An overview of the united states government versus microsoft on the case of monopoly

Gates inas the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation of his company. But nobody joked on the third day of April,as Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson delivered his decision on what had morphed into the biggest software antitrust case in history:

An overview of the united states government versus microsoft on the case of monopoly

Indeed, as he has total power over issuance of certificates, he is now a major source of weakness, reflecting great stress on the word 'trust'. The expansion of complexity is not just in the numerical sense of from two parties to three. As well as being a source of technical weakness, the existence of the TTP requires sophisticated techniques of governance - standards, best practices, auditing - to be brought into the security model.

There are very few observers or critics capable of isolating dependencies between the governance side and the technical side, and vice versa, and then closing the loop on those requirements. In more specific terms, one would not look to an audit firm for advice on cryptography, and one would not look to cryptographers for advice on auditing.

The result is that the practical extent of the PKI system is strained beyond the plausible limits of comprehension.

An overview of the united states government versus microsoft on the case of monopoly

The Centralised Vulnerability Party These above factors will result in lowered security and need to be balanced against any benefit in security gained by the presence of the TTP.

Indeed, as he has total power over issuance of certificates, he is now a major source of weakness, placing great stress on the word 'trust'. Instead of the marketing hope that you trust the TTP, you the user are forced to trust.

You have no choice, and are vulnerable to this central, all-powerful party. In practice this means that even though a root might be delivered as a self-signed certificate, that signature is not checked by the signature validations on a subsidiary cert. From a logical point of view this makes sense, as a signature on ones own key has little merit in cryptography or security at a higher level.

However, there are dangers here; the self-signature has many engineering ramifications. For example in the PGP world, this was required to eliminate a potential attack. In the PKI world, using self-signed certificates is indicated any time the infrastructure and software is to be used where trust should not be outsourced.

One of these engineering ramifications is the single point of failure. As the root cannot operate on itself, it cannot revoke itself. There is then one simple attack that cannot be dealt with which is to compromise the root.

Rather than deal with this by simply permitting an engineering solution of revoking the root and thus addressing the single point of failure, PKI takes the logical path and states that this is not possible.

This has lead on the face of it to a very strong claim that the root must be protected at all costs. Offline protection, secure hardware, trusted parties and the full weight of governance designs are found in the makeup of the Certificate Authority, reflecting the need to deal with the full ramifications of the single point of failure.

This raises costs significantly; stating that the root must never be compromised immediately creates a very expensive requirement, and feeds directly into barriers to entry c. There is one more effect that is significant. A single point of failure has important ramifications in finance, military and government sectors.

Large, slow sectors that face intensive external scrutiny do not in general accept single points of failure. In a sense, any sector that thinks about disaster recovery would be a poor fit for PKI. This unfortunately results in a clash of revenue models, because such sectors are often the only ones that can afford the highly expensive protections needed by the single point of failure.The Justice Department and the states believe that Microsoft has used its monopoly in operating system software to protect its dominance and eliminate competitors.

The government says that in the long run, consumers will be harmed, because there will be less competition and fewer choices. U.S. v. Microsoft: Timeline. finding that Microsoft held monopoly power and used it to harm consumers, rivals, and other companies.

The final day of the government's case. In a climactic. I know you’re not serious, but This reminds me of something Kenzi said this weekend in California, which is that her least favorite kind of CFAR applicant is the one who says “I have come up with the optimal plan for how to improve my life and the world, but instead of .

The Microsoft Antitrust Case* by Nicholas Economides** Revised April 2, Abstract This paper analyzes the law and economics of United States v. Reflects the impact of the net revenue deferral from Windows 10 of $ billion, which decreased operating income, net income, and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) by $ billion, $ billion, and $, respectively.

Creating Letterheads with Microsoft Word - Creating Letterheads with Microsoft Word What you will write under this heading is the equivalent of the feasibility study which looks at the existing business practice and the problems associated with it.

U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact | ATR | Department of Justice