Slashdot Mirror

Its only ever been effective during the browser wars

Lest we forget, the others including:

- Novell Netware
- Wordperfect
- PC/DR DOS & OS / 2

It's really hard to have an intelligent exchange just about anywhere, and you're becoming a poster child as to why.

Ever hear of "embrace, extend, extinguish"? Microsoft built in browser incompatibilities with an object tag for ActiveX to make sure Netscape and Opera performed poorly (Opera sued for that), MSN.com even served a different CSS to Opera visitors to make it look broken, for a while, you saw a blank screen on msn.com unless your user-agent string said MSIE, they extended and broke CSS favoring their own -ms- property extensions, they broke Java in browsers with J/Direct, they created Java development tools that stripped away all the cross platform intentions of Java (Sun sued for that), they planned to extinguish the HTML standard with their own free browser to "cut off Netscape's air supply" (Paul Maritz revealed this in a meeting with Intel), they extended and broke Kerberos to lock out other platforms from Windows 2000, they embraced and extended the AOL IM protocol to make AOL's own IM software stop working, they made a mess out of ISO-9660 with their Joliet extension (so you only see the 8.3 names in other platforms), they told Intel to withdraw VDI and threatened PC makers if they implemented it (look up Steven McGeady's testimony), Bill Gates told Andy Grove to shut down the Intel Architecture Labs driving CPU level Internet technologies without Microsoft's permission, Intel had to kill NSP, kill Java support, stop support for Netscape - all part of their illegal restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs to favor Microsoft and harm everything else, they signed up OEMs for a rebate on installing Windows on PCs in exchange for a fee they had to pay for any PC they sold without Windows, effectively making a PC without bundling Windows more expensive for the OEM to make (anti-competitive and illegal), Microsoft threatened Apple unless they abandoned the ability of QuickTime to play multimedia content on computers (they refused and Microsoft sabotaged QuickTime's functionality on Windows with misleading error messages and technical changes or bugs so that QuickTime software sometimes didn't work properly on Windows), they stuffed an ISO standards body to make OOXML (a compendium of Microsoft proprietary undefined digital glop) a "standard" which only they controlled (instead of the truly available ODF standard), Microsoft had fully developed FUD as a marketing strategy (announcing nonexistent products to head off something a competitor actually made or claiming competitive software will crash Windows), If you’ve bought a new PC lately, it probably came equipped with something called “Secure Boot” (UEFI), a feature which prevents you from running anything but Windows on the PC...

These people aren't very nice, relying on a mix of brilliant marketing, threats against OEMs (Microsoft thought they owned any PC right down to the metal), failings of competitors, vaporware and fraudulent illusions. Sure, Netscape had problems and so did Microsoft. They earned their success with their best office productivity software, but their biggest success came from bending everyone over and fucking them, including the customers. Good competition could have been here a lot sooner.

My understanding is that the wrote J++ with the specific intent to not allow JVM compatibility, but only with their own JVM implementation. That's a fair bit more than just adding language extensions, y'know? From the EU's research on this stuff

“[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more
advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java
apps.”
  —Microsoft’s Thomas Reardon

And from the NYTimes article on this:

Microsoft also licensed Java from Sun in 1996, but later began adding modifications to the code. The resulting Microsoft version of Java is tailored to run only on Windows, which negates the cross-platform purpose of Java. Sun has a civil suit pending against Microsoft on this issue, charging contract violation and unfair business practices.

The list of highly questionable if not outright illegal activities is very long:

You can start here with "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

and then move on to a catalog of their attacks on standards:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

and then any of these:
Illegal tying: http://www.ecis.eu/documents/ECISPressStatementonOperaSO1.pdf
Unethical marketing: http://www.nearsoft.com/blog/MS-test.html
Antitrust: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/600488.stm

Or these:
http://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/Kerberos-PACs-And-Microsofts-Dirty-Tricks
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_tric_1.html
http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/368660.stm
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/06/08/23/1251210/Microsoft-Admonished-by-US-District-Court-Judge
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-tried-to-muck-with-anti-linux-facts/235
http://www.zdnet.com/news/fact-and-fiction-in-the-microsoft-sco-relationship/139743
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
http://lproven.livejournal.com/102128.html
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7654

The list of highly questionable if not outright illegal activities is very long:

You can start here with "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

and then move on to a catalog of their attacks on standards:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

and then any of these:
Illegal tying: http://www.ecis.eu/documents/ECISPressStatementonOperaSO1.pdf
Unethical marketing: http://www.nearsoft.com/blog/MS-test.html
Antitrust: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/600488.stm

Or these:
http://slashdot.org/story/00/05/02/158204/Kerberos-PACs-And-Microsofts-Dirty-Tricks
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_tric_1.html
http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/368660.stm
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/06/08/23/1251210/Microsoft-Admonished-by-US-District-Court-Judge
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-tried-to-muck-with-anti-linux-facts/235
http://www.zdnet.com/news/fact-and-fiction-in-the-microsoft-sco-relationship/139743
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110
http://lproven.livejournal.com/102128.html
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7654

Sure, but that was just Bill Gates demonstrating to Intel how he could bring down the sales of Intel chips by offering his OS for other chips like PPC or DEC Alpha. All because Intel said they were interested in supporting Java in hardware. When Intel backed down (see page 14), suddenly Microsoft lost interest in other chip architectures.

'By understanding Microsoft's history of anticompetitive conduct, developers, consumer groups, and government authorities will be better equipped to recognize current and future Microsoft misconduct at an early stage and intervene to prevent Microsoft from using tactics other than competition on the merits'

Recommended reading (PDF)

"[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps." --Microsoft's Thomas Reardon

"Please give me one good reason why we should even consider [enabling Microsoft technology to work on competing systems]. (Hint: any good answer needs to include making more money and helping kill Unix, Sybase or Oracle.)" --James Allchin, Microsoft Senior Vice-President

The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead. ... It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties... Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.

"The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'" --Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager

"This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven't changed our business practices at all." -- Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and then-CEO (1995)

Much more here: Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm

(PDF) http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

His philanthropic accomplishments are certainly praiseworthy, but it's worth remembering that his vast wealth was mainly accumulated with some really unpleasent business tactics.

See "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"

http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
 

Jobs has led his company through fewer, but still not close to zero, unpleasant business tactics. On a personal note, he goes out of his way to make his employees unhappy. He's also fabulously wealthy, and he doesn't give significant money to charity, where Gates has so far given half of his wealth away. Gates seems like the rather bad for some other businesses and good for the people he's affected, where Jobs is moderately bad for other businesses (or perhaps much worse, considering the inability of other companies to produce make clones) and terrible for the people he directly affects.

His philanthropic accomplishments are certainly praiseworthy, but it's worth remembering that his vast wealth was mainly accumulated with some really unpleasent business tactics.

See "A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm"
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Whilst I congratulate the man for subsidising research and giving to worthy causes I have to wonder if he would do so much if he was not one of the worlds richest man.

Your evidence and the EU is too vague and bullshitish to even constitute Anti-trust violation.

My evidence? I'm merely stating some facts. If you want the actual evidence, perhaps you should look it up for yourself. Here is a good place to start if you wish to educate yourself.

You can bundle any products you want and MS did. The nature of the bundle was not violating anti-trust laws in any way shape or form. A company is not legally obligated to support their competitors and this judgment does just that.

Actually, you can't bundle any products you want if you are in a dominant position like Microsoft is. The nature of the bundle was likely violating antitrust law (the ruling has not yet been made, mind you), because Microsoft has definitely undermined competition in the browser market by abusing its dominance in the OS market.

It forces MS to ensure their competitors safety, because they made bad choices.

So what you are saying is that there should be no consequences if you break the law?

All this nonsense over a so called bundle, when the average consumer can barely operate a computer is moot.

So-called bundle? Are you denying that IE is bundled with Windows? And how is the average consumer's computer skills relevant?

The EC didn't take into account all factors and made a premature judgment.

What factors? The EC has not made a ruling yet, but did state its preliminary view that it does look like Microsoft broke the law. After issuing the statement where they found there was ground for further followup on the issue, they started gathering more data. This includes responses from Microsoft.

If the average person was capable of using linux or knew wtf a library was, then use, abuse of dominance could be shown.

This case is about browsers, not operating systems.

If you wanted Netscape, then ask them to manage better instead of mismanaging. A company can not and should not be responsible for its competitors survival, it goes against the very nature of business.

Netscape is not the only victim of Microsoft's illegal actions.

If you decide against, let Magacorp know immediately. Then get back to work, pronto. Looking back, second thoughts and re-negotiations are distractions, too. Let Megacorp know that your decision is final.

And get working on market share fast. If megacorp is Microsoft , they have a history of taking what they don't buy.

There. Fixed that for you.

Other than those typos, you're spot on. The offer to buy is often more a threat for extortion. See Sendo and a long list of corpses. Over the years, MS has taken what was a diverse and thriving industry and killed it through secret APIs and undocumented formats and protocols, price dumping and giveaways, and predatory marketing.

I don't think cost had that much to do with OS/2's failure. ...

It didn't. One reason was that since OS/2 was partially developed by what became IBM's competitor, the rights were partially controlled by said competitor. Further, that while that competitor had been working on its own OS to go against OS/2, IBM was under the belief that the competitor was developing OS/2 applications as agreed upon. Near the release date, no applications and, oh BTW, a competing system...

IBM wasn't the first or last to be suckered by M$. Burst, Sendo, SendIT, Stac Electronics, Be Inc, and many others bit the dust as the result of not treating MFTers with the distrust they warrant.

ECIS, celebrating its 20th anniversary, has published good, but short, summary of Microsoft's history of anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm.

Avoiding Wintel is not just good security, it's good business.

"I think that MS's behavior is only seen as anti-competitive because they happen to own such a massive share of the market" anonymous astroturfer

'Microsoft's conduct over the last two decades has demonstrated Microsoft's willingness and ability to engage in unlawful conduct to protect and extend its core monopolies'

'The only real difference between Microsoft's more recent practices and its earlier ones is that, as Mr. Gates predicted, Microsoft has now changed its document retention practices'

"do not archive your mail. 30 days .. This is not something that you get to decide. This is company policy"

'Btw, I'm a Linux user .. and IMO linux has a ways to go before it's "desktop-ready"', anonymous astroturfer

Sure you are, and what can't 'Linux' do yet for the average user, email, browsing, typing and viewing videos.

Since the article mentions Microsoft's attempts to undermine competing businesses, here's an interesting link to the Eupean Committee for Interoperable Systems' (ECIS) article "Microsoft: A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm" (PDF): http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf Published on 2009-03-31. Required reading. :-)

Actually, to nitpick, capitalism failed spectacularly a while back, at least once, being one of the first methods to fail during the 1900's. Yet it gets propped up again and again. The last centuries have shown us that no single model works. However, there is strong evidence to show that the best pieces of several models can be combined and used together as a sort of Middle Path.

Microsoft is a good example of a company that takes profit from the "loopholes" of capitalism.

Be that as it may, no system can do well with the kind of abuse the MSFT movement is dishing out. The economic damage caused by MS has spread far beyond the IT sector and into nearly every branch of business and government.

By using lock in to their proprietary formats and bundling IE and WMP in the OS, they've achieved to keep for a long time more than 90% of market share on a wide range of products, to force people to upgrade and pay them more money, and all that without innovating (if you really look at their products, you'll see that in the last 5 years they didn't introduce any new feature worth buying, mostly cosmetic changes only). All that just using dirty tactics by making sure no one could create programs compatible or interoperatable with theirs.

I do believe in a free market, but this market we have with Microsoft is anything but free. And I do think governments have the responsability to level the playing field here.

Governments do have the legal responsibility to level the playing field. It's been tried in 1996-1998-2008, 1999-2004-2007, to point out two of the ongoing legal threads, but so far the governments have been all bark and no bite.

The end result from national and local government intervention to-date: nothing but delay.

We have twenty years of governments not being able to force the MS movement to do anything, so it's unlikely to happen now. The situation is unlikely to improve until software users, especially larger customers, vote with their wallets. Until then they are just feeding money into making the problem persist and even grown. Not that a lot of MS 'revenue' doesn't come from buying / selling / issuing its own stock, but adding to it through using the products and services doesn't send a message of disapproval.

Seems like European Comission has learned something about Microsoft's previous four announcements. Excerpt:

The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.

ECIS's Thomas Vinje has also issued a statement that is worth reading.