Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2007 14:34 UTC, submitted by D. Suse
Legal A group of state attorneys general urged a federal judge on Tuesday to hold Microsoft to a 2002 antitrust settlement another five years so that the company can't stymie embryonic Web 2.0 rivals of its Windows operating system. According to six states - California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts - and the District of Columbia, Microsoft could use its Internet Explorer browser as a 'chokepoint' to block moves that might unseat Windows dominant position on the desktop.
Thread beginning with comment 279409
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
dsuse
Member since:
2007-09-04

Johnathan:

If you don't mind my asking, how much education have you had? Our laws and our science are based to a large extent upon inductive logic, i.e. extrapolating historical knowledge to determine likely future events. By your *logic*, just because a pedophile like the recently-apprehended Mr. Neil has been linked to violating our laws by repeatedly abusing dozens of children, that doesn't necessarily mean that he will do it again, so I guess it would be OK with you to leave him in society...perhaps he could babysit your kids, if you ever have any?

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist which has repeatedly abused their market position and financial power to crush competitors and influence government bodies (like the recent OOXML ISO fiasco, the corruption of which is still unfolding). They have proven beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt (except in the mind of a MS-shill) that they are a power-mad, corrupt organization that cannot, and should not, be trusted to control their own actions. Hence this request for government oversight (which I hope galvanizes much more stringent actions, and also convinces people that supporting this company by purchasing or using ANYTHING from them is essentially a vote signalling your willingness to let this behavior continue).

There are excellent alternatives to Microsoft's products which are based upon values which enhance, instead of crush, the free development of others; Linux, OpenOffice, and open source software and document formats by their open nature generate trust and cooperation between people, organizations and societies. This is something that clinging to oppressive organizations like Microsoft can never accomplish.

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

I find this quite ironic that you would insult someone on their education, then proceed to show a complete lack there of. Microsoft is NOT a convicted monopolist, simply because this does not exist. Then a continuation of merely blind observance of how a corporation operates.

I have absolutely 110% nothing against Linux. I do however get quite annoyed by many of the users who seem to only use Linux simply because they hate Microsoft, which is idiotic to say the least. It seems quite apparent that even in 2007 the Linux community would prefer to just whine and cry about Microsoft, instead of focusing on improving Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 4

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"have absolutely 110% nothing against Linux. I do however get quite annoyed by many of the users who seem to only use Linux simply because they hate Microsoft, which is idiotic to say the least. It seems quite apparent that even in 2007 the Linux community would prefer to just whine and cry about Microsoft, instead of focusing on improving Linux."

I object to your post for two reasons. The first being I object to an on topic-comment followed by an off-topic rant.

The second being the lie about the myth that people use linux because they hate Microsoft, or that any criticism of Microsoft is driven by hate. Why can't linux users like the greater maintainability, the fact that they get a new OS in Ubuntu's case every 6 months, or like the greater maintainability, or the cheaper cost, great applications like k3b, greater security or stability, or replace a broken Microsoft install, greater choice of applications, or even a little bit of fun, but for all these reasons Millions of users are now using Linux, Many Companies are building products with it and on top of it. Growth in Linux is through the roof, even with all the monopolistic abuses, not because of them.

Thats ignoring the second part that Microsoft is a monopoly and an abusive one, who use lock-in everywhere, recent news involving patent threats *again*, and the outrageous abuses of the iso standard, or unpleasant things like WGA(sic); OGA(sic); DRM(sic); trusted computing(sic) etc etc. or the simple fact that Vista is not WOW, and I posted in this very thread people forget that 95 was, and had none of this garbage.

The crazy thing is as someone locked into the monopoly why arn't you complaining more than me.

Now alternative genuine concern about interoperability with 90+ OS's out their when we want to use Video chat; play music/video, or even attach a machine to their network, swap Office documents; browse the Net. These are not whines these are real concerns, and are brought up by Windows Users as *advantages* of *all* Monopolistic Software products.

The bottom line is unless you have had your eyes closed the open-source desktop is here...and improving rapidly while Vista is approaching its first birthday, and even runs on BSD look at the latest BSD distributions. Thats ignoring alternative proprietary Apple OS which has a changes to be envied. The right phase is perhaps "velvet handcuffs", although I don't think the phrase is strong enough.

...but then these concerns are not just limited to one kernel but all alternative OS's and applications/services/hardware that compete with Microsoft ones.

Edited 2007-10-20 06:36

Reply Parent Score: 0

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

First, if you're going to attack me for my perceived (in your eyes) lack of education, you need to first have the ability to get my name spelled correctly, which is incredibly easy to do with copy/paste, but sadly, you couldn't be bothered to avoid any silly errors and instead decided to spell my name correctly, despite it being directly in front of you, correctly spelled, minus the requirement that online, most usernames can't have spaces.

I refuse to argue the "convictions" of MS in a court of law, as most corporations have been sued and convicted/sued for something or many things, and this point of arguement is not germane to the argument of law in this case. Your argument about child molesters starts getting relevant, but that's where you also go off the path: those restrictions on their freedom and rights aren't (generally) made up on the spot, after the original sentencing, but as part of their sentencing, and that's the whole point I was making that you and so many others have gone out of your way to blatantly sweep under the rug. In the law (US, at least, it may not be the same elsewhere) once you are bound to the terms of some agreement in a contract or a settlement, it's not legal to modify that contract or sentence to make it harsher than originally agreed upon, at least not without agreement of the parties that come out potentially the worst involved. A common example that everyday people can relate to is leases: a landlord can't decide to change the terms of a lease without tenants agreeing to it to raise the rent, and the other side is that outside of certain things for the landlord not having the property up to par, they can't reduce the rent they pay on a whim from what the lease states. So, too, prisoners don't have their sentences extended outside of original sentencing, at least not for that crime they're in for: if other things become apparent where they've violated the law, that's taken into account, but if they serve their sentence, and get through whatever (if any) probationary period afterwards, they aren't suddenly sentenced with more.

So, whether I agree or disagree to any other points as to why people think Microsoft (or anyone else) should be monitored, in the US legal system (though it seems things are getting twisted out of hand in places, admittedly, and that worries me) if you've done your time, you've done your time, and nowhere should your sentence be a blank check that can change in the future, once you've already served it. If a judge determines that Microsoft has violated the terms of the agreement/sentence, then sure, it follows that it's reasonable to extend it (though as someone else pointed out, it seems the agreement didn't hurt Microsoft too much, but as much as anything, what it clearly points out is that you simply can't legislate how a market develops or dies, what people want, what competitors create, since FireFox still has horrible memory management issues, with threading race conditions in the base code that tend to manifest themselves more prominently on certain machines) according to the terms of the agreement/sentence. But, if the judge determines that Microsoft has complied with the terms of the agreement, then there's no legal basis for them to extend or modify the agreement, keeping in mind that if Microsoft goes back to doing what they were doing that got them into this mess, they can always be taken back to court for new violations of whatever statutes and laws apply.

Reply Parent Score: 0

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Seriously have you read *any* of this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Its the funniest think on the net, see a Judge comparing Bill to a "drug traffickers", and Microsoft executives being described as "gangland killers" or Microsofts defense that the OS worked slower without Internet explorer.

There is more the best quote is by Industry pundit Robert X. Cringely believes a breakup is not possible, and that "now the only way Microsoft can die is by suicide."

The bottom line is back in 1998 twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly...and nothing has changed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Stupid timeout (20 minutes, clearly from the start of typing) on editing, and OSNews disallowing replying to yourself: the first paragraph should be:

"First, if you're going to attack me for my perceived (in your eyes) lack of education, you need to first have the ability to get my name spelled correctly, which is incredibly easy to do with copy/paste, but sadly, you couldn't be bothered to avoid any silly errors and instead decided to spell my name incorrectly, despite it being directly in front of you, correctly spelled, minus the requirement that online, most usernames can't have spaces."

I guess silly mistakes like that are more likely to happen with lack of sleep...

And to add something relevant, modifying punishments retroactively is what's known as "ex post facto" and except in rare cases, not legal in any place you'd want to bother going to or living in. Thus, unless Microsoft was found to violate the terms of the agreement/judgment, the judge is legally obligated to terminate the oversight. If the judge found them to be following the terms of the agreement, and still decided to insist on them being stuck with the oversight and all the restrictions, Microsoft would have an obvious case for appeal, and likely would do so, if only for the sake of standing up for their rights and making a point.

Reply Parent Score: 2