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.
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?
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!
Am I the only person that gets pissed off about statements like this? I like Linux as much as the next guy, really, but does anyone truly believe that simply switching the primary desktop OS of the government of a country from MS to Linux is going to foster in a new age of innovation or something? Where does this logic come from?
obTopic: I am not familiar with the anti-trust/monopoly laws of the UK. I understood the US suing MS because that is where the company is headquartered. How can a foreign country sue a corporation that does not reside within its borders? Isn't this how all those gambling websites get away with it?
"Smithers, there's a rocket in my pocket!"
"You don't have to tell me, sir."
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
One time, in my girlfriend's copy of MSIE, i typed "cnn" into the address bar, assuming it would do the same thing as every macintosh web browser i'd ever used (prepend "www." and append ".com").
To my surprise, instead of just going to www.cnn.com, it launched me to an MSN "search page".
At the very top, hit #1, was MSNBC News, prominently displayed, accompanied with the words "featured link" and a big screenshot of the MSN News page.
Underneath this, hit #2, was a nondescript link to www.cnn.com.
Now, i don't really feel like getting into a legal argument, becuase i'm not 100% sure of what is and isn't legal. But if the example given above is not unethically leveraging a virtual monopoly in one area (web browsers) to gain unearned market share in another totally unrelated area (news services) then i don't know what is.
----
(almost OT comment: Besides this, Mac web browsers, including IE/mac, tend to have a preferences option asking you what your favorite search engine is. (Though i can't remember if it's possible to make the little Google Search pane in the Safari browser bar redirect to some other engine.) I seem to remember no such option existing for MSIE/windows, which is odd becuase MSIE/windows has such tight 'integration' with 'a search engine'..)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
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!