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.

Comments

More interesting quote by the CCIA

[James_Duncan8181]

"The forms of Microsoft's abusive conduct are often closely interrelated, and their market foreclosure effects in many instances reinforce each other. The effectiveness of Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviours in preserving Microsoft's existing desktop dominance and in leveraging that dominance into related markets can only truly be understood if these behaviours and their exclusionary impact are viewed as a whole, rather than examined in isolation from each other."

Is it just me or do these guys appear to be the first legal agressors against Micorsoft to understand the real issue?

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people understood it, but its hard to argue in court that their general attitude is anti-competitive. Instead, you need to deal with specific cases, such as a particular action (perhaps detailed by an internal email) designed to have a specific effect.

Many people would not disagree that BillG is 'evil' in some sense. But converting that into an argument that would hold up in a court of law (ie. criminal) requires specific allegations,and each allegation, by itself, is not particularly serious.

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[James_Duncan8181]

The point about the EU investigation is that it is instructed to take an overall view. A investigation by an EU Commissioner is not like a DA considering whether to make charges - Mario Monti is judge, jury, and exicutioner. If he feels that fines are neccisary then he can levy them. And it is important to note that these are not pissant fines - they can be up to 10% of revenue made during the period over which they are held to be infining (also defined by the Commisioner).

I know, I know, insert declaimation of dictatorship here. ;)

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[glamslam]

"Is it just me or do these guys appear to be the first legal agressors against Micorsoft to understand the real issue?"

Of course people here (in the US) will say its really just anti-American retaliation for the steel tariffs.

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[dbrutus]

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.

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[fucksl4shd0t]

I just see a big difference between something being wrong and something being EVIL. I guess it's just a matter of degree, i feel that things can be wrong without being wrong enough to be considered evil.

I'd say the difference is in intent. YOu can do something wrong, not thinking it's wrong, and realize afterwards you did wrong. Then you be responsible, go make amends, or whatever you have to do. Maybe you need someone to point it out to you, but the point is that ultimately you accept that you did wrong and try to fix it.

Evil, on the other hand, would be intentionally doing wrong. Even if you "make amends" later, under pressure from someone to do so, you still did it intentionally in the first place and you might do it again. In fact, in Microsoft's case we can say they will do it again.

There's more to it than that, though. The basic problem is that evil and good are both quite elusive concepts. For one thing, doing something "evil" might make you feel good about yourself, so you might call it "good" while I might call it "evil". They're very elusive things, they are. Read my rant.

Good and evil

Re:More interesting quote by the CCIA

[dbrutus]

When you buy software, you take a lot on faith. The warranty disclaimers are severe, the ability to recoup losses is almost nil so you have to hang your hat and depend on the vendor's honesty, integrity, and intent to do the best they can both in the core functions of the application and on interoperability.

MS fails the honesty and integrity test. They have been demonstrated to intentionally sabotage other companies' work. If a product that competes with Microsoft's offerings is better for your enterprise, is it acceptable that this product is handicapped in any way by purposeful malcode coming from the microsoft portions of your infrastructure?

Beyond that, when you're making your multi-year commitment to a development framework, for many ISVs a bet the business decision, is it acceptable for the sales representations you depend on to contain knowingly fraudulent information?

Past a certain point, MS ceases to be a normal corporation and becomes a criminal enterprise. I do think that they can be saved but not without people going to jail.

UK switching to Linux

[Compaqed]

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.

Re:UK switching to Linux

[Compaqed]

I know in many Distros already have a Tea Bag timer in it. See it was designed for the UK!

Re:UK switching to Linux

[Slightly Askew]

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."

Re:UK switching to Linux

[ichimunki]

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.

Re:UK switching to Linux

[patter]

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?


Simple. You come to my country and conduct business, you do so according to my country's laws, not US laws. And suing has nothing to do with criminal laws anyway.

You open a store in uganda(sp?) and someone slips and falls on the steps, they sue you there. It doesn't matter a damn if you're American, British or whatever. Your being in another country subjects you to their laws.

That being said, if a company has no presense other than as an imported commodity, you've got to take a plane trip and sue them where their assets live.

Isn't this how all those gambling websites get away with it?

They are getting away with avoiding taxes or other laws, or doing what they do because it is legal in the jurisdictions they're doing what they do.

Re:UK switching to Linux

[fucksl4shd0t]

I've used Linux since pre-1.0. I simply have chosen not made it my religion. It gets the jobs I need done, done. For other tasks, I may use other OSs and applications - whichever one makes the task easier. I did have Linux as a religion way back in the day when I was in my late teens and early 20s, then I realized that I was being stupid. You don't have to make something a religion in order to be excited about it.

Let's clear something up right now.

Many people equate "religion" with "strong feelings". That's just not the case. I've known a few religionists who kept their feelings to themselves, and I've known quite a few so-called Atheists who took it upon themselves to cure the world of religion.

IN this case, in this specific case, it's not a religion. Many of us have very strong feelings on the matter, but you're forgetting the one single trait that makes religion what it is:

Faith.

In order for something to be a religion, you must accept something as fact without proof. I realize this definition attacks many of the basic scientific principles, but is the scientific community really all that different? Heh. I know I just stepped on quite a few toes, and while I don't know a lot of scientists, the ones I do know tend to agree with me on the matter.

With Free Software, we do not take anything on faith, necessarily. Freedom has been proven time and time again to increase productivity, standard of living, and make people generally happier. WIthout freedom in its roots (even if not quite in its implementation), would the US have risen to a world power in just 200 years? Better yet, compare Russa of today to all previous Russias. They finally have freedom in a big way, which they've historically *never* had. Are they better for it? Are their citizens happy? The ones I know say they are. Therefore, it's safe to say that we can accept "freedom" on a strong basis of historical fact as being an inherently good thing for us as individuals, and for society at large.

With that said, then, Free Software is merely an extension of freedom into our lives as software developers and software users. It entails certain responsibilities on both developers and users, and establishes a basis with which business, trade, and socializing can continue (socializing as in "communication" not as in "fascism"). But nowhere is anyone expected to buy into free software based solely on faith. You are expected, required I could say, to find out everything you can about it before making your decision, and to ultimately make your own decision.

Not only are these behaviors different many/most/all churches in history (i.e. we want you to think for yourself, they don't), but it's also fundamentally different than some basic principles involved in religion (such as instructing parents to teach their kids all about religion before the kids are old enough to think it through and reject it as stupid, which it is).

I realize some individuals in the community periodically come off as being religionists on the subject, but it sure in the fuck doesn't help when everybody has to ask RMS if this is right or that is right or if this violates the GPL or if that violates basic principles. Think for yourself and you'll never be led astray because you will always go where you mean to go.

Re:UK switching to Linux

[fitten]

Cool, good post. However, there is quite a bit of "faith" espoused by a number of folks. Specifically, they are exactly accepting something as fact without proof.

For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.

If there were logical and specific reasons stated as to why this would truly benefit the organization to switch from OS-Ex to Linux, then that is one thing but to simply say every time that some organization is found to not use Linux that switching to Linux will solve all their problems is faith or stupidity, which is, in some cases, one and the same.

For example, what if the software for what the organization does, isn't available or simply doesn't exist on Linux. Immediately switching to Linux away from something that even marginally works would leave them dead in the water for the months it would take to get a Linux solution in place (yes, this is an extremely stupid example, I would seriously hope no one would be so stupid as to recommend this approach).

Re:UK switching to Linux

[fucksl4shd0t]

For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.

There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood. :) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.

Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.

Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.

*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.

If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD. :) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine. :)

Windows Xp antitrust... wow

[192939495969798999]

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?

Summary??

[OttoM]

My goodness, the summary is already 19 pages.

Luckily the summary of the summary (the key facts) is only 2 pages.

The nice thing is...

[James_Duncan8181]

That Mario Monti has the power to examine all complaints made *as a whole* rather then being limited to only those made at the start of the process. This judicial effectiveness is why the EU will not always be stuck playing catch-up with MS, unlike the US. In addition, the political climate in Brussels is a lot less favorable for MS (think Reno rather then Ashcroft) and the EU has previously made several rulings agains MS Passport etc.

Could be good. ;)

antitrust suits

[odyrithm]

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.

Re:antitrust suits

[jonathan_ingram]

Imagine the fun if foreign courts enforced laws in distant lands.

Such as having a Russian arrested for breaking, while in Russia, a US law?

Or a Norwegian arrested for putatively breaking, while in Norway, a US law?

Re:antitrust suits

[Saint Fnordius]

The EU was waiting to see if the US courts were going to spank Microsoft first. Since the result isn't satisfactory for the EU, the EU will start taking matters into their own hands.

Granted, this will at first only affect customers in the EU, but that a big market. Microsoft can't just soak up the punishment without shareholders revolting. And caving in to the EU means that customers elsewhere will want the same benefits. Microsoft will then see themselves pressured to meet their demands or fork their development.

The wheels of justice are slow, but we're all so used to instant results that it gets frustrating too soon. Sometimes it pays to be patient and persistant.

Re:antitrust suits

[capt.Hij]

How long can this go on for?

It can go on for a very long time. This is what happened to IBM. When they got huge and started pushing the markets around, governments were hitting them from all sides. Between the constant nit-picking and their own lethargy, they eventually lost their market share.

It seems that history is repeating itself. MS is trying to get involved in everything under the sun [sic] and governments have their sights set on them. MS will eventually lose focus as it worries about revenue from the x-box, personal PC's, cell phones, internet ready refrigerators, and maybe even operating systems and software. At the same time, governments are looking for ways to reduce the power of this growing company.

Re:antitrust suits

[HiThere]

From my really brief perusal of the article it looks like this is a new complaint about additional violations. That they are being merged into the same case, if they are, strikes me as a procedural issue. And if they continue to commit new crimes, isn't it proper that new charges be filed?

I don't see any injustice here. Perhaps the potential for injustice, but the recent history of US courts doesn't make me feel that we are in any position to carp. Consider the Rico acts, where they sieze your property upon your being accused. This prevents you from being able to hire a lawyer. It is also acting on a presumption of guilt. And somehow much of the property never returns to the original owner, even if the charges are defeated. Sorry. The last time Europe had laws that corrupt (to my knowledge) was during the inquisition. We've even revived holding people without access to a lawyer or knowledge of the charges against them. Yes, it's blatantly unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to be stopping them. So I don't see any room for complaint about Europe having a few procedural differences.

P.S.: You think the US has evolved away from railroading? Only if you are politically powerful. Look over the court decisions of the last few decades. The direction is the other way.

Re:antitrust suits

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

Can this be too late?

[amigaluvr]

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.

Re:Can this be too late?

[virago81]

Good point, amigaluvr. I think that Microsoft has definitely used the speed of technological innovation and the slowness of the courts to their advantage in past fights.

Take the lawsuits over the crushing of Netscape. MS just went about capturing 90% of the browser market while the lawyers were still fighting. Additionally they used to stall time to permanently imbed the browser deeply into the OS to help prop up a claim later on that it would be too difficult to extract the browser from the OS as a remedy.

Another take

[Anonymous Coward]

See The Register for another take on the matter.

By George, I think they've got it!

[Limburgher]

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$?

Re:By George, I think they've got it!

[dbrutus]

Apple licensing is commercial tending towards open. MS licensing is commercial tending towards consumer serfdom. Apple does pull the rug out from under developers occasionaly with undocumented function call changes in order to force ISVs to go through the API. Microsoft refuses to document all its APIs and uses those APIs over the years to gain persistent advantage over its competitors.

In the case of Safari, Apple took an open source core and made improvements (releasing them back) wrapping the results in a better UI. Omniweb is going to take Apple's improved code and put their own UI over it, curing their most persistant problem, standards compliance.

The fact that others are choosing not to compete in this fashion is unfortunate, but nothing like what MS did to DR-DOS or even purposefully working to break Lotus 1-2-3 back in the DOS 3 days.

Litigation..

[grub]

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.

Re:Litigation..

[aardvarkjoe]

Yes, but now imagine that anyone can get paper from the minor suppliers for free, faster and easier than getting it from the major supplier, not to mention that the paper is higher quality. What kind of idiot would go and buy low-grade, expensive paper from the major supplier?

Oh, and if you're going to go to the trouble to boldface a word, you might want to spell it correctly.

Powers of Darkness

[EEgopher]

Microsoft might actually lose when going up against Satan! Did you see the CCIA's address?

666 11th St. NW
Washington, DC 20001

a whole lot of hot air - again

[Suchetha]

according to the article in the BBC

Mr Monti and his staff are already considering a complaint that Microsoft committed illegal practices with older versions of its software.

That investigation has been going on for three years and a decision is expected in the next few months.

this means that they will give a decision on the older versions of M$FT in a few months.. so a decision on WinXP will take another three years.. by which time M$FT will have a new OS out.. and the whole rigmarole will start again..

Suchetha

Worldwide or local outcomes?

[WPIDalamar]

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?

Re:Worldwide or local outcomes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always assumed a lawsuit against them in the US would be world-wide...

Only an American would think this way.

Re:Worldwide or local outcomes?

[ecalkin]

the sun part is easy. ms and sun are both american companies and that case was about breach of contract. i would suspect that the remedy of that would cover the same scope as the original contract which was probably world-wide.

if something happens in euro-land, well that's different. take what ever the eu people decree and then wonder: the legal system(s) in the us (fed and states) could use it as a template if they have the stones. the court of public opinion could be devestating if ms gives more 'stuff' to the eu'ers then to americans! this could be the extra-large size can of worms...

eric

Re:Worldwide or local outcomes?

[ArthurDent]

Regardless of matters of law, which I can't really speak to (standard /. disclaimer), I believe, in effect, the changes would be made worldwide because of the sheer cost to Our Favorite Company (tm) to have to maintain two versions of Windows. They would choose for everybody to have the same version because of their bottom line.

I don't think the EU would take kindly to for instance M$ selling a crippled version of Windows in Europe for example either.

Ah, this one has teeth!

[AntiFreeze]

Quoth the BBC article:

The CCIA counts Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo and Nokia among its members.

The organisation said it had filed the new complaint in order to fight for customers.

"Microsoft's overwhelming dominance and its abuse of that dominance reaches into every corner of Europe and harms virtually every business and consumer who uses a computer," the association said.

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.

Re:Ah, this one has teeth!

[bwalling]

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.

Do not kid yourself. They are taking up the fight for the purpose of helping themselves. They do not care about the consumer. That just helps their argument. The whole point is so that they can make some more of the money that Microsoft is making.

That being said, I hope they win, because they do happen to be right.

Not Sure I agree..." judicial effectiveness "

[N8F8]

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.

Re:Not Sure I agree..." judicial effectiveness "

[PhilHibbs]

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.

Re:Not Sure I agree..." judicial effectiveness "

[Pharmboy]

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.

where would we be without MS?

[dmnic]

hmmm, without MS IBM's OS 2 would have seen more acceptance and Apple would see a much larger market share.
you cant say that these 2 systems are not for the average Joe Schmoe

Re:where would we be without MS?

[Saint Fnordius]

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.

Monopoly Buster

[Blue Bat Poo]

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..

Key Facts, Acrobat Free

[Anonymous Coward]

CCIA COMPLAINT AGAINST MICROSOFT
KEY FACTS

When: CCIA's complaint was formally filed with the European Commission Directorate General
for Competition on 31 January 2003.

Background: The Windows desktop operating system is installed on over 93% of personal
computers in Europe and worldwide. Microsoft has held a dominant position on this market
position for the past decade. Microsoft also has a monopoly in the market for personal productivity
applications (word processors, spread sheets, etc) and the market for Internet browsing software.

Microsoft's behaviour in the market has been the subject of ongoing competition scrutiny since
1991. Its behaviour has resulted in both an "undertaking" with the European Commission in 1994
and a unanimous liability finding by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2001.

Microsoft has systematically and deliberately engaged in illegal practices designed both to protect its Windows monopoly and leverage it into adjacent software markets. Microsoft has used its market power to eliminate competition and stifle innovation in market after market. Unprecedented in modern commerce, Microsoft's monopolies generate margins in excess of 80 percent and profits in excess of US$1 billion per month.

Microsoft's well-documented anticompetitive campaign against Netscape's Navigator web browser
and Sun's Java programming language has resulted in a new monopoly in Internet browsing
software, and sets the stage for the current CCIA complaint.

Focus of the Complaint: The latest version of Windows XP takes Microsoft's abusive practices to
a new level, illegally protecting Microsoft's existing monopolies and is illegally eliminating
competition in new software and service markets. This complaint seeks the intervention of the
European Commission to put an end to the multiple forms of abuse inherent in Windows XP.

The 260-page complaint comprises an exhaustive factual and legal basis for Commission action,
documenting multiple ways in which Windows XP violates Article 82 of the EC Treaty prohibiting
abuse of a dominant position. These abuses include:

Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, and Windows Movie
Maker 2;
Biasing the user interface and operation of Windows XP to significantly advantage Microsoft's
own software and services over competitive offerings;
Refusing to fully disclose the document formats for the programs in Microsoft's Office suite of
applications, in order to reinforce the "applications barrier to entry;"
Imposing proprietary technologies, formats and protocols in Microsoft's dominant products with
the effect of excluding competition on the merits;
Imposing abusive licensing and other exclusionary practices vis-à-vis personal computer makers
to foreclose the most important distribution channel from competing products;
Leveraging dominant positions to distort competition in markets for e-mail and collaboration
server software;
Leveraging existing dominant positions to the markets for handheld computing devices and
smart phone software through bundling, failure to supply interface information, and the use of
proprietary formats and protocols.

Legal basis of complaint: The facts alleged in the CCIA complaint rest squarely within Article 82 of
the EC Treaty.

Article 82 imposes on dominant market players a special responsibility not to allow their
conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition on the common market, and prohibits such
firms from limiting markets, production or technical development to the detriment of consumers.
Microsoft uses methods other than those falling within the scope of competition on the merits to
eliminate competitors and thereby strengthen its multiple positions of superdominance. For
example, Microsoft's bundling in Windows XP squarely falls within Article 82's prohibition on
tying, foreclosing competition for the bundled Microsoft products, and leveraging Microsoft's
market power into new markets. The Court of First Instance of the European Union recently
reaffirmed the illegality of such behaviour in its Tetra Laval decision.

Impact on Consumers: Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct with Windows XP directly impacts
consumers in multiple ways.

Fewer choices of software products and very limited differentiation among personal computer
offerings;
Less innovation in the critical software markets which Microsoft dominates;
Higher prices for Microsoft's software products than would otherwise occur in a competitive
market;
Rampant security breaches in Microsoft's core products resulting from the lack of market forces
to develop secure software;
Less privacy associated with the manner in which Microsoft biases its consumer services in
Windows XP.

Intersection with Current Case: This is a separate complaint. Actions taken by the Commission
pursuant to its existing Statement of Objections cannot address the unlawful conduct inherent in
Windows XP, which include new abuses intended to extend its existing desktop monopolies.

Extraordinary array (6)

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Extraordinary array (6)

[praedor]

In a word, no. Yes these things are "bundled" with most linux distros BUT they are many and varied...there is REAL choice. You are not expected nor forced (indirectly nor directly) to choose email client X, browser Y, etc. Even in cases where the choice is made for you (RedHat) it is still very much an option that you can easily not go with. Redhat doesn't fail to bundle the remaining apps, they just make a default choice for you.

M$ is a different fish. They use an (artificially created and illegally maintainted) OS monopoly to push THEIR apps on everyone else, making more money and increasing the breadth of the monopoly. They use illegal and unethical means to induce use of their products at the expense of everyone else (special tie-ins to their OS so their apps appear to work better than outsider apps, sometimes causing artificial breakage of competing apps to make it seem theirs is actually defective).

Given the (still) lack of choice in OS upon new PC purchase, they should be required to provide the competitor apps (free versions of Realplayer, quicktime player, mozilla, etc, and let people actually have/make choices). They mustn't be permitted to perpetuate artificial barriers for the use/adoption of competing tools/apps. It is the leveraging of one monopoly to produce more monopoly that is particularly naughty and a no-no.

In any case, an OS is NOT a web browser, media player, email client. An OS is an OS and these other things are SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT applications that work through the OS.

Re:Extraordinary array (6)

[Diabolical]

The main problem with the array of products MS incorporates in XP is that competitors do not stand a chance trying to sell their products. Basicly because everything seems to be connected to each other and installing a competitors product could, and would, break something. The fact that MS bundles this software with it's operating system is what is considered anti-competitive and more importantly leveraging this bundle with it's dominant OS position and thus gaining an unfair advantage to which competitors have to fight.

I.e. the products do not gain their market dominance because of their own merits but because it comes with another product which has almost 100% market share.

As for your remark about linux: If you do not like the browser, media player or any other software package coming with your distro you can remove it and install something you do like without having to fear you would break something else. Furthermore, if you do not want any of these tools at all just roll your own linux distro. Try that with Windows......

Re:Extraordinary array (6)

[billtom]

I'm going to take this oppourtunity to rant a little bit off topic.

One thing that has always pissed me off about Microsoft bundling products into the OS is that they've never bundled anti-virus software. Anti-virus software is pretty much required on any computer running Windows, and if any software is a natural fit to go into the OS, anti-virus is it. I mean christ! MS is bundling firewall and NAT software in the OS now! But no A-V?!?

Now, I realize that the reasons are all about marketing and company politics (MS wants to crush Real, for example, but doesn't really mind Symantec). But I'd like to see some anti-trust official use A-V software as the babelfish versus God argument against MS OS bundling.

Microsoft Guy: Well, your honor, including all these programs in the operating system was essential to provide the user with a productive and innovative experience.

Anti-trust Guy: Ah ha! But what about A-V software! It's absolutely required but you've never bundled it.

[Microsoft Guy disappears in a puff of logic.]

Re:Extraordinary array (6)

[poot_rootbeer]

I know I would hate to have to pay for an OS, and then buy a browser,

I prefer Opera to MSIE.

media player,

I prefer RealOne to WMP.

email client,

I prefer Eudora Pro to Outlook Express.

video editor,

I prefer Final Cut to Windows Movie Maker.

messenger.

I prefer AOL Instant Messanger to Windows Messenger.

The reason why few people have a problem with the bundling of an extraordinary array of apps in a Linux distro is because it's still up to the user to decide which app to use -- Emacs and vi and XEmacs and vim are all there. (In fact, the complaint is often that there are TOO MANY choices).

Microsoft's pre-installed applications are a strongarm attempt to make that choice for you.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[FyRE666]

What was Microsoft done that warrents so much hate?

[...]
Face it folks, we would not be where we are today if not for Microsoft...

You see, you just answered your own question!

Jeeez...

[Black Parrot]

These guys practically have a monopoly on receiving anti-trust complaints!

I can see it now

[Raul654]

Clippy: It appears you are writing a letter criticizing Microsoft. Master Gates cannot let that happen. Now deleting all files off your hard drive. Have a nice day.

One Good Thing Atleast - Philanthropy?

[Flamesplash]

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.

Re:One Good Thing Atleast - Philanthropy?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

MS will match any employee donation to, afaik, any charity

Sounds like a potential exploit if I ever heard of one.

Sort of like Microsoft's code.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[Cassius105]

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

Oh dear

[Zog The Undeniable]

It was looking good until they got to the bit about Office, which isn't a part of WinXP and weakens the credibility of the rest of the case. Another hint that this wasn't written by someone really au fait with the situation is the bit about MS products being displayed before those of third party competitors, which was essentially fixed in SP1.

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".

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[Christianfreak]

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.

Proactive approach

[phrantic]

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 ;-)

poll...

[DonFinch]

just curious, how many peolpe saying "yay! MS sucks! I hate Bill! Its the evil empire!" Are typing from Internet Explorer, while listening to mp3's in WMP 9 on XP??

Re:poll...

[4lex]

just curious, how many peolpe saying "yay! MS sucks! I hate Bill! Its the evil empire!" Are typing from Internet Explorer, while listening to mp3's in WMP 9 on XP?? ...

That's why they know it sucks ;P

Re:poll...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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?

Re:poll...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

how many peolpe saying "yay! MS sucks! I hate Bill! Its the evil empire!" Are typing from Internet Explorer

Yeah, Microsoft sure is popular. Everyone uses Microsoft. It must be by choice because they are the best among all of the many alternatives in the highly competitive landscape of choices.


News flash: income tax has been found to be extremely popular!

Re:poll...

[GooberToo]

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...

Re:poll...

[PhilHibbs]

The whole point is, that monopoly == no choice!

I'm typing this on Windows 2000 (work PC), but I installed Mozilla 1.2.1. I still have to use IE for a few things, like intranet applications, and I haven't installed Flash on Mozilla yet, so I use IE for that.

Re:poll...

[Rinikusu]

I don't hate Bill, I don't think MS sucks (maybe their business practices), and no one ever "forced" anyone to use MS. You are always free to find another profession not "infused" with MS applications. I hear Burger King is hiring.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that at least 70% of the people viewing this site are on a windows OS

Yea! I'm in the 30% minority!!

It's a simple fact folks, we owe a lot to Microsoft... ...about $20 billion according to their piracy figures. Alright everybody, PAY UP. I know you just lost your job and the kids need new shoes, but that $499 copy of Office you 'borrowed' from Frank next door is going to haunt your conscious untill you settle. Nevermind that you HAVE to send out .DOC format resume's to find a job anymore. You owe it to them buster.

What is considered anti-competition here?

[MoThugz]

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 ;)

Re:What is considered anti-competition here?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

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.

Re:What is considered anti-competition here?

[Dragon213]

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!

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 .../outlook express/ for their respective programs), and if you delete these files and/or directories, WINDOWS WILL NOT LOAD.

If you don't believe me, try it on your own computer.....just make sure you have the Windows Install disk handy.

Re:What is considered anti-competition here?

[Hiro Antagonist]

First off, on the Office format -- let's say that I've created a horribly addictive drug, and after I knock off all the other dealers in my 'hood, I get all the local drug addicts addicted to my particular new drug. I don't tell anyone else how to make it, however, because I don't want to stand the chance of losing my standing as a drug dealer, or run the risk of some enterprising chemist making an antidote that helps people get un-hooked.

Get it?

As for the rest, I'm going to present an analogy: Let's say you own a business; how about a coffee shop? Good. Now, in this coffee shop, you buy your beans, like almost all other coffee shops, from single supplier, because:

(a) The supplier has cornered the 99% of the coffee market, with the exception of a few independent gourmet roasters (Apple Coffee Co., Sun Coffees Inc., BeOS Beans, etc.) that cater to specific tastes, as well as group of individuals who grow their own coffee and give the surplus away to anyone who is willing to come pick up a bag (GNU Coffee).

(b) They make a consistent blend that, while not extraordinary, is palatable to most people -- not too bitter, not too mellow, and they sell convenient take-home packages of pre-ground coffee.

So far, there's no problem -- they are a good supplier, and make a product that is adequate, although the manufacturing process causes the coffee to clog up your coffeemakers more often than any other brand.

Now, let's say that, since you're an enterprising coffee-shop owner, you want to offer your customers a variety; after all, some of your customers might prefer gourmet beans, and others might want independently-grown coffee -- the latter is even more attractive, because you can get it for free! Sure, the majority of your customers will probably stick with MS Coffee, but you'll gain a bit more business from high-end consumers (who prefer the gourmet blends). Furthermore, the more consumers that you can get to switch to purchasing the gourmet blends, the more money you make (because it's cheaper to buy coffee from them than MS Coffee Co.).

So, you've got this great idea -- give your customers the *choice* of coffee! Great! Except the day you are ready to place your order, you get a fax from your primary supplier telling you that if they see you selling any coffee that didn't come from them, that they'll instantly jack the price of your coffee into the stratosphere. Since you need their coffee to compete with other shops (because the gourmet stuff doesn't cater to the mass-market), this is unacceptable. Your only option is to capitulate.

You have just lost profits because your supplier is leveraging its monopoly in an unfair manner, in *opposition* to the forces of the open market.

Now, let's take this further -- the blend of the main producer gets more and more refined over time; it appeals to more and more consumers. But just as you're getting over being sore from the gourmet-coffee fiasco, you get another fax from MS Coffee -- this time telling you that all coffee has to be given to the customer with cream and sugar.

This is, of course, an outrage! Not all your customers want cream and sugar, although most of them are so used to coming to your shop that they probably won't leave. Some will, however, and they'll blame *you* for not supplying them with the black cup of joe that they wanted. Furthermore, although MS Coffee supplies the cream and sugar for every cup, they're charging you more for their coffee, eating into your profits.

Unelected Officials

[CowboyBob500]

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

So what

[Frequanaut]

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.

Re:So what

[lildogie]

> 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).

Re:Does Microsoft have any friends left?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

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.

Re:10% fines

[MacAndrew]

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?

CCIA going a tad too far

[Phemur]

While I agree with most of the CCIA's complaint, two of them have no business being in this lawsuit:

(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

Re:CCIA going a tad too far

[mcc]

(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'..)

Linux for Government OS

[pythorlh]

Well, IMHO, haveing the governments OS be Open Source is a good thing. The government is the single largest consumer of goods and services in the country, for almost every country you can think of. Since the the purpose of government should be something along the lines of "...promote the general welfare...", I believe that all non-classified government software projects should be public domain of the country involved. Open Source supports this, and closed source prevents it.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[mccalli]

If Linux came preinstalled on the average consumer Dell, Dell would be fielding numerous support calls each day to the tune of: "My husband bought a new sound card, and the computer says I must rebuild the kernel."

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

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[pmz]

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!

Network effects

[dpilot]

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.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Nevermind that you HAVE to send out .DOC format resume's to find a job anymore.

But why pirate MS Office, when OpenOffice.org can export into .DOC format?

Re:10% fines

[dbrutus]

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.

Bad Moon On the Rise?

[Zech Harvey]

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...

Re:Bad Moon On the Rise?

[praksys]

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.

At worst any dispute over the handling of Microsoft will be quite minor. No one in the EU is interested in starting any kind of trade war with the US because the two sides have too much in common. Take a quick look at the US/EU investment and trade figures:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/ in tro/

A trade war between the US and the EU would make about as much sense as a trade war between the East coast and the West coast of the US.

Maybe I just worry too much...

You do, and of course you are not alone in that. Right now relations between the US and parts of the EU are in the worst state that they have been in for years. Even so they are no where near as bad as they appear on the surface. Both sides are playing hardball while they try to move policy over Iraq in the direction that they want. But once the shooting actually starts those tactics will vanish.Just remember that this is all diplomacy - it has almost nothing to do with reality.

In any case what you can expect from the EU regarding Microsoft is just slightly harsher treatment than they got in the US. If the EU really decides that they want to cut into that monopoly they will not do it with the crude tools of anti-trust law. It would be too much easier to do it with government subsidies of open source alternatives.

Antitrust or Antichrist?

[lambadomy]

CCIA
666 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Strange that the people going after microsoft have a 666 address. You'd think it would be the other way around.

One question at a time...

[lildogie]

> How long can this go on for?

As long as Microsoft has a lock on most of the market for PC operating systems.

> you cant keep pulling the same company for antitrust violations..

The courts can keep pulling them in as long as they please. There is no "double jeopardy" for antitrust.

> wasnt Microsoft supposed to be split up?

One judge said "yes," another judge said "no."

> what ever happened there?

The judge that said "yes" was openly offended by a bumbled defense team, and then bumbled himself by reacting openly. It was then given to a new judge and tried by a prosecutor that was more sympathetic to Microsoft, not to mention a defense team who behaved in court.

> this is just going to carry on and on and on.. its getting pretty frustrating really.

Don't let it wreck your day. At least there is no _law_ that says you have to use Microsoft products. Just market forces ;-)

What if you could...

[PotatoHead]

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...

Re:Splitting up Ma Bell

[Christianfreak]

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.

Re:Splitting up Ma Bell

[dbrutus]

Hey, if it weren't for the fraud of MS breaking competitor's implementations and then lying about what happened, selling ISV kits as providing full access to the Windows API when they did not, and deliberate attempts to pollute things like Java and Kerberos, I wouldn't have much of a problem with MS.

The problem is that they're usually very good and when they can't win, they cheat. Cheating is just not acceptable as a core business practice.

3M is in a completely different category, a huge company that doesn't cheat. And who's complaining about them? Nobody. It's not the size, it's the behavior.

Re:Why not just leave them alone?

[pmz]

(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.

Re:10% fines

[MacAndrew]

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.

Re:By George, I think they've got hypocrisy

[C0deM0nkey]

Yeah... like all that GNU stuff that comes with every Linux distribution.

You've missed the point.

First, Red Hat "bundles" lots of different software *choices* -- many of which affect the same problem domain; Red Hat, therefore, encourages competition. Second, the apps Red Hat bundles are third party apps (in most cases) -- they are not apps that Red Hat specifically profits from or that allow Red Hat to unfairly secure a hold in a problem domain outside of Linux OS installation and administration; I am not aware of Red Hat bundling its own apps without including competing products that do the same thing (disclaimer: I'm a debian user) and even if they did, Red Hat does not prevent you from completely removing their product and installing a different one.

What Microsoft has done is to unfairly thwart competition by not only bundling software that clearly is outside the problem domain of "Operating Systems" in an attempt to push their own products but also by commingling their products; tying one product into another so tightly that the product cannot be removed without significant harm to the overall system.

Where is the option to remove Internet Explorer? Where is the option to remove Windows Media Player? They aren't there -- you can choose to use a different tool (one that likely does not operate as well because it is not as up-close-and-personal as the Microsoft equivalent) but you cannot completely remove Microsoft's tool. This gives Microsoft an unfair advantage over its competitors and thwarts competition in general (as proven by its monopoly conviction).

Now reconsider GNU "stuff": any of it can be removed and replaced with other software.

Don't like "ls"? Write/use a shell that uses "dir" instead. Don't like "gcc" -- don't install it (and don't bother bringing up the argument of how many OTHER tools require "gcc" in order to build them or whatever; those were dependency decisions made by the authors of THOSE tools -- GNU or otherwise).

If I were to write a complete replacement for the GNU libraries/tools and try to make a living off it in the Un*x/Linux world, how much money do you think I'd make?

Now that would depend on what your tool suite offers that other tool suites don't, wouldn't it? If your tool offers a better way of accomplishing the same thing, you *could* make a mint -- or not. That's one of the points of open source, isn't it? As a user, I can choose your tool if I like it better or stick with the proven tools; that is the real crux of why or why not your tool suite would succeed or fail.

GNU tools are established, stable, and well-documented; there is little incentive to adopt a new tool suite that does the same thing...but (and this is key) there is nothing preventing someone from doing so (and then removing the other tools).

In an open market, free from monopoly and antitrust activities, there is no guarantee that you will make money off of your efforts -- but there is a guarantee that you will have a fair chance to try. When Microsoft acted in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, it brought the magnifying glass to bear on its actions -- the "bundling" of IE and WMP may not have been such an issue if they were not also "commingled".

Re:Imagine Michael Dell

[pmz]

MS is taking ideas from Apple again.

Yes, but anything from Apple is wide open compared to the XBox 2.

Apple: PowerPC, PCI, Firewire, USB, IDE, SCSI, OpenBoot PROM, etc. etc. XBox 2: who knows?

Re:10% fines

[dbrutus]

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.

Re:10% fines

[dbrutus]

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.