Government Gives Microsoft Offer Thumbs Down

Robotech_Master writes: "This Wired News article has the details: the government thinks very little of Microsoft's own planned remedy, and in fact claims all its proposed meaures amount to 'nothing.' Hardly a surprise, but interesting all the same. " Today was the day that Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and MS were having a hearing to discuss "remedies." Not suprisingly, the government and Microsoft see things differently. Amazing. Hey, who's looking forward to several more years of incessant appeals and hearings? I thought so.

Comments

Bundling

[Convergence]

You have a claim that there was a benefit in forcing OEM's to install the `free' IE 3.0 into Win95. Just because it has benefits isn't enough. There are lots of benefits in bundling (say) a free version of Visual Studio, or a free version of Office into every install of Win98/Win2k. Why didn't they (then) pay netscape and bundle a free copy with every install of 95, instead of spending billions on their own web browser?

Why does Microsoft not do the first two bundlings? Because it would be anticompetetive and be the death-knell for every other office suite manufacturer, and applications development platform? Or do they not do it because they would make less money? Or do they not do it because they realize that this argument is a slippery slope. If they slide down too far within this 'bundling' idea, they'll be within range of the DoJ alligator and get bitten in half?

Software is software and so unlike the physical world because it is infinitely malleable. It is obvious that it's a stupid idea for your power company to 'bundle' a TV with their service. or for the grocery store to 'bundle' automobiles.

With malleable software and OS's, it's hard to divide between 'core system software' and applications. It doesn't sound nonsensical to 'tie' office into Win2k, or to 'tie' outlook or the web browser into it.

There are several GOOD reason's for tying office into Win2k. Finer integration, If it would benefit consumers,

Nonsense (was: Re:I think Microsoft will win)

[cjr]

Perhaps you should read something other than your own corporate propaganda.
Concerning the benefits of integrating Windows and MSIE, read Boies interrogation of Allchin where Allchin had to admit point by point that the claimed benefits would be available by separate distribution also. The trial brought up facts that countered Microsoft's claims about the benefits of integration where two of the three judges of the Appeals Court wrote their conclusion without doing as much as bothering with relevant facts.
As for your silly analysis of the role of the Netscape browser, why not talk about the obvious: if a killer application is in principle available for multiple platforms it will lower the applications barrier to entry in the operating systems market. Note that contrary to Netscape, Microsoft does not port applications to operating systems cheaper than Windows.

Furthermore, making exclusive deals on the basis of monopoly power is not ever "pro-competitive", just as not shooting people is not a philantropic act. At best a marketing act would be "competitive", although in this case it is merely not declared illegal.

Now that we have arrived at your use of Newspeak, and given your "many slashdot readers" line, I think it is not out of line to attribute some claims of the Microsoft company line to you.

1. a.) An operating system can be written by a single person in a short period of time, without this person having previously marketed anything, which shows that there is intensive competition. b.) Windows could only have been written by Microsoft's spending of many billions of dollars and only because Microsoft also produced a text processor, a spreadsheet, a flat database application - and whatever else is in MS Office nowadays.

2. a.) Linux is a serious competitor on the desktop for Microsoft and there are advanced applications in all categories for the Linux desktop (testimony under oath of Paul Maritz). b.) Linux on the desktop is unrealistic.

3. a.) In no industry there is so much competition as in the software markets Microsoft operates in. b.) There is no viable replacement for Microsoft's products now and there won't be in any short term, so any harm to Microsoft will bring significant harm to the global economy at large.

I wish you and your fellows would at some time accept the logical rule of "not (A and not A)". Alas, you don't and won't. Not accepting rules of logic makes any form of discussion with you and your fellows a waste of time.

Split them up along product lines

[the_other_one]

Bug Free Software

Solitare

Freecell

Minesweeper

Notepad

Broken Sofware to be open sourced

everything else

Re:I think Microsoft will win

[Chris Siegler]

With respect to the second charge, I feel Microsoft stands a good chance of being granted relief by the Appeals Court. In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated.

I haven't been following the trial, and so I'm not at all swayed by this argument because your point is moot (IANAL but I like any word that makes you sound like a cow).

You need to re-read Jackson's conclusions. Microsoft is a monopoly, but he states that in order to be found liable you need to show anticompetative practices that were used to maintain the monopoly.

Netscape fit that bill. As middleware, the browser could offer an API to developers that could be used instead of Windows API. Unlike a competing OS, the chicken-and-egg problem is solved since it's already deployed on nearly every user's computer.

Jackson states that Microsoft realized that developer's "realiance on Netscape's platform would depend largely on the size and trajectory of Netscape's share of browser usage". Thus Microsoft used exclusionary deals with OEMs and eventually integration with the OS as a means to tie up the easy means of distributions for Netscape and crush their market share.

And realize that if this is to overturned, it will be on appeal, not a new trial. I don't know law, but I know that overturning a decision is a lot harder.

Besides, I'd think you'd welcome the break-up. I think that it will eventually make Microsoft better. And I'll still run Linux ;-)

Re:Sorry, but I cannot in good conscience agree

[Zagato-sama]

First off, there is a call for apple machines without MacOS. I for one would love a Powerbook running Windows 2000. The G3/4 processor while having horrible yields is quite good. Just because you don't see a purpose in having Macs without MacOS doesn't mean others don't. Obviously someone found the need for Linux, therefore LinuxPPC was created.

Apple "develops" the hardware in the same way Compaq, Packard Bell, or Dell do, the procesors are made by mottorolla, the video cards by ATI, the hard drives are standard issue, etc. They add miniscule changes that serve only to add a "Personalized touch"

And no, companies do not pay the "Microsoft Tax" if they don't carry Windows xxxx products. It's that simple. Once again, look at pricewatch.com Plenty of companies can be found who sell 1) just hardware 2) complete systems with no OS attached

Of course the bigger PC makers pay a tax if they carry other OS/software competing with Microsoft. Find a large grocery store that carries both Coke and Pepsi, I sure can't. If you want a discount then you have to bend over backwards, otherwise you pay the same price as everyone else. You scratch my back, I scratch your's, it's that simple.

"So, come clean, do you work for or are you affiliated in any way with Microsoft? "

I work for SGI, that's about as far away from Microsoft as it gets.

Imagine

[Reality Master 101]

Imagine there's no Microsoft
It's easy if you try
No DOS below us
Above us only Linus
Imagine all the people
Using Linux today

Imagine no OS companies
It isn't hard to do
No crashes to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Playing Quake in peace

You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I hope someday you'll surf by
And Unix will finally be as one

Imagine no software possessions
I wonder if RMS can
No need for greed or hoarding
A brotherhood of Webs
Imagine all the people
Sharing MP3s

You may say I'm a dreamer
But Slashdot is full of them
I'm hope someday BSD will join us
And the Unix world shall live as one.

Note: A humble effort, dedicated to the living memory of Trollmastah.

--

Billion dollar game of chicken

[348]

This was allways a billion dollar game of chicken between the Clinton administration and M$. Clinton and Co. succumbed to the pressures of lobbyists shortly after the infomas Netscape letter which just happened to be in line with Gore and Ms. Clinton campaign supporters. Gates and M$ formally have NEVER backed either party. Gates was invited to the White House on several occcaisions and courted in hopes he and M$ would contribute. They did not.

Shortly after the bulldog Reno was sicked on M$ and a modified special investigator statute was passed to look into the anti-trust issues Netscape brought up.

I firmly beleive that this is a little payback to M$ for not being a Gore or H. Clinton supporter in the upcoming campains.

And I can't agree with you.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Corporations aren't individuals. They're creations of the State.

The State grants the people who form corproations an immunity from claims against their own finances beyond what they invested in the corporation. To qualify for this privilege (and it IS a privilege) the corporation must operate under certain rules.

One of the rules is that if the corporation manages to obtain monopoly power in a market (and this does NOT mean a total monopoly - just enough to do certain things that would otherwise not be possible), there are extra limits on what they are allowed to do.

Much of the puropse of these limits is to keep them from using their monopoly power in one market segment to compete "unfairly" in another.

Microsoft's executives broke this rule, which is part of their corporation's license to evade personal liability for their actions. They did it willfully and repeatedly. Their victims complained. They got caught and convicted.

Now the corporation and its investors (who have the power to chose and depose the management and who invested or stayed invested knowing what they were joining and risking) must take the punishment.