- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Does the DoJ Use Microsoft as a Shill Against Linux?
Have you ever chronicled the US Government's efforts to litigate Microsoft? When you step back and take a look, it seems as though the Department of Justice shopped around for a friendly judge and finally got one. You might even consider that we had two presidents with conflicts of interest with Microsoft and their own cabinets. Why is this important? Because Microsoft has attacked and continues to attack GNU/Linux, the Free Software Foundation and a host of projects related to open source software. With Microsoft's considerable resources, they have mounted an ambitious campaign unlike any they have undertaken in the past. They intend to wipe us from the map. Here's the progression:
How did this happen? Like I wrote above, Microsoft and their partner, the Department of Justice shopped for a friendly judge until they found one. It starts with a DoJ investigation headed up by Anne Bingaman. Most people believe in the spring of 1994 that she would file a major suite against Microsoft. But, after Bill Gates visit to the White House all that changed. Failed DecreeThe DoJ reached a settlement with Microsoft and took it to the first Judge Stanley Sporkin. In a memorandum opinion on Valentine's Day 1995, he launched into Microsoft wondering why the DoJ had made nothing of Microsoft's anti-trust case. Ultimately, Sporkin refused to approve the agreement and Microsoft and the DoJ appealed the decision. That's correct Microsoft and Justice, titular adversaries, filed a joint appeal. The following June, a federal appeals court overturned Judge Sporkin and assigned the case to a different judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson. Bill Gates Visits ChinaBill Gates soon thereafter visited China where, after meetings with Jiang Zemin, Windows was declared the official operating system of the People's Republic of China. At just about the time of Gates's visit, the government of China began putting money into the Democratic Party's coffers. Conspiracy theorists find the chain of incidents strange. They consider it an unusual coincidence. Anti-Trust TrialWe all know what happened next. The DoJ began a trial with Judge Jackson presiding. They called the filing, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. With an embattled President going through impeachment, Microsoft started making new friends. Enter the RepublicansFrom 1998-99, Jack Abramoff received $560,000 to lobby on behalf of Microsoft. Abramoff's associate, Ralph Reed received a $240,000 annual retainer while serving as a senior consultant to the Bush Campaign 2000. Reed's company's internal documents showed that his mission involved identifying and recruiting prominent Bush supporters to personally write and lobby Bush to back Microsoft. Reed's contract with Microsoft came to the public's attention and proved an embarrassment to the Bush campaign in the summer of 2000. While under prosecution for anti-trust, Microsoft had hired a number of Bush aides as consultants and lobbyists. But nothing came of it. Soon after Bush's inauguration, an appeals court overturned Judge Jackson's break-up order and the new DoJ got a new judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. She approved what amounted to slap on the hand. Ralph Nader the prophetLots of people thought Microsoft got off too easy and "the fix was in".
Microsoft Attacks Free SoftwareNader may not have won the race to become President of the US, but he saw the future. Microsoft kept its file formats a secret, went after Peter Quinn and then opened the wrapper of its MSXML format. Of course, it's not really open since the specification requires anyone who uses it to include old undocumented proprietary formats such a WordML and RTF. Microsoft has plenty of opportunities to undermine the free software movement. Microsoft has established a slush fund of $180 million to stop Linux from gaining government adoption anywhere on the globe. They have also put forth an unprecedented lobbying effort, have brought legal action against Brazil's head of IT, funded bogus benchmarks and TCO studies while restricting others from doing the same. They have also set up shop on Linux news sites and spent untold amounts of money on their "Get the Facts" campaign. Take a look at Figure 1 and 2 and ask yourself if Microsoft's advertising seems appropriate for a convicted monopolist.  Figure 1 shows how Microsoft can flex enough financial muscle to invade a respected Linux news site. In this case, Microsoft's anti-Linux advertising runs in the banner rotation in an article about Debian Linux and ISPConfig. Figure 2 shows Microsoft planting itself on LinuxToday with an anti-Linux resource center. Where's the Anti-Trust Cops When You Need ThemGovernments around the world have found Microsoft guilty of Anti-Trust as if that was a stretch. What does the Bush Administration do? Our Justice Department tells South Korea's Fair Trade Commission that they went too far in an antitrust judgment against Microsoft. Last month, I spoke to Bob Price, former CEO of Control Data Corporation and author of The Eye for Innovation. We discussed a private anti-trust suit Control Data initiated against IBM back in 1968, when IBM was the nastiest monopoly in the world. Bob recalled the problems he had with the Department of Justice bringing any action against IBM. As we spoke, I asked a series of questions about how dirty IBM behaved at the time of the CDC suit. My questions went something like this: Did IBM ever sue a public official in another country for wanting to use a different platform? Did IBM ever call a competitor a cancer? How far did they go in influencing members of Congress, the Judiciary, state representatives? When I finished, Bob seemed astonished. He didn't know Microsoft was that insidious. As our discussion ended, I realized that the difference between CDC then and Linux now had to do with money. CDC could afford a legal action where it received a substantial settlement. The Linux people don't have those kinds of resources. What we do need is a government that will take care of the people in this country and enforce the laws. What laws? Primarily the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust laws against Microsoft. |
Comments (32)
Teddy Roosevelt
But if we're calling a spade, a spade. Then it doesn't matter much which party they belong to - they're all politicans.
Do you think we'll get slash dotted?
If you have a few billions to spare they will. The sites and few more are hopeless to expect anything decent from them. It is a shame. But that isn't going to stop us, is it!
Get the Facts ads are a good source of revenue for news sites. Microsoft spends a fortune on them and people click them just because they find them offensive. And if a site keeps posting anti-Microsoft stuff, Microsoft may very well respond with more ads, if we're lucky. Everyone wins.
Pulitzer Road
Has anyone done a comparative study using Judge Jackson's "findings of fact" delineating the mash of MS violations and illegal activities, and contrasting it to MS actions today? Microsoft was found guilty of illegally establishing and maintaining a monopoly. But isn't one of the primary reasons for the Sherman Anti - Trust law a concern that once a monopoly is established, the monopolist not be able to leverage that power and extend the monopolist influence into other markets? Regardless of whether or not the monopoly was illegally established?
Judge Jackson's structural solution was assurance that Microsoft would not be able to unduly extend their monopolistic influence. The DOJ - Judge Colleen settlement dismisses these concerns. Yet, that is exactly what we're now seeing; Microsoft using the desktop monopoly base to push their way into server side markets, device markets, multi media markets, and near anything having to do with the Open Internet. The European's look to be serious about preventing this expansion, demanding that Microsoft disclose the interfaces and protocols used to integrate and make interoperable and connect desktops to servers and devices. That this is explicitly defined by the Sherman Anti Trust Laws, and cannot be separated from the findings that Microsoft is a monopolist is something that should be basic to enforcing the laws of the land. So where is the DOJ? And where's Judge Colleen? Have they been Abramof'd too?
~ge~
Quoting:But isn't one of the primary reasons for the Sherman Anti - Trust law a concern that once a monopoly is established, the monopolist not be able to leverage that power and extend the monopolist influence into other markets? Regardless of whether or not the monopoly was illegally established?
That's my understanding and why I suggested that the DoJ enforce the law.
Quoting:So where is the DOJ? And where's Judge Colleen? Have they been Abramof'd too?That's what I keep asking. Do you think seeing the "Get the facts" ads in the article might prompt someone to show them around the Hoover Building?
Who Will Enforce the Anti Trust Laws?
Sadly this story carries over into the events taking place in Massachusetts, where raw intimidation of the worst kind was used to send a most chilling messages into a critically important marketplace of government information management systems.
Many of the illegal monopolist activities identified in Judge Jackson's "findings of fact" are once again on display as Microsoft moves to freeze a marketplace, intimidate decision makers, and unduly influence the marketplace; using their desktop monopoly to unfairly block competitors as they extend their monopoly power into other markets such as servers, devices, multi media and anything having to do with the Open Internet or the implementation of SOA solutions.
When Judge Collen got the call, there was much discussion about her laize-faire background and leanings. I'm all for free and open markets, but does that mean we should suspend the Rule of Law?
I had thought that laize-faire attitudes were based on the damage of over regulation by unaccountable bureaucrats. There's a difference between regulation, government oversite, and the Rule of Law. But apparently the good Judge doesn't understand this.
Some have argued that the Bush administration connected the March 2000 stock market crash (and end of the overly exuberant dotcom bubble) with Judge Jackson's final decisions regarding the "Findings of Fact" and Microsoft's objections. So when Bush did become President, he ordered the DOJ to settle and get the economy back on track. This approach might consistent with Reaganomics, but entirely ignorant of conservative respect for the Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of the Constitution.
Enter Chairman Bill's bag men, Abramof and Reid. Now we're talking big time corporate corruption of our political process - the kind that makes the Enron crooks look like a bunch of boyscouts gone bad with some National Geographics magazines.
I want to dial 911, but who is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land? Not this administration. Not this congress. And not this Judge. Can i call the EU?
~ge~
You have to go to the people. The people, who though arguably deceived, ultimately wield the power. The few (ultra-rich, corrupt thieves) are terrified of the masses because they know that that is where the power lies. We consent to being ruled. We can withdraw that consent.
I suggest a global "boycott Microsoft" campaign.
Sample from .htaccess or httpd.conf:
AuthType Basic <Limit GET> order allow,deny allow from all deny from .microsoft.com deny from .msn.com </Limit>
Or take advantage of Lent, which is coming up, to get people to try to take a breather from MS or even closed formats. Most won't try it, but it might get people thinking.
Right now MS and Gates are worshipped so heavily in all the media, that no non-MS technology gets a mention and no issues are brought up that might put MS in a bad light. Getting the media to cover the immunity OS X has to MS viruses might be a start. Or cover translation efforts of KDE or OOo as one of the sappy human interest stories they like to do.
I'm not playing around here, these are not empty suggestions (not accusing you of implying that I was).
I know it's a LONG road and a steep hill and that the odds are (apparently) against us. Patience is the order of the day. Every empire built on lies and coercion CANNOT stand indefinitely.
One day, Microsoft will be a paragraph in a history book, nothing more. (If they don't bring the end of the world down on us in the meantime).
This looks plain unproductive. How many people are going to see or understand this?
Consider rather
var uagent = navigator.userAgent; if (uagent.indexOf("MSIE") != -1) { document.write("You seem to be using a substandard browser. Why don't you http://getfirefox.com/ ?"); }
in your home page header. A realistic, concrete, understandable proposal.
Yes, it was messed up in the post... see
http://www.hut.fi/~mvermeer
If they really want to stir things up
Reformat and reinstall: goodbye all non-MS stuff
One thing that seems to be constantly overlooked is the mantra of "reformat and reinstall". It's become such an integral part of any Windows user's computing experience that is taken for granted. However, this affects millions of users. It also affects millions of users of non-MS software, who through attrition become ex-non-MS customers. Because everything is erased, but only the MS stuff can be reinstalled automatically, and even that at a cost of considerable time and difficulty, the result is the non-MS stuff doesn't get re-installed. And when it doesn't get re-installed, it doesn't get used, or more importantly re-purchased during the next round on the Wintel treadmill.
Sure in *many* cases everything gets put back, but since we're talking a population of large numbers here, it's the bell curve that counts and every little help or hinderance will push the peak of that curve to one side or the other. And that means millions lost or millions gained for competitors. For some already on the edge, it will tip them over beyond the point of no return.
Get a population studies researcher or epidemiologist to look at the problem.
Microsoft Attacks Free Software?
Still relying on government. *sigh* *rolls eyes*
1. I've recently gotten into an argument with a guy(which started out as an agreement and a bunch of laughs oddly enough) where he's absolutely convinced that microsoft is monopolistic specifically when they bundle. After pointing out that I'm a full time linux user, and that most/all linux distros bundle(as does mac) and that this activity is not only normal for software companies, it's normal activity in pretty much any business it quickly changed. You don't keep all your eggs in one basket.(yes, I know this is not the aim of your article, but it relates)
2. "Have you ever chronicled the US Government's efforts to litigate Microsoft?"
Have you ever chronicled *our* efforts to litigate Microsoft? Ok, so clearly litigate is the wrong word on behalf of what we are doing. But until the past few years, we........ users....... haven't had the proper weapon in which to fight back with microsoft. If microsoft weren't sweating so much over linux, I wouldn't(more importantly couldn't) have such a big mouth on all of this.
3. "Failed Decree"
Uhhh, not surprised. See the title. It's government, this is to be expected. That's why it's up to us as users.
4 "Bill Gates Visits China"
Hmmm, that's interesting. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2003/tc200...
He most likely bought them off. But so what. Here's what we do know. Look at the marketshare numbers. It really didn't need an official statement, it was already so. And let's all be honest here. I won't use anything but linux but I have no problem admitting that by/large windows has the most features. From a business standpoint, choosing windows does make a certain amount of sense.
There's just one flaw with this portion. The chicoms were contributing to dems before this timeframe. They were finding "interesting" ways to give money to the clinton administration.
5 "Anti-Trust Trial"
*yawn* We can win this ourselves, but not as long as people *cough*likeyou*cough* keep saying we should rely on others to get things done for us.
Mindshare is the most important part to gaining marketshare. People won't use what they don't know exists. And knoppix disks helps too.
6. "Enter the Republicans"
hehehehe.......................... This has been a bi-partisan failure and you know it.
7. "Microsoft Attacks Free Software"
This is my favorite one. "Microsoft Attacks Free Software" REALLY?!?!?!?! I'd have *NEVER* thought Microsoft would do that. I've never ever seen any competing technologies attack each other, businesses simply do not do this. They never ever speak down about the other while speaking up of/about their own. It's just impractical, unrealistic, and unprecedented.
8. "Where's the Anti-Trust Cops When You Need Them"
Where are the people who effectively know how to use the gift they've been given?
If you want to beat microsoft, creating conspiracy theories isn't gonna do it. This is hard work, and creating conspiracies is more harmful than helpful. This is what puts the capital letters in the word "zealot".
Maybe too many bedtime stories with Fairy Godmothers in them during their formative years.
Being an anarcho-capitalist myself, my reaction to any government intervention is to look for how it ruins things.
If you are going to be that critical, at least get the points you are attempting to make creditable.
Let's just take one: #6, anyone that has been reading Tom's articles knows of his experiences when indeed the corruption was a shared effort. While currently many on the Democratic party side would gladly participate in the bounty the recent effort is tied very tightly to one side, because indeed in part due to the timorous behaviour of the latter we effectively are in a one party state. Tom from past experience actually sides with you so he would not have cited the Republicans solely.
Now tell me why for MS the statutes do not apply: they worked for Standard Oil and more recently both AT&T and IBM, now in the wisdom you hold this is no longer needed at all. Let the people do it, fine but where are they to learn and organize? The main line media is intent on profits nearly at the exclusion of all other considerations. Changes in the licensing of the air waves imposes little or no responsibility to inform the public, hardcopy publications are much more attuned to advertising funding than being a source of truthful information. The public is continually diverted by offers of new toys and image raising do dahs than any other concern. So that is a dead end.
Oh I know, you think the Internet is going to save us all, right? Now is it before or after it has been turned over to some of the most regressive type corporate mentalities: the phone companies to make the internet safe for commerce? I know the facts count for little and it out-of-date images, e.g the Liberal New York Times. Even reading the content fails to dissuade many that this is not your father's or grand father's NYT. Sure they publish what they knew of administration malfeasance, but years too late. The King has been crowned and there is no need to follow the Constitution.
So, let's cut the chase: why are you saying that laws are to be ignored and it's perfectly fine with you?
Why are you offering only group action that will be extremely difficult to impossible to organize?
Let me guess: like Microsoft's superior security compared to either Linux/Unix/Mac you like the market as it exists? Oh, and if I have misjudged you, pray tell what actions have you taken to stop the abuse of monopoly power exerted by MS? Anything, beside attacking those that are trying to awaken at least a small fraction of the public? I am all ears ...
You also twisted my words into some sort of rant that says abandon one's one responsibility in the matter. That's ridiculous. I never say abandon your responsibility and wait for someone else to do it for you. I won't comment on your disparaging attitude, anyone can see what you're doing. It's lame.
Bob then pipes in with a similar theme.
The US taxpayer, which includes me, has an expectation of fairness in government. If you and I don't have a expetation of fairness, then we should start over. The abdication of responsibility lies with people more intent on promoting their careers than honoring their oaths. I think people should know that.
If I was waiting for the Government to do it for me, then I'd do something else. I have a pretty fair track record in business, finance, management and technology. Trust me, it's easy to go for the gold, especially when you have the proven skills. So, I'm not doing this for money and I'm not doing it for fame. I already achieved fame once and it only took two years of hiding out in another country for it to disappear completely. You don't even know who I am and that's fine with me.
I do expect my work to prod people into recognizing the issues, take up a grass roots effort, become indignate and fight for the rights for which we pay. Some of have paid in dollars, some in lost dollars, homes, jobs, families.
In other countries, people pay with poverty, oppression, enforced ignorance and atrocities. They pay every day so that some day they can have a system of government where officials take an oath to represent them and organize a government to serve them.
So you could do something else besides criticise and ridicule. You've demonstrated nothing of value except that you can tell people what you think. 6 billion people on this planet think. So what.
The resultant belly laugh nearly woke up the neighbors napping baby. Thank you, that's the best exercise I've had all day.
Government is intrinsically unfair, beginning with the fact that government officials cannot know everything that the individuals they rule know. Their laws and regulations punish some and coddle others arbitrarily, at best, and with collusion and corruption at worst.
"6 billion people on this planet think."
Exactly. That is why government efforts are always less efficient than private endeavors. Without the arbitrary monopoly grants of patent and copyright, what benefit could all the blustering and bullying of Standard Oil, IBM and Microsoft have come to? Nothing, because as private efforts they cannot force anyone to buy their product. Or just look at the example of ITT. Remember ITT? They and Exxon were supposed to take over the world. Oh well.
Your post certainly didn't "sound" like you are joking.
Bob-
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
|
|