Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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).
Nosce te Ipsum
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.
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...
Nosce te Ipsum
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.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
>
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
> 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