Microsoft Put On 5 Years Probation. Must Change Their Ways

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The Federal Judge will make her ruling known today, November 1, 2002. It will be a momentous decision.



Staty tuned...................



[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]



[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    When does this ruling take place?
  • Reply 2 of 50
    4:30 PM Eastern Time (1:30 Pacific Time).



    There may be some leaks just after 4 PM on CNN/CNBC/MSNBC, etc.
  • Reply 3 of 50
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    what exactly is at issue now? ms has been declared a monopoly. is that still under question? is this to decide how much reparation and/or whether or not ms gets broken up? what am i waiting endlessly for?
  • Reply 4 of 50
    The Judge is to decide whether the Federal or States remedies (or a combination of both) will be applied to the case. MS has been declared a monopoly. It now must pay the piper. It previolusly ignored court rulings concerning its behavior years ago. This time they cannot fluff this off. Half hour to go.



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 50
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Well, from the sounds of it, it looks like the judge has deemed the settlement between MS and the DOJ as a done deal.



    Screed ...Picturing a triumphant Gates and Ballmer (nee Monkey Boy)... We're doomed.



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 50
    UPDATE. The Judge has approved most of the provisions as set forth by the DOJ. Microsoft must abide by them for the next 5 years. The harsher remedies set forth by the 9 States have been set aside. Microsoft gets a slap on the wrist and will declare victory. If the past is any measure of their propriety, they will wriggle out of this and ignore the law. My opinion.



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 50
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Yup. Bad news.



    They will now believe themselves to be completely above the law, and they'll act accordingly.



  • Reply 8 of 50
    The full decision is not yet available, but MS is going to have to change the way they do business. Is that possible? They have been found to be a monopoly and of using business practices that would put us mere mortals into jail.



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 50
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    There is no one currently in the White House or the DOJ that wants to appear tough on corporate crime. (Yes, even with Worldcom and Enron still fresh in our short term memory). Oh sure, there is a lot of talk of corporate responsibility and morals and ethics, but in the eyes of those currently in office there is a solid black wall between those values and market share or free trade. (Look at the remarkable puppet show going on at the SEC).



    A law that is unenforced is not a law.



    Screed



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 50
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    [quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:

    <strong>There is no one currently in the White House or the DOJ that wants to appear tough on corporate crime. (Yes, even with Worldcom and Enron still fresh in our short term memory). Oh sure, there is a lot of talk of corporate responsibility and morals and ethics, but in the eyes of those currently in office there is a solid black wall between those values and market share or free trade. (Look at the remarkable puppet show going on at the SEC).



    A law that is unenforced is not a law.



    Screed



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This isn't corporate crime really.....it's a civil case. No one was eligible to go to jail.



    [quote]here is no one currently in the White House or the DOJ that wants to appear tough on corporate crime. <hr></blockquote>



    Once again, it would seem that because of recent scandals, EVERYONE wants to be seen as tough on corporate crime. I don't buy your argument.
  • Reply 11 of 50
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    From <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/01/technology/microsoft_remedy/index.htm"; target="_blank">CNNfn</a>:

    [quote] The decision eliminates the establishment of a technical committee to assess Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. In its place, a corporate compliance committee -- consisting of Microsoft board members -- will make sure Microsoft lives up to the deal, the judge said. <hr></blockquote>



    Oh, so the decision is a complete joke then. Good to know...



    "So, ah, do ya guys think we're being compliant?"

    "Yeah, sure, fine..."



    Screed ...fox, hen house, blah!
  • Reply 12 of 50
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    SDW2001: Okay, true. Microsoft didn't cook the books. (They don't have to).



    So being found to be a monopoly is a civil issue? Hm.



    The current administration wants the appearance of enforcing the laws without actually throwing the book at most. Bush has merely issued kindergarten-level moral speeches. Harvey Pitt, chair of the SEC, has, let's say "watered done" the oversight process. Michael Powell at the FCC has pushed a the-bigger-the-company-the-more-ther-mergers-the-better policy. And so on...



    Screed



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 50
    From A.P.:





    Microsoft was found to have violated antitrust laws, illegally maintaining its monopoly over computer software operating systems by strong-arming competitors. But an appeals court threw out a previous order that would break the company in two, leaving Kollar-Kotelly to decide how Microsoft should be punished.



    The settlement would prevent Microsoft from participating in exclusive deals that could hurt competitors; require uniform contract terms for computer manufacturers; allow manufacturers and customers to remove icons for some Microsoft features; and require that the company release some technical data so software developers can write programs for Windows that work as well as Microsoft products do.



    Some Microsoft competitors, such as Sun Microsystems, have told the Justice Department that Microsoft's compliance measures aren't adequate. Lawyers for the government and the settling states are investigating those complaints.



    The nine states still suing Microsoft, led by Iowa, California and Connecticut, spent two months trying to convince Kollar-Kotelly that those penalties aren't enough to give Microsoft's rivals a fair chance to compete with the software giant, whose Windows operating system and productivity software run on over 90 percent of home and business computers.



    Those states want Microsoft to divulge more technical information, give computer manufacturers more freedom in how they package Windows in their systems and allow users to completely remove some Microsoft features from Windows rather than just hide access to them.
  • Reply 14 of 50
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Yeah, it is a big win for Microsoft. I'm pretty hacked off about it. In fact, I'm going to go drink.
  • Reply 15 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:

    <strong>From <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/01/technology/microsoft_remedy/index.htm"; target="_blank">CNNfn</a>:



    The decision eliminates the establishment of a technical committee to assess Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. In its place, a corporate compliance committee -- consisting of Microsoft board members -- will make sure Microsoft lives up to the deal, the judge said. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I noticed that too. That's the most telling part of the entire ruling as far as I'm concerned. Those in charge of overseeing compliance by Microsoft.........are Microsoft!



    What a joke.



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Cyberskier ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 50
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Holy shit.



    Is there ANY chance that something can still happen? Like with the states?



    The American public is so ****ing stupid. But who is even worse? The other companies! Why wasn't IBM, Sun, Apple, et al banding together, buying ad time, lobbying Congress, etc! I mean as a single company that would be suicide, since M$ could probably blow Sun off the face of the Earth, or Apple, or even parts of IBM. But if everyone anti-MS cooperated! WHY! Apple's role was particularly shameful and pathetic.



    Remember that last stand Steve Jobs made, the "baffled" one? I wonder what he's going to say now! "Well, gee, I'm downright annoyed!"



  • Reply 17 of 50
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    " But if everyone anti-MS cooperated! WHY! Apple's role was particularly shameful and pathetic. "



    It was an antitrust action--Sun and others did everything they could. They are still companies--mounting giant, expensive campaigns makes very little sense for them, especially when they are going to need that energy and capital to fight MSFT.



    The people whom it hurts most--the citizens of the world--are the ones who need to take action. Thank God the E.U. and other countries have woken up...the States may be lost, but there are other countries that will us remember what MSFT is.
  • Reply 18 of 50
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    Looks like Steve Jobs is not a happy man.



    bill gates like is probably at home doing <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 19 of 50
    Today's MSFT ruling just re-enforces the idea that those in public office, including the DOJ, see the general public as sheep, as being too ignorant to know any better and too chicken to cry fowl and throw the bums in office out onto the streets. When it comes to ethics and true justice, the USA has no idea and should stop trying to tell others in the world they know better. IMHO, MSFT just got away with corporate rape one more time. What else is new in the good old USofA!



    [ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: DVD_Junkie ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 50
    Microshaft should have been broken up. I am an economist and Microsoft is right about one thing. The remidies that the states proposed were cumbersome and would have been inefficient for them and the rest of the industry. Having said that, incentives are the key. As long as MS has the ability and incentive to use their monopoly power with Windows and office to crush all other future competition they will.



    MS should have been split into Windows, Office, all other software, and then harware.



    If that had happened when HP adds Corel to thair machines MS could not threaten higher Windows prices. Or if Apple runs Switch ads MS Windows, couldnt so no Office for you.



    Only this type of remidy will help. This may be over. But give it another couple years and we will be back in court.
Sign In or Register to comment.