[Am-info] MS gets off scott free

[Roy Bixler]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 07:01:30AM -0600, Joe Barr wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 05:58, John J. Urbaniak wrote:
> > It's really bizarre that the Judge replaced the "independent" monitoring
> > committee, which was supposed to consist of 1 person nominated by
> > Microsoft, 1 by the DoJ and 1 mutually agreed-upon, with a new
> > monitoring committee consisting of MICROSOFT BOARD MEMBERS!
> > 
> > Oh, yeah.  Gates and Ballmer and their lackeys are going to monitor the
> > company for non-compliance and tell the good Judge right away when they
> > see a violation.
> > 
> > This is the most awful provision of any judgement I've ever seen come
> > out of a person of the US Court.
> > 
> She is going to hang them all.  Just giving them the rope to do it
> themselves.

That certainly is a perverse provision.  Do you think that was her
intention?  It's intriguing.

Sad to say, I have to admit that it looks like Kris Steenhaut was
right.  I don't see why the judge took so long to essentially
rubber-stamp that settlement.  The question is, did Kollar-Kotely say
anything like the following paraphrase from Steenhaut: "we have better
do than persecuting valuable people and valuable corporations as
Billyboy and M$."  By approving the settlement, her actions certainly
seem to say that.

By the way, here are a couple of links I picked up analysing the
settlement:

One Coder's Opinion of the Microsoft Opinion
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=478

Microsoft Decision: Instant Analysis
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=477

I have to agree with the poster of these articles that the worst parts
of the "settlement" are the carve-out for security-related API's (read
"Palladium") and the non-recognition of open source software as a
legitimate competitor; Microsoft is able to require non-disclosure
agreements and charge royalties for release of Windows technical
information.

R.