Microsoft Antitrust Update

You can't help but know that Microsoft and the Department of Justice (plus several of the states that joined in the suit) are attempting to settle their antitrust dispute. The rest of the states are holding out for a settlement with more teeth, or a continuation of the case. A few links from the past few days: The LA Times looks at the states still opposing Microsoft. Microsoft defended the settlement before a Senate committee, which was crippled by political maneuvering (see also the NYT story). The speech given by the CEO of Red Hat is online. Microsoft filed a brief with the court, unsurprisingly urging the court to accept the settlement. The Register has a story on the proposed settlement, which is available at the DOJ Antitrust website. Linuxplanet has some advice for people who want to comment on the settlement - you've got 60 days from November 28. Finally, Microsoft has named two people to help it comply with the proposed settlement.

Comments

let sleeping dogs die

[Transient0]

i am getting sick of all this anti-trust talk. i am as anti-microsoft as anyone else, but it has recently become clear to me that microsoft will inevitably lose it's market dominance in it's own due time(a matter of years not decades).

all this trouble going into knocking down the giant could be avoided if people just waited until after it had cut it's ownlegs off.

Re:let sleeping dogs die

[Brian Kendig]

My predictions:

- Microsoft gets its proposed settlement through as it stands. They donate millions of dollars worth of PC's and Microsoft software to schools, establishing a education market monopoly overnight and effectively snuffing out Apple's claim over that market.

- Over the next five years, the three oversight committee members raise several examples of questionable business practices. Microsoft very strongly and staunchly insists that (a) it's perfectly in the right, (b) the committee is standing in the way of innovation, and (c) the committee has bias against Microsoft. Another court case starts up over this, and by the year 2009 it's about where the current court case is today.

- Microsoft launches a campaign to make web browsing even easier for consumers! They add new technology to their web server software and market the server very cheaply to all the major e-commerce web sites. However, the new features are tightly integrated with Windows and can only be used with IE -- so if you want to buy something from eBay or Sears.com or Amazon.com, you'd better not be running Linux or Mac.

- Microsoft also introduces new security technology, a new page layout standard, and new standards for online digital images. These new features are a snap to use with Microsoft's web server, especially if you use Microsoft's site design software, all available for cheap or free! Of course, all this is proprietary, so Linux and Mac users don't get to use sites built with this technology. Nothing's keeping you from still using Linux and Mac, of course, as long as you're okay with not having access to major web sites.

- Want to chat with your friends? The MSN button's right there on your desktop! Want to buy movie tickets or make airline reservations? The button's right there on your desktop, and it leads to Microsoft partner services which work directly with your day planner and online checkbook in Windows! Want to use AIM or ICQ? Well, you'll have to download the software, install it, and hope it works with the current version of Windows. Want to use Moviefone or Travelocity? Well, sure, but they're slower and not integrated with Windows, and the integrated services do just as much or more -- why bother with anything else?

Eventually, the question becomes: Why use anything other than Windows? Other companies try to compete, but Microsoft clones their technology before they have their first release, or else Microsoft buys them and integrates them into Windows. All of this is in the name of progress and innovation, and providing a better experience to consumers!

The real winner...

[Dwarth]

I haven't follow all those law suite.. you know even a geek can try to have a life.. but well no matter who will 'win' those law suite.. the only real winner will be the lawyer.. you know.. Microsodt pay millions to he's lawyer... same on the other side...

The other winner are the Media... we heard about Microsoft law suite here and there... I'M BORED of it... give us a break with that and talk about thing we care... like new technologie that WORK...

Re:Yah...

[sphealey]

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., questioned whether the settlement, which he called "an invitation to further litigation, might have "a few too many loopholes."

At lest one of them got it right. As long as it is monolithic and full of $$$, Microsoft won't change much.

Leahy also had some thoughtful and insightful concerns about the actions of the DOJ and John Ashcroft in relation to 9/11. For a while he appeared to be making headway. All of a sudden his voice was muted, then Ashcroft went before the Senate and branded anyone who disagreed with him a traitor. Now you aren't hearing any more criticism of DOJ's actions.

I would expect something similar in this case. A backroom deal has been cut (probably brokered by Cheney and Rove, now that they aren't so busy taking care of their Enron friends), and it will go through regardless of any concerns mere citizens might have.

Now, if Slashdotters were to send a couple of million $ in campaign contributions to some key senators, a little more backbone might appears.

sPh

A Simple Plea

[gergi]

Does anyone else remember how wonderful it felt that the DoJ was doing something about Microsoft's bullying tactics several years ago? We all hoped it would finally be the end of the abuse.

Then, the ruling came down... They are a monopoly and they will be stricken down. People-in-the-know were amazed... The DoJ proved it could compete with new-age, tech-savvy companies.

Now, it seems the DoJ has proven just the opposite. They got the affirmation that it was a monopoly and then decided that was "good enough"... we don't need to punish them.

Almost as if they just wanted to prove they were a monopoly but didn't really want to do anything about it.

If the DoJ has there way now, Microsoft is virtually given a carte blanche to (attempt to) dominate our lives in the living room (XBox), on the internet (.NET), in the news (MSNBC), etc.

Truly a sad moment in the history of the US (if not the world).

Re:A Simple Plea

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get all your MS news from Slashdot, it's understandable that you'd be confused. But read the appeals court judgement -- the DOJ's (broader) case was pretty well undermined.

Microsoft was a mean boy to the OEMs. That's the only thing that the government's got them on, and punishments will be restricted to that area of behavior.

Preach on Brotha!

[reaper20]

The Red Hat speech is awesome. Szulik on the OSS Development Model:

This open communication strikes me as so perfectly American. I envision the early leaders of this country drawing up the tenets of our constitution in much the same way--in the open, in pursuit of a solution that is fair and of benefit to all.

This is the best counterstatement to MSs 'Linux is anti-American' garbage I've read so far.

what the...?

[blank_coil]

How can anyone keep up with Micro$oft? Seriously, while we're all focusing on this antitrust suit, they've got like 50 other projects in the works, from M$ TV, the XBox, .NET, Passport, Windows XP, Explorer, and a whole lot more. By the time we hear about an M$ development, it's already too late, 'cause they've got something else in the works. You can't even stop and say, "Hey, Windows XP has some seriously troubled activation issues" because they've got some other product out before you can finish your sentence. They're pushing stuff out so fast that it's not even possible to discuss your misgivings because it's old news in a day. Kind of like a new tendrils poping up that reach into everything we do. M$ encompasses almost everything in the average person's life, from computers to news to the military. And with the xbox, they're trying to get their products into our living rooms. M$ wants to have your entire house running on their software.

Now, I realise that there is always the option of simply not using M$ products, but what about all those other people out there who aren't as "enlightened"? To them, Windows is the computer, not simply an OS. While some might not care what John Q Public is running on his home computer, I do, because with more market dominance, M$ gets more power. And with more power, they can start affecting the lives of everyone, even those people who don't touch M$ products. What if Micro$oft really did manage to pass litigation through that banned OSs without DRM?

Something needs to be done about M$, and not using WinXP isn't going to cut it. If the antitrust suit fails, perhaps we, the people, need to put something into action.

Re:One thing I don't understand.....

[gergi]

It's all about the leverage...
Microsoft has a monopoly... none of those other companies have a monopoly.

A Monopoly in, and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If I make a successful product that is so successful to gain 100% of the marketshare, well, good for me. (this isn't what Microsoft did though but that's a different story)

However, when you ABUSE a monopoly, such as leveraging your power into another market, that is ILLEGAL.

e.g. Your Oracle thing... if Oracle gets the deal with the National ID card, good for Oracle. However, if Ellison then tells you that you have to watch Oracle TV through your Oracle GameBox if you want to use your ID, *that* is illegal.

substitute National ID for Passport, Oracle TV for MSNBC, and Oracle Box for XBox...

Ask the Canadians Why They Have done Nothing

[frank249]

In Canada, the law that is supposed to protect Canadian consumers and businesses is the Competition Act. The Government agency in charge of upholding this law is the Competition Bureau.

It is funny how the Microsoft has been convicted in the US and EU of illegal monopolistic business practices yet the Canadian Competition Bureau has done nothing. You can email them to ask why here.

If you are Canadian and want to ask the same question of your member of parliment, their email addresses are here.

Re:One thing I don't understand.....

[hawk]

>There is one thing that I'm not sure I understand about the culture of
> /. here.

I won't speak for slashdot, or even claim it is coherent, but I'll answer as a free market economist, and as an antitrust lawyer.

Markets generally work, and evidence from the present all the way back to the Roman empire and Summeria show that government intervention in markets fails.

Many stop at this point, and call for the DOJ to back off. But that's where the error occurs.

Functioning markets work, are good, and should not be tampered with by the government.
The problem with monopolies is that they ruin our precious markets--even moreso than government intervention.

So is interventionin the market good? No. But it's better than a monopolist making matters even worse.

hawk

My letter

[mitchner]

Per the LinuxWorld column, below is my letter commenting on the settlement. Don't just complain about MS. Copy it, change it to your liking, and fax it to the number in the address!

Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530;
(facsimile) 202-616-9937

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a computer programmer and consider myself knowledgeable of the computer industry. I am writing concerning the proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice. Since Microsoft has already been found guilty, I consider the existing settlement to be severely lacking in several areas. As it is currently written, the settlement will not prevent Microsoft from continuing their anti-competitive behavior. Also, it provides no penalty for Microsoft's past behavior. A meaningful settlement needs, at a minimum, the following:

• Both the Windows API and Microsoft document formats (MS Word, MS Excel, etc) must be made freely available to anyone who wants them.
• Microsoft networking protocols must be standardized by a standards body. This will prevent Microsoft from using their private, proprietary protocols to seize control of new applications used on the Internet.
• Microsoft products should be provided only as extra-cost options on personal computers. The software should also be available for the same price as the difference between a computer loaded with Microsoft products, and one without any Microsoft products. This will prevent Microsoft from "bunding" an entire kitchen sink of applications with Windows, increasing the price of Windows (either directly or indirectly), and preventing competition.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Green
concerned, informed Citizen

Re:My letter

[good-n-nappy]

Here is my letter - this should give you a little more filler prose to mix-and-match to make your letter unique :)

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to express my concern over the latest settlement proposed by the Department of Justice in the Microsoft Antitrust case. As introduction, I am a software developer who builds applications primarily for the Windows platform.

One of my primary concerns with the proposed settlement is that it ignores the damages done by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior to rival technologies. While I am pleased that Microsoft's future actions are to be regulated by the settlement, I feel that much of the damage has already been done. Simply enforcing certain prohibitions on Microsoft's business practices will not repair many of the companies that have suffered because of Microsoft's predatory activities. Granted, it would be a difficult task to quantify all the damages done by Microsoft to every company, but the fact that so many companies have been affected suggests that the current settlement is not appropriate. While I will not propose specific alternative settlements, I do suggest measures that will impose damages on Microsoft tantamount to those it imposed on its competitors.

I take greatest exception to the idea that a quick settlement will be in the interest of the people. Its monopoly in the Operating System market has allowed Microsoft to expand to new areas such as Internet retailing, broadcasting, and entertainment. Given that the current settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist, Microsoft will have no impediment to extending its stranglehold to these new domains.

Thank you for your attention.

Proof, Then

[virg_mattes]

> You'll have to come up with better than a little heat from the
> marketing guys to prove there was coercion involved. Citing a
> single instance where Microsoft followed through on their threats would
> be a help. However, nobody presents evidence of a follow-through.
> So you're all blowing hot air.

Never say all. How about DR-DOS? Here's a link where the settlement is mentioned, and I leave it to you to dig into the details of the case if you dare. In several instances (two in Europe and one in the U.S.) Microsoft stated in contracts that the companies in question were not allowed to sell a computer without paying them for a license for MS-DOS, even if they didn't actually install MS-DOS. When the company in the U.S. complained, they were told that if they sold a computer without paying the royalty, they'd lose the right to sell MS-DOS at all. This made computers with DR-DOS more expensive than computers with MS-DOS only, and since these companies couldn't afford not to sell MS-DOS, they had to knuckle under. This pressure came in the form of legal documents from Microsoft's attorneys, not "a little heat from the marketing guys" as you put it. This is one of the parts of the case that has Microsoft in such hot water in Europe.

On a more personal note, I recently got a PC from Dell. It came with Windows Millenium preinstalled, and I could not buy a PC without some Microsoft OS installed. I decided that I didn't really want it, so when I got the computer I clicked "I Do Not Agree" to the EULA. It told me to contact my PC vendor for refund information. I called Dell, and they said they wouldn't refund my money, and that I'd have to contact Microsoft if I wanted my refund. I contacted Microsoft and they told me they wouldn't refund my money either. I reminded them that Dell said they'd pay me back, and they said, "take it up with Dell." I called Dell back and they said they can't give me a refund because they can't get the money back from Microsoft.

Now would you like to tell me about hot air? Or perhaps you'd like to refute my points? Or maybe you'll give me back the money that Microsoft won't for a product I don't want and didn't have a choice about buying? Especially since they lied in their license about being willing to refund it if I didn't agree to their ridiculous EULA?

Didn't think so.

Virg