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 don't understand. Microsoft is going to pay some people to tell them when they're not in compliance?
Does this sound like it's really going to work?
Shouldn't a "Compliance Officer" be appointed by the DOJ or some other agency?
IANAL, but I wonder to what extent the presiding judge pays attention to the media and how this will affect her decision. On the one hand, judges are not supposed to be swayed by media reporting, yet the judge is supposed to consider public comments about the proposed settlement. To the extent that Senators represent their constituents' beliefs and needs, the judge may give some weight to these types of Congressional hearings.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Dear Judge,
I understand that you have found me guilty of this crime and I am willing to make a mends. I promise not to do the same crime again, or at least in the same way, and I'll also stop doing other bad things, well at least the ones you've caught me doing. I even agree to make sure that I don't do exactly the same crime by hiring a couple of people who will be very strict with me and spank me most serverly if I do it again.
Regards...
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
(from the settlement)
This is the most important provision of the entire settlement.
This eliminates Microsoft's ability to use strong-arm tactics in the ways it has been doing -- not giving special pricing to vendors who don't stay in line with what Microsoft and friends wants to do. It says that if you buy (OEM) licenses from Microsoft that (almost) no matter what you do as long as you buy the same number of licenses as someone else you'll get the same price.
The only thing that I would like better is for the Microsoft License Schedule to be applied uniformly to all customers, regardless of OEM status. Without that, Microsoft may find loopholes to force companies out of OEM status and buy retail licenses (or whatever) but this is still a huge step.
There is lots of talk about MS Word for Linux and such, but I think that would only further the monopoly, and I just don't think it's right for the government to mandate a product line. I think that fair pricing, however, is something totally reasonable and that will, in the end, hurt Microsoft more than most unfair measures we could add.
Having uniform licensing to all (not just OEMs) would be the one change I would make if I got one choice, but if I got two changes I would make Microsoft release all the API specs in a public forum and make them freely available, instead of just on MSDN. Say, on their web site and with the clause that they must be freely distributable in an unmodified form.
I think that those two things would make this settlement even better, but as it stands I think that the settlement is a fair solution.
At least for the abuse of monopoly in the OS realm, which is what this is all about.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Look at this the other way - pretty much the only successful competitor to Microsoft is giving away their product for free. The big reason that Linux is such a competitor is because the normal Microsoft tactic has failed: undercutting the competition by subsidizing their new market-breaker with money from the other parts of their empire. Also, there's no way for Microsoft to completely buy up Linux and Open Source, so they can't remove a competitor that way. You can't undercut or buy out "free", and so Microsoft is temporarily stymied, but they still have vast marketing and lobbying muscle.
Does it strike you as a particularly healthy industry if you can only gain marketshare by giving your product away? Is it reasonable that the only way to protect your product is to create it via a group of people who aren't even a company, just to avoid being swallowed by Microsoft?
Now, of course I know that RedHat charges money for some things, and they may even make a profit pretty soon, and Red Hat is in fact a company that Microsoft could buy. But Microsoft's competition isn't so much Red Hat as it is the Linux and Open Source movement. And taken overall, Linux and Open Source are largely free, and are largely producted by individuals and representatives of many companies who collectively could not be bought out. Those are the only reasons that Microsoft has any competition, and those reasons still do not add up to a healthy software industry.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
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.
CA's attourney statement that "It's a little like Big Tobacco being found guilty of selling cigarettes to minors, and the remedy is for them to agree to give them free cigarettes."
Microsoft is not only company in any market segment they are in, thus they are not an absolute monopoly like the power companies are (and how the phone and cable companies used to be). However, because of their dominant share of the desktop PC and office suite market they have a fairly high degree of monopoly power. The barriers to entry in the industry are the entrenched applications using the the Win32 API, and the implementation of the MSOffice file formats. That being said, there are many factors that limit their monopoly power.
The bottom line? Yes, Microsoft has a high degree of monopoly power, but it's not cut-and-dry about how much power they have. And it's certainly not cut-and-dry what to do about them either. Certainly it is important to limit the impact of their potential leverage (For example that Passport, Messenger, Hotmail, and MSN Photos are bundled with XP) from their existing markets, but don't think for a minute that it is simple. It's not.
501 Not Implemented
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
Is NOISE associated with the FMC? (F* Microsoft Consortium). I'm a card-carrying member of the FMC, but I haven't heard of NOISE before.
include $sig;
1;
If M$ is going to get any fair competition, they need to open their formats on Word and Excel so people are not forced to use MS Office if they have to work with those formats. That would be a big boost for the developers of Abiword, WordPerfect for *nix, Gnumeric, Star Office, etc. They wouldn't have to spend so much time on converters. They could spend their time making great office programs that work with anything someone sends you, and make the office application software battle a fair fight.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
You can read the proposed Civil Settlement (pdf) and the responses as well. They also are pdf files being just scanned images of the letters recieved.
The responses are interesting, most of the ones I have read from School Districts indicate that they are afraid that they get very little value out of the settlement, since the software will be donated, and the hardware will be largely used requiring more maintenance than the benefit it provides. In efffect the schools are saying that they will be saddled with a much greater percentage of the total cost of ownership than Microsoft. So if the intention is to punish Microsoft and reward the schools this is the wrong way to go about it.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Senator Leahy had invited Jim Barksdale (co-founder of Netscape) to testify on the effects the RPFJ would have had if it was in place when Netscape was starting up. Microsoft balked at having him testify and said they would have refused to appear if Barksdale was there. So Barksdale was dis-invited, but sent a letter giving his answer. That letter was partially read by Sen. Hatch and said that Netscape would have never received VC funding. Pretty damning stuff.
Leahy asked Charles James (head of Antitrust for DoJ) to respond. He dodged saying that he had not read the letter yet and it seemed like typical hyperbole that was being spouted off (but also said he could not characterize it as such given he has not read the letter). Leahy asked him to formally respond for the record, which will be done in writing (I assume).
It was a little suprising to see such a little used procedural movement to kill the hearing. Leahy was visablly upset, but admitted its a Senator's perogative. Ironically, it was Sen Byrd (who knows every minutia of procedure) who was upset over TPA (fast track trade negotiation authorization for the President on trade treaties) and called that mark-up to a halt--however, it had already been succesfully reported out of committee at that point.
So what was left was 4 Senators upbraiding MS and calling the settlement for the sham it is. The only one defending the settlement was Sen. McConnell who clearly wanted to get his 1 minute in before the first recess (for votes, asked to be heard when Leahy tried to do a 20 minute break so he would not have to come back). All McConnell said was that 70% of the public favor a settlement, so any settlement is good. Leahy responded by saying that he too favored a settlement, but not a meaningless one riddled with loopholes.
FYI, the 4 senators attacking MS were Leahy (D-VT), Kohl (D-WI), Hatch (R-UT), and DeWine (R-OH), a bi-partisan group to say the least.
Bitching about how letting MS put it's products into our children's classrooms will only increase their foothold isn't going to help when you only do it on slashdot! Here's the contact info for making your argument known! For those extra lazy people (myself included), they are also accepting emails!
US Postal Services:
Renata Hesse,Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Email:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Fax:
202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
Try not to be too rude. Remember, someone has to actually read these, and you'll only make them ignore your arguments if you are snide. Also, try to get records of reciept where possible. (Send by certified mail, use email reciepts, get fax reciepts) Supposedly ALL recieved comments will be published in the Federal Register. So if you don't see your comment in it with all the others, then you will have your reciept to back up your claim that not all comments were considered and included!
Do any of these issues change the testimony in the anti-trust trial that:
- MS threatened Compaq with withheld licenses if they didn't remove Netscape from their computers going out the door.
- MS threatened Intel management over Intel's work on multimedia software.
These are but two examples of the way MS abused their monopoly power. The fact that there might be competition on the horizon (a speculative, not certain, assertion) does not change what has occured one bit. If I robbed a bank, should I be spared a penalty because I myself might be robbed sometime in the future? I don't think so!!!
I don't recall the name of the metric off the top of my head, but one that is commonly used is the summation of the squares of the market shares of the various companies, or:
.9^2, or .81, which is very high indeed. Traditional industries usually break down into something like .4,.2,.1,.1 + niche players, and I think the legal bound on the overall metric is usually something like .4 for monopoly.
[sigma from 1 to n] (% mkt share) ^ 2
So, if we assume that MSoft has 90% mkt share of business desktops, then their (whatever the name of the metric is) would be upwards of
Of course, the lawyers get involved with the definition of "market," as it's in Microsoft's interest to define market as broadly as possible, and it's in the DOJ's interest to be as finite as possible, since the DOJ can then "prove" that MS has a monopoly over the "secretary level OS sales among Fortune 30 companies involved in airplane wheel manufacture." Meanwhile, MS would claim that they only hold 10% of the "business machine requiring an electrical circuit" market.
Not an answer, but it might help on the question of monopoly scale.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
The contrast of how the US judicial system can work is interesting: Dimitri circumvents the protection on some minor piece of software and gets thrown into jail. MSFT leaves behind a trail of dead competitors and obvious monopolistic abuses, their executives basically deceive the court with false or doctored testimonies and they're looking at another slap on the wrist.
Isn't it great what (lots of) money can buy you??
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.
> 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