ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Show us Windows source, States ask judge

Time: 14:06 EST/19:06 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson

The US States still pursuing Microsoft have upped the ante by asking the judge to force Microsoft to show them Windows' source code, their reasoning being that they need this to verify whether or not Microsoft is telling the truth when it says that producing a stripped-down and/or IE-free version of Windows isn't technically possible. Which is logical enough. One of the most irritating and protracted battles of the trial under Judge Jackson's auspices was the row over whether or not taking IE out of Windows would break it, whether Ed Felten had actually removed IE or just slightly hidden it, and whether or not Jim Allchin's video demo debunking Felten had been faked. (Well OK, that last one wasn't tedious at all - here it is again, for your amusement.)

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 155
Last | Next

The time now is 6:10:10 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/13/2002 2:24:00 PM

More stonewalling that should clearly go the states way; MS really knows how to make themselves look back. "Our source code is our evidence that none of this can be done but at the same time, all the code we created is nice-nice and isn't designed to commingle code which doesn't need to interact." "Oh really, can we examine it, confidentially, to verify that testimony?" "No, it's ours! I'm going home, and I'm taking MY code!"

I never understood how they were able to present this as evidence without revealing the inner workigns to the prosecution for their own examination during the trial.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 14:26.

#2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/13/2002 2:34:11 PM

Yeah, this is where MS may really get screwed--this could open a whole can of worms.

But how did they ever, ever believe that this wouldn't happen at some point?

#3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/13/2002 3:05:23 PM

Damn it! This is REALLY getting annoying. Microsoft did *NOT* falsify the video, and to confirm this, simply read the damn trial transcripts.

The "falsification" was a result of stupid people doing the video tape. The video was meant as a "re-enactment" not a demo, and was filmed using 6 different machines. Microsoft openly admitted to this in court, and even Judge Jackson agreed that Microsoft had not intentionally misled anybody.

The Register, however, is deliberately misleading people by spreading misinformation, and blatant lies. This is not reporting, it's propaganda, and they should be ashamed.

If you want to know what happened during the case, READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. Here is a fairly good, although incomplete summary:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdoj_mjm990204.html

And here is an explanation of why the 2nd tape couldn't accurately reproduce that which was done in the lab:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/technology/html98/micr_020499.html

David Bank also goes over this quite well in his book "Breaking Windows".

On the subject of the source code, sure... why not. As long as the people doing the "looking" aren't Microsoft's competitors, and as long as it's kept secure of prying eyes, I don't see a problem with wanting to confirm Microsoft's statements by looking at the source code.

#2 - Baloney. Real Inc. accused Microsoft of intentionally breaking their software, but it turned out it was because they were using beta code that sucked. Nobody has ever shown that Windows intentionally breaks competitor's software, and this was an accepted win for Microsoft in the anti-trust case.

#4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/13/2002 3:50:22 PM

"The "falsification" was a result of stupid people doing the video tape. The video was meant as a "re-enactment" not a demo, and was filmed using 6 different machines. Microsoft openly admitted to this in court, and even Judge Jackson agreed that Microsoft had not intentionally misled anybody."

Yes, it was done by stupid people and may have not been "intentional" deception, but it also didn't provide a valid argument for Microsoft either. In fact, Allchin himself couldn't specifically state if all functions were shared by the system and the browser--al he could state was that under rigorous testing, using obscure controls, and performing tasks not normally executed on a PC, the system and browser would "share more and more" functions; the District Court directly interpreted this to mean that MS could not defend the statement that all the functions were commingled because of functionality, and that therefore, commingling had not occured for technological benefit but to tie the browser to the system.

I don't have the transcripts in front of me, but that's pretty dead on accurate. In other words, the state doesn't even have to refute MS's code claims, because the DC already dismissed them--I'm sure they'll be looking for some brand new goodies.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 15:52.

#5 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 2/13/2002 4:45:15 PM

I am still trying to figure this monopoly out. I always thought a monopoly had to hurt the consumer and all. I mean AT&T would not update there phone systems and there rates were too high, so the government stepped in and broke them up. That actually hurt the consumer, what AT&T was doing. Now Microsoft attempts to better there software and put in more features, where exactly were we the consumer misled or hurt in all of this. I did not think the definition of monopoly was, "oh the have the highest market share and no one can compete, so they are now a monopoly". I mean when did this all happen, that the competition could say, " well we suck and can't write code good enough to compete with th devil that is MS, so can we sue them, even though we are not the consumer here and no consumer is being hurt". I thought making a better product and updateing your product to make it better was just the American way of doing Business. Now it is more like, " make a good product but don't make it so much better than the competition that everyone buys yours instead of the other guys". This is such a waste of my, and your, taxpaying dollars. (aimed at the US people)

#6 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/13/2002 4:57:14 PM

There is no need to see the source code. What consumer would buy an IE-less Windows when they find that apps such as Office, Quicken, and even AOL won't run without IE because those apps and more use IE's rendering engine, common controls, and/or other components in order to function? A large portion of Windows, especially XP and .NET Server, is dependant upon IE for rendering dialogs, and this proportion will most likely increase in later versions.

Besides that, what developers would waste their time programming for the stripped-down version. One of the reasons some Windows components cannot be removed is to provide developers with a known feature set for which they can develop applications. Why bother trying to limit you app to accomidate a stripped-down version when you can develop an app with the functionality you desire.

#7 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 2/13/2002 6:00:02 PM

#9, First, that was a Beta of Windows, second, it said that it MAY not work completely if you tried to use another version of DOS, and finally, it wasn't Novell's product, it was Digital Research's product (Hence, DR-DOS).

#8 By 1845 (12.254.163.86) at 2/13/2002 8:34:55 PM

My dear friend SodaJerk,
If I'm not mistaken didn't the appeals court vacated the rulings regarding tying browser to OS? I suppose that would mean there is no legal decision as to whether the tying was legal or illegal. This would put us back where we were in '98 when Felton and Alchin were fighting in Jackson's court.

In other news, I'd really like someone to explain to me why it is ever bad for a company to improve its products and offer new features at no extra cost. Bundling a new product into an existing popular product is extrememly popular in the business world. Buy these best selling DVD's get these not so hot one free (or at reduced cost). Buy an upgrade the hot new OS and get free RAM. Buy accounting software and get free check paper. Buy a dishwasher and get free spotless rinse. Bundling happens.

#9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/13/2002 8:51:20 PM

Yes, Bob, but I think you should read the District Court's decision. They overruled the separate charge that bundling was itself an illegal act (this was a separate Sherman Antitrust Act charge under article 1); however, in the charges relating to section2, monopolization and monopoly behavior, the District Court specifically ruled that the act of commingling code which didn't provide specific benefit was anticompetitive and illegal.

In other words, the Court said they couldn't support setting the precedent that technology tying was illegal on face value, but that, yes, looking specifically at the technology and because MS is in fact a monopoly, the commingling of code was done illegal under their standards which stated that the benefits had to outweigh the harm done to competition.

I've argued this quite a few times; I guess I should bring my copy of the decision to work with me everyday... but it's there; the DC even stops for a moment and says, "Wait a minute, you earlier vacated the claim that it was per se illegal to bundle IE with Windows, how can you now be saying that the commingling of code was illegal? Well, here's how..."

In other words, and I think we all know this: why didn't MS produce 3 dlls--optimized as much as possible--one for WinExplorer and system only functions, one for IE/html functions only, and a combined dll which included only functions which could be used by apps and the system AND IE. Then allow IE and the IE only dll to be removed if desired, leaving the other two to allow the system and other apps to continue to function. Just because they don't want to do this, doesn't mean they can't; and as I said above, Allchin couldn't say in court truthfully that all the fucntions in the commingled dlls could be used by both the system and the browser. So where's the benefit? There was no technological benefit, only the benfit of saying Windows doesn't work without IE, which is ridiculous.

This is all very well stated in the opinions: the derived benefit of bundling has to exceed the anti-competitive effect. Also, the DC mentions your example which is rather harmless bundling but not true tying: this wouldn't come under antitrust law; they mention how most antitrsut tying issues arise when one product is dependent on the other product (a Polaroid camera and their own film, for example). Which is in part what complicates this--they aren't entirely dependent, but they aren't independent, and they do see value in bundling but also understand that it can still be used as an anticompetitive tactic.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 20:55.

#10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/14/2002 11:11:52 AM

I am Spartacus!

#11 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 2/14/2002 11:18:04 AM

#30 and #19, The point was also for someone to point out that the breakup not only helped AT&T to expand but also to creat more monopolistic pieces. Plus the fact that it did not help rates any, because the lines and equipment are still owned by AT&T or one of the baby bells. So the rates stay the same or increase because the new companies need to have lines so they must lease them from someone. Anyway, a breakup of MS will just create two monopolies instead of one.

#12 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 7:27:47 PM