Slashdot Mirror
E.U. Commission: More Antitrust Trouble For MS
Tidal Flame writes "According to Wired news, Microsoft appears to be in hot water over antitrust issues again. The European Commission says it will require Microsoft to 'share more proprietary information with its rivals' and 'uncouple' it's Media Player audiovisual software from the Windows operating system." iCoach points to this article at The Register covering the same.
You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Wait until the next version of Windows comes out. That way if there is a negative decision for MS, they won't really be selling the incriminated software anymore. Instead they will be selling other software that takes advantage of their monopoly in some other, but equally devious way.
Good luck to the EU on this one though...
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
(comic book guy voice) Most impossible to understand comment, ever (/voice)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Of course Microsoft will do everything in its power to find a loop hole or get the decision overturned.
I wonder if MS was hoping that nobody would notice they did the same thing with Media Player that they did is MSIE.
I could see a conversation between a consumer and MS now:
Consumer: "Hey! You guys are shoving Media Player down my throat."
MS: "Media player? What Media Player?"
Consumer:"Oh, come on! You didn't actually think nobody would notice did you?"
*MS waves hand in front of consumers face*
MS:"There is no Media Player."
Consumer:"There is no media player."
MS:"You don't want any plugins."
Consumer:"I don't want any plugins."
MS:"Move along."
Consumer:"Move alone. Move along."
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
The calculator and command prompt can be uninstalled. The Start button itself is not an application, so I won't comment on that. But Explorer, which provides the start button and desktop can be replaced. IE and the Media Player, however, can not be uninstalled. What's next is anything that is integrated which can not be uninstalled yet has competition.
Developers: We can use your help.
Please make Microsoft explain why they bought key OpenGL patents during 2002 just to jump off the OpenGL group the year after.
Please, force them to keep those patents open to the community for at least fifteen more years, or something like that.
Just a brainstorm solution for *all bundling* of software: Why not let MS bundle any software it likes, but under one condition: It has to adher to open standards. If it wants to distribute WMP, let it do so, but only the codecs that play open and well-defined media formats. So it has the choice to remove WMx-files or to document them fully. The same line of reasoning could be followed for future inappropriateness. dizzl
I'm sorry, but this is idiotic. I've had about enough of this 'coupling' shit.
This is how it works:
Media Player and IE are both FULLY REUSABLE ActiveX components that come with windows. Any windows developer can 100% rely on the fact that they will be installed on a windows machine (Well, not 100% with media player, but with IE, 100%). This means you can add simple media playback and web functionality to a program without having to purchase external tools or spend hours integrating some external solution!
I don't WANT components I rely on to be uninstalled. All Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer really ARE is glorified activex component hosts. The real work is done by DirectShow and the Microsoft HTML library.
I can see how this is bad for competition, but we're going after the wrong target here - IE and Media Player aren't the problem; the way they're being used is.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Another important fact that is being overlooked is that although Microsoft has had antitrust troubles since 1997, they've also remained profitable every year since 1997 - very profitable. This EU thing isn't going to change that, the DOJ was the big threat and that's no longer an issue. Even if Microsoft has to provide some way to fully remove Windows Media Player and provide more information to others, it's not going to all of a sudden make them an unprofitable company.
MS will not be gone in your lifetime, no matter how much you wish it.
Yes, which is why Jackson's remedy -- splitting the company up -- was the only one that made sense in the long run. Microsoft has never complied in any meaningful way with any lesser penalty, and there's no reason to believe they ever will.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I enjoy having media player come with windows, but it does give Microsoft even more power in the industry. The long term cost to consumers from this market power could be greater than the short-term cost of further separating Media Player. Secondly, Microsoft does need provide more information to third party software developers. According to this article at ZDNet http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t297-s2121402,00. html "Microsoft used undocumented application programming interfaces (APIs) to make the company's software work better with Windows than competitor's" products. This is an example of the anti-competitive behavior Microsoft exhibits.
Tell them to have the U.N. write a resolution against you. That way everybody wins: they get to look busy, and you don't ever have to comply!
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
That depends on your definition of bundling. I bundling means that the option is available to be installed and uninstalled at the users whim, then Red Hat is bundling, and M$ is not.
However M$ has used its market & political clout to ensure that their software cannot be uninstalled. "Why?" you ask. The answer is obvious, to kill the competition. They produce a product that most end users will accept blindly and force distributers to use that product and not others. If it could be uninstalled, some companies might accually install another browser in its place.
Look at the transcripts from the Anti-trust suit over IE. Many major distributers (Compaq, Dell, etc.) were forced to remove Netscape as an installation option, or face the revocation of their license to install Windows on their systems. Micro$oft wouldn't do this if kind of marketing on a whim, and I don't think that they are doing it for tech support reasons.
Microsoft has a knowledgable grasp of consumer markets. The economy is driven by laziness. The key to dominance its to produce something difficult to remove and make it difficult to obtain alternatives.