http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7076177.html?tag=mn_hd

The article says the “Justice Dept. won’t pursue Microsoft breakup” and that “The government also will not seek a rehearing on the tying claim—that Microsoft illegally integrated its Internet Explorer Web browser with Windows 95 and 98.”

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Nelson on 2001-09-06 13:17 ]</font>

My initial reaction was one of horror and dismay.. Someone at MS finally gave money to the right guy and weaseled out of responsibility for being evil.

I’ve noticed that most of the North American coverage is pretty negative about this turn of events. The suggestion was made over at ars that this order came from above (read: Bush) and that the order has been given to reign in the hounds over at the DoJ. Maccentral didn’t sound to thrilled about it either.. I did notice though that The Register seemed somewhat optimistic about how this will turn out. The argument is that the DoJ is dropping the issues that make the case contentious (breakup and IE tying) in the interest of speed. The DoJ already has a big fat victory on the eight other antitrust violations that the Appeals court upheld, and by focusing on those exculsively they trade off the breakup for a faster remedy on the other stuff. In effect, the DoJ is hobbling MS’s ability to appeal anything that comes out of the remedy phase, because the Appeals Court has nothing new to look at once the breakup and the tying claim are dropped. So maybe this is really a tactical move..

Anyway, only time will tell..

I saw it among the Headlines on CNN this evening (don’t ask me why I was watching CNN, I was zapping end came by it ) I think it’s a disgrace. They spent a load of Dollars in this case and now their backing off. I don’t know why, I’m eager to hear answers to the why of this situation, but it would almost seem as if someone held a mercyfull hand over M$. And I agree that this has to come from one of the topdogs in either the DoJ, or the Bush administration. So, what are they gonna do about the M$ problem, what are the options the DoJ still has. Anyone with any ideas? Will they try to hold the release of XP? Or are they gonna stand by and let M$ prove that multibillion companies can do everything they want in the US?

On 2001-09-06 17:25, hoytt wrote:
I saw it among the Headlines on CNN this evening (don’t ask me why I was watching CNN, I was zapping end came by it ) I think it’s a disgrace. They spent a load of Dollars in this case and now their backing off. I don’t know why, I’m eager to hear answers to the why of this situation, but it would almost seem as if someone held a mercyfull hand over M$. And I agree that this has to come from one of the topdogs in either the DoJ, or the Bush administration. So, what are they gonna do about the M$ problem, what are the options the DoJ still has. Anyone with any ideas? Will they try to hold the release of XP? Or are they gonna stand by and let M$ prove that multibillion companies can do everything they want in the US?

I personally think it came from Bush or Ashcroft. The Bush administration has REPEATEDLY supported the interests of large corporations on every issue, and this is no exception. I expect this whole thing to fade into oblivion or be settled quietly like every other challenge to MS has been so far.

Remember though, the US and it’s DoJ aren’t the ONLY anti-trust game in town. The EU is getting ready to lay the smack down on MS, and foreign markets are key to Bill’s plans for world dominat-I mean, market dominance

I am not surprised President-Select Bush has put the kibosh on the breakup, but the more that I think about it maybe this is the best way to get at Microsoft. If the final rulling is that Microsoft cannot bundle new non OS oriented applications like, browsing, messaging, email, ect.. into the OS, stop them from making unfair contracts, and stop them from crippiling competetor’s software I think that it might work. Plus it makes the chances of the making the rulling stick are improved.

But that wouldn’t be good HOM.  It really does set a chilling precedence for the computer industry.  As I said in the Spin today, what if that ruling were used against Apple some day?

The problem with my argument is that the only proper solution otherwise is to break the company up.  That being a moot point, I don’t know where to go.

On 2001-09-07 00:58, Bryan wrote:
But that wouldn’t be good HOM.  It really does set a chilling precedence for the computer industry.  As I said in the Spin today, what if that ruling were used against Apple some day?

For that matter, it could be used against most major manufacturers. You can’t use Chevy parts on a Ford, so, using similar logic and premises as the DOJ used against M$, Ford is a monopoly. So is GE, Motorola, Westinghouse, Caterpillar, Toyota, RCA, etc. Is anybody arguing that harassing these companies are monopolies? Should the DoJ harrass them and force them to spend a lot of time/money/resources on answering governmnet inquiries based on premises that do not stand up in the face of logic?

The only monopolies that have existed in this country are those granted by the government (water, sewer, phone, electric, and so on) or those the government takes. By the DoJ’s logic, america’s educational system is a monopoly and should be broken up. The very fact that we are here, in an Apple forum, talking about Apple’s new products, tells you how stupid the DoJ’s premises are. M$ may have the ethics of Ted Kennedy at Carnival, but that does not make them a monopoly.

That said, however, anyone who trusts M$ based on all the empirical evidence thoroughly deserves what they get. I think it’s called Darwinism.

I just read the TMO Spin and I have to say that I agree in part. Yes a break up would be best, but now that remedy is no longer available. Where do we go? It will have to be conduct remedies that impose limits on Microsoft.  Stop them from charging PC makers a windows licence for every computer they sell regardless of it having Windows on it. Stop them from bundling, not creating software. If people want to go out and buy or download MSN Messanger let them, but prevent Microsoft from forcing it.

I can only hope that one day Apple will be in a position that the DOJ would be looking at them.

I have also heard the car metaphor and I do not think that it fits. Yes the parts from a GM car do not fit in a Toyota, but that is not is what is at issue. If GM had 95% of cars on the road and then said that only GM cars could drive on the highways that would be monopolitic, but as far as I know GM only has about 30-40% marketshare and all the systems that are used by the product are open.

For that matter, it could be used against most major manufacturers. You can’t use Chevy parts on a Ford, so, using similar logic and premises as the DOJ used against M$, Ford is a monopoly. So is GE, Motorola, Westinghouse, Caterpillar, Toyota, RCA, etc. Is anybody arguing that harassing these companies are monopolies? Should the DoJ harrass them and force them to spend a lot of time/money/resources on answering governmnet inquiries based on premises that do not stand up in the face of logic?

 

Ah, but if Ford were to copy key parts of a revolutionary engine design from Toyota, incorporate them into their vehicles, and then their marketshare became inflated as a result?

I do think MS is a monopoly, but really computer users (besides linux heads, mac faithful, and the other smaller groups) brought all this on themselves. IBM had a viable x86 competitor in OS/2, people just didn’t buy it.

What concerns me most about MS is this: Because they squeezed out virtually all competition in the office software arena, they always have that revenue stream and the ones from various Windows flavors to fall back on. This means that they can offer expensive products for free (IIS anyone?), where their more specialized competitors cannot.

It’s not to say that Apple has NEVER incorporated a feature into the OS that might compete directly with other software packages. iTunes is a perfect example. However, at least Apple actually hired engineers from C&G who worked on SoundJam, rather than just have their own engineers copy all the key concepts. If MS had gotten to a monopoly through honest acquistion (if they had bought Apple way BITD, for instance), I still might not love them, but I wouldn’t think they needed to be broken up into smaller companies the way I do now.

One last thing: Why does Billy Boy even care if they break MS up? Won’t that mean he has stock in 2 or 3 huge software companies rather than one? The way things are going now, he might end up being twice as rich as he is now if that happened.
*slaps himself on forehead*
OH YEAH, I forgot that this is all about Billy wanting to control the entire computing industry, not just the money

Well, as we all know, a breakup of Microsoft [would] have been the best solution to this problem. What I find interesting is that Microsoft appears to be proceeding with caution. They haven’t [officially] stated that this was a victory—at least I’m not aware that they have. I’ll reserve judgment on the DOJ’s decision for a while. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have something else up their sleeve. Now, I’m no law student/expert, but a few things stick out and are worth noting.

First, the DOJ said that [they] won’t seek a breakup. It’s my understanding that the new judge could very well issue the same breakup remedy. I could be wrong, but it would appear that a breakup is not completely out of the picture yet.

Second, the DOJ wants to bring current developments within the industry into the trial. That means all of Microsoft’s current plans, business dealings and products will be open for scrutiny [again]. If this is the case then XP might not be shipped until AFTER the trial. This would hurt Microsoft severely. For instance, we are all aware that BeOS sorta went “belly-up”. Take a look at this article to get an idea of what I’m talking about:

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827_hacker.html

Thirdly, if new material is brought into question as the DOJ would like, it just might open the door to breakup in some [indirect] way.  After all it is possible that the [judge] may see no other alternative to this type of remedy. The courts might find something else [after] scrutinizing the current developments that it didn’t find at the start of this trial, thus opening Microsoft to further attack, damages and penalties based on actions that the DOJ wasn’t aware of. They might even find something that is MORE damaging. Again, breakup might only be off the table [for now.]

Fourth, why is the DOJ so hell bent on ending this trial? Are they being hasty? What about M$ thumbing it’s nose at other court orders and restrictions that it disobeyed in the past? Do you think the DOJ just want’s to see M$ get a slap on the wrist again? To be honest, I think the DOJ had something else planned right from the get-go. I think a breakup order was being merciful to the company because I’m not sure if class-action lawsuits would have still applied to a company after it’s broken up.  It’s a fact that Microsoft has been declared a monopoly that illegally leveraged it’s power, etc., etc. I’m thinking about all the class-action lawsuits that will start to develop as a result of this, possibly even halting shipment on other products or even the same products; some of which that might have already been integrated directly into the operating system. Again, more lawsuits, more delays, more monetary damages…. The vultures will be circling, ready to pick M$ clean. So, while M$ is busy fighting tens of battles on tens of fronts, their products will surely be affected in [some] way. Think of the example of the “elephant and the ants”.

So, you see? It’s possible that the DOJ wants the case over ASAP knowing that M$ will be nose-deep in *pucky*.  I’m not sure that the DOJ is going to let them off the hook that easily. I could be wrong on my musings. If that [is] the case then God help us all.

Best
——
Ed M

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ed M. on 2001-09-07 12:58 ]</font>

On 2001-09-07 11:09, DaiMac wrote:

Ah, but if Ford were to copy key parts of a revolutionary engine design from Toyota, incorporate them into their vehicles, and then their marketshare became inflated as a result?

The premises of the DoJ’s arguments state that M$ tried to exclude others from running on the x86 platform. If the DoJ were to decide that Ford designed their engines differently from Toyota for that reason (which we all admit is pretty silly, but we are talking about bureaucrat-lawyers), then Ford and Toyota would thus be considered monopolies. Moreso, in fact, because they make the cars AND the engines AND the encgine components.

One last thing: Why does Billy Boy even care if they break MS up? Won’t that mean he has stock in 2 or 3 huge software companies rather than one? The way things are going now, he might end up being twice as rich as he is now if that happened.

John D. Rockerfeller actually wound up 2-3 times as wealthy after the government pulled all their stunts on Standard Oil. You can bet that Billy Boy had hired some people to look into how it was done and how it could be done now. (Not that I’d do any different, of course.)

Rushing the trial may prove valuable for several reasons, one being that it forces MS to abide by the rulings that are brought down, and not simply continue putting off the remedy, and thereby evading it.

It could also prove interesting for the Doj to give away the “breakup”, only to have a judge decide that “opening” the source-code for windows in more productive to a more level playing field.

If is possible such an action could cripple MS’s ability to “creatively” sabotage other programs and platforms if the code is transparent.

It could as well bring smaller companies and individuals to bring small programs and apps to bear, that may be a more effective force, than the large “complete” windows-copy competitors that has been mentioned in the past.

If MS were forced to play fairly, then they would not continue to dominate, they would lose ground. And possibly become as IBM once did, a secondary force in computing.

And who and what could fill that hole in computing domnance?

How about “open source” advocates and developers?

I don’t know if this is even possible, but it is a nice thought,
-MacFan

I assume when people talk about forcing MS to “open the source code” for Windows, they are really talking about making the API’s public?  Not having any secret interfaces would be a good thing, and put things on a more level playing field.  I don’t see any reason for actually wanting to have access to the source, unless it was being placed into the public domain.

On 2001-09-07 11:09, DaiMac wrote:

It’s not to say that Apple has NEVER incorporated a feature into the OS that might compete directly with other software packages. iTunes is a perfect example.

 

iTunes is a bad example. You can use ANY other MP3 player and/or burning software you want. You can remove iTunes and MacOS will still work. This is a far cry from M$ which claimed Win98 would not work if IE was removed (of course this wasn’t completely true, see Win98 Lite).

Sure, Apple bought SoundJam and used it as the basis of the free iTunes. At least they bought it. And C&G didn’t have to sell it. They probably has good reasons for selling.

[[[iTunes is a bad example.]]]

Exactly right. No one will complain about Micro$oft adding features and shipping them with an OS when these “features” are easily removed and discarded and/or added AS THE USER SEES FIT. Not Micro$oft. Their OS should be modular in nature, where EVERY feature exhibits this quality. If I don’t like IE, then I should be able to remove IE and replace it with something else. It’s called interchangeability. What MicroSquash is doing is weaving these features right into the OS and saying that these features are part of the whole and cannot be removed. As if every part on an automobile is somehow welded or fused to each other making for a single, huge part. They should break this company up and stop worrying about how badly hurt the economy will be. Each day that passes the more dependent this “economy” (and world) becomes on Micro$oft. If they are allowed to get away with it now there will be no stopping them in the future. M$‘s track record is evidence of that. No matter how many laws are written or how many remedies issued, M$ will always find a loophole or some other way around them.

———-
Ed

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ed M. on 2001-09-09 09:41 ]</font>

they have already gotten “away” with it the horse is out of the barn and moneysoft knows it nt is the next speghetti ware that we will have to deal with if they are allowed to release that on tiiiiiime free computing on your own hard drive or even the ability to add new hardware is kaput (allusion intended)

taojones