IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Bloomberg: US won't seek breakup, drops tying claim.
[link|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=AO5eFURMlVS5TLiBX|U.S. Won't Seek Microsoft Breakup, Will Drop Tying Claim]

Not much meat there - just a couple of paragraphs. Presumably more will come soon.

Washington, Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. antitrust enforcers said they won't seek a breakup of Microsoft Corp. when a federal judge convenes hearings on remedies to curb the software giant's illegal defense of its Windows monopoly.

The U.S. Justice Department said in a statement it had informed the world's largest software company that instead it would seek an order that restricts Microsoft's business practice.


Cheers,
Scott.
New Figures...
just as the DOJ starts to win...they start wimping out.
New Ya know...
As much as I disagree with the pronouncement (after all, why give up anything before negotiation, why take it off the table), there might be some good reasons for doing that.

First, they've won the main part of the case. OS monopoly. Dead to Rights.

Breaking them up creates a world of enforcement problems, since Microsoft has all the respect for the law that the Scientologists do.....

So, keep them as one entity, and pound them with consent decrees and judgements.

If they're broken up, what does that do to claims against them? Oh, you shouldn't be suing us, you should be suing them. Now, there's still just the one. Less confusions for judges and juries.

I don't think its the right thing to do, and I especially think that they haven't understood that concessions are *not* going to be met by concessions, but I can see a glimmer of a point in this action.

Addison
New Yeah, right.
"So, keep them as one entity, and pound them with consent decrees and judgements."

Boy, that "consent decree" in '95 that started this shooting match really made them curb their behavior didn't it? Wow! thank God we had that consent decree or Microsoft might have done something illegal (maybe even, heaven forbid, lie about it).

I fear this is going the Repo way of all things corporate: The black hats always win because the old Russian saying is true, "In America, you are innocent until proven broke."

I don't know what the solution is, but just having them sign "consent decrees" is not going to do it and judgements against them they either ignore or tie up in the courts until a friendly Republican gets elected.

FEH!
New Re: Yeah, right.
Boy, that "consent decree" in '95 that started this shooting match really made them curb their behavior didn't it?

That was a settlement - not a mandated one. There is a huge difference. The DoJ didn't want to have to go to court to prove they were violating it.

That's taken care of now - the legal issue is settled.

A code of conduct, (not really a consent decree) can be set upon - and now, rather than having to prove all sorts of other stuff (as the case turned into, you might note), now its "did you do that? yes or no". Much much easier to enforce.

but just having them sign "consent decrees" is not going to do it and judgements against them they either ignore

Its not a matter of them signing anything now. Its now a matter of what they get told to do (unless they start playing nice, fast).

And as for ignoring judgements, I think they've run out of rope, no judge is ignorant of their behavior.


Addison
New You're more optimistic than I am.
Perhaps I'm jaded by the long, sordid history of M$ getting away with more than anyone should. Gates comes from a family of lawyers and has always viewed the law as a tool. He's usually come out relatively unscathed considering the gravity of his shenanigans.
New yeah, but...

Breaking them up creates a world of enforcement problems, since Microsoft has all the respect for the law that the Scientologists do.....

Gotta disagree with you (partly - see below) there. The whole point of the break-up idea was that (hopefully) this would've solved the issue. I mean, what else are ya gonna do? Fine 'em? (They've got tons of cash.) Threaten 'em with decrees and judgements? (That's how we got here.) The hope (I think) was that if they broke Microsoft up, the problem would be fixed and that would be the end of that.


I don't think it would've fixed the problem, but I think that's what they were thinking.



If they're broken up, what does that do to claims against them? Oh, you shouldn't be suing us, you should be suing them. Now, there's still just the one. Less confusions for judges and juries.

Now that I agree with and it might be why they let up. It an interesting point.


But the other point about the breakup that was it was an important negotiation tactic. For whatever reason, a breakup is being treated as death to the company by some. Fine. So you push for 'death' and then settle for something less (which is what you wanted) later on.


What I don't get is why they are 'settling' now. (Unless they think the lawsuits are going to be enough).


New Think of parole...
When someone is out on parole, they're "free" but under restrictions.

It doesn't take ANYWHERE NEAR the effort required to convict someone to revoke their parole.

That's what I see as a big difference here. Before, they had to be convicted. Well, they have.

Now they're paroled... and if they are caught doing anything that they've been convicted for, under conduct remedies, there's no need to have a trial, its a matter of slapping them down, immediately.

There's really nowhere for them to *appeal* to, so they can waste their money on lawyers, and attempt, but I suspect they're only going to get 3 chances at that before the judge starts fining them/making them pay for the government lawyers. :)

Threaten 'em with decrees and judgements? (That's how we got here.)

Prior to this was a voluntary consent decree, that they government claimed that they had broken.

Now they're a convicted monopolist - the bar just lowered a LOT for remedies.

Addison
New If?
"... and if they are caught doing anything that they've been convicted for, under conduct remedies, there's no need to have a trial, its a matter of slapping them down, immediately."

Tying is out, apparently. So, there go the claims about the Windows Media Player inclusion in XP, the IM in XP, etc. being an illegal leveraging of the OS monopoly to thwart QuickTime, RealMedia, AOL/IM, etc.

And what real penalty has M$ ever suffered? I submit that even under your terms, Microsoft would be able to use its vast stores of $ to drag through the courts until the issue is moot (as it successfully did in running Netscape out of business). It doesn't take much imagination to see what happened to Netscape happening to Real, QTime, game companies for the X-box, etc.

New Maybe.
I don't know what the DoJ/States are thinking, here.

Tying is out, apparently. So, there go the claims about the Windows Media Player inclusion in XP, the IM in XP, etc. being an illegal leveraging of the OS monopoly to thwart QuickTime, RealMedia, AOL/IM, etc.

Apparently that's tying of the browser.

I think they want to reopen the case of the other issues, how that will play, I don't know.

I submit that even under your terms, Microsoft would be able to use its vast stores of $ to drag through the courts until the issue is moot (as it successfully did in running Netscape out of business).

But its not my terms, there.

You've got to have legal standing to press a case. If they're under conduct remedies, and they're found to have violated them - then there's not much they can do about it. There's no epic battle to the Supreme Court, etc.. because the upper courts won't take it.

Addison
New Add...
you're talking about paroling someone who hasn't been sentenced yet. It's too soon.
New No. I'm talking about the difference between then and now.
Because THEN, after the sentance/conduct remedy - the burden of proof is nowhere as high as it was to GET to this point.

The general thought is "look at what it took to get here, its going to be more of the same" - and that's not the case, at least potentially.

Because THEN, they've *been sentanced*. That's the point. Before now, they weren't.

Then and now. And Then will be now, soooon.

Addison
New No matter...
The States have previously vowed to continue the fight even if the DoJ does wuss out. Hope they're good to their word.
-YendorMike

"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
New States joined DOJ in statement. Propose Jackson's remedies.
Updated Bloomberg story [link|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=AO5eLnROETWljcm9z|here].

The Justice Department said it will seek restrictions on Microsoft's conduct similar to those that U.S. District Thomas Penfield Jackson imposed as interim measures before the breakup he ordered would take effect.

They included requirements that Microsoft give all software developers access to the code needed to make programs run on Windows. Jackson, removed from the case for talking about it with news reporters, also ordered the company to tell the top computer makers what it charges for Windows licenses to prevent Microsoft from discriminating between manufacturers willing to do its bidding and those who resisted its demands.

Microsoft shares fell $1.03 to 56.71 in morning trading.


Jackson's Final Ruling including his interim measures are [link|http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-final2.html|here] (HTML). See section 3 (below). It looks pretty comprehensive...

3. Provisions In Effect Until Full Implementation of the Plan of Divestiture . The provisions in this section 3 shall remain in effect until the earlier of three years after the Implementation of the Plan or the expiration of the term of this Final Judgment.

a. OEM Relations.

i. Ban on Adverse Actions for Supporting Competing Products. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action adversely affecting any OEM (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that OEM:

(1) to use, distribute, promote, license, develop, produce or sell any product or service that competes with any Microsoft product or service; or
(2) to exercise any of the options or alternatives provided under this Final Judgment.

ii. Uniform Terms for Windows Operating System Products Licensed to Covered OEMs. Microsoft shall license Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions and shall not employ market development allowances or discounts in connection with Windows Operating System Products. Without limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs , that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that -

(1) the schedule may specify different royalties for different language versions, and

(2) the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based upon actual volume of total shipments of Windows Operating System Products.

Without limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall afford Covered OEMs equal access to licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos. The foregoing requirement insofar as it relates to access to technical information and information about future plans shall not apply to any bona fide joint development effort by Microsoft and a Covered OEM with respect to confidential matters within the scope of that effort. Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a Windows Operating System Product without having first given the Covered OEM written notice of the reason for the proposed termination and not less than thirty days' opportunity to cure. Microsoft shall not enforce any provision in any Agreement with a Covered OEM that is inconsistent with this Final Judgment.

iii. OEM Flexibility in Product Configuration. Microsoft shall not restrict (by contract or otherwise, including but not limited to granting or withholding consideration) an OEM from modifying the boot sequence, startup folder, internet connection wizard, desktop, preferences, favorites, start page, first screen, or other aspect of a Windows Operating System Product to -

(1) include a registration sequence to obtain subscription or other information from the user;

(2) display icons of or otherwise feature other products or services, regardless of the size or shape of such icons or features, or to remove the icons, folders, start menu entries, or favorites of Microsoft products or services;

(3) display any user interfaces, provided that an icon is also displayed that allows the user to access the Windows user interface; or

(4) launch automatically any non-Microsoft Middleware, Operating System or application, offer its own Internet access provider or other start-up sequence, or offer an option to make non-Microsoft Middleware the Default Middleware and to remove the means of End-User Access for Microsoft's Middleware Product.

b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable -

i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or

ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or

iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.

To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the foregoing, Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software (including exercising any of the options in section 3.a.iii).

c. Knowing Interference with Performance. Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.

d. Developer Relations. Microsoft shall not take or threaten any action affecting any ISV or IHV (including but not limited to giving or withholding any consideration such as licensing terms; discounts; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; technical information; information about future plans; developer tools or developer support; hardware certification; and permission to display trademarks or logos) based directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, on any actual or contemplated action by that ISV or IHV to -

i. use, distribute, promote or support any Microsoft product or service, or

ii. develop, use, distribute, promote or support software that runs on non-Microsoft Middleware or a non-Microsoft Operating System or that competes with any Microsoft product or service, or

iii. exercise any of the options or alternatives provided under this Final Judgment.

e. Ban on Exclusive Dealing. Microsoft shall not enter into or enforce any Agreement in which a third party agrees, or is offered or granted consideration,

to -


i. restrict its development, production, distribution, promotion or use of, or payment for, any non-Microsoft Platform Software,

ii. distribute, promote or use any Microsoft Platform Software exclusively,

iii. degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Platform Software, or

iv. in the case of an agreement with an Internet access provider or Internet content provider, distribute, promote or use Microsoft software in exchange for placement with respect to any aspect of a Windows Operating System Product.

f. Ban on Contractual Tying. Microsoft shall not condition the granting of a Windows Operating System Product license, or the terms or administration of such license, on an OEM or other licensee agreeing to license, promote, or distribute any other Microsoft software product that Microsoft distributes separately from the Windows Operating System Product in the retail channel or through Internet access providers, Internet content providers, ISVs or OEMs, whether or not for a separate or positive price.

g. Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System unless:

i. Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical version of that Operating System Product in which all means of End-User Access to that Middleware Product can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as part of standard OEM preinstallation kits and (b) by end users using add-remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot process and from the Windows desktop; and

ii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of Windows.

h. Agreements Limiting Competition. Microsoft shall not offer, agree to provide, or provide any consideration to any actual or potential Platform Software competitor in exchange for such competitor's agreeing to refrain or refraining in whole or in part from developing, licensing, promoting or distributing any Operating System Product or Middleware Product competitive with any Windows Operating System Product or Middleware Product.

i. Continued Licensing of Predecessor Version. Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release (such as Windows 95, OSR 2.0, OSR 2.5, Windows 98, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows "Millennium," "Whistler," "Blackcomb," and successors to these), continue for three years after said release to license on the same terms and conditions the previous Windows Operating System Product to any OEM that desires such a license. The net royalty rate for the previous Windows Operating System Product shall be no more than the average royalty paid by the OEM for such Product prior to the release. The OEM shall be free to market Personal Computers in which it preinstalls such an Operating System Product in the same manner in which it markets Personal Computers preinstalled with other Windows Operating System Products.


Out of the frying pan, into the fire?

Cheers,
Scott.
New Good remedies.
I've always favored the conduct remedies over the breakup remedies. I think the breakups would give them too much latitude, especially the one Jackson set up.
Regards,

-scott anderson
New That covers the two worst problems
It specifically prohibits actions or threats against OEMs for allowing dual-boot, even to the point of allowing the "alternative" OS to be the default. And it prohibits differential pricing to OEMs in comparable quantity. If they can't control the desktop the OEM ships, OEMs will be able to see what the market actually wants in terms of alternatives.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New As to just boot loader provisions
Presuming that present court folk underestand the significance and maintain above POV:

Maybe too late for Be, but NOT too late for *all those dual-boot to Linux* distros just waiting in the wings?
Maybe not.. too late for Be and its new (bargain) owners?

Still WANLs (we ain't...) - perhaps there remain loopholes (?) within even the above litany: a virtual recap of the methods used *thus far* to enforce M$ hegemony. But you can never prove a negative.. so in the end, future enforcement of "the spirit" of the final remedies -- would appear to reside in a (some) single judge, who is dealing with a Parolee, and need not go back to square one.

Just maybe.. if not diluted into impotence - the above scenario will work. And, may prove more effective than any random breakup -- which I've always deemed analogous to metastasis. M$ IS a cancer by any subtle definition of both.

(Radiation therapy - nuke 'em - appears, alas, not yet an option. But I retain hope..)


Ashton
New Going for speed
The Register makes the point that the DOJ is trying for a speedy resolution and pushing for a breakup would allow M$ to delay.

[quote]
So the apparent escape from break-up (the judge of course could still have different ideas) has several nasty edges to it from Microsoft's point of view. In a statement today the DoJ makes it clear that it's abandoning break-up and the tying issues in the interest of speed. It could also have said that break-up would have been messy, unworkable and difficult to get through the courts. And it could have said that, given the difficulties involved in putting Humpty Netscape back together again, there's really not a lot of mileage in IE tying these days.
[/quote]

[link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21522.html|[link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21522.html|http://www.theregis...4/21522.html]]
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

--Thomas Jefferson
New Don't know how much difference it makes
We've had several discussions about this particular breakup plan and many of us didn't think it was such a hot idea. Now dropping the tying claim, that's worse - but you can make a case for allowing Microsoft to sell whatever it wants with Windows, even if (as myself) you think it is a stupid, asinine, brain-dead mistake to glue and intertwine so many operating system components together. I was disappointed that they had spent so much time concentrating on Internet Explorer anyway rather than the other more egregious monopolistic acts. Not to mention failing to whack Gates and company hard for perjury.

Hopefully futher news comes out shortly about what it is they're looking for.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New This isn't new
In the last settlement attempt, overseen by Posner, the DoJ didn't want a breakup then but the state attorneys vetoed anything but that. Posner had some unlovely words to say about the SAs.

Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
     Bloomberg: US won't seek breakup, drops tying claim. - (Another Scott) - (19)
         Figures... - (Simon_Jester) - (10)
             Ya know... - (addison) - (9)
                 Yeah, right. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                     Re: Yeah, right. - (addison) - (1)
                         You're more optimistic than I am. - (mmoffitt)
                 yeah, but... - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                     Think of parole... - (addison) - (4)
                         If? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Maybe. - (addison)
                         Add... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                             No. I'm talking about the difference between then and now. - (addison)
         No matter... - (Yendor) - (5)
             States joined DOJ in statement. Propose Jackson's remedies. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 Good remedies. - (admin)
                 That covers the two worst problems - (drewk)
                 As to just boot loader provisions - (Ashton)
             Going for speed - (Silverlock)
         Don't know how much difference it makes - (wharris2)
         This isn't new - (warmachine)

Nobody leaves an Asian restaurant with less than eight pounds of to-go boxes.
130 ms