And Bush's Justice Department lets the Microsoft Monopoly go on as if nothing had happened .
MSFT certainly has its monopoly intact.We were pissed when we learned that we couldn't order a Dell lap-top with LINUX. Dell would only offer MSFT.
However, when the machine comes, the techies are going to partition the machine and install LINUX
as well.
So F---K Microsoft!
The company is also in trouble with its monopolistic practices in Europe.
The good news is that regardless of that fool in The White House, people are willing to fight the MSFT
monopoly.- Mephisto
****************************
September 8, 2001
States Press U.S. to Take Tough Stand on Microsoft
By STEVE LOHR
From The New York Times
S ome of the leading state attorneys general in
the Microsoft antitrust case said
yesterday that they would press for tough sanctions
against the software maker, including ones that
apply to the company's new operating system,
Windows XP.
The states also served notice that they were willing
to break with the Bush administration and pursue
Microsoft on their own if they think the steps the
Justice Department is to suggest do not go far
enough to foster competition in the software
industry.
"We are there, and we have our own expertise," said Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York.
Comments from Mr. Spitzer, Bill Lockyer of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Tom Miller
of Iowa came one day after the Justice Department announced that it would not seek a breakup of Microsoft
and would not pursue another significant claim in the case — that the company had illegally bundled its
Internet browser with its Windows systems.
The message from the states that they plan to take a harder line in the next phase of the Microsoft case
promises to make reaching an out-of-court settlement more difficult. The states played a prominent role in
prodding the Justice Department to walk away from a settlement with Microsoft in April 2000, when the two
sides nearly reached an agreement.
With their public comments, the states are also trying to encourage the
Justice Department to create effective remedies against Microsoft, short of
splitting the company in two. The Clinton administration advocated breaking
up the company, and the judge who heard the case, Thomas Penfield
Jackson of Federal District Court, approved a breakup plan after finding
that Microsoft was a monopolist and had repeatedly violated the nation's
antitrust laws.
Three months ago, a federal appeals court upheld much of the lower court's
ruling, though not all of it. The appeals court removed Judge Jackson from
the case for making pointed comments about Microsoft to reporters.
It also struck down his breakup order and cast doubts on whether a
breakup was the appropriate remedy.
When the Justice Department announced on Thursday that it would not
seek a breakup, it said that it would instead seek "conduct remedies", or
court-ordered sanctions to change Microsoft's corporate behavior. And the
Justice Department said it would "seek an order that is modeled after the interim conduct-related provisions"
in Judge Jackson's final judgment.
But those steps were intended as temporary measures until the breakup, which was meant to restore
competition. In addition, those conduct remedies — including the easing of contract restrictions on makers of
personal computers and the forced disclosure of technical information — were largely the same as the list of
proposed steps in the settlement negotiations that collapsed in April 2000. And that was before Microsoft had
been found in court to be a monopolist that had repeatedly violated antitrust laws.
The state attorneys general are pushing to ensure that the sanctions on Microsoft's conduct are more stringent
and enforceable, although they did not say yesterday precisely what further curbs they had in mind.
"The interim conduct provisions are very much a starting point and not an end-all solution, at least for the
states," Mr. Blumenthal said.
Mr. Miller said, "Other steps can and should be considered."
In a joint statement, Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Lockyer said, "We look forward to continuing to work with the
Department of Justice in the proceedings that are about to begin before the trial court, but will, if necessary to
protect the public, press for remedies that go beyond those requested by the Department of Justice."
Hearings on remedies are scheduled to begin later this month before a new trial judge, Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. There have also been talks in recent weeks
between the two sides to revisit the subject of settlement, but they have made no real progress, people close
to those discussions said. With the government taking the breakup and bundling issues off the table, the
prospects for a settlement are improved, but how much is not clear.
Justice Department officials said on Thursday that they would not try to stop Microsoft from marketing
Windows XP, which manufacturers are beginning to install this month in PC's and which will be sold in retail
stores in October. But the Justice Department officials said they would review what court-ordered sanctions
should apply to the latest version of Windows, Microsoft's monopoly product.
In their statement, Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Lockyer said they would insist that Windows XP receives "close
scrutiny in arriving at a judicially ordered remedy."
In Windows XP, Microsoft is tightly integrating not only its Web browser, but also software for online
commerce, for playing music delivered over the Internet and for digital photography. Microsoft says that
integrating such software into the operating system is a consumer benefit. But critics assert that the bundling
practice gives Microsoft a huge advantage in new markets and stifles competition.
"We should not let the browser story be repeated again and again in new markets," Mr. Spitzer said.
Although the Justice Department has decided not to pursue the bundling charge, the district court's temporary
conduct remedies provide a blueprint for trying to protect competition. One provision says Microsoft can add
other software to Windows, including a browser, e-mail software and media playing programs, but that it
must permit PC makers and consumers to remove the added software.
In addition, the provision requires Microsoft to give PC makers who remove Microsoft software a discount
on the price of Windows, so that PC makers have an incentive to choose competing software if it is
competitive.
Yet for this and other conduct remedies, like requiring Microsoft to share its technical information with rivals,
the lingering question is whether they can be sidestepped too easily and thus cannot be enforced.
To tighten compliance, some antitrust experts suggest a "crown jewel" provision in any remedies order. Under
such an arrangement, if Microsoft is found to violate a court- approved consent decree, it would have to pay
large fines or perhaps even be broken up.
nytimes.com |
