Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Delay Appeal
cheesethegreat was the first to submit that Microsoft has lost their appeal to delay their case by requesting a review with the Supreme Court. We mentioned the appeal a few weeks ago. The link doesn't say much more than that the appeals court denied the delay.
Yes, you do. In court-ordered breakups due to the violation of antitrust laws, there are very harsh restrictions on what the resulting companies can do. One of those restrictions would most definately be working together. They'd also probably ban aquisitions of other companies as well as cross-licensing. If they do a breakup, it'll be tough.
Other things that I feel should be done are.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
There have been several suggested remedies, like splitting Microsoft into N pieces, nuke the Redmond Campus, conduct remedies, etc.
But instead, quite simple:
To begin:
All COTS software used by the US government will exchange data in fully documented, non royalty encumbered formats. Only special-order software may use proprietary or secret formats, and special order software may not be used where the function exists in COTS equivalents.
All wired and wireless protocols used by the US government for public exchange of information will be fully documented and non royalty bearing. Exchange of secret data will be fully documented and non royalty bearing, but that information will be classified to the same secrecy level as the data, and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Microsoft Windows has achieved "utility" status in the PC marketplace. To that end:
All terms of all contracts regarding sales and licensing of Windows will be available for public scrutiny.
Contracts for sales and licensing may not contain terms that exclude competitors and potential comptitors, such as per-system or exclusive usage.
Simple, but effective. (IMHO)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How come slashdot only supports open source, and if you support windows, you are modded down as flambait? You know and I know it, so you can mod me down now...
Severl liberetarian /. readers (like myslef) have said time and time again "so what if MS has a monopoly. It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true. But there's another point to make. This so-called monopoly is pretty damn limited.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever. They don't have a monopoly (yet) on server OSes. They don't have the embedded market wrapped up (even though they're trying). They don't make the omst popular pvr (tivo). They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86. The resources are there, and available. All thats standing in the way is consumer demand and the market's desire to relative uniformity and compatibility. If the market loses interest in MS, MS loses its hold. the market is still in power, not the company. This isn't like oil or the phone lines - microsoft doesn't have all the raw mateirals locked up. There is a freaking difference.
End rant.
BTW - I'm no MS troll. I can't stand most MS products (earlier versions of word and to an extent win2k aside) and find its business practices offensive (just not illegal).
Of course it took a long time, and no one expected it quite to work that way, and it's not quite there yet...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Many Slashdotters seem to have missed the point of what this case was about. This case isn't about Microsoft Office, or Microsoft just being too big, or Microsoft not innovating, or their products sucking...
This is about bundling. Windows XP bundles replacements the top software of the past year, in an attempt to kill it. CD burners, audio players w/ plug-ins, audio/video codecs, web browsers. This is why they have monopoly power. See where realaudio, winamp, EZ CD Creator, DIVX, Netscape/Mozilla are in 3 years when everybody has XP. Why bother to buy/download those products?
Splitting MS into Office & Windows doesn't resolve it. The their apps, tools, utilities, and development software must be split apart.
Right now users are getting a lot of stuff included for free.
___NOTHING___ Microsoft "gives away" is free (well, unless you're a pirate. Oy matie! [would that be a Jewish pirate?]), and it upsets me to hear that being said or perceived. Every single widget or fancy that Microsoft builds to wipe some company out of business COSTS CONSUMERS. Windows Me, which is a minor facelift of Windows 98SE, which was a minor facelift of Windows 98, which was a minor facelift of Windows 95, costs $180 new or $90 as an upgrade, despite the overwhelming majority of the technology being paid for many times previously (and despite the presumed efficiency of numbers), but Microsoft needs to continue to rake in the dough to put all of those other companies out of business with the "free" IE, the "free" Media Player, the "free" Netmeeting, etc. The problem is that even if the user does opt to buy and install 3rd party software, most of it doesn't exist because Microsoft has abused their monopoly position and pushed companies in many other software fields out of business as they provide their services "for free", and the customer is already paying for the "free" software that Microsoft is providing. Even if you don't buy or use Microsoft software, Microsoft also subsidizes their monopoly with the Office suite, so think about the costs that countless businesses you do deal with are paying to subsidize putting Netscape et. all out of business.
Microsoft is not like any other software company out there: They control the desktop space, they have enormous money, and they have shown a willingness to abuse their monopoly will little regard for perceptions or legalities. Comparing Microsoft with a car company, of which you can choose between Ford, Honda, GM (many brands), Toyota, Hyundai, etc. etc. etc. (and of each of those you have countless models to choose from) is pure folly.
Let me give a better analogy: Say your telephone company, of which there is only one and there is no real competition (sure there's a couple of other companies with a micro portion of the saturation, but if you sign up with them you can only call customers on their network, and because all your friends and neighbours use the monopoly you stick with it...the old chicken/egg, and it's the concept of a monopoly to begin with), decides that they feel threatened by the local newspaper (maybe the newspaper has supported competing phone companies, or they've talked about legislation) so they start providing a "free" newspaper to all of the cities residents versus the outrageous $1 a day of the competitor, and, oh yeah, coincidentally they have to raise rates 20% because of "increased costs". NOTHING that ANY business "gives" away is free, and whether you realize it or not you are paying for it. The outrage comes if you are being forced to pay for it because of an abused monopoly position, and that is why the situation is as it is right now.
that is just bad, insted of just one MS there will be multiple MSs that could do the exact same thing that they did before, thistime however, there will be a "Standards" group to ensure that each company is on the same page, then watch, one comapny drops one thing like the OS the other drops whatever the first took up full time and the last will create libraries, file formats and APIs for the first 2, how does this help anything?
.NET on thier own terms.
the baby bell worked because they were constrained by regions, MS would not be since they sell a product not a service that depends on phone lines and cables.
the best thing to do is to open the file formats and APIs, then foce MS to document any and all changes well so anyone can use them, also, forcing MS cese its browser design and to uncomingel it from the OS would be a plus to the web as it would hinder MSs ability to deploy
with software companies you need to weeken them not split them.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Microsoft will find a way to delay this until the end of the world.
A delay would have put this trial off by what, a couple of weeks? Wonderful. This trial, and mark my words, will last longer than the O.J. debacle. This will be a 3-year long trial, while Microsoft calls in experts, and the DoJ calls in rebuttal experts, on and on ad absurdium.
We're never going to see a just resolution to this, so what does it matter if they aren't delayed a few weeks?
I just noticed that CNN has the headline "Delay Denied" for this article on Xbox manufacturing delays in the SCI-TECH section, in addition to the current main headline "Court Denies Microsoft Delay" on the front page.
Now if they wanted, they could use one headline for both articles -- think of the savings in, um... well... headlines.
Reading your message made me start to think about why open-source and/or free software has not made more inroads than it has...
Star Office is about the best example I can think of at this point. If the os or free commmunity want people to begin using their software it must be baby steps for the end user. Myself, I am comfortable hacking my way through my PC. The rest of the users in my office couldn't do it. Why not focus some attention on software for Windows? I know this sounds like blasphemy, however, if you can get users to get used to the application on Windows then the switch to Linux/something else on the desktop would be significantly easier if the interface was the same for the application. The problem is people are being asked to give up *everything* they already know, OS, Apps, and more to make the change to Linux. If there was a Windows-based office suite for starters (Star Office... maybe?) that could compete with MS Office in terms of usability and compatibility without rocking the boat in terms of interface, I could deploy it to my users and have them accept. Then when it comes time to replace their PC I can consider Linux because they are familiar with the application and we've taken one step already.
Well, because business consumers actually LIKE having Microsoft around to somewhat standardize things. They would just pick the Micro~? that had Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer working at it as the "preferred" one, and only buy from them. The other two would be forced to sell their warez to consumers in walmart. Furthermore, the weakest one would just be bought up and crushed by Sun or someone to get MS's intellectual property.
How about this? The federal government should stop being one of Microsoft's best customers.
Imposing fines on a monopoly is a joke too, the costs just get passed on to the customer who doesn't have any choices.
It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true.
No, it's not. The government has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, Microsoft, as a corporation, is the creation of the government. Its very existence is due to law, and the power the government has to regulate commercial matters. You can argue that the Sherman act is unconstitutionally vague (and I'll agree with you there), but it isn't possible to argue with a straight face that the government has no right to regulate Microsoft, or to pass and enforce antitrust law.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever.
Sorry to break it to you, but those platforms are mostly targeted at entirely different roles than the x86. They're just a different market. Even if you include MacOS, Microsoft has more than enough market power to qualify as a monopoly. For the millionth time: 100% market share is not necessary to be a monopoly.
They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
Desktop OS's. Web browsers. Office suites. Development tools. Would you like me to go on?
They monopolize a hell of a lot more than one area. And I assume you meant limited, given that it's the OS monopoly that's allowed the others.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86.
Sure, they're free to. They're also free to watch it tank, since no one can compete with Microsoft's MONOPOLY. How many significantly superior products have utterly failed to compete with Microsoft due to the power and cash the OS monopoly has given them? OEM lockins. Infinite cash flow allowing them to keep incrementally improving substandard software that would have been long sincecancelled by any other company. Leaning on the trade press. The fact that no other OS has enough volume to make it profitable to sell applications for it. All of these are barriers to entry erected by Microsoft's MONOPOLY status. No matter how superior an OS, a browser, an office suite is, it will never gain more than niche status on the desktop. And the number of markets dominated or destroyed by Microsoft will only increase. You don't have to be prevented from supplying a product, you have to be prevented from watching your product succeed. Much like the current conditions of the desktop OS market, hmmm?
Finally, the extremely Microsoft-friendly appeals court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Deal with it.
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I don't get it.
Then..
It's a wonder his nose hasn't grown a yard by now. Is anyone still unclear on _why_ Gates and Microsoft enjoy such a negative following on Slashdot?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Its not a novel issue of law, circuits are not split on the issues involved, and its not a important constitutional question.
Fight Spammers!