Re: Re: Re: microsoft appeal result
- Original Message - From: "ravi narayan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >could it be that (sinister tone) this whole thing is being orchestrated >towards a result that will be gained outside the courts? after microsoft >and gates present what many consider a weak defense (to the point of >lacking credibility) and the govt (govts) put forth a very strong well >reasoned set of charges, the judge acts in the craziest manner possible >introducing an element of judicial conduct question into what should >have ended a clean cut indictment of microsoft. rather suspicious! The remedy was not set aside just because of the judges newspaper interviews. It was put aside because he failed to hold a hearing on remedy and because the Appeals Court did change liability standards on a few points, sending them back for remand, that it may have changed the need for the remedy proposed by the district court. While Microsoft lost badly on the facts and law, they won enough that remand was probably necessary in any case. Breakup was always an odd remedy for a company that had not grown based on horizontal mergers. Hopefully, the conduct remedies approved or negotiated will do enough to restrain Microsoft and allow new innovations to eventually marginalize them. I've argued in other places that we already won based on the MS lawsuit, since Microsoft curtailed much of its worst behavior for fear of encouraging worse judicial sanctions. The threat of antitrust action is probably more useful than the remedy itself, which is why winning on the facts and the law is far more important than winning on the specific remedy. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: microsoft appeal result
Nathan Newman wrote: > I have to say, having read over the decision, the Court decision is a pretty > harsh loss for Microsoft given the hopes in the MS camp for complete > reversal. > > But on the findings of fact that Microsoft committed illegal acts, the > decision was really extremely harsh on Microsoft. So no one in Redmond > should be pulling out the party hats. > could it be that (sinister tone) this whole thing is being orchestrated towards a result that will be gained outside the courts? after microsoft and gates present what many consider a weak defense (to the point of lacking credibility) and the govt (govts) put forth a very strong well reasoned set of charges, the judge acts in the craziest manner possible introducing an element of judicial conduct question into what should have ended a clean cut indictment of microsoft. rather suspicious! the judge's actions seem to provide microsoft, which had completely lost in their defense, an unexpected avenue of appeal! the appeals court then seizes on this issue and sends the case back to trial. in the meantime bush jr and the justice dept start talking about reviewing the appeals court verdict and now there is talk of the justice dept seeking an out of court settlement with microsoft "in light of the appeals court decision". of course there are the state attorney generals who are also involved in the law suit... > In any case, I never thought the breakup of Microsoft was a great result, > since more "competition" won't help consumers get stable computing. i must admit that my primary concern is not so much consumer benefit as it is in retaining a particular computing/networking "lifestyle" that i have grown comfortable with and am a part of. to generalize from my personal motivations, richard stallman has defended this lifestyle elsewhere as i am sure the members of this list are aware. thanks for your comments on the judgement, which help me understand the contents better, --ravi
Re: microsoft appeal result
I have to say, having read over the decision, the Court decision is a pretty harsh loss for Microsoft given the hopes in the MS camp for complete reversal. On substantive factual and most law, the Court found that Microsoft had engaged in illegal actions to maintain its Microsoft monopoly in everything from agreements with ISPs, computer makers, and messing with Java. Where the Court was more skeptical was on the charge of MS illegally taking over the browser market itself, largely because of the unclarity of that "market" - not an unreasonable position - but even there, the Court did not rule for Microsoft but only remanded the case for rehearing because the district court had not provided full evidence of its effects on the market but had engaged in flat "per se" liability based on the tying of the browser to the operating system, rather than on its effects. But on the findings of fact that Microsoft committed illegal acts, the decision was really extremely harsh on Microsoft. So no one in Redmond should be pulling out the party hats. In any case, I never thought the breakup of Microsoft was a great result, since more "competition" won't help consumers get stable computing. Better tailored "conduct remedies" may be far better for consumers and the computer industry, so the end result of the Appeals Court decision may be superior to if they had upheld Jackson's breakup remedy. Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nathannewman.org - Original Message - From: "ravi narayan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pen-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: [PEN-L:14235] microsoft appeal result summary: the appeals court in the microsoft case has agreed with parts of the trial court judgement and disagreed with part of it. the appeals court rejected the contention that microsoft illegally attempted to monopolize the browser market and remanded the contention that it spuriously tied two products (the OS and the browser) to gain a monopoly. the court also used judge jackson's crazy behaviour to set aside the remedies proposed by him and sent the case back to trial court for remedies, particularly noting that it go to a different judge. rather than attach the 500k PDF file to this message i have put it up on my web server: http://www.streamcenter.com/~ravi/MSAppealResult.pdf please do not distribute this message to others or pass on the URL since i do not want my internet link brought down by downloads. i will remove the file at the URL above after a short period of seeing this message appear on the list. --ravi
RE: Microsoft
Very simply, Microsoft was charged with being a monopoly and engaging in anticompetitive behavior. (Under the antitrust laws, you can be a monopoly as long as you do not engage in any anticompetitive behavior.) When it comes down to it, the alleged anticompetitive behavior they are accused of was entering into illegal "tying" arrangements. They told the computer manufacturers (Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc.) that if you want the Windows operating sytem, you have to include the Internet Explorer application with the package (i.e. they "tied" the purchase of Windows, in which they held a monopoly, to the purchase of Explorer, in which they did not have a monopoly, thereby unfairly increasing their monopoly profit). Microsoft did so because they were concerned that if Netscape became too popular, computer users could eventually run their computers straight off the internet and not require Windows. The Judge found that the requirement that Explorer be included with Windows was an illegal tying arrangment and he agreed to the remedy proposed by the Department of Justice -- the separation of Microsoft into two separate companies: (1) one that developes and markets the operating system (Windows), and (2) one that develops and markets applications (Word, Explorer, etc.). David Shemano
Re: Re: Microsoft
G'day Paul and Michael, I'm either wholly wrong or teaching old pros how to suck eggs, but ... >That's easy. For years, Microsoft arrogantly neglected to contribute much >to either political party. So it was vulnerable. Few major corporations >ever make this error. Microsoft soon rectified its behavior. >On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:59:42PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Could anyone give me in a short one or two paragraph digest >> a) what was Microsoft charged with; >> b) what was it convicted of; and >> c) what was the remedy proposed. And lots of would-be competitors had been far nicer to Washington than M$ had been, And (a speculation) Bill Gates made a celebrity of himself, which has its benefits, but ever risks the slings and arrows of backlash. Lots of people didn't like M$ and had a persona on hand at which to level their indignation. So it was politically all the more doable to attack M$ as an institution. As for its crime, was it not simply an obvious exploitation of market power? Something about demanding of vendors that computers be sold only with M$ software (especially internet Explorer) bundled within. If memory serves, vendors were allegedly told that to put anything else in their machines would be to lose the right to sell M$ stuff. The sort of problem you'd expect in a new sector where standardisation is required. Whoever has the IP on the standard has the power to snaffle up every new application as it comes into viability, I s'pose. The neoclassicals see competition as the only regulator in the perfect market, but competition is a tendency towards monopoly at heart, so, even if a perfect market were imaginable, it couldn't last. This has been exacerbated in the case of the IT-revolution-as-mass-market-phenomenon as, ever since the IBM/M$ deal, the standard has been M$, so here we have a market which began without competition. This happened with telephony, too. Whilst the rest of the world saw all this, and opted for developing telecommunications as a public sector utility so as to ensure compatible standards without conferring monopoly market power, the US went with Bell/AT&T. Which consequently got huge, and snaffled each new application as it came along. The Justice Department then had the devil of a job compromising (things called 'consent decrees) with the giant. Prying loose its manufacturing and R&D wings in 1956, in return for maintaining a monopoly over both long-distance and local loops in the USA, and then letting 'em get 'em back in 1982, in return for prying loose the local loops. The telephony 'market', to the degree one exists, exists only because of political intervention by a government big enough (and lobbied by would-be competitors enough) to wrest a compromise out of a giant whose initial advantage was itself a product of political protection from competition. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Microsoft
That's easy. For years, Microsoft arrogantly neglected to contribute much to either political party. So it was vulnerable. Few major corporations ever make this error. Microsoft soon rectified its behavior. On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:59:42PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Could anyone give me in a short one or two paragraph digest > a) what was Microsoft charged with; > b) what was it convicted of; and > c) what was the remedy proposed. > > i.e. what sin against neoclassical orthodoxy did it transend. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:691] Re: Microsoft, intellectual property and piracy
To whom..., And it doesn't matter a damn to the Microsoft market capitalization that this software is being pirated because their fotune lies in the fact that when they come out with their *next* program, people will have to buy it and their competitors won't be able to get the same kind of exposure for their competing product. peace
[PEN-L:128] Re: Microsoft
Michael Perelman wrote > The problem is twofold. > > Tying the products is cheaper IF you want to buy all or most of the > products. Sure, but the logic required to seamlessly look at the Internet as part of your file system, which does much of the work of a browser bar the user interface, seems a rational thing to build into an operating system. I wouldn't use the same argument for a word processor for example (though building some of the common functions used by a word processor into the operating system might be useful, and is done). I believe it is this kind of issue involved in the current Windows 98/Internet Explorer show-down: not simply bundling IE with Win 98. > > The larger problem is that Microsoft wants to control the pipeline. > It wants to be able to collect something from all the transactions > [including the consumption of intellectual property]. They call > this, vig, a gambling term. Ultimately, that is the danger. Yes, I had missed that one. That sounds like a case for regulation or public ownership in that even if MS's browser was separated from Windows, its market share would still enable it to control a substantial part of the pipeline because of its market dominance via Windows, and its ability to write applications for Windows more effectively using undocumented features. Bill > > > > Bill Rosenberg wrote: > > > That is getting to the heart of the matter. From a user's point of > > view, having the browser integrated with the operating system makes > > very good sense, as long as there are ways to install competing user > > interfaces. Forcing MS to sell it separately will increase > > user costs, not reduce them, and probably lead to a more clunky > > system. What is needed is sufficient regulation or public ownership > > of these key assets such that they can't be used for profiteering or > > cutting out the competition. Anti-trust actions don't really attack > > the problem, if they end up splitting up what should be an > > integrated system, and keeping these bits of software together is an > > advantage. I don't have great faith in the long-term effect of > > anti-trust actions to boost competition in any case. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 916-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bill Rosenberg, Deputy Director, Computer Services Centre University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 64 3 3642801. Fax 64 3 3642332. Room 211, Ext 6801
[PEN-L:119] Re: Microsoft
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote > There is an article on antitrust legislation and its enforcement in > ther last issue of the Dollars and Sense. One view they menation is > that all this antitrust schmooze is a diversion from more serious > issues, such as publi/private ownership of key industries. That is getting to the heart of the matter. From a user's point of view, having the browser integrated with the operating system makes very good sense, as long as there are ways to install competing user interfaces. Forcing MS to sell it separately will increase user costs, not reduce them, and probably lead to a more clunky system. What is needed is sufficient regulation or public ownership of these key assets such that they can't be used for profiteering or cutting out the competition. Anti-trust actions don't really attack the problem, if they end up splitting up what should be an integrated system, and keeping these bits of software together is an advantage. I don't have great faith in the long-term effect of anti-trust actions to boost competition in any case. Bill Bill Rosenberg, Deputy Director, Computer Services Centre University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 64 3 3642801. Fax 64 3 3642332. Room 211, Ext 6801
[PEN-L:122] Re: Microsoft
The problem is twofold. Tying the products is cheaper IF you want to buy all or most of the products. The larger problem is that Microsoft wants to control the pipeline. It wants to be able to collect something from all the transactions [including the consumption of intellectual property]. They call this, vig, a gambling term. Ultimately, that is the danger. Bill Rosenberg wrote: > That is getting to the heart of the matter. From a user's point of > view, having the browser integrated with the operating system makes > very good sense, as long as there are ways to install competing user > interfaces. Forcing MS to sell it separately will increase > user costs, not reduce them, and probably lead to a more clunky > system. What is needed is sufficient regulation or public ownership > of these key assets such that they can't be used for profiteering or > cutting out the competition. Anti-trust actions don't really attack > the problem, if they end up splitting up what should be an > integrated system, and keeping these bits of software together is an > advantage. I don't have great faith in the long-term effect of > anti-trust actions to boost competition in any case. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:105] Re: Microsoft
At 07:34 AM 5/19/98 -0700, Ellen J. Dannin wrote: >Any comments on the microsoft antitrust suit from the list? There is an article on antitrust legislation and its enforcement in ther last issue of the Dollars and Sense. One view they menation is that all this antitrust schmooze is a diversion from more serious issues, such as publi/private ownership of key industries. >From an unbiased point of view, private monopoly on a computer operating system would be tantamount to private monopoly on print can you imagine a situation that each time you want to type a letter you have to ask for a permission to use a typeset. Yet this is what happens when we use computers, we essentially cannot use them without Bill Gates' permission. It wouild make sense that operating system is publicly owned. That does not mean nationalization of Microsoft. It would be more comparable to the use of eminent domain to forcibly acquire a strip of land to build a roadway. One does not need a revolution to do that - it's quite often done under the current system. Given that antitrust litigation will last for years, this looks to me like a diversion tactics Clintonoids use to address a more serious question of public ownership of Windows. Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
Re: Microsoft and Higher Education (fwd)
The best part is the story about the web site where you can get M$ to pay you $200 to mention the company's product in your class. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microsoft trickery (fwd)
Sid Shniad wrote: > > Subject: Microsoft trickery > > > > Computer underground DigestSun Dec 21, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue > 92 > >ISSN 1004-042X > > [...] > >Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest > > [...] > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:05:37 -0800 (PST) > > From: "T.L. Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: File 2--Urgent Action: WA state HOUSE BILL 2209 > > > > The WSDMA, a "labor" organization, has quietly asked the Washington > > Dept. of Labor and Industry to strip computer professionals making > > over $27.63 an hour of their overtime. > > > > Furthermore, the proposed law is written in such a way as to exempt > > "Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer, > > > software engineer, software developer, or other similarly skilled > > worker" even from the minimum wage provisions of Washington state > law. > > > > If approved, the law will be adopted Dec. 31, 1997, and become > > effective Feb. 1, 1998. > > > > The WSDMA's largest member is Microsoft, the largest employer of > > computer contractors in the region with an estimated 3-5,000 such > > employees. The company recently lost a labor case brought by a group > > > of contract workers. It is the company's acknowledged policy to > employ > > contract workers to avoid the cost of benefits, vacation, etc. > > > > Recent applicants have confirmed to me that Microsoft explicitly > > *requires* all contract workers to work "a minimum of 50-55 hours a > > week". > > > > The Boeing Company is also a member of the WSDMA. > > > > The WSDMA's legal move was kept secret. The "request" was not > reported > > in the local press until the day AFTER the public comment period had > > > ended. The author of that story has acknowledged he learned of the > > proposal in October, but did not cover it because he "didn't > > appreciate the significance." One wonders how he manages to cross > the > > street successfully. > > > > The "public" hearing was scheduled for the Tuesday before > Thanksgiving > > from 10 am to noon--in Tumwater, WA, several miles south of Olympia. > > > The vast majority of the state's contract workers live in Seattle > and > > neighboring communities far to the north. > > > > The WSDMA's own street-level membership was not informed of the > move, > > let alone invited to comment. > > > > It should be noted that computer professionals are already barred > from > > labor organizing by a Cold War-era federal law. It seems the time > has > > come to work to get that law overturned on Constitutional grounds. > But > > first... > > > > THE PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE OVERTIME LAW HAS BEEN EXTENDED > > UNTIL DEC. 19--NEXT FRIDAY. > > > > Management and owners have had nearly two months to comment, we have > > > less than a week. Please make it count. > > > > Comments can be sent to Linda Merz of the Washington State Dept. of > > Labor and Industry at (360) 902-5403 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Please be clear, relatively brief, and most importantly courteous > > (even if firm). > > > > Comments of up to 10 pages may be faxed to (360) 902-5300 or snail > > mailed to: > > > > Greg Mowat, Program Manager > > Employment Standards > > Department of Labor and Industries > > P.O. Box 4-4510 > > Olympia, WA 98504-4510 > > > > Below is an excerpt from the proposed law, HOUSE BILL 2209. As you > > can see, it applies to just about anyone working in the computer and > > > web industries. > > > > (source: http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm ) > > > > (1) Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer > > programmer, software engineer, software developer, or other > similarly > > skilled worker will be considered a "professional employee" and will > > > be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the > > Washington Minimum Wage Act if: > > > > (i) Applying systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine > > > hardware, software, or system functional specifications for any user > > > of such services; or > > > > (ii) Following user or system design specifications to design, > > develop, document, analyze, create, test, or modify any computer > > system, application, or program, including prototypes; or > > > > (iii) Designing, documenting, testing, creating, or modifying > computer > > systems, applications, or programs for machine operation systems; or > > > > > (iv) Any combination of the above primary duties whose performance > > requires the same skill level [...] > > > > RESOURCES ONLINE > > > > News Stories (both of 'em -- literally) > > > >Temporary software workers to lose OT > >http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_120597.html > > > >Software temps gain time to fight OT changes > >http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_121097.html > > > > Info from WA State Dept of L&I > > http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/over.htm > > http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm > > > > HOUSE BILL 2209 as posted on t
[PEN-L:374] Re: Microsoft Monopoly
Well, personally, I'm using IBM's OS/2 Warp which is a better system than Windows 95 and it's going to stay around. Paul Z.
[PEN-L:372] Re: Microsoft Monopoly
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Fikret Ceyhun wrote: > Switch to macintosh and promote a small company that tries to exist in > the fringes for so long, and now it faces extinction with the marketing > power of MS. I myself bought an Atari ST when it was a more advanced system than the AT box -- and saw (like tens of thousands of other Atarians) the Tramiel Family run the whole enterprise into the ground... When Apple brought Scully onboard it was bad enuff; when Scully *FIRED* Steve Jobs (Wozniak had already seen the writing on the wall) -- THAT was when *I* wrote off Apple too. Now that the rat Scully has deserted Apple -- after making NUMEROUS bad decisions -- Apple is sinking. I see no reason to support what has become just another computer company; I _do_ want to see a standard box and operating system (though I wish MicroShit, Untel and ICBM weren't the ones defining those standards...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 -- Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[PEN-L:371] RE: Microsoft Monopoly
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It seems to me that you, and perhaps Microsoft, are > assuming that people with 286 and 386/486 without much memory > or hard drive space will upgrade their PCs to accomodate Windows > 95. Without this very key and perhaps incorrect assumption, it > seems to me that upgrading windows 3.1 to 3.2 would be an excellent > opportunity for Microsoft to increase its profit base. Hey, it's not ME who's putzing around here -- I've always wanted to run Windoze on a 286 with 2 Megs..! Since your above surmising has not come to pass (nor will it apparently ever), I put it to you that MicroShaft is _indeed_ following this strategy. Not only that, but since the more powerful Windows NT needs even MORE memory, the case is easily made that MicroSloth is trying to pull users such as yourself in that very direction with an intermediary product: Windoze 95. (`Cairo' is on the horizon...) > Since a Windows 3.2 version would presumable to include all > the bells and wistles available in Windows 95, I truly wonder > how big of a competitor it would be. It seems that people who > are going to have a large interest in Windows 95 at least to begin > with are those who feel they "need" to be on the technological edge... > whatever that means. MicroShill shows every indication of letting WIN3.1/3.11 users stew in their juices till they finally give-up and shell-out for the WIN95 upgrade... If that means a hardware upgrade -- well, so be it... > I will be curious to hear what Jim and others have to say > about this potential alternative to Jim's initial hypothesis. Potential, but not actual in _this_ dimensional universe..! :> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal + if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig + more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm -- Those who would give up essential Liberty, Benjamin Franklin to purchase a little temporary Safety, Pennsylvania Assembly deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Nov. 11, 1755 -- Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
