Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft - Final Judgement
Slash Dot ^ | 11/1/02

Posted on 11/01/2002 12:58:16 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

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 ™, 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



TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: microsoft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2002 12:58:16 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"But what does it all mean, Basil." - Austin Powers
2 posted on 11/01/2002 12:59:34 PM PST by MrConfettiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump for reading later...
3 posted on 11/01/2002 1:01:02 PM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
What does Rita Cosby have to say about it?
4 posted on 11/01/2002 1:02:06 PM PST by Balata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Full Judgment in Adobe
5 posted on 11/01/2002 1:02:24 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bump for someone far more intelligent than I to decipher.
6 posted on 11/01/2002 1:02:40 PM PST by LoneGOPinCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
What's the deal with this?

Is it good or bad?
7 posted on 11/01/2002 1:02:49 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I don't speak RAT.
8 posted on 11/01/2002 1:03:37 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrConfettiMan
Well it must be good news for Microsoft as the Dow Jones shot up at the end of the session today (+125 points to over 8,500). I can't make heads or tails out of this gobblelydook, but it appears that the courts have upheld the previous decision - which I believe would be a good thing for Gates & Co. Now they can put this anti-trust garbage behind them.
9 posted on 11/01/2002 1:03:50 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrConfettiMan
LOL. Sometimes it's worth paying the bloody, life-sucking lawyers just to read and interpret. * Then * we get rid of em....hehehe.
10 posted on 11/01/2002 1:04:06 PM PST by txzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action such that the Court may act sua sponte to issue further orders or directions

This will make it tough for anyone to invent new terminology and thereby get out of some annoying sub-subparagraph.

11 posted on 11/01/2002 1:05:32 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I dunno... the part at the end about asking Plaintiff states for a motion for costs and fees does NOT look good, IMHO.
12 posted on 11/01/2002 1:05:33 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Haven't read the whole thing, but I betcha within two years Microsoft will turn this to their advantage.
13 posted on 11/01/2002 1:07:55 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
A little Microsoft humor can be found here.
14 posted on 11/01/2002 1:08:44 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
"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."

What sense does it make to force disclosure of APIs?

15 posted on 11/01/2002 1:11:13 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000; Dominic Harr
Gentlemen... start your engines!
16 posted on 11/01/2002 1:11:28 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What's the deal with this? Is it good or bad?

Net net: MS wins.
17 posted on 11/01/2002 1:12:50 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Good....I'm a shareholders...kick ass Billy boy.
18 posted on 11/01/2002 1:13:18 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
ALL RIGHT!!!

Finally, the case is OVER!!!

Take THAT, anti-trust fanatics!!
19 posted on 11/01/2002 1:14:36 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I guess this means the judge approved the settlement that MS and Justice had agreed to, overruling the 9 state attorney generals who wanted the settlement thrown out so they could pursue tougher sanctions.
20 posted on 11/01/2002 1:15:01 PM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Finally! Microsoft will disclose their APIs to me!! I've been in the dark for so long...! </ sarcasm> Bump for Bill -- Bump for DOW.
21 posted on 11/01/2002 1:15:41 PM PST by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Now this is strange. Fox is saying that this decision won't come out for another 15 minutes, at 4:30.
22 posted on 11/01/2002 1:15:46 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Nov 1, 2002

Decision in Microsoft Case Should Affect Computer Users - but Not for a While

By D. Ian Hopper
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge's long-awaited decision Friday in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case could give new choices to computer users - or plunge the giant software maker into a lengthy period of creative hibernation.

Those are the opposite scenarios portrayed by Microsoft's rivals and company chairman Bill Gates. Microsoft's stock price dropped in mid-afternoon trading in advance of the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she will announce after the financial markets close whether she accepts or rejects a landmark antitrust settlement reached by Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. At the same time, she may say whether she endorses the harsher penalties pursued by nine other states who did not sign onto the deal.

But appeals are likely in a complicated case that has already lasted four years.

"It might not be resolved for another two years," University of Baltimore law professor Robert Lande said. "No one should count their winnings yet."

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

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

Justice prosecutors and Microsoft say the deal will immediately benefit consumers. Microsoft has already started complying with the deal by distributing technical data and releasing an update to Windows XP that permits the removal of Microsoft icons.

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

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

Those states want Microsoft to divulge more technical information, give computer manufacturers more freedom in how they package Windows in their systems and allow users to completely remove some Microsoft features from Windows rather than just hide access to them.

Gates said during three days of testimony in the antitrust case that the added penalties would unfairly confiscate Microsoft's intellectual property, cause mass layoffs and force the company's research and development efforts "into a 10-year period of hibernation."

Microsoft's stock dropped over 2 percent to $52.28 on the Nasdaq exchange in Friday mid-afternoon trading.

The judge was announcing her decision just days before national elections. In three of the nine states that agreed to settle the case along with the Justice Department - Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin - those attorneys general are running for governor this year, and two more active in the case are running for governor next year, in Kentucky and Louisiana.

In Connecticut, where Richard Blumenthal is one of the most aggressive attorneys general advocating harsher penalties against Microsoft, his re-election opponent accused him Thursday of being "obsessive" in his pursuit of the software maker. Martha Dean, a Republican, praised Microsoft as a successful business and said penalties against it could hurt the state's pension fund and citizens' retirement investments.

Under federal antitrust rules, Kollar-Kotelly does not have authority to change the terms of the settlement. She can approve the deal or reject it, although she can offer suggestions to lawyers to change the proposal in ways that would win her ultimate approval.

Lande predicted that the five-month delay between the hearings and the ruling could be good news for the suing states.

"If all she was going to do was rubber-stamp the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft and say that the states get nothing, she could have done that in two or three months," Lande said. "I think it means the states are going to get something."

Since the federal and state cases are so intertwined and complicated, no one knows just what that something will be. Lande said Kollar-Kotelly's hardest job was to make sure that the settlement order and any added penalties don't send Microsoft mixed signals - particularly since Microsoft already has indicated that it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.

"She wants to be really sure that there's no inconsistencies," Lande said. "Microsoft is going to appeal anyway, but one of the things they would say is that she's being inconsistent."

---

On the Net:

Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov

AP-ES-11-01-02 1459EST

23 posted on 11/01/2002 1:16:44 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
One thing of note at the beginning: Microsoft can no longer prevent OEMs from shipping dual-boot machines.
24 posted on 11/01/2002 1:16:49 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrConfettiMan
1) Microsoft can't screw over another company because the other company is selling products besides Microsoft's products.

2) Microsoft has to provide all of its distributers, etc. with the same deal. (i.e., no playing favorites).

3) Microsoft has to reveal its API used in Microsoft Middleware. (Imagine that Microsoft built a car with two gas tanks, and that Microsoft sold gas along with other companies. Gas tank A, only Microsoft knows about. Gas tank B, everyone else knows about. Gas tank A uses gas more efficiently while Gas tank B uses gas less efficiently. Users prefer more "efficient" Microsoft Gas.)

The rest deals with the details. I don't consider it too important.
25 posted on 11/01/2002 1:16:56 PM PST by Ardence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
This is justice! This is Bill Gates beating the fishing expedition!

My 401(k) is going up, up, up!!!
26 posted on 11/01/2002 1:17:33 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
It will take their lawyers a while to read through it. Remember the text above wasn't supposed to be available as quickly as we got it.
27 posted on 11/01/2002 1:17:49 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
Hehe. Just last week I was asking myself, wouldn't it be great to peruse hundreds of thousands of lines of spagetti code?
28 posted on 11/01/2002 1:19:01 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Fox/Cavuto reporting "Slap on the wrist" for Microsoft. MSFT up 25¢ in afterhours.
29 posted on 11/01/2002 1:20:43 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Well it must be good news for Microsoft as the Dow Jones shot up at the end of the session today (+125 points to over 8,500).
No relationship between the two since the market closed before the decision was announced. The jump was most likely in anticipation of the Fed lowering interest rates.
30 posted on 11/01/2002 1:20:51 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
It's all over but the crying ... you lose, Harr. All that effort for what? Disclosure of APIs? Giving OEMs leverage to sell other OSes (even though they won't)? IE is still part of Windows. MS wasn't broken up. And Java isn't on the table.
31 posted on 11/01/2002 1:20:54 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Wait, make that $1.21.
32 posted on 11/01/2002 1:21:11 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ardence
Why can't Microsoft still restrict access, hide APIs and set up questionable business practices under the guise of protecting "security, anti-virus, licensing, authentication and Digital Rights"?
33 posted on 11/01/2002 1:21:29 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
34 posted on 11/01/2002 1:21:49 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Good. I like Neal's perspective on things. These means we can finally build the economy again.
35 posted on 11/01/2002 1:21:50 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
What sense does it make to force disclosure of APIs?

fosters more interoperability and competition.
36 posted on 11/01/2002 1:22:33 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: oc-flyfish
"Remember the text above wasn't supposed to be available as quickly as we got it."

Well now fox is kind of back peddeling and saying that Microsoft will make a statement at 4:30. But Neil Cuvuto is saying that on the surface it looks like Microsoft is going to get out with just a slap on the hand. Just in time for the dems to use for election to prove that BIG corporations get away with anything.

37 posted on 11/01/2002 1:23:38 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Timesink; Bush2000; Poohbah
Translation:

Multi-billion dollar waste fo time ona few minor violations. "It's really BS, but we gotta hit ya anyhow, so here's a slap on the wrist."

Yes!! My 401(k) is gonna be okay this next quarter.
38 posted on 11/01/2002 1:24:18 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Just in time for the dems to use for election to prove that BIG corporations get away with anything.

Nah... it's a way to show how the democrats/socialists tried to destroy a company and failed. Love live capitalism!

39 posted on 11/01/2002 1:25:18 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Just in time for the dems to use for election to prove that BIG corporations get away with anything.

Nah. This will drive the market higher, which even the Dems want.

Clinton wasted the nation's time with this ridiculous anti-trust lawsuit.

40 posted on 11/01/2002 1:26:47 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
They tried their best to stop a business from doing business, didn't they? If your good and you get a market share, then you're evil. If Chevy had 90% of the market...
But then Gates is worth billions, and that's what pisses these whiners off.
I only wish I could come up with a business which was run as well as Gates did with MS and got a high market share. But then again I wouldn't want all my fellow American's suing me til the cows come home.

I hope they name their next OS "Penis Envy"

41 posted on 11/01/2002 1:27:05 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: oc-flyfish
"it's a way to show how the democrats/socialists tried to destroy a company and failed"

Naw, that's the reality, you don't think that Dem's are going to try and confront reality?

42 posted on 11/01/2002 1:27:19 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Miss Marple
Shows you how screwed-up Clinton's priorities were.

He spent more money and effort going after Bill Gates because he didn't pay up to the DNC than he did going atfer bin Laden for killing Americans.

The Dems can stuff it up their rear as far as I care.
43 posted on 11/01/2002 1:29:27 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Naw, that's the reality, you don't think that Dem's are going to try and confront reality?

(Hanging head in shame) Sorry... don't know what I was thinking. :-)

44 posted on 11/01/2002 1:29:56 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Naspino
Just realized how empty my life was without this information......how did I live without that data?
45 posted on 11/01/2002 1:30:00 PM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
But then Gates is worth billions, and that's what pisses these whiners off.

Bingo. They wanted some of that money in the DNC coffers -- and maybe the subtle hints with Clinton during a game of golf weren't strong enough. Hence, the antitrust lawsuits. Like Clint Eastwood in "A Fistful of Dollars", the Democrats were playing both sides for cash. It would be brilliant if it weren't so destructive to the economy. Imagine how much wealth was destroyed in the past 2 years -- wealth of everyday Americans. Sickening. Meanwhile, the anti-capitalist ABMers like Harr and crowd cheer them on, since they have little vested. For them, tearing down the capital markets is a blood sport.
46 posted on 11/01/2002 1:31:15 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
One thing of note at the beginning: Microsoft can no longer prevent OEMs from shipping dual-boot machines.

But the real question is this: How many OEMs will actually ship dual-boot machines?

47 posted on 11/01/2002 1:31:16 PM PST by danneskjold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: oc-flyfish
"(Hanging head in shame) Sorry... don't know what I was thinking. :-) "

It's ok, we all have a bad day from time to time.

48 posted on 11/01/2002 1:31:42 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican; sinkspur
I was trying to think of what else would piss of Clinton more than the Nobel prize and you're right, this is up there. More legacy on the office floor.
49 posted on 11/01/2002 1:31:49 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: danneskjold
But the real question is this: How many OEMs will actually ship dual-boot machines?

Probably not very many...

50 posted on 11/01/2002 1:33:23 PM PST by oc-flyfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson