Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Antitrust Judgement

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the it's-the-big-one dept.

The Courts 1242

An anonymous reader writes "Here are the links to the as-yet-unreleased judgement in the Microsoft case by CKK: Final Decree, Memorandum Opinion, Public Interest Order, Opinion on the State Settlement, State Settlement Order." In brief: Kollar-Kotelly accepts the settlement that the Federal Gov't and some states wanted, but she wants a minor change to it; and she has decided the case which was pursued by the other states as well, mostly ordering Microsoft to refrain from certain behaviors with regard to the user-visible desktop. Overall: a massive win for Microsoft, who can restrict the release of its APIs to major commercial companies only.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

did y'all eat at subway on wed.? (-1, Offtopic)

Trolling Stones (587878) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580316)

g to the oatse
c to the izzex
fo shizzle my nizzle...

Re:did y'all eat at subway on wed.? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580432)

Actually, I did. Thanks for asking. I had the scrumptious Italian BMT as you so often recommend. It was excellent. SUBWAY eat fresh!

[Trolling Stones] I won't steer you wrong, buddy (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580486)

As far as I'm concerned, the italian BMT is the best value there, in terms of taste, and in terms of meat. If you want extra meat in your sub, you have to make friends with the crew behind the counter. Short of hanging out with them, always know what you want ahead of time, say your order loudly and quickly, and smile.
you'll be overflowing in succlent meats in no time!

g to the oatse
c to the izzex

First post!!! (-1, Offtopic)

5r (585302) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580319)

1st post!!!! Yeahhh!!

El Primavera Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580320)


=)

Decree #1 ... (-1, Offtopic)

olclops (591840) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580321)

Better soup. Am I right?

please michael, don't (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580323)

I'll put some kind of summary text here once I've had a chance to read it.

michael, given your well known hatred of microsoft, anything you write about this judgement has no value whatsover. if you have anything to say, please post a comment like the rest of us, and face the moderation wrath.

thanks.

Re:please michael, don't (-1, Flamebait)

photon317 (208409) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580345)


I'll even say that without going anon: What he said. Michael, you're a sack of shit on a power trip.

And so Michael begins. (-1, Offtopic)

juuri (7678) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580386)

How many mod points will he waste this time?

How long will the other editors turn the other cheek?

Seriously someone stand up and explain to us why Michael gets away with these mod down powertrips? How about you Timothy? You seem to be the one really stand up guy around here, hell you even admit when you foul up.

Notice I am not posting anonymously because I want an answer it is worth my karma which Michael has burned off plenty of times in the past to find out why no one does anything about this.

Re:please michael, don't (-1, Offtopic)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580418)

flamebait? this is an honest comment. why does a criticism of the editors always have to get modded to oblivion? this is just another abuse of absolute power by michael.

somebody with mod points please restore the balance here.

ain't it the fucking truth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580463)

and what about censorware?? have we forgot already how michael fucked over Seth and Jaime?

you're a hypocrite fascist, michael.. and the fact that you live in my borough, makes it worse..

I like Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580325)

I like their business model and products, I just don't like some of their business practices (e.g. the bootloader issue or the exclusive contracts). But overall, they do a good job for their products and Windows XP seems like a huge improvement over their older OSes.

I'm a tool (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580384)

But I like lolipops and camp songs.

Re:I like Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580437)

I hate their business practices... lots of things not to be proud of there. Also, however good their products might be, I can only imagine things would be WAY cooler if MS had strong competition along the way.

Re:I like Microsoft (4, Funny)

phuturephunk (617641) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580462)

. . Did you, at any time in your life, invest in a Ford Pinto? . . .

Re:I like Microsoft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580504)

oh shutup you obnoxious geek

what's easier for your AVERAGE COMPUTER USER? Windows or Linux?

which operating system has more compatibility with todays software? Windows or Linux?

which operating system reports more security vulnerabilities over the other? Windows or Linux?

Assuming, by your arrogance, you chose Linux for the first 2 answers and Windows for the last one.. well you're wrong.. hate to break it to you buddy, but Windows XP.. is a pretty dam stable operating system.. and very easy to use for your AVERAGE COMPUTER USER.. and so what if Microsoft is the richest company in the world.. it just goes to show Bill Gates knows what the fuck he's doing when it comes to business..

Re:I like Microsoft (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580512)

Hmm. How do you so clearly differentiate between their business model and their business practices? Doesn't the one describe and define the other?

Personally, I hate their business model, their practices, and most of their products.

Ultimate Stress Test (-1, Offtopic)

Dareth (47614) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580332)

How about you only post the results of this on http://brak.slashdot.org/

That would be a good stress test!

Yea (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580336)

FreeBSD est muell!!!1 Windows is teh rawk, lunix is teh sux0rs!!11!!

7p! (-1, Troll)

dextr0us (565556) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580337)

seventh post foo! yeah, rekognize

Re:7p! (-1, Offtopic)

dextr0us (565556) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580359)

whoops, that was supposed to be AC. welp now i only have "positive" karma. :(

woot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580343)

First early post for BT

Huh? (5, Funny)

CySurflex (564206) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580344)

Microsoft Corp. anounces MS Lawyer 2k - This exciting new product translates any sentence or paragraph into pages upon pages of unintelligable lawyer speak. Vanessa Roberts, VP of Public Relations at Microsoft was quoted as saying "we have been using this product for years for our EULA's and to intimidate small competitors, we just figured it's about time we shared the wealth".

Re:Huh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580379)

How does it feel to be the latest member on my Foe's list?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580451)

Your Foe's list of what? Your Foe's list of Foes? Your Foe's list of Friends?

Do ACs even have Friend/Foe lists?

Re:Huh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580480)

Are you kraf (450958) [slashdot.org] or sfraggle (212671) [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Huh? (1, Offtopic)

CySurflex (564206) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580475)

Really smart posting as Anonymous Coward when anyone can click on "Freaks" on my profile and see your name.

what was you for halloween? (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580355)

i played DDR and went bowling at this redneck bar/bowling alley. Surprisingly enough, I stayed pretty sober for the entire evening. did anything crazy happen to anyone?

Slashdoted in record time (4, Funny)

Zelet (515452) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580356)

I downloaded the initial order quickly. The opinion... took a little longer... now... can't get to anything.

Congratulations people... you just slashdoted the United States of America Judicial System.

Re:Slashdoted in record time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580378)

Your modem is crap. It works fine for me.

Re:Slashdoted in record time (5, Funny)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580406)

Not only that, we slashdotted it before the judgement came out. This has to be the first anticipatory slashdotting I've seen in my four years participating here.

Re:Slashdoted in record time (1, Offtopic)

asparagus (29121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580427)

Oh, that's nothing.

Lawyers have been doing this for years.

-Brett

Re:Slashdoted in record time (5, Funny)

Jaguar777 (189036) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580472)

Today a government website was brought to its knees by a terrorist organization making itself known as "Slash Dot". The FBI quickly moved into position to take down the server for the rogue group, but was thwarted in their attempt because the organization recently moved to an unknown location in the western US.

Tonight on Crossfire we will have "experts" on hand to tell us what this "slash dot" terrorists organization wants. Details are currently sketchy but some sources say it may have something to do with penguins, natalie portman, and hot grits???

Uh oh (1, Funny)

Soporific (595477) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580357)

I hear the Microsoft bashers rattling their sabers... ~S

the replies to this post (2, Funny)

Allaria (547479) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580362)

Will look something like this:
86% - Yeah! Linux Rules! MS Sucks!
10% - Trolls
2% - People who actually read the decisions and have something thoughtful to say
2% - People complaining about /. posting too many anti-Microsoft posts.

Why bother even looking at the comments?

Re:the replies to this post (5, Funny)

BTWR (540147) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580385)

Don't forget:
91% - Unfunny comments labeled +5, Funny

Oh wait... that's every postboard

Re:the replies to this post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580459)

+5, Funny

Re:the replies to this post (2, Interesting)

RichMeatyTaste (519596) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580389)

I thought the first 2 items on that list went together?

Seriously though... reading court decrees is about as exciting as a prostate exam. We need a legalese -> english converter asap.

Re:the replies to this post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580402)

This is slashdot. Are you new?

Re:the replies to this post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580405)

You forgot the 2% that will be estimates regarding the contents of the other 98% of the posts.

Nowadays, most stories seem to have a few of these.

Re:the replies to this post (2, Interesting)

TheRain (67313) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580505)

"Why bother even looking at the comments?"

to find the 2% who actually read it and have something interesting to say, now please stop adding to the noise.

Will any of this make a difference? (5, Insightful)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580364)

Let us all be realistic for a moment. Will anything the Government does, change anything in the bigger picture for MS? I think not. If something was going to happen, it would have already happened. MS has too much power where it counts. And what would really happen if MS was broken into multiple companies? Would we be any better off? I think eventually superior products and services will be widely adopted and MS will lose it's stranglehold on the industry. But until that happens, I think the government is simply wasting a lot of our tax dollars that could be better spent on other things.

Re:Will any of this make a difference? (5, Insightful)

phsolide (584661) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580502)

I think eventually superior products and services will be widely adopted and MS will lose it's stranglehold on the industry. But until that happens, ...

That's exactly the point of Judge Jackson ruling that MSFT performed illegal monopoly maintenance: MSFT squashes potential rivals and potentially superior products and services.

Read a little basic microeconomics. All but the most ideologically radical economists acknowledge that a free market is a good thing but that free markets aren't really that great at keeping free markets free.

Final Decree: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580366)

Too long, didn't read.

What a helpful article! (5, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580369)

I'll put some kind of summary text here once I've had a chance to read it.

WTF? Ok, I'll put some kind of response here after you've posted it.

Re:What a helpful article! (2)

theduck (101668) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580490)

FYI, the text you quoted was from Michael. Michael wasn't the one who submitted the article...he took it from the submission pile and posted it. The article was submitted by an Anonymous Coward. The text in italics are from the submitter and those in plain text are from the poster. Usually, the submitter supplies the extensive comments and the poster adds a quick comment or two.

Clearly, Michael thought it more important to get the post up quickly than spend a lot of time poring over the text of the judgement just to come up with some pithy comment. If you want to comment on the article, RTFA! Don't get on Michael's case for serving the slashdot community better by prioritizing his work.

Before the Bell? (5, Interesting)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580373)

Should this have been released before the closing of the markets? I think not... someone's head is going to roll.

Re:Before the Bell? (2, Funny)

habig (12787) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580413)

No problem - someone's head has been saved by the ever-helpful Slashdot readership, who have melted down the server already. So keep on clicking until the markets close :)

Re:Before the Bell? (0, Troll)

axehind (518047) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580445)

Company:MSFT
Time:3:27pm
Last Trade:22.579
Change:-22.000
Change Percent:-57%
Volume:139,598,140


Bail out! Bail Out!
:p

Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (4, Informative)

1155 (538047) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580383)

STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff States of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah,
and West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, having
filed their complaints in this action on May 18, 1998;
Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") having appeared and filed its answer;
The Court having entered Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999 and Conclusions of
Law on April 3, 2000;
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit having affirmed
the District Court's finding of liability against Microsoft for violation of 2 of the Sherman Act
and the state law counterparts to 2 of the Sherman Act in the states of California, Connecticut,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and West Virginia, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, and having remanded to this Court for an order of
remedy; and
Upon the record of trial and all prior and subsequent proceedings herein, it is this 1st day
of November, 2002, hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the person of
Microsoft.
2
II. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its officers, directors, agents,
employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or
participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by
personal service or otherwise.
III. Prohibited Conduct
A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against an OEM by altering
Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced
forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of
existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to
Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that
distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating
System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with
more than one Operating System; or
3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final
Judgment.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license
with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a Windows Operating System
Product without having first given the Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the
proposed termination and not less than thirty days' opportunity to cure. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a termination notice and
opportunity to cure to any Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices during the
term of its Windows Operating System Product license.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM
with respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with
the absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of
that Microsoft product or service.
B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs shall be
pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without
limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty
for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by
Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs,
that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:
1. the schedule may specify different royalties for different language versions;
3
2. the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based upon the actual
volume of licenses of any Windows Operating System Product or any group of
such products; and
3. the schedule may include market development allowances, programs, or other
discounts in connection with Windows Operating System Products, provided
that:
a. such discounts are offered and available uniformly to all Covered OEMs,
except that Microsoft may establish one uniform discount schedule for the
ten largest Covered OEMs and a second uniform discount schedule for the
eleventh through twentieth largest Covered OEMs, where the size of the
OEM is measured by volume of licenses;
b. such discounts are based on objective, verifiable criteria that shall be
applied and enforced on a uniform basis for all Covered OEMs; and
c. such discounts or their award shall not be based on or impose any criterion
or requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with any portion of this Final
Judgment.
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the
following options or alternatives:
1. Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for, any Non-Microsoft
Middleware or any product or service (including but not limited to IAP products
or services) that distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft
Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows
Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for
applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM
from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in any list of
such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as
being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided
that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and
Microsoft products.
2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and
displaying
on the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not
impair the functionality of the user interface.
3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence or
subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or disconnections from the
Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware, except that Microsoft may restrict the
launching of Non-Microsoft Middleware which replaces or drastically alters the
Windows Operating System Product user interface.
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic
Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that
launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
5. Presenting during the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer.
6. Exercising any of the options provided in Section III.H of this Final Judgment.
4
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. For purposes of this Section
III.D, the term APIs means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces,
that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call
upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that
Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft
Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the
last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of
a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall
occur in a Timely Manner.
E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
F. 1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten retaliation against any ISV or IHV
because of that ISV's or
IHV's:
a. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on
any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
b. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final
Judgment.
2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating
System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's
refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft
may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use,
distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably
necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide
contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft
software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of
any agreement with any ISV or IHV, or any intellectual property right, that is not
5
inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on the condition that
such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed
percentage, any Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter
into agreements in which such an entity agrees to distribute, promote, use or
support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed percentage whenever Microsoft in
good faith obtains a representation that it is commercially practicable for the
entity to provide equal or greater distribution, promotion, use or support for
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
2. any IAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or elsewhere in any
Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP on the condition that the
IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or using any software that
competes with Microsoft Middleware.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture
or (b) any joint development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or
OEM for a new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an existing product,
technology or service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute
significant developer or other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the
object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of time.
This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft licenses intellectual property
from a third party and such intellectual property license is the principal purpose of the
agreement.
H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall:
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start
menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits)
to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons,
shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a
Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu
entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict
the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for any product in any list of such
icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as
being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided
that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and
Microsoft products; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic invocations pursuant
to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that are used to launch Non-Microsoft
Middleware Products or Microsoft Middleware Products. The mechanism shall
offer the end user a separate and unbiased choice with respect to enabling or
6
removing access (as described in this subsection III.H.1) and altering default
invocations (as described in the following subsection III.H.2) with regard to each
such Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and
may offer the end-user a separate and unbiased choice of enabling or removing
access and altering default configurations as to all Microsoft Middleware
Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft Middleware Products as a group.
2. Allow end users (via an unbiased mechanism readily available from the desktop
or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation kits), and
Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a mechanism which may, at Microsoft's
option, require confirmation from the end user in an unbiased manner) to
designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in place of that
Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa) in any case where the Windows
Operating System Product would otherwise launch the Microsoft Middleware
Product in a separate Top-Level Window and display either (i) all of the user
interface elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware Product.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may
invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
(a) that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in
interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context
of general Web browsing), or
(b) that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a
reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a
particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to
supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows
Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are
described in writing in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that
requests them.
3. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a) automatically alter
an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries installed or displayed
by the OEM pursuant to Section III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking
confirmation from the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for
an automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's configuration
until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer. Any such
automatic alteration and confirmation shall be unbiased with respect to Microsoft
Middleware Products and Non-Microsoft Middleware. Microsoft shall not alter
the manner in which a Windows Operating System Product automatically alters
an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a new
version of a Windows Operating System Product.
Microsoft's obligations under this Section III.H as to any new Windows Operating System
Product shall be determined based on the Microsoft Middleware Products which exist seven
7
months prior to the last beta test version (i.e., the one immediately preceding the first release
candidate) of that Windows Operating System Product.
I. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs any intellectual
property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the
options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, provided
that
1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary consideration, are
reasonable and non-discriminatory;
2. the scope of any such license (and the intellectual property rights licensed
thereunder) need be no broader than is necessary to ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP,
ICP or OEM is able to exercise the options or alternatives expressly provided
under this Final Judgment (e.g., an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's and OEM's option
to promote Non-Microsoft Middleware shall not confer any rights to any
Microsoft intellectual property rights infringed by that Non-Microsoft
Middleware);
3. an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's rights may be conditioned on its not
assigning, transferring or sublicensing its rights under any license granted under
this provision; and
4. the terms of any license granted under this section are in all respects consistent
with the express terms of this Final Judgment.
Beyond the express terms of any license granted by Microsoft pursuant to this section, this Final
Judgment does not, directly or by implication, estoppel or otherwise, confer any rights, licenses,
covenants or immunities with regard to any Microsoft intellectual property to anyone.
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies,
license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third
party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property
rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
8
authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or
interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
A. Enforcement Authority
1. The Plaintiffs shall have exclusive responsibility for enforcing this Final
Judgment. Without in any way limiting the sovereign enforcement authority of
each of the plaintiff States, the plaintiff States shall form a committee to
coordinate their enforcement of this Final Judgment. A plaintiff State shall take
no action to enforce this Final Judgment without first consulting the plaintiff
States' enforcement committee.
2. To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, duly authorized
representatives of the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and
subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code,
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of Microsoft,
which may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this
Final Judgment.
b. Subject to the reasonable convenience of Microsoft and without restraint
or interference from it, to interview, informally or on the record, officers,
employees, or agents of Microsoft, who may have counsel present,
regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
c. Upon written request of a duly designated representative of a plaintiff
State, on reasonable notice given to Microsoft, Microsoft shall submit
such written reports under oath as requested regarding any matters
contained in this Final Judgment.
Individual plaintiff States will consult with the plaintiff States' enforcement committee to
minimize the duplication and burden of the exercise of the foregoing powers, where practicable.
3. The Plaintiffs shall not disclose any information or documents obtained from
Microsoft under this Final Judgment except for the purpose of securing
compliance with this Final Judgment, in a legal proceeding to which one or more
of the Plaintiffs is a party, or as otherwise required by law; provided that the
relevant Plaintiff(s) must provide ten days' advance notice to Microsoft before
disclosing in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) to which
Microsoft is not a party any information or documents provided by Microsoft
pursuant to this Final Judgment which Microsoft has identified in writing as
9
material as to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such orders as are necessary from
the Court to enforce this Final Judgment, provided, however, that the Plaintiffs
shall afford Microsoft a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of
Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H, provided further that any action by Microsoft
to cure any such violation shall not be a defense to enforcement with respect to
any knowing, willful or systematic violations.
B. 1. Compliance Committee. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment,
Microsoft shall establish a compliance committee (the "Compliance Committee")
of its Board of Directors, consisting of at least three members of the Board of
Directors who are not present or former employees of Microsoft.
2. Compliance Officer. The Compliance Committee shall hire a Compliance Officer,
who shall report directly to the Compliance Committee and to the Chief
Executive Officer of Microsoft. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for
development and supervision of Microsoft's internal programs to ensure
compliance with the antitrust laws and this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall give
the Compliance Officer all necessary authority and resources to discharge the
responsibilities listed herein.
3. Duties of Compliance Officer. The Compliance Officer shall:
a. within 60 days after entry of this Final Judgment, arrange for delivery to
all officers and directors of Microsoft a copy of this Final Judgment
together with additional informational materials describing the conduct
prohibited and required by this Final Judgment;
b. arrange for delivery in a timely manner of a copy of this Final Judgment
and such additional informational materials to any person who succeeds to
a position described in Section IV.B.3.a above;
c. ensure that those persons described in subsection c.i above are annually
briefed on the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment and the
United States antitrust laws and advising them that Microsoft's legal
advisors are available to confer with them regarding any question
concerning compliance with this Final Judgment or under the United
States antitrust laws;
d. obtain from each person described in Section IV.B.3.a within 60 days of
entry of this Final Judgment and annually thereafter, and for each person
thereafter succeeding to such a position within 10 days of such succession
and annually thereafter, a written certification that he or she: (i) has read,
understands, and agrees to abide by the terms of, and has to their
knowledge not violated, this Final Judgment; and (ii) has been advised and
understands that his or her failure to comply with this Final Judgment may
result in a finding of contempt of court;
e. maintain a record of persons to whom this Final Judgment has been
distributed and from whom, pursuant to Section V.B.3.d above has been
10
obtained;
f. on an annual basis, certify to the Plaintiffs that Microsoft is fully
compliant with this Final Judgment;
g. maintain a record of all complaints received and action taken by Microsoft
with respect to each such complaint; and
g. report promptly to the Plaintiffs any credible evidence of violation of this
Final Judgment.
4. The Compliance Officer may be removed only by the Chief Executive Officer
with the concurrence of the Compliance Committee.
V. Termination
A. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth
anniversary of the date on which it takes effect.
B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found that Microsoft has engaged
in a pattern of willful and systematic violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for
a one-time extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with such other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
VI. Definitions
A. "API" means application programming interface, including any interface that Microsoft
is obligated to disclose pursuant to III.D.
B. "Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for information exchange to
accomplish predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System Product and a server
operating system product connected via a network, including, but not limited to, a local
area network, a wide area network or the Internet. These rules govern the format,
semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network.
C. "Consideration" means any monetary payment or the provision of preferential licensing
terms; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information;
information about future plans; developer support; hardware or software certification or
approval; or permission to display trademarks, icons or logos.
D. "Covered OEMs" means the 20 OEMs with the highest worldwide volume of licenses of
Windows Operating System Products reported to Microsoft in Microsoft's fiscal year
preceding the effective date of the Final Judgment. The OEMs that fall within this
definition of Covered OEMs shall be recomputed by Microsoft as soon as practicable
after the close of each of Microsoft's fiscal years.
E. "Documentation" means all information regarding the identification and means of using
APIs that a person of ordinary skill in the art requires to make effective use of those
11
APIs. Such information shall be of the sort and to the level of specificity, precision and
detail that Microsoft customarily provides for APIs it documents in the Microsoft
Developer Network ("MSDN").
F. "IAP" means an Internet access provider that provides consumers with a connection to
the Internet, with or without its own proprietary content.
G. "ICP" means an Internet content provider that provides content to users of the Internet by
maintaining Web sites.
H. "IHV" means an independent hardware vendor that develops hardware to be included in
or used with a Personal Computer running a Windows Operating System Product.
I. "ISV" means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged in the development or
marketing of software products.
J. "Microsoft Middleware" means software code that
1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating System Product to
update that Windows Operating System Product;
2. is Trademarked or is marketed by Microsoft as a major version of any Microsoft
Middleware Product defined in section VI.K.1; and
3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a Microsoft
Middleware Product.
Microsoft Middleware shall include at least the software code that controls most or all
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware. Software code described as part of,
and distributed separately to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed
Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version of that Microsoft Middleware
Product. A major version shall be identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single
digit to the right of the decimal point.
K. "Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual
Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and
their successors in a Windows Operating System Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after
the entry of this Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating
System Product
a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client
software, instant messaging software or
b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that --
i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new
Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows
Operating System Product;
12
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product; and
iii. is Trademarked.
Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware
Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of
a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of
that Microsoft Middleware Product.
L. "Microsoft Platform Software" means (i) a Windows Operating System Product and/or
(ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.
M. "Non-Microsoft Middleware" means a non-Microsoft software product running on a
Windows Operating System Product that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs
through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-
Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in whole or
in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on
that non-Microsoft Operating System.
N. "Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" means a non-Microsoft software product running
on a Windows Operating System Product (i) that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs
through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a
non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in
whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or
run on that non-Microsoft Operating System, and (ii) of which at least one million copies
were distributed in the United States within the previous year.
O. "OEM" means an original equipment manufacturer of Personal Computers that is a
licensee of a Windows Operating System Product.
P. "Operating System" means the software code that, inter alia, (i) controls the allocation
and usage of hardware resources (such as the microprocessor and various peripheral
devices) of a Personal Computer, (ii) provides a platform for developing applications by
exposing functionality to ISVs through APIs, and (iii) supplies a user interface that
enables users to access functionality of the operating system and in which they can run
applications.
Q. "Personal Computer" means any computer configured so that its primary purpose is for
use by one person at a time, that uses a video display and keyboard (whether or not that
video display and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible (or
successor) microprocessor. Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game
consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are examples of products that
are not Personal Computers within the meaning of this definition.
R. "Timely Manner" means at the time Microsoft first releases a beta test version of a
Windows Operating System Product that is made available via an MSDN subscription
13
offering or of which 150,000 or more beta copies are distributed.
S. "Top-Level Window" means a window displayed by a Windows Operating System
Product that (a) has its own window controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and
maximize, (b) can contain sub-windows, and (c) contains user interface elements under
the control of at least one independent process.
T. "Trademarked" means distributed in commerce and identified as distributed by a name
other than Microsoft® or Windows® that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or
service mark by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such as ® or (TM), in
connection with a product distributed in the United States; (ii) filing an application for
trademark protection for the name in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; or
(iii) asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a demand letter or lawsuit.
Any product distributed under descriptive or generic terms or a name comprised of the
Microsoft® or Windows® trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms shall not
be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft hereby disclaims
any trademark rights in such descriptive or generic terms apart from the Microsoft® or
Windows® trademarks, and hereby abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the
future.
U. "Windows Operating System Product" means the software code (as opposed to source
code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer versions of the products
currently code named "Longhorn" and "Blackcomb" and their successors, including
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a Windows
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
VII. Further Elements
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action such that the Court may act sua sponte to
issue further orders or directions, including but not limited to orders or directions relating to the
construction or carrying out of this Final Judgment, the enforcement of compliance therewith,
the modification thereof, and the punishment of any violation thereof.
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action and the parties thereto for the purpose of
enabling the parties to this action to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and
directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to
modify or terminate any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its
provisions.
Unless otherwise indicated, the provisions of this Final Judgment shall take effect 30 days after
the date on which it is entered.
In accordance with the imposition and affirmance of liability, the Plaintiff States shall submit a
14
motion for the award of costs and fees, with supporting documents as necessary, not later than 45
days after the entry of this Final Judgment.
VIII. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Final Judgment is intended to confer upon any other persons any rights or
remedies of any nature whatsoever hereunder or by reason of this Final Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge

Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (5, Funny)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580435)

Gah -- that reads worse than a EULA!

Click "I agree" below to accept the terms of this Final Decree.

[I Agree] [I Do Not Agree]

Re:Final Decree - before it gets slashdotted (2, Insightful)

the_rev_matt (239420) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580469)

Sigh. I'm particularly disturbed by this quote:

"except that Microsoft may restrict the
launching of Non-Microsoft Middleware which replaces or drastically alters the
Windows Operating System Product user interface."

Any first year law student could argue that any linux/BSD/otherOS replaces the Windows OS UI, thus no OEM can install an alternate OS.

A little early Xmas present to MSFT from the Bush Administration. This is milder than the previous Decrees that MSFT violated, isn't it?

Proposed Final Judgement Stands (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580387)

"... based upon the detailed analysis set forth in the record of United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1232, the Court finds that, with the exception of the reservation of jurisdiction, the SRPFJ is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest."

"...The Court suggests that the public interest would be served if Microsoft and the parties to the settlement would agree to amend the proposed final judgment to reserve for the Court, in addition to the powers presently specified in the proposed final judgment, the power sua sponte to issue orders or directions for the construction or carrying out of the final judgment, for the enforcement of compliance therewith, and for the punishment of any violation thereof. Such an amendment would not appear to work a fundamental change to the parties' agreement and would ensure that the Court retains the power intended by Plaintiffs and which the Court considers necessary to ensure effective implementation of the final judgment in this case."

"Based on the foregoing, the Court conditionally approves the SRPFJ as the final judgment as to the claims of the Plaintiff Settling States in the above-captioned case. The Court will enter final judgment upon receipt of a proposed decree which reflects the amendment described above. Such amendment shall be filed in writing with the Court not later than November 8, 2002. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion."

Fascinating (0, Funny)

drhairston (611491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580392)

Slashdot has posted a story which reports that there will soon be a story to report. Is there something I should know about Microsoft and why it is important enough to merit the posting of such a pre-story?

Re:Fascinating (1)

sunwukong (412560) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580461)

Whoa, cowboy, are you sure you want to jump right into a pre-story? Maybe we should have a another story to prepare us?

"You think you're funny but you're not."
Wally to Dilbert about the "pre-meeting prep meeting"

Re:Fascinating (3, Funny)

Crispin Cowan (20238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580488)

On the contrary, this is great progress for /. This is the first time that I recall /. actually breaking a story. Normally /. only reports that someone else has actually gone and published a story, and /. is acting only as a (very convenient) news clipping service.

But this is different: /. posted the story before anyone else posted anything (I just went and looked at a bunch of sources, and the story isn't out yet as of this writing). OMG: /. doing actual journalism!

Must be a sign of the Apocalypse :-)

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase [wirex.com]

Not a breakup, but a lot of pain (3, Insightful)

johnbr (559529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580394)

It looks like they'll have to drastically open up their middleware for third party replacements. Very interesting.

This is going to give them fits to change in only 3 months though.

Re:Not a breakup, but a lot of pain (3, Interesting)

gclef (96311) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580513)

Bull.

They're going to argue that they already have complied with it in XP SP1, and the various releases of information that have trickled out so far. Whether the data they share is of any use at all (such as the worthless SMB documentation they released a bit ago) is something else entirely, and something that you'll have to take them back to court for.

This changes nothing from the state of things today. Whether it changed something from 4 years ago is another argument.

Scooping the news sites? (4, Funny)

Waab (620192) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580397)

Is /. allowed to post a story before even Matt Drudge [drudgereport.com] gets his grubby little hands on it?

Re:Scooping the news sites? (4, Interesting)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580458)

This is a scoop. Nobody else has it yet - Yahoo, NYT, WP. Here's the WP's pre-announcement. [washingtonpost.com]

They're not getting off light (5, Insightful)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580398)

From the text:

Microsoft shall not retaliate against or threaten against an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by witholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration.

Does that mean that they can't screw over OEM's that include alternative operating systems preinstalled anymore?

Re:They're not getting off light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580450)

That's sorta funny, cause one of the point 3's says MS can only stop OEM's if they do something that drastically changes the look of Windows, but then the next point says they can put a totally different OS on with no issues. So what's that mean, if we want the OS to look different we have to USE a different OS now? No more shell replacements?

Re:They're not getting off light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580457)

No, it just means Microsoft will have to find an excuse to 'punish' OEM's.

Michael, Please Update Bill's Mug Shot (2, Funny)

DoctorMabuse (456736) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580403)

when the court ruling is released.

http://www.mugshots.net/bill_gates/

I'll post a summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580407)

[i]I'll put some kind of summary text here once I've had a chance to read it. [/i]

Yes, please summerize 4 paragraphs for us.

API's to be release (2, Informative)

endoboy (560088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580412)

quoting from the final judgement:
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.

Re:API's to be release (1)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580464)

My question here is what you have to do to be officially be qualified as one of the above TLAs (Three letter acronyms). I run my own website for which I write and paint. Does that make me an 'ICP'-- Internet Content Provider, according to the definitions her honor gave at the end of the document.

Re:API's to be release - NOT (4, Informative)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580470)

Read further.

Microsoft will be able to hide APIs, protocols or whatever for various reasons related to security, DRM, authentication, etc.

After-hours market (2)

whovian (107062) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580414)

Enter MSFT at the top right of this [nasdaq.com] page. ($ 52.54 at 3:42 pm).

the quickie version (5, Interesting)

banky (9941) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580415)

It LOOKS like a wrist-slap to me. They have to allow "middleware" and have to disclose "Communications protocols and APIs", except where it would affect 3rd-party IP or "security".

I think it is an attempt to provide some kind of flexibility but "restrain" them, but the Judge is obviously forgetting history: Microsoft is the Harry Houdini of legal agreements, they can wriggle out of anything.

Re:the quickie version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580449)

Yeah, they have to disclose all their communication protocols - but under their own choice of 'reasonable and on-discriminatory terms'. Such as the ones they already offered SMB/CIFS under, that disallow any use in a GPL product? Useless.

Re:the quickie version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580519)

A few million spent in the office can pretty much get you anything

Essentials of the Ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580416)

Ok here's the basics of the final judgement.

Microsoft must be broken up into 3 separate entities. That's right, 3. One for gaming, one for productivity software (Office, IE), and a third handling the Windows OS.

I mean, holy shit. I wasn't expecting this. Tis a great day for justice!

MSFT responses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580419)

WTF...that is bullsh1t!

What I'd really like to see... (1)

wjr (157747) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580420)

I'd like to see a diff between the Final Decree and the DOJ's proposed settlement - it looks like the decree doesn't go much beyond what the settlement said, but that's based on a very quick read of the decree and a vague memory of the settlement. Hope dies hard, but it dies nonetheless.

hrm... (4, Interesting)

mikeee (137160) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580421)

Ooh, it's like that goofy Reuters 'hacking' thing.

I'm not saying this is unethical - I think it clearly isn't - but mightn't it have been polite to sit on this until the stock market closed, or at least until just before it closed?

Re:hrm... (3, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580466)

Sayeth mikeee:
I'm not saying this is unethical - I think it clearly isn't - but mightn't it have been polite to sit on this until the stock market closed, or at least until just before it closed?
So you're saying that the justice department should withold information based on when an unrelated private entity is open for business? No thanks. They should be as agnostic as possible to issues like this. Any other reaction, while it may be useful in the (Very) short term, will be harmful over time.

Besides, haven't you ever heard of after-hours trading? Its not like Joe Average Consumer is the number one shareholder of MSFT after all...

---

Re:hrm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580467)

No, the stock brokers shouldn't be buying and selling based on their emotions in the first place even tho we know they do. Then in the end, we all get screwed because it was a downtrodden day on wall street.

Re:hrm... (2)

Zathrus (232140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580477)

Well, the flipside is that the comments shouldn't have been publicly accessible prior to 4:30 pm EST.

Someone at the Judicial system just screwed up...

Re:hrm... (1)

caferace (442) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580508)

If anyone can digest (or download) these before the market closes, more power to 'em. :)

Release of APIs? (1)

Smitedogg (527493) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580429)

In section III, Paragraph D it states:

Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.

Does that mean they have to open up all their APIs, or just the old ones that don't matter?

Re:Release of APIs? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580485)

Ity says they have to disclose all protocols that are currently in use in their products. however, it says they can choose their 'reasonable and non-discriminatory terms' to make them available under. To Microsoft, that means they will release them under terms that disallow use in a GPL product - therefore eleiminating their only real competition. (they recently offered SMB under a license that disallows GPL - the developers of Samba won't even log in (thorugh Passport) and look at the code, since MS will then probably subsequently sue them for infringement)
Thanks to the Judge and The Cheney administration for this bullshit of a judgement.

Re:Release of APIs? (2, Interesting)

Hamster Of Death (413544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580501)

No, they don't have to open all the API's. In fact they get to keep anything related to anti-piracy, DRM and most other security related items. How much do you want to bet a lot of stuff is now going to have security tied into it sooner rather than later?

And this is only effective for 5 years. What happens after that?

The Judgement Summarized (5, Informative)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580433)

Microsft is guilty.

Microsoft must play fair under set conditions.

Microsoft can still restrict access, hide APIs and set up questionable business practices under the guise of protecting "security, anti-virus, licensing, authentication and Digital Rights"

Looks like they approved the original judgement (2)

jfrumkin (97854) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580441)

...with the exception that they would like both parties to agree to have the court oversee the implementation of the judgement. IANAL, but it seems that basically the court said that the original penalty was fair, but that the concern about M$ having large oversight of the implementation of the penalty was valid as well. Not sure where that leaves us.

Gawd, I hate these kind of documents (1)

unfortunateson (527551) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580446)

Can't.... Read....
Sinuses... filled... with Legalese...

Precognition (1)

dcuny (613699) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580447)

"I'll put some kind of summary text here once I've had a chance to read it."

This topic has been already been posted twice - in anticipation of the results. And this "news" story is posted prior to having read the content.

That's almost as irritating as my constant use of italics.

Which part of the word "editor" are we having difficulty with today?

Re:Precognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4580476)

It's a scoop you blithering moron. Read the other news sites - nobody else has it yet.

quick info from it from the judgement (4, Insightful)

McVeigh (145742) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580454)

I just got doen reading it and after going through the legalese,

1) it seemed mainly aimed at the OEM market. Saying that MS can't puinsh them for using other software with windows or even dual booting.

2) the only other thing of interest was that they are supposed to open up any communication protocol that is needed in windows (SMB for instance).

3) later on there is this though
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction."

so pretty much I think it's a slap on th wrist. maybe some more developers and lawyers can comment.

CKK accepted the state's proposal (5, Informative)

Zathrus (232140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580456)

A quick glance at the State Settlement and Final Judgement makes it appear that CKK has accepted the proposed settlement between the Federal government, the 9 states, and MS.

IANAL, and I only scanned the top few pages for information. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

5 Year Length (3, Interesting)

no soup for you (607826) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580474)

Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date on which it takes effect.

This lawsuit has taken four years. I think five years, even with the possiblity of an extension is way too short.

And just because I thought it was interesting, here's the definition of an OS:
"Operating System" means the software code that, inter alia, (i) controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources (such as the microprocessor and various peripheral devices) of a Personal Computer, (ii) provides a platform for developing applications by exposing functionality to ISVs through APIs, and (iii) supplies a user interface that enables users to access functionality of the operating system and in which they can run applications.

API's (5, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580478)

Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months
after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs,
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar
mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.


This is actually a big deal.

Great except... (5, Insightful)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580479)

Looks like they've got it covered. Microsoft must allow vendors to change installed apps, unless significant modifications are made to the UI. OK. Microsoft must make public all APIs, except those that are listed in section J:
  • Anything that compromises security (anti-piracy, DRM, anti-virus, licensing, encryption, authentication).
  • Anything the US government allows them to keep hidden
So how much can they get away with with the fairly loose requirements of the first point?

Re:Great except... (1)

Drachemorder (549870) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580509)

"So how much can they get away with with the fairly loose requirements of the first point?"

Pretty much everything except the kitchen sink, I'd imagine.

Samba? (5, Interesting)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580487)


E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.


The big question is, can Samba benefit from this, or are the conditions of the released information going to make it incompatible with the GPL? And can the information be dirty/clean intellectually transferred between one tainted person and one "clean" person even with whatever type of NDA they put on the agreement?

Here's the nifty part: (5, Insightful)

photon317 (208409) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580493)


E. Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.

I assume this to mean that the Samba guys will get legal access to the SMB protocol specs and other related stuff. Likely could include the native Exchange server protocols too, since Outlook Express talks that protocol and has shipped integrated with the OS.

this might be a troll but... (1)

ejaw5 (570071) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580494)

The "Final Decree" refers to "Windows Operating System Product." If Microsoft comes up with a new Windows system but calls it something else, do these judgements still apply? I would think more approprate wording would be "Microsoft developed Operating System"

IANAL

Summary of the final decree (5, Informative)

gleffler (540281) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580498)

MS cannot retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an OEM because the OEM is thinking about developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware.

They also cannot retaliate against them for including a computer with 2 OSes (notably missing is the provision against retaliating due to not installing an MS OS)

MS must provide a uniform license agreement and fee schedule for all it's OEMs, with only a few exceptions.

MS will not restrict in the license agreement installing any other icons or programs on the desktop, distrbuting or promoting non-MS browsers/e-mail readers/media players &c. They also cannot restrict the automatic launching of any 'middleware' (browsers, e-mail readers, media players.)

OEMs may offer users multiple OSes on one machine without retaliation from MS.

Open APIs for any 'middleware' to fully interface with the OS like MS' own 'middleware' does. (This is a big one)

MS must also release any communication protocol necessary to communicate with a MS server OS.

MS cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against any vendor for developing or selling things that compete with them.

"Set Program Access and Defaults" is required.
In addition, the users must be able to enable or disable any automatic launching of MS 'middleware'.

End-users and non-MS 'middleware' products must be able to transparently replace the MS 'middleware'.

An MS OS cannot modify or alter anything that an OEM does to the desktop without first getting confirmation from the user.

HOWEVER:

No provision of the agreement forces MS to disclose anything that might hurt the OS security. (This is very vague and I predict will be the biggest loophole.)

--

I haven't read the rest of the decree, I just wanted to get this up. And IANAL, but I think the interpretations I've provided are reasonable.

not that it matters (1)

oddjob (58114) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580503)

The site is slashdotted, but I don't feel I'm missing anything. Microsoft has ignored any court mandated restrictions on it behavior that it didn't like in the past, and I see no reason why that would change now. Conduct remedies are irrelevant. The only result that matters is whether, when this phase is over, other companies will be able to sue Microsoft for damages caused by their violations of anit-trust law. If the settlement prevents that, then Microsoft has, once again, gotten off scott free.

Sayanora, Palladium (5, Interesting)

superdan2k (135614) | more than 11 years ago | (#4580511)

...competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or


So I think this is the first nail in Palladium's coffin. This legalese seems to imply that Microsoft is barred of collusion with OEMs that would block middleware or OSs that would compete with Microsoft. Which is, at the core, EXACTLY what Palladium would do.

Nice to see that the DoJ can kill two birds with one stone. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?