Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 "An historic"
- 2 Factual errors according to Ed Felten
- 3 NPOV dispute
- 4 Historic case? and bias
- 5 Opinionated Paragraph
- 6 Move to United States v. Microsoft?
- 7 Errors and Facts
- 8 Major edits
- 9 Criticisms
- 10 Result of case
- 11 Antitrust Movie Relation?
- 12 Is the case still on-going?
- 13 Appeals Section
- 14 GA nomination
- 15 Nuetrality of the picture
- 16 "Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions..."
- 17 Also Notable
- 18 "Predatory Behavior", "Barrier to Entry"
- 19 Unbalanced
- 20 Requested move
- 21 Settlement Section not updated since MAY 2006?
- 22 Requested move 2
- 23 Multi-tagging
- 24 Tags
- 25 Settlement section does not contain sufficient information
It's only "an historic" if you can't pronounce "historic" correctly ;-) ... - Khendon 10:29 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
It always seemed to me that "an historic" may survive in England but has died out in the United States. And since this is an American subject ... — Toby 07:19 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, "an historic" is incorrect. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I think an historic is recommended by some British style guides (i.e. all words beginning with h+vowel should be treated as if they began with just the vowel). It certainly sounds wrong to my ears, though. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm English, and I would never use such a phrase. I always presumed it was an American spelling... J Milburn 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- But hang on; "This is an historic moment for the Russians" and "This is historic moment.." and "This is a historic moment..." Which one of those is correct? I think the first one however I'm not an English expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Factual errors according to Ed Felten
Ed Felten comments in his blog that there are several factual errors in this entry: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html
- I posted a comment there asking him to use this Talk page to explain the problems, so we can work on them. - Brian Kendig 14:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"So far, so good. But now we come to the entry on the Microsoft case, which was riddled with errors. For starters, it got the formal name of the case (U.S. v. Microsoft) wrong. It badly characterization my testimony, it got the timeline of Judge Jackson's rulings wrong, and it made terminological errors such as referring to the DOJ as "the prosecution" rather than the "the plaintiff". I corrected two of these errors (the name of the case, and the description of my testimony), but fixing the whole thing was too big an effort."
Lotsofissues 13:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I saw that when he posted it in his column - all the issues he named have been addressed, and any more he cares to mention will be addressed. - Brian Kendig 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the presentation and commentary of the news links, as well as the last paragraph before "External Links", are rather POV. However, I do not trust my own familiarity with this case to fix this. It would be nice if someone could clean this up. — Timwi 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've edited those parts of the article to be, in my opinion, NPOV. - Brian Kendig 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've removed the NPOV dispute header, as I can't find any justification for it. I'm not claming that the article is perfect, but it seems to cover the main points fairly competently, and do not understand Timwi's objection. An objection on NPOV grounds needs to state what is objected to, not just object in general terms. If you still object, Timwi, you need to say why you object. Tannin 23:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've added a bit to the Appeal section, in an attempt to provide some NPOV balance to the (uncited) rant from Judge Jackson. 220.127.116.11 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
==Quote attribution==basically microsoft got sued because they where taking over the internet If somebody wants to include quotes, which is text surrounded by "quote marks" the proper form is to attribute in the same sentence the source of the quote.
"Bill gates was rude in court" is simply a slanderous allegation, it is not an attributed quote. If the editor is that convinced the quotes are relevant, the editor may browse to the internet sites listed before they are altered, determine who offered the statements and in what context, then report that information to Wikipedia. The proper style is "Bill Gates was rude in court." said (name source here).
Tannin's claim that the characters "" hyperlinked to a commercial magaizine's web page comprise attribution of a quote is specious at best. If tannin replaces the unattributed quote, I will demand the not-NPOV header be restored. Hatemongering is not a fair way to tell the news. Reality check
- I've attributed the quotes directly in the Wikipedia article. Please let me know if you believe more should be done (or feel free to make the edits yourself). Brian Kendig 15:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Historic case? and bias
I'm not sure that "historic" is really the right word to describe this case. Something can't really be historic if it happened only a few years ago. Plus, I think that "historic" is a bit of a loaded word anyway. I tried to think of a better word, but actually, I think it would be best to remove it altogether.
Also, some of the parenthetical comments in this article seem to be a bit biased, especially those in this paragraph:
Microsoft claimed that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and inextricably linked (despite the fact that a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Macintosh), and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free (a questionable assertion, since its development and marketing cost still had to come from somewhere and may have kept the price of Windows higher than it would otherwise have been).
I think it would be more appropriate (and more NPOV) like this:
Microsoft claimed that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and inextricably linked, and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those opposing Internet Explorer's inclusion in Windows countered that it was not really the same product, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for the Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free and that its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it would otherwise have been.
Does anyone have any comments about this? Josh 00:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. First off, you're right that "historic" isn't quite the right word here; I removed it, but is there a better word? "important", maybe? Or "landmark"? Or "much publicized"? Secondly, I think that's a good rewording of the para; I made a few changes to that and edited the article. Feel free to edit my edit. - Brian Kendig 15:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. I put in "widely publicized" where "historic" used to be. That should give readers an idea of the importance of the case, but in a neutral sort of way. Also, I like the changes to the paragraph. They make it a bit clearer. Josh 17:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
The last paragraph is a stated opinion with no supporting material and should either be removed or updated to reflect “proof” or further discussion. “The outcome of the antitrust case has served to chill venture capital investment in technical startup companies, for fear that Microsoft will notice the startup's niche and starve off the new company to protect Microsoft's market.”
- Agreed, and removed. Though I wish there were a way to state in the article, "Hey, look, Microsoft has proven that whenever it sees a little startup trying to make money off a great idea, it's proven that it's able to steal the idea, drive the startup out of business, drag the litigation out for years long past any chance of the company being saved, and get off with a slap on the wrist - so where's the motivation for anybody to try to bring a clever new idea to market any more?" Brian Kendig 15:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There must have been surveys done on this. "According to a YouGov poll, the number five concern of new software development startup companies is competition from one of the established players, notably Microsoft". Or something of that ilk. Hard to find, though. Martin 00:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- As a venture capitalist who has spoken directly with other venture capitalists about Microsoft, I can say with authority that the paragraph is factually accurate. Not to mention its widely reported in the media. (I'm going to log out to post this though. Like ProComp members, I fear the backlash Microsoft has inflicted in the past on its detractors.)
Move to United States v. Microsoft?
I propose that we move this article to United States v. Microsoft. -- MIT Trekkie 14:39, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- It sounds like a good idea, as long as there is a redirect from "Microsoft antitrust case" as that is often used to refer to the case. Josh 20:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea! Done. - Brian Kendig 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Errors and Facts
This information is inaccurate in a number of ways.
For example, it claims that I produced a second video tape without Dr. Felton or government attorneys being present. This is incorrect. I demonstrated what I stated in my written testimony was correct and Dr. Felton and government attorneys watched me do it -- right into the middle of the night.
The original video tape was edited by the Microsoft legal group -- not me -- just to set the record straight. I was not even present during the filming of the first tape. But I had personally performed the operations proving what was in my testimony so I knew my written testimony was correct. But, I was not involved in the production of the first video tape. I had assumed that the legal group followed the steps perfectly, but instead they had taken short cuts and ended up with an edited tape.
You can check the court transcripts to prove this.
Jim, methinks thou doth protest too much. The import of the article -- that the first video had been edited and that the microsoft claim of a slow-down was dropped after that late-night session -- is correct. Does the entry contain a little anti-MS spin? Yeah, probably. But like it or not, the videotape debacle was not one of the shining moments for MSFT. -- Gnetwerker 07:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I got rid of most of the Anti-MS spin in the last edits. I looked quite a bit while for court documents containing allchin's statements/deposition but couldn't find them. Anyone know where to find them? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I made some major edits/improvements the article. Basides some obvious tense and other problems, here's a summary:
- Rewrote the first paragraph for style and merged in related points from other intro "paragraphs".
- Got rid of "It was also suggested that the bookmarks, search engine, and other links and software provided by default with Internet Explorer were guaranteed to have very high visibility to users.". This doesn't make any sense - what was wrong with the links? As is it reads like someone trying to insinuate something that the person can't really prove with existing facts. Would be nice if this was added back with proper context and verifyability.
- "widely publicised" isn't really true. PARTS of the case were widely publicised, but most didn't reach beyond the computing media. If there's a word this better that would be good. "historic" (the previous) is downiright silly. A better choice might be something like "in a case that garnered national media attention" - somewhat more accurate
- Killed a redundant sentence in the second paragraph about them bundling IE in order to destroy competitors etc. - already stated in the first paragraph, no need to repeat.
- "resulting in consumers being exposed to serious security hazards and other harms" nonsensical removed sentence (and rather redundant too).
- got rid of the timeline - contained a lot of unneccesary and unrelated tidbits such as the EU case (which really deserves its own page) and the many companies with independant suits. I did merge in the relevant stuff from the list that wasn't already there, however
- General prose tighting
I removed this para:
- "It should be noted that with the emergence of affordable broadband connections and the distrbution of complete Linux kernel operating systems over the internet, most popular distributions of Linux are packaged with a web browser (for example, Ubuntu and Red Hat). However, it should also be noted that removing these web browsers in Linux are much easier (and safer) than removing Internet Explorer from Windows.:
This is based on the false premise that the mere bundling of the browser was at issue -- it is not and never was. Bundling of a secondary product with a monopoly product is a violation of anti-trust laws, so the bundling of browsers with Linux systems, which do not have "market power", is immaterial and misleading. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The sentence about Safari needs to be removed as well. This trial happened in 1998, Mac OS X did not exist at the time and neither did Safari (2003). --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Result of case
I think the lead should tell us what the outcome of the case was. -- MarkBuckles 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Antitrust Movie Relation?
this seems to have some correlation to the movie Antitrust (i forget the year it came out in). In the beginning, Gary Winston (the fictitious Bill Gates) is accused of the same crime stated in the case report, of having an unfair monopoly over the computer industry and not promoting healthy competition.
yes,it definitely has co-relations with the 2001 movie >>Antitrust<<  starring Ryan Philippe as a prodigal software programmer and tim robbins as Gary Winston,who owns a computer company NURV.The Gary Winston character is loosely based on bill gates,.
Is the case still on-going?
Hi, I was reading a local tech magazine, and it turns out the MS v. US case is still going on, and they've applied for extensions. Can anyone confirm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC). I think the trial is still going. (126.96.36.199 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
- See the section that says "Settlement". Settlement means it's over. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Read the last paragraph under "Settlement." MS agreed to allow extensions to (parts of?) the remedy past the Nov2007 expiration. 188.8.131.52 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be some glaring problems with the Appeals section. For example, there is this text:
"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave embargoed interviews to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges . "
This is incorrect. They overturned Judge Jackson's Remedies based on many factors, including Jacksons conduct, but also because the Appelate court had severely limited the scope under which the Remedies could be taken. The rulings themselves were overturned because the plaintiff had failed to make their case in regards to the tying and monopolization charges, NOT because of Jackson's conduct.
The way this section is worded sounds like the ruling was overturned on a mere technicality, when there was a lot more reasons given. The conduct really only was important in the replacement of Jackson, and their argument that he should have recused himself, and really had no bearing on the ruling. 184.108.40.206 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I question the use of an external link to the code of conduct. I think judicial codes of conduct is a noteworthy enough thing that it should go to it's own wikipedia page. 220.127.116.11 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nuetrality of the picture
The picture of Gates is hardly neutral. The first frame can be considered as though he has a distaste for legal precedings, the second is irrelevant and thus makes him look stupid, and the fourth can be taken as though he is not taking the trial seriously. Only the third frame is perfectly safe. If this is a Wikipedia user-made picture it needs to be replaced. The file description is a little ambiguous about how the picture was reused from the original -- so I don't know if it was actually a four frame picture or whether a user decided to make a four frame picture to upload. --Teancum (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Lawsuits brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, 18 states, and the District of Columbia in two separate actions..."
This paragraph at the end of the Trial section seems out of place:
The trial was also notable for the use by both the prosecution and the defense of professors of MIT to serve as expert witnesses to bolster their cases. Richard L. Schmalensee, a noted economist and the dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, testified as an expert witness in favor of Microsoft. Franklin Fisher, another MIT economist who was Schmalensee's former doctoral thesis adviser, testified in favor of the Department of Justice.
I checked the reference, and it sounds like there's something interesting going on here, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the article. The paragraph should be expanded or perhaps deleted. This information belongs in a larger discussion of the two professors' statements to the court. Within that context the professors' relationship may be interesting. Without that context this paragraph feels tacked on. Given the facts already presented in the article, it isn't clear why the professional tension between these two witnesses is notable. It may be that their testimony didn't factor into the court's final decision and so doesn't merit mention. If that's the case, maybe this paragraph should be deleted, because it ruins the flow of an otherwise well-written section. If that's not the case, a brief summary of the professors' testimony is needed.
"Predatory Behavior", "Barrier to Entry"
These phrases are placed just before a citation of the case settlement (in the "Settlement" section). I read the source (the text of the settlement), and found that it does not contain these phrases. A comment after the citation says "Mgmwki Verbage indicating Settlement's Objectives", added by Mgmwki , which suggests the source is some (perhaps oral) commentary. That is, this citation is simply incorrect - it doesn't cite what it seems to be citing. So what is the source of these phrases describing the settlement? Who made them, when and where? Hairy Dude (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The citation is still useful, but as a citation of the settlement, which is what it is, so I moved it up to make that clear. This commentary still needs citation (otherwise it counts as original research and does not belong here). Hairy Dude (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I Apologize for not answering sooner.
- "Barrier to Entry" is a Technical Term used in both my (MIT and other Micro Economic TextBook) References, as well as in many other professional articles and duscussions.
- This does not address the problem that these phrases are not mentioned in the settlement text. If it is true that the settlement terms were intended to 'prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"', we need to show some evidence of this, since Wikipedia cannot engage in independent commentary (also called original research). (By the way, I took the liberty of making your comments conform to talk page guidelines.) Hairy Dude (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I marked a session unbalanced since the quotes from the sources are skewed in an anti-Microsoft direction. The sources quoted are mostly primary sources (mostly news reporting too close to the events) and the quotes does not reflect the events in a neutral manner. Useerup (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Settlement Section not updated since MAY 2006?
Requested move 2
I have done multi-tagging before, and I realize that doing so is not the only answer. I was advised to fix content myself. So what's wrong with this article... well, besides the title? --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've explained a bit below. An example of a factual error. The previous infobox identified the panel as including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, except in 2001 she was sitting on the Supreme Court. Instead of recognizing that Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit was Douglas H. Ginsburg, Ruth was added to the case.
- That's just one of the more obvious errors. The lede doesn't summarize the article. The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten. 02:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I had primarily dealt with this article merely as regards the title, and decided to look over it. Once I did I realized that the article is WP:CRAP.
- The cited case is a middle appellate case in the litigation. The case started out at:
- District Court, finding of monopoly and order of remedial action (97 F.Supp.2d 59);
- direct appeal to Supreme Court denied and remanded to appeals court (530 U.S. 1301);
- D.C. Circuit (253 F.3d 34) (the case this article covers);
- rehearing denied and cert. denied (not reported in F.3d and 534 U.S. 952);
- District Court on remand (231 F.Supp.2d 144);
- motion to intervene denied (not reported in F.Supp.2d);
- second motion to intervene denied (not reported in F.Supp.2d);
- aff'd in part, rev'd in part by D.C. Circuit (373 F.3d 1199).
None of this is explained, and it does not look like anyone who has a clue of what is meant by procedural history participated in the editing of the article. The issues are not explained. The legal rule is not addressed. All the refs, while apparently reliable, address this from a computing standpoint, while this is a legal issue. Unsurprisingly, the actual facts are often in error due to this, which is why WP:MOSLAW recommends using both primary and secondary sources for legal articles. The citation style is also a mess.
This article needs to be redone, preferably by someone with at least some knowledge of the law.02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just reverted a long list of tags from the top of the article. I'm sure the editor means well, and wants to help improve the article, but they have to realise that for readers and prospective fellow-editors coming to an article that begins in that way, it just looks like a screenful of bile. I'm sure the editor realises that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where people work together on article text by consensus. You can't easily do that when you start with a screenful of criticism like that. In order to encourage others to want to help improve this article, I suggest we start with one constructive suggestion - a sentence or two of proposed article text with a good citation, say - and work on from there. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on my comments above, I added Expert needed tag. I will go through and identify information on each specific tag and re-tag, since you want specifics on each area.21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, you misread me. I asked for 'a sentence or two of proposed article text with a good citation', not more tags. You seem to have misread your recent tag too: it says, "Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article," and you haven't done that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, actually I have addressed it. My comment above, from yesterday stated it perfectly:
- "That's just one of the more obvious errors. The lede doesn't summarize the article. The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten." Is that somehow unclear? I am addressing a reason for each tag on this talk page. 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, actually I have addressed it. My comment above, from yesterday stated it perfectly:
Lede rewrite tag
I've re-added the Lede re-write tag. The lede doesn't summarize the article. It is written like an introduction and stops at the start of the case at the District Court.21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Expert attention needed
The article isn't about the middle appellate case, it is about the entire series of court actions. It covers the bench trial, but never explains it is a bench trial. The procedural history is never covered, nor are the legal issues. It needs to be completely rewritten.21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
FN 1. Reference no longer shows a "History of IE" and does not support the referenced text. May be replaced with Derek Ferguson, Mobile.NET, pp. 23-42, (2001).21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Settlement section does not contain sufficient information
I have to say that the section is not coherently organized and should really be rewritten. First telling about the actual settlement, then what Microsoft's obligations were under it, and then what people said about it.
It is not even clear when the settlement expired. Was it 2007? or was it extended till 2012 or was only part of it extended till 2012 or did that not even happen?
What I looked up to see about was the question of Microsoft not being able to coerce computer makers to install MS Windows on their machines. I noticed that this had started happening again in 2013 and there it was impossible to purchase a PC with any other operating system installed although it had been 2 years ago. So, it would be of some interest to know when Section III. A. I. of the final judgement expired and perhaps some discussion of the issue as to whether it was ever properly enforced.