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.
Now if the UK gov't switched to Linux like other gov't of the world.. *drool* I could only imaging the progress that would be pushed forward!
Some dreams come true.
Some just stay a dream.
------88-------- Sig? Sorry, I don't smoke.
I thought Microsoft was trying to get away from anti-trust issues with their latest software. Is there any chance this will do *anything* to the software giant, or will they be able to sweep it under their enormous rug, like everything else?
stuff |
Is it really possible to get to microsoft over XP this way?
After all it's been nearly 2 years since its introduction. That's a long time in computing. I would have imagined there was a statute of limitations.
If not, then it sounds rather shaky legally, but then anything that helps shift microsoft sounds good by me at this stage.
It's gotten to the point I don't care if there really is a case or not, they should be shown we really don't care for their practices.
All this litigation and chest beating costs millions of dollars/pounds/euros. Why don't the respective governments make a proactive move by mandating that free software be used rather than MS stuff. I don't doubt for a moment that all the harshly written criticisms of MS by these people are done on MS-Word.
Oh, the irony.
Trolling is a art,
I wonder if the EU were to find MS guilty, and specify a bunch of things they have to do to windows, if that would stretch world-wide or just in the jurisdiction of the EU. Since MS is a US company, I always assumed a lawsuit against them in the US would be world-wide, but now I wonder.
I also wonder about the civil suits. Sun sued microsoft to get java included in a US court. Does it apply everywhere, just in the US, just where MS and Sun do business, just where some trade treaty says?
Please don't take this as a serious arguement but more a point of thought, and theoretical ethics I suppose.
If we at least say that MS is not off the hook, I won't admit that they are evil but on the flip side I won't admit they are not.
Anyway, Bill Gates routinely gives billions and billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda(sp?) Gates foundation which Bill's father manages mainly. Granted this brings up jokes about the left pocket giving money to the right pocket, but it is on the books and in the charter that a heafty percentage of the foundations money is used each year for purely philanthropic reasons, ie immunizing everyone in the world, funding research to find cures for various diseases, etc..
Still with me? Ok, so Bill gives a good bit of his money to stuff like this, as does Microsoft. MS will match any employee donation to, afaik, any charity, as well it has it's own philanthropic arm backed with it's own many billions in the bank.
Now given all this is it in anyway """"""""OK"""""""" then that they may be pulling more money than they should be out of people who can afford it when a lot of people are benifiting that would not if MS was not there?
I know many others do philanthropy but Bill is probably the single largest individual to do so, and in ways others are not capable or have not try to.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
I tend to agree with Steve Jobs, who said (and I paraphrase freely) that he doesn't begrudge MS's success or condemn their business practices; he just thinks they make really dismal products. I would add "and sell them for a silly price with no discount for home users".
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
While this kind of initiative is always good that is attempting to bring an entity that is (perceived to be) abusing it's monopolistic position, at the end of the day even if the case against Microsoft is proven, it still relies on Microsoft playing ball, and based on the fact that the last time this went to court and went against Microsoft (I think? Right?) it took a hell of a long time to resolve, and then without a clear cut "win" (no one was burned at the stake, or even disemboweled).
;-)
What I would propose is that the CCIA (is this a government agency with a stammer?) put a percentage of their allocated budget for this case say, 100% into funding a Europe wide alternative to Microsoft,
with the current chill in the political air I think this should be written in French and called Iraq
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
Not really. Without Microsoft, the OS and the programs living on it wouldn't be as important. Amigas and Atari STs might still be viable home platforms, since IBM wasn't really interested in home sales. Data wouldn't be quite so locked into monoculture formats. Viruses and Worms wouldn't propagate as fast, since each OS has a different hook.
Games would be rarer on business machines, and the underlying code of games would be cleaner for porting purposes. Sony might have made the Playstation more like a home computer, or rather the Sega Dreamcast would have had a better chance at life.
Hardware would be just as cheap, since manufacturers don't like having to redesign connectors. Drivers between OS's might become standardised to ease cross-platform adaptation.
And Linux would still be a hobby OS, since there wouldn't be that "anything but Microsoft" push that helped Linux achieve critical mass. But still, that alternate universe is wierd, funky and (IMNSHO) fun.
This doesn't mean I hate Bill. I hate substandard software, and voted with my wallet.
Gee, 10% off the gross reduces Microsoft profit by ... 10%? :)
Surely there is a provision to deprive the naughty party of all its ill-gotten gain? The framers may not have had the profit margins of the software industry in mind -- these aren't widgets.
Probably the EU allows a private right of action, class action, something?
(A) Biasing of the UI
This is not anti competitive. The example given in the summary is that if a site is mistyped, MSN search comes up. Pheonix does the same thing, except it runs a Google or Netscape search. From what I can tell, the complaint here is that whenever Windows or a MS app requires the services of another application, it uses another MS application. Open Source projects do the same thing (although Open Source usually have more than one choice of application, but never a Microsoft application).
Granted, MS never allows Open Source choices, but then again, Open Source projects don't always allow MS choices either (Pheonix for example, only allows Google and DMOZ for searching).
(B) Bundling
Bundling is actually very good for consumers, as they get more goods for their money. Granted, Microsoft apps are impossible to remove from Windows, which is an issue, but the bundling itself isn't.
If bundling is anti-competitive, then Linux is screwed, considering the 1GB+ worth of software that's packaged on almost every distribution.
I know, I know, the applications bundled on a Linux distro aren't all from the same developer. That's not my point. My point is that when I buy an OS, I'd expect a minimum amount of functionality, and in this "Internet" age, a browser and a mail tool is a minimal requirement. I mean seriously, if I installed an OS without a browser (this applies to Apple and Linux as well), how can I download alternatives?
The rest of the CCIA complaints are valid, particularly price (300$ CDN for XP?!?!), closed/obfuscated protocols, non-interoperability, and the impossible-to-remove apps that no one wants.
Phemur
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...
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.
Well, then if Microsoft is giving away their bundled apps for "free", really free, out of the goodness of their heart, to increase customer value, then what do they have to fear with interoperability. Why don't they open their file formats. Why not allow total and complete interoperability with Windows Media Abomination? In the US antitrust case, it came out that Microsoft spent $150 million in developing IE (after first "acquiring" it). Then they give it away for free? Even the judge was skeptical. I'm sure Microsoft, being the charity it is, had nothing but pure motives in spending that much money on something that they would make no profit on.
It's not like you have to actually use those apps... install whatever alternatives you want.
The whole point of the complaint is that Microsoft has been and is working hard to prevent alternatives.
You know, when I go to Dell's web site, I can configure a machine. Popup menus allow me to choose various configuration options. Guess what choices I get for Operating System? Let's not even bring up Free software. Let's just compare to, say a DVD player. The choice is DVD or No DVD. How about Windows or No OS? Shipping a CD hardware diagnostic would be the extent of the "support" they would have to provide. Just as they now say, insert the Windows CD to reformat and reinstall -- click. They could say -- insert the Diagnostic CD to proove that the hardware works perfectly -- click.
As for disclosing Office document format... hell they created it, under their own terms and conditions
If Microsoft is so wonderful, and everybody chooses it willingly, then what has Microsoft to fear of competition? Or are you suggesting that people would dare choose competing products?
Since Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly, they should be compelled to provide interoperable formats. Or do you actually advocate that one player should be able to have a chokehold on the entire computer-using world?
I think the CCIA has gone overzealous in its approach to pin MS. They should have gotten more facts correct before publishing this paper.
Please show what facts they have gotten wrong.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Not really. On Windows, you install a new driver and (usually) reboot for the Windows kernel to pick that up. On Linux, you install a new module and the kernel picks that up. Package either task in a nice, friendly set of graphical dialogs and the matter's done.
The 'rebuild the kernel' stuff is a bit of a myth. I've not had to rebuild a kernel in a long time. Windows has a kernel too - it comes overstuffed for the average user. Most of the distro kernels are also overstuffed with capabilities and drivers, but then that has the side effect of an end-user never seeing the rebuild message.
Now glibc, on the other hand...
Cheers,
Ian
I don't think it's so much the fact that the bundled software is there, but the fact that some of the software parts (most noticably IE) is so integrated into the OS that there is no possible way to uninstall it!
Yes, Linux, BSD, Unix, et al. come with browser and other software bundled, but IME, you can choose wiether or not those programs are installed, and can fully uninstall them later if you want to.
That's the reason that the anti-trust lawsuits exist, is because once they integrated their software packages so far as to preclude any uninstallation, they forced other companies' competing products into niche markets at best (i.e. Netscape).
That practice is both unethical and unlawful, and if any of the Linux, Unix, BSD, etc. distributors started doing it, I would expect the same backlash that Microsoft is now receiving.
The most prominient of these uninstallable programs are Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. If you go to any computer loaded with Windows 95 or newer (IIRC) you can find the executeables for both IE (iexplore.exe) and Outlook Express (msimn.exe) hidden somewhere in the system root directory (typically %system_root%/program files/internet explorer/ or
If you don't believe me, try it on your own computer.....just make sure you have the Windows Install disk handy.
--CypherDragon
You're neglecting the well-worn phrase, "network effects."
Linux already is superior to Windows in the server arena, in price and performance. There were issues of SMP and TCP scalability, but somehow when those were surpassed, there was no notice given. Now the scalability chase is against Unix, and Windows no longer enters the discussion. AFAIK, server administration is pretty much a non-issue, as well.
The places where Linux is lacking in the server arena are squarely related to the quirks of serving Windows clients. In other words, Microsoft is using the Windows desktop monopoly to carve and hold a place in the server arena.
Look at the desktop, for a moment. Whether or not Linux is "there yet" is subject to debate, but it is already clearly far beyond where Windows was when it took over the desktop. From what I've seen, the single biggest argument against Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have 100% compatible MS Office capability. In other words, Microsoft is using the MS Office monopoly to hold onto it's Windows desktop monopoly.
You're not attempting to sell one platform. You're attempting to sell against a set of platforms, all reinforcing each other. Two of those platforms, Windows desktop and MS Office, are effectively monopolies. (Windows is a monopoly legally, too.)
This is what the European case is about. The network, not the platforms.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's not like anyone's going to get locked up or executed for this, it's a company on trial, not a person. The judicial safeguards therefore don't have to be as rigorous, IMO. Having said that, the economic impact of MicroSoft being severely slapped shouldn't be underestimated. There are a lot of pension funds heavily tied up in MicroSoft stock.
I am having trouble gathering my thoughts on this, so bare with me...
First off, let me state I have not come to praise Bill, and that I concur with those who are pushing for this in their decision to press this forward. But I must say this action worries me as an American. With our current economic climate, the stance of those in charge, and how America currently looks on the global scale to our friends and neighbors, this could be the final straw in a tension build-up of global scale between America and the World.
What do I mean? Well, if this action accomplishes what should have happened when it was handled internally (severe punishment, break-up even), what will Microsoft do? Comply? Or use their new-found leverage with congress and their friendly Pro-Business government to complain? I think we both know the answer. So let's say they complain to the American government. After all, Microsoft is the crowning achievement in Free Market Capitalism, it makes money hand-over-fist, at any cost, and is a shining example of American industry (HA! I'm so funny). The government for those reasons will back them up. So then the American government widens the rift between our allies (former allies?) in the EU as much, if not more so, than our current actions regarding Iraq are concerned. The EU want Microsoft to play ball by the rules, which is to say they are in the right on this matter. America will say it's their field and they can make the rules up and if the EU doesn't like it, tough beans.
What will this do for our international relations? What will happen to the American business sector? How much will it harm our country and economy when the world (rightly) turns their back on us for our double-standards in the matters of state and business? I worry that it would be something nigh-repairable. Hopefully someone here will listen to what the world is saying and decide to make things a bit better. Maybe I just worry too much...
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
Let's see, the repeated instances of gross fraud come to mind. They lie as part of their standard business practice. From selling ISVs dev kits that claim to be the same as those used internally in MS (they aren't, MS app programmers have access to a few extra tools), to purposefully sabotaging interoperability with competitors (DR-DOS, Lotus, Java, numerous others) in such a way as to put the blame on the competitor, Microsoft has proven itself to be a company who doesn't mind lying and destroying economic value as long as its complicated and is only found out years to late to save the competitor's viability.
Fraud is something that is inimical to the free enterprise system, nobody short of outright anarchists defends it. Stopping fraud is a basic, core mission of government. When fraud is used as a core element of a business plan people should start going to jail until fraud ceases to be part of the business plan. If that's taking too long, the business should be shut down entirely.
MS is a pathologic case, genius combined with immoral disregard for the truth. Anti-trust is just an indirect way to get at the results of this problem.
buy your OS, for less, and choose which applications you want to use?
You could choose to buy the Microsoft Plus media and productivity pack, or not.
Think about it. If you are on a decent net connection today, you can get good applications that do all of those things for free, or at the very least for low cost.
The whole thing depends on the power of the default. Most users either don't know they can choose, or don't bother because the bundled things are there.
Because they are intergrated to a degree that makes life difficult for those who actually want to choose, third party suppliers of these applications have a very hard time providing any value proposition to their prospective customers.
This hurts the industry because:
- There is little incentive to really develop these applications due to lack of potential return on investment.
- The bundled stuff presents a nice target for those who would write viruses and such.
- Perfectly useable hardware becomes useless simply because the bundled and intergrated packages demand it, not because it no longer does the job.
- Open file formats lose their value. Why use them if everyone has the bundled stuff? When it comes to software as a service (read rentalware) closed formats promote user dependance and thus artifical value. This is wrong.
Nobody should have to continue to pay for the ability to perform basic computing tasks when the technology needed to perform these tasks is mature and freely avaliable for the most part.
So, wouldn't it be nice to just be able to buy XP, assuming you want XP, standalone? If you build your own machine, you can get your own applications. If you buy from someone, they could pack in a nice value add with a custom bundle. If you are in charge of a bunch of machines, you could build your own corporate edition bundle and stick with it unitl you have reason to change, not when a service pack, or OS revision forces you do do so...
Blogging because I can...
> Linux will be that product. [that kills Microsoft]
Setting my love of Linux aside, I don't discount the possibility of the "Killer App."
Netscape very nearly was one, which is why Microsoft pulled out all their weaponry to stomp them into the ground. If Netscape+Java made operating systems irrelevant, Windows would have died of irrelevance.
Periodically, a new technology application appears that wipes out the previous generation. PC's, coupled with spreadsheets, wiped out timesharing and a lot of mainframes & micros, for example. Calculators (made from integrated circuits, a space product) wiped out slide rules. Cell phones are wiping out land-line telephones. Nylon wiped out silk.
Mr. Bill is trying desperately to predict and invent the next killer app. The trouble is, you can't really predict these things (if you could, they wouldn't be "killers").
The biggest killer app, IMO, was the Mosaic browser (+ HTTP + HTML + URL), which was a bolt out of the blue, and didn't come from commercial industry at all.
MS Windows was a killer app, too. The trouble (for Microsoft) is that the killer app cannot be nailed down. The killer app causes a paradigm shift (dear God, I used the P word) that affects entire industries. When your product affects a whole industry, you can't keep the technology to yourself. The best you can do is surf the wave (and knock a few other surfers off their boards, if you're good enough at surfing).
(b) assuming these IT departments are buying Windows because it best meets their needs, I'm inclined to choose 'b'.
Do you really think Windows better meets the needs of IT infrastructure than Solaris?
Again, Microsoft's real success is on the desktop. They used that position to sell server licenses, even though their server software isn't all that good. The fact is that Microsoft is a marketing company (aka, sleazy car salesmen). Sun and Oracle are technology companies. There is a difference.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
A remedy that stops short of recovering 100% of ill-gotten gain is not draconian. It is inadequate.
Obviously, I was kidding about the 10%. It just points up that an arbitrary percentage fine may miss the boat. Microsoft can pay the fine and continue to profit; it could even view the fine as a sort of tax and shrug. A hypothetical 20% profit margin is quite profitable.
As to the actual remedy, one would need to estimate the improper gain was, who it whould go to, and what should be done to govern Microsoft's future conduct, including remedies for violations. I would rather see any recovery distributed to the victims, the point is not merely to injure Microsoft.
In the spirit on "guilty until proved innocent," note that nothing has yet been proven. Not *everything* bad said about Microsoft is accurate.
you cant keep pulling the same company for antitrust violations..
Sure you can, if they keep committing alleged antitrust violations...
wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up? what ever happened there?
No. Judge Jackson's remedies were thrown out because his actions outside of the courtroom gave the appearance of possible non-impartialness.
It's not like anyone's going to get locked up or executed for this, it's a company on trial, not a person. The judicial safeguards therefore don't have to be as rigorous, IMO. Having said that, the economic impact of MicroSoft being severely slapped shouldn't be underestimated. There are a lot of pension funds heavily tied up in MicroSoft stock.
Keep in mind, a fine eventually is paid by everyone who buys MS products. Its not like Bill poney's up the cash himself. They raise the price "because of lawsuits and other expenses" and most people have to pay the higher prices, because of the way MS has a monopoly (the reason for the lawsuit). If you NEED office to communicate with your clients, you will buy it even if it costs an extra 50 bucks.
The cost is meaningless to a company that has a monopoly because they can pass the costs on. The key is to get ACTION from the suit, to force them to act responsibly. If the suit only causes MS to be fined, it will only serve to raise prices, and nothing more. The stock will suffer in the short run, and not the long run, under this scenario.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Then again, 10% of gross may exceed the ill-gotten gains. The point is to set a penalty that is a deterrant that is not so draconian as to be repealed after its first use.
Let's take your logic and apply it in other elements of law and see if it makes sense. Let's calculate my ill gotten gains for going 85mph in a 55mph zone. I figure, I might have gained 15 minutes in a daily commute. At an $80/hour bill rate that comes to $20 of ill gotten gains. But the speeding ticket will cost me $300, the mandatory court appearance for exceeding 25mph over the speed limit will cost me a half day's pay of $320 and getting and fixing the mandatory suspension of my drivers license will probably cost another $800.
Eeek. I'd rather disgorge all my ill-gotten gains for each time they actually catch me, paying my $20 fine with a smile.