Post #13,931
10/18/01 6:39:08 AM
|
Remedies
The settlement talks have failed, a mediator has been brought in, the question remains: what are suitable, sufficient, and effective remedies for our favorite monopoly abuser?
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
Post #13,934
10/18/01 7:23:34 AM
|
Ah - Karsten wants some right-shifting.
Most of us have gone over this again and again and again.
My ideas, if I can remember what I came up the other week:
1. Windows 98 is to be re-released with Internet Explorer as an optional component. No items in Windows are to require Internet Explorer. Microsoft applications may require a web browser but may not specifically require IE.
2. Shipment of all versions of "Windows" as defined by the public* from 98 onwards are to be stopped. They may each be re-released only when they comply with item #1.
3. The full API for other vendors to ship alternate browsers that integrate like IE is to be released in a fully working state. This must happen before Windows 98 can be re-released.
4. Contracts for pre-installed versions of Windows may not be predicated on IE being installed.
I know I've missed something.
Wade.
* so as to include Windows 98, 98SE, NT, 2000 and XP.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #13,945
10/18/01 8:59:20 AM
|
How 'bout *FULL* disclosure of the API!
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #13,960
10/18/01 10:56:50 AM
|
Being far too specific.
Say "Internet Explorer" - and IE belongs to another company, don't forget - and Microsoft just "integrates" it, or "takes browsing to the next level", and now you're in another several-year-long court battle.
Same for definitions of Windows xx.
1) Mandatory sales, support and bugfixing for a specified amount of time.
For example, say, 5 years for mandatory sales, 7 for support and bugfixes. This allows people to *know* that they won't be stuck "between" releases, and having multiple versions of operating systems. Strike down the artificial barriers with "OEM" packaged OSes. The key part is the version number - and any and all versions will be available to you if you buy it. (Example for the example - if you have a License for Windows 95 retail, you can safely install Windows 95 OSR2).
On second thought, predicate that time on the "successor" being released. Say, 3 years, past the successor release for sales and support. Or 5.
2) No secret contracts or restrictions with OEMs. OEMs buy the same product that retail does. (We can allow for volume discounts). *Require* full media sales to the OEM (not just a "recovery" disk). This allows the OEM to decide what they want on what systems.
3) Volume discount pricing publicized, and any changes must be announced some time in advance, and will last for at least some other period of time. Say, 2 weeks, and 90 days, for an example.
4) No (additional) discounts allowed for purchases of other Microsoft products.
5) Immediate documentation of all API calls to the Windows interface, any future releases of Microsoft products without documentation before beta testing results in fines, and an injunction against any product written with said hidden API's for some period of time. (Example, Microsoft releases Word 2010, and its calling undocumented APIs. If they don't document the API's by at least the beta test period of Word 2010, then Word is - by the settlement - constrained from release for a period of 6 months from the publishing of said APIs and interfaces.
Fines for incorrect documentation of APIs, and rewards to those who report them.
(I'm not sure how to go after them for "deliberate" bugs or WONTFIX when it affects others)
6) Establish a office for Antitrust enforcement, independantly audited to ensure that all fines/agreements are being paid/kept.
7) No pre-announcement of products. Products cannot be announced until 90 days before they're ready to ship (this will be less effective than against IBM, since Microsoft has no problem shipping alpha code). This includes feature lists, or comparisions with existing/postulated products.
8) Admission of antitrust violations.
9) Allow for source code auditing for *all* Microsoft products by an independant agency to investigate complaints and to ensure compliance.
That's what I'd start with brainstorming - and going into negotation, I'd have a lot more I could toss along the way. :)
Addison
|
Post #13,987
10/18/01 1:40:44 PM
|
Like it!
You've covered mymajor complaints against Micros~1, and more.
One question tho. You're approach doesn't see to protect us agains the "forced march" of upgrades envisioned by .NET. The 5/7 year protection goes a long way toward that, to be sure. But I question whether we're protected against Micros~1 playing licensing games. As I read your enjoinder, Micros~1 might say, "OK, we're 'selling' .NET 2004 for 5 years. So you can license it any time up to 2009. But after 6 months, you have to 'upgrade you license', and oh...hey that'll cost you...."
Thy'd pull a slimy stunt like that, too. (Indeed, some think they're already pulling off a slimy stunt like that!)
Am I missing something?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #13,995
10/18/01 2:10:28 PM
|
2 thoughts.
1) I didn't address .NET or other things that might occur, so that's an oversight.
2) I did, and the completely open API specification would take care of that problem. Anybody would be able to write a .NET app, as a result, since they'd be able to "emulate" the API.
The problem with 2 is that likely, there would be some crypto in there that woul d force you to use Windows.
Which means 1) is more likely. :)
Addison
|
Post #14,041
10/18/01 5:36:13 PM
10/18/01 5:36:43 PM
|
Two more.
Windows must install in a disk partition w/o requiring other OSes to be trashed.
PC manufacturers may install multiple OSes on a new machine.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Edited by a6l6e6x
Oct. 18, 2001, 05:36:43 PM EDT
|
Post #14,083
10/18/01 10:53:28 PM
|
Yes, I had forgotten a lot of those.
Say "Internet Explorer" - and IE belongs to another company, don't forget - and Microsoft just "integrates" it, or "takes browsing to the next level", and now you're in another several-year-long court battle.
Good point. I had actually come up with something slightly better about IE a few weeks ago but I couldn't remember it. The goal was to remove thr forced bundling of a Microsoft browser with the OS - that's the crux of the monopoly leveraging, remember - without taking its value completely away from Microsoft. I think had also come up with things like Internet Explorer can be shipped on CD-ROMs with other software but must be a separately invocable step.
Same for definitions of Windows xx.
I'm not versed in lawyer talk, but the goal there was to prevent Microsoft weaseling out of it by clouding the product names. If Joe Public is going to call it Windows, then for the purposes of the judgement, Microsoft must, too.
1) Mandatory sales, support and bugfixing for a specified amount of time.
For example, say, 5 years for mandatory sales, 7 for support and bugfixes. This allows people to *know* that they won't be stuck "between" releases, and having multiple versions of operating systems. Strike down the artificial barriers with "OEM" packaged OSes. The key part is the version number - and any and all versions will be available to you if you buy it. (Example for the example - if you have a License for Windows 95 retail, you can safely install Windows 95 OSR2).
On second thought, predicate that time on the "successor" being released. Say, 3 years, past the successor release for sales and support. Or 5.
I like your development of this idea. It could get messy, though. Perhaps the court could look at past release schedules to get a feel for how long previous versions were around, then double the average time and say for Windows 98 onward, MS must provide sales and support for that long for each re-released product.
2) No secret contracts or restrictions with OEMs. OEMs buy the same product that retail does. (We can allow for volume discounts). *Require* full media sales to the OEM (not just a "recovery" disk). This allows the OEM to decide what they want on what systems.
But of course! Yes - I forgot this one. And I wish we could attack the EULA somehow, with its "for one PC forevermore" restriction.
3) Volume discount pricing publicized, and any changes must be announced some time in advance, and will last for at least some other period of time. Say, 2 weeks, and 90 days, for an example.
I would also explicitly allow vendors to alter their contracts with Microsoft prior to signing them. But I wouldn't force Microsoft to accept any and all changes - just that they must consider all changes and apply all judgements fairly.
4) No (additional) discounts allowed for purchases of other Microsoft products.
Of course. That's the other linchpin of the monopoly-leveraging.
...
7) No pre-announcement of products. Products cannot be announced until 90 days before they're ready to ship (this will be less effective than against IBM, since Microsoft has no problem shipping alpha code). This includes feature lists, or comparisions with existing/postulated products.
I would shorten it to 60 or perhaps 30 days. And the product must ship within that time or ... or what? Criminal fines until it ships?
8) Admission of antitrust violations.
That's a pearler!Damn right, though. "The law has been applied and you have been found guilty. Settlement prior to sentencing requires acceptance of wrong-doing." Isn't there some legal precedant here?
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #14,090
10/18/01 11:37:38 PM
|
Re: Yes, I had forgotten a lot of those.
I would also explicitly allow vendors to alter their contracts with Microsoft prior to signing them.
Why?
What contracts?
That's the point - there's no *need* for contracts anymore. If you want Windows, you buy Windows. You do what you want to, if you're supporting it. Why do you need the contract with Microsoft? :)
I would shorten it to 60 or perhaps 30 days. And the product must ship within that time or ... or what? Criminal fines until it ships?
90 days was what was slapped on IBM before, and it seemed to work fine, so why change that?
If you're a network admin, do you want a month's notice when there's something new, or do you want a LITTLE bit of warning... Otherwise, you go and buy something, and golly NOW you find you could have.. etc.
90 days would work - else force them to publish their expected schedules and feature lists. As for what do you, if they don't ship? Its enjoined from shipping for say, another 90 or 180 days *after* the original date, and probably fine them, as well.
That's a pearler!Damn right, though. "The law has been applied and you have been found guilty. Settlement prior to sentencing requires acceptance of wrong-doing." Isn't there some legal precedant here?
I think so. In pleading guilty, the about-to-be-convicted has to tell what happened in the commission of the crime. They don't have to regret it, or even apologise - just relate what they did.
Forcing that into Microsoft *would* fix a lot of problems, up front, as people started getting out of the "this is unfair, and its not true" mindset.
Addison
|
Post #14,106
10/19/01 1:02:24 AM
|
Oh. I see...
I misread you about OEM contracts. No OEM contracts with Microsoft would be an interesting scenario.
The admission of wrong-doing is good. Very good. And you're right: it would solve a lot of problems.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #14,150
10/19/01 10:24:55 AM
|
Re: Yes, I had forgotten a lot of those.
8) Admission of antitrust violations.
That's a pearler!Damn right, though. "The law has been applied and you have been found guilty. Settlement prior to sentencing requires acceptance of wrong-doing." Isn't there some legal precedant here?
Sure, it would go very far in forcing them to correct their actions, but I don't know that that could be done. Of course IANAL, but I think this comes under the 5th Amendment. I have never heard of anybody being forced to admit committing their crime, just admitting they were convicted of committing it. I see it like this: if you were convicted of murder, even though you know you didn't, how could the court force you to go around saying you did. This would cut off any chance of appeal or reprieve. Guilty or not, this right has to be allowed. ~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
Post #14,156
10/19/01 11:12:05 AM
|
Re: Yes, I had forgotten a lot of those.
I see it like this: if you were convicted of murder, even though you know you didn't, how could the court force you to go around saying you did.
The court cannot.
The court, can, however, insist that unless Microsoft wants to be dealt a penalty in which they have no say - that they do, indeed confess to what they've been proven to have done.
Microsoft doesn't *have* to admit it, but I as a judge wouldn't allow them to negotiate anything that didn't include it.
And its common in plea bargains, or in asking the court for mercy. The defendant, who claimed to be innocent, now is sorry for what he/she did, couldn't be helped, etc.
Further, the 5th isn't involved, as its a company, charged under civil law, not criminal. The conviction stands now, now the sentancing occurs, and if they want mitigation, they have to show that they understand *WHY* they were convicted. That requires a public admission of guilt.
Addison
|
Post #14,166
10/19/01 11:46:37 AM
|
Looked at that way
That would be doable, but I find it hard to believe that M$ would agree to that term for any reason. They've been fighting very hard so far to look the "innocent provider of technology". I imagine they want to work it out as much as possible so that they look like the "innovator set upon by jealous competition" instead of the "overreaching company properly admonished for crimes committed". They pay serious bucks for lawyers to make sure they don't have to admit to doing anything wrong on purpose.
~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
Post #14,180
10/19/01 12:59:41 PM
|
Re: Looked at that way
That would be doable, but I find it hard to believe that M$ would agree to that term for any reason. They've been fighting very hard so far to look the "innocent provider of technology".
Exactly. Which is why its so critical that it be an non-negotiable part of any settlement.
They didn't do it in '95, we don't want that Gates will say again: "This doesn't change a thing".
Addison
|
Post #14,260
10/20/01 1:47:11 AM
|
It's called 'allocution'
As part of the process of pleading guilty as part of a plea agreement, the accused must specify in open court exactly what it is they are pleading guilty to having done. This message brought to you courtesy of way too much time watching Law and Order.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #14,176
10/19/01 12:29:47 PM
|
Reminds me of a recent joke . .
. . or cartoon - don't remember which.
"The Department of Justice has agreed to drop all penalties against Microsoft if they simply make a public appology for doing bad things."
"And Microsoft is . . . "
"Preparing an appeal."
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #14,411
10/21/01 8:04:10 AM
|
Legalese gets tedious.
Yes, I meant they must acknowledge they'd been convicted of wrongdoing. And I was also thinking of plea-bargains where the defendant would normally be required to admit guilt. But Addison is also right in that the time for plea-bargains may well be past; they've been convicted and only the sentencing really remains.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #13,949
10/18/01 9:17:22 AM
|
Something involving napalm?
Don Richards,
Proud recipient of the ABBA.
|
Post #13,986
10/18/01 1:36:13 PM
|
Same as ever, I guess.
A effective breakup would probably mean less intensive oversight by the court and DOJ. But structuring such a breakup would be difficult. I still lean toward favoring this outcome though. Perhaps (quickly brainstorming) we (the US government) should pay MS 3 years of income, sieze the Windows and Office source, and have the IEEE, FSF or someone award royalty-free licenses for use of the source and executables. Yes, there's be pain for a while, but the industry as a whole would be better off. MS could still exist, but they wouldn't have their clubs of the OS and Office to bully the industry any more.
Conduct remedies might or might not be effective, depending on how they're done.
I think effective remedies are getting harder and harder to come up with the longer this drags out.
Some previous threads at our old haunting ground are here:
[link|http://pub13.ezboard.com/fiwetheymicrosoftisguilty?page=8|MS is Guilty on ezboard]
A Slashdot thread with Q&A with a bunch of antitrust lawyers (circa after Jackson's FoF) is [link|http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/11/19/1020217.shtml|here].
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #13,996
10/18/01 2:12:47 PM
|
I've said this before and I'll say it again
Take off and nuke them from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
I'm at that stage with my personal and professional frustration with Microsoft's products and business practices.
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
|
Post #14,012
10/18/01 3:50:50 PM
|
How about: Speaker to Slime?
When you're talking to M$, that is?
Brian Bronson
Who thinks a General Products #4 Hull is pretty cool
|
Post #14,109
10/19/01 1:11:56 AM
|
Actually, as a teacher
I consider myself a Speaker-to-Future-PHBs.
(Damn, now I have to go read Ringworld again.....)
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
|
Post #14,113
10/19/01 1:40:09 AM
|
/me buys you a beer, it's ok man, somone's gotta do it :)
PHBs or drones? I was kinda under the impression that Westwood was primarily an MCSE drone school (with the other stuff added in), leaving the PHB training to the MBA mills like University of Phoenix et al.
-----
Steve
|
Post #14,233
10/19/01 7:50:47 PM
|
Actually,
we're not a certification mill and we're de-emphasizing a lot of the MS stuff and adding UNIX and Cisco. We (at least the present staff) focus on standards, rather than platforms.
In addition, my kids already come to me with a lot of anger at MS. I don't have to do that much convincing.
I already managed to get rid of our VB class, introduce a course in network programming (using Java) and I'm creating a UNIX system administration course right now.
Hey, a guy's gotta keep busy....
Tom Sinclair
Speaker-to-Suits
|
Post #14,140
10/19/01 6:25:00 AM
|
Not exactly consensus here. Other MS troubles too:
[link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22354.html|Their DRM just hacked] then too: [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/22332.html|Security isn't our fault] In an essay, Scott Culp, manager of the
Microsoft Security Response Center, said that
the full disclosure approach to issues taken by the security community does a disservice to end users, and has called for a rethink.
"It's high time the security community
stopped providing blueprints for building
these weapons", such as Code Red, Nimda or
the Ramen worm, Culp writes. "And it's high
time computer users insisted that the security community live up to its obligation to protect them." Then it seems that the Euro folk are dragging heels in emulating Luther and stapling some demands to the Ballmer forehead. Given the complexity of their operations (now), including the imminent XP box of atrocities, their missing the earnings/share magic point.. the sheer magnitude of intertwined *stuff* [add-in 9/11 and guesstimated effects on DOJ + Euro]: Does this suggest that, no court or legislative body could possibly imagine now, how to curtail this monster? ie has M$ succeeded in creating sufficiently chaotic a collection of present 'issues' that: no one can craft a plan which can reasonably be expected to alter their behavior? To me it looks as if they may have delayed and counter-filed enough times to cross over far enough into new administration DOJ folk that: the prospect of 'hurting the economy further' + 9/11 preoccupation might tip the scale to simple inaction. Will the only action be: simply some sort of massive boycott of their new pricing / rental plan, on the bizness side and.. a mere hope, that XP sales really bomb? (That is, its merely being a POS isn't enough; wasn't in the past. Anybody say a word about Win-MErde? That it wants to call-home often - seems not to bother home sheep users - or does it?) {sigh} It doesn't feel right 'out there'... too few who comprehend the intricacy of their infections everywhere, and the consequences of their future control. Ashton
|
