Posted on 11/02/2001 6:47:52 AM PST by Dominic Harr
Friday November 2 10:27 AM ET Microsoft-U.S. Settlement Statement
By The Associated Press,
Text of the Justice Department (news - web sites) release regarding its antitrust lawsuit settlement with Microsoft Corp., as provided by the department.
The Department of Justice (news - web sites) reached a settlement today with Microsoft Corporation that imposes a broad range of restrictions that will stop Microsoft's unlawful conduct, prevent recurrence of similar conduct in the future and restore competition in the software market.
The settlement accomplishes this by:
-Creating opportunity for independent software vendors to develop products that will be competitive with Microsoft's middleware products on a function-by-function basis;
-Giving computer manufacturers the flexibility to contract with competing software developers and place their middleware products on Microsoft's operating system;
-Preventing retaliation against computer manufacturers, software developers and other industry participants who choose to develop or use competing middleware products; and
-Ensuring full compliance with the proposed final judgment and providing for swift resolution of technical disputes.
``A vigorously competitive software industry is vital to our economy and effective antitrust enforcement is crucial to preserving competition in this constantly evolving high-tech arena,'' said Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites). ``This historic settlement will bring effective relief to the market and ensure that consumers will have more choices in meeting their computer needs.''
The settlement, which will be filed today in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia with Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit filed by the Department on May 18, 1998.
``This settlement will promote innovation, give consumers more choices, and provide the computer industry as a whole with more certainty in the marketplace,'' said Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. ``The goals of the government were to obtain relief that stops Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore competition in the software market - we have achieved those goals.''
Today's proposed settlement is modeled on the conduct provisions in the original final judgment entered by Judge Jackson, but includes key additions and modifications that take into account the current and anticipated changes in the computer industry, including the launch of Microsoft's new Windows XP (news - web sites) operating system, and the Court of Appeals decision revising some of the original liability findings.
The proposed final judgment includes the following key provisions:
-Broad scope of middleware products: The proposed final judgment applies a broad definition of middleware products which is wide ranging and will cover all the technologies that have the potential to be middleware threats to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. It includes browser, e-mail clients, media players, instant messaging software and future new middleware developments.
-Disclosure of middleware interfaces: Microsoft will be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used by Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system. This will allow developers to create competing products that will emulate Microsoft's integrated functions.
-Disclosure of server protocols: The final judgment also ensures that other non-Microsoft server software can interoperate with Windows on a PC the same way that Microsoft servers do. This is important because it ensures that Microsoft cannot use its PC operating system monopoly to restrict competition among servers. Server support applications, like middleware, could threaten Microsoft's monopoly.
-Freedom to install middleware software: Computer manufacturers and consumers will be free to substitute competing middleware software on Microsoft's operating system.
-Ban on retaliation: Microsoft will be prohibited from retaliating against computer manufacturers and software developers for supporting or developing certain competing software. This provision will ensure that computer manufacturers and software developers are able to take full advantage of the options granted to them under the proposed final judgment without fear of reprisal.
-Uniform licensing terms: Microsoft will be required to license its operating system to key computer manufacturers on uniform terms for five years. This will further strengthen the ban on retaliation.
-Ban on exclusive agreements: Microsoft will be prohibited from entering into agreements requiring the exclusive support or development of certain Microsoft software. This will allow software developers and computer manufacturers to contract with Microsoft and still support and develop rival middleware products.
The proposed final judgment also includes key additional provisions related to enforcement.
-Licensing of intellectual property: Microsoft also will be required to license any intellectual property to computer manufacturers and software developers necessary for them to exercise their rights under the proposed final judgment, including for example, using the middleware products disclosed by Microsoft to interoperate with the operating system. This enforcement measure will ensure that intellectual property rights do not interfere with the rights and obligations under the proposed final judgment.
-Onsite enforcement monitors: The proposed settlement also adds an important enforcement provision that provides for a panel of three independent, onsite, full-time computer experts to assist in enforcing the proposed final judgment. These experts will have full access to all of Microsoft's books, records, systems, and personnel, including source code, and will help resolve disputes about Microsoft's compliance with the disclosure provisions in the final judgment.
The core allegation in the lawsuit, upheld by the Court of Appeals in June 2001, was that Microsoft had unlawfully maintained its monopoly in computer-based operating systems by excluding competing software products known as middleware that posed a nascent threat to the Windows operating system.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in unlawful exclusionary conduct by using contractual provisions to prohibit computer manufacturers from supporting competing middleware products on Microsoft's operating system; prohibiting consumers and computer manufacturers from removing Microsoft's middleware products from the operating system; and reaching agreements with software developers and third parties to exclude or disadvantage competing middleware products.
The proposed final judgment will be published by the Federal Register, along with the department's competitive impact statement, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed consent decree within 60 days of its publication to: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, 325 7th Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202-616-0944). At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the proposed consent decree upon a finding that it serves the public interest.
The proposed final judgment will be in effect for a five-year period and may be extended for an additional two-year period if the court finds that Microsoft has engaged in multiple violations of the proposed final judgment.
Microsoft is officially a criminal, anti-capitalist 'looter' corp.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in unlawful exclusionary conduct by using contractual provisions
Oh, and the states *still* haven't signed on. This may not even be the end.
But the restrictions on contracts should do it. If Microsoft is actually forced to compete, instead of using illegal contracts to control the distributors, I'm betting that they can't compete on honest terms.
So, devoid of it's illegal contracts to control the distributors, can Microsoft compete legally?
For the first time in it's life, Microsoft will have to actually compete!
Microsoft used force, threats and intimidation to get distributors to sign illegal, anti-capitalist contracts.
Please don't burn half this thread playing 'Clintonista', declaring the convicted criminals innocent. If you haven't actually seen the evidence, perhaps you don't know the details of the case. But they were convicted of serious illegality on a mountain of evidence.
That conviction was upheld by a friendly appeals court and a friendly Supreme Court.
Microsoft is convicted, and guilty.
No punishement at all, as far as I can tell. That's the 'bought and paid for' part.
I expected that, actually.
I'm just surprised that they still put these restrictions on Microsoft. And in this way -- no enforcement really is needed for the most significant restrictions.
Distributors just now know that they can ignore Microsoft's attempts to bully them. And any illegal contracts can just be ignored now, since Microsoft can't enforce those contracts in court.
Microsoft has failed every time they had to compete in a 'free market'! Now their OS will have to actually compete . . .
uhh.... against whom?
Against anyone who wants to build a company around an OS.
Up until now, that was an impossibility. No one would spend money building an OS company, because of the illegal contracts that MS used to guarantee that the new company's product would never even be offered to consumers.
Now a company can go to Dell and get Dell to offer their OS *also*. And Dell doesn't have to fear Microsoft's retaliation.
The person you responded to does have a point. The government never proved that consumers were actually harmed. I do concede the MS was involved in some questionable practices. The market moves so quickly though that it tends to correct the problems.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me know when I can buy a Pepsi at McDonalds.
A contract require two parties. Why do the other parties sign these contracts if they are so bad. Are they morons?
Ah, the beauty of a monopoly. You no longer have to live within the bounds of mutually beneficial contracts.
You -- really don't know this?
There are several ways . . .
When you are someone's major suplier, you have that person by the short and curlies.
For example, take Budweiser. If you're a retail store, and Bud is 45% of your beer sales, you *need* Bud.
So if a new 'startup' company comes along with a new Beer, Bud could come to you with a contract -- if you sell the new beer, you will lose your Bud contract.
That's just ONE of the illegal techniques Microsoft has used, specifically against Netscape.
Another would be direct kickbacks for not selling competing software. Another would be requiring the distributor to pay for a copy of Windows EVEN ON MACHINES SOLD WITH OTHER OS'S ON IT.
These tactics are illegal. And they are the very basis of Microsoft's OS monopoly.
Actually, yes they did. There was some 15 pages written on that specific point -- harm to consumers -- in the final ruling by the Appeals Court.
The consumer has a right to a 'free' market. MS used illegal contracts to remove that right.
Now if you want me to 'prove' that a free market benefits consumers . . .
Microsoft useded any tool to eliminate any business viewed as a "threat". Apple was bought out, by Microsoft, as they began building a customer base. Microsoft gave away Explorer as Netscape began building a customer base. Microsoft threatened to pull all o/s options to any hardware manufacturer who offered to incolude any other o/s as options (Lynux). OEM's (original equipment manufacturer's) couldn't include other opperating systems other than Microsoft without loosing all of Microsoft's business.
Microsofts view of a "threat" is any business that could become a competition at any time.
Intell had some of the same business views and pratices but they choose to settle with the Justice Department several years ago. Microsoft choose to fight. Microsoft was and is guilty of all charges.
I have worked at Intel for the last 5 years in the motherboard division. We worked closely with Microsoft and their opperating systems on our products.
Not true at all. I have bought systems for more than ten years without an operating system loaded. You can go to any local PC clone and buy a machine without an operating system.
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.