Slashdot Mirror
New Antitrust Complaint Filed Against Microsoft
jimboid and others wrote in about a new antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in the European Union, concerning Windows XP (all previous litigation has concerned earlier versions of Windows). The BBC and Sydney Morning Herald have articles about the complaint.
Is it just me or do these guys appear to be the first legal agressors against Micorsoft to understand the real issue?
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
How long can this go on for? you cant keep pulling the same company for antitrust violations.. wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up? what ever happened there? this is just going to carry on and on and on.. its getting pretty frustrating really.
moo
See, kids, it's not just unfair company-eating, it's setting customers up as file format junkies by bundling in lousy software as "part of the OS" and getting people to the point where they don't buy or use anyone else's stuff. It's trying to control all aspects of the market, vertically and horizontally. WAY illegal. GM can't do it, so why should M$?
You are not the customer.
This organization consists of companies who _know_ what they're talking about when it comes to computers and competition (and anti-competitive tactics, for that matter), and are taking up the fight from the _consumers'_ point of view. I think it is this twist which might lead to actual rulings which will stop Microsoft's hard-edged and illegal tactics.
Remember, Microsoft has had _two_ separate antitrust ruling against it (i.e. has been found guilty not once, but twice), but neither has had the bite to make any noticable differences in the way Microsoft has acted. Both suits really focused upon MS's anti-competitive methods, and not enough focus on what MS was doing to the consumers. This angle might just be what is needed.
Of course, since this is an EU case, who knows how a ruling with teeth might affect Microsoft - it would certainly affect them overseas, but here in America a difference might not be noticable.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I'd sure hate to be the defendant in a case where the prosecutor or legislature could trump up or morph the charges whenever they want. The solution otthe US's problem is forcing a faster process (as is now being done in some federal criminal courts), not making it unreasonable to defend yourself.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Wouldn't the world be better served by kde and gnome consolidating to one desktop, and all the distributions agreeing on one form of package management (my favorite being deb), and spending their money cooperating in building an unbelievably awesome linux distribution? To me that would be the best way to stop the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop market. To me as a developer, if i can pay the same amount for a tool which is as easy and full-featured to use as visual studio.net, and can have other modules installed, not having to worry about finding the deb or rpm or whatever, and worrying about dependencies, it would be much easier for many CIO's to recommend a total switch. NOTICE it doesn't have to be free, which is a fallacy many people think everything linux related should always be. i would much rather live under a monopoly of linux and open source which is supported by ibm, redhat, suse, etc..
Microsoft bundles an extraordinary array of products with Windows XP.
They include:
- Internet Explorer (browser);
- MSN Explorer (browser);
- Windows Media Player (media player);
- Windows Messenger (instant messaging client);
- Outlook Express (e-mail client); and
- Windows Movie Maker (video editor).
Wouldn't most people these days consider these things fairly standard applications that should come with an OS.
I know I would hate to have to pay for an OS, and then buy a browser, media player, email client, video editor, messenger. And I guess also paint, notepad, calculator, etc.
If they aren't, then why do most linux distros have all those things included in the standard desktop install...
Actualy this isnt america we are talking about
Its Europe
Europe doesnt really owe microsoft anything as microsoft dont really contribute to our economy
This is main reason this ruling is likely to bite harder than the US ruling as Bush wants to protect the business's that benefit him
Though the ruling might not effect you americans at all as a posible result would be for them to demand microsoft ship windows without media player in Europe but you can be sure they would ship media player in America still
Nice troll, I'll bite,
I don't care how user friendly you think a *nix install is, the home user would never be able to do it! It's only the geeks and the techs that have the skills to install complex pieces of software.
a.) How many home users do you know that can install Windows?
b.) Have you tried intalling Mandrake? Mandrake installed on my machine, detected all of my hardware, found my printer on the network, it can if you want it to partition your drive. Put it on easy and it asks you 4 or 5 questions and on a fast machine installs in 40 minutes. Contrast to Windows which requires reboots in the middle of the install, comes with almost no software bundled and requires installing a ton of drivers to get half the hardware working after the OS is installed. As a geek I find it easier to install Linux.
Where would the state of computing be if Linux came preinstalled on your Dell instead of Windows? Where would the state of computing be if God-forbid the customers could choose?
That's the problem, that's why governments keep bringing up these lawsuits because the home user doesn't have a choice and it shouldn't be that way.
As for MS's success there are tons of cases where they have bought or outright stolen all their "innovations", usually by using their massive market share to stifle the real innovators (usually by undercutting on price and the buying out the bankrupt company).
MS has show time and time again that they can't just be the biggest OS/software vendor for home users, they have to be the only one.
The Anti-Blog
I can understand the part about imposing Microsoft proprietary technologies, protocols and formats;Employing abusive licensing and other exclusionary practices vis-à-vis PC OEMs to foreclose the PC OEM distribution channel to competing products... but what the hell does it have to do with bundling of additional apps along with Windows?
;)
That's considered value-added incentive for the consumer. Hell, even major Linux distributions bundle browsers, media players and office productivity suites. And I am GLAD that such apps are included, therefore I don't need to buy a copy or download a free one.
It's not like you have to actually use those apps... install whatever alternatives you want. Although I do use IE most of the time, it is not because it is *there already*, I use it because it loads pages faster than other browsers (which I won't mention lest I invoke another browser flame war). But I detest Outlook (express or non) and installed my own preferred email client. Same case with media player... I know the privacy issues involved with it, hence I don't use it. It REALLY is *THAT* simple!
As for disclosing Office document format... hell they created it, under their own terms and conditions, which a user HAS to accept prior to installing. If you're not happy with it, just return the CD. How hard can that be? And by the way, I thought the complaint was focused on WinXP... Office is not bundled with WinXP (although it would be nice if it was).
I think the CCIA has gone overzealous in its approach to pin MS. They should have gotten more facts correct before publishing this paper.
And yeah, I don't work for MS... nor do I have the desire to. And I have never bought any products from MS either, but that doesn't mean I never used them before
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
At least this might stand a chance of success since in Europe we have appointed judges and prosecutors. They don't have to worry whether MS a) will remove funding from their re-election campaigns, or b) actively support their opposition.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
The downfall of Microsoft isn't going to be caused by litigation.
It will be caused by offering an equal or superior product at a better or equal price.
Linux will be that product. It's not there yet, but it's inevitable that it will be at some point in the future.
Just as open source software will eliminate commercial software development as we know it today.
All these anti-trust suites are getting a little boring and aren't doing any good.
I disagree. They are doing good, even though the remedies, so far in the US, have bordered on almost being "rewards".
They are doing good. Just not enough good. The fact that Microsoft is now widely recognized, evey by Microsoft users, as being untrustworthy is a good thing. Look at how Microsoft dealt with Sendo. Look at how the Sony and Matsushita, two bitter rivals have joined together against Microsoft. Everyone knows that you can't shake hands with the devil. Microsoft's history of stabbing every one of their partners in the back is going to come back to bite them. Nobody will want to partner with them.
BillG: Hey, Sony, why don't you use Windows CE? Partner with us!
BillG: Hey, Nokia, why don't you use our Stinker OS in your phones? (er.. I meant Stinger)
BillG: Hey everyone, look at my vision, unveiled at consumer electronics shows, to take over everything in the home with Microsoft software! You can still make the hardware, on razor thin, cut throat margins, with no real control of the design, or differentiation of your products, just like we've done to the PC industry.
Do you think anyone in their right minds is going to agree to this. Microsoft has no friends left.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Followup poll:
How many are saying the same, but browsing from something other than IE while masquerading their user-agent as MSIE so they don't get locked out of various web sites?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
You mean you think it's ironic that people would be using the software that they hate that's more or less been forced on them? Especially if they are currently at work?
Wow...
What was Microsoft done that warrents so much hate?
There is one thing that always get me worked up. Microsoft's real success is in the desktop client market, where the losses due to their ineptitude are on a per-individual basis. Then, they have the arrogance to impose their mediocre software in server and mission-critical markets, which leads to us seeing their genuinely badly engineered software on U.S. warships, in hospitals, running business infrastructure, running governemtn infrastructure, and so on. So, what makes me mad is that they managed to sell the least appropriate tool for the job to technologically-naive people eager to buy. Microsoft is like the scummy car salesman, who gets someone to pass up the perfectly appropriate family car for the 9MPG American SUV that eats them alive in maintenance costs (fuel, tires, taxes, trying to park the damn thing, etc.).
It's a simple fact folks, we owe a lot to Microsoft...
I read a while ago that pre-Windows 2000 failures cost two weeks lost per user per year. I'd say that Microsoft owes us!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Ever notice how many MS apologists have such high UIDs on Slashdot? Sometimes I wonder if these people are actual employees at Microsoft or just temps. Or maybe you're just way too invested in Microsoft products and you find Linux scary and you hope no one actually adopts Linux in larger settings because that would reduce your pointy-clicky Windows skills to complete uselessness.
The poster wasn't trying to tell you what to run on your machine (even if you somehow represent the UK government). He or she was hoping the UK government would decide to use Linux as a general purpose OS. As for you specifically, any "telling" would seem to have been more a case of making you aware of your options in hopes of making your life better, rather than some sort of force being applied. In the case of the UK government, apparently the poster believes that Linux fills their needs (probably for a general use OS) better than MS Windows does.
Apparently he or she also believes that the more people that use Linux, the more likely people will spend money improving various aspects of the OS or the applications that run on the OS. This seems like a reasonable assumption, since it seems helpful to a software project to have a large base of possible contributors of both money and code. Therefore, the more people who use Linux, the better Linux' chances of overall improvement.
I do not have a signature
This would be 10% of its gross that it's already spent in dividends and subsidizing other things. It would make the stock substantially less attractive and would personally impact all those options holders.
If MS has an overall profit margin of 30%, 10% of the gross would be a third of its profits. Plus the fine would have to be paid at once, making the fine levy year possibly MS's first loss year as the XP fines would be 10% of the gross over several years payable in one year.
All in all a very draconian penalty. Too bad they have to use anti-trust to achieve the good result of stopping MS illegality.
We need a new moderation: -1 Doesn't Read News
Read The Findings of Fact by a US judge in court. Just because the DOJ got cold feet and decided to let them off with a slap on the wrist doesn't make it less true.
Also go ask random Joe Blow on the street if he knows what Solaris is.
And finally no one is suing the worlds largest zipper company because its not illegal to have a monopoly, its illegal to leverage that monopoly into other markets, You don't see ZippyCo trying to buy out all Velcro and button manufactuerers do you? And its also illegal to price fix based on that monopoly. MS has done both.
The Anti-Blog
As I've said elsewhere, the problem with monopolies isn't that they have some sort of market power due to their size. The problem is that they lie, cheat, and steal in order to keep that dominant position. Anti-trust, all too often, seems to be an exercise in saying big is bad. Big can merely be the result of incompetent competitors and there's plenty of those in the history of the PC field.
I would say that most MS anti-trust violations can be restated as fraud or some other non-trust crime. When MS paid engineers to generate incompatibilities between DOS and Lotus 1-2-3 they defrauded their customers and, arguably, their shareholders. Ditto for the DR-DOS affair where they sent out media kits with doctored copies of Windows that gave out spurious errors when it was detected that DR-DOS, not MS-DOS was installed.
The problem isn't that MS is dominant, but how they react when they legitimately get beaten on the competitive realm. Their predatory actions have destroyed economic value in the billions of lost hours, misguided business plans, and foregone opportunities because nobody wants to get near the nasty-tempered beast that is MS.