti-trust law before Posner et al. emasculated it. If Anti-trust law is now so toothless, that a corporation like Microsoft can't be brought to account by it, it is, IMHO, time to rewrite it.
Re:Taking away their monopoly (Score:2)
The answer is simple: far enough to prevent them from doing it again
Imagine it was a company whose products you liked.
Doesn't matter - if they (blatantly, and repeatedly) broke the law, they should be prevented from doing so again. That's what the law is there for.
'public' responses? (Score:1)
Consumers just don't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The Justice Department used the Microsoft case to increase their own budgets. Republicans and others who supported Microsoft had no problem with increasing funding to the DoJ because more money for the DoJ means more money to enforce laws against drugs, pornography, civil liberties, and other things that conservatives hate. The DoJ was thrilled when David Boies took their case, because they would get to dole out more funding to a very expensive lawyer and take a cut from the middle. Better funding helps everyone in an organization.
The states had no interest in protecting consumers, either. The states all saw a large antitrust settlement as a gigantic handout - more money from God to drop into the state coffers and spend on pork barrel projects. And since Microsoft has customers in all 50 states, why would any state pass up the opportunity to take part in the windfall? Especially because attorneys general are not elected, so who are they really responsible to?
The antitrust trial has always been about money, and the interests who participated in the whole circus have made billions of dollars off the taxpaying public from it. It is time for a quick and decisive settlement so that the bleeding of wasted dollars can stop. The government has shown time and again that consumers are defenseless against corporations who break the law and defraud them. This time is no different.
~wally
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
> It was about money.
You're right in general, but IMO wrong on the details. For instance, I suspect the various states are less interested in getting a one-time dole out of this than they are in giving their local software industry a boost. This kind of "protectionism" (if you will) helps them bring in jobs (aka "taxes"), catalyzes bribes^w campaign donations from those industries, and gives them something to stir Joe Citizen's patriotism, since at the next election the politicos will point out how they are so dutifully looking out for the interests of Joe Citizen's home state.
Yeah, it's about money, and the interests of big business. That's not to say that I'm against the suit; I just think it was mostly a case of "the right thing for the wrong reasons", and those wrong reasons is why so many parties were so eager to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Do a little poking around. The concept, and the merrits of this idea, have been covered and debated rather well on Slashdot and a number of other forumns. Without going in to said merrits, I'll outline the basic concept as I understand it.
The basic idea revolves around Microsoft's using a monopoly in one area to enforce a monopoly in another area (and back). Product development is done with marketing and monopoly enforcement in mind as much as functionality. Spliting these divisions would remove the incentive to enforce another division's monopoly (or provide undue advantages to another division). The divisions would then be forced to compete with other products on a more even playing field.
Again - there's a lot more detail and a some considerable debate on the merrits of these concepts. Dig around. Its easy to find and repeated numerous times via numerous sources.
The market. Would you pay for IE after X years of getting it for free? Would you pay for it rather than use other free products? And if you had to pay for IE, would you then consider other products that also require payment (such as Opera)? Oddly enough - that's the workings of a free market.
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideally they should be broken into a dozen or more companies.
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:2)
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.03/deepthr
I agree that there are always moneyed interests pulling strings, but there are also people in responsible positions from time to time who want to do the right thing.
As far as the whole question of protecting consumers, well, it was consumers who made microsoft what it is. Unthinkingly following the herd often causes this kind of problem. I'm more interested in finding some way to protect the minority that want to innovate, etc. It's nice to say (and true) that we are acting in the interest of consumers, but they're the ones that caused this problem and quite possibly, it is starting to appear now, the only ones who will be able to do anything about it. Don't hold your breath.
Ooops, wrong link. Re:Consumers just don't matter (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/microso
Re:Not all civil liberties (Score:2)
Proof that if you are determined to find things to criticize, you will find them, even if you have to twist the facts.
military tribunals for immigrants
Illegal immigrants, in certain cases.
holding 1000s of people with no charges for months
Holding people for a variety of charges, most often being in the country illegally.
expanded wiretap provisions
Which are still approved by a judge, and were reasonable expansions of law. Such as having a wiretap applied to an individual, and not to a particular phone (pretty stupid in an era of disposable phones).
removal of lawer-client privileges
The ability to monitor lawyer-client conversations in very narrowly defined cases, such as a clear and present danger of planning terrorist attacks, and the information gained cannot be used against the prisoner.
attack on Oregon's right-to-die provision (where's State's Rights when Conservatives disagree with what those idiot voters wanted?) - attack on California medicinal pot distrubution centers (see above)
You may agree with these laws, but it is definitely in the interest of the federal government to protect citizens if local laws do not provide those protections. A good example is the South in the 1960s and the civil rights of blacks. Should the South have just been allowed to ignore the lynchings of blacks because of State Rights?
In the case of right-to-die, there is a very real danger of corrupting the medical industry by putting doctors in the position of having to be both preserving life and taking life. Everyone has the right to die. You've always had that right. But you don't have the right to screw up my medical care by creating a conflict of interest on the part of doctors. I happen to agree with this position.
Same with drug use. You can make the case that allowing states to legalize drugs creates an environment that endangers the citizens of that state; the so-called tyranny of the majority. It would be the same thing if say Texas decided to legalize drinking and driving. I happen to disagree with this position when it comes to medicinal use of marijauna, but I understand the reasoning.
In short, maybe you should become a little more educated, and a little less knee-jerk.
Wow... talk about a ridiculous reframe (Score:2)
Wow. You claim he twists the "facts" and write a long diatribe which only severs to prove his point. I particularly enjoy the reference to '60s civil rights for blacks used as a straw man in defense for federal civil rights abuses today. Never mind that it was progressives who took those billy clubs to the heads, got arrested, and at times were even killed in defense of our democratic principles. Considering that even many serious conservatives agree with the previous poster that the list of power grabs by the current administration is detremental to our civil liberties, are you willing to claim that they are "knee-jerk" and in need of "education"as well? As an example of the two most serious of abuses, Bush's new kangaroo courts and the Justice Department's claims at Lawyer-Client privilege, both William Saffire and Bill Kristol have written editorials lambasting these decisions with very similar arguments as the previous poster wrote.
In being an apologist for the executive branch -- not necessarily conservative ideology, since there is so much dissent on these issues among both progressive and conservative ranks -- does intellectual rigor in your arguments matter?
Just curious....
Re:Not all civil liberties (Score:2)
though nearly all liberal congressmen voted to pass it.
BZZZT! And thank you for playing. Here's [sjgames.com] your lovely parting gift.
The military tribunals thing was an EXECUTIVE ORDER, not part of the USA/PATRIOT act. Therefore it belongs to Bush and only Bush.
ahh relief (Score:2, Insightful)
Just who's relief we talking about here?
Guide us Landru!
Re:ahh relief (Score:2)
"Can bin Laden get a fair trial?"
As fair as any black man accused of drug dealing, any arab accused of terrorism, any poor person occused of anything. Which is to say no.
Only the rich get fair trials in America.
Please email intellegent, informed messages (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, please use your head and point out what you honestly believe the problems are (and back them up with facts when possible). We may be able to make a different here. Let's not screw it up!
Re:Please email intellegent [sic] informed ... (Score:2)
Please, only email messages that you believe to be intelligent if you know how to spell the word.
Jeez, guys. :)
Meanwhile at DOJ HQ! (Score:5, Funny)
Web Guy 2: In an hour? Must be spam.
Web Guy 1: You're probably right
*Web Guy 1 deletes said few thousand messages*
-Henry
Slashdot Effect (Score:1)
This is obviously going to end up as one huge mailbomb!
I wonder what mail server they ran...
Re:Slashdot Effect (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot Effect (Score:1)
Oh yeah, I can see it now:
Sources have confirmed that after the DoJ provided an email address for the public to comment on the antitrust case involving Microsoft Corp (MSFT), the DoJ servers suffered a Denial Of Service Attack, no doubt propagated by those people in against the case. Industry analysts suggest that the DoJ should take this as a sign to drop the case, or risk further attacks.
What is my civic duty? (Score:1, Interesting)
if you wanna know what i think, an agreement is great. they did some lame things, but they have some excellent software and hardware, and i have no major anti-microsoft sentiments.
if you don't, then at least dig this: when the people that tell the news start telling you what your civic duty is, you gotta look 2x
Re:What is my civic duty? (Score:2)
if you don't, then at least dig this: when the people that tell the news start telling you what your civic duty is, you gotta look 2x
Well, first the bit about doing you civic duty was what Drek, who submitted the story, said, not what the Slashdot staff said. That's why it's in quote marks. But, you can still make the point that Slashdot chose to quote it when they didn't have to of course.
Secondly though, it doesn't tell you that you should be opposed to the settlement. It's implicit in the comment that it's your civic duty to give them your views on the proposed settlement, but there's nothing there as to what your views should be. It's a reasonable assumption that he was expecting many people here to be opposed to the settlement but I don't see how you can take offense at anything he said as implying that you "should" be anti-Microsoft or that you should take any other particular view either.
Personally I think that if you like the settlement, as apparently you do, then it would be a good thing for you to email the DOJ telling them so and ideally saying why.
If you don't like them suggesting that trying to help prompt the right outcome (whatever you might think that would be) is a civic duty then, well, it's just someone's opinion, not like they're holding a gun to your head,
No one will care what we have to say (Score:2, Funny)
I say everyone go to all the porn sites they can find and sign the email address "microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov" up for the mailing lists. For creativity, go to some of the off the wall Scheiße sites and sign the email addy up for their lists. That would approximate my feelings anyway.
Re:No one will care what we have to say (Score:2)
First things first. You, Sir, are a fool and a troll. Yes, I am lowering myself to petty name calling.
How the hell did that get modded up "interesting"?!?!?! That has got to be one of the DUMBEST courses of action I can possibly think of. Perhaps the post was intended to be "funny", but it's just not (IMHO).
Do you have any idea what a bad idea that is? Do you want to give the gov a reason to stop reaching out AT ALL, even in small ways?
For further reference, please refer to my other post [slashdot.org] to someone talking a similar game.
This is patently absurd, but mostly for the fact that that comment got modded up "interesting". Jesus K. Christ, what the hell? I'll probably lose karma for all my shouting on this topic, but I don't freaking care. I feel very strongly about this!
Re:No one will care what we have to say (Score:2)
I have absolutely no problem with people having opinions which differ from my own (given the fact that it's impossible to go through life without that happening anyhow).
That said, I do have a problem (and will voice my opinion as such) with people recommending/promoting idiotic courses of action. Basically, I have the same attitude toward people who claim that shooting doctors is okay as long as it's because they performed abortions. Granted, your post is substantially less severe, but the point stands.
You don't think it's the end of the world, but you also don't have to manually filter the possibly gigs of sheer shit that will get emailed to that address. They don't pay gov tech people enough to do that stuff anyhow. Why take a decent gesture and piss all over it? Grow the hell up.
Here's to ISPs cutting off access to morons who crapflood that address.
Re:No one will care what we have to say (Score:2)
Here's my problem: I just don't see it that way. Let's examine a potential outcome for this scenario, assuming your position is the most likely.
DOJ Guy/Gal: Well, we're done examining the feedback of our citizens, and ready to proceed as previously planned.
Judge Guy/Gal Overseeing Process: Alrighty, if you'll just have the most relevant pieces of correspondence sent over to my office, I'll review your findings on this matter.
DOJ Guy: Well, ummm, we didn't actually save any of those emails... so I guess we'll just proceed as planned, eh?
Judge: Hmm, let me see if I understand; you decided that the opinions of thousands of citizens didn't matter? I don't think I like the direction this is going in.
DOJ Guy: But we've got this nifty piece chart with 3 color-coded sections: red = Microsoft Bad, green = Microsoft Good, grey = Who Cares, brown = Crap Mail. From looking at this chart, it's 99% "Who Cares".
Judge: Right-o, but you do have the actual documents to back that up, right?
DOJ Guy: Oh, umm, yes (psstt... Junior Admin Boy, whip up some convincing mail logs and such right quick before we get our asses handed to us)!
As much as I enjoy the whole BOFH series, I somehow don't see the people in charge of dealing with the responses as being completely willing to toss their careers out the window in this manner. Sorry, but Gross Miscarriage Of Justice (TM) would be the phrase of the day (patent pending) here. Not damned likely, especially given the massive media attention the whole debacle has received over the last couple of years.
I just can't buy it. Are they legally required to take feedback? Yes. Heck, the fact that they've chosen email as the vehicle is actually good, considering the fact that most of the "concerned parties" are wired. I don't trust government any farther than I can toss it, but in this case it's a rather short throw.
Re:No one will care what we have to say (Score:2, Interesting)
_Stupid_ (Score:1)
The government also sought in its court filing to clarify key provisions surrounding the secrecy of Microsoft's technology to prevent consumers from making illegal copies of music or movies. Part of the settlement allows Microsoft to keep secret any information that might violate the security of such anti-piracy technology, and critics charged that Microsoft might use the exemption to hide details about many of its products.
But the government told the judge that Microsoft must disclose to competitors all the capabilities of its anti-piracy music technology under the latest version of Windows, called XP. Microsoft can't use the security exemption as a pretext for broadly keeping details about its software secret, lawyers said.
I'm no big fan of DRM technology, but the whole premise is that its obscure and heard to interact with. There is no provably secure or correct DRM scheme - all you can do is make the software a pain in the ass to figure out. So by ordering MS to disclose a bunch of stuff on how the DRM works, it probably contributes a great deal to crackability, thus nullifying its use anyway.
Regardless of your moral/ethical/whatever opinions on DRM, requiring too much info be leaked from the DRM technology utterly invalidates and destroys the usefulness of the DRm technology. Which means MS will just have to think of something else that they _wont_ have to reveal secrets about.
Re:_Stupid_ (Score:2)
All details. Now. Under the threat of strong enforcement provisions.
Hmm, who wins there?
The new /. effect (Score:1)
a thousand goatse.cx later... (Score:2, Troll)
A. People who don't know anything about law (99.9999% of slashdot).
B. People who just hate microsoft.
C. Losers with too much time on their hands, crapflooding the mailbox.
Yeah..i'm sure they're going to pay a whole lot of attention to the one or two actual decent messages which get through the noise. Good plan kids.
Re:a thousand goatse.cx later... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd venture to guess that the Slashdot readership knows much more about law than the public in general. Of course, /.ers don't know about law! That's not what this email address is for... it's not for lawyers to write in; it's for the public at large to express the community opinion on the subject. And I would have to say that /.ers are *significantly* opinionated on this issue.
--
Evan
indeed (Score:2)
And what a community it is that will write in. Just view the message threads for the delightfully intelligent banter that accompanies postings.
/sarcasm
Re:indeed (Score:2)
We can type. I worked in a courthouse for two years, and the discourse that goes on here is *well* above the general public that the legal system is used to dealing with. I have seen notes for attorneys written in purple pen on the back of sub sandwich wrappers. I have seen black grease smeared torn bits of looseleaf written in pencil handed to the judge. I have also seen nicely laser printed letters on linen weave paper. It's not the method or literacy that the legal system is reviewing - this isn't a friggin' Sophomore English Lit class... these are people trying to say their piece. The message, opaque or emotion laden as it may be, is what is important, and that is what counts.
Seriously - after having dozens of poor Guatemalians in labor uniforms tell you the truth about how they were beaten, and dozens of nicely dressed businessmen lie about how they took off their glasses just before the cop walked up to the car, you develop a strong ability to seperate content from form. When the hysterically emotional guy is breaking down, it's because he's trying to relate something that is important to him. Judges know that... the legal system deals with it all the time.
Of course a well written, concise essay on the subject is better - it makes your point much more clear. But even hate mail will get the opinion of the people across... and that is the point of this call for opinion. And I sincerely doubt that the tone of replies that they will recieve for this case will begin to equal any case involving things like the environment, abortion, or prayer in school. As I started out this message, I will end it - we may be ranting loonies, but at least we can type.
(Have *you* sent an email to them?)
--
Evan
The law (Score:2, Interesting)
I think when analysing the law, the primary objective of the law should be to implement justice.
How can we begin to understand the law when it fails so consistently on its primary objective in regard to tech matters.
The law will probably always be unjust to techies ad its based on precedents going back hundreds of years, a few people will always have to get persecuted before the lawmakers will consider changing a now irrelevent law.
Why should we try and understand the law when it ignores us and is clueless to make informed descisions.
To obey a bad law is worse than breaking it.
The first thing we need to learn about the law is how to evade it, its the only way to get justice... ironic isnt it.
Re:a thousand goatse.cx later... (Score:2)
People have damn good reasons to hate Microsoft. They don't generally do it just for the hell of it or because it is the "in" thing.
Who is the greater loser? Someone who complains about an evil they have experienced for too long even if they can't express themselves as elegantly as you might like or one who puts them down for even opening their mouths as "losers". I would rather have those honestly ticked off whether or elegant or not than someone arrogantly slandering and attempting to silence them.
Article says nothing new (Score:1)
Here's a link to the DOJ's press release [usdoj.gov] on the settlement. Everyone should try to read it, as well as the actual settlement (if you can find it... links, anyone???)
Personally, I think the settlement is satisfactory. It addresses the root of the problem and stays (mostly) out of other issues. Microsoft's sin is not in it's products... it's in it's sales and marketing practices. Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.
Re:Article says nothing new (Score:1)
How the deal was done (Score:2)
Secondly, we know how the deal was reached. Microsoft bought the law,
and the law won. "Don't you know there's a war on?" Someone seems
to think that MS are an American company, therefore their monopoly is
actually a GOOD thing because it means American software dominates
the world. WindowsXP is good for the economy; if you're running Linux
or BSD, the terrorists are already winning!
Thirdly, us Europeans are waiting with bated breath to see
what the EU do [theregister.co.uk]. As (again) The Reg points out,
there's none of this 'adjourning for a second hearing in the
consideration of whether to refer the case to another appeal'
nonsense over here. Let's hope that turns out to be good news
rather than bad news...
--
Carolyn Meinel, Scientific American: "Those computers ran Linux, which
meant that they could impersonate any other server on the Internet."
Re:How the deal was done (Score:3, Funny)
This is what happened. As a member of the DOJ, I can tell you that things have been rather busy lately. We all know that Christmas is rapidly approaching. To make a long story short, Bill gave us some of those new XBox consoles. He even threw in the full set of release titles and a copy of XP! Now if that's not justice, what is?
And don't go givin' me your self-righteous BS. You know damn well you'd do the same. We were nearing a settlement anyways. This just sealed the deal.
Re:How the deal was done (Score:2)
Maybe if congress had declared one...
This must be one of those fun "police actions."
Re:How the deal was done (Score:2)
(Yes, they were identified by their acts, not by name. It still counts as identification -- the resolution would not cover sending bombers into Argentina, for example.)
Some thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is that Word had no serious competition, so Microsoft was content to sell it separately and to offer a stripped-down word processor ("WordPad") bundled with Windows.
I've believed all along that a great solution to the tying issue would have been for Microsoft to include a stripped-down basic web browser with Windows, and to sell the full-featured Internet Explorer separately. This would let customers surf the web without buying anything extra, but if they wanted additional features, plenty of competition in the market would give them lots of choices of more-powerful web browsers.
(2) Microsoft defeated Netscape simply because they had the cash, the resources, and the time to copy every one of Netscape's most important products feature-for-feature, and give it away for free. They rarely got things right on the first try, but by bundling browsers and servers in with Windows and by releasing subsequent versions with more features, it was inevitable that they would eventually match Netscape's quality -- and then it was inevitable that customers would choose the free solution over Netscape's. Many of Netscape's customers still remained loyal, and purchased Netscape software rather using Microsoft's give-aways, but still, Netscape was doomed from the very start.
Netscape did the research and development. Microsoft saw what worked, copied it, and gave it away. How could Netscape possibly survive?
More importantly, what does this say about the Next Big Thing, whatever that may be? What incentive does a person have to turn his great idea into a company, when he knows that Microsoft can simply steal his idea and undersell him once he proves that his idea is a success?
(3) Microsoft has a long history of abusing their power, and they've been taken to court for it many times in many different countries. They've learned, however, that if they can get a court case to drag on for years, any ruling will become irrelevant because the competition it was supposed to benefit has long since died off. And not only are they skilled at dragging the proceedings through molasses -- but they also thumb their nose at the government while doing it; were they ever reprimanded for introducing a falsified videotape into evidence two years or so ago?
Any ruling against Microsoft must be strong and unyielding. So far their punishment for shrugging penalties aside has been another court case which has dragged on for another few years, and they'll only ignore the outcome of this one too; this must come to an end.
The major reason MS won out in the web browser... (Score:3, Insightful)
It never even PRETENDED to support standards, its CSS was mediocre at best, it used the <layer> tag for DHTML, instead of the W3C specified DOM properties (which IE MAINLY adhered to, even in the 4.0 days), and in general, was a bastard to code for. Take it from someone who has worked in the industry, everyone HATES coding websites for NS4.
Mozilla is now superior to IE in alot of ways, but its is too little far too late. While NS was releasing stupid add-on patches to its piece of crap (How many sub versions / bugfixes to NS4 are there? 4.0,4.01,4.04,4.5,4.74,4.75,4.76,4.77, etc. etc.), Microsoft was releasing IE5 and IE5.5, with much enhanced functionality. Sure, we all hate MS, but at least give them some credit. Netscape became overconfident in its market share, and stopped innovating. They are at least partially responsible for their own demise.
Re:The major reason MS won out in the web browser. (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't because Netscape chose to stop innovating, any more than a drowning victim chooses to stop breathing.
Let's rewind history and put you in charge of Netscape circa early 1998. Your largest competitor is giving away free work-alikes to all of your flagship products, and they've got enough money to keep doing this (and to keep stealing any new features you add) indefinitely. Meanwhile, you've got to focus on fixing bugs AND adding features, but with your company's slipping revenues, the best you can do isn't even going to keep pace with what's needed. You simply don't have the money to do proper development and QA.
Netscape failed because Microsoft purposefully, aggressively, and illegally cut off its air supply.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
As long as MS had monopoly profits from windows they could keep that up.
Of course part of this was a personal vendetta by Bill gates who felt snubbed by netscape.
MS will do this with any company which tries to make a living in the software business. There is no more software business. It's either MS or open source no room for anything else.
Re:actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft insisted that the NT 3.51 license didn't allow use of a webserver, but it was vague enough that it probably couldn't have been enforced, but they made certain that it could be in NT 4.0. Netscape wasn't the only one that was bitten by this license change -- O'Reilly's Website server also fell victim to it. Today, the only places Netscape/iPlanet's webservers still exist are on Novell (it's bundled with certain versions of Netware) and UNIX servers.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
In those days linux was a gimpse in the eye of a few ubergeeks. Certainly no business had ever heard of it and they were the ones paying for web server.
MS said they were going to cut off netscapes air supply and they did it. They said they were going to knife apple in the back and they did it. It's all in the transcripts if you bother to read it. MS executives are some of the most ruthless, unethical, venegeful, evil people on the planet today. I bet Osama Bin Laden wishes he was that evil.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
That may be your point but it's not mine. I will say it again. Whatever Netscape made MS also made and gave it away for free and shoved it down people's throats. You could not install service pack three to NT4.0 without installing IE. Many Ms programs all of sudden demanded the IE be installed. That's just one example there are others.
"Yeah yeah, MS is evil. Boo hoo. Netscape would have been evil too if the free-market would have allowed it to."
I am glad you agree that MS is evil. I think it's obvious to most people. But you have no evidence that other business people are as unethical and immoral as Bill Gates and his mafia are. A lot of companies have dominant positions in other industries yet they have not resorted to the tactics that MS has. If you have some evidence of the evil nature of Netscape executives please provide some links I would love to hear about them.
BTW saying it's OK for Bill Gates to be evil because other people are evil is no defense. That's like saying Bill gates is evil but that's ok because Jeffrey Dahmer is evil too.
If you are getting paid to defend Bill Gates and his company you need to start doing a better job of it. If you are not getting paid to do this then you need to re-evaluate your own ethical and moral grounds and perhaps ask yourself why you feel the need to defend a corporation. When I was in HIgh school there were a lot of idiots who would rage about ford or chevy or nike or addidas (I am dating myself I know). I never figures out why these people would be boosters for some corporation perhaps it made them feel more powerful to be rooting for a big corporation or perhaps it made them feel significant in some way. The poor slobs never considered that they may simply be brainwashed by advertising. Either way I figure these people got over it eventually because as I got older fewer people were engaged in that kind of nonsense.
So what is your execuse? Are you in high school or do you somehow feel empowered when you defend MS. DO you think that Bill Gates will one day notice your efforts on his behalf and reward you somehow? You admit that Bill is evil so why do you defend him or excuse his behaviour? really I want to know what makes someone like you tick.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
Maybe you should have read the entire thread before you jumped in. the thread was about netscape failing because MS decided to cut off their air supply. Again go back and read the thread and while you are at it go read some transcripts.
"Netscape never got to be evil in the sense you claim MS is because they were too busy not having a money-making business"
maybe they were just ethical people who had a sincere desire to make the world a better place. Maybe you have to be evil to succeed and they weren't evil enough.
"Long explanation, short: It's all just software and business, buddy. If you think the success of one product or vender over the other is really going to change your life, you're likely in for a letdown."
Yes it's all business and no not all businesses and business people are evil. But in this case I get severely impacted. The fact that an MS monopoly means I pay more for software I have to use is significant. So is the fact that MS is choking off innovation by destroying companies which innovate. As soon as an innovative product comes out MS jumps in and destroys them by dumping free software and shoving their competing product everybodies throat.
MS will very soon control all information and all communication on the internet and beyond. Considering that the only thing that separates us from animals is the ability to communicate I would say this has a huge impact in my life.
Somewhere there is a planet full of people who think that the acts of the richest most powerful person on the planet and his corporation have zero impact on the population at large. I would urge you to buy a ticket there. Over there people may take you seriously.
Re:actually... (Score:2)
Oddly enough - I remember seeing plenty of Netscape Navigator boxes on the shelves but not a single copy of Microsoft Internet Explorer for sale. Sure - you could always download free copies of the beta versions. Dance on the bleeding edge. Which was fine for me (and other techies like me). But sales were happening and Microsoft interupted that.
From a Business Week commentary [businessweek.com] circa 1998:
By this point, Netscape WAS very busy attempting to flesh out their server products. There was no choice.
On a side note - Netscape started the meme "the browser is the OS." Microsoft paid attention while some scoffed. They attacked the browser, made the OS the browser, and are now preparing to launch
Why Navigator Became Less Attractive (Score:4, Insightful)
* First...Netscape ignored small ISPs as potential distributors of Netscape's Web browsing software, effectively ceding that territory to Microsoft for a long time. Through working with those smaller ISPs, Microsoft learned useful information about the ISP business and the needs of ISPs and also obtained valuable feedback about Internet Explorer and the IEAK.
* Second, Netscape lost its reputation as the supplier of cutting-edge Internet technologies. Netscape's Web browsing software is simply not as good as it used to be relative to the competition, with versions 3.0 and 4.0 of Internet Explorer winning the majority of reviews.
* Third, Netscape made the strange decision to de-emphasize its established "Navigator" brand name and emphasize a new "Communicator" brand name, despite the widespread association of Navigator with Web browsing software generally. When you have a brand name rapidly becoming as well known as Band-Aid or Kleenex, you do not wisely abandon or de-emphasize it.
* Fourth, Netscape invested significant time and money going into competition with IBM's Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange in the enterprise messaging business, a field in which Netscape had no product experience and was entirely unprepared for the rigorous quality and product support requirements of large corporate customers.
* Fifth, Netscape continued to change its corporate direction every six months, to the extent that nobody was quite sure what kind of company it was. Initially, Netscape was a Web browsing software company; then it was a Web server software company; then it was an intranet company; then it was an extranet company, then it was an enterprise messaging company; then it was an electronic commerce company; then it was a portal Web site company. That sort of corporate identity crisis is unsettling to business partners like ISPs, which look for stability and consistency. Furthermore, these changes in corporate direction also made for changes in priorities that caused Netscape to focus much less on ISPs.
* Sixth, Netscape implemented its referral server program in ways that concerned ISPs. The focus of ISP Select, accessible only by going to Netscape's Web site, made it primarily a tool for switching ISPs and not acquiring new long term users. Although this may have provided advantages to end user customers, from an ISP perspective, it was not a good thing because each ISP's profitability is heavily dependent on maintaining customers for a sufficiently long period of time in order to recover its initial acquisition costs. In addition, Netscape favored large telecommunication companies over smaller entrepreneurial ISPs in the way it set up its ISP Select program.
* Seventh, and perhaps most importantly, Netscape sought to charge ISPs very high prices for distributing Netscape's Web browsing software. Given the highly competitive nature of the ISP business, it was not economically viable for ISPs to pay such prices. Seeking to gouge ISPs was shortsighted, and encouraged them to explore alternatives. Instead of attempting to gouge ISPs, Netscape should have distributed its Web browsing software and related tools for free and thereby promoted customer demand for other software and services that it offered.
Re:The major reason MS won out in the web browser. (Score:2)
IE 1.0 was just a repackaged Mosaic. IE 2.0 was buggy as all hell. IE 3.0 was finally useable, though it lacked many of Netscape's features. IE 4.0 was useable *and* copied Netscape's features.
Microsoft has often been compared to the Borg from Star Trek; this is an excellent example of it. They adapt. They can't be stopped. You might win a few battles against them for a while, but they learn from what you're doing, and eventually your tactics stop working against them.
If Microsoft had been the size of Netscape, and had to deal with earning revenues and winning accounts just like Netscape did, then this would have been a fair fight -- but since Microsoft never had to concern itself at all with actually earning money from IE to sustain its development, since they had near-infinite money to throw at it from Windows revenue, it was inevitable that it would eventually become better software than Netscape.
Re:The major reason MS won out in the web browser. (Score:2)
Gee, God forbid that somebody actually throw their money around to improve their software. I mean, anticompetitive practices and such are all well and good, but when a software company starts improving their software, that's where we need to draw the line.
What does a "fair fight" have to do with anything? There's no law (or common sense) that says that you have to lower the playing field so that everyone can get on. Your argument generally says that "because NS couldn't match the pace of IE's improvement, IE should have been reined in until such a time that they were equal again." Isn't this the same
If you want to complain about monopolistic practices, go ahead. But claiming that there's something wrong with building a better browser is ridiculous.
Re:The major reason MS won out in the web browser. (Score:2)
IE 6 and NS6 both have the same DOM, so you are totally wrong. IE6 just has some extra proprietary extentions (like transtitional effects, etc.), but so does NS6 (XUL). 99% of websites will work fine on both, as long as they are coded properly and do not purposelly alienate one browser (a-la MSN.com).
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
predatory pricing (Score:2)
An excellent point. Of course, Word was already involved in a scam, so maybe Microsoft didn't want mix them up.
MS Word is part of Microsoft's scam of predatory pricing. I wrote an article [mackido.com] for MacKiDo a few years ago that is still relevant today. In it, I discussed how Microsoft was pricing the components in Office to bury the competition.
For example, if you buy Word, Excel, or PowerPoint individually, you pay $379 each. So if you want Word and Excel, shell out $758. But, for $459, you get Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, and a helluva lot of clipart. So no one in their right mind would buy an office product by itself, and no one can release a product that competes with any product in the Office suite.
I feel sorry for PowerOn Software. They worked pretty hard making improvements to Now up to date (their contact manager suite), but they'll have very little luck getting anyone to buy it for two reasons: (1) Entourage is bundled with Office and (2) Microsoft Exchange Server requires Entourage for an email client (or the older Outlook for Mac). So Power On is in the same situation as Netscape; they have to charge for something (to stay in business) that MS has decided to give away for free.
They don't really read these emails (Score:2, Funny)
if (/microsoft/ && /bad/ && /consumers/) {
--$bad_microsoft;
}
elsif (/microsoft/ && /good/) {
++$good_microsoft;
}
elsif (/linux/ && /awesome) {
++$slashdot_geek;
}
A guess? (Score:1)
From the
microsoft.atr : bit-bucket
<\sarcasm>Only US citizens can write to DoJ? (Score:2, Interesting)
But you are saying here:
I wonder exactly who is entitled to write an email to the US-DoJ. A lot of non-US citizen slashdoters would be willing to write I guess ...
-- Don Inodoro
"Stiff penalties" (Score:3, Insightful)
So now we are going to fine MS "stiffly?" How much would this be- 1/10 the value of breaking the rules? MS has a history of breaking these kind of agreements, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Make them "eat their own dog food", as it were. (Score:2)
Hotmail was and still is unix windows dressing 2000 on the front end, *if* I am not mistaken.
Address these or the settlement is worthless:
1) Bootloader and OEM contracts. NO more, ever.
2) *IF* windows is requested to be loaded on an OEM box...let the consumer choose which.
3) Enough of this fscking upgrade treadmill, all versions of windows should be supported for a *mandatory 10 years*, including patches, bugfixes and drivers for the latest hardware.
4) Anyone who can produce a cd of whatever version of windows they have/had and runs another OS, Microsoft should be *FORCED* to pay the customer back. Windows refund day, with a vengance.
5) Any vendor "wronged thru contracts" should be allowed to find out what other OEM's payed and get money back for being royally screwed.
6) Knowing the 'hell' the SAMBA team goes thru with each new version of windows either:
a) Full and complete publishing of the source code to CIFS/SMB so that SAMBA can be fully integrated into a windows network quickly OR
b) have Microsoft code it for the team and submit the changes to the SAMBA team.
7) Inclued the past sins of the 1995 consent decree and allow the "de-integration" or outright *removal* of Outlook, Internet Explorer, Windows media player, whatever their IM client is (anything I missed?)...not removal from the add/remove panel, or the Oulook-sneak where it just get rid of the icons and leave the entire exe and other files behind. REMOVE the wholed damn thing, exe's and dll's that are not crucial.
8) Heavy fines or non-voting stock in Novell, Redhat and/or Apple(again). And whoever else was harmed in the past 10+ years by the anticompetitive actions (ignore ineptitude of some of the competitors, or not, business decisions).
9) I'm sure there is a contract lawyer who can point out the BS of "shrink wrap" licenses, do so while we are at it, on MS's tab. Why? see #4, again, because if you can be reamed by clicking I agree, what happens if you click "I disagree", humm? Can't get a refund...sorry, don't work that way (or should not). Too many catch 22's with software if it does not work or is a digital lemon (can't make lemonaide, DMCA forbids it I am certain).
Thoughts? Suggestions? Penguin Mint(tm)?
Let's face facts, you can't change history, but you can influence the future.
Man, 3 more "steps" and it would have been a 12 step process. Heh, MA (Microsoft Anonymous).
Cheers,
GISboy
Here's my letter to the DOJ: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's my letter to the DOJ:
I've owned a computer dealership since before IBM sold personal computers. I'm also a programmer.
Microsoft is extemely abusive and anti-competitive. -- Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case [usdoj.gov] discusses. If the present case in resolved in an insufficient fashion, there will be a need for another case immediately.
Secret file formats are anti-competitive. -- A good partial resolution of the case would be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then there could be competition again.
At present there cannot be competition because the software from the dominant company, Microsoft, produces file formats that cannot be reproduced because they are secret. So, another company cannot make software that reliably inter-operates.
At present, if a big customer upgrades to a new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files in a format incompatible with previous versions, all people who receive the files are forced to upgrade their Microsoft software. Companies understandably don't want to go to a good customer and ask that a document be sent again in a former file format.
Microsoft produces software that is deliberately faulty. -- Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all have articifial limitations which cause them to crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning.
Microsoft deliberately allows piracy. -- Major competitors of Microsoft like Corel Word Perfect and IBM Lotus WordPro have difficulty competing because Microsoft allows enough piracy of Microsoft products that competitors cannot sell theirs.
I called the Microsoft legal department and complained about this. The result was that I was a witness in a case against one of the pirates. More recently I tried to complain about this again, but it is now impossible to contact Microsoft's legal department.
In my area Microsoft Office 2000 is available for $50.00 at dealers who sell low-cost computers. I have verified with Microsoft that these are pirated copies. Over a period of many years, Microsoft has not taken sufficient action against the pirates to allow a chance for honest competitors.
Microsoft is ending support. -- Next month, December 2001, Microsoft will stop providing support for Windows 98, apparently in an attempt to force users to upgrade. Another good partial resolution of the DOJ-Microsoft case would be to extend the support time for at least another 10 years. Many people have computers that operate fine for the purpose for which they are used. For example, an accounting department in a small company may use Windows 95, or even the DOS operating system. These people should not be forced to upgrade.
These are only a few of the extremely anti-competitive and abusive methods Microsoft uses, in my opinion.
Regards,
Michael Jennings
An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in violence: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:Here's my letter to the DOJ: (Score:2, Informative)
Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines [microsoft.com]
This is the fast moving consumer/SOHO desktop market. Is it reasonable to expect any company to support software that is 6 years old?
At the s/w company I work for the software is aimed at a similar market and support is dropped after 2 subsequent versions are released; this works out at about 3 years. Are you going to set the DOJ onto us as well?
Overwhelming majority will have no support. (Score:2)
If your company is not extemely abusive and anti-competitive, you have nothing to fear from the DOJ.
You are right, Windows 98 full support will stop in 7 months, not 1 month.
From the Langa Newsletter, Nov. 15, 2001 [langa.com]:
"Starting next month and ending next June, the overwhelming majority of current Windows users will find themselves operating OS versions that the vendor --- Microsoft --- either doesn't support, or only partially supports! " [my emphasis]
(The Langa Newsletter is an excellent free emailed newsletter that covers matters of interest to computer users.)
An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in violence: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Overwhelming majority will have less support. (Score:2)
The following is my opinion. I have had extensive experience in supporting computer use by businesses, and it may be an opinion worth considering:
The Microsoft web page [microsoft.com] says that Windows 98 will only receive FULL support until June 30, 2002. After that date support will be limited. The limitations will have many effects that are not detailed on the web page. For example, if severe security bugs are found, Microsoft may refuse to fix them. This is a big issue with Microsoft products, because there have been so many security bugs in the past, literally hundreds.
Remember, this means that the great majority of people and companies will not be completely supported after June 2002. If they want complete support, they will be forced to go through the difficulties and re-retraining of an upgrade. They will also have to pay Microsoft more money.
Maybe the biggest effect of companies going to Windows XP is that they will eventually be forced onto the planned Microsoft treadmill, in which they will pay Microsoft money every month whether they upgrade or not, and whether Windows XP works or not. They will also be forced onto the Microsoft advertising and security treadmill, as Microsoft tries to pressure them ecomonically in any way it can.
Because Microsoft has, essentially, a monopoly, it has more extensive responsibilities. The law says this, but the law is not being enforced. Instead, Microsoft uses its power to cause a situation in which almost every arrangement is in some way bad for the buyer and good for Microsoft, the seller. It is an economic dictatorship. One-sided contracts have been found to be illegal in the past, but the courts don't understand the technical issues, so they aren't sure that the Microsoft contracts are one-sided.
Many companies use applications that work fine under Windows 98. When Windows 98 is used with only one or a very few applications, it may crash only once or twice a week, which depending on the applications, may be acceptable.
Companies that use Windows 98 with an accounting application, for example, may be growing and improving rapidly, but may be happy with their accounting methods. Such companies may not need or want to change software for a period of 10 years or more.
If you use a computer for your own personal needs, you may buy a new computer every 2 years. But try to put yourself in the frame of mind of a business manager. A computer owned by a business may be used for only one purpose, like data entry. With data entry, greater computer speed makes no difference. A company may simply not need to change this business method; the data entry computer is only one of many business tools.
The Microsoft web page talks about "Product Lifecycle". This is misleading. It is as though you have used the same stapler for 15 years, but Microsoft says you should buy a new one whenever Microsoft dictates, even though you don't need a new one. It is as though Hoover stopped selling bags for its older vacuum cleaners, and was somehow able to prevent others from supplying bags, also.
The larger issue is that Microsoft is saying it can dictate the use of its products after they are sold, and in an extremly prejudicial fashion. It is doing this by imposing numerous entirely artificial limitations.
Not all computers running an un-supported operating system will need support, of course. Also, the lack of support from Microsoft will no doubt cause the development of an un-official support network.
Monopolies are not in themselves bad or illegal. The conditions that make the Microsoft monopoly negative for the customer are: 1) Microsoft is often extremely adversarial to the needs of the customer if by doing so it believes it will make more money. Over the long term an abusive Microsoft will make less money, of course, because the company is gaining a very negative reputation. 2) Microsoft products are often sloppy about security. 3) Microsoft may have been compromised by the secret agenicies of the U.S. government. Microsoft software is sausage software; who knows what is in it?
These conditions are excellent for Linux. Unfortunately Linux is still much more difficult to configure.
An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Completely off track (Score:2)
Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case [usdoj.gov] discusses.
If it is beyond the scope of the case then it is beyond the scope of the remedy. The findings of fact and law have been affirmed by the Appeals court and if the remedy doesn't follow those findings them Microsoft has valid ground for yet another appeal.
Secret file formats are anti-competitive. -- A good partial resolution of the case would be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then there could be competition again.
This case wasn't about Office. In fact Microsoft has a monopoly in both areas and therefore can't (by definition) use a monopoly in one area to GAIN a monopoly in the other. I don't believe there was anything in the findings about file formats and if not then applying those in a remedy would likely get it overturned in appeals. Sorry.
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME all have articifial limitations which cause them to crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning.
These aren't arbitrary limits. There are valid technical reasons (regardless of how ugly the solution was) for them being there (namely the use of the Win16 GDI layer as the drawing engine in Win9x). These restrictions no longer exist in WinXP so your argument here is quite a joke.
What sort of programmer are you?
Microsoft deliberately allows piracy.
So I take it you support their moves for product activation?
Seriously, this is a stupid comment. Microsoft are perfectly within their rights not to prosecute every report of piracy they find, just as you are within your rights not to press charges over someone trespassing on your property. What are you really asking for here?
Microsoft is ending support.
This is a standard business practice. All businesses define an end of life for a product and try to get consumers to move to the next version in line. You can't support an old product forever and NOTHING is stopping a company from continuing to use the software. You are not forced to upgrade, the company just doesn't provide a particular service for your software any more.
In the end, it seems what you are trying to do is introduce new facts to a case which has already had those findings affirmed by the Appeals Court. Perhaps you would be far better off pushing for a new trial with these ideas of yours rather than somehow introducing them into the remedy which would almost certainly result in a successful appeal from Microsoft should they be addressed.
Re:Completely off track (Score:2)
"If it is beyond the scope of the case then it is beyond the scope of the remedy. The findings of fact and law have been affirmed by the Appeals court and if the remedy doesn't follow those findings them Microsoft has valid ground for yet another appeal."
The issue has moved away from a court resolution. The issue now is a negotiated settlement. Using secret file formats to enforce monopoly is relevant. It is relevant that Microsoft is extremely abusive in other ways, also.
"These aren't arbitrary limits. There are valid technical reasons (regardless of how ugly the solution was) for them being there (namely the use of the Win16 GDI layer as the drawing engine in Win9x). These restrictions no longer exist in WinXP so your argument here is quite a joke.
"What sort of programmer are you?"
I am a good programmer, and I realize that computers can be programmed. It was not elegant to use the old Win16 code. However, an even more inelegant work-around could have solved the problem.
Allowing Microsoft Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME to crash was a VERY heartless act on the part of Microsoft. Many, many users bought extra memory for their computers, not realizing that it would make no difference.
"... this is a stupid comment."
This is a problem on Slashdot. People are too quick to call someone else stupid. Also, even if I am stupid, this is not justification for you to act out your anger toward me. It is only justification for you to educate me.
An explanation of how the U.S. got involved in violence: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Proving deliberate non-enforcement is difficult. (Score:2)
I believe you are corrrect. There is a law of estoppel. If you deliberately don't enforce your rights, you cannot enforce them later. There may be something in copyright law that says that estoppel does not apply. However, Microsoft might lose their right to enforce the contract of their license, anyway, because of other issues.
I don't know the law in this case. Also, it would be necessary to prove that their lack of enforcement is deliberate and widespread.
Note that is why they had the court case in which I was a witness. The Microsoft operator gave me the legal department phone number, and I talked to someone there with little experience, extensively. They could not ignore this. I was VERY upset with them. There were 5 distributors in the area, and ALL of them were selling illegal copies of DOS. I made it VERY clear I thought their behavior was deliberate.
That may be why it is NOT possible to get the phone number of the legal department now. When I called to make a similar complaint about Microsoft Office 2000, they blocked me from telling my story.
An explanation of how the U.S. became the target of terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
There's a balance here. (Score:2)
I've said it before... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dave
Microsoft Control Agency (Score:2)
I would want to have a big review commitee, made up of people from all the states in the suit, so you have a nice big committee of 50 or 60 people, to pass on Micorsoft Decisions _in advance_.
Micromanage the hell out of them. Hire IRS agents to do the auditing. You get the idea.
If Microsoft is on Probation, then run a _tough_ probation program
Email address updated (Score:3, Funny)
Important! At the end of the month the email address will be discontinued because of a domain name shift. The new email address will be usdoj@microsoft.gov [mailto]
Read the Settlement. (Score:3, Interesting)
I read the settlement [usdoj.gov]. It is great for Microsoft, and almost meaningless for everyone else.
The provisions don't begin until many people have been pushed into using Windows XP (eXtra Pain), after which they will be trapped in ways that are not part of the case. Here is a quote:
"Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court..."
Why not starting now?
Microsoft must disclose APIs, but may charge royalties. This prevents competition from Linux.
There is nothing which prevents Microsoft from using secret Microsoft Office file formats in an anti-competitive way.
The settlement provisions apparently do not apply if Microsoft claims that its anti-competitive software practices provide security.
The provisions provide Microsoft significant benefits.
DOJ decision was great (Score:2, Interesting)
You have to admit that this settlement is a big shot in the arm for all the people worldwide who consider the USA to be a feeble, corrupt, greed-based police state that mouths the words "Liberty, Freedom, Justice" as though they still had some meaning somewhere in the world.
Next time the USA critisizes some other countries political or humanitarian policies, all they have to say is "Bill Gates and George Bush! Don't tell us about corruption and justice!"
I'm impressed with CA's AG.... (Score:2)
Now, I just need to figure out what to tell them!
microsoft.atr (Score:2)
Direct comments to the JUDGE, not DOJ (Score:2)
Instead write to the Court, during the period for public comments, which is all that is left between today and Microsoft's next to final "out." Even if you do not compel the Court to refuse to ratify the settlement, under a standard VERY favorable to Microsoft, this will be the same judge to hear the penalty phase in the case with the remaining states. As a human being, she will remember what you tell her.
The DOJ box is a diversion. Write there as well, if you like, but only after you have registered your thoughtful comments with the Court.
Re:Will they read it? (Score:1)
I find it amazing how many people expect every day things to just stop simply because there is a war. We need to all get on with our lives and not let the terrorists win by disrupting everything.
Re:Will they read it? (Score:2)
> I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds.
Yeah, they wanted to settle because antitrust suits aren't on the national priority anymore, yet I can't help but notice that they haven't said anything about settling the war on citizents^w drugs.
Re:Will they read it? (Score:1)
And schools. Shouldn't they close the schools so they can spend that effort fighting war?
And what about all this scientific research? Should not those people be more involved in the war effort?
And what about the Coast Guard, shouldn't they stop saving boats in distress? couldn't they be used better to Guard the Coast... oh wait, scratch this last one.
Re:Will they read it? (Score:1)
wait, I didn't understand, did the poster say, "wouldn't the government be better off sending all the DOJ attorneys to Afghanistan?"
forget my last answer... I'm for that!
"It's the ECONOMY, Stupid." (Score:1)
The question then is, how do you best fix something like this without simply bludgening MS to death? Dedicating a couple of people to skim through a few hundred emails in order to get a feeling for people's opinions isn't that difficult.
Re:Will they read it? (Score:1)
Re:Will they read it? (Score:2)
Alright, that has *got* to be a troll post, but heck, I'm in a sporting mood...
"I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds."
Government by the People, for the People. Nuff said. We're all "the People", nerds included. Geez, grow a spine and stand up for your rights man.
"Just noting that it might be a little wasteful, if, indeed, the entirety of the e-mails are read... and a little pointless if they're not read."
Dear Lord, somebody hand this dude a clue stick... do you have any idea how rare it actually IS for the government (local, federal, whatever) to openly ask for public feedback on *any* issue, let alone one with this much at stake? We (Americans, that is) live in a (supposed) representative democracy, which means the folks we install on Capitol Hill are supposed to listen to our thoughts and feelings on issues. Granted, this doesn't always happen, but pardon me for appluading even the smaller gestures.
Even if the gov doesn't read a single email that flies into that box, the very concept is worth much more than the bandwidth spent sending them. Given the fact that you seem to feel democracy and rational behavior are silly concepts, perhaps you'd like to live in a nation where these ideas are frowned upon. Oops, I'm sorry... you probably wouldn't even be able to GET web access in most of those places.
Which is all fine and dandy with me, because people like you make me rather ill. I hate to be extreme here, but this is one case where "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" actually does apply.
Yes, I know "I have been trolled". This message is intended primarily for anyone out there with a generic "fuck it" attitute toward these issues. Unfortunately, given the percentage of Americans who actually vote come election time, this group seems to have a healthy number of members.
Re:But..... (Score:1)
They are looking for either
- more support
- more evidence
Will you reply?